Helping high-risk youths: Results from the alternative schools demonstration program [Cincinnati study].
Dynarski, M., & Wood, R. (1997). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
-
examining902Students, grades9-12
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) )
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a high school diploma or GED |
Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
7.00 |
6.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Graduated from high school |
Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
4.00 |
1.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned a GED |
Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
3.00 |
5.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dropped out (%) |
Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
80.00 |
83.00 |
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
Ohio
-
Race Black 82% White 16% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 1% Not Hispanic or Latino 99%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in Cincinnati, Ohio. One school implemented the intervention. Students in the comparison group had the option to attend one of multiple schools.
Study sample
In the intervention group, 46% of students identified as male, 16% identified as White, non-Hispanic, 82% identified as Black, non-Hispanic, and 1% identified as Hispanic. A majority of students said that their mother had a high school education or more (62%). No (0%) students said that the primary language spoken at was not English. In the comparison group, 43% of students identified as male, 15% identified as White, non-Hispanic, 82% identified as Black, non-Hispanic, and 1% identified as Hispanic. A majority of students said that their mother had a high school education or more (60%). No (0%) students said that the primary language spoken at was not English.
Intervention Group
The Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) was created to address dropout rates among certain segments of the youth population. ASDP funded establishment and evaluation of alternative schools in seven economically disadvantaged areas around the country. The schools were designed to improve the basic skills and employability of highly at-risk youth. The program was modeled after High School Redirection, an alternative high school in Brooklyn. The schools served youth who had persistent problems in the regular public school system, such as repeated incidents of academic failure or frequent truancy. The schools in the program emphasize basic skill development while promoting other aspects of personal development. ASDP schools were to have seven key features: 1) issuance of standard high school diplomas, 2) operate in low-income locations separate from other high schools, 3) maintain a degree of autonomy from the district's central office in their daily operations, policy-making, and hiring decisions, 4) on site childcare, 5) intensive remedial reading programs for students with serious literacy problems, 6) serve about 500 students, with admission based on referral rather than accessibility or proximity to students (students could not be denied based on past issues), and 7) operated by local boards of education, and staffed by supervisors and teachers who meet the normal district standards. Extracurricular activities were limited. The evaluation focused on academic, economic, and social impacts of the program. This study review in particular examine findings from a limited evaluation of Peter H. Clark Academy in Cincinnati, Ohio. The study examines the effectiveness of the program on dropout and graduation rates, and GED receipt.
Comparison Group
Comparison group students received business-as-usual because they attended a non-program school.
Support for implementation
The authors did not discuss or provide support for implementation.
High School Redirection Intervention Report - Dropout Prevention
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2007
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for High School Redirection.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a high school diploma or GED at end of year 2 (%) |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
By End of 2nd Follow-up Year |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
7.00 |
6.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dropped out at end of year 2 (%) |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
By End of 2nd Follow-up Year |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
80.00 |
83.00 |
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.
-
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
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
Ohio
-
Race Black 82%
Study Details
Setting
The study was conducted at the Peter H. Clark Academy, an alternative high school in Cincinnati, Ohio.
Study sample
The Cincinnati High School Redirection study used a randomized controlled trial research design. Students were assigned to the two research groups using a 2:1 random assignment ratio under which two students were assigned to the intervention group for every one student assigned to the control group. The study sample of 902 students included two cohorts. Cohort 1 consisted of students who applied to Clark Academy (the replication of High School Redirection in Cincinnati) prior to or during the 1993–94 school year and included 390 students in the intervention group and 185 students in the control group. Cohort 2 consisted of students who applied prior to or during the 1994–95 school year and included 222 students in the intervention group and 105 students in the control group. Results summarized here are based on school records, which are available for all 612 intervention students and all 290 control group students in the two cohorts. Researchers compared the baseline characteristics of the two research groups on 12 demographic, socio-economic, and school-related measures. A statistical test of the overall difference between the research groups on the full set of 12 baseline characteristics found that the groups were not significantly different. Cincinnati study participants were, on average, 17.6 years old at the time they applied to the High School Redirection program. Most (82%) were African-American. Just over half of participants (54%) were female. Over a third were teenage parents. About 6 in 10 had dropped out of school before applying to the alternative high school.
Intervention Group
The Peter H. Clark Academy was a replication of High School Redirection and was part of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) evaluation. The Cincinnati school included most of the key features of the High School Redirection model specified by the ASDP evaluation: granting regular high school diplomas, taking students from throughout the district, offering the STAR remedial reading program to those with serious literacy problems, offering no extra-curricular activities, and operating with considerable autonomy from the local district. The program had capacity for 250 students and operated out of a converted elementary school in a poor neighborhood of Cincinnati. Unlike the other High School Redirection replication sites summarized in this report, the program did not offer on-site child care. Instead, it offered off-site child care and van service between the school and the daycare facility. The school developed a special curriculum for ninth grade in which educational themes were integrated across the curriculum. The school also offered a modified English curriculum that allowed some students to earn graduation credits at an accelerated pace. Beyond these two modifications, the school offered the standard district curriculum (Rubenstein, 1995).
Comparison Group
Control group students could attend other district high schools that did not implement the High School Redirection model. At the time of the ASDP evaluation, the Cincinnati Public Schools offered few other alternative education programs for at-risk students besides the Peter H. Clark Academy.
Outcome descriptions
Two relevant outcomes from the Cincinnati High School Redirection study were used for rating purposes: dropped out at the end of the second follow-up year and graduated or earned a GED certificate by the end of the second follow-up year. (See Appendices A2.1, A2.2, and A2.3 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
Clark Academy teachers were regular high school teachers employed by the Cincinnati Public Schools. No additional information about specific training they received was available.
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).