Neither intervention had a significant impact on the FSM pupil sub-group, though the literacy intervention showed a significant positive interaction with FSM status¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The interventions did not have a significant impact on the sub-group of FSM pupils, with small numbers limiting precision. → Worth 2015 q3 i? The interaction between the literacy group and FSM status was positive and significant, indicating a differential impact of the literacy intervention on FSM pupils. → Worth 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

Worth 2015¶

Worth, J., Sizmur, J., Ager, R. & Styles, B. (2015). Improving Numeracy and Literacy. Education Endowment Foundation. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN20621819

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Pre-specified secondary sub-group analysis within the cluster-randomised trial. The report states the interventions did not significantly impact FSM pupils and that "the number of pupils eligible for FSM in each group was small"; no effect size is printed for this sub-group analysis.

"The interventions did not have a significant impact on the sub-group of FSM pupils. The number of pupils eligible for FSM in each group was small, which limited the precision of this analysis."

Worth 2015 (2)¶

Worth, J., Sizmur, J., Ager, R. & Styles, B. (2015). Improving Numeracy and Literacy. Education Endowment Foundation. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN20621819

q3 · i? · causal · r?

Interaction analysis of group allocation and FSM status in the same trial, illustrated in Figure 2 from multilevel model predictions. FSM pupils achieved a higher than expected score in the literacy group versus control, while non-FSM pupils achieved a lower than expected score; no effect size is printed.

"The interaction between the literacy group and FSM status was positive and significant, which shows that while the literacy intervention showed a negative but insignificant effect for all pupils, the literacy intervention had a differential impact on FSM pupils."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

Related Claims¶

• The trial found a statistically significant negative literacy impact for FSM-eligible pupils, treated with caution — related
• Fresh Start showed positive progress results for FSM-eligible pupils and for all pupil sub-groups, though these findings are less secure — 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
• FSM-eligible pupils made around five additional months' progress under TDTS (effect size +0.38), though this finding has lower security — related
• The VEFP showed no statistically significant impact on reading for pupils eligible for free school meals — related
• RLC showed no differential impact for pupils eligible for free school meals — related
• Passive dissemination showed no evidence of improving literacy attainment for the subgroup of pupils who have ever been eligible for free school meals — related
• The intervention showed no evidence of differentially benefiting pupils eligible for free school meals in any of the schools — related
• The two interventions showed no significant transfer effects across domains and no significant impact on Key Stage 1 attainment — related
• Quest showed no differential effects by gender, FSM eligibility, or prior reading attainment — related