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¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3·i1small
Currency · newest study 2015 · 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 i1 The pilot effect on reading remained significant in year 2 (0.115 SD), but the year 3 effect was not statistically significant. → 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
Year 2 and year 3 estimates from table 8 of the randomized comparison of 92 schools: the printed year 2 effect size is 0.115 standard deviations (significant at the 10 percent level) and the year 3 coefficient is 0.120 (not significant). The initial improvement "remains even after cohort 2 schools adopted the program," though it did not continue to grow.
"The gap in reading achievement remains in year 2, and although the year 3 pilot school effect on reading is not statistically different from zero (because of the large standard error on the pilot coefficient), it is not statistically different from either the year 2 or year 3 effects (see columns 8 and 12 in table 8)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- 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
- Higher-achieving schools realized a bigger first-year reading benefit from the evaluation pilot than lower-achieving schools — related
- Low-poverty schools benefited more from the evaluation pilot than high-poverty schools, in both math and reading — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
eitp-persistent-reading-gap |
title |
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 |
description |
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 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
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.