Edmunds, Julie; Lewis, Karla; Hutchins, Bryan; Klopfenstein, Kristin (2018). SERVE Center at University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED618202
Reviewed: December 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College preparatory course success (taking and passing English I and Algebra I or higher) |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample (9th grade);
|
53.70 |
56.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College preparatory course success (taking and passing English I and Algebra I or higher) |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
EL students (9th grade);
|
49.90 |
54.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
College preparatory course success (taking and passing English I and Algebra I or higher) |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Low performing students (9th grade);
|
47.20 |
51.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High school credits received for college-level courses |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.74 |
3.73 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cohort dropout rate |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
3.60 |
4.10 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Cohort dropout rate |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Low performing students;
|
4.40 |
5.90 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Cohort dropout rate |
Early College Expansion Partnership vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
ELL students;
|
4.40 |
5.20 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was implemented in five intervention schools and six comparison schools in Texas, and nine intervention schools and nine comparison schools in Colorado.
Fifty percent of the sample were English Learner students and 65 percent were low-performing students.
The Early College Expansion Partnership (ECEP) aims to increase the number of high school graduates and prepare them for enrollment and success in postsecondary education by applying strategies from the Early College High School model. These strategies include a college-ready academic program, college headstart, and wraparound student supports. College-ready academic programs have an instructional framework aligned to college-ready standards, are rigorous and untracked, and offer an aligned sequence of college courses that leads to 12+ credits. College headstart involves exposure to the culture and norms of college, explicit instruction on academic and social college behaviors, and inclusive college application and financial aid advising. The intervention includes a suite of professional development and technical assistance services implemented in 12 high schools, 14 middle schools, and two 6th-12th grade schools in three districts in Colorado and Texas.
Schools in the comparison condition conducted business-as-usual and did not receive the ECEP intervention.
No implementation support was described separate from the intervention components, which included technical assistance and professional development.
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