Success for All: A Quantitative Synthesis of U.S. Evaluations

Figures & data

Figure 1. Theory of action for Success for All.

Figure 2. Flow chart of study selection.

Table 1. Meta-regression results.

	Reference	Coefficient	SE	t	df	p
Null model
Intercept		0.10	0.06	1.59	9.42	0.146
Meta-regression
Success for all versus control (Intercept)		0.24	0.08	3.07	7.24	0.017
Randomized Studies	Quasi-experiments	−0.05	0.18	−0.27	3.14	0.804
Independent Evaluations	Not independent evaluations	−0.07	0.13	−0.48	4.39	0.653
1 year studies	3+ Year studies	0.06	0.14	0.44	7.92	0.670
2 year studies		0.27	0.11	2.43	1.91	0.141
Black students	Mix of students	0.08	0.20	0.42	5.54	0.687
White students		0.41	0.23	1.74	3.79	0.162
Hispanic students		0.06	0.27	0.21	2.75	0.846
No EL students	Mix of language status students	0.10	0.08	1.13	2.39	0.358
EL students		0.04	0.07	0.59	2.06	0.615
General Reading/Comprehension outcomes	Fluency outcomes	0.05	0.06	0.83	5.05	0.443
Alphabetics outcomes		0.18	0.03	6.93	4.97	0.001
Low achievers	Moderate/High Achievers	0.46	0.15	3.19	4.33	0.030
Mix of students		0.09	0.05	2.03	2.68	0.146

Note. SE: standard error; df: degrees of freedom.

Table 2. Features and summary of outcomes of included studies.

Study	Design	Evaluator	Sample	Sample description	n	Outcome	Duration	Grade	Study ES	Low achiever ES
Quint et al. (2015)	CR	Ind.	37 Schools, 1,635 students	Five school districts, mostly in or on outskirts of large or midsize cities in the Northeast, South, and West 12% W, 18%AA, 88%FRL, 24%ELL, 66%H	28	GR/C, Al	3 years	K-2	+0.08	+0.18
Borman et al. (2007)	CR		35 Schools, 2,108 students	Title I schools throughout the U.S. 72%FRL, 56%AA, 30%W, 10%H	3	GR/C, Al	3 years	K-2	+0.25
Correnti (2009)	CQE	Ind.	115 Schools, 3,783 students	High-poverty schools in 17 states 69%FRL, 52%AA, 21%W, 18%H	1	GR/C	3 years	K-2	+0.43
Nunnery et al. (1996)	CQE		67 Schools, 2,060 students	High-poverty schools in Houston, TX 78%FRL, 54%H, 38%AA	3	GR/C	1 year	1st	+0.19
Ross, Smith, et al. (1996)	CQE	Ind.	12 Schools, 781 students	Memphis, TN	4	GR/C, Al, Fl	1 year	1st	+0.01
Slavin et al. (1993)	CQE		10 Schools, 1,495 students	African-American students in high-poverty schools in Baltimore, MD	59	GR/C, Al, Fl	3 years	preK-1	+0.59	+1.17
							4 years	preK-2	+0.29	+0.91
							5 years	preK-3	+0.41	+1.29
							6 years	preK-4	+0.41	+0.78
								K-5	+0.46	+1.01
Chambers et al. (2005)	CQE		8 Schools, 577 students	Mostly Hispanic communities in the US	8	GR/C, Al	1 year	K	+0.28
								1st	+0.32
Ross and Casey (1998a)	CQE	Ind.	8 Schools, 356 students	High-poverty schools in Ft. Wayne, IN 75%FRL, 45%minority	8	GR/C, Al, Fl	2 years	K-1	+0.26	+0.34
Datnow et al. (2001)	CQE	Ind.	6 Schools, 398 students	Diverse students in Miami, FL	2	GR/C	4 years	1–4	+0.11
Livingston and Flaherty (1997)	CQE	Ind.	6 Schools, 828 students	High-poverty multilingual schools in Modesto and Riverside, CA.	12	GR/C	2 years	K-1	+0.65
							3 years	K-2	+0.40
							4 years	K-3	+0.12
Muñoz and Dossett (2004)	CQE	Ind.	6 Schools, 349 students	High-poverty schools in Louisville, KY	1	GR/C	3 years	1–3	+0.15
Ross, Nunnery, et al. (1996)	CQE	Ind.	5 Schools, 428 students	Tucson, Arizona	16	GR/C, Al, Fl	1 year	1st	+0.41	+0.51
Ross and Casey (1998b)	CQE	Ind.	4 Schools, 581 students	Suburban schools in Portland, OR. 15% minority	16	GR/C, Al, Fl	1 year	K	+0.16	+0.36
								1st	−0.02	−0.18
Ross, Smith, Bond et al. (1994)	CQE	Ind.	4 Schools, 179 students	African-American students in high-poverty schools in Montgomery, AL	8	GR/C, Al, Fl	2 years	1–2	+0.58	+1.01
Ross et al. (1995)	CQE	Ind.	4 Schools, 257 students	Title I schools in Ft. Wayne, IN	20	GR/C, Al, Fl	3 years	K-2	+0.10	+0.56
							4 years	K-3	−0.10
								1–4	0.00	+0.29
Ross et al. (1997)	CQE	Ind.	4 Schools, 291 students	A medium-size midwestern city	24	GR/C, Al, Fl	2 years	K-1	+0.28	+0.18
							3 years	K-2	+0.16
								1–3	+0.02
Wang and Ross (1999)	CQE	Ind.	4 schools, 340 students	High poverty African-American schools in Little Rock, AK	8	GR/C, Al, Fl	1 year	1st	+0.24
								2nd	−0.05

Note. CR: cluster randomized; CQE: cluster quasi-experiment; Ind.: independent; W: White; AA: African American; FRL: free/reduced lunch; ELL: English Language Learner; H: Hispanic; GR/C: general reading/comprehension; AL: alphabetics; FL: fluency; n: number of effect sizes; ES: effect size.

Table 3. Substantive and methodological moderators.

Moderator	Level	k	n	ES	SE	t	df	p
Research design	Randomized	2	31	+0.20	0.14	1.44	1.51	0.322
	Quasi-experiment	15	190	+0.25	0.09	2.71	6.36	0.033
Duration	1 year	6	55	+0.25	0.09	2.91	4.88	0.035
	2 years	4	32	+0.46	0.15	3.11	5.19	0.025
	3+ years	9	134	+0.19	0.10	1.77	5.12	0.135
Race	Black	6	85	+0.28	0.10	2.80	4.27	0.046
	Hispanic	3	34	+0.25	0.24	1.06	3.68	0.355
	White	1	4	+0.60	0.21	2.92	4.14	0.042
	Mix	10	98	+0.19	0.14	1.37	7.79	0.210
Language Learner status	EL	4	18	+0.27	0.10	2.80	4.55	0.042
	Not EL	4	12	+0.33	0.10	3.41	4.70	0.021
	Mix	15	191	+0.23	0.08	2.88	7.74	0.021
Outcome type	General reading/comprehension	17	90	+0.19	0.08	2.52	7.51	0.038
	Alphabetics	12	97	+0.32	0.09	3.50	7.44	0.009
	Fluency	9	34	+0.14	0.08	1.71	7.03	0.132
Achievement status	Low achiever	8	60	+0.54	0.15	3.69	6.16	0.010
	Average/High achiever	8	60	+0.07	0.07	1.05	5.36	0.338
	Mix	14	101	+0.16	0.08	2.00	8.23	0.080
Evaluator status	Independent evaluator	13	148	+0.22	0.10	2.18	9.50	0.056
	Not independent evaluator	4	73	+0.28	0.10	2.80	3.02	0.067

Note. k: number of studies; n: number of outcomes; ES: effect size; SE: standard error; df: degrees of freedom. Mean effect sizes for each moderator category were calculated by estimated a model including the same covariates as those shown in Table 1 without an intercept, with the moderator included as a categorical variable.

**Quint, J., Zhu, P., Balu, R., Rappaport, S., & DeLaurentis, M. (2015). Scaling up the Success for All model of school reform: Final report from the Investing in Innovation (i3) evaluation. MDRC.

 Google Scholar

**Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A. C. K., Chamberlain, A. M., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 701–731. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306743.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

**Correnti, R. (2009). Examining CSR program effects on student achievement: Causal explanation through examination of implementation rates and student mobility [Paper presentation]. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Conference of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC, March, 2009.

 Google Scholar

**Nunnery, J. A., Slavin, R., Ross, S., Smith, L., Hunter, P., & Stubbs, J. (1996). An assessment of Success for All program component configuration effects on the reading achievement of at-risk first grade students [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

 Google Scholar

**Ross, S. M., Nunnery, J. A., & Smith, L. J. (1996). Evaluation of Title I reading programs: Amphitheater public schools year 1: 1995–1996. University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

 Google Scholar

**Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993). Success for All in the Baltimore City Public Schools: Year 6 report. Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students.

 Google Scholar

**Chambers, B., Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Cheung, A., & Gifford, R. (2005). Enhancing Success for All for Hispanic students: Effects on beginning reading achievement. Success for All Foundation. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED485350

 Google Scholar

**Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1998a). Longitudinal study of student literacy achievement in different Title I school-wide programs in Ft. Wayne community schools, year 2: First grade results. Memphis, TN: University of Memphis, Center for Research on Educational Policy.

 Google Scholar

**Datnow, A., Stringfield, S., Borman, G., Rachuba, L., & Castellano, M. (2001). Comprehensive school reform in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts: Implementation and outcomes from a 4-year study. Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.

 Google Scholar

**Livingston, M., & Flaherty, J. (1997). Effects of Success for All on reading achievement in California schools. WestEd.

 Google Scholar

**Muñoz, M. A., Dossett, D., & Judy-Gullans, K. (2004). Educating students placed at risk: Evaluating the impct of Success for All in urban settings. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 9(3), 261–277. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr0903_3.

 Google Scholar

*Ross, S. M., & Casey, J. (1998b). Success for all evaluation, 1997–98 tigard-tualatin school district. Memphis: University of Memphis, Center for Research on Educational Policy.

 Google Scholar

**Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Bond, C. (1994). An evaluation of the Success for All program in Montgomery, Alabama schools. University of Memphis, Center for Research on Educational Policy.

 Google Scholar

**Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, J. P. (1995). Final Report: 1994–1995 Success for All program in Fort Wayne, Indiana. University of Memphis, Center for Research in Educational Policy.

 Google Scholar

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33(6), 934–945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

**Wang, W., & Ross, S. M. (1999). Results for Success for All program. University of Memphis, Center for Research on Educational Policy.

 Google Scholar