Career Academies: Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes and Educational Attainment
Kemple, James J. (2004). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED484616
-
examining1,458Students, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2023
- Single Study Review (findings for Career academies – Kemple et al. (2000))
- Additional source not reviewed because it is not the primary source for the study (View primary source).
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.Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2022
- Practice Guide (findings for Career Academies)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Additional source not reviewed
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.Career Academies Intervention Report - Dropout Prevention
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2015
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Additional source not reviewed (View primary source).
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 Career Academies.
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.Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2014
- Grant Competition (findings for Career Academies)
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Associate's degree completed |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.19 |
0.17 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Highest degree enrollment: Four-year college |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.26 |
0.25 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Highest degree enrollment: Two-year college |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.38 |
0.38 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Months enrolled in postsecondary education |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
21.30 |
21.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Years of schooling completed |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
12.60 |
12.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Any postsecondary credential completed |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.56 |
0.57 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Ever enrolled in postsecondary education |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.79 |
0.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Bachelor's degree completed |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.16 |
0.18 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Skills training certificate or license completed |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.21 |
0.22 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Highest degree enrollment: Skills training, technical or trade school |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.15 |
0.17 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a GED |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.11 |
0.08 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Earned a high school diploma or GED |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.92 |
0.92 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Earned a high school diploma |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.81 |
0.83 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever employed |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.99 |
0.97 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Ever employed full time |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
0.95 |
0.93 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Months employed |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
36.60 |
35.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Months employed full time |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
29.50 |
27.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Average monthly earnings |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
1145.59 |
1036.94 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Average hours worked per week |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
30.00 |
28.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Average hourly wage |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
9.19 |
8.72 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Total number of jobs held |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
3.10 |
3.10 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Average job duration (in months) |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
Four years post (expected) graduation |
Full;
|
16.10 |
15.80 |
Yes |
|
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: 59%
Male: 41% -
Urban
-
Race Black 29% Other or unknown 8% White 7% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 57% Not Hispanic or Latino 43%
Helping Students Navigate the Path to College: What High Schools Can Do
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2009
Helping Students Navigate the Path to College: What High Schools Can Do Practice Guide- 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.
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
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 56%
Male: 44% -
Race Black 30% Native American 7% White 6% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 55% Not Hispanic or Latino 45%
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).