Illustrating the Promise of Community Schools: An Assessment of the Impact of the New York City Community Schools Initiative. Research Report. RR-3245-NYCCEO
Johnston, William R.; Engberg, John; Opper, Isaac M.; Sontag-Padilla, Lisa; Xenakis, Lea (2020). RAND Corporation. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED612287
-
examining510Schools, grades3-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: July 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for NYC Community Schools)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on clusters by demonstrating that the analytic sample of individuals is representative of the clusters and satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the clusters in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion graduated |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample; high schools;
|
83.87 |
79.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Proportion graduated |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Cohort 1; high schools;
|
83.68 |
79.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Proportion graduated |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Cohort 2: high schools;
|
81.78 |
79.00 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average ELA test score |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample; grades 3-8;
|
-0.50 |
-0.51 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Average ELA test score |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Cohort 1; grades 3-8;
|
-0.51 |
-0.51 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Average Math Test Score |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample; grades 3-8;
|
-0.51 |
-0.58 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Average Math Test Score |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Cohort 1; grades 3-8;
|
-0.55 |
-0.58 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Credits accumulated |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample; high schools;
|
11.96 |
10.69 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Credits accumulated |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Cohort 1; high schools;
|
11.87 |
10.60 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Proportion chronically absent |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample; high schools;
|
42.72 |
51.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Proportion chronically absent |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Cohort 2; high schools;
|
41.60 |
51.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Proportion chronically absent |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Cohort 1; high schools;
|
44.94 |
51.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of disciplinary incidents |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample; high schools;
|
0.33 |
0.33 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Number of disciplinary incidents |
NYC Community Schools vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Cohort 1; high schools;
|
0.33 |
0.32 |
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.
-
17% English language learners -
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
New York
-
Race Asian 3% Black 40% Other or unknown 54% White 2% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 53% Not Hispanic or Latino 47%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 510 elementary, middle, and high schools in New York City, 113 of which were Community Schools.
Study sample
A total of 113 Community Schools and 397 comparison schools participated in the study. In these schools, 17% of students were English learners, 88% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 23% had a disability. Fifty-three percent of students were Hispanic or Latino; 40% were Black, non-Hispanic; 3 percent were Asian, non-Hispanic; and 2 percent were White, non-Hispanic.
Intervention Group
New York City Community Schools strive to establish school-community collaborations so that academics, health and wellness, and family empowerment are incorporated in the climate and culture of the schools. There are four core features of community schools: (1) collaborative leadership and practices, which includes data-informed planning, public-private partnerships, and needs assessments; (2) family and community engagement, which includes family nights, family leadership training, and specialized programs such as adult education classes and home visits; (3) expanded learning time and opportunities, which includes hands-on learning experiences, summer programming, and cofacilitation of programming with community based organizations before, during, and after school; and (4) integrated student supports, which includes mental health, reproductive health, vision screenings, mentoring, and vulnerable youth services such as homelessness and immigration services.
Comparison Group
Comparison schools did not implement the New York City Community Schools model. Students in these comparison schools received public school instruction as usual.
Support for implementation
The New York City Community Schools model was initially funded with $52 million. The Office of Community Schools assigned each school a program manager to coach school staff and help them develop school-community collaborations. Each program manager was responsible for up to 15 schools. The Office of School Health assigned a school mental health manager to support implementation efforts across multiple schools for wellness programs and integrated student supports. The program is also supported with partnerships from various community-based organizations.
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).