ICF Evaluation Team (2020). Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. https://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/2020/06impact-evaluation.docx.
Reviewed: August 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.
Reviewed: June 2021
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Disciplinary incident rate |
Early College Pathways vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.01 |
0.07 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attendance rate |
Early College Pathways vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.94 |
0.88 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High school grade point average (GPA) |
Early College Pathways vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.73 |
2.30 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 12% | |
| Other or unknown | 70% | |
| White | 16% |
| Hispanic | 68% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 32% |
This study took place in Massachusetts among programs that were selected to receive state designation for their Early College (EC) programs. These programs were implemented in two community colleges, one university, and four high schools.
More than half (59%) of the student sample was female, with the majority in grade 11 (42%) or grade 12 (34%), and the majority (73%) classified as economically disadvantaged based on eligibility for free/reduced-price lunch. Eleven percent were classified as having limited English proficiency, and 8 percent participated in special education programming. The majority were Hispanic (68%), with the remaining students identifying as white (16%), black (12%), Asian (2%), or other (2%).
Early College (EC) programs provide opportunities for high school students to take college-level courses while they are still in high school, enabling them to earn college credits in a supportive environment. Students participated in a range of activities as part of their EC program (e.g., online and in-person advising, listening to guest speakers, field trips, workshops, job site visits, job shadowing, tutoring/mentoring). EC students also worked an average of 21 hours on internships or capstones. Additionally, students learned about options after high school (e.g., kinds of degrees and certificates available), visited college campuses, learned about the costs associated with college, as well as what is needed to achieve success in college.
The comparison condition is business-as-usual. No information is provided except that the comparison group students did not participate in early college programs.
Each program received technical assistance and networking opportunities from the Commonwealth. Details of the technical assistance and networking opportunities are not discussed. Also, each program received a competitive implementation grant of approximately $140,000 to support implementation of the program during the 2018-19 school year.
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