Academic Impacts of Career and Technical Schools
Neild, Ruth Curran,; Boccanfuso, Christopher; Byrnes, Vaughan (2015). Career and Technical Education Research, v40 n1 p28-47 . Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1132478
-
examining22,750Students, grades9-12
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015))
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cumulative GPA |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2005;
|
1.64 |
1.65 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College preparatory math sequence |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2003;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | |
|
College preparatory math sequence |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2004;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | |
|
College preparatory math sequence |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2005;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | |
|
College preparatory science sequence |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2003;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
College preparatory science sequence |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2004;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | |
|
College preparatory science sequence |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Class of 2005;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic growth - reading |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Class of 2005;
|
-0.49 |
-0.52 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic growth - mathematics |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Class of 2004;
|
-0.15 |
-1.41 |
No |
-- | |
|
Academic growth - mathematics |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Class of 2005;
|
2.41 |
2.01 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Five year graduation |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Class of 2003;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Five year graduation |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Class of 2004;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
On-time graduation |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2003;
|
52.60 |
46.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On-time graduation |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2004;
|
63.20 |
58.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
On-time graduation |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2005;
|
60.90 |
59.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Six year graduation |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Class of 2003;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed foreign language sequence |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2003;
|
N/A |
N/A |
Yes |
-- | |
|
Completed foreign language sequence |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2004;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Completed foreign language sequence |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2005;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total number of credits earned |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2003;
|
19.15 |
17.34 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Total number of credits earned |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2004;
|
20.55 |
19.95 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Total number of credits earned |
Career and technical schools – Neild et al. (2015) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Class of 2005;
|
20.95 |
21.03 |
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.
-
3% English language learners -
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Asian 5% Black 71% Other or unknown 11% White 13% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 11% Not Hispanic or Latino 89% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study involved three cohorts of public school students in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. These cohorts were classified by the year in which they would have completed high school with an on-time graduation: 2003, 2004, and 2005. Students in the study had applied to and were eligible to enroll in at least one of five career and technical high schools located within the Philadelphia School District.
Study sample
Approximately 54% of the students were female, 3% were English learners, and 14% received special education services. About 71% were Black, 13% were White, 5% were Asian, and 11% were Hispanic or Latino.
Intervention Group
The intervention is "Career and technical schools - Neild et al. (2015)," which is attendance at career and technical (CTE) high schools, a school-level program. There were four CTE schools in the School District of Philadelphia when the Classes of 2003 and 2004 attended school; a fifth CTE school was opened in time for the Class of 2005. The CTE schools differed in their areas of focus. One school focused exclusively on careers in agriculture and animal care, while others offered several fields of study including building trades, culinary arts, information technology, and more. At the time of the study, the district required that all students, including those in CTE schools, take college-preparatory academic courses in addition to any vocational courses. About 43 percent of students who were accepted to a CTE school did not attend one. Of students who did attend, most but not all attended for all four years of high school.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group received business-as-usual instruction in Philadelphia public high schools. These students applied to a CTE school for grade 9 but were not accepted. They could attend neighborhood schools or other special admissions schools, such as magnet schools. All attended Philadelphia schools at least for grades 8 and 9.
Support for implementation
The study does not describe any support for implementation.
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.
-
Neild, Ruth Curran; Boccanfuso, Christopher; Byrnes, Vaughan. (2013). The Academic Impacts of Career and Technical Schools: A Case Study of a Large Urban School District. Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2017
- Practice Guide (findings for Dropout Prevention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
4-year high school graduation rate |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample, Class of 2005;
|
N/A |
56.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total credits earned at end of year 4 |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample, Class of 2005;
|
20.73 |
19.90 |
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.
-
6% English language learners -
Female: 57%
Male: 43% -
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
Pennsylvania
-
Race Asian 5% Black 69% Other or unknown 1% White 14% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 12%
Study Details
Setting
This study involved three cohorts of public school students in Philadelphia, PA. The cohorts were classified by the year in which they would have completed high school with an on-time graduation: Classes of 2003, 2004, and 2005. The sample was comprised of eighth graders who had applied to and were eligible to enroll in one of five Career and Technical Education high schools in the ninth grade from 1999 through 2001. All included students eventually enrolled in a public school in Philadelphia for the ninth grade.
Study sample
For the Class of 2005, approximately 70% of the students were black, nearly 60% were female, and approximately 20% had special education status.
Intervention Group
The intervention is attendance at one of five Career and Technical Education schools. These schools served students in 9th to 12th grade and provided both traditional and career-related educational coursework, where the career courses focused on preparation for work in designated occupations. Four of these schools focused the career coursework on locally in demand fields, such as auto mechanic and child care, while the fifth focused on agriculture and animal care.
Comparison Group
Students starting at a traditional public high school for 9th grade were considered for the comparison group. Although these schools may have had courses that could be classified as career focused, the schools were not career-focused and courses were not designed to prepare students for an occupation.
Support for implementation
Details on implementation support are not 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).