By Debra Viadero
Success for All, one of the most highly praised models for turning around
entire schools, got
mediocre grades in an independent evaluation of the program conducted by
Miami-Dade County
school officials.
The nation's fourth-largest district began formally using the program in
48 schools four years ago in
an effort to improve reading in its worst-performing elementary schools.
The program, developed by
Johns Hopkins University researchers Robert E. Slavin and Nancy A. Madden,
is built around the
principle that every student should read skillfully by the end of 3rd grade.
Trying to gauge whether the program was working, district researchers examined
changes in reading
scores from 1996 to 1997 in 18 schools. Of that group, nine schools were
using Success for
All--three of them in combination with a technology program devised by
Computer Curriculum
Corp. and three in tandem with a computer program marketed by Jostens Corp.
The remaining nine schools, all of which had similar proportions of poor
students and non-native
English-speakers, were using a variety of methods for teaching reading,
including another national
program called SRA /Reading Mastery.
By the spring of 1997, the researchers found, the reading scores of students
in the Success for All
schools were no higher than those for the comparison schools. Likewise,
students learning to speak
English in those schools made no more learning gains than their counterparts
elsewhere.
"I don't think it's necessarily an indictment of Success for All," said
Joe H. Mathos, the district's
deputy superintendent for instruction. "It's something we need to keep
a close look at."
Implementation Questioned
The 347,000-student Miami-Dade district adopted Success for All as part
of Operation Safety Net, an
effort launched by its previous superintendent, Octavio Visiedo. In its
peak year of operation, the
program cost the district $14.5 million--a price tag that also included
equipment for the
computer-based programs implemented at the same time. Mr. Mathos said the
district would continue
to monitor Success for All and other reading efforts for at least two more
years.
The less-than-stellar results were no surprise to the program's developer.
"We've had indications
that we were not getting the results that we should have from the program
there, and we know pretty
well why," Mr. Slavin said last week.
One reason, he said, is that the program was poorly implemented at many
Miami-Dade schools.
Some schools, for example, never received enough tutors. In others, the
faculty did not get a chance
to vote on whether they wanted the program until it was well under way.
The program's design calls
for 80 percent of the faculty to buy in to it before it is adopted.
Success for All, which is now being used in more than 1,100 schools nationwide,
was chosen by
Miami-Dade officials because of its successful track record.
But the program's success has also begun to attract critics, who note that
most of the studies on it
were done by Mr. Slavin and his colleagues. Two recent, independent analyses
have shown slightly
more mixed results.
But Success for All is also succeeding in other urban districts that, like
Miami, are also trying to
implement it on a large scale. Program students in Memphis, Tenn., for
example, are outperforming
their counterparts in demographically matched schools.