Explore the evidence
6 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
survival prior
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
Explicit code teaching beats little-or-no-phonics for word reading — largest in K-1 and at-risk readers; near-null for comprehension and past grade 3. The whole-language contrast is real but the smallest measured.
strong supportconf: highgc: low18/1836/48connected:Does teaching a growth mindset raiDoes homeschooling raise achievemePhonemic awareness training (and wReading-comprehension strategy ins+3
Systematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy · reading · ages 4–9
Growth-mindset interventions change beliefs almost everywhere and change achievement almost nowhere: the two independent national-scale trials measured standardized tests and found exactly zero.
mixedconf: highgc: low18/1831/48connected:FadeoutSystematic/explicit phonics vs whoTalent and trainabilityAre self-control and grit teachabl
Does teaching a growth mindset raise achievement? · character · ages 4–18
The famous faded-feedback demo doesn't survive meta-analysis; mental practice is real at half the advertised size and never substitutes for physical practice.
mixedconf: highgc: lowFeedback frequency and mental practice in motor learning · motor-skills · ages 4–18
At scale, pre-K doesn't durably raise test scores — Tennessee went negative — yet Boston shows real attainment gains beside a test-score zero. It buys trajectory, not ability.
mixedconf: highgc: lowPreschool at scale — Head Start, state pre-K, and what universal provision delivers · early-childhood · ages 4–5 · structure
Starting school older mostly manufactures an age-at-test artifact: the IQ effect collapses to ~−0.07 once identified. Real residues: less hyperactivity, unchanged attainment.
mixedconf: highgc: lowSchool starting age, relative age, and academic redshirting · early-childhood · ages 4–7 · structure
Most measured 'home environment' effects are parents' genes: three-quarters of parent-child transmission isn't rearing, and a whole better childhood buys ~4 IQ points.
mixedconf: highgc: lowThe early home environment — what parents can and cannot causally move · early-childhood · ages 4–10 · input
Not yet assessed for this question · 4
- Does working-memory or brain training transfer to intelligence and achievement?
- Can executive function be trained, and does it transfer to learning?
- Does matching instruction to a child's "learning style" improve learning?
- Does teaching movement transfer to cognition, achievement, or lifelong activity?
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.