A district wants to measure long-term impact of a literacy program. Which data would best capture this?

• A. Longitudinal tracking of cohorts with standardized tests, attendance, and post-secondary outcomes.
• B. A single year of test scores.
• C. Annual teacher surveys.
• D. Random sampling of parents.

Answer: (A)

Long-term impact is best understood by watching the same group of students over multiple years to see how their reading-related outcomes evolve. Tracking cohorts longitudinally and collecting multiple indicators—standardized literacy test scores, attendance, and post-secondary outcomes like college enrollment or job training—provides a clear view of whether gains persist, improve, or fade after the program ends. This approach connects early literacy improvements to longer-term success and helps determine if the program’s effects endure across time.

A single year of test scores only shows a momentary snapshot and can miss whether benefits last. Annual teacher surveys capture perceptions rather than concrete student outcomes, so they don’t directly measure lasting impact. Random sampling of parents offers family perspectives but doesn’t track students’ progress over time or link literacy to later outcomes.