← Schools · Districts · Logic model · Pilot measures
Evidence and logic model
What Goal100 is designed to change, how it is meant to work, and how a school could measure it in a free 60-day pilot.
The logic model
Read it from top to bottom: inputs make activities possible, activities produce things we can count, and those are expected to lead to outcomes.
Assumptions and outside factors
We assume
- Students have regular time on a device with a current browser.
- Teachers look at codes at least once a week.
- Mastery checks match what is taught in class (NYS standards).
- Spaced review (1 day, 1 week, 1 month) helps learning last. This is a design choice based on learning research, not a Goal100 study.
Outside factors
- Attendance, schedules and testing weeks.
- Device access at school and at home.
- How the school's own curriculum is paced (Goal100 does not have every school's local pacing calendar).
- Teacher time to review codes.
How a 60-day pilot could measure it
The Schools page lists the pilot steps: pick a team, use code mode (no student accounts or data), agree on goals, then a one-page report. The measures in the table are examples; your team chooses its own before the pilot starts.
| Measure (example) | How to collect it | Logic-model box |
|---|---|---|
| Lessons mastered | Count lessons marked Mastered (95%+) in the teacher class table built from student codes. | Short-term outcome |
| Time on task | A simple tally of class minutes used, kept by the teacher. | Output |
| Teacher survey | 5 short questions (1 to 5 scale) at the start and end, for example “I know which students need a reteach.” | Short-term outcome |
| Review completed | A tally of refresh reviews students report, if your team tracks them. | Output |
One grade-6 team, 60 days
How to read it honestly: with no comparison group, these numbers describe what happened; they do not prove Goal100 caused it. The report should say that.
ESSA evidence tiers, in the Department of Education's words
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) uses four tiers of evidence. The Institute of Education Sciences (part of the U.S. Department of Education) summarizes them this way:
| Tier | Summary (from IES, Regional Educational Laboratory Central) |
|---|---|
| Tier 1 · Strong | At least one study that “meets WWC group design standards without reservations” (well-run randomized trials), with a large multisite sample and at least one statistically significant positive outcome. |
| Tier 2 · Moderate | At least one study that “meets WWC group design standards with reservations”, with a large multisite sample and at least one statistically significant positive outcome. |
| Tier 3 · Promising | At least one correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias showing a statistically significant positive effect. |
| Tier 4 · Demonstrates a rationale | “a well-specified logic model with one intended outcome of interest that aligns with a stakeholder need”, supported by “existing or ongoing research demonstrating how it is likely to improve the outcomes identified in the logic model.” |
Sources
Rules can change. If a link and this page ever disagree, the official page or the signed agreement wins.
- IES Regional Educational Laboratory Central, Program Evaluation Toolkit Module 3, Chapter 3: requirements for evidence of effectiveness (ESSA tiers): https://ies.ed.gov/rel-central/2025/01/module-3-chapter-3-requirements-evidence-effectiveness-and-design-standards (checked Nov 7, 2026)
- Goal100 Schools page (pilot steps and goals): schools.html (checked Nov 7, 2026)
- How Goal100 helps teachers (codes, spaced review): goal100.html (checked Nov 7, 2026)
- About Goal100 (mastery design): about.html (checked Nov 7, 2026)