Building Assets and Reducing Risks (BARR) I3 Scale-Up Evaluation. Final Report
Bos, Johannes M.; Graczewski, Cheryl; Dhillon, Sonica; Auchstetter, Amelia; Cassasanto-Ferro, Julia; Kitmitto, Sami (2022). American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED622608
-
examining21,529Students, grade9
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
GPA |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.64 |
2.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT)/NMSQT Total Score |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
5 Months |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
851.00 |
840.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Credits earned in core courses |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
89.10 |
85.50 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passing all core courses in ninth grade |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
80.20 |
74.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Percentage of students persisting to 10th grade |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
3 Months |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
88.40 |
85.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percentage of chronically absent students in ninth grade |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
19.00 |
21.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent of students suspended |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.30 |
8.00 |
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.
-
15% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
- 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
Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, West Virginia
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 63% Other or unknown 37%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 66 schools across 12 states and the District of Columbia. The program is school-wide, but outcomes in this study were focused on students in grade 9.
Study sample
Approximately 52 percent of the students were male, 63 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 15 percent were English language learners, and 15 percent received special education services.
Intervention Group
The intervention, Building Assets and Reducing Risks (BARR), is a comprehensive school-level transition program designed to address challenges faced by ninth-grade students by restructuring how the first year of high school is organized. BARR is organized around eight components that focus on the use of data and building staff-to-staff, staff-to-student, and student-to-student relationships. The eight components of the intervention include: 1) focus on the whole student; 2) professional development for teachers, counselors, and administrators; 3) social-emotional lessons; 4) restructured course schedule; 5) team meetings of core subject teachers; 6) risk review meetings with administrators, staff, and community resources; 7) partnering with families; and 8) engaging administrators to support teachers. A summer orientation is provided to families, and parents and guardians are invited to participate in a parent advisory committee. BARR implementation involves restructuring the ninth grade class schedule so that groups of students have the same core subject teachers. These teachers are provided a common planning time to review student data and identify needed interventions. Students that do not respond to intervention (e.g., attendance problems, behavioral challenges) are referred to risk review which brings together academic and non-academic administrators and staff to determine more focused interventions.
Comparison Group
Students in the business-as-usual schools received the traditional ninth-grade experience. Business-as-usual schools did not offer BARR.
Support for implementation
The BARR model was implemented with funding from the U.S. Department of Education's Investing in Innovation (i3) program grant. This funding allowed for schools to receive professional development for BARR teachers, administrators, counselors, and BARR coordinators placed in schools. Schools also received BARR coaches. A staff member is assigned to be the BARR coordinator and is paired with a BARR coach who provides about 200 hours of professional development and coaching during the academic year. BARR teachers meet monthly. Professional learning community calls take place quarterly. All BARR educators participate in an annual conference.
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).