What Works (and Doesn’t Work) for Closing Achievement Gaps? Comparative Meta-Analysis of Educational Intervention Approaches

• In Event: Measuring Impact, Imagining Futures: What Works (and Doesn’t) in Education Reform

Abstract

The Trump administration’s funding cuts and policy shifts threaten evidence-based improvement in high-needs schools and place the U.S. public education system at risk. To inform the current policy debate, this study conducts comparative meta-analysis of research evidence on the efficacy and equity outcomes of different educational interventions, including major federal, state and local policies/programs. Applying meta-analysis methods to P-12 education policy typologies, the study systematically compares the effects of targeted vs. universal, input/process-driven vs. output/performance-driven, and community-based vs. market-based intervention approaches. The results provide relatively strong support for targeted, input/process-driven, and community-based intervention approaches that better help advance the twofold goals of excellence and equity: improving student achievement overall while closing achievement gaps among racial and/or socioeconomic groups of students.

Authors

• Jaekyung Lee, University at Buffalo - SUNY

• Kenneth K. Wong, Brown University