Henry & Harbatkin (2019). The Annenberg Institute at Brown University.
Reviewed: October 2019
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
North Carolina state tests in math, reading, and science |
North Carolina Transformation (NCT) Initiative vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Study year 2, fuzzy RDD analysis;
|
-0.17 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
North Carolina state tests in math, reading, and science |
North Carolina Transformation (NCT) Initiative vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Study year 1, intent-to-treat analysis;
|
-0.03 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina state tests in math, reading, and science |
North Carolina Transformation (NCT) Initiative vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Study year 1, fuzzy RDD analysis;
|
-0.04 |
0.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
North Carolina state tests in math, reading, and science |
North Carolina Transformation (NCT) Initiative vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Study year 2, intent-to-treat analysis;
|
-0.13 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Teacher turnover at the school |
North Carolina Transformation (NCT) Initiative vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Study year 2, fuzzy RDD analysis;
|
41.30 |
20.90 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Teacher turnover at the school |
North Carolina Transformation (NCT) Initiative vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Study year 1, fuzzy RDD analysis;
|
18.40 |
28.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher turnover at the school |
North Carolina Transformation (NCT) Initiative vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Study year 1, intent-to-treat analysis;
|
21.20 |
28.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Teacher turnover at the school |
North Carolina Transformation (NCT) Initiative vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Study year 2, intent-to-treat analysis;
|
34.70 |
20.90 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 78% | |
| White | 22% |
The study takes place in North Carolina public schools. Of the 331 schools in the state that were eligible to receive the intervention, 78 were offered the intervention.
The sample includes students and teachers in elementary, middle schools and high schools in the state of North Carolina. The state did not offer the intervention in the largest school districts. As a consequence, over 80 percent of the schools in the study are rural, approximately 10 percent are in small towns, and less than 10 percent are in cities or suburbs. Of the students assigned to the intervention group, 82 percent were economically disadvantaged. Of those in the comparison group 78 percent were economically disadvantaged. The study did not define the economically disadvantaged category. The study estimated that the sample at the cutoff included 76% minority students in the intervention group and 74% in the comparison group; 49% black and 15% Hispanic in the intervention group, and 48% black and 2% Hispanic in the comparison group; 34% novice teachers in the intervention group and 38% in the comparison group; 10.3 years of experience in the intervention group and 10.2 years in the comparison group.
The North Carolina's School Transformation Initiative offered eligible low performing schools in the state additional support services. In 84 percent of the intervention schools a comprehensive needs assessment was conducted, which included observations, focus groups, and interviews with school staff. Following the comprehensive needs assessment, a school improvement plan was developed, which identified key features of school capacity building to focus on. The state then provided school transformation coaches and instructional coaches to work with principals and teachers to implement the school improvement plan. The North Carolina's School Transformation Initiative began in the 2015-16 school year and the state provided services over two school years.
The comparison condition was business-as-usual. Schools in the comparison group did not receive school-turnaround services from the state.
The State Department of Public Instruction provided schools with instructional and school transformation coaching support. The type and intensity of services received across schools varied. Not all schools received both school transformation and instructional coaching (65 schools had an instructional coach assigned to work with teachers; and 56 schools had a school transformation assigned) and there was wide variation in the number of coaches visits schools received.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube