Woodworth, K. R., David, J. L., Guha, R., Wang, H., & Lopez-Torkos, A. (2008). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.
Reviewed: February 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test: Mathematics |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 5; Combined schools A, B, and C; 2004 cohort.;
|
342.27 |
301.83 |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test: Mathematics |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 5; Combined schools A, B, and C; 2003 cohort.;
|
323.99 |
297.36 |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test: Mathematics |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6; Combined schools A, B, and C;
|
351.44 |
312.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 6; Schools A, B, and C, combined;
|
338.74 |
314.12 |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 5; Combined schools A, B, and C. 2004 cohort.;
|
328.41 |
313.75 |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test English Language Arts (CST-ELA) |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Grade: 5; Combined Schools A, B, and C; 2003 cohort;
|
323.22 |
317.59 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 69% | |
| Other or unknown | 32% |
| Hispanic | 19% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 81% |
The study was conducted in two school districts in the San Francisco Bay Area in California. Three Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) schools were included in the intervention group in the analysis. The two districts that these three schools belonged to were kept anonymous for the impact analysis section of the study.
There were 263 fifth grade KIPP students included in the analytic sample. On average 11% were Latino, 78% were African American, 8% were English learners, 14% were special education students, 81% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and 49% were female. The average age in months of these students was 123.67. The fifth grade comparison group students had similar demographic characteristics, as these characteristics were used in the propensity score matching process. The sixth grade students included in the analytic sample were broadly similar to the fifth grade students in terms of demographic characteristics. At School A, 26 sixth graders were included in the analysis. On average 19% were Latino, 73% were African American, 15% were English learners, 4% were special education students, 81% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, 62% were female, and the average starting age in months was 122.94. At School B, 25 sixth graders were included in the analysis. On average 44% were Latino, 36% were African American, 44% were English learners, 8% were special education students, 84% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, 52% were female, and the average starting age in months was 123.62. At School C, 19 sixth graders were included in the analysis. On average 16% were Latino, 68% were African American, 16% were English learners, 5% were special education students, 74% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, 58% were female, and the average starting age in months was 123.95. The sixth grade comparison group students had similar demographic characteristics, as these characteristics were used in the propensity score matching process.
The intervention consisted of one year of attendance at a KIPP school in the Bay Area in California. Only students who attended the full year were included in the treatment sample. Each KIPP school adheres to a set of five principals: "Choice and commitment" highlights that students and parents choose to attend a KIPP school and follow its program. "High expectations" are maintained for each student through a system of rewards and consequences for behavior. KIPP schools have "more time" than other schools, with school days lasting at least 9 hours and Saturday school during the summer and at least 85 minutes daily is spent on ELA and mathematics. KIPP school leaders have the "power to lead" meaning that they have total control over their budgets and personnel. Students at KIPP schools are supposed to have "focus on results" by performing well on standardized tests and preparing for high school and college. Teachers joining KIPP schools in the sample generally came from highly selective colleges, were alternatively certified, and had a median of 3 years of classroom experience.
Students in the comparison group experienced business-as-usual instruction at other schools in the district. Students who attended a KIPP school but transferred to another school in the district are excluded from the comparison group.
The Bay Area KIPP schools raise between $400,000 and $700,000 each year to cover the gap between operating costs and the money they receive from state and local funds. The KIPP Foundation provides support by helping with teacher recruitment, fundraising, and other logistics. KIPP school leaders have substantial control over teacher hiring and their schools in general.
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).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test English/Language Arts (CST-ELA)- scaled score |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Aggregated sample; Grade 6;
|
339.85 |
313.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
California Standards Test English/Language Arts (CST-ELA)- scaled score |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Aggregated sample; grade 5;
|
325.47 |
316.39 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
California Standards Test English/Language Arts (CST-ELA)- scaled score |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Aggregated sample; Grades 5 and 6;
|
328.49 |
315.68 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California's State Standardized Assessment in Mathematics |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Aggregated sample; Grade 5;
|
331.91 |
298.76 |
Yes |
|
|
|
California's State Standardized Assessment in Mathematics |
Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Aggregated sample; Grade 6;
|
349.91 |
311.29 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 75% | |
| Other or unknown | 25% |
| Hispanic | 13% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 87% |
The study was conducted in two unnamed school districts in the San Francisco Bay Area in California. Three KIPP schools were included in the intervention group in the analysis.
The study used a matched-student quasi-experimental design, where the intervention group was comprised of students at five KIPP middle schools, and the comparison group was a sample of students matched on baseline reading and math test scores; gender, race, special education, limited English proficiency, and free or reduced-price lunch status; and whether the student repeated a grade in the baseline year. There were 263 fifth-grade KIPP students included in the analytic sample. On average, 11% were Latino, 78% were African American, 8% were English learners, 14% were special education students, 81% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and 49% were female. The average age in years of these students was 10.3. Among the 810 sixth-grade students (70 KIPP students and 740 comparison students) included in the analytic sample, 26% were Latino, 56% were African American, 28% were English learners, 7% were special education students, 86% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunches, and 59% were female.
The intervention consisted of 1 year of attendance at one of three KIPP schools in the Bay Area in California. Only students who attended the full year were included in the intervention group sample. Each KIPP school adheres to a set of five principals: “Choice and commitment” highlights that students and parents choose to attend a KIPP school and follow its program. “High expectations” are maintained for each student through a system of rewards and consequences for behavior. KIPP schools have “more time” than other schools, with school days lasting at least 9 hours and Saturday school during the summer, and at least 85 minutes daily is spent on English language arts and mathematics. KIPP school leaders have the “power to lead” meaning that they have total control over their budgets and personnel. Students at KIPP schools are supposed to have “focus on results” by performing well on standardized tests and preparing for high school and college. Teachers joining KIPP schools in the sample generally came from highly selective colleges, were alternatively certified, and had a median of 3 years of classroom experience. The sixth-grade analysis includes students who joined one of the three study schools during their sixth-grade year.
Students in the comparison group experienced business-as-usual instruction at other schools in the district. Students who attended a KIPP school but transferred to another school in the district are excluded from the comparison group.
The Bay Area KIPP schools raise between $400,000 and $700,000 each year to cover the gap between operating costs and the money they receive from state and local funds. The KIPP Foundation provides support by helping with teacher recruitment, fundraising, and other logistics. KIPP school leaders have substantial control over teacher hiring and their schools in general.
Reviewed: November 2008
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
5th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Attendance at a non-KIPP public school in the same district |
Posttest |
School C 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
374.69 |
301.31 |
Yes |
|
|
|
5th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Attendance at a non-KIPP public school in the same district |
Posttest |
School C 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
336.13 |
294.84 |
Yes |
|
|
|
5th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School B 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
335.05 |
294.58 |
Yes |
|
|
|
5th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School A 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
316.10 |
290.58 |
Yes |
|
|
|
5th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School A 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
314.66 |
289.74 |
No |
-- | |
|
5th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School B 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
305.53 |
290.89 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School A 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
293.25 |
292.37 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Attendance at a non-KIPP public school in the same district |
Posttest |
School C 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
303.43 |
302.54 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School B 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
297.66 |
297.80 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Attendance at a non-KIPP public school in the same district |
Posttest |
School C 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
299.21 |
298.81 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School A 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
302.80 |
303.76 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade math score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School B 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
297.87 |
299.85 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
5th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Attendance at a non-KIPP public school in the same district |
Posttest |
School C 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
346.97 |
318.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
5th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Attendance at a non-KIPP public school in the same district |
Posttest |
School C 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
333.63 |
313.89 |
Yes |
|
|
|
5th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School A 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
314.00 |
305.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
5th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School B 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
323.26 |
312.81 |
No |
-- | |
|
5th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School B 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
321.69 |
318.32 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Attendance at a non-KIPP public school in the same district |
Posttest |
School C 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
319.04 |
318.39 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School A 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
299.30 |
299.31 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School B 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
312.86 |
313.84 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Attendance at a non-KIPP public school in the same district |
Posttest |
School C 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
312.26 |
313.27 |
No |
-- | |
|
5th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School A 5th graders: Cohort 2003;
|
308.50 |
310.05 |
No |
-- | |
|
4th grade English Language Arts (ELA) score |
San Francisco Bay Area Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) Schools vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
School B 5th graders: Cohort 2004;
|
309.85 |
311.73 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 13% | |
| Black | 40% | |
| White | 4% |
| Hispanic | 35% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 65% |
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