SPARK showed no statistically significant impact on regular school day attendance¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · checked against its sources 2026-11-01 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Although SPARK participants were absent three fewer times on average, the pooled difference in regular school day attendance was not statistically significant. → Curtis Jones 2018
Evidence¶
Curtis Jones 2018¶
Curtis Jones. (2018). SPARK Early Literacy: Testing the Impact of a Family–School–Community Partnership Literacy Intervention. School Community Journal, 28(2). http://www.schoolcommunitynetwork.org/SCJ.aspx
q3 · i? · causal · r2
The same RCT analyzed attendance (number of days attended, obtained from MPS) using models mirroring the reading analysis. The pooled attendance effect was not significant (p > .05 per Table 6); equivalence was not tested.
"Although SPARK participants were absent from school three fewer times, this difference was not statistically significant."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Time and Continuity — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Prior randomized studies of Future Forward/SPARK met WWC standards Without Reservations and found positive impacts on literacy and attendance — related
- The SPARK program produced a small but statistically significant positive impact on reading achievement of 0.12 standard deviations in a two-year RCT — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-01 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.