Rickles, J. H., & Barnhart, M. K. (2007). Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Unified School District, Research and Evaluation Branch, Planning, Assessment and Research Division.
Reviewed: September 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
California Standards Test (CST): English |
Supplemental education services vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
California Standards Test (CST): Mathematics |
Supplemental education services vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 9% | |
| White | 2% |
| Hispanic | 85% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 15% |
This study included all students in the Los Angeles Unified School District who were eligible for Supplemental Educational Services (SES) during the 2005-2006 school year. There are 28 different SES service providers reported (e.g., Boys and Girls Club of America, Ace Tutoring Services, Kumon Math and Reading Centers). Services were provided on school campuses as well as at the service providers' locations. Services were offered before school, after school, during the summer, and on weekends; times of services varied according to service provider.
The sample consisted of 18% in elementary school, 48% in middle school, and 34% in high school. Almost half (49%) were female, and the majority (85%) were Hispanic, with 9% African American, 3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2% white, and 0.3% other. Eleven percent had disabilities and 7% were in the Gifted and Talented Education (GATE) program. The majority (88%) received free or reduced-price lunch.
The intervention in this study was the Supplemental Educational Services (SES) program, which included free supplemental academic services offered to eligible students. These services were diverse in format, delivery, and content. Twenty-eight different service providers participated in this study, with services aimed at improving mathematics skills, English language arts skills, basic education skills, and social skills. Service locations varied as well, with some services offered at school sites and some offered at the service provider's location. SES were offered during non-school hours (e.g., before school, after school, weekends, and summers).
The comparison condition for this review includes those students who were eligible for SES but chose not to apply. This represents a business-as-usual comparison.
The authors report students' participation levels (low, medium, and high) but do not provide any other information about implementation. Of the 23,086 students who applied for SES, 14,759 attended an SES program.
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