Not too late: Improving academic outcomes for disadvantaged youth (Working paper WP-15-01)
Cook, P. J., Dodge, K., Farkas, G., Fryer, R. G., Jr., Guryan, J., Ludwig, J., ... Steinberg, L. (2015). Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University. Retrieved from http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/.
-
examining1,919Students, grades9-10
Grant Competition
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2016
- Grant Competition (findings for Match Education's tutoring model)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ACT EXPLORE/PLAN test scores |
Match Education's tutoring model vs. Business as usual |
Full sample;
|
15.13 |
14.87 |
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.
-
Male: 100% -
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
Illinois
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in twelve Chicago Public Schools during the 2013-2014 academic year. The number of classrooms containing intervention participants was not supplied, but both 9th and 10th grade students were included in the intervention.
Study sample
All participants were male and enrolled in the 9th or 10th grade. Over 90% of study participants were eligible for free to reduced lunch. The year prior to the intervention, the average GPA of the study sample was 2.1.
Intervention Group
Match Education's tutoring model includes individualized small group (two-on-one) math tutoring. Tutoring is provided every school day for one hour. Match tutoring is taken as a credit bearing class replacing either an elective or the second math course in a two-course block. Tutoring sessions lasted 55 minutes each, up to 165 hours per academic year. Tutoring was geared both towards helping students with their math deficiencies in general and helping students understand content they were being taught in class in particular. The intervention was both developed and delivered by Match Education of Boston, and took place over the 2013-14 academic year. Tutors were paid employees.
Comparison Group
Both the intervention and comparison students had access to typically-provided services, such as Title I-funded after-school tutoring. Approximately half of participants in the comparison condition (as well as approximately half of the participants in the intervention condition) also participated in the Becoming A Man (B.A.M) program. This program was not the focus of this report. The goal of B.A.M. is to reduce crime and antisocial behavior through teaching social and cognitive skills.
Support for implementation
Tutors underwent 100 hours of training and received daily feedback and professional development. Each school had a site director responsible for providing guidance to the tutors and handling any behavioral issues. The intervention was delivered by Match Education of Boston.
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).