Impacts of dropout prevention programs [Horizon High Schools - Las Vegas, NV]: Final report. A research report from the School Dropout Demonstration Assistance Program evaluation.
Dynarski, M., Gleason, P., Rangarajan, A., & Wood, R. (1998). Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
-
examining150Students, grades9-10
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2017
- Practice Guide (findings for Dropout Prevention)
- 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent received a high school diploma |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Cohort 1;
|
9.00 |
2.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Percent received a high school diploma |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.00 |
1.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Did not drop out (%) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Cohort 1;
|
36.00 |
27.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Did not drop out (%) |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
45.00 |
54.00 |
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.
-
- 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
Nevada
Study Details
Setting
The program was implemented in four alternative High Schools from the Clark County School District in Las Vegas, NV.
Study sample
The study reports demographics for the baseline sample (not the same as the analytic sample because of attrition). The average age of students in both conditions was 16. For intervention group: 51% of students were male; 16% of students were African-American, 62% of students were White, 17% of students were Latino, and 6% of students were other; 16% of students lived in households receiving public assistance, and 4% of students lived in households where English was not the primary language spoken at home. For comparison group: 49% of students were male; 16% of students were African-American, 56% of students were White, 20% of students were Latino, and 8% of students were other; 15% of students lived in households receiving public assistance, and 3% of students lived in households where English was not the primary language spoken at home.
Intervention Group
\The program occurred in an alternative high school, which enrolled approximately 400 students. Because the program occurred in an alternative high school, students may have started at the schools with some high school credits. As a result, the high school created an individualized academic plan for each student. The dropout program included multiple components which lead to a high school degree. Program components included a focus on cooperative learning, small-group instruction and hands-on experiences, and support services and child care.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was described as attending the regular high school without enhanced social services, challenging curriculum, and accelerated learning or the comparison students could attend other programs already established in the local area.
Support for implementation
No additional information was provided.
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).