Low-poverty schools benefited more from the evaluation pilot than high-poverty schools, in both math and reading¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2015 · checked against its sources 2026-10-17 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · 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 i1 Schools one standard deviation below the mean poverty level improved by an additional 0.09 SD in math and 0.10 SD in reading beyond the pilot effect at average-poverty schools. → Matthew P. Steinberg and Lauren Sartain 2015

Evidence¶

Matthew P. Steinberg and Lauren Sartain 2015¶

Matthew P. Steinberg and Lauren Sartain. (2015). Does Teacher Evaluation Improve School Performance? Experimental Evidence from Chicago's Excellence in Teaching Project. Association for Education Finance and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00173

q3 · i1 · causal · r2

Heterogeneity analysis (table 10) of the randomized comparison: the printed year 1 interaction effect sizes are −0.091 standard deviations (significant at the 5 percent level) in math and −0.099 (significant at the 5 percent level) in reading. The article reports "the differential effect of the pilot persisted even after the ﬁrst year."

"lower-poverty schools (those that are one standard deviation below the mean share of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch) improved by 0.09 standard deviations in math and 0. 10 standard deviations in reading beyond the pilot effect at schools with average poverty level."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Socioeconomic Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

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
Higher-achieving schools realized a bigger first-year reading benefit from the evaluation pilot than lower-achieving schools — related
The first-year effect of the EITP pilot on school-level math achievement (0.05 SD) was not statistically significant — related
After the first year of the EITP pilot, cohort 1 schools improved reading achievement by 0.10 standard deviations relative to cohort 2 schools — related
No significant heterogeneity in pilot effects by school racial/ethnic composition was found — related
The reading achievement gap between cohort 1 and cohort 2 schools persisted into the second year, with the year 3 estimate no longer statistically significant — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`eitp-heterogeneity-poverty`
`title`	`Low-poverty schools benefited more from the evaluation pilot than high-poverty schools, in both math and reading`
`description`	`Low-poverty schools benefited more from the evaluation pilot than high-poverty schools, in both math and reading`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2015`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-17`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-10-08`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	1 — `matthew-p-steinberg-and-lauren-sartain-2015`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.