Unconditional Education Year 1 Evaluation Report.
Blackorby, J., Wagner, M., Wei, X., Lee-St. John, T., & McCracken, M. (n.d.). Arlington, VA: SRI Education.
-
examining1,979Students, grades4-11
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Unconditional Education)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ELA |
Unconditional Education vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mathematics achievement |
Unconditional Education vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
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.
-
Urban
-
- 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
Study Details
Setting
Intervention group students were enrolled in five Oakland and two San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) schools. Comparison group students were enrolled in schools in the Oakland Unified School District and SFUSD who did not receive the intervention. Four of the five Oakland schools were public charter schools.
Intervention Group
Unconditional Education was a whole-school approach with the following components: initial assessment, Coordination of Services Team (COST), blended funding, multitiered system of supports, school and community capacity building, caregiver involvement, data-driven decision making, and UE coach. Initial assessment of the school was done through interview with school staff, parent and student surveys, and "analysis of the distribution of staff and student time across services offered." COST was a group, who under the guidance o f the UE coach, created standards for start and stop of services and forms for referrals, tracked student data, and regularly conducted student interviews. Blended funding meant that services funded under Title 1, special education, and mental health were used to comprehensively and holistically support student improvement. The multitiered system of supports included curricula, instructional methods, and assessments. The schools and community built capacity through ongoing professional development and on-site coaching. Caregivers were involved though training and workshops for parents/caregivers. Data-driven decision making was based on school performance, school climate, service provision, and student progress data. There was a UE coach assigned to each partner school to work directly with school staff.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was teaching as usual at schools that had not implemented the intervention in the San Francisco Unified District or the Oakland Unified School district. The authors did not provide additional description as to what that would entail.
Support for implementation
All schools implementing the intervention were assigned a UE coach as part of the intervention and were provided with professional development for staff, as well as workshops and training for parents and other caregivers. The UE coach was assigned full time to each school and worked with staff to conduct assessments, create plans, implement COST, monitor progress, and provide the professional development and other coaching.
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).