RLC showed no differential impact for pupils eligible for free school meals¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Results were similar for pupils eligible for free school meals, providing no evidence of a differential impact for these pupils. → Dr Jo Rose 2017

Evidence¶

Dr Jo Rose 2017¶

Dr Jo Rose, Professor Sally Thomas, Dr Lei Zhang, Dr Anna Edwards, Dr Andres Augero, Ms Pooneh Roney. (2017). Research Learning Communities: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581267

q3 · i? · causal · r3

Pre-specified subgroup analysis of the pupil outcome trial comparing FSMever and non-FSMever groups and their interaction with intervention group, using the final multi-level model. No subgroup effect size printed.

"The results were similar for pupils eligible for free school meals, providing no evidence of a differential impact for these pupils."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

Related Claims¶

• The intervention showed no evidence of differentially benefiting pupils eligible for free school meals in any of the schools — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• 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
• Passive dissemination showed no evidence of improving literacy attainment for the subgroup of pupils who have ever been eligible for free school meals — related
• Among FSM-eligible pupils, music workshops showed no impact on attainment relative to the drama control — related
• The VEFP showed no statistically significant impact on reading for pupils eligible for free school meals — related
• For pupils entitled to free school meals, Butterfly Phonics showed no statistically significant effects on any outcome (NGRT g = 0.16, SWRT g = 0.42, PhAB g = 0.18) — related
• The trial found a statistically significant negative literacy impact for FSM-eligible pupils, treated with caution — related
• FSM-eligible pupils made around five additional months' progress under TDTS (effect size +0.38), though this finding has lower security — related
• RLC showed no evidence of impact on KS2 reading outcomes in a two-year randomised controlled trial — related
• RLC secondary outcomes (KS2 numeracy and grammar, punctuation and spelling) were small and not statistically significant — related
• RLC positively impacted teachers' disposition towards research, but not significantly once teacher background characteristics were controlled — related