Martha Abele Mac Iver, Marc L. Stein, Marcia H. Davis, Robert W. Balfanz (2019). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness.
Reviewed: October 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade 9 attendance |
Early Warning Intervention (EWI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Grade 9;
|
94.28 |
93.70 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Chronic absenteeism |
Early Warning Intervention (EWI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample - Grade 9;
|
16.50 |
16.60 |
Yes |
|
||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 38% | |
| Other or unknown | 3% | |
| White | 59% |
| Hispanic | 2% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 98% |
The study took place in 41 high schools in 22 school districts within a single state in the United States. There were 11 high schools located in mid-size cities, 15 high schools located in small cities/towns, and 15 high schools located in rural areas. Students in grade 9 are included in the analysis. (pp. 1, 3, 11)
First-time grade 9 students are included in the analysis. The grade 9 analytic sample was 38 percent African American, 59 percent White, and 3 percent of another race. Fifty percent of the analytic sample were female, 2 percent were Latino/a, and 61 percent qualified for free or reduced-price lunch. (Table 2, p. 13)
The EWI Team model is designed to help school staff monitor and intervene when grade 9 students exhibit early warning indicators of a student being off-track toward graduation. These early warning indicators are “high absenteeism, behavior problems, and course failure” (p. 364). In the schools assigned to the EWI Team model intervention condition, a half-time on-site facilitator, with an education or social work background, was placed in the school. Using a team-based model, the on-site facilitator provides school administrators, teachers, and school staff (the EWI team) with early warning indicator data used to identify at-risk and off-track students, works with the EWI team to develop a plan, and monitors the impacts. The EWI Team model is based on aspects of, and shares similarities with, other published dropout prevention models including the Check & Connect-type case management model, the Diplomas Now School Transformation/Turnaround model, and the Early Warning Intervention and Monitoring System intervention. (pp. 3-7)
Students in the comparison condition schools received business as usual support. Schools assigned to the comparison condition received $5,000 each year for their two years of participation in the study. (p. 10)
The EWI Team, including the on-site facilitator, school administrators, teachers, and school staff, completed a three-day professional training prior to the implementation of the program. The on-site facilitator participated in separate four-day trainings throughout the school year. External staff from the EWI model development team or the State Department of Education visited the intervention schools bi-monthly for day-long visits to provide implementation support. The study estimates that the cost per school for the half-time on-site facilitator and external staff is approximately $44,000 per year in the state in which the study was implemented. (pp. 4, 7)
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