Research

The WWC reviewed three studies of the effectiveness of accelerated middle schools. These three studies were included within one research report (Dynarski, Gleason, Rangarajan, & Wood, 1998). The Dynarski et al. (1998) studies of accelerated middle schools were part of a larger evaluation examining the effectiveness of 16 dropout prevention programs. One of the Dynarski et al. (1998) studies—the one conducted in Newark, New Jersey—met WWC evidence standards. The other two studies—conducted in Griffin, Georgia, and Flint, Michigan—met WWC evidence standards with reservations. The Georgia and Michigan studies received a lower rating because of differential attrition for the intervention and control groups.⁴

The Dynarski et al. (1998) studies in Georgia, Michigan, and New Jersey were all randomized controlled trials in which students were randomly assigned either to the intervention group that was offered admission to the accelerated middle school or to a control group that was not. Students assigned to the control group generally attended traditional middle schools in the district. The Georgia study included 140 applicants for the 1993/94 school year, the Michigan study 172 applicants for the 1992/93 and 1993/94 school years, and the New Jersey study 535 applicants for the same two school years.

Extent of evidence

The WWC categorizes the extent of evidence in each domain as small or medium to large (see the What Works Clearinghouse Extent of Evidence Categorization Scheme). The extent of evidence takes into account the number of studies and total sample size across the studies that met WWC evidence standards with or without reservations.⁵

The WWC considers the extent of evidence for accelerated middle schools to be medium to large for staying in school and progressing in school. No studies that met WWC evidence standards examined relevant measures for completing school.