skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Double-dose classes (English language arts)

Pre-K to 12 Education
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated December 2024.
Double-dose English language arts (ELA) classes are provided to middle and high school students struggling with ELA. Students are typically assigned to this intervention after performing below a target score on the previous year’s standardized test. Students participating in double-dose enroll in two ELA classes instead of one, thus doubling their instructional time in ELA within the regular school day. This secondary ELA class typically lasts the entire academic year. The second class is usually organized as a support class delivered by a trained, certificated secondary ELA teacher, often instead of an elective class. Double-dose ELA programs were employed to help support students achieve foundational milestones.

The double-dose program is also employed for students struggling with math. We exclude those studies in this analysis and analyze them separately.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $5,212 Benefits minus costs $22,754
Participants $12,197 Benefit to cost ratio $29.16
Others $6,700 Chance the program will produce
Indirect ($547) benefits greater than the costs 100%
Total benefits $23,562
Net program cost ($808)
Benefits minus cost $22,754

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
High school graduation
On-time completion of high school with a diploma (excluding GED attainment).
 13 1 14078 0.064 0.015 18 0.064 0.015 18 0.064 0.001
Suspensions/expulsions^
In-school suspensions, out-of-school suspensions, or expulsions from school
 13 1 14078 0.389 0.016 13 n/a n/a n/a 0.389 0.001
Test scores
Standardized, validated tests of academic achievement.
13 3 27605 0.061 0.032 13 0.050 0.035 17 0.061 0.059
School attendance^
Number or percentage of school days present in a given enrollment period.
 13 1 14078 -0.012 0.012 13 n/a n/a n/a -0.012 0.317
Graduate with 4-year degree
Graduate with a degree from a 4-year higher education institution.
 13 1 14078 0.242 0.024 22 0.242 0.024 22 0.242 0.001
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
High school graduation Criminal justice system $35 $0 $86 $17 $138
Enroll in 2-year college Labor market earnings associated with higher education $5,497 $12,950 $6,975 $0 $25,422
Costs of higher education ($320) ($754) ($360) ($160) ($1,595)
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($404) ($404)
Totals $5,212 $12,197 $6,700 ($547) $23,562
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $808 2023 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($808)
Comparison costs $0 2023 Cost range (+ or -) 30%
Previous WSIPP analyses estimate that providing double-dose classes requires hiring approximately 15% more teachers to cover the additional classes (this figure accounts for a partial cost offset by hiring fewer elective course teachers). In this previous analysis, WSIPP used the average Washington State compensation costs (including benefits) for secondary teachers as reported by the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction to calculate a per-student annual cost. For this analysis, we use updated compensation costs to calculate the inflation rate of teacher salaries and benefits from 2013 to 2023. We apply that inflation rate to the original per-participant program cost to calculate the current estimate.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Dougherty, S.M. (2015). Bridging the discontinuity in adolescent literacy?: Mixed evidence from a middle grades intervention. Education, Finance, and Policy, 10(2), 157-192.

Özek, U. (2021). The effects of middle school remediation on postsecondary success: Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida. Journal of Public Economics, 203, 104518.

Nomi, T. (2015). “Double-dose” English as a strategy for improving adolescent literacy: Total effect and mediated effect through classroom peer ability change. Social Science Research, 52, 716-739.