Recent IES evaluations detected impacts well below Cohen's 0.20 SD 'small' benchmark¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · theoreticalr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2018 · 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.
q2 i? An IES evaluation of Response to Intervention detected impacts of 0.13 to 0.17 SD, and the Teacher Incentive Fund evaluation detected impacts of 0.03 SD. → John Deke 2018
Evidence¶
John Deke 2018¶
John Deke, Thomas Wei, and Tim Kautz. (2018). Asymdystopia: The threat of small biases in evaluations of education interventions that need to be powered to detect small impacts. SREE Spring 2018 Conference Abstract. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED591611
q2 · i? · theoretical · r3
Motivating examples cited in the research context, attributed to Balu et al. (2015) and Chiang et al. (2015); the abstract reports these second-hand as its framing evidence.
"an evaluation of Response to Intervention from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) detected impacts ranging from 0.13 to 0.17 standard deviations (Balu et al. 2015), and IES' evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund detected impacts of just 0.03 standard deviations (Chiang et al. 2015)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- After three years of Teacher Incentive Fund implementation, pay-for-performance bonuses had small positive impacts on student math and reading achievement in ten evaluation districts — related
- Offering pay-for-performance bonuses in 10 TIF districts increased student reading achievement by 1 percentile point after two years, with a similar-magnitude but statistically non-significant math effect — related
- Providing educators with performance feedback and offering pay-for-performance bonuses can improve student achievement, with positive cumulative impacts on math or reading in some years — related
- The feedback intervention raised students' mathematics achievement in Year 1 by about four weeks of learning, with a similar but non-significant cumulative effect in Year 2 and no significant reading/ELA effect in either year — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.