.6!--)5%12)37.6!--)5%12)37
.6!-)')3!+ .1*2.6!-)')3!+ .1*2
(%2%2!-$)22%13!3).-2
-%5!+4!3).-.&9123'1!$%#()+$1%-2/1.'1%22)-1%!$)-'42)-'-%5!+4!3).-.&9123'1!$%#()+$1%-2/1.'1%22)-1%!$)-'42)-'
3(%4##%22&.1++/1.'1!,3(%4##%22&.1++/1.'1!,
+/(%9!+.4-3
.6!--)5%12)37
.++.63()2!-$!$$)3).-!+6.1*2!3(33/21$61.6!-%$4%3$
!13.&3(%)2!")+)37!-$04)37)-$4#!3).-.,,.-2
%#.,,%-$%$)3!3).-%#.,,%-$%$)3!3).-
+.4-3+/(%9!-%5!+4!3).-.&9123'1!$%#()+$1%-2/1.'1%22)-1%!$)-'42)-'3(%4##%22&.1++
/1.'1!,
(%2%2!-$)22%13!3).-2
(33/21$61.6!-%$4%3$
()2(%2)2)2"1.4'(33.7.4&.1&1%%!-$./%-!##%22"7.6!-)')3!+ .1*23(!2"%%-!##%/3%$&.1)-#+42).-
)-(%2%2!-$)22%13!3).-2"7!-!43(.1)8%$!$,)-)231!3.1.&.6!-)')3!+ .1*2.1,.1%)-&.1,!3).-/+%!2%
#.-3!#3'1!$4!3%1%2%!1#(1.6!-%$4
AN
EVALUATION
OF
FIRST
GRADE
CHILDREN'
S
PROGRESS
IN READING
USING
TEE
SUCCESS
FOR
ALL
PROGRAM
by
Aiphefia
L.
Blount
A
THIESIS
Submitted
in
partial
ftilfihlment
of
the
reqluirements
of
the
Master
of
Arts
Degree
of
The
Graduate
School
Rowan
University
2001
Approved
by
Date
Approved
00
/c
ABSTRACT
Blount,
Aiphefia
L.
An
Evaluation
of
First
Grade
Children'
s
Progress
in
Reading Using
the Success
for
All
Program.
2001
Thesis
Advisor:
Dr.
Stanley
Urban
This
study measured
the
gains
made
by
students
in
the
Success
for
All
program
in
the
areas
of
word
recognition
and
reading
comprehension.
Also,
the
study
examined
whether
the
variables
of
attendance,
student
behavior,
homework
completion
and
family
support
effected
the
results
of
those
gains.
The
students
participated
in
the
Success
for
All
reading
program
for
sixteen
weeks.
Every
eight
weeks
they
were
given
an
assessment
to
measure
progress
or
regression
in
word
recognition
and
reading
comprehension.
The
students
reading
groups
were
adjusted
accordingly.
At
the
end
of
the
sixteen
weeks
they
were
administered
the
Jerry
John's
Basic
Reading;
Inventory
word
list
to
find
their
independent
levels.
An
analysis
of
the
data
collected,
revealed
that
8000
of
the
students
made
meaningful gains
in
word
recognition
and
reading comprehension.
Students
who
completed
their
homework
and
attended
regularly
showed
the most
progress.
Those
students
who
exhibited
attendance
problems
and
did
not
do
homework
completion
did
not
show
meaningful
gains
in
either
area.
Mini-Abstract
Blount,
Aiphefia
L.
An
Evaluation
of
First
Grade
Children'
s
Progress
in
Reading
Using
the
Success
for
All
Program.
2001
Thesis
Advisor:
Dr.
Stanley
Urban
This
study
measured
the
gains
made
by
first
graders
in
the
Success
for
All
program
in
the
areas
of
reading
comprehension
and
word
recognition.
A
comparison
was
made
between
the
reading
levels
of
achievement
on
the
Success
for
All
and
Jerry
John's
Basic
Reading
Inventory
word
recognition
list.
Also,
the
study
examined
whether
the
variables
of
attendance
rates,
student
behavior,
homework
completion
and
family
support
effected
the
results
of
those
gains.
The
results
of
the
data
revealed
that
80%
of
the
students
who
attended
school
on
a
daily
basis
and
completed
their
homework
made
meaningful
gains
in
reading
comprehension
and
word
recognition.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
would
like
to
thank
Dr. Stanley
Urban,
my
advisor,
for
his
gracious
guidance
throughout
the
completion
of
this
project.
I
wish
to
thank
all
the
members
of
my
family,
co-workers
and
church
for
their
help,
encouragement,
and
prayers
towards
completing
my
degree.
Special
thanks
to
Eugenia
Johnson
and
Sherman Denby,
who
were
a
great
help
to
me
in
completing
this
project.
Thanks
to the
One
and Only
Father,
Jesus
Christ
for
giving me
the
ability
to
complete
the
work
he
has
begun
in me.
Finally,
I
dedicate
this project
in
memory
of
my
mother, Cloreda
(Selby)
Blount,
who passed
away January
19,
1992. She
was one
of
the
greatest mothers
who
ever
lived.
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
.11....,,
....
,,,. .... ,,,,.....
CHAPTER
ONE
Background.1........
....
,,,. .... ,,,,.....
Need
for
Study.2........
......... .........
....
Purpose
of
the
Study.2..................................
Value
of
the
Study
.3.................................
Research
Question.3...................................
Limitations
of
the
Study.
...................................
3
Definitions
of
Terms
.4....,,, ......... .......
,
....
CHAPTER
TWO
Review
of
Literature.6................, ......... ....
The
Abbott
District.6.................... .........
....
Cherry
Street
School.9.....,
.... ,,....., ....
Success
for
All .10..., ..... ,......,,
...
Summary
.18...,......,,
..... ,.....
CHAPTER
THREE
Sample
.19.................. ..... ,....
Instrumentation.19...................
...............
Research
Design
and Analysis
of
Data.
......... .........
..... 21
Page
CHAPTER
FOUR
Introduction
.22..................
..............
Results
.22.................. .............
Word
Recognition.22·
.........
................ ,,,...
Reading
Comprehension.
.... ,.. .........
.........
....
24
Homework.25.......
.... ,,,.
.... ,,,,.....
Family
Support.26...................
...............
Attendance
.27...... ....................
....
CHAPTER
FIVE
Summaryiiiii~~~~~~iiiiii.29......
....
,,,. .... ,,,,.....
Conclusion.29.......
.....
,,
...............
Discussion
and Implication.
..... ,.. ........
,.........
..
30
Implications
for
Further
Study
................................
30
REFERENCES
.32....... ....................
....
BIOGRAPHICAL
DATA.34...................
...............
iiii
TABLES
Table
Page
1.
Results
of
Success for
All
Word
Lists.23........
.........................
2.
Concurrent
Scores
of
Success
for
All
And Jerry
John's
Basic
Reading
Inventory.
......... ......... .24
3.
Results
of
Success
for
All
Reading
Comprehension.
.................................
25
4.
Rates
of
Homework
Completion.
......... ......... .......
26
5.
Attendance
Rates
.28....._.......... ......... ....
iiii
CHAPTER
I
Background
Slavin
&
Madden
(1996)
believe
that
reading
is
an
essential
part
of
life.
All
children
must possess
the
ability
to
read
to
become
productive
citizens
and
gain
success
in
society.
They
succinctly
state
their
beliefs
as
follows:
"Every
child
has
the
capacity
to
succeed
in
school
and
in
life.
Yet
far
too
many
children,
especially
those
from
poor
and
minority
families,
are
placed
at
risk
by
school
practices
that
are
based
on
a
sorting paradigm
in
which
some
students
receive
high-
expectations
instruction
while
the
rest
are
relegated
to lower
quality
education
and
lower
quality
futures.
The
sorting
perspective
must
be
replaced
by
a
"talent
development"
model
that
asserts
that
all
children
are
capable
of
succeeding
in
a
rich
and
demanding
curriculum
with
appropriate
assistance
and
support."
Within
the
last
few
years,
there
has
been
an
extraordinary
movement
to
transform
public
schools
in
America.
Programs
such
as
private
schools,
charter
schools,
home
schooling,
and
independent
private
schools
are
being
developed.
School
vouchers
are
being
offered
in
place
of
public
school
funding.
These
extraordinary
approaches
are
being
taken
because
of
the
inability
of
a
large
group
of
students
to
pass
annual
standardized
tests
that
are
administered
throughout
their
school
years.
To
address
high
failure
rates
may
schools
are
adopting
whole-school
reform
models.
These
models
often
include
professional
development
training,
materials,
changes
in
staffing,
family
involvement,
and
other
specific
components.
One
of
the whole-school
reform
models
being
used
in
many
schools
across
America
is
Success
for
All
which
it
is
a
comprehensive
program
that
focuses
on
reading,
writing,
and
language
arts.
In
recent
years,
this
model
has
been revised
with
the
addition
of
science,
social
studies,
and math.
The
Success
for
All
program
is
a
schoolwide
program
developed
by
Robert
Slavin
at
The
Johns
Hopkins
University
in
the
late
1980s.
It
has
expanded
from
a
single
urban
elementary
school
to
approximately
300
schools
in
twenty-three
states.
The
program's
three
main
goals
are
as
follows:
(1)
pursue
success
for
every
student,
(2)
prevent
learning
problems,
and
(3)
intervene
immediately
and
intensively
when
problems
do
occur
so
that
students
do
not
fall
farther
behind.
Success
for
All
serves
all
elementary
students,
with
or
without
learning
disabilities.
Need
for
Study
Numerous
whole-school
reform
models
exist
for
schools
in
America
today.
Private
for
profit
companies
are
generating
many
millions
of
dollars
selling
these
programs
to
schools
that
are
promoting
an
idea
of
"success".
Are
they
all
successful
programs?
Will
every
student
experience
success?
How
do
we
really
define
"success?"
Every
program
after
implementation
can
point
to
some
elements
of
success.
The
Success
for
All
program
suggests
that
after
implementation
within
the
school
setting
every
student
will
experience
a
level
of
success
in
reading.
Purpose
of
the
Study
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
examine
the
effectiveness
of
the
Success
for
All
program
in
improving
the
reading
skills
of
a
group
of
first
grade
children.
In
addition,
attendance,
behavior
problems,
academic
difficulties,
and
family
problems
will
be
examined
for
each
of
the
subjects.
Value
of
the
Study
Reading
failure
can
be
prevented
if
students
receive
immediate
interventions
in
the
early
elementary
grades.
Data
will
be
collected
on
first
graders
to
see
if
progress
is
made
in
word
recognition
and
reading
comprehension
within
the
first
sixteen
weeks
of
participation
in
the
Success
for
All
program.
Research
Ouestion
The
data
gathered
in
this
study
will
be
used
to
answer
the
following
five
research
qluestions
:
Question
1:
Will
first
grade
children
that
receive
reading
instruction
using
the
Success
for
All
model
make
meaningftii
gains
in
word
recognition?
Question
2:
Will
first
grade
children
that
receive
reading
instruction
using
the
Success
for
All
model
make
meaningful
gains
in
reading
comprehension?
Question
3:
What
is
the
rate
of
compliance
with
the
twenty
minute
per
day
reading
requirement?
a.
Is
there
a
differential
relationship
between
compliance
with
at
home
reading
and
word
decoding?
Question
4:
What
is
the
freqluency
of
involvement
with
the
family
support
team?
Question
5:
What
are
the
attendance
rates
for
each
child
in
this
study?
Limitations
of
the
Study
The
implementation
of
any
program
reqluires
staff
development
and
training.
At
times,
teachers
relocate
leaving
vacant
positions
within
the
school
and
administrators
are
left
scrambling
to
fill
positions
at
the
beginning
of
the
school
year.
New
teachers
do
not
get
the
hands-on
training
they
so
desperately
need
to
effectively
implement
the
program;
therefore
they
cannot
do
the
job
sufficiently.
The Success
for
All
program
requires
that
reading
instruction
be
provided
ninety
minutes
per
day.
Time
restraints
will
cause
the
schedule
to
be
altered
occasionally.
Schedules
may
be
changed
due
to
circumstances
beyond
the
administrators
control;
for
example,
delayed
openings
due
to
weather
conditions,
scheduling
of
assemblies,
and
class
trips.
The
students
and
teachers
are
required
to
attend
school
on
a
daily
basis.
Each
year
the
school
calendar
assigns
180
days
for
classroom
instruction.
However,
there
are
conditions
that
may
cause
students
or
teachers
to
be
absent;
(i.e.),
sickness,
doctor
appointments,
death
of
a
relative
and
other
personal
reasons.
Teacher
absenteeism
causes
inconsistency
in
the
implementation
of
the
program;
because
substitutes
are
not
trained
to
teach
the
program.
Absenteeism
is
definitely
a
factor
in
determining
the
effectiveness
of
the
program.
The
Success
for
All
program
requires
students
to
read
twenty
minutes
per
evening
to
an
adult.
Parental
participation
requires
the
parent
to
sign
a
slip
veriflying
the
student
completed
the
homework
assignment.
The
student
is
required
to
return
the
verification
slip
each
day
indicating
the
completion
of
their
homework.
Students
frequently
forget
to
return
their
verification
slips
and
complete
their
homework.
These
are
the
limitations
that
will
effect
the
essential
elements
of
the
Success
for
All
program.
Definition
of
Terms
The
following
is
a
list
of
definitions
relative
to
this
study.
These
definitions
will
enhance
the
comprehension
of
the
study.
1.
Success
for
All
whole-school
reform
model-
is
a
comprehensive
program
that
focuses
on
reading,
writing,
and
language
art
in
the
elementary
grades.
(a)
"(success"-
the
achievement
of
something
intended
or
desired.
(b)
"all"-
includes
students
with
or
without
learning
disabilities.
(c)
"at-risk
students-
children
who
may
live
in
one
or
more
of
the
following
conditions;
single-parent
homes,
low
socio-economic
environments,
crowded
conditions,
substance
abusive
environments,
foster
homes,
inadequate
nutrition
and
health
care.
2.
Reading
Root-a
beginning
reading
program
used
in
Success
for
All.
It
emphasizes
a
balance
between
phonics
and
meaning,
using
both
children's
literature
and
a
series
of
interesting,
enjoyable
stories
in
which
phonetically
regular
student
text
is
enriched
by
teacher-read
text.
Students
engage
in
partner
reading
and
writing
activities.
3.
Effect
size-
(ES)
the
proportion
of
a standard
deviation
by
which
Success
for
All
students
exceed
controls.
CHAPTER
II
Review
of
the
Literature
This
review
of
literature
will
include
the
following
topics:
first,
the
purpose
and
local
education
agencies
designated
requirements
of
"Abbott
Districts",
second,
the
description
of
Cherry
St.
School
in
Bridgeton,
N.J.
as
a
school
within
an
"Abbott
District"
and
third,
the
description
of
the
"
Success
for
All"
program
and
review
of
research
on the
program.
The
Abbott
District
Stokely,
et.
al,
(1996)
reported
children
born
into
poverty
particularly
those
in
urban
areas
grow
up
in
conditions,
which make
school
learning
far
more
difficult.
A
poor
urban
child
is
more
likely
to
live
in
crowded
conditions,
to
witness
random
acts
of
violence,
to
receive
inadequate
nutrition
and
health
care,
and
to
have
fewer
opportunities
for
constructive
early
learning
and
after school
activities.
These
children
come
to
school
on
average
two
years
behind
in
readiness
to
learn
what
the
schools
have
to
offer.
The
paucity
of
quality
education
for
under
privileged
children
in
poorer
urban
districts
has
been
the
subject
of
various
court
decisions
in
New
Jersey
for more
than
25
years.
It
began
with
the
filing
of
Robinson
V.
Cahill
(1970),
the
New
Jersey
Supreme
Court
had
to
address
the
claims
of
under
privileged
school
children
because
they were
not
receiving
quality
education
at
a
level
sufficient
to
prepare
them
to
compete
in
the
economy
and
to
fully
join
in
as
citizens
in
our
society.
Poor
urban
school
districts
continued
to
press
their
claim
in
the
Abbott
v.
Burke
case.
Filed
in
1981,
the
trial
finally
took
place
in
1986-1987
and
lasted
approximately
nine
months.
The
extended
trial
record
focused
on
the
link
between
funding
and
programs
and
the
children's
claim
that
deficient
state
funding
in
poor
urban
districts
led inevitably
to
lower
educational
quality
and
the
failure
to
provide
a
thorough
and
efficient
education.
A
little
over
a
year
was
spent
examining
the
extensive
Abbott
record.
In
his
decision,
the
judge
found
for the
poor
school
children
on
all
the
crucial
points.
Later,
on
June
4,
1990,
the
New
Jersey Supreme
Court
affirmed
the
decision
of
the
trial
judge,
determining
the
State
had
neglected
the
provisions
of
a
thorough
and efficient
education
for
children
attending
schools
in
the
poor
urban
districts
as
guaranteed
by
the
New
Jersey
Constitution.
Stokely
et. al.,
(1996)
notes that
in
it's
ruling
the
Court
required
the
state
to
implement
two
distinct
school
funding
and
program
mandates
for
children
attending
school
in
these
districts.
Both
mandates
were
designed
to
provide
equal
and high
quality
educational
opportunity.
First,
the
Court
ordered
the
State
to
assure
that
these
districts
have
the
same
amount
per
pupil
to
spend
on
regular
education
as
is
available
on
average
in
high
performing,
wealthier
school
districts.
Such
funding
was
to
be
provided
in
order
to
assure
both
quantitative
and
qualitative
educational
program
comparability
between
richer
suburban
and
poorer
urban
schools.
In
addition
to
funding
parity
for
regular
education,
the
Court
heeded
the
testimony
of
educational
researchers
and
experts
and
ordered
the State
to
develop,
adequately
fund
and
implement
a
"supplemental
program"
responsive
to
the
special
needs
poor
children
bring
to
school
with
them
everyday.
The
"supplemental
program'
should
include
the
following
components:
1.
All
disadvantaged
children
should
have
access
to
at
least
one
level
of
preschool
and
to
full
day
of
kindergarten.
2.
Class
size
should
be
reduced
to
below
15
for
kindergarten
through
third
grade.
3.
A
research-based
instructional
intervention
program
should
be
installed
in
elementary
schools
serving
disadvantaged
students.
4.
Programs
for
limited
English-speaking
students
should
be
continued
in
schools
with
a
sufficient
number
of
language
minority
students.
5.
Parent
participation,
education,
and
training
programs
should
be
installed
at
every
school
serving
disadvantaged
students.
6.
Programs
to
extend
the
school
day
and/or
school
year
are
vital
for
disadvantaged
students.
7.
School-based
Youth
and
Family
Services
should
be
available
in
all
special
needs
districts.
8.
Alternative
schools
and
programs
for
middle
and
high
schools
in
urban
school
districts
are
critical
to
the
education
of children
unable
to
achieve
in
regular
education
settings.
9.
School-to-Work
and
School-to-College
transition
programs
are
needed
to
successfully
bridge
the
gap
between
middle/high
school
and
the
next
stage
in
the
development
of
disadvantaged
students
The
Abbott
v.
Burke
decision
limits
the
requirements
for
a
supplemental
program
to
those
districts
covered
by
the
court
order,
they
identified
special
needs
districts.
The
final
report
recommended
that
the
supplemental
programs
be
available
to
students
in
any
district
where
20
or
more
disadvantaged
students
are
enrolled
in any
grade.
Cherry
Street
School,
Bridgeton,
N.J.
This
school
is
located
in
Bridgeton,
New
Jersey,
which
is
an
urban
city
with
an
population
of
18,942.
The
ethnic
representation
of
the
city
is
follows
here 10,365-White,
6,996-Black,
254-American-
Indian,
153-Asian/Pacific
Islander,
1,174-Other
race.
There
are several
factories
which
provide
employment
for residents;
however,
since
the
early
1970's
there
has
been
a
significant
decline
in
the
number
of
factory
based
manufacturing
jobs
in
the
city.
Within
the
last
five
years
a
state
facility,
South
Woods
Prison,
and
a
new
Shop-Rite
has
been
built.
These
businesses
have
brought
some
jobs
to
the
area.
When
visiting
Bridgeton
you
can
visually
see
evidence
of
the
same
problems
that
exist
in
any
other
urban
city.
The
major
problems
that
exist
are
unemployment,
drugs,
homelessness,
a
high
rate
of
teenage
pregnancy,
dysfunctional
families,
crowded
living
quarters,
school
dropouts,
etc.
Due to
the
problems
that
exist
in
our
city
the
school
system
is
greatly
effected;
therefore,
we
are
considered
an
Abbott
District.
Cherry
Street
School
is
a
pre-kindergarten
through
fifth
grade
elementary
school.
It
houses
approximately
561
students,
and
has
approximately
100
staff
members.
The
ethnic
representation
of
the
school
is
as
follows:
423-African-American,
62-Hispanic,
28-
Caucasian,
2-American-Indian,
and
-Asian/Pacific
Islander.
The
language
spoken
at
the
school
is
English.
The
students
are
learning
conversational
Spanish
as
required
by
the
core
curriculum
standards.
The
attendance
rate
for
the
year
1999-2000
was
at
93%
and
91%
of
students
were
eligible
for
free
or
reduced-price
lunch.
The
student
mobility
rate
is
30.9
percent
annually,
while
the
teacher
mobility
rate
is
14.8%
annually.
Cherry
Street
School's
mission
is
to
provide
the
best
education
possible
in
a
safe
and
orderly
environment.
Cherry
Street
School
staff
had
to
attend
a
workshop
to
receive
an
overview
of
the
Whole
School
Reform
Models.
A
committee
was
formed
to
represent
each
grade
level
of
the
school.
A
survey
was
given
to
all
certificated
staff
to
identifyr
the
actual
needs
of
our
school. The
survey
was
tallied
and
the
most important
item
addressed
was
the
inability
of
our
students
to
read
on
grade
level.
The
Whole
School
Reform
committee
visited
several
programs
and
chose the
most
appropriate
program
for Cherry
Street
School
in
accordance
with
survey
results.
The
staff
voted
in
January
of
1999
to
adopt
the
Success
For
All
model
with
implementation
to
begin
in
September
of
1999.
Success
For
All
Success
for
All
is
a
reading
curriculum
that
incorporates
research-based
instructional
intervention
practices.
In
the
early
grades
K-i,
the
program
emphasizes
reading
readiness
and
the development
of
oral
language.
Students
will
become
familiar
with
books,
receive practice
in
the
area
of
phonemic
awareness
so
their
auditory
discrimination
skills
can
be
developed.
Students
will
read
high-
frequency
words
independently.
Listening
comprehension
is
addressed
by
having
students
listen
to
a
story
and
retell,
summarize,
or
dramatize
the
story.
As
students
progress
to
higher
levels
they
receive
additional
instruction
in
reading
comprehension
and
writing.
Cooperative
learning
activities
are
used
to
improve
student's
ability
to
get
along
with
others.
They focus
on
reading
orally
with
a
partner,
participating
in
structured
discussions,
summarization
and
retelling
of
stories,
vocabulary
building,
decoding
practice,
and
story-related
writing.
Students
are involved
in
a
Peabody
Language
Development
activity
each
day,
which
will
help
the students
develop
receptive
and
expressive
language.
Reading
groups
are
homogeneously
developed.
Students
in
grades
1-3
(and
sometimes
4-5
or 4-6)
is
regrouped
for
reading
by
their
reading
ability
level.
A
common
90-minute
reading
period
is
established
across
all
grades.
The
average
group
size
is
15
and
taught
by
a
certified
teacher
within
the
school.
The
program
facilitator
is
a
member
of
the
school
staff
who
is
released
from
regular
classroom
responsibilities.
The
facilitator
works
with
the
principal
in
overseeing
the
details
often
implementation
of
the
program,
including
scheduling
changes
and
professional
development
training.
The
facilitator
has
the
responsibility
of
monitoring
the
implementation
of
the
curriculum
in
the
classroom,
and
assisting
staff
with
any
type
of
problem.
The
facilitator
will
assist
with problems
that
may
exist
with
student
behaviors;
he/she
can
act
as
a
liaison
between
the
staff
and
the
family
support
team.
The
tr-aining
for
the program
included
a
three
day
in-service.
The
training
includes
in-class
coaching
and
assistance,
and
periodic
in-service
workshops
and
discussion
groups.
In
the
first
year
of
implementation,
three
days
of
in-service
training
are
provided
for
all
teachers,
tutors,
and
paraprofessionals
at
the
beginning
of
the
school
year.
The
facilitator
and
principal
are
usually
trained
for
a
week
at
a
Success
For
All
site.
During
the school
year trainers
make
frequent
site
visits
during
which
they
make
classroom
visitations.
They
conduct
classroom
observation,
meet
with
staff
and
make
suggestions
for
improvement.
Throughout
the
year
the
facilitator
will
schedule
sessions
for
staff
to
share
information,
discuss
problems
and
solutions;
also
they
will
collaborate
on
different
ideas
necessary
to
help
individual
students.
Frequent
assessments
are
conducted
every
eight
weeks,
reading
teachers
will
assess
student
progress
using
personal
observations
and
curriculum-based
and
formal
measures.
The
results
of
the
assessments
are
used
to
identify
students
who
are
failing
and
may
need
further
assistance
by tutoring.
Also,
students
are
identified
that
are
progressing
qluickly
and
should
be
placed
in
a
higher
group.
Teachers
may
have
the
ability
to
identify
students
who
need
other
types
of
assistance,
such
as
family
interventions
or
screening
for
hearing
or
vision
problems.
Reading
Tutors
are
another
important
element
of
the
program.
Tutors
provide
one-
on-one
tutoring,
this
is
considered
the
most
effective
form
of
instruction
for
students
with
reading
problems.
Tutors
are
usually
certified
teachers
with
experience
as
reading
teachers,
Title
1,
or
special
education
teachers.
Paraprofessionals
can
be
trained
to
provide
the
same
services
under
the
direction
of
a
certified
teacher.
The
students
that
are
tutored
will
receive
a
20-minute
session
per
day.
They
will
be pulled
out
of
the
classroom
individually
and
this
session
is
not
held
during
math
or
reading
instruction.
First
grade
students
are
given
priority
in
receiving
tutoring
this
helps
prevent
problems
from
developing
and
fewer
students
at
an
older
age
will
need
remediation.
The
family
support
team
consists
of
the
facilitator,
parent
liaison,
guidance
counselor,
nurse,
principal
or
vice-principal,
and
any
other
member
of
the
school
when
necessary.
The
teams'
function
is
to
promote
parental
involvement
in
the
school
by
providing
information,
organizing
school-related
activities,
and
conducting
workshops
for
parents
if
necessary.
They
assist
teachers
with
academic
and
behavioral
problems,
and
help
coordinate
services
with
community-based
health,
social
service,
and
juvenile
justice
agencies.
Madden
and
Slavin
(1989)
suggest
that
there
is
evidence
that
reading
failure
can
be
prevented
in
the
first
grade.
There
are
several
programs
that
have
shown
strong
positive
effects
on
the
reading
performance
of
at-risk
first graders.
They
all
provide
one-on-one
tutoring
to
students
who
have
been
identified
early
in
first
grade
as
falling
behind
in
reading.
Studies
have
shown
that
tutoring
programs
can
bring
at-risk
students
up
to
normal reading
levels,
(David
and
Wallach,
1978).
Norman
and
Zigmond
(1980)
reported
that
in
many
urban
districts,
retention
rates
for
first
graders
has
exceeded
20%
in
recent
years,
and
identification
of
students
as
being
learning
disabled
has
risen.
Both
retention
and
special-education
placement
are largely
determined
on
the
basis
of
reading
performance.
Slavin
et.
al
(1993)
suggested
that
Success
For
All
is
designed
to attempt
to
ensure
that
every
student
in
a
high-poverty
school
will
succeed
in
acquiring
basic
skills
in
early
grades.
Success
is
defined
as
performing
in
reading
at
or
near
grade
level
by
the
third grade,
maintaining
this
status
through
the
end
of
the
elementary
grades,
and
avoiding
retention
or
special
education.
The
program
seeks
to
accomplish
this
objective
by
implementing
high-quality
preschool
and
kindergarten
programs,
one-on-one
tutoring
in
reading
to
students
(especially
first
graders)
who
need
it,
research-based
reading
instruction
in
all
grades,
frequent
assessment
of
progress
in
reading,
and
a
family
support
program.
Slavin
et.
al.,
(1990)
reported
that
the
Success
for
All
was
first
implemented
in
the
1987-88
school
year
in
one
inner-city
Baltimore
school,
Abbottston
Elementary
School,
a
Pre-K
to
5
school
with
approximately
440
students.
Almost
all
students
were
black
and
75%
received
free
lunch.
The school
was
selected
among
the
category
of
schools
that
receive
the
most
intensive
Chapter
I
resources
in
the
city
of
Baltimore.
In
addition,
the
school
had
to
meet
a
set
of
criteria
specifying
lack
of
major
programs,
adequate
space,
location
near
Johns
Hopkins
University,
and
manageable
size.
In
the
spring
of
1987,
the
principal
and
school
staff
were
given
an
opportunity
to
serve
as
the
Success
for
All
pilot
site,
and
they
voted
unanimously
to
do
so.
The
intention
in
the
selection
process
was to
locate
a school
that
served
a
typical inner-city
population
with
a
staff
that
was
typical
of
Baltimore
City
elementary
school
teachers
but
willing
and
able
to
work
with
John
Hopkins
staff
to
redefine
and
implement
the
model.
The
program
at
Abbottston
Elementary
is
being
compared
to
a
matched
control
school.
The first
year
assessment
revealed
substantially
higher
student
performance
on measures
of
language
development
in
preschool
and
kindergarten
and
on
measures
of
reading
in
Grades
1-3,
compared
to
students
in
a
matched
school.
Reading
gains
were
especially
large
for
students who
had
been
in
the
lowest
25%
of
their
grade
on pretests.
For
these
students,
effects
size
averaged
+.
80
on
individually
administered
measures.
Further,
there
were
substantial
reductions
in
the
numbers
of
students
retained
or
assigned
to
special
education.
During
the
1988-1989
school
year,
four
additional
schools
began
to
implement
Success
for
All.
Abbottston
Elementary
School
and City
Spring
Elementary
were
referred
to
as
the
"high-resource"
schools
because
of
their
funding
received
for
the
program.
Evaluations
of
Success
for
All
have
been evaluated
each
school
year.
The
1989-1990
assessment
(Madden,
Slavin,
Karweit,
Dolan,
&
Wasik,
1990)
found
that
effects
of
reading
achievement
were
very
positive
at
Abbottston
Elementary
in
all
grades
(1-3)
in
its
second
year
of
implementation.
Weaker
but
still
positive
readings
effects
were
found
in
City
Springs
and
the
low-resource
schools
(after
less
than
a
full
year
of
implementation)
in
first
and
second
grades.
In
all
cases,
the
largest
effects
were
for
the
students
who
were
in
the
lowest
25%
of
their
classes
at
pretest.
Slavin
et.
al.,
(1990)
reported
across
five
scales
taken
from
the
individually
administered
Woodcock
and
Durrell
reading
inventories
first
graders
scored
at
an
average
equivalent
of
2.0
(50th
percentile),
in
comparison
to
1.5
in
the
control
group
(28th
percentile).
Effect
sizes
ranged
from
0.34
to
1.39.
Among
students
that
scored
in
the
lowest
25%
on
the
pretests,
Success
for
All
students
scored
at
the
32nd
percentile,
in
comparison
to
the
8th
percentile
for
similar
control students.
As
the
figures
show,
the
lowest
25%
of
the
Success
for
All
first
graders
outscored
the
average
control
students
Madden
et.
al.,
(1991)
found
strong
positive
reading
effects
for
Abbottston
at
all
grade
levels,
and
in
this
second implementation
year
for
City
Springs
and
the
lower-
resource
schools.
Effects
were
much
more
positive
in
first
and
second
grades than
they
had
been
after
one
year,
especially
for
low
achievers.
Slavin
et.
al.,
(1994)
reported
that
the
first
school
district
outside
Baltimore
to
implement
Success
for
All
was
Philadelphia.
Francis
Scott
Key
Elementary
School,
which
serves
a
population
that
is
composed
of
majority
Southeast
Asians
mostly
Cambodian
in
orgin has
been using
the
program
since
1988.
Three
more
schools
began
to
implement
Success
for
All
in
1991.
These
are
all
very
poor
schools
that
serve
primarily
African
American
children,
with
nearly
100%
of
the
students
qualifying
for
subsidized
lunches.
Asian
students
at
Key
school
exceed
those
in
their
control
schools
by
an average
of
more
than
a
full
grade
in
first
grade;
Asian
students
in
Success
for
All
were
reading
above
grade
level,
while
their
counter
parts
in
the
control
schools
were
non-readers,
scoring
near
the bottom
of
the
scale
on
all
tests.
Non-Asian
students
at
Key
School
outperformed
their
controls
by
an
average
of
approximately
3.5
months
in
first
grade,
three
months
in
second
grade,
four
months
in
third
grade,
and
five
months
in
fourth
grade.
The
results
for
two
of
the
three
Philadelphia
schools
that
began
Success
for
All
in
1991
(data
on
the
third
school
was
lost)
show
that
first
graders
in
these
schools
were
Reading
above
grade
level
and
two
months
ahead
of
their
controls.
The
lowest-achieving
25%
of
Success
for
All
students
were
reading
about
at
grade
level
and
exceed
their
controls
by 3.5
month.
A
study
of
two
schools
in
Fort
Wayne,
Indiana,
(Smith
and
Ross,
1
993)
found
strong
positive
effects
of
Success
for
All
on student
achievement.
First
graders
were
reading
well
above
grade
level
(a
grade
equivalent
of
2.45)
and
more
than
three
months
ahead
of
controls.
The
lowest-achieving
25%
of
students
were
also
reading
above
grade
level
and
4.5
months
ahead
of
their
control
group.
Second
graders
were
reading
four
months
ahead
of
their
controls,
and
the
lowest
25%
of
second
graders
were
almost
on
grade
level
and
more
than
four
months
ahead
of
their
counterparts.
Ross
et. al.,
(1992-1993)
reported
that
two
schools
in
Mvontgomery,
Alabama,
had
the
largest
program
effects
of
any
first
grade
evaluation.
Success
for
All
first
graders
were
reading
more
than
five
months
ahead
of
their
peers
in
the
control
group.
Among
the
lowest
25%,
control
students
were
not
reading
at
all,
while
Success
for
all
students
posted
an
average
grade
equivalent
score
1.46.
Slavin
and
Wasik
(1992)
reports
that
Pepperhill
Elementary
School
in
Charleston
began
to
use
Success
for
All
in
the
1990-9
1
school
year.
Pepperhill
is
the
only
Success
for
All
school
being
evaluated
that
is
not
a
Chapter
I
school.
Despite
a
poverty
rate
much
higher
than
the
national
average
(40%
of
students
qlualify
for
subsidized
lunches
and
60%
are
African-American),
Pepperhill
does not
qlualify
for
Chapter
I
funding within
the
Charleston
district.
However,
under
the
South
Carolina
Educational
Improvement
Act,
it
does
receive
state
funds
for
compensatory
education
that
pay
for
the
cost
of
Success
for
All.
Still,
because
it
is
not
a
Chapter
I
school,
Pepperhill
has
less
money
to
implement
Success
for
All
than
do
other
schools
in
the
program.
As
a
result,
Pepperhill
is
the
only
school
being
evaluated
that
uses
para-professionals
rather
than
certified
teachers
as
tutors.
The
paraprofessionals
are
of
high
quality:
one
is
certified
to
teach
in
another
state,
and
another
has
a
four-year
degree.
Moreover,
all
received
significantly
more training
than
is
given
to
tutors
who
are
certified
to
teach.
Pepperhill
provides
us
with
the
first
opportunity
to
evaluate
Success
for
All
in
a
school
that
has
fewer
dollars
to
spend
and
a
relatively
less
needy
population.
The
outcomes
for
first
graders
at
Pepperhill
show
a
substantial
positive
effect
of
the
program
on
student
achievement.
This
school
has
the highest
mean
reading
level
of
any
Success
for
All
school
(a
grade
eqluivalent
of
2.45),
four
months
ahead
of
its
control
school.
Effects
were
also
qluite
positive
for
students
in
the lowest
25%
of
their
grade.
Slavin
(1996)
concludes
not
only
is
Success
for
All
designed
around
research
into
effective
teaching
methods,
but
the
program
itself
has an
extensive
body
of
research
demonstrating
its effectiveness.
Statistically
significant
positive
effects
have
been
found
on
every
measure
from
grades
1
to
5,
with
especially
large
gains
for
students
most
at
risk
for
failure.
These
effects have
also
been
shown
to
be
cumulative:
while
first-grade
Success
for
All
students
are
about
three
months
ahead
of
matched
control
students
in
reading,
by
the
fifth
grade,
they
outscore
control
students
by
an
average
of
a
full
grade
level.
The
program
has
also
been
found
to
cut
special
education
placements
in
half,
on
average,
and
one
study
found
that
the
program
eliminated
the
racial
achievement
gap.
Summary
According
to
the
literature
reviewed
Success
for
All
if
implemented
correctly
will
show
substantial
yearly
gains
in
reading
achievement.
The
earlier
the program
is
implemented
in
school
the
more
promising
the
results.
Also,
findings
from
studies
show
the
longer
a
school
is
in
the
program,
the
greater
the
effects
on
the
reading
performance
of
students
in
all
grades.
As
students
progress
in
reading;
they
will
eventually
show
improvement
in
other
content
areas.
Success
for
All
helps
all
students
acquire
the
skills
and/or
knowledge
they
need
to
successfully
perform
at
higher
academic
levels.
It
has
proven
to
be
effective
in
raising
the
academic
achievement
levels
of
'at-risk"
students
in
low-performing
schools.
Slavin
(1996)
notes
for
long-term
success,
it
is
critical
that
young
students
be
provided
with
a
firm
academic
foundation.
The
ability
to
read
with
fluency
and
comprehend
is
the
bedrock
upon
which
that
foundation
is
built.
This
program
has
proven
it
can
help
schools
accomplish
this
goal.
CHAPTER
III
Sample
This
study
will
include
twenty
students from
the
first
grade
of
Cherry
Street
School
located
in
Bridgeton,
New
Jersey.
The
school
setting
is
in
an
urban
city
and
has
been
designated
an
Abbott
District.
The
total
enrollment
of
first
grades
is
approximately
90
students
with
18
students
in
each
class.
Most
of
these students
are
designated
as
living
in
an
"at-risk'
environment.
Each
first
grade classroom
is staffed
with
one certified
teacher
and
an
instructional
assistant.
First
graders
may
receive
one
or
more
of
the
following
services;
speech,
occupational
or
physical
therapy.
The
services
of
the
guidance
counselor
and
social
worker
are
also
available
too.
Some
of
the students
may
be
receiving
one-on-one
tutoring
through
the
Success
for
All
program. Reading
Recovery
is
also
offered
to
the
lowest
5%
of
academic
achievers
in
the
first
grade.
The
twenty
students
involved
in
this
study
were
chosen
randomly.
Mrs.
P.
and Ms.
C.
both
volunteered
to
share
their
data they
collect
daily
for the
research.
Their
reading
groups
are
composed
of
first
graders with
approximately
twelve
students
in
each
group.
Instrumentation
The
Reading
Roots
Eight
Week
Assessment
will
be
used
to
measure
growth
in
reading
for
each
student
every
eight
weeks. The
goal
of
the
assessment
is
to
determine
each
student's
reading mastery
level
within
the
framework
of
the
Reading
Roots
lessons.
The
students
will
be asked
to
read
a
series
of
passages
and
word
lists
that
were
written
to
correspond with
the
stories
and
words taught
in
Reading
Roots.
Students
will
continue
to
read
until
they
reach
their
highest
level
or
ceiling.
Reading
comprehension
requires
the
student
to
read
a passage.
After
completing
the
passage,
the
student must
answer
three
questions.
If
the
student reads
the
passage
and
has
less
than
seven
word
errors
and
no
more
than
one comprehension
error
he/she
may
continue
on
to
the
next passage.
The
student
will
again
continue
reading
until
they reach
a
ceiling.
Word
recognition
requires
the
student
to
read
a
list
often
words.
They
will
begin
at
the
same
level
as
they
began
reading
the
passages.
They
can
make
four
errors
reading
the
list;
they
will
continue
reading
to
a
higher
level
until
they
reach
the
ceiling
or
more
than
four
errors. The
results
are
recorded
on
the
Reading
Roots
Eight
Week
Assessment
Summary
Form.
All
of
the
information
on
the
summary
form
as
well
as
teacher
observations
are
used
to
determine
instructional
level
in
reading.
If
the
formal
assessment
indicates
higher
performance
than that
indicated
by
classroom
information,
the
student
is
probably
ready
to
move
onto
a
higher
instructional
level.
If
the
classroom
information
indicates
that
the student
is
keeping
up
in
the classroom,
but
the
formal
assessment
indicates
lower
performance,
then
the
student
would
remain
at
the current
instructional
level.
If
both
formal
assessment
and
classroom
information
indicate
lower performance
than
the
current
instructional
level,
the
problem
should be
addressed.
The
student
may
move
to
a
lower
instructional
level.
Solutions
could
involve
working with
the
teacher
on
instructional
methods
or
classroom
management,
family
support
consultation,
tutoring,
or
brief
focused
reviews.
The
Jerry
Johns
Basic
Inventory
first
grade
word
list
will
be
given
to
each
student
of
the
20
students
in
this
study
at
the
end
of
sixteen weeks.
The
word
list
contains
twenty
words;
some
words
are
from
the
Revised
Dolch
list.
The
students
will
be
asked
to
read the
word
lists
orally,
then
they
will
continue
reading
to
identifyr
their
instructional
level.
The
instructional
level
is
reached
when
a
student
reads
a
list
of
words
without
getting more
than four
errors
out
of
twenty
words.
This
will
be
compared
to the
word
recognition
assessment
from the Reading
Roots
Eight
Week
Assessment.
Research
Desigcn
and
Analysis
of
Data
The
assessments
scores
will
be
used to
measure
gains
in
student
achievement
at
eight
and
sixteen
week
intervals
after
the
program
is
initiated.
The
results
of
the
rate
of
attendance,
homework
completion,
and
academic
progress
in
word
recognition
and
reading
comprehension
will
be
presented
in
tabular
form.
Those
students
who
receive
Family
Support
Services
will
be
identified
also.
The
data
collected
will
be
examined
thoroughly and
an
interpretation
provided
in
order
to
answer
each
research
question.
CHAPTER
IV
Introduction
The
twenty
first
graders
in
the
Success
For
All
Program
were
administered
assessments
at
the
end
of
the
eighth
and
sixteenth
week. The
assessments
measured
the
subjects reading
comprehension
levels
to
see
if
the
subjects
made
meaningfUl
gains.
Next,
the
rate
of
compliance
of
homework
completion
will
be
assessed
to
see
if
it
effects
the word
recognition
levels
and
overall
performance
of
the
students.
Attendance
rate
will
be
calculated
to
see
how
it
effected
the
performance
of
each
subject.
The
involvement
of
any
subject
with
the
Family
Support
Team
will
be discussed.
Results
Word
Recognition
Question
1:
Will
first
grade
children
that
receive
reading
instruction
using
the
Success
For
All
model
make
meaningful gains
in
word
recognition?
a.
Will
the
children
show
meaningful
gains
on
the
Jerry
John's
Basic
Reading;
Inventory?
A
comparison
of
the
word
recognition
list
of
Success
For
All
Program
indicates
that
fourteen
of
the
twenty
subjects
studied
made
meaningful
gains.
Subjects
1,
4,
and
14
neither
made
gains
nor
regressed.
They
remained
on
the
same levels
for
both
assessments.
Subjects
12
and
16
regressed
to
a
lower
level
at
sixteenth
week
than
they
were
at
the
eighth
week. Subject
9
was unable to
decode
words.
While
reviewing
the
data
from
the
charts
subjects
9,
12,
and
16
did
not
do
their
homework
on
a
regular
basis.
Comparing
the
Success
For
All
word
recognition
assessment
with
the
Jerry
John's
Basic Reading
Inventory
results
were
as
follow:
nine
of
the
twenty
subjects
assessed
read
at
higher
levels
of
the
Jerry
John's
Basic
Reading
Inventory
than
the
Success
For
All
assessment.
Ten
subjects
read
in
very
similar levels
or
the
exact
same
levels
in
both
assessments.
Subject
9's
level
could
not
be
found
on
the
Success
For
All
list
but
he
read
the
Jerry
John's
Basic
Reading;
Inventory
at
the
Pre-primer
level.
Table
1
Results
of
Success
For
All
Word
Lists
(N-20)
SUBJECT
8
WEEKS
16
WEEKS
51
FF1
jFF
S2
FF
1
PP
3
S3
FF
1
FF
3
S4
FF
1
PF
1
S
5
FF2
iST
READER
S6
READINESS
FF
1
S
7
1ST
READER
2ND LEVEL
S
8
FF2
iST
READER
S9
NOTFOUND
NOTFOUND
SlO
FF
1
PRIMER
Sl
FFPP1
FF
3
S12
FF
1
READINESS
S13
FF
3
2ND
LEVEL
S
14
FF
2
IFF2
S
15 FF
1
PFF2
S16
]FF1
IREADINESS
S
17
JFF1
IiST
READER
S
18
IPPi
FFP3
S19
~READINESS
FF 1
S
20
j
F
1
PRIMER
Reading Levels
Readiness
Pre-Primer
3
Pre-Primer
1
Primer
Pre-Primer
2
First
Reader
Beginning
Second
Reader
23
Table
2
Concurrent
Scores
of
Success
For
All
and Jerry
John'
s
Basic
Reading
Inventory
SUBJECT
SFA
JERRY
JOHNS
S
1
Pre-primer
1
Primer
S
2
Pre-primer
3
PrFe-pri
mer
S 3
Pre-primer
3
Primer
5
4
Pre-primer
1
Pre-primer
S
5
JFirst
Reader
1st
Grade
S
6
IPre-primer
1
Pre-primer
S 7
B.
2nd
Reader
2nd
Grade
5
8
First
Reader
1st
Grade
5
9
Not Found
Pre-primer
5
10
Primer
1st
Grade
8
11
Pre-Primer
3
lst
Grade
8
12
Readiness
Pre-primer
8
13
B.
2nd
Reader
2nd
Grade
8
14
Pre-Primer
2
lst
Grade
8
15
Pre-primer
2
1st
Grade
8
16
Readiness
Pre-primer
8
17
First
Reader
1st
Grade
8
18
Pre-primer
3
1st
Grade
819
Pre-primer
1
Pre-primer
8
20
Primer
1st
Grade
Readingc
Levels
Readiness
Pre-Primer
1
Pre-Primer
2
Pre-Primer
3
Primer
First
Reader
Beginning
Second
Reader
Reading
Comprehension
Question
2:
Will
first
grade
children
that
receive
reading
instruction using
the
Success
For
All
model
make
meaningful
gains
in
reading
comprehension?
Reading
comprehension
was measured
by
checking
to
see
if
the
subjects
had
an
understanding
of
the
basic
story
structure.
They had
to
recall
major
story
details,
make
predictions
with
prompts
from
the
teacher
and
seqluence
a
story's
beginning,
middle,
and
ending.
The
scoring
key
used
was
E-Emergent
(Beginning),
D-Developing
(Progressing),
and
S-Secure
(Confident).
24
A
comparison
was
made
of
levels
from the
eighth
week
to
the
sixteenth
week.
Seven
out
twenty
subjects
progressed
from
the
Developing
level
to
the
Secure
level.
Nine
subjects remained
at
the
same
level.
Subject
11
regressed
from
the
Secure
to
Developing
level.
Subjects
9,
14,
and
19
regressed
from
Developing
to
Emerging
Level.
The
regression
of
reading comprehension
could
be
due
to
the
level
difficulty
of
the
reading
material
or
the
grading
discretion
of
the teacher.
Table
3
Results
of
Success
For
All
Reading
Comprehension
(N-20)
SUBJECT
8
WEEKS
16
WEEKS
Si
0
0
S2
0
D
33
0
0
S4
0
D
S5
D
S
S6
D
[S
S7
0
[S
38
0
[S
S9
0
E
SbO
D
S
Sib
S
D
S12
0
D
S13
D
S
Si4
D
__ __
_
S18
D
__ __
_
S19
0
__ __
_
S
20
0
__ __
_
Homzework
Question
3:
What
is
the
rate
of
compliance
with the
twenty
minute
per
day
reading
requirement?
a.
Is
there
a
differential
relationship
between
compliance
with
at
home reading
and
word
decoding?
25
The
subjects
were
required
to
read twenty
minutes
orally
per
night
on
a
regular
basis
.
A
specific
number
of
how
many
homework
completions
were
done
in
the
eighty-
seven
days
was
not
given.
Subjects
were
assigned
a
(Y)
for
"yes"~
or
(N)
for
"No"
if
they
did
or
did
not
do
their
homework
completions
on
a
regular
basis.
Sixteen
of
the
subjects
received
"yes"
for
homework
completions
and
four
subjects
(#9,
#10,
#12
and
#16)
received
N's
for
homework.
Table
4
Rates
of
Homework
Completion (N-20)
SUBJECT
HOMEWORK
FAMILY
SUPPORT
SI
YES
S2
YES
S3
YES
S4
YES
S5
YES
S6
YES
_ _ _ _ _
_
S7-
YES
S8
YES
S9
NO
ES-B
SIO
NO
Sil
YES
S12
NO
S13
YES
S14
YES
IFS-B
S15
YES
5
16
NO
ES-B
S17
YES
S18
YES
______
S19
YES
ES-B
S
20
IYES
_ _ _ _ _
_
Famnily
Support
Question
4:
What
is
the
freqluency
of
involvement
with
the
family
support
team?
The
Family
Support
Team
was
involved
with
four
of
the
subjects. Subject
9
was
referred to
the
team
for
(FS-O) communication
problems
and
incompletion
of
assigned
work.
Subject
9
was
given
an
action
plan
that
involved
a
speech-language
assessment,
physical
from
the
nurse,
and
the
subject
had
to use
his
agenda
book
for communication
26
between
the
teacher
and
parent.
This
subject
was
also
involved
in
the
Reading
Recovery
program,
a
Buddy
System,
and
group
counseling.
This
plan
was
put
into
progress
approximately
five
months
ago.
The
subject
was
referred
to
the
Child
Study
Team
when
Progress
was
not
shown.
Subject
9
is
classified
and
is
presently
placed
in
a
Learning/Language
Disabilities
program.
Subject
16
was
referred
for
(FS-B)
behavior.
The
subject
received
counseling
within
the
classroom
from
the
guidance
counselor
at
this
time.
Subject
19
was
referred
to
the
team
for
(FS-B)
motivation
and
behavior.
Subject
19
has
been
involved
with
the
team
all
school
year.
The
subject
receives
group
counseling
and
one-on-one
counseling
for
thirty
minutes
per
week.
This
subject's
behavior
and
academic
work
is
regressing,
therefore
the
subject
has
been
referred
to
the
Child
Study
Team
at
this
time.
Attendance
Question
5:
What
are
the
attendance
rates
for
each
child
in
this
study?
The
attendance
rate
for
each
subject
is
calculated
on
the
attendance
chart.
Fourteen
subjects
were
present
95%
of
the
time
or
better.
The
other
six
subjects'
attendance
rates
fell
between
94%
to
89%.
Subject
12's
rate
of
attendance
rate
was
89%,
this
seemed
to
affect
his
overall
performance
in
word
recognition
and
homework
completion.
Subject
12
regressed
in
word
recognition
from
Pre-primer
level
to
Readiness
level
and
received
an
"N"~
for
not
bringing
in
homework
on
a
regular
basis.
Table
5
ATTENDANCE
RATES
(N=
20)
SUBJECTS
POSSIBLE
DAYSPRESENT
DAYS
PRESENT
PERCENT
RATE
51
87
84
97%
S2
87
83
95%
S3
87
87 100%
S4
87
84
97%
S5
87
85
97%
S6
87
87 100%
S7
87
86
99%
S8
87 86
99%
S9
87
82
94%
SIO
87
80
92%
Sli
87 82
94%
S12
87
77
89%
S13
87
85
97%
S
14
87 87
100%
SiS
87
78
90%
S16
87
86
99%
S17
87
86
99%
S
18
87
79
91%
S19
87
82
94%
S
20
87
84
97%
Summary
MLeaningftl
gains
were
made
by 80%
of
the
subjects
in
word
recognition
and
reading
comprehension.
The
subjects
who
had
the
best
attendance
seem
to
show
the
most
progress. Those
subjects
who
did
not
do
homework
completion
on
a
daily
basis
regressed
in
both
reading
recognition
and
reading comprehension.
Homework
completion
is
a
definite
variable
of
whether
the
subjects
progressed
or
showed
regression
in
both
areas.
Attendance
was
another
variable
that
effected
progress.
Subjects
who
had attendance
problems
did
not
show
meaningful gains
like
other
subjects
in
the
study.
The
Family
Support
Team recommended
several
interventions
to
subjects
before
referring
them
to
the
Child
Study
Team.
28
CHAPTER
V
Summary
This
study
measured
the
gains
made
by
students
in
the
Success
for
All
program
in
the
areas,
of
word
recognition
and
reading
comprehension.
Also,
the
study
examined
whether
the
variables
of
attendance
rates,
student
behavior,
homework
completion
and
family
support
effected
the
results
of
those
gains.
The
students participated
in
the
Success for
All
reading
program
for
sixteen
weeks.
Every
eight
weeks
they
were
given
an
assessment
to
measure
progress or regression
in
word
recognition
and
reading
comprehension.
The
students reading
groups were
adjusted
accordingly.
At
the
end
of
the
sixteen
weeks
they
were administered
the
Jerry
John'
s
Basic
Reading
Inventory
word
list
to
find
their
independent
levels.
An
analysis
of
the
data
collected
revealed
that
80%
of
the
students
made meaningful gains
in
word
recognition
and
reading
comprehension.
Students who
completed
their
homework
and
attended
regularly
showed
the
most progress.
Those
students who
exhibited
attendance
problems
and
did
not
do
homework
completion
did
not
show
meaningful
gains
in either
area.
Conclusion
At
this
point
in
the
implementation
of
the
Success
for
All
program
the
overwhelming
majority
of
the
children have
showed
meaningful
gains
in
the
seqluence
of
early
reading
skills
development.
Also,
students who
had
excellent
attendance were
able
to
participate
in
the
program
ninety
minutes
per
day.
The
consistency
of
having
reading
instruction
for
such
a
period
of
time shows
satisfactory
progress
can
be
made
in
several
weeks.
Homework
completion
was
an
important
element
of
the
program
and
was
necessary
in
the
success
of
the
students.
Those
students who
completed their
homework
daily
were
successftil
in
progressing
to
higher
levels
in
reading
comprehension
and
word
recognition.
Discussion
and
Implication
The
Success
for
All
program
was
found
to
be
effective
for
the
majority
of
the
first
graders
in
this
school
setting.
The
key
to
success depends
on
the
availability
of
the
student,
the support
at
home
from
the
adult
in
charge,
and
the
expertise
of
the teacher
to
teach
the
material
in
a
timely manner.
If
the
program
is
implemented
early
in
first
grade
the
percentage
of
students
who
normally
fall
behind
and
are
referred
frequently
to
the
Child
Study
Team
should
decrease
in
number.
There
should
be
more
students
attaining
the
normal
sequence
of
reading
skill
acquisition.
Implications
for
Further
Study
This
study
could
be
implemented
over
a
longer
period
of
time
in
order
to
gain
longitudinal
data
of
program
effectiveness.
A
study
of
two
groups
could
be
completed
in
order
to
compare
students
using
Success
For
All
and
another
reading
program.
The
components
of
reading
comprehension
could
be
measured
using
the
Jerry
John's
Basic
Reading;
Inventory
including
independent
comprehension
level.
It would
be
helpful
to
have
several
plans
to
assist
those
students
who
do
not
come
to
school
regularly
with the
present
plan.
A homework
completion
club
may be
necessary
to
assist
those
who
do
not
complete
homework
on
a
daily
basis
to
see
its
effectiveness
for
at least
a
frill
marking
period.
Also,
an
extensive
longitudinal
study
could
be
completed
to
see
how
effective
this
reading
program
is
by
assessing
students
who
have
been
in
the
program
up
to
fifth
grade
to
see
if
they
are
still
showing
progress.
Overall,
the
initial
results
obtained
in
this
study
indicates
the
Success
for
All
program
has
lived
up
to
its'
promise
of
increasing
the
reading
achievement
of
disadvantaged
students.
REFERENCES
Education
Law
Center, Inc.,
Newark,
N.J.
(1996)
"Wiping
Out
Disadvantages:
The
Program
and
Services
Needed
to
Supplement
Regular
Education
for
Poor
School
Children.
1-37.
Fass-Holmes,
Barry
(1997).
Literature
Review
on
the
Success
for
All
Program.
San
Diego
City
Schools:
Assessment,
Research,
and
Reporting
Team.
718,
1-9.
Madden,
Slavin,
Karweit,
Dolan
and
Wasik.
(1993).
Success
for
All;
Longitudinal
Effects
of
a
Restructuring
Program
for
Inner-City
Elementary
Schools.
American
Educational
Research,
30,
123-147.
Nunnery,
John.,
et.
al.
(1997).
Effects
of
Full
and
Partial
Implementations
of
Success
for
All
on
Student
Reading
Achievement
in
English
and
Spanish.
American
Education
Research
Association.
143,
1-31.
Ross,
Steven.,
Smith,
Lana
J.,
Casey,
Jason
P.
(1998)
"Bridging
the
Gap:
The
Effects
of
the
Success
for
All
Program
on
Elementary
School
Reading
Achievement
as
a
Function
of
Student
Ethnicity
and
Ability
Level.
School
Effectiveness
and
School
Improvement.
10,129-150
Slavin,
Robert.,
et~al.
(1994) "Whenever
and
Wherever
We
Choose:
The
Replication
of
Success
for
All".
Phi
Delta
Kapppen.
75,
1-27.
Slavin,
R.E. (1990).
On
Success
for
All:
Defining
"success"
and defining
"all".
Remedial
and
Special
Education.
11i,
60-61.
Slavin,
Robert
E.,
Madden,
Nancy
A.,
(1999).
Roots
and
Wings:
Effects
of
Whole-School
Reform
on
Student
Achievement.
Center
for
Research
on
the
Education
of
Students
Placed
At
Risk.
30,
1-6
8.
Slavin,
Robert.,
Madden,
Nancy.,
Dolan,
Lawerence.,
Wasik,
Barbara.,
Ross,
Steven.,
Smith,
Lana.
(1994).
"Whenever
and
Wherever
We
Choose:
The
Replication
of
"Success
for
All".
Phi
Delta
Kappen.
63
9-647.
Slavin,
Madden,
Karweit,
Livermon,
and
Dolan.
(1990).
Success
for
All:
First Year
Outcomes
of
a
Comprehensive
Plan
for
Reforming
Urban
Education.
American
Educational
Research
Journal.
27,
255-278.
Slavin,
R.
E.,
Karweit,
Nancy.,
Madden,
Nancy.
(1989).
Effective
Programs
for
Student
At
Risk.
Allyn and
Bacon.
New
York,
N.Y.
Smith,
Ross.
and
Casey.
(1994)
Using
"Success
for
All"
to
Restructure
Elementary
Schools:
A
Tale
of
Four
Cities.
American
Educational
Research
Association.
25.
30-35.
Townsend,
Tony.
(1997)
Restructuring
and
Qualility
:
Issues
for
Tomorrow's
Schools.
Routledge,
New
York,
N.Y.
Weiler,
Jeanne.
(1998)
Success
for
All:
A
Summary
of
Evaluations.
ERIC
Clearinghouse
on
Urgan
Education.
139,
1-6.
BIOGRAPHICAL
DATA
Name:
Aiphefia
L.
Blount
Date
&
Place
of
Birth:
May,
1959
Miliville,
N.J.
College:
Cumberland
County
College
Vineland,
New
Jersey
Associate
of
Science,
1979
Glassboro
State
College
Glassboro,
New
Jersey
Bachelor
of
Arts
in
Elementary
Education,
1986
Graduate:
Rowan
University
Master
of
Arts
in
Learning
Disabilities
2002
Present
Position:
Learning
Disabilities
Teacher
Consultant
Child
Study
Team
I
Bridgeton
Public
Schools
Bridgeton,
N.J.
34
