I tend to stick my foot in my mouth. Here it goes again.
Two points.
1-I think the reason most schools do not have integrated science for each grade level is that the options are nightmares. First option I see: finding teachers that could teach the integrated course would be tough. Second option: scheduling a course to be taught be 3 teachers (1 bio, 1 chem, 1 physics) would be a nightmare.
2-I will admit that I have not read the entire Sadler paper. I looked for it roughly 1 year ago. I apparently do not have BC's googling skills. Sadler did briefly summarized the paper in a ppt that was posted (& I could find) online. The foot-in-mouth overstatement... as I recall, Sadler's report/ppt essentially stated that homework, text, inquiry methods, school, teacher, had no positive correlation on student success. It *appeared* (again, going only from the ppt) that the Sadler's only factors were inate student ability or internal motivation.
Paul Lulai (4 different lab preps, hall duty, 2 district committees, and 2 kids away from teaching without a textbook)