Edmunds, Julie A.; Unlu, Fatih; Glennie, Elizabeth; Bernstein, Lawrence; Fesler, Lily; Furey, Jane (2017). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness v10 n2 p297-325. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED575019
Reviewed: September 2017
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
85.40 |
81.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Continued enrollment (%) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample (Cohort 1, Pilot 1 and Pilot 2);
|
94.00 |
89.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in 19 Early College High Schools in North Carolina that were oversubscribed and agreed to admit students using a lottery. Schools were located across the state, in both rural and urban areas. Students in the 2015 sample applied to attend a subset of 12 of these schools included in the 2011 publication.
Sample characteristics for the analytic samples are not available. The randomized sample in the 2015 publication was 26.7% black, 8.1% Hispanic, and 60.6% white. The sample was 41% male, 40.7% first-generation college students, and 50.5% free/reduced price lunch eligible. 80.4 percent of the sample passed the 8th grade math exam and 79.7% passed the 8th grade reading exam. The sample included 2.9% disabled or impaired students, 14.9% gifted students, and 3.9% students who had ever been retained in a grade. The randomized sample in the 2011 publication was 68.25% white, 21.45% black, 5.57% Hispanic, 1.25% Asian, 0.56% American Indian, and 2.92% multi-racial. Forty-four percent of the sample qualified for free or reduced price lunch, 3.78% had a disability, and 2.47% had ever been retained.
Students attended North Carolina Early College High Schools, which partnered with higher-education institutions and offered curricula that allowed students to complete both high school and associate’s degrees simultaneously. The schools focused on college readiness, high-quality teaching and learning, personal relationships between students and staff, high expectations, and staff commitment to a shared mission. Early College High Schools are small, autonomous schools that serve grades 9–12 or 9–13 (4 or 5 years). Teachers monitored students’ progress and actively intervened to provide extra assistance when students’ grades dropped or they fell off track.
Students participated in regular classes and activities.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Edmunds, J. A., Bernstein, L., Glennie, E., Willse, J., Arshavsky, N., Unlu, F., . . . Dallas, A. (2010). Preparing students for college: The implementation and impact of the Early College High School Model. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 348–364.
Edmunds, Julie A.; Bernstein, Lawrence; Unlu, Fatih; Glennie, Elizabeth; Arshavsky, Nina. (2011). The Impact of the Early College High School Model on Core 9th and 10th Grade Student Outcomes. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Reviewed: February 2017
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Dual Enrollment Programs.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Planning to attend a 4-year college (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 10;
|
76.00 |
62.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Planning to attend a 4-year college (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 9;
|
73.00 |
70.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
30.00 |
4.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Minority;
|
20.00 |
1.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Free/reduced-price lunch;
|
23.00 |
2.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
First-generation;
|
23.00 |
3.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Non-minority;
|
36.00 |
6.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Not first-generation;
|
35.00 |
6.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Not free/reduced price lunch;
|
37.00 |
7.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Absences (days) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
4.70 |
6.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Absences (days) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 11, not free/reduced-price lunch;
|
5.60 |
7.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Absences (days) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 11 free/reduced-price lunch;
|
7.70 |
8.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
81.00 |
70.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
On track for college at the end of tenth grade (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 10;
|
89.00 |
73.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at the end of ninth grade (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 9;
|
93.00 |
85.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college by the end of high school - Math (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
87.00 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at the end of eleventh grade (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 11;
|
84.00 |
73.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
First-generation;
|
72.00 |
57.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Free/reduced-price lunch;
|
74.00 |
59.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Non-minority;
|
80.00 |
68.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at the end of twelfth grade (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 12;
|
78.00 |
68.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Not free/reduced-price lunch;
|
83.00 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Not first-generation;
|
82.00 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Minority;
|
75.00 |
67.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college by the end of high school - Science (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
98.00 |
98.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
On track for college by the end of high school - Social Studies (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
99.00 |
99.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
On track for college by the end of high school - English (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
97.00 |
98.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
85.00 |
82.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Free/reduced-price lunch;
|
84.00 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Not free/reduced-price lunch;
|
92.00 |
88.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Minority;
|
88.00 |
83.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Not first-generation;
|
90.00 |
86.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Non-minority;
|
86.00 |
81.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
First-generation;
|
82.00 |
78.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed the end-of-course exam in Biology (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 10;
|
68.00 |
53.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed the end-of-course exam in Civics and Economics (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 10;
|
80.00 |
71.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed the end-of-course exam in English I (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 10;
|
91.00 |
86.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed the end-of-course exam in three or more college prep math courses (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 10;
|
39.00 |
28.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Continued enrollment (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
94.00 |
89.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Continued enrollment (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 11 free/reduced-price lunch;
|
92.00 |
83.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Continued enrollment (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 11 not free/reduced-price lunch;
|
95.00 |
89.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Dropped out (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 11 non free/reduced-price lunch;
|
0.30 |
0.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Dropped out (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 11 free/reduced-price lunch;
|
1.30 |
1.90 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 27% | |
| Other or unknown | 13% | |
| White | 61% |
| Hispanic | 8% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 92% |
This study took place in school districts throughout the state of North Carolina, including schools located in rural and urban settings with diverse demographics.
All participants applied to early college high schools in the eighth grade and began their Early College High School programs or traditional high school in the ninth grade of high school (during the 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08, and 2008–09 school years) and were followed through the sixth year after starting ninth grade. Eighteen cohorts of students were represented in this study. The final longitudinal sample included 1,651 students (938 intervention; 713 comparison). The intervention group was 59% White, 28% Black, 9% Hispanic, and 41% male, while the comparison group was 63% White, 25% Black, 7% Hispanic, and 41% male. In both groups, 41% of the students were first-generation college students. In addition, 51% of intervention group students were free/reduced-price lunch eligible versus 50% of comparison group students. In the intervention group, 18% of the students were underprepared in math (as operationalized by passing eighth-grade standardized tests) and 21% were underprepared in reading. In the comparison group, 22% of the students were underprepared in math and 20% were underprepared in reading.
North Carolina’s early college high school model includes a program of study (grades 9–12 or 9–13) intended to lead to an associate degree or 2 years of college credit within 4–5 years. Operationally, the model includes rigorous instruction, staff collaboration and professional development, a focus on building positive relationships between students and staff, and student supports. In contrast to traditional high schools, the ECHS in North Carolina are typically located on college campuses, are small (fewer than 400 students), have autonomous governance, and require students to complete 2 years of college credits while in high school.
The comparison students were assigned to the high school they would have attended if not granted admission by lottery to the early college high school.
The ECHS in this study collaborated with their higher education partner to develop a curriculum of high school and college courses students would take to graduate with a diploma and 2 years of transferable college credit. Two of the design principles of North Carolina’s Learn and Earn ECHS model (Professionalism and Leadership) also supported implementation. As part of the Professionalism principle, teachers received ongoing professional development, collaborated with other staff members, and had collective responsibility and decision-making. As part of the Leadership principle, staff worked together to create a shared mission to improve student outcomes.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Luna, Gaye; Fowler, Michael. (2011). Evaluation of Achieving a College Education Plus: A Credit-Based Transition Program. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, v35 n9 p673-688.
Arshavsky, N., & Edmunds, J. A. (2014, April). The impact of Early College High Schools on mathematics teaching and learning. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research conference, New Orleans, LA.
Bernstein, Larry; Edmunds, Julie; Fesler, Lily. (2014). Closing the Performance Gap: The Impact of the Early College High School Model on Underprepared Students. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Bernstein, L., Edmunds, J., & Unlu, F. (2014, April). Catching up underprepared students in early college high schools: Reducing the performance gap. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Bernstein, Larry; Yamaguchi, Ryoko; Unlu, Fatih; Edmunds, Julie; Glennie, Elizabeth; Willse, John; Arshavsky, Nina; Dallas, Andrew. (2010). Early Findings from the Implementation and Impact Study of Early College High School. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Edmunds, J., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., Bernstein, L., Fesler, L., Furey, J., & Arshavsky, N. (2015, Novmeber). Facilitating the transition to postsecondary education: The impact of the Early College Model. Paper presented at the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management, Miami, FL.
Edmunds, J., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., & Fesler, L. (2015, November). Facilitating the transition to postsecondary education: The impact of early colleges. Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management conference, Miami, FL.
Edmunds, J. A. (2012). Early Colleges: A new model of schooling focusing on college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education, 158, 81–89.
Edmunds, J. A., Arshavsky, N., & Fesler, L. (2015, April). A mixed methods examination of college readiness in an innovative high school setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Edmunds, J. A., Bernstein, L., Glennie, E., Willse, J., Arshavsky, N., Unlu, F., . . . Dallas, A. (2010). Preparing students for college: The implementation and impact of the Early College High School Model. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 348–364.
Edmunds, Julie A.; Bernstein, Lawrence; Unlu, Fatih; Glennie, Elizabeth; Arshavsky, Nina. (2011). The Impact of the Early College High School Model on Core 9th and 10th Grade Student Outcomes. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Edmunds, J. A., Bernstein, L., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., & Smith, A. (2013, April). Graduating on-time: The impact of an innovative high school reform model on high school graduation rates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Edmunds, Julie A.; Bernstein, Lawrence; Unlu, Fatih; Glennie, Elizabeth; Willse, John; Smith, Arthur; Arshavsky, Nina. (2012). Expanding the Start of the College Pipeline: Ninth-Grade Findings from an Experimental Study of the Impact of the Early College High School Model. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v5 n2 p136-159.
Edmunds, J. A., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., Smith, A., Fesler, L., & Bernstein, L. (2013, November). The impact of Early College High Schools on college readiness and college enrollment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.
Edmunds, J. A., Willse, J., Arshavsky, N., & Dallas, A. (2013). Mandated engagement: The impact of Early College High Schools. Teachers College Record, 115(7).
Edmunds, J. A., Willse, J., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., & Bernstein, L. (2014, September). Increasing high school students’ engagement: The impact of a high school reform model focused on college readiness. Paper presented at the Fall Meeting of the Society of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
Unlu, F., Yamaguchi, R., Bernstein, L., & Edmunds, J. (2010, March). Estimating impacts on program-related subgroups using propensity score matching: Evidence from the Early College High School study. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
Edmunds, J. A., Unlu, F., Smith, A., Glennie, E., & Bernstein, L. (2013, April). The impact of Early College High Schools on low-income students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Reviewed: September 2016
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
30.00 |
4.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Minority;
|
20.00 |
1.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Free/reduced-price lunch;
|
23.00 |
2.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
First generation;
|
23.00 |
3.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Non-minority;
|
36.00 |
6.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Not first generation;
|
35.00 |
6.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed postsecondary credential (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Not free/reduced-price lunch;
|
37.00 |
7.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Absences (days) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.70 |
6.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Absences (days) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Eleventh grade, not free/ reduced-price lunch;
|
5.60 |
7.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Absences (days) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Eleventh grade, free/reduced-price lunch;
|
7.70 |
8.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
81.00 |
70.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
On track for college at the end of tenth grade (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grade: 10;
|
89.00 |
73.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at the end of ninth grade (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grade: 9;
|
93.00 |
85.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college by the end of high school - Math (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Full sample;
|
87.00 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at the end of eleventh grade (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grade: 11;
|
84.00 |
73.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
First generation;
|
72.00 |
57.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Free/reduced-price lunch;
|
74.00 |
59.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Non-minority;
|
80.00 |
68.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at the end of twelfth grade (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grade: 12;
|
78.00 |
68.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Not free/reduced-price lunch;
|
83.00 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Not first generation;
|
82.00 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college at end of high school (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Minority;
|
75.00 |
67.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On track for college by the end of high school - Science (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Full sample;
|
98.00 |
98.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
On track for college by the end of high school - Social Studies (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Full sample;
|
99.00 |
99.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
On track for college by the end of high school - English (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Full sample;
|
97.00 |
98.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
85.00 |
82.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Free/reduced-price lunch;
|
84.00 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Not free/reduced-price lunch;
|
92.00 |
88.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Minority;
|
88.00 |
83.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Not first generation;
|
90.00 |
86.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Non-minority;
|
86.00 |
81.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Five-year high school graduation rate (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
First generation;
|
82.00 |
78.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed the end-of-course exam in Biology (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grade: 10;
|
68.00 |
53.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed the end-of-course exam in Civics and Economics (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grade: 10;
|
80.00 |
71.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed the end-of-course exam in English I (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grade: 10;
|
91.00 |
86.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed the end-of-course exam in three or more college prep math courses (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Grade: 10;
|
39.00 |
28.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Continued enrollment (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Full sample;
|
94.00 |
89.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Continued enrollment (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Eleventh grade, free/reduced-price lunch;
|
92.00 |
83.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Continued enrollment (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Eleventh grade, not free/ reduced-price lunch;
|
95.00 |
89.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Dropped out (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Eleventh grade, free/ reduced-price lunch;
|
1.30 |
1.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Dropped out (%) |
Early College High School vs. Business as usual |
1 Years |
Eleventh grade, not free/ reduced-price lunch;
|
0.30 |
0.60 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 27% | |
| White | 61% |
| Hispanic | 8% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 92% |
This study took place in school districts throughout the state of North Carolina and included schools located in rural and urban settings with diverse demographics.
The intervention group was 59.0% White, 27.9% Black, 8.6% Hispanic, and 40.6% male, while the comparison group was 62.7% White, 25.0% Black, 7.3% Hispanic, and 41.3% male. The study reported on first generation college student status (40.8% of the intervention group and 40.5% of the comparison group), and free/reduced-price lunch eligibility (51.1% intervention, 49.7% comparison).
The North Carolina’s ECHS model includes a program of study (grades 9–12 or 9–13) intended to lead to an associate degree or 2 years of college credit within 4–5 years. Operationally, the model includes rigorous instruction, staff collaboration and professional development, a focus on building positive relationships between students and staff, and student supports. In contrast to traditional high schools, the ECHS in North Carolina are typically located on college campuses, are small (fewer than 400 students), have autonomous governance, and require students to complete 2 years of college credits while in high school.
The comparison condition was assignment to the high school the student would have attended if not granted admission by lottery to the ECHS.
The ECHS in this study collaborated with their higher education partners to develop a curriculum plan of high school and college courses that would enable students to graduate with a diploma and 2 years of transferable college credit. Two of the design principles of North Carolina’s Learn and Earn ECHS model (Professionalism and Leadership) also supported implementation. As part of the Professionalism Principle, teachers received ongoing professional development, collaboration with other staff members, and had collective responsibilities and decision making. As part of the Leadership Principle, staff worked together to create a shared mission and improve student outcomes.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Bernstein, Larry; Edmunds, Julie; Fesler, Lily. (2014). Closing the Performance Gap: The Impact of the Early College High School Model on Underprepared Students. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Arshavsky, N., & Edmunds, J. A. (2014, April). The impact of Early College High Schools on mathematics teaching and learning. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research conference, New Orleans, LA.
Unlu, F., Yamaguchi, R., Bernstein, L., & Edmunds, J. (2010, March). Estimating impacts on program-related subgroups using propensity score matching: Evidence from the Early College High School study. Paper presented at annual meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
Edmunds, J. A., Willse, J., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., & Bernstein, L. (2014, September). Increasing high school students’ engagement: The impact of a high school reform model focused on college readiness. Paper presented at the Fall Meeting of the Society of Research on Educational Effectiveness, Washington, DC.
Edmunds, J. A., Willse, J., Arshavsky, N., & Dallas, A. (2013). Mandated engagement: The impact of Early College High Schools. Teachers College Record, 115(7).
Edmunds, J. A., Unlu, F., Smith, A., Glennie, E., & Bernstein, L. (2013, April). The impact of Early College High Schools on low-income students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Edmunds, J. A., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., Smith, A., Fesler, L., & Bernstein, L. (2013, November). The impact of Early College High Schools on college readiness and college enrollment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.
Edmunds, J. A., Bernstein, L., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., & Smith, A. (2013, April). Graduating on-time: The impact of an innovative high school reform model on high school graduation rates. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Edmunds, Julie A.; Bernstein, Lawrence; Unlu, Fatih; Glennie, Elizabeth; Arshavsky, Nina. (2011). The Impact of the Early College High School Model on Core 9th and 10th Grade Student Outcomes. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Edmunds, J. A., Bernstein, L., Glennie, E., Willse, J., Arshavsky, N., Unlu, F., . . . Dallas, A. (2010). Preparing students for college: The implementation and impact of the Early College High School Model. Peabody Journal of Education, 85(3), 348–364.
Edmunds, J. A., Arshavsky, N., & Fesler, L. (2015, April). A mixed methods examination of college readiness in an innovative high school setting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Edmunds, J. A. (2012). Early Colleges: A new model of schooling focusing on college readiness. New Directions for Higher Education, 158, 81–89.
Edmunds, J., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., & Fesler, L. (2015, November). Facilitating the transition to postsecondary education: The impact of early colleges. Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management conference, Miami, FL.
Edmunds, J., Unlu, F., Glennie, E., Bernstein, L., Fesler, L., Furey, J., & Arshavsky, N. (2015, Novmeber). Facilitating the transition to postsecondary education: The impact of the Early College Model. Paper presented at the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management, Miami, FL.
Bernstein, Larry; Yamaguchi, Ryoko; Unlu, Fatih; Edmunds, Julie; Glennie, Elizabeth; Willse, John; Arshavsky, Nina; Dallas, Andrew. (2010). Early Findings from the Implementation and Impact Study of Early College High School. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Bernstein, L., Edmunds, J., & Unlu, F. (2014, April). Catching up underprepared students in early college high schools: Reducing the performance gap. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Edmunds, Julie A.; Bernstein, Lawrence; Unlu, Fatih; Glennie, Elizabeth; Willse, John; Smith, Arthur; Arshavsky, Nina. (2012). Expanding the Start of the College Pipeline: Ninth-Grade Findings from an Experimental Study of the Impact of the Early College High School Model. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v5 n2 p136-159.
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