Grades provided with ST Math have significantly larger proportions of students advanced, or proficient or advanced, on the mathematics CST than comparison grades¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q2 · i0 negligible
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i0 Pooled across grades 2-5, grades provided with ST Math had a significantly larger proportion of students at the advanced level (effect size 0.17) and at the proficient or advanced level (effect size 0.16) than comparison grades; both printed effect sizes fall below d = 0.2. → Staci Wendt 2014

Evidence¶

Staci Wendt 2014¶

Staci Wendt, John Rice, Jonathan Nakamoto. (2014). Evaluation of the MIND Research Institute's Spatial-Temporal Math (ST Math) Program in California. WestEd. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/

q2 · i0 · causal · r2

Pooled HLM analyses (Exhibit 3) of adjusted proportions across 926 grades in 544 schools: 35.01% versus 32.54% advanced with "The effect size for this difference was 0.17" and 64.88% versus 62.58% proficient or advanced with effect size 0.16, both significant after BH correction; both printed effect sizes are below 0.2.

"grades that were provided with ST Math had a significantly larger proportion of students who scored at the advanced level in mathematics on the CST (35.01 percent) compared to grades that were not provided with the program (32.54 percent). The effect size for this difference was 0.17. Also, grades that were provided with ST Math had a significantly larger proportion of students that scored at either the proficient or advanced level of mathematics on the CST (64.88 percent) compared to grades that were not provided with the program (62.58 percent). The effect size for this difference was 0.16."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Schools implementing ST Math with fidelity in at least one grade level showed larger math advantages (ES 0.31-0.35) than matched comparison clusters — related
• Among grades that fully implemented ST Math, grades 2, 3, and 5 showed significant CST advantages but grade 4 did not — related
• Among grades provided with ST Math, only grade 2 showed statistically significant CST advantages; grades 3, 4, and 5 did not — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Grade-level clusters provided with ST Math scored higher on state math proficiency rates and scale scores than matched comparison clusters across grades 3-5 — related
• Implementation fidelity was defined as at least 85 percent student enrollment and at least 50 percent grade-level content coverage in ST Math — related
• Matched treatment and comparison grade-level clusters were balanced on observable baseline characteristics, with differences below a quarter of a standard deviation — related