Conclusion

Carefully designed evaluations can reveal

whether programs adopted to help ELLs in fact
have the intended effect.

Thus, when the intended effect is not achieved, a

well-designed evaluation should identify the
issues that impede success.
The district adopted a program specifically to
address the needs of schools serving large
population of low-achieving students and ELLs.

The program was intended to be used as a

supplement to the regular reading program
It was believed that it would give students additional
opportunity to practice readings skills learned in
class.
It was also believed that the program would be
engaging to students and that it would be
particularly helpful to ELLs in that it is an adap-
tive program that moves at the students’ pace.

It was believed that these pro- gram features

would contribute to an increase in achievement
for these students.
Waterford program was not having its intended
effect. Thus, despite the presumed advantages
of the pro- gram, it was unsuccessful in the
specific context of the Los Angeles Unified
School District.
Due to the constraints of the school day and
district policies, the Waterford program was
supplanting rather than supplementing the
primary reading program and thus students were
not getting additional instructional time.

Teachers were not using the program to adapt

instruction for individual students, and that even
though the majority of students were engaged
by the program, ELLs were not
The evaluation resulted in actions that might
contribute to the ongoing improvement of
education of ELLs
It also offered a useful point of interpretable
comparison to other districts, schools, and
teachers who are considering adopting or
implementing a similar program in their schools,
thereby contributing to a much- needed research
base on instructional interventions for such
populations.