Dynarski, M., & Wood, R. (1997). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total credits earned at end of year 4 |
Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
7.60 |
8.20 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Percentage earning any credits |
Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
10.00 |
10.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of days enrolled |
Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
59.00 |
60.00 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 39% | |
| White | 45% |
| Hispanic | 10% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 90% |
This study took place in Wichita, Kansas. One school implemented the intervention. Students in the comparison group had the option to attend one of multiple schools.
In the intervention group, 52% of students identified as male, 45% identified as White, non-Hispanic, 39% identified as Black, non-Hispanic, and 9% identified as Hispanic. A majority of students said that their mother had a high school education or more (65%). Only 3% of students said that the primary language spoken at was not English. In the comparison group, 48% of students identified as male, 44% identified as White, non-Hispanic, 38% identified as Black, non-Hispanic, and 11% identified as Hispanic. A majority of students said that their mother had a high school education or more (66%). Only 3% of students said that the primary language spoken at was not English.
The Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) was created to address dropout rates among certain segments of the youth population. ASDP funded establishment and evaluation of alternative schools in seven economically disadvantaged areas around the country. The schools were designed to improve the basic skills and employability of highly at-risk youth. The program was modeled after High School Redirection, an alternative high school in Brooklyn. The schools served youth who had persistent problems in the regular public school system, such as repeated incidents of academic failure or frequent truancy. The schools in the program emphasize basic skill development while promoting other aspects of personal development. ASDP schools were to have seven key features: 1) issuance of standard high school diplomas, 2) operate in low-income locations separate from other high schools, 3) maintain a degree of autonomy from the district's central office in their daily operations, policy-making, and hiring decisions, 4) on site childcare, 5) intensive remedial reading programs for students with serious literacy problems, 6) serve about 500 students, with admission based on referral rather than accessibility or proximity to students (students could not be denied based on past issues), and 7) operated by local boards of education, and staffed by supervisors and teachers who meet the normal district standards. Extracurricular activities were limited. The evaluation focused on academic, economic, and social impacts of the program. This study review in particular examines findings from an evaluation of Metro-Midtown Alternative High School in Wichita, Kansas. The study examines the effectiveness of the program on various factors, including: student attendance/enrollment, credits earned, graduation rates, diploma/GED receipt, basic skill levels/grades, employment rates, welfare receipt, wages, and several variables measuring delinquency.
Comparison group students received business-as-usual because they attended a non-program school.
The authors did not discuss or provide support for intervention implementation.
Reviewed: April 2007
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for High School Redirection.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned a high school diploma or GED at end of year 2 (%) |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
By End of 2nd Follow-up Year |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
29.00 |
30.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Total credits earned at end of year 4 |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
By End of 4th Follow-up Year |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
7.60 |
8.20 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of days enrolled in year 1 |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
During Follow-up Year 1 |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
108.00 |
94.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Number of days enrolled in year 2 |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
By End of 2nd Follow-up Year |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
59.00 |
60.00 |
No |
-- | |
|
Dropped out at end of year 2 (%) |
High School Redirection vs. business as usual |
By End of 2nd Follow-up Year |
Cohorts 1 and 2;
|
51.00 |
46.00 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 40% | |
| White | 45% |
| Hispanic | 10% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 90% |
The study was conducted at the Metro-Midtown Alternative High School, an alternative high school in Wichita, Kansas.
The Wichita High School Redirection study used a randomized controlled trial research design. Students were assigned to the two research groups using a 2:1 random assignment ratio under which two students were assigned to the intervention group for every one student assigned to the control group. The study sample of 358 students included two cohorts. Cohort 1 consisted of students who applied to Metro-Midtown Alternative High School (the replication of High School Redirection in Wichita) prior to or during the 1991–92 school year and included 162 students in the intervention group and 78 students in the control group. Cohort 2 consisted of students who applied prior to or during the 1992–93 school year and included 79 students in the intervention group and 39 students in the control group. Results summarized here are based on school records, which are available for all 241 intervention students and all 117 control group students in the two cohorts, as well as a follow-up survey administered two years after random assignment. Two hundred and two intervention-group students and 108 control-group students responded to the survey, for response rates of 84% and 88%, respectively. Researchers compared the baseline characteristics of the two research groups on 12 demographic, socio-economic, and school-related measures. A statistical test of the overall difference between the research groups on the full set of 12 baseline characteristics found that the groups were not significantly different. Wichita participants were, on average, 17 years old at the time they applied to the High School Redirection program. Almost half (45%) were white. About 4 in 10 were African-American and about 1 in 10 was Hispanic. Participants were evenly split between males and females. About half (53%) had dropped out of school before applying to the alternative high school.
The Metro-Midtown Alternative High School was a replication of High School Redirection and was part of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Alternative Schools Demonstration Program (ASDP) evaluation. The Wichita school included most of the key features of the High School Redirection model specified by the ASDP evaluation: granting regular high school diplomas, taking students from throughout the district, offering the STAR remedial reading program to those with serious literacy problems, providing on-site child care, offering no extra-curricular activities, and operating with considerable autonomy from the local district. During the evaluation period, the program enrolled approximately 300 students and held both daytime and evening sessions. The school offered the standard district curriculum. Teachers set up individual programs of instruction for each student, and students were able to progress at their own pace (Rubenstein, 1995).
Control group students could attend other district high schools that did not implement the High School Redirection model. In some cases, these students may have attended one of the two other alternative high schools operated by the district. Later in the evaluation, the district began admitting some control group students to Metro-Midtown Alternative High School if they applied again after having been originally turned away. During the first two years after random assignment, 13% of control group students spent some time enrolled in Metro-Midtown.
Five relevant outcomes from the Wichita High School Redirection study were used for rating purposes: number of days enrolled in a district high school during the first followup year, number of days enrolled in a district high school during the second follow-up year, dropped out by the end of the second follow-up year, cumulative credits earned by the end of the fourth follow-up year, and graduated or earned a GED certificate by the end of the second follow-up year. (See Appendices A2.1, A2.2, and A2.3 for a more detailed description of outcome measures.)
Metro-Midtown Alternative High School teachers were regular high school teachers employed by the Wichita Public Schools. No additional information about specific training they received was available.
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.
Rubenstein, M. (1995). Giving students a second chance: The evolution of the Alternative Schools Demonstration Program. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.
Weinbaum, A. T., & Baker, A. M. (1991). Final implementation report: High School Redirection replication project. New York: Academy for Educational Development.
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