2015 Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) i3 Validation Study: Implementation and Impact Study Results. Final Report
ICF International (2020). Fairfax, VA: ICF Incorporated. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED609831
-
examining474Students, grades9-12
Department-funded evaluation
Review Details
Reviewed: December 2021
- Department-funded evaluation (findings for Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a cluster quasi-experimental design that provides evidence of effects on individuals by satisfying the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College and Work Readiness Assessment+ (CWRA+) Selected Response Questions (SRQ) Score |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
903.04 |
848.86 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Developer Created Non-Cognitive Skills Measure (NCS Measure) (by JSU/ICF) |
Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) Model vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
3.95 |
3.84 |
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: 58%
Male: 40% -
Rural
-
- 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
Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, Texas
-
Race Black 39% Other or unknown 22% White 39% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 9% Not Hispanic or Latino 91%
Study Details
Setting
The study takes place in 28 southern rural high schools in Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas.
Study sample
The analytic sample included students who were 40% male, 39% Black, 39% White, 9% Hispanic, 11% other races, and 2% missing race. Thirty-eight percent of the students in the sample had parents who had obtained a bachelor's degree.
Intervention Group
The Collaborative Regional Education (CORE) model is a two-year intervention that consists of seven components designed to build school capacity to better prepare high school students in primarily high-need and rural schools for college and career by enhancing their 21st century skills. The seven Key Components for CORE schools: 1. CORE principals engage in professional learning with school teams. 2. School teams participate in online learning communities. 3. Schools receive CORE resources. 4. School teams participate in CORE instructional professional development services. 5. School teams present during CORE professional development workshops. 6. Schools participate in change-management support through CORE partnership resources. 7. School teams provide students with college readiness advisement and support through use of EdReadyTM tool.
Comparison Group
Schools in the comparison condition conducted business as usual and did not receive the intervention. Comparison students were likely exposed to instruction and support services as they had been in the past.
Support for implementation
The study offered CORE Regional University Partners (RUPs) liaisons to each treatment school that helped develop plans with school administrators for CORE implementation and supported schools throughout the study.
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).