Edmunds, Julie A.; Unlu, Fatih; Glennie, Elizabeth; Bernstein, Lawrence; Fesler, Lily; Furey, Jane; Arshavsky, Nina (2017). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v10 n2 p297-325. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1135800
Reviewed: September 2019
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
% Enrolled at any college |
Early College High Schools vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
89.92 |
74.28 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrolled in a two-year institution |
Early College High Schools vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
87.86 |
57.46 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in four-year institution |
Early College High Schools vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
38.46 |
32.26 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Any college degree attainment |
Early College High Schools vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
30.07 |
4.17 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Bachelor's degree attainment |
Early College High Schools vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.90 |
0.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Associates degree attainment |
Early College High Schools vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
28.40 |
3.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Technical credential attainment |
Early College High Schools vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.90 |
1.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College credit hours |
Early College High Schools vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
21.60 |
2.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduated from high school |
Early College High Schools vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
85.39 |
81.37 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 27% | |
| White | 60% |
| Hispanic | 8% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 92% |
This study reports the impact of the early college high school model (early college) on (a) college credits students earn while in high school, (b) high school graduation, (c) postsecondary enrollment, and (d) postsecondary attainment outcomes. The 12 early colleges in the study were located in rural and urban settings across North Carolina. These early colleges were, on average, smaller than the traditional schools in their respective counties. These early colleges served students who were similar to the overall student populations in their districts, with respect to characteristics such as free- and reduced-price lunch eligibility and race/ethnicity. Early colleges were much more likely to have teachers who were in their first three years of teaching, but experienced teacher turnover rates were similar to traditional schools. The early colleges in the study were located on two- and four year college campuses. For an early college to be eligible to participate it had to have more applicants than available slots, and staff had to be willing to randomize students to early college or the comparison condition using a lottery system.
Among students in the study, 60.2% were White, 26.7% were Black, and 8.3% were Hispanic. Forty-one percent of the student sample was male. Just over half (50.7%) of the sample was free/reduced-price lunch eligible and 40.8% of the sample were first-generation college students. About 2.9 percent of the sample was disabled/impaired.
Beginning in the ninth grade, students in the intervention condition attended early college schools located on college campuses and took courses for college credits. Early colleges provided an academically rigorous course of study with the goal of ensuring that all students graduated with a high school diploma and two years of transferable college credit, or an associate degree. In order for students to accomplish this goal, the early college delivered a curriculum plan offering the high school and college courses that students need in order to complete both degrees, including dual-credit courses. Some early colleges were structured as four-year schools, but most allowed students five years to complete the curriculum. Among the students randomly assigned to the intervention group, 13% did not enroll in early college high schools (i.e., these were no-shows).
Students assigned to the comparison group generally enrolled in the traditional high school in the district. These traditional high schools had, on average, much larger enrollment than early colleges. Among the students randomly assigned to the comparison condition, 2% enrolled in early college high schools (i.e., these were crossovers).
Early college teachers received guidance on instructional strategies designed to prepare students for college. Students received explicit instruction and assistance in navigating the college admissions and financial aid processes.
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