Interventions with an English curriculum focus were associated with higher primary ITT effect sizes than maths or cross-curriculum focus, while maths focus was associated with higher secondary ITT effect sizes¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Primary ITT effect sizes were higher for English-focused interventions than for maths or cross-curriculum interventions, and secondary ITT effect sizes were higher for maths-focused interventions; no association was observed for FSM effect sizes. → Demack 2021
Evidence¶
Demack 2021¶
Demack, S., Maxwell, B., Coldwell, M., Stevens, A., Wolstenholme, C., Reaney-Wood, S., Stiell, B., & Lortie-Forgues, H. (2021). Review of EEF projects: Evaluation report. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED625480
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Subgroup meta-analysis of effect sizes by curriculum area across the EEF trials. The review reports English focus associated with "higher primary ITT effect sizes compared with trials with a maths or cross-curriculum focus", no FSM association, and higher secondary effect sizes for maths focus.
"On average, interventions with an English curriculum focus were associated with higher primary ITT effect sizes compared with trials with a maths or cross -curriculum focus. No association was observed between FSM effect size and curriculum focus, but higher secondary ITT effect sizes were observed for interventions that had a maths focus."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- TA-led interventions were associated with higher primary ITT and FSM effect sizes than other interventions, a pattern not observed for secondary ITT effect sizes — related
- Interventions located in one or up to three geographical areas showed higher primary ITT and FSM effect sizes than interventions spread across more areas — related
- Across 82 EEF RCT evaluations, overall meta-analysis weighted mean effect sizes were small: +0.04 SD for primary ITT, +0.01 SD for secondary ITT, and +0.03 SD for FSM subsample attainment outcomes — a broader claim this one bears on
- Effect sizes were higher for interventions with a total cost between £250k and £750k than for interventions that were more or less expensive — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.