The A4L impact on grade 4 CCU outcomes did not differ significantly between free/reduced-price lunch and non-FRL students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Subgroup analyses found no statistically significant differences between free/reduced-price lunch and non-FRL students on grade 4 CCU Assessments. → Jonathan Nakamoto 2015

Evidence¶

Jonathan Nakamoto 2015¶

Jonathan Nakamoto, Sandy Sobolew-Shubin, Martin Orland. (2015). The Beaverton School District Arts for Learning (A4L) Lessons Project, An Investing in Innovation (i3) Development Grant: Student Impact Findings from Years 1, 2, and 3. WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED560945

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Exploratory subgroup analyses with grade 4 CCU data in 12 schools; the report interprets this as the program having an equally positive impact for both FRL and non-FRL students. No effect size is printed for this subgroup contrast (coded i?); a non-significant difference between subgroups does not show that the impact was null for either group.

"the free/reduced-price lunch subgroup analyses based on the CCU Assessments with the students in grade 4 did not reveal any statistically significant differences between the free/reduced-price lunch and non-free/reduced-price lunch students."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Socioeconomic Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

Related Claims¶

• Effects were larger in intervention schools with a higher percentage of economically disadvantaged students or a lower percentage of White students — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Grade 4 students in treatment schools scored significantly higher than control students on the CCU Assessments in each of the three study years, with effect sizes from 0.30 to 0.36 — related
• Subgroup analysis indicates notable growth for students from traditionally underserved groups, such as those eligible for free or reduced-price lunch — related
• Grade 5 students showed very small, non-significant CCU differences, indicating no reliable A4L impact at that grade level — related
• The A4L Lessons Project had no statistically significant impact on students' OAKS Reading/Literature achievement after one, two, or three years of participation — related
• The A4L impact on grade 4 CCU outcomes differed significantly by ELL status in years 1 and 2, with substantially larger effects for ELL students, but not in year 3 — related
• Grade 3 students showed small positive but statistically non-significant CCU impacts across all three study years — related
• Writing intervention effects for US ELL students do not vary significantly by study quality indicators, participant characteristics, or intervention characteristics — related
• No significant differential treatment effects by prior (Grade 4) achievement level or gender; the Grade 4 Level 3 subgroup difference was marginal (p = .053) — related
• Negative effects of mid-year entry are somewhat larger for Asian students and students not qualifying for free or reduced-price lunch — related
• The intervention showed no meaningful differential effects for children facing socioeconomic disadvantage, EAL, SEN, or multiple overlapping challenges — related