An On-Ramp to Student Success: A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluation of a Developmental Education Reform at the City University of New York
Weiss, Michael J.; Scrivener, Susan; Slaughter, Austin; Cohen, Benjamin (2021). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED611772
-
examining3,835Students, gradePS
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2021
- Single Study Review (findings for CUNY Start)
- 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Degree or Certificate Completion |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
14.50 |
11.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
college enrollment in any college |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
67.80 |
64.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
college enrollment in any college |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
60.50 |
55.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
college enrollment in any college |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
49.10 |
46.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
college enrollment in any college |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
44.90 |
43.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
college enrollment in any college |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
39.80 |
38.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College ready in all 3 subject areas |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
48.90 |
25.30 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College ready in math |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
61.40 |
34.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College ready in all 3 subject areas |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
54.00 |
32.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College ready in all 3 subject areas |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
56.60 |
37.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College ready in all 3 subject areas |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
58.30 |
41.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College ready in all 3 subject areas |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
5 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
59.70 |
43.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Number of college-ready subject areas (out of 3) |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
2.07 |
1.68 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College ready in writing |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
69.40 |
61.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College ready in reading |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
76.10 |
71.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Completed both gateway courses |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
13.20 |
6.90 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Cumulative college-level credits earned |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
6 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
22.37 |
21.02 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Completed both gateway courses |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
2 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
22.90 |
14.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed gatekeeper math course (with C or higher) |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
18.90 |
12.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed both gateway courses |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
3 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
29.30 |
20.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed gatekeeper English course (with C or higher) |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
1 Semester |
Full sample;
|
35.40 |
28.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed both gateway courses |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
4 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
34.30 |
28.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Completed both gateway courses |
CUNY Start vs. Business as usual |
5 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
37.20 |
31.80 |
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: 48%
Male: 52% -
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 9% Black 25% Other or unknown 60% White 6% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 36% Not Hispanic or Latino 64%
Study Details
Setting
The study was based in four City University of New York (CUNY) campuses in New York City: Borough of Manhattan Community College, Kingsborough Community College, LaGuardia Community College, and Queensborough Community College. These colleges were selected because they had each operated the CUNY Start program for at least two years, had adequate program infrastructure to continue operation, and were willing to participate in the study. The program was housed in each college's continuing education division.
Study sample
Of a total of 3,835 students, 3,021 were assigned to the intervention (CUNY Start) condition and 852 were assigned to the comparison condition. The analytic sample included 2,997 students in the intervention condition and 838 students in the comparison condition. The sample has the following characteristics: 25% Black, 9% Asian, and 6% White. Almost half of the students were female (48%) and 36% were Hispanic. Nearly half (48%) of the students were 19 or younger, while just under one-fourth were 24 or older. A little over one-half (54.5%) of participating students had applied for financial aid.
Intervention Group
CUNY Start is a full-time, one-semester program for students who have been assessed as having significant remedial needs. The program was designed for incoming students who need remediation in math, reading, and writing. The program's short-term goal is to help students fulfill their developmental education requirements, while preparing them for college-level courses. The long-term goal is to improve academic outcomes, including graduation rates. CUNY Start students pay only $75 for the semester, which includes the cost of all course materials. Because the program is offered prior to matriculation, students preserve their financial aid for future semesters. The program uses a cohort model in which students co-enroll in math, reading, and writing courses - and is time intensive, enabling students to complete remedial requirements in a single semester. The program provides up to 26.5 hours of instruction per week.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition could receive all regular college services and participate in all regular college activities except for CUNY Start.
Support for implementation
Training for CUNY Start instructors includes a semester-long apprenticeship and training before they begin teaching. Instructors receive ongoing training and feedback while they are teaching.
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).