Edmunds, Julie A.; Unlu, Fatih; Furey, Jane; Glennie, Elizabeth; Arshavsky, Nina (2020). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, v42 n2 p257-278 Jun 2020. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1253291
Reviewed: September 2023
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attained a postsecondary degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
37.80 |
22.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Attained an associate’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
30.00 |
8.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained both an associate’s and bachelor’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
15.30 |
3.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained an associate’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
32.80 |
11.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained an associate’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
First-generation students;
|
26.50 |
9.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained an associate’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Economically disadvantaged;
|
22.90 |
7.90 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained only an associate’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
17.40 |
7.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained an associate’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Underprepared students;
|
13.50 |
7.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained a postsecondary degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Economically disadvantaged;
|
35.90 |
23.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained a postsecondary degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
First-generation students;
|
36.10 |
24.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained a postsecondary degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
44.30 |
33.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained a bachelor’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
16.70 |
12.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained a postsecondary degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Underprepared students;
|
24.60 |
19.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attained a bachelor’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Economically disadvantaged;
|
21.30 |
16.80 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained a technical credential |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
3.50 |
3.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attained a bachelor’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Underprepared students;
|
13.30 |
12.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attained a bachelor’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
24.90 |
24.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attained a bachelor’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
First-generation students;
|
17.00 |
16.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attained a technical credential |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
2.50 |
2.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attained only a technical credential |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
1.90 |
1.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attained only a bachelor’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
9.60 |
20.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ever Enrolled in College |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
89.88 |
74.28 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Ever Enrolled in a Two-Year College |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
87.86 |
57.46 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Ever Enrolled in a Four-Year College |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
38.40 |
32.30 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Currently enrolled in college courses |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
69.00 |
64.53 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Currently enrolled in college courses |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
54.00 |
59.64 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College credits earned while in high school |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
21.59 |
2.80 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduated high school |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
85.39 |
81.37 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 27% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| Two or more races | 3% | |
| White | 60% |
| Hispanic | 8% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 92% |
| Other or unknown | 100% |
The study took place in 12 early colleges, which are schools located on college campuses that combine high school and college experiences. These schools were located in urban and rural settings in North Carolina.
The researchers randomly assigned 952 students to the intervention group and 735 students to the comparison group. A total of 1,687 students who applied to an early college high school in grade 9 were included in the study, with smaller sample sizes for some outcome measures. Approximately 41% were male, 3% had a disability or impairment. Sixty percent of students were White, 27% were Black, 3% reported two or more races, 1% were Asian, 1% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 8% reported another race or did not report their race. Eight percent were Hispanic or Latino. Forty-one percent of the students were the first in their family to go to college. The percentage of students who were eligible for free and reduced price lunch were not reported.
Students in the intervention group were offered admission to one of 12 early college high schools located on college campuses. The goal of the early college high school program is to prepare high school students for college. The program focuses on students who are underrepresented in college, such as low-income students or those who are the first in their family to go to college. Students can earn a high school diploma and receive college credit over the course of a four- to five-year program. The program prepares students academically by offering honor-level college preparatory high school curricula and opportunities to enroll in college courses at the partner college starting in 9th grade. Early college high schools are designed to teach students critical thinking, extensive writing, cooperative work, and ongoing class discussion skills, as well as other skills to prepare for college. Early college high schools also support students to navigate the college admissions process. In addition, students are provided coaching through the college application and enrollment process, including applying for financial aid. In this study, 92% of students who were offered admission to an early college high school attended the school.
Students in the comparison group attended other non-early college high schools as usual. These students applied to an early college high school but were not selected by lottery to attend the program.
The authors do not provide details about support for implementation of the early college high school program.
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.
Edmunds, Julie A.; Unlu, Fatih; Glennie, Elizabeth; Bernstein, Lawrence; Fesler, Lily; Furey, Jane; Arshavsky, Nina. (2017). Smoothing the Transition to Postsecondary Education: The Impact of the Early College Model. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v10 n2 p297-325.
Reviewed: September 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attainment of any postsecondary credential by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.44 |
0.33 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned both an Associate's degree and Bachelor's degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.15 |
0.04 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attainment of an Associate's degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Underrepresented minority;
|
0.21 |
0.06 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received an Associate's degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.33 |
0.11 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attainment of an Associate's degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Economically disadvantaged;
|
0.23 |
0.08 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attainment of an Associate's degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
First-generation college-goers;
|
0.27 |
0.10 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Earned only an Associate's degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.17 |
0.07 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attainment of an Associate's degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Underprepared students;
|
0.14 |
0.07 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attainment of any postsecondary degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Economically disadvantaged;
|
0.36 |
0.23 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attainment of any postsecondary degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
First-generation college-goer;
|
0.36 |
0.25 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attainment of any postsecondary degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Underrepresented minority ;
|
0.36 |
0.27 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Attainment of any postsecondary degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Underprepared students;
|
0.25 |
0.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attainment of a Bachelor's degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Economically disadvantaged;
|
0.21 |
0.17 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received a technical credential |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.04 |
0.03 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attainment of a Bachelor's degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Underrepresented minority;
|
0.25 |
0.23 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attainment of a Bachelor's degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Underprepared students;
|
0.13 |
0.12 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received a Bachelor’s degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.25 |
0.24 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attainment of a Bachelor's degree by 6 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
First-generation college-goers;
|
0.17 |
0.16 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earned only a technical credential |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.02 |
0.02 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Earned only a Bachelor's degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.10 |
0.20 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attainment of any postsecondary credential by 4 years after completion of 12th grade |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.38 |
0.22 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received an Associate's degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.30 |
0.09 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received a Bachelor's degree |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.17 |
0.13 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Received a technical credential |
Early college—Edmunds et al. (2020) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.03 |
0.03 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 27% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Other or unknown | 8% | |
| White | 60% |
| Hispanic | 9% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 92% |
This study took place in North Carolina among 12 early college programs located in urban and rural settings.
The analytic sample included 952 students in the intervention group and 735 in the comparison group. These 1,687 students applied to 12 early college programs between the 2005-06 school year and the 2008-09 school year. About 51% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 3% had a disability. Sixty percent identified as White, 27% as Black, and 9% as Hispanic or Latino. Less than half were male (41%). The average age was 15.4 years at the time of the lottery.
Students in the intervention group were offered admission to one of 12 early college programs in North Carolina. Early college programs combine elements of high school and college, offering students an opportunity to earn both a high school diploma and receive college credit over the course of a 4 to 5-year program. These programs are offered as small schools located on college campuses, primarily in community college settings. As students progress in early college, they gradually take more courses for college credit while also fulfilling high school graduation requirements. During their experience, students may earn enough college credit to receive an Associate's degree or complete the first 2 years of a 4-year degree program. In addition to more challenging academics, early college programs teach skills pertaining to good study habits and time management to help students successfully navigate college.
Students in the comparison condition applied to an early college program but were not selected by lottery to attend the program. These students received business-as-usual high school education, which most likely would have been enrollment at a traditional high school in their school district.
The authors do not describe additional details about implementation of the early college program.
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