Tuttle, Christina Clark; Gill, Brian; Gleason, Philip; Knechtel, Virginia; Nichols-Barrer, Ira; Resch, Alexandra (2013). Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED540912
Reviewed: January 2018
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 Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP).
Reviewed: November 2013
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.
Absence of conflict of interest: This study was conducted by staff from Mathematica Policy Research. Therefore, Mathematica reviewers were not involved in the WWC review of this study.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State assessment |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
2-year follow-up |
2-year follow-up;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
TerraNova 3: Math Survey Exams |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
3 year follow-up |
3-year follow-up;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
State assessment |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
1-year posttest |
1-year posttest;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
State assessment |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
2-year follow-up |
2-year follow-up;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
TerraNova 3: Reading Multiple Assessment |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
3 year follow-up |
3-year follow-up;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
State assessment |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
1-year posttest |
1-year posttest;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 66% |
| Hispanic | 30% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 70% |
The experimental portion of the study was conducted in 13 KIPP schools located in California, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Massachusetts, New York, and Texas. The quasi-experimental portion of the study was conducted in 41 KIPP schools located in Arkansas, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.
For the experimental portion of the study, each of 13 KIPP schools used a lottery to randomly assign students either to receive an offer to attend the KIPP school or to not receive an offer. The schools included in the analyses varied depending on the availability of outcome data, and a list of schools used in each analysis was provided by the authors after an inquiry by the WWC. Specifically, the analysis of state assessments in reading and mathematics included 725 students (260 intervention and 465 comparison) entering fifth or sixth grade who applied to attend 10 of the KIPP schools that used a lottery. The follow-up sample in these schools included 536 students (202 intervention and 334 comparison) 1 year after random assignment and 441 students (181 intervention and 260 comparison) 2 years after random assignment. The experimental portion of the study also included the administration of the TerraNova reading and mathematics assessment at 10 schools, some of which were different than the 10 schools included in the analysis of state assessments. The sample for this portion of the study included 1,016 students (431 intervention and 585 comparison) at the beginning of the study and 590 students (272 intervention and 318 comparison) at the time of the TerraNova assessment, which was administered in fall of the third follow-up year. For the quasi-experimental portion of the study, students in 41 KIPP schools that were established before or during the 2009–10 school year were matched to comparison students who had never attended a KIPP middle school. KIPP students enrolled in a KIPP school in the fifth or sixth grade, and they were matched to non-KIPP students enrolled in the same district who had similar demographic characteristics and prior achievement scores using nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement. Between two and 10 cohorts of students per school were included in the study, depending on data availability, and outcome data were drawn from the 2001–02 through 2010–11 school years. The study included 31,832 students in the investigation of reading and math outcomes in year one (half were KIPP students and half were non-KIPP). Students were matched once and then followed over time and across subjects. Therefore, study sample sizes in later analysis years and for science and social studies outcomes vary depending on the availability of outcome data for the originally matched sample.
The intervention groups for both the experimental and quasi-experimental portions of the study attended KIPP schools, which are designed to engage students and parents in the educational process, expand the amount of time dedicated to learning, reinforce students’ social competencies and positive behaviors, and improve academic achievement. The KIPP model rests on the “Five Pillars”: (a) high expectations for academic achievement; (b) choice and commitment of students and families to college preparatory education; (c) more time spent learning, both in academic and extracurricular activities; (d) power to lead for school principals, who are given freedom in budgeting, personnel, and other decisions; and (e) focus on results by regularly assessing student learning and driving accountability.
In the experimental design, 62% of students in the comparison group attended traditional public schools, 20% attended non-KIPP charter schools, 14% attended KIPP schools, and 4% attended private schools. Students in the quasi-experimental comparison group attended non-KIPP middle schools in the feeder school district.
Both the experimental and quasi-experimental studies measured state assessments in math and reading, which are typically administered in spring of the school year. These outcomes were measured for 4 follow-up years in the quasi-experimental study and for 2 follow-up years in the experimental study. In addition, science and social studies state exams were included in the quasi-experimental study. These outcomes were measured by the latest available middle school score in each jurisdiction, which was typically eighth grade (i.e., 3 to 4 years postenrollment). The TerraNova reading and mathematics exams were administered in the experimental design only, in fall of the third follow-up year. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
The study did not provide information about implementation support; however, authors noted that staff at KIPP schools had considerable autonomy in the implementation process to set the direction of the school.
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