Schools to watch: School transformation network: A U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation (i3) Development grant. Final evaluation report.
Center for Prevention Research and Development. (2015, September). Champaign, IL: Center for Prevention Research and Development, University of Illinois. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED564016
-
examining5,650Students, grades6-8
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2018
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Schools to Watch)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standardized Score for English/Language Arts (ELA) |
Schools to Watch vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
-0.38 |
-0.37 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Standardized Score for Mathematics |
Schools to Watch vs. Business as usual |
9 Months |
Full sample;
|
-0.40 |
-0.25 |
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.
-
27% English language learners -
Rural, 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, Illinois, North Carolina
-
Race Black 18% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 55% Not Hispanic or Latino 56%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in middle-grades schools, serving students in grades 6 to 8 in California, Illinois, and North Carolina United States. There were a total of 34 schools that were tracked over four years (17 schools in the intervention condition and 17 schools in the comparison condition).
Study sample
The authors do not provide demographics for the comparison group students; however, they do provide them for the intervention group students as a whole. Specifically, 85% of the intervention group students qualified for free/reduced lunch, 85% of the intervention group students were considered minorities, and 27% of the intervention students were English language learners. Of the intervention students, 54.7% were Hispanic, 17.5% were Black/African American, and 14.1% of the students were White.
Intervention Group
This intervention is a school-wide reform model that focuses on the intervention at a systemic level. It provided focused professional development and was designed to improve educational practices. The actual intervention was implemented in 18 urban and rural middle-grades schools from October 2010 to September 2014. The schools in the intervention condition had an intensive multi-layered system of support including: tools and data for assessment, goal setting, action planning and monitoring, technical assistance, networking opportunities, and professional development for school personnel.
Comparison Group
The comparison schools did not receive the intervention. The students and teachers continued with their regular curriculum (business as usual).
Support for implementation
This 4-year project was funded by the U.S. Department of Education Investing in Innovation (i3) development grant. The authors state that the i3 STW Project was implemented with fidelity at the majority of project schools, however implementation during the first two years of the project was not as complete as the last two years due to start up challenges and development of protocols for service delivery. Additionally, there was variability among implementation with smaller schools typically having overall better implementation. Components and challenges that caused this variability among implementation included: coach turnover, diversity of state requirements, and availability of school personnel.
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).