The Building Assets-Reducing Risks Program: Replication and Expansion of an Effective Strategy to Turn Around Low-Achieving Schools. i3 Development Grant. Final Report
Corsello, Maryann; Sharma, Anu (2015). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560804
-
examining548Students, grade9
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Average GPA in core courses |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
More proficient students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Less proficient students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Less proficient students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
More proficient students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent of students without at least one failure in a core course |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
79.00 |
68.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Credits earned in core courses |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
17% English language learners -
11% Minority -
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Suburban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
California
-
Race White 52% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 37% Not Hispanic or Latino 63%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted in a large high school in suburban southern California. Enrollment was 2514 students.
Study sample
Of the 555 ninth-grade students who participated, 54% were female, 46% male, 68% were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, 17% were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, 17% were ELL students, 52% Caucasian, 37% Hispanic, and 11% were African American, Asian, American Indian, or mixed race.
Intervention Group
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) is a model that assists students in the transition to ninth grade using eight school-wide and individual strategies. These strategies are: providing repeated professional development that focuses on how student-teacher relationships can help student achievement, creating student cohorts who take core courses together, encouraging families to participate in their student's learning, using BARR's I-Time Curriculum, holding regular meetings of cohort teacher teams, conducting risk-review meetings to target support to persistently low-performing students, focusing on the student as a whole (i.e., not just academically, but also students' social, emotional, and physical needs), and ongoing supportive administrator engagement. The I-Team Curriculum entailed a weekly 30-minute lesson focusing on social/emotional issues for adolescent students.
Comparison Group
The non-BARR group was described as "business as usual". Teachers did not receive the repeated professional development or support and likely taught as they had in the past.
Support for implementation
Once a site coordinator was chosen as an intermediary between the participating teachers and principal, teachers and administrators received two days of training on BARR theory and principles. A technical assistance provider called the BARR coordinator at least every week while the project director ran monthly professional Professional Learning Community conference calls with coordinators and administrators.
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).