Ewing Marion Kauffman School Year 10 and 11 Impacts
Demers, A., Drescher, J., & Johnson, M. (April 2024). Mathematica, Inc.
-
examining7,190Students, grades5-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Ewing Marion Kauffman School)
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it uses a quasi-experimental design in which the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment - 4 year college |
Ewing Marion Kauffman School vs. Business as usual |
6 Months |
Grade 12 (across four cohorts of students);
|
39.00 |
26.00 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduated high school |
Ewing Marion Kauffman School vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 12 (across four cohorts of students);
|
86.00 |
83.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) English language arts standardized score |
Ewing Marion Kauffman School vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 5 (across 10 cohorts of students) ;
|
-0.26 |
-0.44 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) mathematics standardized score |
Ewing Marion Kauffman School vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 5 (across 10 cohorts of students) ;
|
-0.14 |
-0.48 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Ewing Marion Kauffman School vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 5-12;
|
0.87 |
0.86 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) science standardized score |
Ewing Marion Kauffman School vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 5 (across 9 cohorts of students) ;
|
-0.17 |
-0.54 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Government end-of-course exam |
Ewing Marion Kauffman School vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grade 12 (one cohort of students);
|
-0.40 |
-0.54 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Student received at least one suspension |
Ewing Marion Kauffman School vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Grades 5-12;
|
37.00 |
31.00 |
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.
-
3% English language learners -
Female: 53%
Male: 47% -
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
Missouri
-
Race Black 93% Other or unknown 7% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 4% Not Hispanic or Latino 96% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 95% No FRPL 5%
Study Details
Setting
The study included students who were enrolled for any part of grade 5 at the Ewing Marion Kauffman School, a public charter school in Kansas City, Missouri, and comparison students enrolled at other Kansas City public schools, including other public charter schools.
Study sample
The study included students who attended the Kauffman School for any part of grade 5 and comparison students from other Kansas City public schools. The findings were based on different numbers of students across outcomes and grade levels. The largest sample included 1,188 Kauffman School students and 6,002 comparison students.
Intervention Group
The Ewing Marion Kauffman School is a public charter school focused on preparing students for college completion. The Kauffman School model emphasized college preparation through extended instructional time, frequent use of assessment data to guide instruction, high expectations for attendance and behavior, and a schoolwide culture focused on going to college. Kauffman students received about one and a half additional weeks of school each year compared with students in traditional public schools in Kansas City, and their daily schedule included a double period of mathematics and two to three periods of English language arts. Students attended the intervention school for at least part of grade 5 and may have continued to be enrolled in the school through grade 12.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison group attended other Kansas City public district and charter schools and never attended the Kauffman School. The report did not identify a single alternative program or intervention offered to comparison students.
Support for implementation
The Kauffman School supported teachers through ongoing training and coaching built into the school model. Teachers attended professional development before the school year began, received frequent classroom observations and feedback from school administrators, met individually with coaches each week, and participated in weekly group training sessions focused on curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
JOHNSON, M, JACOBS JOHNSON, C., DEMERS, A. , GENTILE, C., LUNDQUIST, E. (2016). Ewing Marion Kauffman School Evaluation Impact Report: Year 3. .
-
JOHNSON, M, JACOBS JOHNSON, C., RICHMAN, S., DEMERS, A. , GENTILE, C. (2016). Ewing Marion Kauffman School Evaluation Impact Report Year 4. .
-
JOHNSON, M, JACOBS JOHNSON, C., RICHMAN, S., DEMERS, A. , GENTILE, C., LUNDQUIST, E. (2016). The Educational and Behavioral Impacts of the Ewing Marion Kauffman Charter School. .
-
Johnson, M., Demers, A., Jacobs Johnson, C., & Gentile, C. (2017). Ewing Marion Kauffman School evaluation impact report: Year 5. Mathematica Policy Research.
-
Johnson, M., & Demers, A. (2018). Ewing Marion Kauffman School year 6 impacts. Mathematica Policy Research.
-
Johnson, M., & Demers, A. (2019). Ewing Marion Kauffman School year 7 impacts. Mathematica.
-
Johnson, Matthew; Thal, Daniel. (2020). Ewing Marion Kauffman School Year 8 Impacts. Mathematica.
-
Johnson, Matthew; Demers, Alicia. (2021). Ewing Marion Kauffman School Year 9 Impacts. Mathematica.
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).