At least one finding shows promising evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards without reservations
For:
-
Department-funded evaluation (findings for Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR))
Rating:
-
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.
Academic achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
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;
483 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
|
|
Average GPA in core courses
|
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs.
Business as usual
|
1 Year
|
Full sample;
548 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading
|
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs.
Business as usual
|
1 Year
|
Full sample;
495 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics
|
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs.
Business as usual
|
1 Year
|
More proficient students;
193 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics
|
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs.
Business as usual
|
1 Year
|
Less proficient students;
289 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading
|
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs.
Business as usual
|
1 Year
|
Less proficient students;
297 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
--
|
|
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading
|
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs.
Business as usual
|
1 Year
|
More proficient students;
198 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
No
|
--
|
|
Progressing in school outcomes—Statistically significant positive effect found for the domain
Outcome measure
|
Comparison
|
Period
|
Sample
|
Intervention mean
|
Comparison mean
|
Significant?
|
Improvement index
|
Evidence tier
|
Percent of students without at least one failure in a core course
|
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs.
Business as usual
|
1 Year
|
Full sample;
548 students
|
79.00
|
68.10
|
Yes
|
|
|
Credits earned in core courses
|
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) vs.
Business as usual
|
1 Year
|
Full sample;
521 students
|
N/A
|
N/A
|
Yes
|
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
17%
English language learners
-
11%
Minority
-
Female: 54%
Male: 46%
-
Suburban
-
- 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
California
-
-
Ethnicity
Hispanic |
|
37% |
Not Hispanic or Latino |
|
63% |
Setting
The study was conducted in a large high school in suburban southern California. Enrollment was 2514 students.
Study sample
Of the 555 ninth-grade students who participated, 54% were female, 46% male, 68% were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, 17% were eligible for free or reduced price lunch, 17% were ELL students, 52% Caucasian, 37% Hispanic, and 11% were African American, Asian, American Indian, or mixed race.
Intervention Group
Building Assets Reducing Risks (BARR) is a model that assists students in the transition to ninth grade using eight school-wide and individual strategies. These strategies are: providing repeated professional development that focuses on how student-teacher relationships can help student achievement, creating student cohorts who take core courses together, encouraging families to participate in their student's learning, using BARR's I-Time Curriculum, holding regular meetings of cohort teacher teams, conducting risk-review meetings to target support to persistently low-performing students, focusing on the student as a whole (i.e., not just academically, but also students' social, emotional, and physical needs), and ongoing supportive administrator engagement. The I-Team Curriculum entailed a weekly 30-minute lesson focusing on social/emotional issues for adolescent students.
Comparison Group
The non-BARR group was described as "business as usual". Teachers did not receive the repeated professional development or support and likely taught as they had in the past.
Support for implementation
Once a site coordinator was chosen as an intermediary between the participating teachers and principal, teachers and administrators received two days of training on BARR theory and principles. A technical assistance provider called the BARR coordinator at least every week while the project director ran monthly professional Professional Learning Community conference calls with coordinators and administrators.