The impact of FAST did not differ significantly by student subgroups or school characteristics in the RCT¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? FAST did not work significantly better or worse for any subgroups of students or in schools with particular characteristics. → Bos 2018

Evidence¶

Bos 2018¶

Bos, J., Spier, E., Bandeira de Mello, V., González, R., & Huang, F. (2018). Investing in Innovation (i3) Validation Study of Families and Schools Together (FAST) Final Report. American Institutes for Research. https://evidenceforessa.org/program/families-and-schools-together-fast/

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the 60-school cluster RCT (1,396 students), subgroup and school-characteristic analyses found no differential impact: "did not find that FAST worked significantly better or worse for any subgroups of students or in schools with particular characteristics."

"We also did not find that FAST worked significantly better or worse for any subgroups of students or in schools with particular characteristics."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Exploratory subgroup and correlation analyses show mostly no significant differences in benefit or experience scores by child and family characteristics — related
• In the 2013 RCT, subgroup findings for female students in grades 1–2 on the STAR Early Literacy Assessment were positive but not statistically significant, yet large enough to be considered substantively important — related
• The attendance impact of Future Forward is larger for Black students, male students, and students with low baseline attendance — related
• Offering FAST produced no meaningful, enduring effects on family functioning, family-school relationships, academic learning, or social-behavioral outcomes in a 60-school cluster RCT — related
• Subgroup analyses in education impact evaluations can also be based on participants' experiences, mediators, and outcomes measured after program implementation — related
• Subgroup (moderator) analyses in education impact evaluations can be based on participant characteristics measured before the intervention is implemented — a broader claim this one bears on
• There was no clear pattern to the relationship between student, teacher, and school characteristics and the effectiveness of the interventions. — related
• The interventions did not consistently benefit any baseline subgroup more than another — related
• Platform treatment effects did not vary across demographic subgroups, suggesting equal benefit regardless of racial background — related
• The exam playbook intervention showed no statistically significant treatment-effect differences by gender, race, class standing, or prior performance — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• ITS benefits in mathematics education vary by system design, domain, learner characteristics, intervention intensity, outcome measurement, teacher mediation, and implementation context — related
• Individual differences and program characteristics impact receptivity and effectiveness of school-based mindfulness training — related
• Writing intervention effects for US ELL students do not vary significantly by study quality indicators, participant characteristics, or intervention characteristics — related
• Small isolated effects on family conflict (negative) and parent-teacher joining (positive) appeared but were not enduring and may be spurious — related
• The intervention showed no meaningful differential effects for children facing socioeconomic disadvantage, EAL, SEN, or multiple overlapping challenges — related