WWC review of this study

Understanding the effect of KIPP as it scales: Volume I, Impacts on achievement and other outcomes. Final report of KIPP’s Investing in Innovation grant evaluation [Middle School; QED].

Tuttle, C. C., Gleason, P., Knechtel, V., Nichols-Barrer, I., Booker, K., Chojnacki, G., ... Goble, L. (2015). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560079

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    14,551
     Students
    , grades
    6-8

Reviewed: January 2018

At least one finding shows moderate evidence of effectiveness
At least one statistically significant positive finding
Meets WWC standards with reservations
English language arts achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
ESSA
rating

Statewide assessment of reading achievement (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
14,551 students

0.08

-0.09

Yes

 
 
6
 
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

End-of-Year Reading Assessments

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Tuttle 2010 Full sample;
5,442 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
9

Statewide assessment of reading achievement (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
22,155 students

0.06

-0.09

Yes

 
 
6

End-of-Year Reading Assessments

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Tuttle 2010 Full sample;
8,041 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
6

End-of-Year Reading Assessments

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Tuttle 2010 Full sample;
2,570 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
6

Statewide assessment of reading achievement (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
27,758 students

-0.01

-0.11

Yes

 
 
4

Statewide assessment of reading achievement (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample (new KIPP middle schools);
2,360 students

-0.22

-0.27

Yes

 
 
2

Reading test score

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Tuttle 2013 Full matched comparison sample;
31,832 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
2

Statewide assessment of reading achievement (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
34,915 students

-0.11

-0.11

No

--
General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
ESSA
rating

Statewide mathematics assessments (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
13,624 students

0.14

-0.13

Yes

 
 
11
 
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Achievement in mathematics

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Tuttle 2010 Full sample;
5,439 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
16

Achievement in mathematics

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Tuttle 2010 Full sample;
8,020 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
14

Achievement in mathematics

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Tuttle 2010 Full sample;
2,576 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
14

Statewide mathematics assessments (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
21,926 students

0.17

-0.12

Yes

 
 
11

Statewide mathematics assessments (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

2 Years

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
27,736 students

0.09

-0.14

Yes

 
 
9

Math test score

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Tuttle 2013 Full matched comparison sample;
31,832 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
6

Statewide mathematics assessments (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
34,938 students

-0.05

-0.11

Yes

 
 
2

Statewide mathematics assessments (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

1 Year

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample (new KIPP middle schools);
2,366 students

-0.19

-0.23

No

--
Science achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
ESSA
rating

Statewide science assessments (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
17,413 students

0.08

-0.17

Yes

 
 
10
 
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Science

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Tuttle 2013 full matched comparison sample;
8,699 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
13
Social studies achievement outcomes—Statistically significant positive effects found
Outcome
measure
Comparison Period Sample Intervention
mean
Comparison
mean
Significant? Improvement
    index
ESSA
rating

Statewide assessments of history achievement (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

4 Years

Tuttle 2015 Middle school: matched-student sample;
9,762 students

0.11

-0.13

Yes

 
 
9
 
More Outcomes
Show Supplemental Findings

Statewide social studies assessments (z-score)

Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) vs. Business as usual

3 Years

Tuttle 2013 Full matched comparison sample;
6,904 students

N/A

N/A

Yes

 
 
10

Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.


  • 7% English language learners

  • 85% Free or reduced price lunch

  • Female: 51%
    Male: 49%
  • Race
    Black
    58%
    Not specified
    42%
  • Ethnicity
    Hispanic
    39%
    Not Hispanic
    61%

  • Urban
    • 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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Arkansas, Colorado, District of Columbia, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Carolina, New York, Tennessee, Texas

Setting

This analysis includes students and schools in multiple states and districts in the United States where KIPP charter schools operate. The study took place in 43 middle schools in the KIPP network in 20 cities across the following 12 states and the District of Columbia: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas.

Study sample

The study used a matched-student quasi-experimental design, where the intervention group consisted of students who attended 37 KIPP middle schools, and the comparison group was a sample matched based on student baseline characteristics: baseline reading and math test scores; gender, race, special education, limited English proficiency, and free or reduced-price lunch status; and whether the student repeated a grade in the baseline year. Sample characteristics for the analysis samples with non-imputed baseline data, on which the WWC based the intervention’s effectiveness rating, are not reported.

Intervention Group

Students in the intervention condition attended a KIPP middle school at some point over the period 2001–13.

Comparison Group

Students in the comparison condition attended non-KIPP middle schools.

Support for implementation

The study did not provide information about implementation support; however, authors noted that staff at KIPP schools had considerable autonomy in the implementation process to set the direction of the school (p. 22).

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.

  • Tuttle, C. C., Gleason, P., Knechtel, V., Nichols-Barrer, I., Booker, K., Chojnacki, G., ... Goble, L. (2015). Going to scale: As KIPP network grows, positive impacts are sustained (In Focus brief). Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

  • Gleason, P. M., Tuttle, C. C., Gill, B., Nichols-Barrer, I., & Teh, B. (2014). Do KIPP schools boost student achievement?. Education Finance and Policy, 9(1), 36–58.

  • Tuttle, C. C., Teh, B., Nichols-Barrer, I., Gill, B., & Gleason, P. (2010). Supplemental analytic sample equivalence tables for student characteristics and achievement in 22 KIPP middle schools: A report from the National Evaluation of KIPP Middle Schools. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

  • Tuttle, C. C., Teh, B., Nichols-Barrer, I., Gill, B., & Gleason, P. (2010). Student characteristics and achievement in 22 KIPP middle schools: Final report. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

  • Tuttle, C. C., Gill, B., Gleason, P., Knechtel, V., Nichols-Barrer, I., & Resch, A. (2013). KIPP middle schools: Impacts on achievement and other outcomes, final report. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.

 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top