Helping high-risk youth: Results from the alternative schools demonstration program [Stockton study].
Dynarski, M., & Wood, R. (1997). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
-
examining374Students, grades9-12
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Does not meet WWC standards because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, and the analytic intervention and comparison groups do not 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
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
Study sample characteristics were not reported.High School Redirection Intervention Report - Dropout Prevention
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2007
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with 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 3 (%) |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Cohort 1;
|
40.00 |
32.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total credits earned at end of year 4 |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
Posttest |
Cohort 1;
|
10.50 |
8.50 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of days enrolled in year 1 |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
During Follow-up Year 1 |
Cohort 1;
|
110.00 |
71.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Number of days enrolled in year 2 |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
By End of 2nd Follow-up Year |
Cohort 1;
|
67.00 |
50.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dropped out at end of year 3 (%) |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
End of Follow-up Year 4 |
Cohort 1;
|
43.00 |
53.00 |
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: 50%
Male: 50% -
- 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
-
Ethnicity Hispanic 45% Not Hispanic or Latino 55%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place at the Model Alternative High School, an alternative high school in Stockton, California.
Study sample
The Stockton 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 original study sample of 924 students included two cohorts. Cohort 1 consisted of students who applied to the Model Alternative High School (the replication of High School Redirection in Stockton) prior to or during the 1991–92 school year and included 253 students in the intervention group and 121 students in the control group. Cohort 2 consisted of students who applied prior to or during the 1992–93 school year and included 363 students in the intervention group and 187 students in the control group. The Stockton school district launched a major restructuring effort in the fall of 1993 that merged all its alternative high schools with the Model Alternative High School. This substantially changed the program. It also placed many control group students who had been attending other alternative high schools in the district into the intervention school. Because this district reorganization had a greater effect on Cohort 2 than on Cohort 1, occurring just one year after program entry for the later cohort, the study’s authors estimated the program’s effects using data for Cohort 1 only. Because of this disruption to the study, the WWC rated this study as meeting evidence standards with reservations. Results summarized here are based on school records, which are available for all 253 intervention students and all 121 control group students in Cohort 1, as well as a followup survey administered three years after random assignment. Two hundred and two intervention-group students and 96 control-group students responded to the survey, for response rates of 80% and 79%, respectively. For the students in Cohort 1, 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. Stockton participants were, on average, just under 17 years old at the time they applied to the High School Redirection program. Almost half (45%) were Hispanic; the rest were divided between whites, African-Americans, and other racial and ethnic groups. Participants were evenly split between males and females. Over half (55%) had dropped out of school before applying to the alternative high school.
Intervention Group
The Model Alternative High School 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 Stockton 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, providing on-site child care, offering no extra-curricular activities, and operating with considerable autonomy from the local district. During the evaluation period, the program enrolled approximately 600 students and held both morning and afternoon sessions in order to accommodate more students. Accumulating credits toward graduation was the primary goal of many of the Model Alternative students. Therefore, the school’s independent study option—under which students could complete assigned work on their own time and away from school—was quite popular (Rubenstein, 1995). Besides this independent study option, the school followed the district’s core curriculum without modification.
Comparison Group
Control group students could attend other district high schools that did not implement the High School Redirection model. In some cases, these students attended other alternative high schools for at-risk students operated by the district. Beginning with the 1992–93 school year, these other alternative education programs were located on the same campus as the Model Alternative High School. In 1993–94, these other programs were merged with Model Alternative. According to district records, in the first two years after random assignment (representing the 1991–92 and 1992–93 school years), 24% of control group students attended one of the alternative programs that merged with Model Alternative in the fall of 1993.
Outcome descriptions
Five relevant outcomes from the Stockton High School Redirection study were used for rating purposes: number of days enrolled in a district high school during the first followup year, number of days enrolled in a district high school during the second follow-up year, dropped out at the end of the third follow-up year, cumulative credits earned by the end of the fourth follow-up year, and graduated or earned a GED certificate by the end of the third follow-up year. (See Appendices A2.1, A2.2, and A2.3 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
Support for implementation
Model Alternative High School teachers were regular high school teachers employed by the Stockton 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).