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%)¶

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? In ECLS-K difference-in-differences estimates using the number of years above the state threshold as the treatment, each year of a binding mandate increases math achievement by 0.572 points (2.7 percent of a standard deviation), reading by 0.470 points (2.0 percent), and science by 0.130 points (0.9 percent). → Frisvold David E 2015

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 specification replacing the binary above-threshold indicator with the number of years the school was above the state threshold (final rows of Table 7). The study reports the per-year estimates quoted above; no standardised effect size (d, g, r) is printed, so impact is null.

"Each year of attending a school with a binding state mandate increases math achievement by 0.572 points (with a standard error of 0.204) or 2.7 percent of a standard deviation, reading achievement by 0.470 points (with a standard error of 0.270) or 2.0 percent of a standard deviation, and science achievement by 0.130 points (with a standard error of 0.132) or 0.9 percent of a standard deviation"

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 — reports the opposite
• 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 — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• 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 — 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) — related
• 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
• Robust RCTs of school breakfast programs failed to find behavioral benefits, with low and variable attendance and a shift from at-home to at-school consumption limiting impact — related