Skip Navigation

What Works Clearinghouse


References

Studies that fall outside the Dropout Prevention protocol or do not meet evidence standards

Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2006). Closing the mathematics achievement gap in high-poverty middle schools: Enablers and constraints. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 11(2), 143–159. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 223–235. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Balfanz, R., & Mac Iver, D. (2000). Transforming high-poverty urban middle schools into strong learning institutions: Lessons from the first five years of the talent development middle school. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 5(1), 137–158. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Balfanz, R., Mac Iver, D., & Ryan, D. (2002). Enabling algebra for all with a facilitated instructional program: A case study of a Talent Development Middle School. In V. A. Anfara, & S. L. Stacki (Eds.), Middle school curriculum, instruction, and assessment: The handbook of research in middle level education series (vol. 2). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Herlihy, C. M., & Kemple, J. J. (2004). The Talent Development Middle School model: Context, components, and initial impacts on students’ performance and attendance. New York, NY: MDRC. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because it only includes outcomes that are overaligned with the intervention or measured in a way that is inconsistent with the protocol.

Additional Source
Herlihy, C. M., & Kemple, J. J. (2005). The Talent Development Middle School model: Impacts through the 2003–2004 school year. An update to the December 2004 report. New York, NY: MDRC.

Mac Iver, D. J., Balfanz, R., Ruby, A., Byrnes, V., Lorentz, S., & Jones, L. (2004). Developing adolescent literacy in high poverty middle schools: The impact of Talent Development’s reforms across multiple years and sites. In P. R. Pintrich, & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Motivating students, improving school: The legacy of Carol Midgley (Advances in Motivation and Achievement, vol. 13) (pp. 185–207). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Mac Iver, D. J., Mac Iver, M. A., Balfanz, R., Plank, S. B., & Ruby, A. (2000). Talent Development Middle Schools: Blueprints and results for a comprehensive whole-school reform model. In M. G. Sanders (Ed.), Schooling students placed at risk: Research, policy, and practice in the education of poor and minority adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Mac Iver, D. J., & Plank, S. (1996). The Talent Development Middle School. Creating a motivational climate conducive to talent development in middle schools: Implementation and effects of student team reading. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University & Howard University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Mac Iver, D. J., Plank, S., & Balfanz, R. (1997). Working together to become proficient readers: Early impact of the Talent Development Middle School’s student team literature program. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University & Howard University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Mac Iver, D. J., Ruby, A., Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2002). Removed from the list: A comparative longitudinal case study of a reconstitution-eligible school. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(3), 259–289. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of assignment in one or both conditions.

Mac Iver, D. J., Ruby, A., Balfanz, R., Jones, L., Sion, F., Garriott, M., et al. (2007). The Talent Development Middle Grades model: A design for improving early adolescents’ developmental trajectories in high-poverty schools. In J. Meece, & J. Eccles (Eds.), Handbook of research on schools, schooling, and development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Mac Iver, M. A., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). The impact of comprehensive school reform with NSF-supported mathematics curricula on urban middle grades student mathematics achievement. Unpublished manuscript. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Plank, S. B., & Young, E. (2000). Lessons for scaling up: Evaluations of the Talent Development Middle School’s student team literature program. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University & Howard University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Ruby, A. (2006). Improving science achievement at high-poverty urban middle schools. Science Education, 90(6), 1005–1027. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Useem, E. L. (1998). Teachers’ appraisals of Talent Development Middle School training, materials, and student progress: Results from focus groups. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk, Johns Hopkins University & Howard University. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Useem, E. L. (2001). New teacher staffing and comprehensive middle school reform: Philadelphia’s experience. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Education Fund. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Useem, E. L. (2001). Second-year teachers’ experience in Philadelphia’s Talent Development Middle Schools. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia Education Fund. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Top