PATHS produced no differential gains in academic attainment for children eligible for free school meals¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Sub-group analyses found no statistically significant differential gains for FSM-eligible pupils in any outcome; a marginal non-significant trend (p = 0.06) favoured PATHS for Year 6 English. → Alexandra Barlow 2015

Evidence¶

Alexandra Barlow 2015¶

Alexandra Barlow, Michael Wigelsworth, Ann Lendrum, Kirsty Pert, Craig Joyce, Emma Stephens, Lawrence Wo, Garry Squires, Kevin Woods, Rachel Calam, Mark Harrison, Alex Turner, and Neil Humphrey. (2015). Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Evaluation report and Executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581278

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Sub-group analyses of the same cluster-RCT compared FSM-eligible pupils with the full sample across InCAS and KS2 outcomes. FSM effect sizes ranged from -0.036 to 0.120, none statistically significant; the Year 6 English +2 month figure was a "marginal, non-significant trend".

"Thus, in relation to our first study aim outlined at the beginning of this report, PATHS did not appear to have any impact on children's academic attainment. With regard to our second study aim, PATHS did not appear to produce 'differential gains' in academic attainment for children eligible for FSM."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

Related Claims¶

• PATHS did not improve academic attainment in a UK cluster-randomised trial, with one significant negative effect on Year 6 English favouring control schools — a broader claim this one bears on
• The intervention showed no evidence of differentially benefiting pupils eligible for free school meals in any of the schools — related
• Sub-group analysis found no significant interactions with pupil gender or free school meal eligibility — related
• RLC showed no differential impact for pupils eligible for free school meals — related
• The intervention showed no evidence of differentially benefiting pupils eligible for free school meals, despite a marginal group-by-FSM interaction — related
• 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
• For children eligible for free school meals, SPOKES showed no evidence of an impact on literacy or social and emotional outcomes — related