How a school support network may be changing life paths — new Harvard–Cornell study shows boosts in test scores and future pay

Researchers report clear classroom gains and long-term payoffs from Communities In Schools

The Harvard–Cornell team behind a new study says students who took part in Communities In Schools (CIS) programs showed steady academic improvement and better economic outcomes later in life. The researchers, working with decades of school records and tax data, reported that CIS participation was linked with higher reading and math scores, a greater chance of finishing high school and small but meaningful increases in earnings years after graduation.

The study, released this week alongside a response from Communities In Schools, frames the program as more than a short-term tutoring fix. Instead, the researchers describe it as a wraparound support system that helps students stay in class, graduate and move into steady work or further schooling. The finding matters because it ties classroom support to real, lasting improvements in young people’s lives — not just test scores that fade after a year.

How the study measured impact: the sample, methods and the numbers behind the claim

The research team used administrative records covering tens of thousands of students from multiple states and followed them from elementary school into early adulthood. They compared students in schools with CIS services to similar students in matched schools without those services. To reduce the chance that results were driven by who chooses the program, the team used statistical controls and a range of robustness checks, including school fixed effects, time trends and placebo tests.

On the academic side, the headline result was a modest but consistent lift in test performance. Students exposed to CIS showed gains roughly in the range of one-fifth of a standard deviation in math and slightly less in reading — a size that education researchers typically describe as meaningful, especially when it is repeated across large groups of students.

Graduation outcomes were also better. The study reports that students in CIS schools were several percentage points more likely to earn a high school diploma on schedule than their peers in comparable schools. College enrollment and completion rose too, though by a smaller margin.

Where this paper moves into new ground is the long view. By linking education records to later employment and earnings data, the researchers could estimate the downstream effects on work life. They found that, on average, former CIS students had higher employment rates in their twenties and early thirties, and annual earnings that were a single-digit percentage higher than the comparison group. The team says these gains are statistically significant and survive a battery of checks designed to rule out simple explanations like local economic booms or changing school budgets.

From classrooms to careers: what the study says about lifetime earnings and mobility

Turning academic gains into extra pay later is the crucial test for any education program trying to claim it boosts economic mobility. The authors of this study estimate that the modest test-score and graduation gains translate into a measurable increase in lifetime economic prospects — not a windfall, but a steady improvement in the odds of steady work and higher pay.

Put plainly: students who had CIS supports were more likely to complete school, enroll in postsecondary training or college, and land jobs that paid more than those of similar peers who did not get the services. For families and neighborhoods that struggle with persistent poverty, even a small rise in annual earnings can make a big difference over a decade.

Responses from CIS, researchers and educators — praise, context and caveats

Communities In Schools welcomed the findings, saying the analysis validates the organization’s model of placing coordinators in schools to connect students with basic needs, mentoring and academic help. CIS leaders highlighted stories of students who stayed in school because someone stepped in with counseling, health referrals or help securing housing.

Academic authors of the paper urged caution in interpreting the results. They noted the gains are not uniform — some schools and student groups benefit more than others — and stressed that the study measures average effects, not guarantees for every child. Independent educators praised the rigor of linking long-term tax and employment records to school program data, but also pointed to unanswered questions about which exact program elements drive the results.

What comes next: policy choices, funding and questions still to answer

If policymakers take this paper at face value, the implication is straightforward: school-based, wraparound support can be a cost-effective way to improve both education and economic outcomes. That does not mean CIS should be the only approach. The study raises practical questions that matter for funders and districts: which parts of the CIS model deliver the biggest return, how much it costs per student, and how well the program scales in places with different needs.

Researchers say follow-up work should break the program into its parts — counseling, family supports, health referrals and tutoring — to see which pieces move the needle on earnings. For districts, the next steps are operational: testing targeted expansions, measuring costs carefully and watching whether early academic gains keep translating into long-term mobility when programs grow.

The paper does not close the book on school support programs. But it does give decision-makers a clearer picture: investing in students’ nonacademic needs at school appears to pay off, not just in test scores but in harder-to-measure life outcomes. For communities deciding where to put limited dollars, that is the kind of evidence that matters.

Sources

• prnewswire.com