Heistad, D. (2007). Minneapolis, MN: Office of Research, Evaluation and Assessment, Minneapolis Public Schools.
Reviewed: November 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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 1- Grade: 3, 5, 7;
|
2.87 |
2.86 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 2- Grades 3-7;
|
32.95 |
32.98 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 2- Grade: 5;
|
544.30 |
540.20 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 1- Grade: 3;
|
1519.00 |
1499.21 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 1- Grade: 7;
|
1410.54 |
1404.31 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 2- Grade: 6;
|
643.80 |
643.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 1- Grade: 5;
|
1396.63 |
1400.45 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 2- Grade: 4;
|
443.60 |
444.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 2- Grade: 3;
|
347.80 |
348.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED 2- Grade: 8;
|
842.80 |
843.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment (MCA): Reading portion |
Supplemental education services vs. None |
1 Year |
QED- Grade: 7;
|
736.40 |
737.80 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study sample was 3rd - 8th grade students in the Minneapolis Public Schools from the 2004-2005 school year (QED 1) and for the 2005-06 school year (QED 2 and QED 3). Among the QEDs, the authors do not provide any information about how the samples may overlap from 2004-2005 with Catapult Learning, from 2005-06 with Catapult Learning Online SES, and from 2005-06 with Club Z Tutoring. The author provides no detailed information about where the studies were implemented, or how many classes were involved.
QED 1 had a total of 569 students in the intervention group and 569 students in the matched comparison group, and included Grades 3, 5, and 7. Overall, 13% of the intervention group was special education, 21% were English learners, and 71% were free and reduced price lunch eligible. QED 2 had a total of 108 students in the intervention group and 108 students in the matched comparison group, and included Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (Total n=216). The authors did not specify demographic characteristics of the intervention or comparison groups for this analysis. QED 3 had a total of 60 students in Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, with 30 who received the Club Z math tutoring and 30 in the comparison group. The authors reported that the final sample of 30 intervention students and 30 matched students were 73% English learners for each group.
The report includes information on the 13 SES providers and the numbers of students served, as well as the number of sessions each student received during the 2004-05 school year. The number of sessions per student ranged from 2 to 65. The means of sessions per student per provider ranged from 14.8 to 56.8. With Catapult Learning in 2004-05, students received an average of 35-40 hours of additional instruction during the school year by after school instructors (some were unlicensed teachers). In 2005-06, licensed teachers were used as instructors and small group tutoring was employed. The services provided by Club Z tutoring were one-on-one in-home tutoring. Supplemental education services (SES) are mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, when schools do not make Adequate Yearly Progress for two or more years. The article did not report on a definition of supplemental educational services. As background from Sunderman (2007), NCLB specifies that supplemental educational services should support student achievement, expand educational opportunities for students, and provide support for low-performing schools to improve instruction. SES services most often include tutoring in reading, math, or other key academic subject, and NCLB requires that SES services be provided outside the school day. NCLB requires that the programming be research -based, high-quality, and focused on improving student achievement.
The matched sample to the intervention group did not receive supplemental education services during the 2004-2005 (QED 1) or 2005-2006 (QED 2 and 3) school years.
Supports for implementation are not described in the article, however, supplemental education services mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 are generally supported by school-level administration and the implementation procedures specified by the state-level approval process that SES vendors must undergo. Supports for implementation would have included training and quality assurance procedures in place by Catapult Learning, Catapult Learning online SES services, and Club Z tutoring services for its tutors and providers.
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