A Systematic Review of Studies Addressing the Implementation of the Evidence-Based Whole-School Reform “Success for All”

Purpose: The effectiveness of the 14-component evidence-based whole-school reform Success for All (SfA) has been well established, but research on its implementation is limited although fidelity of implementation is vital for the effectiveness of such a program. This review sheds light on this issue. Design/Approach/Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to acquire an overview of qualitative and quantitative aspects of SfA’s implementation in primary schools as well as to identify stimulating and hindering factors when implementing SfA. Sixteen studies, conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom, were included in this review. Findings: Results indicate that 48% of schools implemented SfA at the minimal level, 45% at a more advanced level, and 7% at an insufficient level. Information on the implementation for each of the 14 components was rare. Most of the factors that affected implementation were hindering factors rather than stimulating ones. For successful implementation of this evidence-based program, the crucial factors appear to be leadership, fulfilling organizational conditions, staff development, and relentlessly implementing all 14 components together. Originality/Value: This review shows that for an evidence-based program to be effective, implementation fidelity is a very serious concern, which needs to be addressed systematically.

Scaling Up Research-based Educational Practices

Scaling up innovations whose use has resulted in improvements in teaching and learning has been a growing field in educational research and practice in recent decades. Interest has two main spurs: the evident gap between educational research findings and their take-up and use to improve teaching and learning, and the persistent challenges of ensuring high levels of educational achievement for all. Scaling up was originally conceived in terms of numbers: the spread of proven practice from the original sites to many schools, or across a whole system. Scaling up innovation began with testing research-based designs and evaluating their efficacy, followed by implementation. Successful implementation of research-based practices meant attention to fidelity, and thus to constructing materials, guides, and processes, and to providing support from the original designers. In turn this meant more attention to understanding variations in how well schools implemented an intervention: was it due to school-level factors, district- or system-level factors, the nature of the student population, or factors associated with the intervention? There are some enduring programs or interventions that fit this model, some based on whole-school reform, some on particular curriculum areas or approaches. Other interventions have been less successful. More recently, scaling-up work has also included research-educator-administrator partnerships and networks, using improvement design cycles, learning from variability, and expecting that innovations will evolve and be adapted in different contexts, rather than replicated. There has also been increasing attention paid in this branch of scaling-up work to building in ongoing attention to evidence of efficacy, and plan-do-study-review cycles into professional identity and practice, in order to strengthen teacher, network, and school and administration capability, as well as agency, ownership, and community. Most countries have evaluations of innovative programs or approaches showing gains for teaching and learning that failed to take hold or endure. Often this is because of structural reasons beyond the agency or control of those involved, due to changes of government or system decision makers. Other key obstacles are evident in the lack of change in the constraints around how teachers and schools can work. These constraints include competing calls on time, rigid accountabilities and ways resources can be used, expectations of immediate large gains, and mismatched measures of student achievement. There are too many such evaluations for this bibliography to cover. However, key articles that discuss these core challenges to scaling up well-founded research-based practices are included.

Relationships Between Instructional Coaches’ Time Use and District- and School-Level Policies and Expectations

Whole-school reform models frequently include instructional coaching, yet instructional coaches typically spend relatively little time working with teachers on instruction. Using survey and interview data from district leaders, school administrators, and instructional coaches in one urban school district, this mixed-methods analysis asks how district- and school-level policies and expectations were related to coaches’ time use. Coaches accountable to district leaders spent more time working with teachers on instruction than their school-hired counterparts, who devoted more time to administrative and teaching duties. However, all coaches had limited opportunities to work with teachers in ongoing ways. Also, as district accountability systems became more robust, all coaches engaged in more administrative work. Implications for school and district policy are discussed.