Using WWC sanctioned rigorous methods to develop comparison groups for evaluation

Evaluation of program impact in the field of education has been a controversial topic over the years. Although randomized control trials have great advantages in causal inference, they often raise ethical and economic concerns in practice. As an alternative, quasi-experimental designs may provide valid evidence of influence if they are well-designed. In this article, we presented an evaluation case of a district-wide early learning improvement program. To strike a balance between practicability and academic rigor, we developed comparison groups from multiple perspectives, and used a series of tests consistent with WWC 3.0 standards to reach the most valid comparisons. Implications for evaluation practice were discussed.