Faria, Ann-Marie; Sorensen, Nicholas; Heppen, Jessica; Bowdon, Jill; Taylor, Suzanne; Eisner, Ryan; Foster, Shandu (2017). Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED573814
Reviewed: September 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: March 2019
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sufficient credits earned to stay on-track for graduation |
Early Warning Intervention and Monitoring System vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.13 |
0.13 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in three states in the midwestern U.S. A total of 73 high schools across 64 school districts participated.
For the sample for which the outcome was measured 40% were eligible for the frederal school lunch program (40% of treatment and 40% of control students). For the overall sample, 48.85% were female (of n=37541), 24.67% were of racial/ethnic minority status (of n=37,545), 13.29% were in special education (of n=30,482), and 2.99% were English learner students (of n=30,481).
The study examined the Early Warning Intervention and Monitoring System (EWIMS) intervention. EWIMS is a school-wide intervention that aims to increase on-time high school graduation and reduce dropping out. The study examined the effects of EWIMS during the 2014-15 school year, the first year of full implementation at intervention schools. Intervention schools were provided with a software tool that used student data to identify students at risk of not graduating on time, recommends interventions for those students that may get them back on track, and reports on changes in student outcomes following intervention. Student data were loaded into the software in the spring and summer before full implementation. As marking period grades became available during the implementation year, these data were also added. School-assigned EWIMS teams were expected to meet monthly to examine attendance and academic data and assign at-risk students to appropriate interventions. Survey data from intervention school leaders in spring of the full implementation year showed that 87% of intervention schools had used an early warning system. Regarding specific components of the EWIMS process, 76% of intervention schools reviewed attendance data at least monthly and 53% reviewed course failure data at least monthly.
Schools in the comparison condition operated business as usual. Survey data from leaders in comparison schools showed that 10% used an early warning system during the study, 88% reviewed attendance data at least monthly, and 42% reviewed course failure data at least monthly.
Training on the use of the EWIMS tool was provided in spring of the school year prior to implementation and was followed up by refresher training early in the implementation school year. Support site visits were available to intervention schools three times during the implementation school year, and five interactive webinars were held with the expectation that one or more members from each intervention school would participate to share their successes and challenges. Remote technical assistance was also available to intervention schools on an on-going basis.
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