Report to NETWORK Steering Committee and the USDOE Office of Innovation and Improvement as part of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Grant Program Evaluation: Analysis and Summary (Five Year)
UCLA Center X (N.D.). Unpublished manuscript.
-
examining36Schools, grades9-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2019
- Single Study Review (findings for New England Network for Personalization and Performance (NETWORK))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
rate of postsecondary enrollment within 16 months |
New England Network for Personalization and Performance (NETWORK) vs. Business as usual |
16 Months |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
4-year graduation rate |
New England Network for Personalization and Performance (NETWORK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent proficient on state ELA assessments (New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine and Massachusetts) |
New England Network for Personalization and Performance (NETWORK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent proficient on state mathematics assessment (New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, & Massachusetts) |
New England Network for Personalization and Performance (NETWORK) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
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.
-
Rural, Suburban, 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
Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in New England - the states of New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. Schools varied between rural, urban, and suburban.
Study sample
The authors do not provide aggregated sample description. They do provide some information for each school. Half of the 12 treatment schools were classified as large (greater than 1000 students). Eight of the treatment schools were determined to have high ELA proficiency, defined as 60%+ proficient in this area on state assessments. Four of the treatment schools were determined to have high math proficiency, defined as 40%+ proficient on the state math assessment. Five of the treatment schools were rural (p. 10). Of the 24 comparison schools, 9 were large, 19 had high ELA proficiency, 4 had high math proficiency, and 8 were rural (p. 11).
Intervention Group
Treatment schools worked together as a network. They designed authentic experiences for students, create rubrics for assessment, and support personalized learning (p. 5). As enumerated in the fidelity checklist (p. 37-38), key intervention activities included the following: (1) use of inquiry-based curricular units and performance assessments that were aligned with state standards, (2) creating of a project steering committee that provided oversight for the project, including communication, dissemination and evaluation, (3) establishment of a change leadership team at each school that was supported by a school change coach, and (4) creation of a performance assessment review board, which was staffed by national experts who visited the schools and provided feedback for improvement (p. 5).
Comparison Group
Comparison schools were not part of the NETWORK and were provided business as usual services.
Support for implementation
The fidelity checklist mentions the support of a school change coach and feedback being provided by a performance assessment review board (p. 5, 37-38). The manuscript does not describe these supports in detail.
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).