References

Meets WWC standards

Accelerated Middle Schools
Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & Wood, R. (1998). Impacts of dropout prevention programs: Final report. A research report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc. (New Jersey study)

ALAS (Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success)
Larson, K. A., & Rumberger, R. W. (1995). ALAS: Achievement for Latinos through Academic Success. In H. Thornton (Ed.), Staying in school. A technical report of three dropout prevention projects for junior high school students with learning and emotional disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.

Additional sources:
Gándara, P., Larson, K. A., Mehan, H., & Rumberger, R. W. (1998). Capturing Latino students in the academic pipeline. Berkeley, CA: Chicano/Latino Policy Project.

Larson, K. A. (1989). Task-related and interpersonal problem-solving training for increasing school success in high-risk young adolescents. Remedial and Special Education, 10(5), 32–42.

Larson, K. A., & Rumberger, R. W. (1995). Doubling school success in highest-risk Latino youth: Results from a middle school intervention study. In R. F. Macías and R. G. García Ramos (Eds.), Changing Schools for Changing Students. Santa Barbara: University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute.

Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1994). Keeping high-risk Chicano students in school: Lessons from a Los Angeles junior high school dropout prevention intervention. In R. J. Rossi (Ed.), Educational Reforms for At-Risk Students (pp. 141–162). New York: Teachers College Press.

Career Academies
Kemple, J. J. (2004). Career Academies: Impacts on labor market outcomes and educational attainment. New York: MDRC.

Additional sources:
Kemple, J. J., & Snipes, J. C. (2000). Career Academies: Impacts on students’ engagement and performance in high school. New York: MDRC.

Kemple, J. J., & Rock, J. L. (1996). Career Academies: Early implementation lessons from a 10-site evaluation. New York: MDRC.

Check & Connect
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., & Hurley, C. M. (1998). Dropout prevention for youth with disabilities: Efficacy of a sustained school engagement procedure. Exceptional Children, 65(1), 7–21.

Additional sources:
Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., Thurlow, M. L., & Evelo, D. (1999). Promoting student engagement with school using the Check & Connect model. Australian Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 9(1), 169–184.

Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Lehr, C. A., & Anderson, A. R. (2003). Facilitating student engagement: Lessons learned from Check & Connect longitudinal studies. The California School Psychologist, 8(1), 29–42.

Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay in School
Long, D., Gueron, J. M., Wood, R. G., Fisher, R., & Fellerath, V. (1996). LEAP: Three-year impacts of Ohio’s welfare initiative to improve school attendance among teenage parents. New York: MDRC.

Additional sources:
Bloom, D., Kopp, H., Long, D., & Polit, D. (1991). LEAP: Implementing a welfare initiative to improve school attendance among teenage parents. New York: MDRC.

Bos, J. M., & Fellerath, V. (1997). LEAP: Final report on Ohio’s welfare initiative to improve school attendance among teenage parents. New York: MDRC.

High School Redirection
Dynarski, M., & Wood, R. (1997). Helping high-risk youth: Results from the Alternative Schools Demonstration Program. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Wichita study)

Additional sources:
Rubenstein, M. (1995). Giving students a second chance: The evolution of the Alternative Schools Demonstration Program. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Weinbaum, A. T., & Baker, A. M. (1991). Final implementation report: High School Redirection replication project. New York: Academy for Educational Development.

Dynarski, M., & Wood, R. (1997). Helping high-risk youth: Results from the Alternative Schools Demonstration Program. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Cincinnati study)

Additional sources:
Rubenstein, M. (1995). Giving students a second chance: The evolution of the Alternative Schools Demonstration Program. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Weinbaum, A. T., & Baker, A. M. (1991). Final implementation report: High School Redirection replication project. New York: Academy for Educational Development.

Job Corps
Schochet, P. Z., Burghardt, J., & Glazerman, S. (2001). National Job Corps Study: The impacts of Job Corps on participants’ employment and related outcomes. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Additional sources:
Burghardt, J., McConnell, S., Meckstroth A., Schochet, P. Z., Johnson T., & Homrighausen J. (1999). National Job Corps Study: Report on study implementation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

McConnell, S., & Glazerman, S. (2001). National Job Corps Study: The benefits and costs of Job Corps. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

JOBSTART
Cave, G., Bos, H., Doolittle, F., & Toussaint, C. (1993). JOBSTART: Final report on a program for school dropouts. New York, NY: MDRC.

Additional sources:
Auspos, P., Cave, G., Doolittle, F., & Hoerz, G. (1989). Implementing JOBSTART: A demonstration for school dropouts in the JTPA system. New York, NY: MDRC.

Cave, G., & Doolittle, F. (1991). Assessing JOBSTART: Interim impacts of a program for school dropouts. New York, NY: MDRC.

Middle College High School
Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & Wood, R. (1998). Impacts of dropout prevention programs: Final report. A research report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Additional sources:
Dynarski, M., & Gleason, P. (1998). How can we help? What we have learned from evaluations of federal dropout-prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Hershey, A., Adelman, N., & Murray, S. (1995). Helping kids succeed: Implementation of the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Rosenberg, L., & Hershey, A. (1995). The cost of dropout prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

New Chance
Quint, J. C., Bos, H. M., & Polit, D. F. (1997). New Chance: Final report on a comprehensive program for young mothers in poverty and their children. New York, NY: MDRC.

Additional sources:
Quint, J. C., Fink, B. L., & Rowser, S. L. (1991). New Chance: Implementing a comprehensive program for disadvantaged young mothers and their children. New York, NY: MDRC.

Quint, J., Polit, D., Bos, H., & Cave, G. (1994). New Chance: Interim findings on a comprehensive program for disadvantaged young mothers and their children. New York, NY: MDRC.

Meets WWC standards with reservations

Accelerated Middle Schools
Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & Wood, R. (1998). Impacts of dropout prevention programs: Final report. A research report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc. (Georgia study)

Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & Wood, R. (1998). Impacts of dropout prevention programs: Final report. A research report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc. (Michigan study)

Additional sources:
Dynarski, M., & Gleason, P. (1998). How can we help? What we have learned from evaluations of federal dropout prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Hershey, A., Adelman, N., & Murray, S. (1995). Helping kids succeed: Implementation of the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Rosenberg, L., & Hershey, A. (1995). The cost of dropout prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Check & Connect
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2005). Promoting school completion of urban secondary youth with emotional or behavioral disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 465–482.

Additional source:
Sinclair, M. F., Christenson, S. L., Evelo, D. L., Hurley, C. M., Kau, M. Y., Logan, D. T., Thurlow, M. L., & Westberry, D. (2001). Persistence Plus: Using Check & Connect procedures to improve service delivery and positive post-school outcomes for secondary students with serious emotional disturbance. (CDFA No. 84.237H). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration

Financial Incentives for Teen Parents to Stay in School
Mauldon, J., Malvin, J., Stiles, J., Nicosia, N., & Seto, E. (2000). Impact of California’s Cal-Learn Demonstration Project: Final report. Berkeley, CA: University of California, UC DATA.

First Things First
Quint, J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Stephens, L. (2005). Scaling up First Things First: The challenge of scaling up educational reform. New York, NY: MDRC. (Houston study)

Additional source:
Quint, J. C., Byndloss, D. C., and Melamud, B. (2003). Scaling up First Things First: Findings from the first implementation year. New York, NY: MDRC.

High School Redirection: Stockton study
Dynarski, M., & Wood, R. (1997). Helping high-risk youth: Results from the Alternative Schools Demonstration Program. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Stockton study)

Additional sources:
Rubenstein, M. (1995). Giving students a second chance: The evolution of the Alternative Schools Demonstration Program. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Weinbaum, A. T., & Baker, A. M. (1991). Final implementation report: High School Redirection replication project. New York: Academy for Educational Development.

Project GRAD
Snipes, J. C., Holton, G. I., Doolittle, F., & Sztejnberg, L. (2006). Striving for student success: The effect of Project GRAD on high school student outcomes in three urban school districts. New York, NY: MDRC. (Houston study)

Quantum Opportunity Program
Schirm, A., Stuart, E., & McKie, A. (2006). The Quantum Opportunity Program demonstration: Final impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Additional sources:
Maxfield, M., Castner, L., Maralani, V., & Vencill, M. (2003). The Quantum Opportunity Program demonstration: Implementation findings. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Maxfield, M., Schirm, A., & Rodriguez-Planas, N. (2003). The Quantum Opportunity Program demonstration: Implementation and short-term impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Schirm, A., & Rodriguez-Planas, N. (2004). The Quantum Opportunity Program demonstration: Initial post-intervention impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Schirm, A., Rodriguez-Planas, N., Maxfield, M., & Tuttle, C. (2003). The Quantum Opportunity Program demonstration: Short-term impacts. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Talent Development High Schools
Kemple, J., Herlihy, C., & Smith, T. (2005). Making progress toward graduation: Evidence from the talent development high school model. New York: MDRC.

Additional source:
Kemple, J., & Herlihy, C. (2004). The Talent Development High School Model: Context, components, and initial impacts on ninth-grade students’ engagement and performance. New York: MDRC

Talent Search
Constantine, J. M., Seftor, N. S., Martin, E. S., Silva, T., & Myers, D. (2006). A study of the effect of the Talent Search program on secondary and postsecondary outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and Texas: Final report from phase II of the national evaluation. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. (Texas study)

Constantine, J. M., Seftor, N. S., Martin, E. S., Silva, T., & Myers, D. (2006). A study of the effect of the Talent Search program on secondary and postsecondary outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and Texas: Final report from phase II of the national evaluation. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. (Florida study)

Twelve Together
Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & Wood, R. (1998). Impacts of dropout prevention programs: Final report. A research report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc.

Additional sources:
Dynarski, M., & Gleason, P. (1998). How can we help? What we have learned from evaluations of federal dropout-prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Hershey, A., Adelman, N., & Murray, S. (1995). Helping kids succeed: implementation of the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Rosenberg, L., & Hershey, A. (1995). The cost of dropout prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Does not meet WWC eligibility screens or evidence standards

Belief Academy
Edgar, E., & Johnson, E. (1995). Belief Academy: Dropout prevention and intervention project targeting middle school youth with learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disorders at risk for dropping out of school. Project Evaluation 1990–1995. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Career Academies
Dayton, C., & Weisberg, A. (1987). School-to-work and academy demonstration programs: 1986-87 evaluation report (Policy Paper No. PC87-11-12-EMCF). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Dayton, C. (1988). “Jobs for the Disadvantaged” graduate follow-up survey (Policy Paper No. PP88-5-6). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Dayton, C., Weisberg, A., & Stern, D. (1989). California Partnership Academies: 1987–88 evaluation report (Policy Paper No. PP89-9-1). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional sources:
Dayton, C., Reller, D., & Evans, J. (1987). Peninsula Academies replication: 1985-86 evaluation report (Report No. PC87-1-1-WFHF). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Dayton, C., Weisberg, A., Stern, D., & Evans, J. (1988). Peninsula Academies replication: 1986-87 evaluation report (Policy Paper No. PP88-4-3). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Stern, D., Dayton, C., Paik, I., Weisberg, A., & Evans, J. (1988). Combining academic and vocational courses in an integrated program to reduce high school dropout rates: Second-year results from replications of the California Peninsula Academies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 161–170.

Stern, D., Dayton, C., Paik, I., & Weisberg, A. (1989). Benefits and costs of dropout prevention in a high school program combining academic and vocational education: Third-year results from replications of the California Peninsula Academies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(4), 405–416.

Elliott, M. N., Hanser, L. M., & Gilroy, C. L. (2002). Career Academies: Additional evidence of positive student outcomes. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(1), 71–90. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Hanser, L., & Stasz, C. (1999). The effects of enrollment in the Transportation Career Academy program on student outcomes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Maxwell, N., & Rubin, L. (2000). High school career academies: A pathway to educational reform in urban school districts? Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. The study does not meet evidence standards because the overall attrition rate exceeds WWC standards for this area.

Additional sources:
Maxwell, N. (2001). Step to college: Moving from the high school career academy through the 4-Year University. Evaluation Review, 25(6), 619–654.

Maxwell, N., & Rubin, L. (1997). The relative impact of a career academy on post-secondary work and education skills in urban, public high schools (Discussion Paper No. 97-2). Hayward, CA: California State University, Human Investment Research and Education Center.

Maxwell, N., & Rubin, L. (2001). Career academy programs in California: Outcomes and implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California, California Policy Research Center.

Reller, D. J. (1984). The Peninsula Academies: Final technical evaluation report. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional sources:
Reynolds, D. F. (1984). The Peninsula Academies: Third yearly interim report. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.

Reynolds, D. F., & Reeves, J. K. (1983). The Peninsula Academies: Second yearly interim report. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.

Check & Connect
Anderson, A. R., Christenson, S. L., Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2004). Check & Connect: The importance of relationships for promoting engagement with school. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 95–113. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Lehr, C. A., Sinclair, M. F., & Christenson, S. L. (2004). Addressing student engagement and truancy prevention during the elementary school years: A replication study of the Check & Connect model. Journal of Education for Students Placed At- Risk, 9(3), 279–301. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.

Additional sources:
Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2001). Dakota County: Elementary Check & Connect programs. Program evaluation 2001 summary report. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.

Sinclair, M. F., & Lehr, C. A. (2000). Dakota County: Elementary Check & Connect programs. Annual summative program evaluation report. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.

Sinclair, M. F., & Kaibel, C. (2002). Dakota County: Secondary Check & Connect programs. Program evaluation 2002 final summary report. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Thorton, H. E. (Ed.). (1995). Staying in school: A technical report of three dropout prevention projects for middle school students with learning and emotional disabilities. Technical report 1990–1995. ABC dropout prevention and intervention series. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program
Cardenas, J. A., Montecel, M. R., Supik, J. D., & Harris, R. J. (1992). The Coca-Cola Valued Youth Program: Dropout prevention strategies for at-risk students. Texas Researcher, 3, 111–130. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Robledo, M. R., Cardenas, J. A., Garcia, Y. M., Montemayor, A. M., Ramos, M. G., Supik, J. D., & Villarreal, A. (1990). Partners for Valued Youth: Dropout prevention strategies for at-risk language minority students. A technical report. Washington, DC: IDRA/Development Associates. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

First Things First
Quint, J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Stephens, L. (2005). Scaling up First Things First: The challenge of scaling up educational reform. New York, NY: MDRC. (Riverview Gardens study) The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention – there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Quint, J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Stephens, L. (2005). Scaling up First Things First: The challenge of scaling up educational reform. New York, NY: MDRC. (Kansas City study) The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Quint, J., Bloom, H. S., Black, A. R., & Stephens, L. (2005). Scaling up First Things First: The challenge of scaling up educational reform. New York, NY: MDRC. (Shaw and Greenville study) This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Gambone, M. A., Klem, A. M., Summers, J. A., Akey, T. A., & Sipe, C. L. (2004). Turning the tide: The achievements of the First Things First education reform in the Kansas City, Kansas Public School District. Philadelphia, PA: Youth Development Strategies, Inc. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

High School Redirection
Baker, A. M. (1992). Using a theory of dropout prevention to determine the effectiveness of the High School Redirection replication program. Dissertation Abstracts International 52(08), 2761A. (UMI No. 9136351) This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Foley, E., & Crull, P. (1984). Educating the at-risk adolescent: More lessons from alternative high schools. A report. New York: Public Education Association. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Job Corps
Lin, C. W. (1999). Affective work competencies: Evaluation of work-related attitude change in a Job Corps residential center. (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60 (5-A), 1463. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain
specified in the protocol.

Middle College High School
Cavalluzzo, L., Jordan, W., & Corallo, C. (2002). Case studies of high schools on college campuses: An alternative to the traditional high school program. Charleston, WV: AEL. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Cullen, C. L. (1991). Middle College High School: Its organization and effectiveness. (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 52, 358. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and
comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Heard, F. B. (1988). An assessment of the Tennessee Statewide School-College Collaborative for Educational Excellence: The Middle College High School. (Doctoral dissertation, Nova University). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED249637) The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Lieberman, J. E. (1986). Middle College: A ten year study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED271153)The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Lieberman, J. E. (1992). A final report to the Ford Foundation on Middle College replication. Long Island City, NY: LaGuardia Community College. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

National Guard Youth ChalleNGe Corps
Wenger, J. W., & Hodari, A. K. (2004). Final analysis of evaluation of homeschool and ChalleNGe program recruits. Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Garcia, F. E., Gasch, J. L., Wenger, J. W., & Ray, B. D. (2001). Evaluation of the pilot program for home school and ChalleNGe program recruits. Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

New Century High Schools Initiative
Brand, B. (2005). Enhancing high school reform: Lessons from site visits to four cities. Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Foley, E. M., Klinge, A., & Reisner, R. (2007, revised 2008). Evaluation of New Century High Schools: Profile of an initiative to create and sustain small, successful high schools. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Galiatsos, S. (2007). Reforming high schools. New York, NY: New Visions for Public Schools. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Hirota, J. M. (2005). Reframing education: The partnerships strategy and public schools. New York, NY: Youth Development Institute, Fund for the City of New York with the assistance of New Visions for Public Schools. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Huebner, T. A. (2005). Rethinking high school: An introduction to New York City’s experience. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Huebner, T. A., Calisi Corbett, G. & Phillippo, K. (2006). Rethinking high school; Inaugural graduations at New York City’s new high schools. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Melcher, M. (2006). New Century High Schools and the small schools movement in New York City. New York, NY: New Visions for Public Schools. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

New Visions for Public Schools with L. Kurgan. (2005). From large school buildings to small school campuses: Orchestrating the shift. New York, NY: New Visions for Public Schools. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Policy Studies Associates. (2006). Evaluation of the New Century High Schools Initiative: Report on the third year. Washington, DC. 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.

Reisner, E. R., Rubenstein, M. C., Johnson, M. L., & Fabiano, L. (2003). Evaluation of the New Century High Schools Initiative: Report on program implementation in the first year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Rubenstein, M. C., Reisner, E. R., Coon, M. J., & Fabiano, L. (2005). New Century High Schools: Evaluation findings from the second year. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, Inc. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Theroux, K. (2007). Small schools in the big city: Promising results validate reform efforts in New York City high schools. Carnegie Reporter, 4(3). New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York. This study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Project COFFEE
Hayward, B. J., & Tallmadge, K. G. (1995). Strategies for keeping kids in school: Evaluation of dropout prevention and reentry projects in vocational education. Final report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, Research Triangle Institute, and RMC Research Corporation, Arlington, VA. (Turtle Mountain study) The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Hayward, B. J., & Tallmadge, K. G. (1995). Strategies for keeping kids in school: Evaluation of dropout prevention and reentry projects in vocational education. Final report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, Research Triangle Institute, and RMC Research Corporation, Arlington, VA. (Fort Totten study) The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Hayward, B. J., & Tallmadge, K. G. (1995). Strategies for keeping kids in school: Evaluation of dropout prevention and reentry projects in vocational education. Final report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, Research Triangle Institute, and RMC Research Corporation, Arlington, VA. (Fort Berthold study) The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Hayward, B. J., & Tallmadge, K. G. (1995). Strategies for keeping kids in school: Evaluation of dropout prevention and reentry projects in vocational education. Final report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, Research Triangle Institute, and RMC Research Corporation, Arlington, VA. (Fort Yates study) The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Project GRAD
Opuni, K. (1999). Project GRAD: Graduation Really Achieves Dreams. 1998–99 program evaluation report. Houston, TX: University of Houston. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Opuni, K., & Ochoa, M. (2002). Project GRAD: A comprehensive school reform model. Houston, TX: University of Houston. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Snipes, J. C., Holton, G. I., Doolittle, F., & Sztejnberg, L. (2006). Striving for student success: The effect of Project GRAD on high school student outcomes in three urban school districts. New York, NY: MDRC. (Atlanta study) The study does not
meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention – there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Snipes, J. C., Holton, G. I., Doolittle, F., & Sztejnberg, L. (2006). Striving for student success: The effect of Project GRAD on high school student outcomes in three urban school districts. New York, NY: MDRC. (Columbus study) The study does not meet evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention – there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.

Quantum Opportunity Program
Hahn, A., Leavitt, T., & Aaron, P. (1994). Evaluation of the Quantum Opportunities Program (QOP): Did the program work? A report on the post secondary outcomes and cost effectiveness of the QOP program (1989–1993). Waltham, MA: Brandeis University, Center for Human Resources. The study does not meet evidence standards because the differential attrition rate exceeds WWC standards for this area.

Talent Development High Schools
Balfanz, R., Legters, N., & Jordan, W. (2004). Catching up: Impact of the Talent Development ninth grade instructional interventions in reading and mathematics in high-poverty high schools. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, CRESPAR. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

McPartland, J., Balfanz, R., Jordan, W., & Legters, N. (1998). Improving climate and achievement in a troubled urban high school through the Talent Development model. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(4), 337–361. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

McPartland, J., Legters, N., Jordan, W., & McDill, E. L. (1996). The Talent Development High School: Early evidence of impact on school climate, attendance, and student development (Report No. 2). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, CRESPAR. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Talent Development Middle Grades
Herlihy, C., & Kemple, J. (2004). The Talent Development Middle School model: Context, components, and initial impacts on students’ performance and attendance. New York: MDRC. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Mac Iver, D., Plank, S., & Balfantz, R. (2000). Working together to become proficient readers. Early impact of the Talent Development Middle School’s student team literature program. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk (CRESPAR). This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Mac Iver, D., & 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: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed At Risk
(CRESPAR). This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

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

Talent Search
Brewer, E. W., & Landers, J. M. (2005). A longitudinal study of the Talent Search program. Journal of Career Development, 31, 195–208. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Constantine, J. M., Seftor, N. S., Martin, E. S., Silva, T., & Myers, D. (2006). A study of the effect of the Talent Search program on secondary and postsecondary outcomes in Florida, Indiana, and Texas: Final report from phase II of the national evaluation. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the US Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. (Indiana study) This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Franklin, P. (1985). Helping disadvantaged youth and adults enter college: An assessment of two Federal programs. Washington, DC: College Entrance Examination Board. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Green, C. M. (2003). An assessment of the influence of a Talent Search program on the academic and career goals of program participants. Dissertation Abstracts International, Wayne State University. (UMI No. 3086430) This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Simelton, V. E. (1994). An evaluation of the Educational Talent Search Program at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.

Twelve Together
Orr, M. T. (1987). Keeping students in school. A guide to effective dropout prevention services. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc. The study does not meet evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Top