No advantage for three reading programs was seen in second grade
Reading was reassessed for 2,700 children from early-childhood centers randomly assigned to three programs or none. No difference was seen in second grade.
The key idea
Second-grade reading tests showed no difference between the programs and the comparison group, which does not rule out initial effects.
The study, in plain language
SPELL tested language and reading programs in early-childhood centers: 144 centers, with 7,076 children and 561 teachers, were randomly assigned to three programs or a comparison group. Later, when children who were four or five at the start reached second grade, the team measured their reading again to see whether differences persisted.
In the main comparison, second-grade reading tests showed no detectable difference between the programs and the comparison group. Some subgroup and secondary-outcome differences did not change that conclusion. And not seeing a difference later does not prove there were no earlier results.
What they found
- The initial trial compared language and reading programs with usual instruction at randomly assigned early-childhood centers.
- The follow-up measured reading again when participants were in second grade.
- That later test detected no difference between the programs and the comparison group.
Something to think about
Not seeing something later does not prove it did not help earlier. What would you expect to see at school from what a child practiced at an early-childhood center?
How they studied it
The initial trial randomly assigned 144 early-childhood centers to three programs or a comparison group, with 7,076 children. The school follow-up focused on children who were four or five at the start and included 2,700, about 81% of that eligible subgroup, who took second-grade reading tests.
What the study cannot show
- Only 2,700 of the initial sample contributed to the follow-up analysis; loss of available school tests may bias comparisons. The study is from one national education system, and measures depend on the records used.
- No follow-up difference does not prove that the programs had no initial effects or that all early interventions lack benefits.
The original study
Sustained effects of an early childhood language and literacy intervention through second grade: Longitudinal findings of the SPELL trial in Denmark
Source under CC BY 4.0. English adaptation and explanation by PaperFlow, with AI assistance. The text has been reorganized for a general audience; it is not the complete paper and does not imply endorsement by its authors.
One study alone does not represent a field's consensus. Educational content does not replace professional advice. Report a possible error.
