Fresh Start showed positive progress results for FSM-eligible pupils and for all pupil sub-groups, though these findings are less secure¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i1 small
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i1 The trial suggests positive progress for FSM-eligible pupils and for sub-groups regardless of age, sex, first language, ethnicity, or special education need, but the report states these findings are less secure because sub-group numbers are smaller. → Stephen Gorard 2015

Evidence¶

Stephen Gorard 2015¶

Stephen Gorard, Nadia Siddiqui, Beng Huat See. (2015). Fresh Start Evaluation Report and Executive Summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581126

q2 · i1 · causal · r2

Sub-group analyses of the same school-led RCT using the same effect-size calculation for sub-groups such as FSM pupils, EAL pupils, boys and those with identified special needs. The summary table prints an effect size of +0.24 for the FSM group (104 pupils).

"The impact evaluation also suggests positive progress results for FSM -eligible pupils, and for all pupil sub -groups regardless of age, sex, first language, ethnicity, or special education need. However, as the numbers of pupils in the sub -groups are smaller, these findings are less secure than the overall finding."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Socioeconomic Status — moderator: an instructional effect differs by group

Related Claims¶

• Fresh Start pupils made more progress in literacy than control pupils after 22 weeks, with an overall effect size of +0.24 — a broader claim this one bears on
• RLC showed no differential impact for pupils eligible for free school meals — reports the opposite
• FSM-eligible pupils made around five additional months' progress under TDTS (effect size +0.38), though this finding has lower security — related
• Subgroup effects for FSM-eligible pupils were small and positive for mathematics (+0.09) and near zero for English (−0.03), with no security rating awarded — related
• The VEFP showed no statistically significant impact on reading for pupils eligible for free school meals — related
• The TextNow programme showed a differential effect by free school meal eligibility: a small non-significant positive effect for FSM-eligible pupils and a significant negative effect for non-FSM pupils — related
• The trial found a statistically significant negative literacy impact for FSM-eligible pupils, treated with caution — reports the opposite
• Neither intervention had a significant impact on the FSM pupil sub-group, though the literacy intervention showed a significant positive interaction with FSM status — related