The research is clear: Waterford programs close opportunity gaps, helping learners from all backgrounds achieve academic success wherever they learn.
Children using Waterford consistently achieve more than a year of growth beyond expectations — an effect size above 0.40!*
Through engaging books, characters, songs, and interactive activities, children build literacy and math skills that last.
A meta-analysis of 38 peer-reviewed studies involving 48,000 PreK-2nd grade learners confirms Waterford raises student achievement in both reading and math.
Download our Meta-Analysis White Paper to learn how evidence-based early learning programs help close achievement gaps.
Waterford meets the highest standards of the ESSA evidence model, with 11 studies demonstrating Tier 1 evidence and more than 70 studies proving program effectiveness.
You can be confident your investment will make a real difference for students and communities.
Waterford supports early learners, including those from historically underserved populations, helping level the playing field and creating opportunities for academic success.
Children succeed in learning critical skills with Waterford whether they use the program at home or school, and no matter who is leading their learning–a parent, caregiver, or teacher.
This flexibility can help level the playing field to meet children where they are with high-quality instructional materials.
Partnering with Waterford means investing in your community’s future. Together, we can create an educational experience that gives every child the best chance to succeed.
Meta-analysis is a research method that combines data from multiple studies to draw a broader conclusion, providing a more comprehensive and reliable understanding of a program’s impact.
Effect size is used to measure the magnitude of an intervention or an educational outcome. According to NIFDI, effect sizes over 0.25 are considered educationally important.
* An effect size of around 0.4 is commonly used as a benchmark for a year of academic growth, based on John Hattie’s research in Visible Learning for Teachers. However, this value can vary depending on factors such as subject, grade level, assessment type, and educational context. Therefore, while 0.4 serves as a general guideline, interpreting effect size requires careful consideration of specific educational settings and assessment methods.
