Impacts of Ramp-Up to Readiness™ after One Year of Implementation. REL 2017-241
Lindsay, Jim; Davis, Elisabeth; Stephan, Jennifer; Proger, Amy (2017). Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED572863
-
examining2,039Students, grades10-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Ramp-Up to Readiness (Ramp-Up))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because at least one supplemental finding is rated meets WWC standards without reservations but the study does not have main findings.
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 |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
ACT Engage goal striving scale |
Ramp-Up to Readiness (Ramp-Up) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
48.00 |
48.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
ACT Engage commitment to college scale score |
Ramp-Up to Readiness (Ramp-Up) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
48.00 |
48.00 |
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.
-
Other or unknown: 100% -
- 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
Minnesota, Wisconsin
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in 50 public high schools located in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Study sample
The primary analytic sample consisted of 2,039 grade 10-12 students attending high school in Minnesota or Wisconsin. This is a cluster RCT and schools were assigned to the condition with students as the unit of analysis. A total of fifty schools were randomized to either the intervention or comparison condition with a total of 15,314 participating students (7,474 in the intervention schools and 7,740 in the comparison schools). In the randomized sample, 35 percent of students in the intervention group and 33 percent of students in the comparison group were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. One percent in the intervention group and 5 percent in the comparison group were English learners. In the intervention group, 10 percent were American Indian or Alaska Native, 2 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, 5 percent were Hispanic, 4 percent were Black, and 79 percent were White. In the comparison group, 4 percent were American Indian or Alaska Native, 2 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, 4 percent were Hispanic, 5 percent were Black, and 85 percent were White.
Intervention Group
The intervention, Ramp-Up to Readiness, is a school-wide program designed to enhance college readiness among high school students by focusing on five dimensions of readiness: academic, admissions, career, financial, and personal/social readiness. The program is delivered through structured advisory sessions, classroom activities, and teacher-facilitated lessons. Teachers (typically homeroom teachers), taught a set of 28–30 minute lessons (called group advisory sessions) to groups of students once a week and five class period–long workshops throughout the year. While 96% of intervention schools achieved implementation scores classified as adequate, only 12% met adequate standards across all five key components on the intervention: structural supports, professional development, curriculum delivery, curriculum content, and postsecondary planning tools.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition implemented business-as-usual college readiness supports. The study found that the implementation and comparison schools offered the same types of basic supplemental college-readiness supports (e.g., assistance with identifying colleges that match students’ interests and abilities, as well as providing classes and workshops to prepare students for college entrance exams). However, comparison schools had lower engagement in college-oriented activity among staff as well as low number of students receiving assistance with the college enrollment process.
Support for implementation
In order to integrate the program's five key components effectively into their existing systems, support for intervention implementation included structured professional development for staff, curriculum materials for delivering lessons, and postsecondary planning tools to guide students.
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, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, 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).