The intervention showed no evidence of differentially benefiting pupils eligible for free school meals in any of the schools¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? A pre-specified subgroup analysis found no evidence the intervention differentially benefited FSM-eligible pupils. → Victoria Menzies 2015

Evidence¶

Victoria Menzies 2015¶

Victoria Menzies, Clare Collyer, Dimitra Kokotsaki, Catherine Hewitt, Kirsty Younger, Andy Wiggins and Carole Torgerson. (2015). SHINE in Secondaries: Evaluation report and Executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED581429

q2 · i? · causal · r2

Pre-specified subgroup analysis repeating the primary RDD analysis for FSM eligibility, including an FSM-by-group interaction for each school. The report states it "showed no evidence of the intervention differentially benefiting pupils eligible for free school meals"; no effect size is printed, so the null is not an equivalence finding.

"A subgroup analysis of children eligible for free school meals (FSM) was conducted. This showed no evidence of the intervention differentially benefiting pupils eligible for free school meals in any of the schools."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

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

Related Claims¶

• RLC showed no differential impact for pupils eligible for free school meals — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Passive dissemination showed no evidence of improving literacy attainment for the subgroup of pupils who have ever been eligible for free school meals — related
• 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
• 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 — reports the opposite
• Literacy benefits for FSM pupils were greatest in Key Stage 1 (ES 0.09) and Key Stage 3 (ES 0.08) and smallest in Key Stages 2 and 4 — related
• Among FSM-eligible pupils, music workshops showed no impact on attainment relative to the drama control — related
• The SHINE in Secondaries Saturday school showed a very small impact on literacy and numeracy outcomes across all four pilot schools — related
• FSM-eligible pupils made around five additional months' progress under TDTS (effect size +0.38), though this finding has lower security — related