Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & Wood, R. (1998). A research report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (Georgia study).
Reviewed: September 2016
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.
Reviewed: July 2008
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 Accelerated Middle Schools.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Highest grade completed after two years |
Accelerated Middle Schools vs. business as usual |
End of 2 years |
Georgia;
|
8.60 |
7.90 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dropped out after two years (%) |
Accelerated Middle Schools vs. business as usual |
End of 2 years |
Georgia;
|
6.00 |
14.00 |
Yes |
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 62% | |
| Other or unknown | 1% | |
| White | 37% |
| Hispanic | 1% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 99% |
The Georgia study was conducted in the Griffi n-Spalding school district south of Atlanta, Georgia.
The Georgia study used a randomized controlled trial research design. The study sample included one cohort of 160 students who entered the 7th or 8th grade in the Griffin-Spalding (Georgia) school district in the 1993/94 school year. All students had been retained in grade at least once. Eighty students were randomly assigned to the accelerated middle school group and were offered admission to Griffi n-Spalding Middle School Academy. The other 80 students were randomly assigned to the control group and generally attended one of the other three traditional middle schools in the district. Participants were, on average, 14-years-old when they entered the program. About 60% of students were African-American; most others were White. More than 70% were male. About three-quarters of participants had discipline problems in the previous school year. Results summarized here are drawn from a follow-up survey administered two years after random assignment: 67 intervention-group students (84%) and 73 control-group students (91%) responded. Because the response rates represent differential attrition of more than 5 percentage points, the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) rated this study as meeting evidence standards with reservations. Researchers compared the baseline characteristics of follow-up survey respondents in the two research groups on 13 demographic, socioeconomic, and school performance measures. A statistical test of the overall difference between the research groups on the full set of 13 baseline characteristics found that a statistically significant baseline difference did exist between the research groups (at the 0.10 significance level). Study authors report that intervention-group students were more likely to be from two-parent families, less likely to receive public assistance, and less likely to be frequently absent from school. Researchers used regression models to adjust for these differences when estimating the effects of the program.
During the study period Project ACCEL served 6th and 7th graders who were retained in grade at least once. (The program is no longer in operation.) The aim of the program was to allow behind-grade-level middle school students to accelerate their studies and “catch up” with their age peers. Sixth graders typically stayed in the program for two years and covered three years of curriculum material. Seventh graders were in the program for one year and covered the 7th and 8th grade curriculum. Project ACCEL operated in fi ve district schools in Newark, some that were organized as K–8 elementary schools and others that were organized as grades 5–8 middle schools. Project ACCEL used a school-within-a-school approach and operated out of a cluster of classrooms within these schools. Each of the five programs served about 50 students, taught by a team of four teachers who each covered one of four subjects: English, math, basic skills, and science/social studies. (In contrast, in other Newark classrooms for middle-grade students at that time teachers typically taught all subjects and worked with only one group of students throughout the day.) Project ACCEL instructional staff used team teaching strategies and collaborated to link the curriculum thematically across subjects. The program had a strong emphasis on discipline and attendance monitoring. Students who missed more than nine days of school were subject to termination from the program. Teachers assigned more homework than was typical in other Newark schools to facilitate the coverage of an accelerated curriculum. Classes were small and generally included 12 or 13 students. One full-time guidance counselor was available to the program and worked closely with ACCEL students and teachers. Consistent with the program’s emphasis on counseling and case ,anagement, on follow-up surveys more intervention-group students than control-group students reported having received counseling during the fi rst follow-up year—74% compared with 59%. Similarly, more intervention-group students reported having received a referral to an outside social services agency during this period—27% compared with 15% (Dynarski et al. 1998). Project ACCEL staff members were supervised by the school principal. However, each Project ACCEL team had considerable autonomy in operating their program.
Control-group students typically remained in one of the three traditional middle schools in the Griffi n-Spalding school district.
Two relevant outcomes from the Georgia study are included in this summary: the dropout rate and highest grade completed. (For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendices A2.1 and A2.2.) The study also examined the program’s effects on absenteeism, English and math grades, self-esteem, and perceived likelihood of completing high school. These outcomes do not fall within the three domains examined by the WWC’s review of dropout prevention interventions (staying in school, progressing in school, and completing school) and are not included in this summary.
Instructional staff members at Griffi n-Spalding Middle School Academy were regular classroom teachers from the Griffi n-Spalding district. According to evaluation team researchers, they did not receive additional training as part of their assignment to the academy.
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
Dynarski, M., & Gleason, P. (1998). How can we help? What we have learned from evaluations of federal dropout prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
Hershey, A., Adelman, N., & Murray, S. (1995). Helping kids succeed: Implementation of the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Rosenberg, L., & Hershey, A. M. (1995). The cost of dropout prevention programs. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube