Online Credit Recovery and the Path to On-Time High School Graduation

Abstract

Many high schools use online courses to allow students to retake failed classes in an effort to help get students back on track and graduate. However, there is limited evidence available on the effectiveness of online credit recovery in improving students’ long-term outcomes compared with traditional face-to-face credit recovery courses. In this paper, we examine longer term outcomes for ninth graders who failed Algebra I and were randomly assigned to an online or face-to-face algebra credit recovery course. In particular, we look at math credits earned through four years of high school and rates of on-time graduation. We find no statistically significant differences in longer term outcomes between students in the online and face-to-face courses. Implications of these null findings are discussed.

Student Voice in School Improvement: A Principal in the Nuevo South Reflects on a Student-Centered Practitioner Inquiry

“…As a result, educational institutions are under critical examination to address this graduation problem. Using online credit recovery courses is a predominant strategy used in schools to get students back on track and graduate (Rickles et al, 2018). To stem the dropout rate and provide academic support for struggling learners, schools have become innovative in providing alternate learning environments for students to regain credits and redirect students in the right direction toward high school completion.…”

Analysis of Nominally Equivalent Outcome Studies: A Comment on Rickles, Heppen, Allensworth, Sorensen, and Walters (2018)

“…In fact, this same analytic problem pops up in at least three different common categories of studies: (a) comparisons of two interventions where one is a newer alternative to standard practice that has some benefit (e.g., cost, flexibility, etc. ; e.g., Bettinger & Long, 2010; Johnson, Aragon, Shaik, & Palma-Rivas, 2000; Rickles et al, 2018), which is the focus here; (b) comparisons of two estimates of teacher quality (or a similar construct) where one estimate is created in such a way as to remove a possible bias (e.g., after randomly assigning students to classrooms; e.g., Bacher-Hicks, Chin, Kane, & Staiger, 2017; Chetty, Friedman, & Rockoff, 2014; Kane & Staiger, 2008; Steinberg & Garrett, 2016; Xu, Ozek, & Corritore, 2012); and (c) within-study comparisons that compare program effect estimates from experimental and quasi-experimental estimates of the same effect (Bloom, Michalopoulos, Hill, & Lei, 2002; Jacob, Somers, Zhu, & Bloom, 2016). As is clear from this wide range of work, the problems discussed in this response extend well beyond RHASW.…”

“…This note is in response to Rickles, Heppen, Allensworth, Sorensen, and Walters (RHASW; 2018). From an analytic perspective, RHASW represents an example of a common type of problem, which I will call nominally equivalent outcome (NEO) studies.…”

Response to Technical Comment on Rickles, Heppen, Allensworth, Sorensen, and Walters (2018)

“…We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the concerns that White raises in his technical comment on Rickles, Heppen, Allensworth, Sorensen, and Walters (2018). White raises three interrelated concerns about our paper on the longer-term effects of an online credit recovery course:…”