The School Success Program: Improving
Maltreated Children’s Academic and
School-related Outcomes
Christopher A. Mallett
Many victims of chudhood maltreatment expedence difficulties in school and with academic performance. This article reviews the evidence on the connection between childhood maltreatment and school performance and presents an evaluation of a unique
program established by Children’s Services in Lorain County, Ohio. Since 2001, the
School Success Program, in collaboration with 18 Ohio public school distdcts, has provided individual tutodng and mentodng by certified teachers to 615 maltreated children
and youths, working closely with the whole family in an in-home setting. Most children
and youths in the program have progressed to their appropdate grade level whue improving overall grade point averages from 1.74 to 2.56 in core academic subjects. Program participants have shown one-year improvements that are significant when compared with
those of their nonmaltreated peers: Basic reading and comprehension skills improved 58
percent; math reasoning and comprehension skills improved 50 percent; basic wddng
skills improved 48 percent; and overall academic skills improved 51 percent. These
improvements were seen across both gender and race, with almost equal gains made by
minodty and nonminodty children and youths, but particularly by boys. Implications for
school social work practice are set forth in light of these promising results.
KEY WORDS; children; maltreatment; mentor; school; tutor
A
cademic success is vital for children and
youths to transition without difficulty to
adolescence and young
adulthood
(Buehler, Orme, Post, & Pattenon, 2000). This
transition is markedly more difficult for many
children who have been vicdms of maltreatment.
Abuse and neglect may affect children’s abüities to
learn, decrease cognitive and language capacities
(SmithgaU, Gladden, Howard, Goerge, &
Courtney, 2004), increase dsk for special education disabüities, decrease standardized tesdng outcomes (Egeland, 1997), and decrease overall
academic performance (Leiter, 2007). It is important to develop interventions and programs targeted specifically to this population that has
expedenced abuse, neglect, or both to provide
these children and youths the opportunity to
achieve school-related success. These interventive
efforts may have long-lasting and important future
impacts (Veltman &L Browne, 2001).
This investigation provides descdptive and longitudinal findings for a program initiated in 2001
in one Ohio county’s children’s services agency
doi: 10.1093/cs/cdr004
O 2012 National Association of Social Workers
that is trying to address and improve the academic
and school-related outcomes for maltreated children
and youths. Finding evidence of what may work
to address this child welfare, school social work,
and public educadon situadon is important not
only because academic difficuldes are a common
problem for maltreatment victims, but also because
few programs have been designed specifically to
target this problem (Tolan, Henry, Schoeny, &
Bass, 2007; Wilson, Gottfi:edson, & Najaka, 2001).
BACKGROUND
Child Maltreatment
Child maltreatment includes neglect and physical,
sexual, and psychological abuse. Child protective
services agencies nationwide confirmed 903,000
children as maltreated in 2007 (approximately 1.2
percent of all children and youths in the United
States), an increase of 10 percent since 1990. A
majodty of these confirmed cases were for neglect
(63 percent), with fewer cases of physical abuse
(17 percent), psychological abuse (11.5 percent),
and sexual abuse (9.5 percent) (U.S. Department
13
of Health and Human Services, 2009a).
Maltreatment affects many of these children and
youths in harmful ways, increasing risk for lower
school achievement, juvenile delinquency, substance abuse, mental health problems, and other
young adult difficulties (Hawkins et al., 2000;
TueU, 2002; U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2003; Wiggins, Fenichel, &
Mann, 2007).
Impact of Maltreatment on School
Performance
There is strong evidence, though significant study
methodology variance, that maltreated children and
youths have poorer academic outcomes (Leiter,
2007). Most researchers have looked at maltreatment as a distinct variable, whereas fewer researchers have investigated the impact that a specific type
of abuse or neglect had on school performance.
Generalization of this research knowledge is possible because many of the recent studies used
random samples, many designs were prospective
(though earlier designs were primarily crosssectional, identifying maltreatment and educational
outcomes retrospectively), and the designs controlled for many other possible explanatory impacts
on school performance. Known influences on
school performance that were controlled for
included poverty, family characteristics, social and
peer influences, and neighborhoods. Use of comparison groups has also been consistent; studies
compared a maltreated cohort with a nonmaltreated but demographicaUy similar cohort (Boden,
Horwood, & Fergusson, 2007; Staudt, 2001). A
review of the studied outcomes found a focus on
intellectual development (75 percent of studies),
language development (86 percent of studies), and
academic achievement (91 percent of studies), with
74 percent of studies using comparison group
designs (Veltman & Browne, 2001). Recent studies
have continued these methodology trends (Leiter,
2007).
Primary School. Maltreated children are more
likely to have poorer grades and be held back a
grade level (Brown, 2000; Eckenrode, Laird, &
Doris, 1993; Kelley, Thomberry, & Smith, 1997;
Shonk & Cicchetti, 2001), particularly in kindergarten and fint grade (Rowe & Eckenrode, 1999).
This result was also found for children in the
school year after they entered out-of-home care
(SmithgaU et al., 2004). It is not clear how child
14
welfare agenc)’ and family involvement affect
these school delays and being held back, though
frequent moves and changes can create or exacerbate educational difficulties (Ayassee, 1995;
National Youth in Care Network, 2001). Many
of these maltreated children also experienced
poverty, an identified influence on poor academic
outcomes. However, even when poverty was
controlled for, maltreatment was found to have a
harmful impact on scholastic performance
(Bamett, Vondra, & Shonk, 1996).
Cognitive and language delays, apparent at the
school enrollment age, are greater for maltreated
children than for nonmaltreated children from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds and much
greater than for nonmaltreated children from
higher socioeconomic backgrounds (Wiggins
et al., 2007). On average, maltreated students
enter school one-half year behind on academic
performance (SmithgaU et al., 2004) and have
poorer academic performance and adaptive functioning at ages six and eight than nonmaltreated
children (Kurtz, Gaudin, Wodanki, & Howing,
1993; Zolotor et al., 1999). These students also
have higher absenteeism rates than nonmaltreated
children (Lansford et al., 2002; Leiter, 2007; Leiter
& Johnsen, 1997).
It is less clear if specific types of abuse or
neglect have differential impacts. Physical abuse has
been found both to negatively affect academic
achievement, grades specifically (Hoffinan-Plotkin
& Twentyman, 1984; Leiter & Johnsen, 1994),
and to have no impact on academic achievement
(Eckenrode et al., 1993; Kurtz et al., 1993). The
impact of sexual abuse on academic outcomes is
unclear to date, though reviews are limited, with
contradictory findings on the effect of abuse on
intellectual abilities (Veltman & Browne, 2001).
However, the impact of neglect on children’s academic outcomes has consistently been found to
be harmful, particularly to grades and overall academic skills (Alien & Oliver, 1982; Eckenrode
et al., 1993).
It should be noted, however, that many children experience more than one type and one occurrence of maltreatment, and the cumulative and
interactive effects of these multiple experiences
comphcate research findings (Margolin & Gordis,
2000; U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2009a). Some researchers have identified
that the severity of abuse has a negative impact on
Children & Schools
VOLUME 34, NUMBER I
JANUARY 2012
verbal abilities and verbal IQ (Perez & Widom,
1994). The more serious or pervasive the maltreatment, the greater the risk for the child’s
decline in school performance, including absenteeism and grades. Maltreatment at an earher age
may lead to behavior problems and increased
placement into special education programs (Leiter
& Johnsen, 1997).
Compared with nonmaltreated children, maltreated children are less inclined to engage in independent activities, require more external
motivations, and show less academic engagement
(Koenig, Cicchetti, 8i Rogosch, 2000; Shonk &
Cicchetti, 2001; Toth & Cichetti, 1996). They
also show less effective work habits and disciphne
and receive lower math and Enghsh grades during
elementary school (Rowe & Eckenrode, 1999).
However, improving academic engagement and
increased work with the maltreated children
improves school outcomes (Gray, Nielsen, Wood,
Andresen, & Dolce, 2000; Shonk & Cicchetti,
2001).
Maltreated children, and particularly children in
foster care, are more hkely than their nonmaltreated peers to be diagnosed with a special education disability during earlier school yean—
upward of 35 percent are diagnosed with such a
disabihty (Children’s Law Center, 2003;
Frothingham et al., 2000; Goerge, VanVoorhis,
Grant, Casey, & Robinson, 1992; Leiter &
Johnsen, 1997; Scarborough & McCrae, 2010).
Children in foster care also have poorer academic
achievement than their peen (Burley & Halpem,
2001; Fanshel & Shin, 1978). In one review, these
children were 96 percent below their grade level
in reading comprehension and 95 percent below
in mathematics (Hyames & de Hames, 2000).
Others have also found this impact to be strong,
with children in foster care half as hkely to
perform at grade level (Conger & Rebeck, 2001)
and upward of 50 percent held back one grade
(Children’s Law Center, 2003). Children in
out-of-home care do not seem to fall further
behind in reading achievement while in care, but
the achievement gap remains (Smithgall et al.,
2004).
Secondary School. Maltreatment has been
found to affect older students’ academic and
related outcomes (Courtney, Roderick, Smithgall,
Gladden, & Nagaoka, 2004; Wodarski, Kurtz,
Gaudin, & Howing, 1990). More intense or long-
MALLETT / The School Success Program
lasting maltreatment was found to be associated
with low grade point averages and problems completing homework assignments, though the
impact was moderated by cognitive deficits (Slade
& Wissow, 2007). Courtney, Terao, and Bost
(2004) reported that older maltreated adolescents
were three or four grade levels behind in reading
abilities and that, compared with their
nonmaltreated peers, significantly more had
repeated at least one grade. In one survey of children in out-of-home care, middle-school youths
were three times more hkely to be identified as in
need of special education services, with almost aU
youths in this study with learning disabilities
scoring below national reading norms (Smithgall
et al., 2004).
Many maltreated youths also scored significantly
lower on standardized and required proficiency
examinations (Egeland, 1997): In Chicago, onefourth of maltreated children scored in the bottom
quartüe on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (Smithgall
et al., 2004); in Ohio, only one-fourth of ninthgrade students in foster care passed the mathematics and science tests, and only one-half passed the
reading proficiency tests (Coleman, 2004); and in
Washington, youths in care scored on average 15
to 20 points lower on the statewide achievement
tests than their nonmaltreated peers (Burley 8c
Halpem, 2001). These poor outcomes are also
found when other countries’ maltreated youth
populations are studied (Colton & Heath, 1994;
Jones, Trudinger, & Crawford, 2004).
Some researchers have found that maltreated
(measured as one variable) students have significantly lower high school graduation rates than
nonmaltreated students (Blome, 1994; Boden
et al., 2007; Buehler et al., 2000; McGloin &
Widom, 2001; Täte, 2000; Thomberry, Ireland, &
Smith, 2001). Children and youths in foster care
are particularly at risk, with 46 percent not completing high school (Children’s Law Center,
2003). When further investigated, neglect was
found to have a strong negative impact on academic achievement and high school graduation
rates, physical abuse a shght impact, and sexual
abuse no impact (Eckenrode et al., 1993; Fang &
Tarui, 2009; Wodanki et al., 1990). However,
physical and sexual abuse have also been found
not to be associated with later high school graduation attainment, after controUing for socioeconomic status (Boden et al., 2007).
15
Intervention Strategies
In-Class Programming. It is important to address
these school performance and academic deficiencies for all children and youths who have experienced maltreatment. Underachievement in the
classroom and placement in remedial classrooms
are associated with school dropout, deviant peer
fHendships, and delinquency (Mears & Aron,
2003; Patterson, DeBaryshe, & Ramsey, 1989).
These potentially harmful outcomes for maltreated children and youths are not inevitable;
some youths succeed with little to no assistance
(Hamilton & Browne, 1998). However, many
maltreated children may benefit firom efforts to
improve their academic performance (Veltman &
Browne, 2001).
Strong evidence shows that school-based teaching and programs help students who are behind in
academic performance or at risk of failing a grade.
One school-based area is the everyday classroom
setting and interactions between teachers and children, with knowledge of how to be effective at
ameliorating these academic risks (National Institute
of Child Health and Human Development Early
Chud Care Research Network, 2003; Pianta,
LaParo, Payne, Cox, & Bradley, 2002). A second
school-based area is interventions designed to help
or address varying risk factors for these students
(Greenberg et al., 2003; Wüson et al., 2001).
Virtually no programs or school-based interventions
tailored to academic problems of maltreated students exist, however.
Mentoring and Tutoring Programs. Significant
evidence shows that both mentoring and tutoring
as stand-alone interventions are effective for many
at-risk children and youths. Mentoring, particularly programs based on the Big Brothers/Big Sisters
model, has been shown to be effective on a wide
range of child and youth difficulties. Program
participants (ages six to 18) show significant improvements compared with noninvolved at-risk
children and youths in academic behavior, attitudes, and performance and in improved relationships with parents and peers (McGill, Mihalic, &
Grotpeter, 1998; Novotney, Mertinko, Lange, &
Baker, 2000). More specifically, in a review of 39
mentoring programs (Tolan et al., 2007), although
most were found to effectively produce positive
outcomes for the children and youths, mentors
with a professional background were more effective than mentors without a professional
16
background. Although it is known that the relationship between a mentor and a chud is most important, the specific processes or program
structures beyond this still need to be identified if
we are to know which programs are more effective and why (Tolan et al., 2007).
Tutoring models and programs range from high
to low in structure and from using volunteer to
paraprofessional to professional tutors (Fashola,
2001). A review of 28 adult, nonprofessional volunteer tutor programs (all studies used a comparison group with a one-month tutoring duration
minimum) for school-age children (kindergarten
through eighth grade) found positive impacts on
reading and language outcomes, specifically
overall reading, oral fluency, letter and word identification, and writing. No significant differences
were found between volunteer tutor type, grade
level, and program focus (Ritter, Denny, Albin,
Bamett, & Blankenship, 2007). Reviews of certified teachers (professional) as stand-alone tutoring
programs are limited in the literature. An early
review of five tutoring programs, including both
professional and nonprofessional tutors, found the
reading improvements for children to be significant, very much justifing the programs costs
(Wasik & Slavin, 1990). A meta-analysis of 29
tutoring programs that included both adult
nonprofessional and adult trained-professional
volunteen also found that these programs were effective at improving reading abilities for elementary school children (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, &
Moody, 2000). More recently, the Reading
Recovery tutoring model was found to be highly
effective in improving participants’ alphabetic
skiUs and general reading achievement outcomes
in five separate studies (two conducted in Ohio).
This model uses certified teachers, takes place
during the school day, and is designed for the
lowest achieving (lowest 20 percent) first-grade
students, with tutoring discontinued when a
student consistently reads at the grade level
average—normally between 12 and 20 weeks (U.
S. Department of Education, 2007a).
Summary of the Literature
In summary, maltreated children and youths have
poorer academic outcomes than do their nonmaltreated peers. Some of these outcomes include
poorer grades, retainment for grade repetition,
cognitive and language delays, poor work habits.
Children & Schools
VOLUME 34, NUMBER I
JANUARY 2012
increased prevalence of special education disabilities, and lower standardized and proficiency test
scoring. In Lorain County, Ohio, these poorer
outcomes for maltreated children and youths were
identified by the children’s services agency. To
address these deficiencies and concerns, Lorain
County Children’s Services initiated and has continued the School Success Program. To evaluate
whether this program is having an impact, this
initial pilot study was completed and reported.
This evaluation asked this question: Does the
School Success Program have a positive impact on
the academic and school-related outcomes of
these maltreated chüdren and youths?
LORAIN COUNTY, OHIO, CHILDREN S SERVICES
SCHOOL SUCCESS PROGRAM
Program Design
The major focus of the School Success Program is
to provide a consistent adult, who is also a certified teacher, to tutor each child, individually and
in his or her home. The match between certified
tutor/mentor and child is based on the educational needs of the child, the tutor’s abilities, and the
personahty styles of both. Often practice wisdom
and the program supervisors’ long history and
work with the famihes are instructive as to
the tutor/mentor type that may work best with a
child or youth. (The program is run by the
county’s children’s service agency, so in
this smaller sized jurisdiction, there is often a wellknown famuy history.) Also, a very large majority
of the tutors/mentors have been with the
program for numerous years, allowing the
program to know and undentand their styles,
strengths, and weaknesses. Matches are monitored
by supervisors to ensure an ongoing best fit. This
best fit model is achieved through the assessment
of the work, relationship building, and outcomes/
progress of the tuton/menton, children, and the
children’s famihes. The tutor/mentor works with
the child, family. Children’s Services School
Success worker, and classroom teachers in a team
environment. Children and tuton/mentors meet
between one and four hours per week (or more if
necessary), depending on the child’s needs, and
focus their individualized educational support
plans on Ohio benchmarks (the standard in aU
Ohio pubhc schools), local pubhc school system
skiUs sets, and other issues that may be impeding
MALLETT / The School Success Proff-am
success. Individual student program progress is
assessed throughout by the full team via weekly
progress reports and monthly review documents
and formally every five months for children and
youths with ongoing involvement with
Children’s Services. (A program manual is availablefiromChristopher A. Mallet.)
This combination of tutoring and mentoring
by a certified teacher in an in-home setting was
designed to address these maltreated children’s
academic deficits. In addition, as recommended
by the tutor/mentor, a penonal computer with
appropriate and necessary educational software is
also provided to the famüies on a library loan
basis. The program’s goals for each child are to
instill the ability to understand school work and
experience school success; to teach study habits
and routines to follow in the home; to provide a
consistent, interested penon to the child and
family; and to advocate when additional, special
services (particularly special education) may be
necessary or available through the pubhc school
system.
METHOD
Design
This longitudinal design evaluation was of a
program using an open and rolling enrollment
process, based on the needs of the maltreated children (and families) (Yegidis & Weinbach, 2009).
Different measures have been used over time and
modified to improve the evaluation. Program
completion and discharge criteria up through
2008 were based on individualized child (and
family) progress and goal attainment. However, in
2008, because of fiscal constraints, discharge criteria for children and youths were set at the
24-month mark of program participation, regardless of individualized goal attainment.
Program Population
The School Success Program began in the 200102 academic year with 15 children from foster
care home supervision and expanded to approximately 60 children firom both foster care and
relative supervision settings at the end of the
2003-04 academic year. The Children’s Services
Agency set up the program in conjunction with
the Elyria, Ohio, school district to help the academic progress for these supervised children. In
17
education disabUity identification and services
the 2004-05 academic year, due to initial identi(2001 through 2009).
fied success of progression to an age-appropriate
The standardized Woodcock Johnson Assessacademic level by each chud, the program was
ment measures general intellectual ability, specific
expanded to all grade levels (kindergarten through
cognitive abilities, scholastic aptitude, oral lan12th grade) and school systems in Lorain County
and in surrounding counties when a child was guage, and overall academic achievement and
reports these results as basic reading, reading complaced there and to agency-supervised children in
prehension, math calculations, math reasoning,
a variety of home settings (adoptive, relative,
basic writing, and overall academic skills scores
custody, and foster). In the 2005-06 academic
(McGrew, Dailey, & Schrank, 2007). These meayear, the program was significantly expanded and
sures were completed once per academic year for
offered to children and youths who were in their
participants beginning in the 2006-07 academic
own homes, as long as their families were, or had
year (Tl = first time measurement). The basic
been, involved with the Children’s Services
reading cluster score is a combination of letterAgency. Higher enrollments occurred in 2007
word identification and word attach skills and is
and 2008, but due to budget losses, the program
enrollment decreased to between 150 and 175 an aggregate measure of sight vocabulary, phonics,
and structural analysis. The reading comprehenchildren during the 2008-09 academic year. In
sion cluster score is a combination of passage
total, 615 children and youths were enrolled in
comprehension and reading vocabulary skill. The
the School Success Program from 2001 to 2009,
math calculation cluster score is a measure of
with an average program participation length of
computational skills and automaticity with basic
21 months. These children and youths were in all
math facts and provides a measure of basic mathgrades (kindergarten through 12th grade),
ematical skiUs. The math reasoning cluster score is
although a majority of them were in primary
a combination of applied problems and quantitaschool (kindergarten through sixth grade: 62
tive concepts and provides a measure of mathempercent, n = 381; seventh grade through 12th
atical knowledge and reasoning. The basic writing
grade: 38 percent, n = 234). Of participants, 58
skills cluster score is a combination of spelling and
percent (« = 357) were Caucasian, 31 percent
editing and provides a measure of ability to spell
(n=191) AfHcan American, and 11 percent
single-word responses and identify errors in speUing,
(n = 67) Hispanic; 55 percent (n = 338) were
male, and 45 percent were {n = 277) female; and punctuation, capitalization, and word usage. The
academic skills cluster score is a measure of the
54 percent (n = 332) were placed by the
other skills combined into an overall score
Children’s Services Agency outside of their home.
(McGrew et al., 2007). These scores are measured as
grade equivalency. Tl score measurements comPilot Studies—Measures
pared with later (time 2 [T2, 12 months later] and
The initial program pilot studies conducted in
time 3 [T3, 24 months later]) score measurements
2002 and 2003 used parent, teacher, and student
were assessed for statistically significant differences
surveys and interview feedback along with school
using a series of paired samples t tests (p < .05).
grade point average tracking and found initial
Grade point averages for the students were calimprovements for the participants. Early pilot evaculated using only the core academic subject
luations of the program and its expansion firom
areas: writing, math, and reading. Use of these
2003 to 2005 continued to use student grade
subject grades (converted to a 4.0 grade point
point averages, student grade placement levels,
scale) matches the national measurement criteria
and stakeholder surveys.
(U.S. Department of Education, 2007b). These
student grade reports for specific academic years
were aggregated and averaged to determine the
Full Study—Measures and Data Analysis
program populations’ overall scores.
This evaluation of the program included the folSpecial education disabilities were determined
lowing student measures: Woodcock Johnson III
by
the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Assessment scores (2006 through 2009), grade
Act
(2004) and had numerous diagnostic and
point averages (2001 through 2007), and special
18
Children & Schoob
VOLUME 34, NUMBER I
JANUARY 2012
academic categories. If the program was responsible for initial identification and subsequent
access to special education services through the
school system, this was then measured and
counted toward one of the program’s goals.
RESULTS
Woodcock Johnson Assessment
From 2006 to 2009, 206 program participants
were measured with the Woodcock Johnson
Assessment, with 109 of these same children and
youths measured a second time and 30 a third
time. Although measurements for later times were
not fuUy available for all participants, those provided were tracked longitudinally on the same
children and youths. The decrease in number of
follow-up measurements was due to program hmitations and fiinding decreases.
It is expected in school classrooms that each
child wUl progress one academic year per subject
for each grade level. In other words, a child in the
fifth grade should be reading, writing, and doing
math at the fifth grade level. As shown in
Figure 1, the grade level change for the program
participants from the first measurement (Tl) to
the second measurement (T2) was one-half year
(0.50); however, their math comprehension
improved more than one full grade level equivalent (1.01). This means that, compared with the
expected norm for aU students at these grade levels,
the program participants improved more than
twice as quickly in math comprehension skills
during this time period (McGrew et al., 2007).
Before enrollment in the program, children and
youths were on average over one academic year
behind in their overall abilities and even further
behind in reading comprehension. In one year in
the program, these students («=109) improved
their academic skiU levels twice as quickly as the
national norm, per the Woodcock Johnson
Assessment (McGrew et al., 2007). At the end of
two years, students (n = 30) still in the program
had caught up to their peer norms in basic
reading, math reasoning, and overall academic
skills. The students measured a second and third
time were very similar to the overall program
population regards gender, race, primary/secondary school, and agency placement.
Examination of these improvements in academic abihties for gender, race, and location (whether
hving with a relative, in their own home, or
placed by the Children’s Services Agency),
showed particularly strong gains made by boys
(minority and Caucasian) and aU children in an
agency-directed placement. Boys exhibited gains
between 66 percent and 72 percent in every core
subject measured during thefirstyear, and the significant gains during the second year were more
Figure 1: Woodcock Johnson Assessment Scores for School Success Program Participants
3.00
2.S0
2.00
1.00
o.so
0.00
T l to T2 (n = 109; 12.6 months)
T l to T3 (n = 30; 12.9 months)
• Grade Level
0.50
1.8
• BRGE
1.24
2.S3
• RCGE
1.20
2.47
• MCGE
1.01
2.2
• MRGE
1.25
2.62
• BWGE
0.98
2.1
• ASGE
1.06
2.39
Notes: All score changes are significant at p < .05. Tl = time 1; T2 = time 2; T3 = time 3; BR = basic reading; GE = grade equivalency; RC = reading comprehension; MC = math
calcutattons; MR = math reasoning; BW = basic writing; AS = overall academic skills.
MALLETT / The School Success Program
19
attdbutable to the boys’ improvements than the
gids’ (see Table 1 and Figure 2). Although
improvements continued between the second and
third years, the rate of improvement declined,
more so for the gids, except in basic wddng skills.
There was ütde dispadty between minodty
(Afdcan Amedcan and Hispanic) and Caucasian
children’s improvements except in reading comprehension and basic wdting skills, in which minodties advanced but at a slower pace than
Caucasians (see Table 1 and Figure 3). The most
significant academic progress was achieved by
those children and youths in placement (adopted,
in-custody, and foster care), in whom over 91
percent improvement across all academic areas was
found dudng the first year of program participation (see Table 1 and Figure 4).
On the basis of the standardized Woodcock
Johnson Assessment, these children and youths
have made significant progress. A second, albeit
nondirect, assessment is to see how these results
compare with those of their public school student
peers—in other words, their nonmaltreated classmates. The Ohio Department of Education tracks
reading, wdting, and math achievement for all
students across public school distdcts and measures
this progress with grade-level proficiency examinations. The two school distdcts important to
review are the Lorain and Elyda City Public
School Distdcts, because 64.3 percent of the
School Success Programs’ participants were
referred from these two distdcts.
In the Lorain City Public Schools, third, sixth,
and 10th graders’ proficiency exam passage rates
decreased by 6 percent per year from 2006 to
2009; fourth graders were an exception, improving their passage rates by 8 percent. In the Elyda
City Pubhc Schools, the exam passage rate also
decreased dudng this time pedod, although by 2
percent on average per year. More poignandy, in
the Lorain schools, boys passed the proficiency
exam across all grades (third through 12th) at
lower rates than girls (with two-thirds of the
passage rate categodes having more girls pass than
boys), and minodty youths (Afdcan Amedcan and
Hispanic) had lower passage rates for almost every
grade and tested category. In Elyda schools, there
were no gender dispadties in proficiency test
passage rates across the grades; however, minodty
youths across nine different grades passed these
test sections at lower rates than nonminodty
20
C C CN
»o vp en
00 ‘-H Ö
CO o
‘-‘ CN

Purchase answer to see full
attachment