Brodersen, R. Marc; Gagnon, Douglas; Liu, Jing; Tedeschi, Steven (2021). Regional Educational Laboratory Central. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED612630
Reviewed: November 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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Attaining Up to An Associate's Degree |
High school career and technical education course sequence vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
High school classes of 2012/13 and 2013/14;
|
10.40 |
6.40 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Received a bachelor's degree or higher |
High school career and technical education course sequence vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
High school classes of 2012/13 and 2013/14;
|
28.60 |
29.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Postsecondary Enrollment |
High school career and technical education course sequence vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample ;
|
74.10 |
64.60 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Enrolled in a 2-year college |
High school career and technical education course sequence vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample ;
|
36.60 |
26.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Full time postsecondary enrollment |
High school career and technical education course sequence vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample ;
|
66.60 |
56.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Postsecondary Enrollment |
High school career and technical education course sequence vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
High school classes of 2012/13 and 2013/14;
|
77.70 |
69.70 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Enrolled in a 4-year college |
High school career and technical education course sequence vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample ;
|
48.40 |
46.40 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High School Graduation |
High school career and technical education course sequence vs. Business as usual |
0 Months |
Full sample;
|
92.30 |
85.30 |
Yes |
|
|
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 2% | |
| Black | 5% | |
| Native American | 3% | |
| Other or unknown | 14% | |
| Pacific Islander | 0% | |
| White | 76% |
| Hispanic | 12% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 88% |
The study was conducted with students in Nebraska and South Dakota whose expected date of high school graduation was between 2012-13 and 2016-17. Students were included in the sample if they had completed the required 8th grade reading and math assessments, attended public school, and had the data required to be included in the study's propensity score matching approach.
The full sample was majority White (76%) and over half male (51%). About 12% of students in the sample were Hispanic. Over a third (38%) of the students were eligible for the national school lunch program.
The intervention assessed in the study was concentration in Career and Technical Education (CTE) courses, defined as completion of a specific set of courses that are connected to a specific career cluster. Students in Nebraska were considered CTE concentrators if they earned three or more credits in an identified career cluster. Students in South Dakota were classified as CTE concentrators if they earned at least two credits in a state-approved sequence within a single career cluster.
The comparison group consisted of students who did not meet their state's definition of a CTE concentrator. Some comparison groups may have earned CTE credits below the threshold to be considered a CTE concentrator, such as fewer than three credits in a single career cluster in Nebraska or fewer than two credits in a state-approved sequence in a single career cluster in South Dakota.
No additional information was provided.
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