Coen, T., Nichols-Barrer, I., & Gleason, P. (2019). Mathematica Policy Research.
Reviewed: July 2020
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever Enrolled in College |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
65.00 |
59.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Ever Enrolled in a Four-Year College |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
47.80 |
41.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled On-Time in Any College |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
57.30 |
50.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College Admission Rate (0 - 50%) |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
13.10 |
11.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College Admission Rate (51 - 100%) |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
53.40 |
50.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Ever Enrolled in a Two-Year College |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
24.10 |
22.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Percent of Possible Semesters Enrolled (Any College) |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
49.30 |
45.90 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Persisted through First Four Semesters (Four-Year College) |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
30.40 |
25.60 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Percent of Possible Semesters Enrolled (Four-Year College) |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
37.10 |
32.70 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled in all Four Semesters (Any College) |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
38.20 |
34.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Enrolled Two Springs After High School Graduation |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
45.80 |
43.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of Consecutive Semesters Enrolled |
KIPP middle school vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.87 |
1.70 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Black | 35% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 3% |
| Hispanic | 55% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 45% |
The Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) serves more than 100,000 students across a network of more than 240 schools located throughout the United States. KIPP started as a network of urban middle schools serving disadvantaged students in underserved communities. The key KIPP goals are to prepare students to succeed in college and close the achievement gap between advantaged and disadvantage students. This study follows 1,177 students who applied to enter one of 13 KIPP middle schools located in cities in California (n=3), the District of Columbia (n=2), Georgia (n=2), Massachusetts (n=1), New York (n=1), and Texas (n=4). Staff at these schools held a total of 19 admissions lottery process for either the 2008–2009 school year or the 2009–2010 school year. At the time of the analyses presented here, students in this study were old enough to attend college for at least two years, so the study examined the impact of KIPP middle schools on their college attendance and persistence. Note that the study focuses on KIPP impacts on enrollment and persistence in four-year colleges; however, the WWC focused on outcomes in any college (two or four year).
The students in the analytic sample were 5th and 6th graders at time of random assignment. These students were similar across study conditions (i.e., KIPP middle schools or standard middle schools) in terms of characteristics such as prior academic achievement, gender, race and ethnicity and family income. Among students who attended KIPP middle schools, approximately 55 percent are Hispanic, 38 percent are black, 83 percent are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 46 percent speak another language other than English at home. These students also tended to show average academic achievement at the beginning of the study.
KIPP’s education model is designed to prepare students for success in college by emphasizing high expectations for students and developing their character, expanding the school day and year, and empowering teachers and school leaders to lead a school team. The KIPP model is meant to create safe, predictable and nurturing school and classroom environments so students can maximize their learning. KIPP counselors focus on helping students prepare for college and a career.
Students in the comparison group attended public, private, religious, and other non-KIPP charter schools starting in either the 2008–2009 or 2009–2010 school year.
No implementation supports are described in the reviewed study. However, KIPP is a national model and details about KIPP schools are available via an Internet search.
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