Berger, A., Garet, M., Hoshen, G., Knudson, J., & Turk-Bicakci, L. (2014). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/ECHSI_Impact_Study_Report_Final1_0.pdf.
Reviewed: December 2022
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.
Reviewed: February 2017
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 Dual Enrollment Programs.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
80.90 |
72.20 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Ever enrolled in postsecondary education |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Male high school students;
|
78.00 |
66.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever enrolled in postsecondary education |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
White high school students;
|
83.00 |
73.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever enrolled in postsecondary education |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Not low-income high school students;
|
85.00 |
76.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever enrolled in postsecondary education |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Low-income high school students;
|
75.00 |
64.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever enrolled in postsecondary education |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Minority high school students;
|
80.00 |
72.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever enrolled in postsecondary education |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Female high school students;
|
81.00 |
75.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College degree attainment |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
24.90 |
4.70 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College degree attainment |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Minority high school students;
|
65.00 |
1.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College degree attainment |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Female high school students;
|
23.00 |
1.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College degree attainment |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Low-income high school students;
|
20.00 |
1.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College degree attainment |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Not low-income high school students;
|
25.00 |
3.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College degree attainment |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
White high school students;
|
23.00 |
3.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
College degree attainment |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Male high school students;
|
22.00 |
3.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High school graduation |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
86.00 |
81.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
High school graduation (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Male high school students;
|
87.00 |
78.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
High school graduation (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Low-income high school students;
|
83.00 |
74.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
High school graduation (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
White high school students;
|
89.00 |
83.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
High school graduation (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Minority high school students;
|
87.00 |
82.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
High school graduation (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Not low-income high school students;
|
89.00 |
87.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
High school graduation (%) |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Female high school students;
|
85.00 |
83.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College GPA |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
College students;
|
3.07 |
3.09 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Achievement in English language arts |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.37 |
0.23 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Achievement in mathematics |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.28 |
0.23 |
No |
-- | |
|
Final high school GPA |
Dual Enrollment Programs vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
2.98 |
2.98 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The early college high schools were located in five states throughout the country: five in urban areas, three in small towns, and two in mid-sized cities. Eight of the 10 early colleges were located on college campuses. Seven had a 2-year public college partner, two had a 4-year public college partner, and one had both.
The sample consisted of general education high school students. About half (52%) of the early college group was female versus 55% of the comparison group. Minority students comprised 52% and 54% of the intervention and comparison groups, respectively. In addition, 31% of the intervention group was first-generation college students, versus 34% of the comparison group. Low-income students comprised 47% of the intervention group and 42% of the comparison group.
Six early colleges were district-run schools, and the remaining four were charter schools. Most of the schools also had a subject matter focus in addition to providing opportunities to earn college credit: five had a STEM focus, and two had a teacher preparation focus. The early colleges offered a wide array of supports, with all ten early colleges providing tutoring, college preparatory information, and college access assistance that highlighted scholarships and other financial aid information. In addition, some of the early colleges offered advisories; summer, evening, and weekend classes; extended school days; and/or block scheduling. In terms of the college coursework, seven early colleges had course sequences that allowed students to earn at least 2 years of college credit, two early colleges allowed students to earn up to 1 year of college credit, and one early college allowed students to earn at least some college credit.
The comparison students in the study attended 272 different high schools. The comparison schools were generally much larger than the early college high schools. At the comparison schools, Advanced Placement (AP) courses were more prevalent than dual enrollment as a strategy for students to earn college credit. The majority of the students who did not attend early colleges enrolled in larger high schools with larger minority and low-income student populations. Those schools provided fewer academic supports (e.g., tutoring) and a less direct focus on college readiness for all students.
All but one of the early colleges had college instructors, rather than qualified high school instructors, teaching college courses. No other support for implementation was reported.
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.
Berger, Andrea; Turk-Bicakci, Lori; Garet, Michael; Song, Mengli; Knudson, Joel; Haxton, Clarisse; Zeiser, Kristina; Hoshen, Gur; Ford, Jennifer; Stephan, Jennifer; Keating, Kaeli; Cassidy, Lauren. (2013). Early College, Early Success: Early College High School Initiative Impact Study. American Institutes for Research.
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