EEF-funded interventions showed no evidence of positive or negative overall effects on FSM pupils' mathematics outcomes¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i0 Across 48 EEF trials there was no evidence that interventions had positive effects on FSM pupils' mathematics outcomes (pooled ES 0.00, -0.03 to 0.04), nor that they worsened them. → Bilal Ashraf 2021

Evidence¶

Bilal Ashraf 2021¶

Bilal Ashraf, Akansha Singh, Germaine Uwimpuhwe, Tahani Coolen-Maturi, Jochen Einbeck, Steve Higgins and Adetayo Kasim. (2021). Individual participant data meta-analysis of the impact of EEF trials on the educational attainment of pupils on Free School Meals: 2011 - 2019. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED625398

q3 · i0 · quant-synthesis · r2

IPD meta-analysis of 48 maths trials (89,247 FSM pupils). The report states "there is no evidence from the 48 trials analysed" of positive effects, with a printed pooled effect size of 0.00; it also notes no evidence of worsening outcomes. Equivalence was not tested.

"However, there is no evidence from the 48 trials analysed that EEF interventions had positive effects on the mathematics outcomes of FSM pupils with an effect size of 0.00 (-0.03, 0.04) (Table 7)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• EEF-funded interventions improved FSM pupils' literacy outcomes with a pooled effect size of 0.06, equivalent to about one month's progress — related
• EEF interventions showed a small overall narrowing of the literacy attainment gap in favour of FSM pupils, dependent on Key Stage — related
• Literacy benefits for FSM pupils were greatest in Key Stage 1 (ES 0.09) and Key Stage 3 (ES 0.08) and smallest in Key Stages 2 and 4 — related
• Mathematics effects on FSM pupils differed by outcome status: near-zero as primary outcome (0.01) and negative as secondary outcome (-0.07) — related
• Small group and one-to-one interventions produced larger literacy gains for FSM pupils than whole class or whole school approaches — related
• The simplified IPD model produced a greater pooled literacy effect size than two-stage meta-analysis models — 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