READ CORE and READ CORE PLUS

BANGLADESH BASELINE

September 2015

Silvia Diazgranados

Harvard University

Akter Hossain

Liana Gertsch

Jarret Guajardo

Save the Children

Acknowledgements to Sayed Mohammed, Akidul Islam, Parvin Shahana and the team of enumerators

for their support in the data collection.

Background and Context

Bangladesh has made dramatic strides in improving access to basic education, driven by

successful partnerships among government, donors and NGOs. Despite unprecedented gains in

education access, there is a crisis in early grade learning. The 2008 National Assessment Survey

(NAS) found only 12% of 3rd grade students and 14% of 5th grade students scored 80% of higher in

Bangla competencies, including vocabulary, writing and reading comprehension. Research in

Bangladesh shows a host of school related challenges, including lack of teacher preparation, lack of

well-designed reading materials for children in schools and homes, limited contact hours in schools,

few opportunities to practice reading inside and outside school, little value placed on reading for

pleasure, and lack of both time and interventions for children struggling to learn how to read.

To address these problems and with the aim of improving reading skills among children in

the early grades, Save the Children created the Reading Enhancement for Advancing Development

(READ) program in collaboration with the Government of Bangladesh and with support from the US

Agency for International Development (USAID).

READ Core and READ Core Plus Interventions

READ incorporates evidence-based practices that emphasize capacity and sustainability,

focusing on four areas of intervention: 1) teacher education and continuous professional

development; 2) reading assessment; 3) increased availability of reading material, and 4) increased

opportunities in the community to read and to provide support to beginning readers by those outside

the school walls. Specifically, the READ model provides participating schools with state-of-the-art

strategies to teach and assess key reading skills, such as letter knowledge, phonemic awareness,

vocabulary, fluency and comprehension. This year, 1465 participating schools (805 Government

Primary Schools (GPS) and 660 Newly Nationalized Primary Schools (NNPS) received a READ

Core package that includes:

Cascade teacher training on Early Grade Reading Instruction and Assessment

Teacher training, orientation, and support to periodically conduct full cycle of Early Grade

Classroom Reading Diagnostic and Formative Assessment (Instructional Adjustment Tool -

IAT).

Training of Administrators (Head teacher, Upazila1 Education Officers (UEO), Upazila Resource

Centre (URC) and Assistant Upazila Educatior Officers (AUEO)) on academic supervision.

School-based book bank: READ supplied 70 titles and one book stand for all schools. The

book stands are designed to display books and bring them within easy reach of children. The

books are visible through transparent pockets so that children will be attracted to them,

according to their diverse interests. Books are color-coded according to reading level so that

children can choose books according to their reading skill. Each class has a specific time to

receive and read books from the book corner. Book captains manage the book corner in each

school.

Orientation of School Management Committees to the project and where they can help.

Reading Sessions for Parents: Mothers gather at school on a quarterly basis to receive

information about parental support at home for reading.

Additionally, out of 805 GPS, 80 participating schools were randomly selected to receive the

READ Core Plus Package. Children in those schools benefit from all of the above, plus the

following:

Community-based book bank: To ensure children´s access to ample and diverse reading

materials appropriate to their level of reading outside of school, each community is provided

with a collection 70 books which are specifically designed to help children develop literacy

1 Upazilas are Subdistricts in Bangladesh.

skills. Specifically, the book bank has 70 illustrated books, 2 alphabet primers, 2 language

games, and guidelines on how to read for children and how to read with children. Parents and

students have access to the book bank and children are able to lend one book for one week.

Community Literacy Volunteers (CLVs) oversee community book banks and use a log to

monitor book use and return.

Reading Camp: Reading camps provide children with the chance to participate in fun, engaging

literacy activities outside of the school environment. Two reading camps are established within

each school catchment area. Two groups comprising 1st and 2nd grade students will participate in

the reading camps. Each reading camp provides 30 first and second grade children within the 80

participating sites with the opportunity to attend once per week, for 8 months of the year (30-32

sessions). Each camp is a 90 minute session where two CLVs engage children in activities where

they can practice their literacy skills through games, lessons, activities and story-telling. During

each session, children: 1) Sign their name, sing a song and discuss the agenda, 2) participate in

story-telling (15-20 minutes), 3) listen to scripted interactive lessons (30-35 minutes) that have

been designed to promote phonemic awareness (7 sessions), letter knowledge (2 sessions)

vocabulary (3 sessions), fluency (4 sessions) and comprehension (4 sessions), 4) practice what

they learned (15 minutes), and 5) respond to questions to assess what they learned (10 minutes).

Before departing, they can choose to borrow a book from the book bank to read with a Reading

Buddy at the end of the session.

Reading Buddies: In order to provide support and individualized attention to struggling students

who are falling behind and to increase the habit of reading for pleasure, Community Literacy

Volunteers (CLVs) match pairs of children who live close by but have different levels of literacy

skills so that competent readers can support beginning readers. Older buddies are trained on how

to read to the younger children, and have high levels of fluency and reading comprehension. The

younger reader is encouraged to borrow books from the book bank and read them together with

his or her ‘Buddy’ who is more advanced. Books are distributed at the reading camp, but the

actual reading takes place outside the camp, at home or elsewhere in the community.

Parent workshops: Parents are invited to sessions where they are made aware of concrete

activities to improve the language development and literacy of their children in their daily

routines and how to establish a reading culture at home. Workshops are conducted once a month

for seven months. Each 60-90 minute workshop includes 20-30 parents of students involved in

the reading camp.

All READ Core Plus activities are implemented by Community Literacy Volunteers (CLV),

who receive a small monthly stipend for their work. CLVs are trained for two days before initiation

of activities. Training is conducted by field officers from Partner NGOs (PNGOs), followed by a

refresher training after the first year of implementation.

READ Core Plus uses a cascade model to conduct trainings: 14 Technical Officers (TOs) and

Field Officers (FOs) from the PNGO's attend a Train the Trainers workshop conducted by Senior

Technical Officers (STO). The TOs and FOs then proceed to conduct trainings for groups of 25-30

CLVs. All trainings follow the same training manual, which introduces READ Core Plus to the

community and provides information about the goals, routines, materials and activities of the

program. Trainings include demonstration, role play and discussion about the roles and

responsibilities of communities to promote literacy.

Trainings are followed by on-site visits once a month, conducted by Technical Officers

(TOs) and Field Officers, who monitor the program and give support to CLV in their work. TOs and

Field Officers work for PNGO’s, have professional degrees and themselves attend a number of

trainings that prepare them in their roles as coaches of the CLVs. TOs are responsible to supervise

three Field Officers, and Field Officers provide support to CLVs in two Community Reading Camps

(CRCs). During their visits, Field Officers observe the session to ensure proper implementation of

the program. TOs meet with Field Officers once a month to provide feedback and guidance.

Finally, each READ community program has a Management Committee comprised of

parents and community members. The Committee provides a regular venue for the program and

assistance to the CLVs, including maintenance of materials, etc. Table 1 provides a comparison of

the supports provided by READ and READ Core Plus interventions.

Table 1. Resources and Activities of the READ Core and READ Core Plus models

Supports READ CORE READ CORE

PLUS

Teacher Trainings X X

School Management Committees X X

Training on Academic Supervision X X

Academic supervision for Bangla

subject classes

X X

Monthly Monitoring and Evaluation X X

Establishment of print reach

environment

X X

Formative Assessment using

Instructional Adjustment Tool (IAT)

Conduction

X X

Training of Community Literacy

Volunteers

X

Community Reading Camps X

Reading Buddies X

Parent awareness workshops X

Community Book Banks X

CLV Monitoring and Evaluation X

The Present Study: A Multi-Site Randomized Controlled Clustered Evaluation

The present study uses a multi-site randomized controlled clustered evaluation to measure the

value added of the READ Core Plus model on children (the community aspect) compared to the

school-based READ Core model. Specifically, our study aims to answer the following research

questions:

At baseline

Are there statistically significant differences in the observable characteristics of children in

the treatment (READ Core Plus) and control (READ Core) groups before initiation of

activities?

What are children's reading skills by treatment and Division, before initiation of activities?

At post-test

Does receiving an offer to attend READ Core Plus improve students’ literacy skills as

compared to children who only received an offer to attend READ Core?2

Does participating in READ Core Plus improve the literacy skills of students as compared to

those who participate in READ Core?3

Method

Participants and Sample

Program participants are children in first, second and third grade who are at risk of negative

educational outcomes in Bangladesh. All children are benefiting from the READ Core intervention.

Within the 805 schools that are receiving READ Core, 80 schools were randomly selected to benefit

from the READ Core Plus model. The communities within the catchment area of a READ Core Plus 2 Intent to Treat Analysis3 Treatment on the Treated Analysis

will obtain additional supports such as weekly reading camps, a community book bank, and

supplemental community-based reading activities. Children attending schools that were randomly

selected to receive the READ Core Plus model are in the treatment group, and children attending

schools that only receive the READ Core model are in the control group.

To select the sample of our study, we first randomly chose 70 READ Core Plus schools from

among the 80 that are receiving the intervention. For each treatment school, we then located a GPS

receiving READ Core within the same Upazila, to be used as a control group. Within each selected

site, we then proceeded to randomly select 20 first grade students to participate in the study.

Therefore, our study sample is comprised by 2800 first grade children in 140 GPS schools: 1400

students in 70 schools receiving the READ Core Package, and 1400 students in 70 schools receiving

the READ Core Plus Package. Teachers and Head Teachers were also contacted in each participant

school, for an approximate total of 140 adult educators. Figure 1 illustrates how the READ study

sample was drawn from the population of READ.

Figure 1: Population, READ and READ Core Plus program participants and study sample.

Table 2 contains a description of students within different participating divisions by

treatment status and sex.

Table 2: Study sample by Treatment Status, Sex and Division

  Baseline Sample  

Treatment Status

Treatment: READ

Core PlusControl: READ Core

Total

Division / Sex Male Female Male Female

Barisal 108 107 93 91 399

Cox's Bazar 60 64 44 51 219

Dhaka 110 131 120 115 476

Khulna 136 124 120 138 518

Study Participants

Point of randomization

Program Participants

PopulationFirst, second and third grade students in GPS and NNPS Bangladesh

805 GPS Schools

READ CORE725 GPS

1283 grade-1 Children within 70 READ CORE

schools (Control)

READ CORE+ 80 GPS

1221 grade-1 Children within 70 READ CORE+ Schools (Intervention)

660 NNPS

Rangpur 124 127 120 122 493

Sylhet 97 95 106 101 399

Total 635 648 603 618 2504

Procedure

Research assistants provided participants with written and verbal information about the study

and the nature of the tests and questionnaires that they would be answering. Parents and children

were informed that participation was voluntary and that their willingness or unwillingness to

participate would not affect their relationship with the school. In May and June of 2015, before

initiation of activities, research assistants visited selected sites and met individually with students

who agreed to participate to administer the background information questionnaire and a literacy test

for up to one hour of their time. Head Teachers filled out a questionnaire with information about the

school and the community in which the school is located, for up to 15 minutes of their time.

Teachers filled out a questionnaire with information about students' attendance, social skills and

school engagement, for about one hour of their time. Participants provided their names as they

normally do during tests. Their responses were transferred to a digital format, which contain s their

ID number. A key code connects subject’s data to their identity. Participants did not receive any

payment for their participation in the study.

Measures

Predictors

Treatment is the key exogenous predictor of the question of interest, a dummy variable that

indicates whether children are in a school that was randomly assigned to be part of the treatment

(READ Core Plus =1) or control (READ Core=0) groups.

Outcomes

Alphabet_Knowledge is a continuous individual level variable that reflects the sum of the number of

letters/sounds that children are able to identify from the Bangla alphabet. (See Figure 2 in Appendix)

Most_Used_Words is a continuous individual level variable that reflects the percentage of words

read aloud correctly from a list of 20 words that are familiar to children (See Figure 3 in Appendix).

Phonemic_Awarenessis is an individual continuous level variable that reflects the percentage of

similar beginning sounds and rhyming words that children are able to read correctly from a list of 20

(See Figure 4 in Appendix). Vocabulary is an individual level variable that reflects the percentage of

words that children are able to retrieve correctly when prompted by a question or an image, out of 15

(See Figure 5 in Appendix). Reader is an individual-level dummy variable that reflects whether a

child is an independent reader, defined as the ability to read 5 words correctly within the first 30

seconds of a subtest (See Figure 6 in Appendix). Fluency is an individual level continuous variable

that reflects the number of words that children who are independent readers are able to read correctly

per minute using a 59-word connected text (See Figure 7 in Appendix). Accuracy is an individual

level continuous variable that reflects the percentage of words that children who are independent

readers are able read correctly in a 59-word connected text (See Figure 8 in Appendix). Reading

comprehension is an individual level variable that reflects the percentage of comprehension

questions (out of 10) that children who are independent readers are able to answer correctly after

reading a passage (See Figure 10 in Appendix). Readers_with_Comprehension is a dichotomous

variable that reflects the percentage of children who are 1) readers, 2) readers who are able to answer

more than 80% of reading comprehension questions correctly. Table 2 contains a summary of the

measures of our outcomes of interest, specifying their dimensions of interest, the instruments used to

collect the data, the number of items and range of each measure, the reliability estimates in the pre-

test sample, the respondents and the original instrument from which the items used were taken.

Table 3 shows the means, standard deviations, number of items, and Cronbach's alpha of key

outcomes of interest

Table 3. Description of variable, number of subjects, means, standard deviations and Cronbach's

alpha of Key Outcomes of Interest

Literacy Outcome Description Mean SD Alpha

Alphabet knowledge Number of letters/sounds known of 50 31.62 18.06 0.98

Most Used WordsPercentage of words read aloud correctly from the most frequently used words (out of 20)

32% 38% 0.97

Phonemic AwarenessPercentage of similar Beginning words read correctly (out of 20) 36% 24% 0.87

VocabularyPercentage of words retrieved correctly when shown images (out of 15) 70% 23% 0.83

Reader

A child able to read the oral reading passage independently, defined as reading at least five words correctly in the first 30 seconds of the sub-test.

16% 36% n/a

FluencyNumber of words read correctly per minute in a 59-word connected text. (readers only) 17% 16% n/a

AccuracyPercentage of words in an 59-word connected text read correctly (readers only) 87% 10% n/a

Reading ComprehensionPercentage of comprehension questions (of 5) answered correctly after reading a text read aloud (readers only)

57% 25% 0.94

Readers with Comprehension

Percentage of readers who are able to answer 80% of reading comprehension questions correctly

25% 43% n/a

Covariates

Age is a continuous variable that reflects that students' age in years (mean=6.74, sd=.97).

Female is a dummy variable which indicates whether the participant is a girl (1) or a boy (0)

(mean=.5, sd=.5). Home_Materials reflects the sum of 8 dummy variables that indicate whether the

family has textbooks, magazines, newspapers, coloring books, children books, religious books,

comics or internet at the house (mean=.15, sd=.49). SES is an exogenous predictor of socio-

economic status which reflects the sum of eleven dummy variables that indicate whether families

have electric appliances such as TV, radio, refrigerator, and other possessions such as land, books

and bicycles (mean=4.87, sd=1.88). ECD is a dummy variable that indicates whether children

reported attending an early childhood education program (1) or not (0) (mean=.51, sd=.49).

DivisionID is a vector of six dummy variables that indicate whether the school is located in Dhaka

(reference category), Barisal, Khulna, Sylhet, Cox's Bazar or Rangpur. School_ID is a categorical

variable that identifies all 140 participating schools.

Analytic methods

In order to answer our first research question and estimate whether there are statistically

significant differences in a set of characteristics that were observed after randomization took place,

but before initiation of activities, we used OLS regression estimates that adjusted for clustering at the

school level to account for nesting of children within schools. The purpose was to determine if

groups are balanced in a series of observable characteristics, but not if treatment has an effect on

these variables. In fact, the data was collected before initiation of activities and therefore, the

treatment could not have any effect on any outcome. Equation 1 describes the formula used for these

analyses:

(1) Outcomeis=Bois + B1(TREATMENTis) + Ɛi+ Us

Outcome represents a set of variables that measure background characteristics such as age,

gender, SES, ECD, afterschool location, supervision. Treatment reflects whether students are in the

READ Core Plus (Treatment) or READ Core (control group). Level-1 and Level-2 population

residuals are represented byε ij and u j(with the latter being a random school intercept), each included

in the model under the usual normal-theory assumptions. The parameter of interest is β1. If the

estimated value of this parameter is not statistically significant, we will be able to conclude that there

are not statistically significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups.

In order to answer our second research question and identify the average baseline literacy

skills of children by treatment status and division, after controlling for demographic information, we

used multi-level models with school random effects and division fixed effects. Given the presence of

floor and ceiling effects on some outcomes (e.g.: Alphabet knowledge, Most used words, Phonemic

awareness, Vocabulary, Accuracy, Fluency), we used Tobit regressions (Tobin, 1958) to censor the

data and obtain a more accurate average children performance for those outcomes. A typical

equation is given:

(2) Outcomeis=Bois + B1(TREATMENTis)+ αYis + γXis+ Ɛi + Us

Outcome is a continuous variable (or in the case of Reader, a dummy) that measures an

individual score in a given skill that was observed before initiation of program activities:1) Alphabet

knowledge; 2) Most Used Words; 3) Phonemic Awareness, 4) Vocabulary, 5) Reader, 6) Accuracy,

7) Fluency, 8) Reading Comprehension. Treatment reflects whether students are in the READ Core

Plus (Treatment) or READ Core (control group). YS is a vector of covariates that include gender,

grade, SES, home literacy and ECD attendance. Level-1 and Level-2 population residuals are

represented byε ij and u j. The parameter of interest is β1. If the estimated value of this parameter is

not statistically significant, we will be able to conclude that at baseline, there are not statistically

significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in our key literacy

outcomes of interest.

Results

Research Question 1:

We conducted 50 regressions for a set of observable variables that were measured before

initiation of activities. All models adjust for clustering so the coefficients, t-tests and p-values are all

conditional on school effects.

Table 4 shows regression results for the differences in means between READ Core Plus and

READ Core for 22 exogenous variables. Exogenous variables are factors that cannot be changed by

the actions of the participants, such as age, gender, SES, teacher’s level of education, school size,

etc. Our analyses show that an alpha level of .05, there aren’t statistically significant differences

between the treatment and control groups in exogenous characteristics that were measured before the

implementation of the program.

Table 4: Regressions showing differences in means (READ Core Plus minus READ Core), t-tests

and constants for a set of exogenous variables that were measured at baseline

Dimension Variable

Treatment (Differenc

e in means)

T-test Constant

Demographic info

Male 0 0.07 0.5Age 0.01 0.19 6.69SES 0.01 0.18 4.9Home literacy -0.03 0.07 1.07

Teacher Characteristics

Teacher's age 0.01 0.34 2.97Teachers' gender 0.04 1.92 1.31Teacher's experience 0.11 0.26 10.22Teacher's professional education -0.09 -1.18 5.66

HeadTeacher Head Teacher's Gender 0.07 0.92 1.67Head Teachers' experience 0.06 0.05 9.45

School Characteristics

School Resources -0.3 0.2 3.6School Size -4 0.35 51.22Number of teachers -0.53 -1.57 5.81Std-Teacher Ratio 0.54 0.7 8.96Student Behavior -0.03 -0.48 3.22

Student Academic Trajectory

Attended ECD -0.01 -0.47 0.52Repeat Preschool -0.16 -0.88 0.14Repeat First 0.02 1.07 0.12

No Repetitions 0 0.01 0.73

Reading materialsAt school 0.007 0.27 1.09At the Community -0.08 -0.6 3.57

*p<0.05 **p<0.01 *** <.001

Table 5 shows regression results from a set of 28 endogenous characteristics that were

measured before the implementation of the program. Endogenous variables are characteristics that

are determined by the actions of participants and therefore, are subject to change during the

implementation. For example, test scores, self-reports, school attendance, after-school activities, etc.

Given that children were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups, changes in endogenous

variables observed after the implementation of the program can be interpreted as program outcomes.

The results show that at an alpha level of .05 there aren’t statistically significant differences between

the treatment and control groups in endogenous characteristics before initiation of activities.

Table 5. Regressions showing differences in means (READ Core Plus minus READ Core), t-tests

and constants for a set of endogenous variables that were measured at baseline.

Dimension VariableTreatment (Difference in means)

T-test Constant

Student Academic Trajectory

Miss school last week -0.03 -0.9 0.44Study time -0.94 -0.33 120.22

Reading materials Home 0.04 1.17 0.13

Afterschool Supervision

Self-Care -0.006 -0.38 0.09Parent Care -0.01 -0.61 0.82Non-Parent Adult Care 0.009 0.59 0.12Sibling Care -0.005 -0.35 0.12Mixed-Care -0.002 -0.77 0.005

Afterschool location

Own Home -0.002 -0.26 0.95Someone else's home 0.001 0.22 0.32School or other place for structured activities 0.003 1.18 0.003

Somewhere to "hang out" -0.01 -1.78 0.02

Mixed location 0.002 0.93 0.003

Afterschool Activities

Doing homework 0.05 0.42 4.92Attending Afterschool program 0.01 0.19 0.47Receiving Private Tutoring -0.06 -0.27 3.27Reading books at home 0.08 0.52 5.63Reading at community program -0.02 -0.26 0.34Music, dancing, art -0.08 -0.63 1.52Organized sports -0.77 -0.52 2.15Playing games that are not sports 0.04 -0.21 3.44Activities at mosque, temple, church 0.18 0.81 1.78

Watching TV -0.19 -0.89 3.13Hanging out with friends -0.07 -0.43 3.48Volunteering at the community 0.01 0.22 0.21Working at a job -0.01 -0.32 0.36Doing house chores 0.57 1.01 4.78Taking care of a sibling -0.003 -0.02 3.04

*p<0.05 **p<0.01 *** <.001

Figure 2 shows the percentage of children who report having different reading materials at

home, school and the community, by treatment status. The regressions indicated that there are no

differences between children in the treatment and control groups in those categories. Within those

categories, we also do not observe differences, but can appreciate that a great percentage of children

have texts available in school, but not at home or the community. Most other reading resources are

available to them in the community, but not at home or school.

Text

sboo

ks

Relig

ious

Mag

azin

es

New

spap

ers

Child

ren'

s bo

oks

Colo

ring

Book

s

Com

ics

Inte

rnet

Text

s

Relig

ious

Mag

azin

es

New

spap

ers

Child

ren'

s bo

oks

Colo

ring

Book

s

Com

ics

Inte

rnet

Text

s

Relig

ious

Mag

azin

es

New

spap

ers

Child

ren'

s bo

oks

Colo

ring

Book

s

Com

ics

Inte

rnet

Home School Community

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Control Treatment

Figure 2. Percentage of children who report having different types of reading materials at home,

school and the community, by treatment status.

Research Question 2: At baseline, what are children's average literacy skills by treatment and

Division? Are there significant differences in literacy outcomes between children who received an

offer to participate in READ CORE Plus and children who did not receive the offer?

We did not find any statistically significant differences in the baseline literacy outcomes of

children attending schools who received the offer to participate in READ Core Plus and those

attending schools who received the offer to participate in READ Core. As can be seen in Table 6,

there aren´t any differences in the alphabet knowledge, recognition of most used words, phonemic

awareness, vocabulary, percentage of readers, fluency, accuracy, and reading comprehension skills

of children in schools assigned to different treatment status. However, once controlling for child

background characteristics and district, we do observe a statistically significant differences in

reading with comprehension which favors children in the treatment group (p<.01) (To see full

regression models including covariates see Appendix. Table 7 includes models for low order literacy

skills. Table 8 includes models for high order literacy skills). This difference is driven by the higher

performance of children in the treatment group on summary and inferential type of comprehension

questions, and children in both groups had statistically similar scores in literal and evaluative types

of comprehension questions (see Appendix Table 9).

Table 6. Coefficients, standard errors and p-values for regressions of treatment on the key outcomes

of interest, adjusting for clustering at the school level and controlling for demographic characteristics

and Division Fixed effects

Literacy Outcome  Coefficient Standard error p-value N

Alphabet Knowledge -0.53 0.99 0.59 2177

Most Used Words -0.02 0.05 0.60 2177

Phonemic Awareness -0.01 0.02 0.76 2177

Vocabulary -0.01 0.01 0.68 2177

Reader -0.01 0.02 0.50 2177

Fluency 0.87 1.28 0.50 423

Accuracy 0.01 0.01 0.60 423

Reading Comprehension 0.04* 0.02 0.04 423

Readers with Comprehension .014 0.04 0.74 423

*p<0.05 **p<0.01 *** <.001

Figure 3 shows average alphabet knowledge of children by treatment status and Division.

Specifically, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between children in the

treatment and control groups in their alphabet awareness. On average, children in Barisal show the

highest scores of all groups, but differences are only statistically significant as compared to those in

Sylhet. Children in Sylhet exhibit scores that are statistically significantly lower (p<.05) than the

scores in children from all other divisions, with the exception of Cox’s Bazar, where children have

similarly low scores.

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka AVERAGE0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Alphabet Knowledge

READ Core+ READ Core

Num

ber o

f lett

ers

in th

e Ba

ngla

alp

habe

t id

entifi

ed c

orre

ctly

Figure 3. Average Alphabet Knowledge by Treatment Status and Division (n=2177)

Figure 4 shows the distribution of scores in the letter knowledge of children according to

their division. In addition to a significant amount of zero scores, which reflect children who were

unable to identify any letter in the alphabet, we observe a distribution that indicates that many

children are able to identify approximately 45 letters in the alphabet and many of them are able to

identify them all. As can be observed, children in Barisal exhibit the highest probability of being

able to identify many letters in the alphabet, while children in Sylhet have the highest probability of

being unable to identify any letter in the alphabet as well as the lowest one being able to identify 40

letters or more.

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5kd

ensi

ty lt

rsto

t

0 10 20 30 40 50x

Barisal Cox's BazarDhaka KhulnaRangpur Sylhet

Figure 4. Histogram of Alphabet Knowledge, by Division

Figure 5 shows average percentage of most used words that children are able to recognize

from a list of 20 familiar words, by treatment status and division. We observe that there aren't any

statistically significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in their

ability to read familiar words. Children in Barisal show the highest performance and differences are

statistically significant when compared to all other divisions (p<.01). Children in Sylhet exhibit the

lowest scores of all divisions, but differences are only statistically significantly when compared to

the performance of children in Barisal (p<.001).

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka AVERAGE0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Most Used Words

READ Core+ READ Core

Perc

enta

ge o

f mos

t use

d w

ords

re

ad c

orre

ctly

Figure 5. Percentage of Familiar Words Recognized by Treatment Status and Division (n=2177)

Figure 6 shows the distribution of scores for most used words, according to division. Once

again, the distribution shows a great amount of children –especially in Sylhet- have a high

probability of being unable to identify familiar words. We also observe that children in Barisal have

the lowest probability of being unable to recognize familiar words, as well as the highest probability

of being able to identify them.

01

23

4kd

ensi

ty m

uwpc

t

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1x

Barisal Cox's BazarDhaka KhulnaRangpur Sylhet

Figure 6. Histogram of Percentage of Most Used Words, by Division

Figure 7 shows average percentage of vocabulary words that children are able to retrieve

after prompted by questions and images, by division and treatment status. We observe that there

aren't any statistically significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in

their ability to retrieve vocabulary words. Children in Barisal exhibit the largest vocabulary words

and differences are statistically significant when compared to all other divisions (p<.001). Children

in Dhaka also show a vocabulary that is statistically superior to the vocabulary of children in other

divisions (p<.001), but inferior to the vocabulary of children in Barisal (p<.001). Children in

Rangpur exhibit the lowest performance of all divisions, but differences are only statistically

significant when compared to the higher performance of their peers in Dhaka (p<.001) and Barisal

(p<.001).

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka AVERAGE0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Vocabulary

READ Core+ READ Core

Perc

enta

ge o

f voc

abul

ary

wor

ds id

entifi

ed

Figure 7. Average Percentage of Vocabulary by Treatment Status and Division (n=2177)

Figure 8 shows the distribution of children who are able to read different percentages of

vocabulary words, according to division. We observe that the distribution of children in Barisal and

Dhaka have ceiling effects, reflecting the fact that many children are able to identify most

vocabulary words as prompted in the test by facilitators.

01

23

kden

sity

Voc

abpc

t

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1x

Barisal Cox's BazarDhaka KhulnaRangpur Sylhet

Figure 8. Histogram of Percentage of Vocabulary, by Division

Figure 9 shows average phonemic awareness, defined as the percentage of similar beginning

sounds and rhyming words that children are able to read correctly from a list of 20, by division and

treatment status. We observe that there aren't any statistically significant differences between

children in the treatment and control groups in their phonemic awareness. Children in Cox's Bazar

exhibit the highest phonemic awareness of all divisions with differences that are statistically

significant when compared to all other divisions (p<.001). Children in Dhaka exhibit the lowest

phonemic awareness, and differences are also statistically significant when compared to the

performance of children in all other divisions (p<.001).

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka AVERAGE0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Phonemic Awareness

READ Core+ READ Core

Figure 9. Average Percentage of Phonemic Awareness by Treatment Status and Division (n=2177)

Figure 10 shows the distribution of percentage of phonemic awareness, according to division.

We observe that the greatest proportion of children in Cox´s Bazar exhibit high phonemic awareness

and only a very small proportion exhibit low phonemic awareness. In contract, we observe that the

greatest proportion of children in Dhaka are unable to read correctly similar beginning sounds and

rhyming words as observed in their high zero scores, as well as the lowest proportion of children

who are able to do the same, as compared to all other divisions.

0.5

11.

52

2.5

kden

sity

Pho

nAw

arep

ct

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1x

Barisal Cox's BazarDhaka KhulnaRangpur Sylhet

Figure 10. Histogram of Percentage of Phonetic Awareness, by Division

Readers

Figure 11 shows the average percentage of children who are independent readers, defined as

the ability to read 5 words within the first 30 seconds of a reading passage test, by treatment status

and division. We observe that there aren't any statistically significant differences between the

percentage of readers in the treatment and control groups. On average, readers constitute 18.11% of

the READ Core+ group and 19.79% of READ Core group. Barisal has the highest percentage of

readers with differences that are statistically significant when compared to all other groups (p<.001)

and Rangpur the lowest one percentage of readers, but differences are only significant when

compared to outcomes from Barisal.

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka AVERAGE0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

ReadersPe

rcen

tage

of c

hild

ren

able

to re

ad 5

wor

ds

corr

ectly

w

ithin

30

seco

nds

Figure 11. Average Percentage of Readers by Treatment Status and Division (n=2177)

High order literacy skills

In the final sub-tests students who qualified as readers were assessed on their fluency,

reading accuracy and reading comprehension. This section presents results for the 19% of students

who qualified as readers. (See Table 8 in the Appendix)

Reading Accuracy

Figure 12 shows average reading accuracy, defined as the percentage of words read correctly

in a reading passage of 59 words (only for readers), by treatment status and division. We observe

that there aren't any statistically significant differences between children in the treatment (READ

CORE Plus) and control (READ Core) groups in their reading accuracy. Children in Barisal exhibit

the highest reading accuracy of all groups and their performance is statistically higher when

compared with children in Dhaka (p<.001) and Khulna (p<.05), who exhibit the lowest performance

of all groups.

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Accuracy (among Readers)Pe

rcen

tage

of p

assa

ge re

ad c

orre

ctly

Figure 12. Average Reading Accuracy of Independent Readers by Treatment Status and Division

(n=423)

Figure 13 shows the distribution of reading accuracy scores by division. We observe that in

most divisions the distribution that is skewed right, reflecting the fact that, overall, readers are able

to read with good accuracy. The distributions shows that Barisal has the highest proportion of

children with high reading accuracy as well as the smallest proportion of children with low reading

accuracy. A high proportion of children in Rangpur exhibit high reading accuracy, but more children

in this division exhibit lower reading accuracy scores than in other divisions. Both Dhaka and

Khulna exhibit a lower proportion of children reading with high accuracy.

01

23

45

kden

sity

Rea

dpct

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1x

Barisal Cox's BazarDhaka KhulnaRangpur Sylhet

Figure 13. Histogram of Percentage of Reading Accuracy, by Division

Figure 14 shows average fluency of independent readers, defined as the number of words per

minute read correctly, by treatment status and division. We observe that there aren't any statistically

significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in their reading fluency,

but that there are some differences between divisions. The highest fluency average is observed in

Sylhet4 but differences are only statistically significant when compared to Khulna (p<.001) and

Dhaka (p<.05).

4 To some degree the high average score observed in Sylhet is driven by an outlier which I examined carefully but decided to leave as a legitimate datapoint based on other equally high literacy scores. However, even after taking out the outlier, Sylhet contines having the highest fluency average.

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka AVERAGE0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Fluency (among Readers)W

ords

per

min

ute

Figure 15. Average Reading Fluency of Independent Readers by Treatment Status and Division

(n=423)

Figure 16 shows the distribution of reading fluency by division. The distributions show that

Sylhet and Cox’s Bazar have the largest proportion of children with high reading fluency. Sylhet

exhibits a case of great reading fluency, an outlier that was confirmed to be a legitimate datapoint.

We also observe that children in Khulna and Dhaka exhibit large proportions of children reading

with low fluency.

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8kd

ensi

ty w

cpm

0 50 100x

Barisal Cox's BazarDhaka KhulnaRangpur Sylhet

Figure 16. Histogram of Fluency Scores, by Division

Reading Comprehension

Readers were also assessed on ten reading comprehension questions related to the reading

passage. Figure 17 shows students' average reading comprehension, defined as the percentage of

reading comprehension questions (out of 10) that readers are able to answer correctly after reading a

passage, by treatment status and division. We observe that there are statistically significant

differences between children in the treatment (READ Core Plus) and control (READ Core) groups in

their reading comprehension (p<.05). Children in Cox’s Bazar exhibit the highest reading

comprehension of all groups, with differences that are statistically significant when compared to

Rangpur (p<.01) and all other divisions (p<.001). Children in Dhaka exhibit the lowest reading

comprehension, and significantly different from the average performance of children in Cox’s Bazar

(p<.001), Rangpur (p<.001) and Barisal (p<.01).

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka AVERAGE0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Reading Comprehension (among Readers)

READ Core+ READ Core

Figure 17. Average Percentage of Reading Comprehension by Treatment Status and Division (n=386)

Figure 18 shows the distribution of reading comprehension by division. The distributions

show that Cox’s Bazar and Rangpur have the largest proportion of children with high reading

comprehension and Dhaka the largest proportion of children with low reading comprehension.

0.5

11.

52

kden

sity

com

prpc

t

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1x

Barisal Cox's BazarDhaka KhulnaRangpur Sylhet

Figure 18. Histogram of Percentage of Reading Comprehension Questions Answered Correctly

(readers only) by Division (n=432)

Table 9 in the Appendix shows the regression results for different types of reading

comprehension questions. Figure 19 shows the percentage of different types of reading

comprehension questions that students were able to answer correctly. Reading comprehension

questions included summary, factual, inferential, and evaluative questions. For the summary

question students were asked what the story was about and their responses were marked correct if

they mentioned at least three of four main points of the story (characters, problem, action,

resolution). Six literal questions asked children about information that was directly available in the

text, such as "What was the name of the main character?" and "Where did the main character go?"

Two inferential questions asked children about information that was indirectly available in the text.

Finally, one evaluative question asked children for their opinion of the text, and children’s responses

were scored correctly if they justified their opinion with information from the text. We did not

observe statistically significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in

their literal and evaluative comprehension, but we observed differences in their summary and

inferential reading comprehension, which in both cases favored the treatment group (p<.05) (See

Table 9). Overall, summary questions were the easiest to respond, with correct response rates within

59% and 71%, followed by inferential reading comprehension with correct response rates between

36% and 46% and literal reading comprehension, with response rates between 35% and 36%. The

hardest reading comprehension questions for students in the sample were the evaluative questions,

with correct response rate between 27% and 36%.

Reading C

omprehen

sion Su

mmary*

Reading C

omprehen

sion Lit

eral

Reading C

omprehen

sion In

feren

tial*

Reading C

omprehen

sion Ev

aluati

ve0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Reading Comprehension by Type of Question

Figure 19. Reading comprehension questions by (readers only) by Type (n=432)

Figures 20-23 shows students’ reading comprehension by types of question (summary,

literal, inferential and evaluative) in each division. We can observe that children in Cox’s Bazar

(p<.001), followed by children in Rangpur (p<.001), exhibit the highest performance of all groups in

all types of reading comprehension questions, with differences that are statistically significant when

compared to all other divisions, but not among themselves.

Figure 20 shows children summary reading comprehension by treatment status and division.

We observe that there are statistically significant differences between children in the treatment and

control groups in regards to their summary reading comprehension skills (p<.05) (See Table 9).

Children in Cox’s Bazar (p<.001) and Rangpur (p<.001) exhibit significantly higher summary

reading skills than children in all other divisions.

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Summary Reading Comprehension

READ Core+ READ Core

Figure 20. Summary Reading Comprehension, by Treatment Status and Division.

Figure 21 shows students’ literal reading comprehension by treatment status and division.

We do not observe differences between the literal reading comprehension of children in the

treatment and control groups. Children in Dhaka have literal reading comprehension that is

statistically significantly lower than the literal reading comprehension of children in Barisal (p<.01),

Cox’ Bazaar (p<.01), Khulna (p<.01) and Rangpur (p<.01).

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Literal Reading Comprehension

READ Core+ READ Core

Figure 21. Literal Reading Comprehension, by Treatment Status and Division

Figure 22 shows students’ inferential reading comprehension by treatment status and

division. We observe that children in the treatment group have higher inferential reading

comprehension skills than children in the control group (p<.05) (See Table 9). Children in Sylhet

(p<.01) and Dhaka (p<.01) exhibit inferential reading comprehension that is significantly lower than

children in all other divisions.

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Inferential Reading Comprehension

READ Core+ READ Core

Figure 22. Inferential Reading Comprehension, by Division

Figure 23 shows students’ evaluative reading comprehension by treatment status and

division. We observe that children in Kulha exhibit very low evaluative reading comprehension

skills, which are significantly lower than children from all other divisions (p<01). Children in Dhaka

also exhibit skills that are significantly lower than the evaluative reading comprehension of children

in all other divisions with the exception of Khulna. Once again, children in Cox’s Bazar (p<.001)

and Rangpur (p<.001) show evaluative reading comprehension skills that are significantly higher

than the evaluative reading skills of children in all other divisions.

Barisal Cox's Bazar Khulna Rangpur Sylhet Dhaka0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Evaluative Reading Comprehension by Division

READ Core+ READ Core

Figure 23. Evaluative Reading Comprehension, by Treatment Status and Division

Readers with Comprehension

Figure 24 shows the percentage of 1) readers, defined as those who are able to read five words

correctly within the first 30 seconds, 2) readers with comprehension, defined as those who are able

to answer correctly 80% or more of reading comprehension questions. We do not observe

statistically significant differences between children in the treatment and control groups in their

ability to read with comprehension. We observe significantly larger numbers of readers with

comprehension in Cox’s Bazar (p<.001) and Rangpur (p<.01).

Barisal * Cox's Bazar***

Khulna Rangpur*** Sylhet Dhaka AVERAGE0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Readers with Comprehension (among Readers)Pe

rcen

tage

of c

hild

ren

who

read

and

ans

wer

co

rrec

tly 8

0% o

f rea

ding

com

preh

ensio

n qu

es-

tions

Figure 24. Average Percentage of Readers with Comprehension by Treatment Status and Division (n=440)

Who is falling behind?

Using the coefficients of different covariates from the multi-level regression models, we

identified associations between the literacy subscales and students’ background information, in terms

of the sex, socio-economic status and reading materials available at home. Table 7 presents our

findings. We observe that boys and children in lower SES are falling behind girls and children in

higher SES in their knowledge of the alphabet, ability to identify most used words, phonemic

awareness, vocabulary, ability to read and fluency, but not in terms of their reading accuracy and

reading comprehension. Children in house environments with few reading materials are falling

behind children living in homes with more access to reading materials in terms of their phonemic

awareness, vocabulary and reading fluency. Children who did not attend any ECD are falling behind

children who had the opportunity to attend preschool in their alphabet knowledge, ability to identify

most used words, and their vocabulary.

Table 7: At Baseline, Who is Falling Behind?

Sex Socio-Economic

Status

Reading Materials at

home

Previous ECD Attendance

Alphabet Knowledge

Boys*** Low SES*** -- No ECD***

Most Used Words

Boys*** Low SES*** -- No ECD***

Phonemic Awareness

Boys*** Low SES** Few reading materials**

--

Vocabulary Boys** Low SES*** Few reading materials*

NO ECD*

% Readers Boys*** Low SES** -- --

Fluency Boys* Low SES*** Few reading materials***

--

Accuracy -- -- -- --

Reading Comprehension

-- -- -- --

Discussion

The present study uses a randomized controlled clustered design to estimate the value added

of a community-based literacy intervention (READ Core Plus) over a school-based literacy packet

(READ Core), on a set of literacy outcomes of interest. The present report presents the analyses of

the baseline data that was collected in May and June 2016. Analysis indicates that the randomization

worked, as we found that children in treatment and control groups are perfectly balanced on a set of

observable characteristics.

Internal Validity

Concerns about internal validity address the question of whether an intervention makes

significant differences in the outcomes of participants (Shadish et al, 2002). Given that the present

study uses an experimental design where schools were randomly assigned to treatment and control

groups, we will be able to make causal inferences about the effects of READ Core Plus on our

outcomes of interest. In fact, random assignment effectively eliminates the probability that children

in treatment and control groups would differ in observable and unobservable characteristics that may

have an impact on the outcomes of interest. A potential threat to the internal validity of an

experimental study can be that, despite the random assignment, children in the treatment and control

groups would still be different in observable and unobservable characteristics before the initiation of

activities. One of the strengths of the present study is that we collected pretest scores, and were able

to determine that groups are actually equal in expectation. In fact, after analyzing the baseline data,

we confirmed that before initiation of activities, children in the control and treatment groups did not

exhibit statistically significant differences in any observable characteristics, with the exception of

reading comprehension (and specifically, summary and inferential reading comprehension skills).

Given that we conducted 62 regressions and only one characteristic turned out to be statistically

significant, it is possible that was due to chance. However, in the post-test it will be important to

control for reading comprehension baseline scores given that it is a key outcome in our study. At

post-test, any changes in endogenous characteristics that we observe can be attributed to the causal

effect of the offer to participate in READ Core Plus.

Another potential threat to the internal validity of an experimental study can be diffusion

effects. Specifically, if children in the treatment group are able to interact with children in the control

group, the effects of the intervention may have an effect on them as well. In our study, diffusion

effects are of low concern because schools were randomly assigned to treatment and control groups

and therefore, children are not in contact with one another. Additionally, schools assigned to

treatment and control groups are located within the same upazila but with distances that would make

it unlikely for children to influence each other.

A future threat to the internal validity of our experimental study is that students’ treatment

status would change after their initial random assignment. We will address this problem by

conducting intent-to-treat (ITT) and treatment on the treated analysis (TOT). ITT analysis examines

the effect of being randomly assigned to a treatment group on several outcomes of interest, without

regard for whether or not the chosen participants received the treatment or not, and independently of

the dosage or amount of hours they actually attended the program. ITT estimates are based on the

original intention to provide treatment to a given group of participants, and not to the treatment that

they actually received. For this reason, ITT analysis will resemble the effect that READ Core Plus

will have in the “real” world, where some children who received the offer to participate in the

program will take full advantage of the opportunity, some will take inconsistent advantage and some

will not take advantage. TOT estimates will determine the effect of READ Core Plus on children

who did not change their treatment status and actually participated in the program.

External Validity

External validity concerns the inference about the extent to which the causal relationship that

we will identify between READ and the outcomes of interest holds over variations in persons,

settings, treatments and outcomes that were in the experiment (Shadish et al, 2002). Given the point

of randomization used in the experiment-the criteria used to select students to participate in the

lotteries- the findings of the present study will only apply to first grade children in GPS schools.

Given that Save the Children, USAID and donors have determined that READ should target schools

from poor and marginalized communities in Bangladesh, the findings of this experimental study will

only generalize to students at risk of negative educational outcomes, who live in rural areas of

Bangladesh. Specifically, the findings of this study will not generalize to students or settings that are

not represented in this sample, such as:1) older students, 2) students from medium or high SES, 3) in

urban areas, and 4) who attend Newly Nationalized Schools, Madrasas or private schools, 5) who

live in other countries. In this regard, it is possible that our findings would overestimate the effects

of READ on children from more privileged backgrounds.

References

Murnane, R & Willet, J (2011) Methods Matter. Improving Causal Inference in Educational and

Social Science Research. Oxford.

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental

Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin

Appendix

Table 7. Multi-level regressions for baseline differences between children in the treatment (READ CORE Plus ) and control groups (READ CORE) in a key literacy outcomes, after accounting for demographic characteristics and Division fixed effects (n=2177)

Alphabet Knowledge

Most Used Words

Phonemic Awareness Vocabulary Reader

Intercept 28.09*** 0.227** 0.0803 0.492*** 0.179*(3.350) (0.0741) (0.0444) (0.0416) (0.0745)

Treatment -0.907 -0.0247 -0.00987 -0.00960 -0.0168(1.327) (0.0284) (0.0142) (0.0134) (0.0235)

Age -0.193 -0.0112 0.0162** 0.0284*** -0.0185*(0.376) (0.00840) (0.00525) (0.00492) (0.00882)

Sex 2.485*** 0.0567*** 0.0465*** 0.0227* 0.0522**(0.685) (0.0153) (0.00970) (0.00908) (0.0163)

SES 0.788*** 0.0183*** 0.00790** 0.0124*** 0.0168***(0.201) (0.00452) (0.00283) (0.00265) (0.00476)

Home Materials 0.181 0.0166 0.0279** 0.0221* 0.0287(0.717) (0.0160) (0.0100) (0.00938) (0.0168)

ECD 2.535*** 0.0595*** -0.00175 0.0254** 0.0184(0.747) (0.0167) (0.0105) (0.00980) (0.0176)

Barisal 4.024 0.269*** 0.205*** 0.0780*** 0.167***(2.186) (0.0469) (0.0238) (0.0224) (0.0395)

Cox’s Bazar -0.916 0.0652 0.277*** -0.0874** 0.0147(2.773) (0.0593) (0.0294) (0.0277) (0.0487)

Khulna 0.721 0.0548 0.104*** -0.111*** 0.0225(2.129) (0.0456) (0.0228) (0.0215) (0.0378)

Rangpur -0.223 -0.0141 0.109*** -0.113*** -0.0411(2.160) (0.0462) (0.0232) (0.0218) (0.0384)

Sylhet -4.427 -0.0131 0.164*** -0.0718** -0.0161

(2.308) (0.0496) (0.0254) (0.0239) (0.0421) Sigma u 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.09Sigma e 0.24 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.37Rho 0.155 0.141 0.0692 0.0709 0.0656N 2177 2177 2177 2177 2177

Standard errors in parentheses="* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001"

Table 8. Multi-level regressions for baseline differences between children in the treatment (READ CORE Plus ) and control groups (READ CORE) in key advanced literacy outcomes (only for readers), after accounting for demographic characteristics and division fixed effects.

Accuracy FluencyReading

Comprehension

Readers with Comprehensio

nIntercept 0.782*** 2.203 0.210 -0.0535

(0.0602) (5.652) (0.107) (0.181)

Treatment 0.0202 1.412 0.0498* 0.0150(0.0153) (1.608) (0.0251) (0.0456)

Age 0.00567 0.744 0.0293* 0.0291(0.00766) (0.708) (0.0138) (0.0231)

Sex 0.0136 1.900 -0.00301 -0.0196(0.0136) (1.224) (0.0249) (0.0410)

SES -0.000976 0.791* 0.00384 0.00809(0.00397) (0.361) (0.00723) (0.0120)

Home Materials -0.0157 4.639*** -0.0435* -0.00818(0.0117) (1.101) (0.0206) (0.0351)

ECD -0.00278 2.781* 0.00754 0.00415(0.0143) (1.308) (0.0257) (0.0430)

Barisal 0.0636** 3.416 0.123** 0.101(0.0242) (2.541) (0.0398) (0.0721)

Cox's Bazar 0.0371 5.396 0.324*** 0.404***(0.0331) (3.564) (0.0529) (0.0983)

Khulna 0.00757 -4.418 0.0596 -0.0797(0.0249) (2.608) (0.0409) (0.0742)

Rangpur 0.0312 1.608 0.181*** 0.211**(0.0270) (2.780) (0.0452) (0.0805)

Sylhet 0.0224 5.259 0.0362 -0.0342(0.0315) (3.170) (0.0539) (0.0942)

Sigma_U 0.03 5.28 0 0.09Sigma_e 0.13 11.93 0.25 0.41N 423 423 423 423Rho 0.0598 0.164 0 0.0526

Standard errors in parentheses="* p<0.05 ** p<0.01 *** p<0.001"

Table 9. Multi-level regressions for baseline differences between children in the treatment (READ CORE Plus) and control groups (READ CORE) in different types of reading comprehension outcomes (only for readers), after accounting for demographic characteristics and division fixed effects. (n=423)

Summary Reading

Comprehension

Literal Reading Comprehension

Inferential Reading

Comprehension

Evaluative Reading

Comprehension

_cons -0.0810 0.283** 0.198 0.0879(0.201) (0.105) (0.167) (0.192)

Treatment 0.119* 0.0169 0.0957* 0.0862(0.0468) (0.0244) (0.0390) (0.0448)

Age 0.0739** 0.0274* 0.0261 0.00254(0.0257) (0.0134) (0.0214) (0.0246)

Sex -0.00642 0.0164 -0.0728 0.0234(0.0465) (0.0242) (0.0387) (0.0445)

SES 0.000616 -0.000285 0.00944 0.0206(0.0135) (0.00704) (0.0113) (0.0129)

Home Materials -0.0457 -0.0478* -0.0385 -0.0255(0.0385) (0.0201) (0.0321) (0.0369)

ECD -0.0313 0.00569 0.0235 0.0256(0.0480) (0.0250) (0.0400) (0.0459)

Barisal 0.0882 0.111** 0.146* 0.182*(0.0743) (0.0387) (0.0619) (0.0711)

Cox's Bazar 0.387*** 0.311*** 0.319*** 0.352***(0.0989) (0.0515) (0.0824) (0.0947)

Khulna -0.0141 0.0936* 0.115 -0.181*(0.0764) (0.0398) (0.0637) (0.0732)

Rangpur 0.378*** 0.108* 0.268*** 0.248**(0.0844) (0.0440) (0.0703) (0.0808)

Sylhet -0.0521 0.0496 -0.00624 0.129(0.101) (0.0524) (0.0838) (0.0963)

N 423 423 423 423

rho 0 0 0 0Standard errors in parentheses="* p<0.05