Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Early College, Early Success: Early College High School Initiative Impact Study
Berger, Andrea; Turk-Bicakci, Lori; Garet, Michael; Song, Mengli; Knudson, Joel; Haxton, Clarisse; Zeiser, Kristina; Hoshen, Gur; Ford, Jennifer; Stephan, Jennifer; Keating, Kaeli; Cassidy, Lauren (2013). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577243
-
examining2,458Students, grades9-12
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High school graduation |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
86.00 |
81.00 |
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.
-
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Race Other or unknown 53% White 47%
Study Details
Setting
The 10 Early Colleges were located in five states throughout the country: 5 in urban areas, 2 in mid-sized cities, and 3 in small towns. Eight of the 10 Early Colleges were located on college campuses. Seven had a two-year public college partner, two had a four-year public college partner, and one had both.
Study sample
The sample consists of general education high school students. About half (51.8%) of the Early College group was female vs. 55% of the comparison group. Minority students comprised 52.4% and 53.6% of the intervention and comparison groups, respectively. In addition, 30.7% of the intervention group was first-generation college going vs. 34.4% of the comparison group. Low income students comprised 46.5% of the intervention group vs. 42.3% of the comparison group. None of these differences was statistically significant. On average, 49 percent of the students in the study’s Early Colleges were minority, with a range of 12 to 100 percent minority.12 Three schools served a student population that was at least 80 percent Hispanic or African American. On average, 44 percent of the students in the Early Colleges were low income (i.e., eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program, FRPL) with a range of 9 to 99 percent.
Intervention Group
Six Early Colleges were district-run schools, and the remaining four were charter schools. Most of the schools also had a focus in addition to providing opportunities to earn college credit: five had a STEM focus, and two had a teacher preparation focus. The Early Colleges offered a wide array of supports, with all 10 Early Colleges providing tutoring and college preparatory and access information that highlighted scholarships and other financial aid information. In addition, some of the Early Colleges offered advisories, summer, evening, and weekend classes, extended school days, and/or block scheduling. In terms of the college coursework, seven Early Colleges had course sequences that allowed students to earn at least two years of college credit, two Early Colleges allowed students to earn up to one year of college credit, and one Early College allowed students to earn at least some college credit.
Comparison Group
The comparison students in the study attended 272 different high schools. The control schools were generally much larger than the Early Colleges. At the control schools, AP courses seemed to be more prevalent than dual enrollment as a strategy for students to earn college credit. The majority of the students who did not attend Early Colleges enrolled in larger high schools with larger minority and low-income student populations. Those schools provided fewer academic supports (e.g., tutoring) and a less direct focus on college readiness for all students.
Support for implementation
All but one of the Early Colleges had college instructors, rather than qualified high school instructors, teaching college courses.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Berger, Andrea; Turk-Bicakci, Lori; Garet, Michael; Song, Mengli; Knudson, Joel; Haxton, Clarisse; Zeiser, Kristina; Hoshen, Gur; Ford, Jennifer; Stephan, Jennifer; Keating, Kaeli; Cassidy, Lauren. (2013). Early College, Early Success: Early College High School Initiative Impact Study. American Institutes for Research.
Dual Enrollment Programs Intervention Report - Transition to College
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2017
- 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 Dual Enrollment Programs.
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.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).