The CRIS framework extends existing early warning systems beyond graduation and academic measures¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoretical r2 · q1
Currency · newest study 2013 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2016: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The CRIS framework builds upon and enhances existing early warning systems by targeting college readiness, adding non-academic readiness dimensions, and adding setting- and system-level indicators. → Graciela N. Borsato 2013

Evidence¶

Graciela N. Borsato 2013¶

Graciela N. Borsato, Jenny Nagaoka, and Ellen Foley. (2013). College Readiness Indicator Systems Framework. Voices in Urban Education, Fall 2013. https://consortium.uchicago.edu/publications/college-readiness-indicator-systems-framework

q1 · i? · theoretical · r2

This is the authors' descriptive account of how the framework differs from existing early warning systems, presented as a conceptual argument rather than a tested comparison. The article states CRIS looks beyond "high school graduation and college eligibility to target college readiness." No empirical comparison is reported.

"The CRIS framework builds upon and enhances existing early warning systems in several ways. First, CRIS looks beyond high school graduation and college eligibility to target college readiness."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Contextual conditions beyond district control shape how a college readiness indicator system can be implemented — related
• Ninth-grade early warning systems around course grades and attendance led to substantial improvements in grades, graduation rates, and test-measured learning gains — related
• Students show signs of dropout risk early in high school, and schools that reach out in the ninth-grade year can keep them on track to graduate — related
• Freshman on-track status is an early indicator correlated with later graduation, and being off track correlates with dropping out — related
• Ninth-grade on-track status predicts graduation more strongly than prior achievement, with a 55 percentage point gap after controls — related
• Summative setting-level indicators do not allow quick feedback on school practices, so schools set attendance goals and monitor them weekly or monthly to determine whether new practices are improving those indicators — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• In a Chicago middle-grades study, the combination of grades and attendance provided the best prediction of high school on-track rates, and adding test scores and grit measures did not further improve prediction — a broader claim this one bears on
• Composite accountability indicators such as A–F letter grades fail to capture the cognitive and noncognitive competencies of deeper learning and college and career readiness — related
• Behavior indicators show inconsistent predictive strength for high school graduation: several studies find them strongly predictive, but behavior was not predictive in Chicago above and beyond grades and attendance — related