The effect of a binding SBP mandate is larger for low-income students, males, and students from larger families, and does not vary with threshold levels from 10 to 40 percent¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? For low-income students with family income below $40,000, a binding mandate increases math achievement by 8.079 points (37.2 percent of a standard deviation), reading by 9.679 points (40.9 percent), and science by 7.148 points (52.5 percent), each larger than the all-student estimates. → Frisvold David E 2015 q3 i? Interaction terms combining the above-threshold indicator with the mean-centered threshold value are not statistically significant, suggesting the mandate effect is constant for thresholds from 10 to 40 percent. → Frisvold David E 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

Frisvold David E 2015¶

Frisvold David E. (2015). Nutrition and Cognitive Achievement: An Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program. Journal of Public Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.12.003

q3 · i? · causal · r2

ECLS-K difference-in-differences heterogeneity analysis for low-income students (family income below $40,000, about 185 percent of poverty guidelines). The study reports these estimates "are larger than the corresponding estimate for all students in Table 5"; no standardised effect size (d, g, r) is printed, so impact is null.

"A binding state mandate increases math achievement by 8.079 points (with a standard error of 2.869) or 37.2 percent of a standard deviation, reading achievement by 9.679 points (with a standard error of 3.827) or 40.9 percent of a standard deviation, and science achievement by 7.148 points (with a standard error of 2.175) or 52.5 percent of a standard deviation"

Frisvold David E 2015 (2)¶

Frisvold David E. (2015). Nutrition and Cognitive Achievement: An Evaluation of the School Breakfast Program. Journal of Public Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.12.003

q3 · i? · causal · r2

ECLS-K heterogeneity test interacting the above-threshold indicator with the mean-centered threshold value. The study reports "none of these interaction terms are statistically significant"; no effect size is printed, so no magnitude is claimed and impact is null.

"As shown in Table 7, none of these interaction terms are statistically significant, which suggests that the influence of a binding mandate is constant for threshold values ranging from 10 to 40 percent"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A binding state mandate makes schools 33 percentage points more likely to offer the SBP, and SBP availability increases math, reading, and science achievement in ECLS-K data — related
• Falsification tests show a binding SBP mandate is unrelated to achievement upon school entry, Title I funding, principal experience, and vigorous exercise frequency — related
• A binding state SBP mandate increases 4th-grade math achievement by 2.2 points (7.7% of a standard deviation) and reading by 2.0 points (5.4% of a standard deviation) in NAEP difference-in-differences estimates — a broader claim this one bears on
• Each year of attending a school with a binding SBP mandate increases math achievement by 0.572 points (2.7% of a standard deviation), reading by 0.470 points (2.0%), and science by 0.130 points (0.9%) — a broader claim this one bears on
• A binding SBP mandate increases milk and fruit consumption and decreases soda consumption, but its effects on attendance are imprecise, suggesting the achievement effect operates through improved nutrition — related
• In NAEP regression discontinuity estimates, exceeding the state threshold increases math achievement by 2.6 points (9.1% of a standard deviation) and reading achievement by 4.4 points (12.2% of a standard deviation) — a broader claim this one bears on