Hemelt, S. W., Lenard, M. A., & Paeplow, C. G. (2019). Economics of Education Review, 68, 161-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.08.005.
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 |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ACT Composite score |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
24.37 |
24.50 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
ACT Composite |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Low-performing students;
|
20.95 |
20.47 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
College enrollment within one year of graduation |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
90.70 |
87.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
College enrollment within one year of graduation |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Low-performing students;
|
85.40 |
84.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Scoring 3 or greater on the AP Math or Science exam |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
30.40 |
28.00 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Scoring 3 or greater on the AP Math or Science exam |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Low-performing students ;
|
10.90 |
14.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ACT Reading score |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
24.49 |
24.17 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
ACT Reading score |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Low-performing students;
|
21.33 |
19.96 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
ACT Mathematics score |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Full sample;
|
25.79 |
25.95 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
ACT Mathematics score |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-1 Years |
Low-performing students;
|
21.82 |
21.72 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High Shool Graduation |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
96.50 |
90.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
High School Graduation |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Low-performing students;
|
93.10 |
90.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Earned "Microsoft Office Specialist" Certification |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-2 Years |
Full sample;
|
38.90 |
20.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Earned "Microsoft Office Specialist" Certification |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-2 Years |
Low-performing students;
|
39.70 |
17.00 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Number of days absent in 9th grade |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-3 Years |
Full sample;
|
2.59 |
3.78 |
Yes |
|
|
|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Number of days absent in 9th grade |
Career Academies vs. Business as usual |
-3 Years |
Low-performing students;
|
3.06 |
4.99 |
No |
-- | ||
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 10% | |
| Black | 5% | |
| Other or unknown | 6% | |
| White | 79% |
| Hispanic | 3% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 97% |
The study was conducted during school years 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 at Apex High School’s Academy of Information Technology (AOIT), a career academy in Wake County, North Carolina.
The full study sample consists of four cohorts of 9th grade students accepted into AOIT. Just over a third (36%) were female, 79% were White, non-Hispanic, 10% were Asian, non-Hispanic, and 5% were Black, non-Hispanic. Three percent (3%) were Hispanic. No students were English learners.
Students enrolled in AOIT participated in a technology-based paid internship, a four-year sequence of IT courses/electives in either programming or multimedia/web design, cohort-based grouping with fellow AOIT students, and soft-skills training throughout the four-year program. Students also received non-academic supports for job searching, such as resume preparation and mock interviewing.
Students in the comparison condition experienced the traditional high school curriculum which does not include a work-based learning component, non-academic supports, or 12th grade course requirements. IT courses were available for students in the traditional high school on a limited basis.
No information was provided about implementation support.
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