Borman, T. H., Bos, J. M., O’Brien, B. C., Park, S. J., & Liu, F. (2016). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
Reviewed: December 2016
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.01 |
-0.01 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passed all core courses (%) |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
64.00 |
47.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
|
Credits accumulated (% of 6 total credits) |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
81.90 |
73.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Science credits earned (%) |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
85.40 |
70.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
ELA credits earned (%) |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
83.30 |
69.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Mathematics credits earned (%) |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
77.10 |
80.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Assessment |
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.06 |
-0.06 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study took place in three US high schools, one in rural Maine and two in suburban California.
Students in School A (rural Maine) were 7% minority, <1% English language learners, 17.7% special education, and 39.2% free and reduced-price lunch. Students in School B (suburban California) were 94% minority, 15.4% English language learners, 11.2% special education, and 89% free and reduced-price lunch. Students in School C (suburban California) were 72% minority, 8.3% English language learners, 16.6% special education, and 80.7% free and reduced-price lunch The total sample size was 1,209 9th grade students (605 intervention, 604 comparison).
The BARR model was implemented over the full school year. The program is designed to build student assets and create a more personalized student learning environment. In addition, the program emphasizes the continuous evaluation of student data by teachers so that they can collaborate with their teacher team and prevent student failure. The BARR model restructures 9th grade into blocks of 3-4 person teacher teams. Teacher teams meet weekly and collaboratively plan, problem solve, and assess. In-situation coaching, quarterly site-to-site mentoring visits, and technology-enabled learning opportunities are provided to staff implementing the intervention. The model includes 8 strategies: 1) professional development, 2) restructuring the high school course schedule, 3) parent involvement to support high school reform, 4) developmental assets curriculum, 5) block meetings, collaborative problem solving, 6) risk review for persistently failing students, 7) whole student emphasis in instructional reform, and 8) contextual support (focus on leadership).
The comparison condition was a business as usual comparison condition. Comparison group students did not receive the additional supports that the BARR model students were provided and received the traditional 9th grade structure and curriculum.
Support for implementation is provided by BARR coaches and site mentors. As stated previously, the intervention includes restructuring the ninth grade teachers into blocks of three- to four- person teacher teams, and each team included at least one experienced and highly effective teacher. Teacher teams implementing BARR participated in collaborative assessment, problem-solving, and weekly planning.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube