2016-2017 Implementation Evaluation of the National Math and Science Initiative&apos;s College Readiness Program
Author: Phelan, Julia
Date: 2018-00-00
Type: Reports - Research
Subjects: Program Implementation,Program Evaluation,College Readiness,STEM Education,High School Students,Advanced Placement Programs,Advanced Courses,Disproportionate Representation,Outcomes of Education,Fidelity,Scores,Course Selection (Students),Probability,Barriers,Mathematics Tests,Science Tests,Language Arts

The National Math + Science Initiative's (NMSI's) College Readiness Program (CRP) is an established program whose goal is to promote science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education in high schools to improve students' readiness for college. The program provides teacher, student, and school supports to promote high school students' success in mathematics, science, and English Advanced Placement (AP) courses, with a focus on students who are traditionally underrepresented in the targeted AP courses. Through a scale-up grant awarded to NMSI by the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, the CRP was implemented in 28 schools in the 2016-2017 school year. CRESST conducted an independent evaluation of the impact of the CRP on students' AP outcomes using a randomized cluster trial with 28 CRP schools and 24 control schools in 10 states. The evaluation of the CRP consisted of two parts: (1) assessment of the program's impact on selected student AP exam outcomes and (2) assessment of the fidelity of implementation of the CRP. Program impact was evaluated using a 2-level hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) with students nested within schools The descriptive statistics showed that a higher percetange of students in the treatment schools took at least one AP course (30.7%) compared to those in the control schools (26.4%) by approximately 4.3%, however the difference was not statistically significant. In addition, students in the treatment schools were not more likely to achieve a score of 3 or higher, when compared to the delayed treatment schools. We further examined the effectiveness of the CRP using the prior year's school-level performance on the AP exam as a covariate. As with the above findings, the results indicated the probability of a student taking at least one AP course or scoring 3 or higher on at least one AP exam is not statistically different between students in the treatment schools and those in the control treatment schools. Fidelity of implementation was evaluated using a fidelity matrix approach (required as part of the evaluation of the i3 program), which showed that not all elements of the program were implemented with high fidelity. Overall results, however, indicated that 23 schools out of 28 treatment schools (82.1%) achieved 80% or better implementation fidelity, for an average fidelity score of 89.5%. Seven schools achieved a perfect 100% fidelity score. Looking at the different indicator groups (school, teacher and student), we found that all school support measures across all schools were implemented with fidelity. In over 80% of schools, not all teachers fulfilled their requirements for attending all training sessions, and so this component was not implemented with fidelity. Stipends and teacher awards were paid as expected as were student award payments. Teacher survey data indicated that teachers found the training and professional development activities provided by the CRP to be the most beneficial program supports relating to helping increase student achievement in AP courses. Teacher incentives were chosen as the least important program component relating to increasing student performance by 16% of teachers and student incentives by 12% of teachers. Teachers did, however, view the student incentives as an important program component to encourage enrollment in AP courses. Likewise, students rated the financial incentives on average as somewhat important in encouraging them to participate in AP courses.