
Sustained Progress: New Findings about the Effectiveness and Operation of Small Public High Schools of Choice in New York City
Bloom, Howard S.; Unterman, Rebecca (2013). MDRC. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED545475
-
examining14,969Students, grades9-12
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: September 2017
- Practice Guide (findings for Dropout Prevention)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
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.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4-year graduation rate |
Dropout Prevention vs. Business as usual |
0 Years |
Full sample;
|
64.60 |
56.10 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
New York
-
Race Black 46% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 46% Not Hispanic or Latino 55%
Study Details
Setting
The study took place in New York City's public schools among SSC. The randomized sample included 84 SSCs with students participating in a total of 199 lotteries.
Study sample
The analytic sample includes 3 consecutive cohorts of 9th graders enrolled between 2004 and 2006. The treatment and comparison samples consisted primarily of black and Hispanic students. Black students represented 45-46% and Hispanics represented 44-45% of the treatment and comparison samples. Approximately 83% of the treatment and comparison students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Reading and math proficiency levels were fairly equal among the two groups; about 69% of the students failed to fully meet 8th grade reading proficiency standards and about two-thirds of the students failed to fully meet the 8th grade math proficiency standards. Compared to district non-SSC schools, all SSC schools served a higher proportion of minority students. Blacks and Hispanics accounted for 93% and 78% of the student population at the SCC and non-SCC schools respectively. Income was fairly comparable with about three quarters of the student body eligible for free or reduced price lunch. Non-SCC students were more proficient in English and Math than SCC students. Seventy-eight percent of SCC students and 65% of non-SCC students scored below grade level in English. Seventy-one percent of SCC students scored below grade level in math, compared to 55% of the non-SCC students (see table A.2, p. 42)
Intervention Group
The intervention condition is enrollment in an SSC through the HSAPS lottery system for 9th grade. SSC are small, academically non-selective schools. SSCs had four other essential features: school were (1) located predominantly in disadvantaged communities whose neighborhood high schools were closing; (2) established via a demanding and competitive proposal process that emphasized the common design principles of academic rigor, personalization, and community partnerships; (3) infused with outside resources, such as new principals, teachers, partnerships with intermediary organizations with expertise in starting new schools, and start-up funding from the district and its philanthropic partners; (4) received policy protections during their start-up period, including opening with only 1 founding grade of students (9th grade) and having access to supports to facilitate procurement and hiring, such as special training for school principals and teachers; an amendment to the collective bargaining agreement, which gave principals more hiring discretion; and conversion from a management system of regional offices to one in which schools had greater control over their budget and educational programs.
Comparison Group
The comparison condition was business as usual. It is defined as assignment to non-SSC schools in New York City public schools.
Support for implementation
About 70% of schools received support from an intermediary partner, such as New Visions for Public Schools, Institute for Student Achievement, and the Urban Assembly.
Additional Sources
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.
-
Bloom, Howard S.; Thompson, Saskia Levy; Unterman, Rebecca. (2011). Transforming the High School Experience: How New York City's New Small Schools Are Boosting Student Achievement and Graduation Rates. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
-
Bloom, Howard S.; Thompson, Saskia Levy; Unterman, Rebecca. (2011). Transforming the High School Experience: How New York City's New Small Schools Are Boosting Student Achievement and Graduation Rates. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
-
Bloom, Howard S.; Unterman, Rebecca. (2012). Sustained Positive Effects on Graduation Rates Produced by New York City's Small Public High Schools of Choice. Policy Brief. MDRC.
-
Bloom, Howard S.; Unterman, Rebecca. (2014). Can Small High Schools of Choice Improve Educational Prospects for Disadvantaged Students?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, v33 n2 p290-319.
Sustained Progress: New Findings about the Effectiveness and Operation of Small Public High Schools of Choice in New York City
Review Details
Reviewed: February 2014
- Single Study Review (110 KB) (findings for Small Schools of Choice (SSCs))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations
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.
Findings
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Graduated from high school |
Small Schools of Choice (SSCs) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
SSC lottery participants;
|
0.70 |
0.64 |
Yes |
|
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
College readiness in Math |
Small Schools of Choice (SSCs) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
SSC lottery participants;
|
0.24 |
0.25 |
No |
-- |
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
College readiness in English |
Small Schools of Choice (SSCs) vs. Business as usual |
Posttest |
SSC lottery participants;
|
0.40 |
0.35 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
6% English language learners -
Female: 54%
Male: 46% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
New York
-
Race Asian 3% Black 45% Native American 1% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 45% Not Hispanic or Latino 55%
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).