The unsubstantiated 'success' of success for all: Implications for policy, practice, and the soul of our profession

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 81, Issue 8, 2000, Pages 596-600

  Pogrow, Stanley ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) Program   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041111085     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Olatokunbo S. Fashola and Robert E. Slavin, "Schoolwide Reform Models: What Works?," Phi Delta Kappan, January 1998, pp. 370-79.
2. See also Robert E. Slavin, "IBM's Writing to Read: Is It Right for Reading?," Phi Delta Kappan, November 1990, pp. 214-16.
3. Olatokunbo S. Fashola and Robert E. Slavin, "Promising Programs for Elementary and Middle Schools: Evidence of Effectiveness and Replicability," Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, vol. 2, 1997, pp. 251-307.
4. To follow the debate between Robert Slavin and me with regard to how to evaluate program effectiveness and whether research supports the use of Success for All, see Stanley Pogrow, "What Is an Exemplary Program and Why Should Anyone Care? A Reaction to Slavin and Klein," Educational Researcher, October 1998, pp. 22-28;
5. Robert E. Slavin, "Rejoinder: Yes, Control Groups Are Essential in Program Evaluation: A Response to Pogrow," Educational Researcher, April 1999, pp. 36-38;
6. Stanley Pogrow, "Rejoinder: Consistent Large Gains and High Levels of Achievement Are the Best Measures of Program Quality: Pogrow Responds to Slavin," Educational Researcher, November 1999, pp. 24-26, 31.
7. Herbert J. Walberg and Rebecca C. Greenberg, "The Diogenes Factor," Phi Delta Kappan, October 1999, pp. 127-28;
8. Bruce R. Joyce, "The Great Literacy Problem and Success for All," Phi Delta Kappan, October 1999, pp. 129-31;
9. Herbert J. Walberg and Rebecca C. Greenberg, "Educators Should Require Evidence," Phi Delta Kappan, October 1999, pp. 132-35.
10. The two major independent evaluations referred to are Richard L. Venezky, "An Alternative Perspective on Success for All," in Kenneth Wong, ed., Advances in Educational Policy, vol. 4 (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, forthcoming), chap. 8;
11. Elizabeth M. Jones, Gary D. Gottfredson, and Denise C. Gottfredson, "Success for Some: An Evaluation of the Success for All Program," Evaluation Review, vol. 21, 1997, pp. 643-70.
12. Jennifer A. King, "Meeting the Educational Needs of At-Risk Students: A Cost Analysis of Three Models," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 16, 1994, pp. 1-19.
13. Venezky, "Meeting the Educational Needs of At-Risk Students: A Cost Analysis of Three Models," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 16, 1994, pp. 1-19. op. cit.
14. Venezky, "Meeting the Educational Needs of At-Risk Students: A Cost Analysis of Three Models," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 16, 1994, pp. 1-19. Ibid. There were also other obvious sources of bias in the comparisons favoring Success for All schools. For example, SFA selected the tests used in the study, which makes it likely that the SFA curriculum was geared toward those tests; the tests used were primarily individually administered tests that tell little about how students will do on real-world. group-administered tests; and students in SFA schools apparently spent substantially more time reading, a factor that might account for improved scores regardless of the program.
15. Jones, Gottfredson, and Gottfredson, "Meeting the Educational Needs of At-Risk Students: A Cost Analysis of Three Models," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, vol. 16, 1994, pp. 1-19. op. cit.
16. The study being critiqued was L. J. Smith, S. M. Ross, and J. Casey, "Multi-site Comparison of the Effects of 'Success for All' on Reading Achievement," unpublished paper, University of Memphis, n.d.
17. Slavin, "Multi-site Comparison of the Effects of 'Success for All' on Reading Achievement" op. cit.
18. See Robert E. Slavin et al., Every Child, Every School: Success for All (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1996), p. 196.
19. Sam Stringfield et al., Urban and Suburban/ Rural Strategies for Educationally Disadvantaged Students: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997).
20. Rebecca Herman et al., An Educator's Guide to Schoolwide Reform (Washington, D.C.: American Institute for Research, 1999).
21. The discussion of SFA in the summary section of Herman's report made no mention of the concerns raised about the data for the past year by a number of researchers, the extent of the supposed gains, or the grade levels at which the gains occurred. Nor was there any consideration of what was going on in the control schools or whether they were placed at a disadvantage.
22. For a more complete summary of evidence (or lack of same), see Pogrow, "What Is an Exemplary Program?"
23. For a more detailed description of research-based general strategies for increasing learning and of the use of targeted strategies, readers may contact me by e-mail.
24. My experience suggests that the mechanisms for accelerating learning in the early grades (K-3) and in the middle years (4-8) are very different and require nearly opposite policies because the primary impediments to learning are very different. Furthermore, I believe that we would find that powerful interventions in grades 4-8 have much more impact on fifth- and sixth-grade reading scores than does constantly expanding on the K-3 approach. Readers interested in recent summaries of my conclusions may contact me by e-mail or see Stanley Pogrow, "Overcoming the Cognitive Wall: Accelerating the Learning of Title I Students After the Third Grade," in Gary Orfield, ed., Hard Work for Good Schools: Facts Not Fads in Title I Reform (Cambridge, Mass.: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, 1999), pp. 159-74;
25. Stanley Pogrow, idem, "The Systematic Use of Powerful Learning Environments to Develop the Intellect of Educationally Disadvantaged Students," in Charles Reigeluth, ed., New Instructional Design Theories and Models (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1999), pp. 319-40.
26. William M. Bulkeley, "Now Johnny Can Read If Teacher Just Keeps Doing What He's Told," Wall Street Journal, 19 July 1999, pp. A-1, A-9.
27. Jay R. Campbell, Kristin E. Voelkl, and Patricia L. Donahue, NAEP 1996 Trends in Academic Progress: Addendum (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, 1998).
28. Stanley Pogrow, "Accelerating the Learning of Title I Students After the Third Grade: Avoiding the Cognitive Wall," paper prepared for the Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, 1999. Readers may obtain a copy of this paper by contacting me by e-mail.