Edmunds, Julie; Lewis, Karla; Hutchins, Bryan; Klopfenstein, Kristin (2018). SERVE Center at University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618202
Reviewed: October 2023
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned high school credit for college-level courses |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.74 |
3.73 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Completing English I and Algebra I or higher |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
-4 Years |
Full sample;
|
53.70 |
56.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Completing English I and Algebra I or higher |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
-4 Years |
Students performing below grade level;
|
47.20 |
51.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Completing English I and Algebra I or higher |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
-4 Years |
English language learners;
|
49.90 |
54.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Did not drop out |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
-2 Years |
Full sample;
|
96.40 |
95.90 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Did not drop out |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
-2 Years |
Students performing below grade level;
|
95.60 |
94.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Did not drop out |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
-2 Years |
English language learners;
|
95.60 |
94.80 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 92% | |
| White | 8% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
| Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) | 88% | |
| No FRPL | 12% |
The study took place in 11 schools in six districts in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas and 18 schools in the Denver Public Schools district in Colorado.
The analytic sample included 14,520 students in grades 9 through 12 from 29 schools. Approximately 50% of the students were female, 88% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 50% were English learners. Approximately 8% of students were White and race was not reported for the other 92% of students.
The Early College Expansion Partnership, a collaboration among national and state educational non-profit organizations and participating school districts, aims to increase the number of high school graduates and prepare them for enrollment and success in postsecondary education by applying strategies from the Early College High School model in traditional comprehensive high schools. Early College High Schools serve students starting in grade 9 and aim to enable students to graduate in four or five years with a high school diploma and two years of transferable college credit. Through the Partnership, strategies of the Early College High School model were applied in participating comprehensive high schools and included a college-ready academic program, College Headstart, and wraparound student supports. College-ready academic programs have an instructional framework aligned to college-ready standards, are rigorous and untracked, and offer an aligned sequence of college courses that leads to 12+ credits. College Headstart involves exposure to the culture and norms of college, explicit instruction on academic and social college behaviors, and inclusive college application and financial aid advising. The intervention includes a suite of professional development and technical assistance services intended to allow schools to implement the Early College High School model. Technical assistance was provided to districts by the non-profit organizations involved in the Partnership and focused on planning for implementation of the Early College High School model and the creation of postsecondary partnerships while professional development aimed to help both administrative teams and teachers understand and apply the strategies from the model.
Comparison group schools did not offer the Early College Expansion Partnership.
No implementation support was described separate from the intervention components, which included technical assistance and professional development.
Reviewed: December 2021
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College preparatory course success (taking and passing English I and Algebra I or higher) |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (9th grade);
|
53.70 |
56.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College preparatory course success (taking and passing English I and Algebra I or higher) |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
EL students (9th grade);
|
49.90 |
54.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College preparatory course success (taking and passing English I and Algebra I or higher) |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Low performing students (9th grade);
|
47.20 |
51.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High school credits received for college-level courses |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.74 |
3.73 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cohort dropout rate |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.60 |
4.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cohort dropout rate |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Low performing students;
|
4.40 |
5.90 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Cohort dropout rate |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ELL students;
|
4.40 |
5.20 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was implemented in five intervention schools and six comparison schools in Texas, and nine intervention schools and nine comparison schools in Colorado.
Fifty percent of the sample were English Learner students and 65 percent were low-performing students.
The Early College Expansion Partnership (ECEP) aims to increase the number of high school graduates and prepare them for enrollment and success in postsecondary education by applying strategies from the Early College High School model. These strategies include a college-ready academic program, college headstart, and wraparound student supports. College-ready academic programs have an instructional framework aligned to college-ready standards, are rigorous and untracked, and offer an aligned sequence of college courses that leads to 12+ credits. College headstart involves exposure to the culture and norms of college, explicit instruction on academic and social college behaviors, and inclusive college application and financial aid advising. The intervention includes a suite of professional development and technical assistance services implemented in 12 high schools, 14 middle schools, and two 6th-12th grade schools in three districts in Colorado and Texas.
Schools in the comparison condition conducted business-as-usual and did not receive the ECEP intervention.
No implementation support was described separate from the intervention components, which included technical assistance and professional development.
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