Explore the evidence
17 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Later bells buy adolescents 40+ measured minutes of sleep — the best-identified positive effect in the archive; the achievement payoff is real but far smaller.
strong supportconf: mediumgc: lowDo later school start times increase adolescent sleep, and does that raise achievement? · health · ages 11–18 · input
Yes, on their own terms: lottery-assigned museum and theatre trips move blind-rated analysis of art, plot knowledge and tolerance by 0.08-0.18 SD weeks later, and a film of the same play moves nothing.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowAre museum and theatre trips worth the day out of school? · arts · ages 8–18
Comprehension is knowledge — but vocabulary teaching moves standardized comprehension only d≈0.10. The big content-knowledge bet (Core Knowledge lottery, 0.24) is real and unreplicated.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowBackground knowledge and vocabulary as drivers of reading comprehension · reading · ages 5–14
Selective CTE high schools raise male graduation 8-10pp and early-career earnings 17-35% on lottery and cutoff designs; test scores, degrees, and every outcome for girls are flat.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDo career and technical education tracks help students — and which students? · practical · ages 14–18
Immersion costs nothing in English and buys a little — a lottery puts English reading 0.13-0.22 SD ahead by grades 5 and 8 — but no lottery has ever measured how much of the second language students actually learn.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDoes dual-language immersion work, and is the gain in the second language or in English? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
Sentence combining improves writing where grammar teaching fails — the same meta-analyses score them +0.50 and −0.32.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDoes sentence combining improve writing? · writing · ages 5–18
Teaching coding teaches coding: the one clean school RCT gives g=0.47-0.68. Which approach you pick barely matters, and almost every effect size rests on an instrument the developers built.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDoes teaching programming actually teach programming — and does the method matter? · computer-science · ages 5–18
Outdoor time prevents myopia from starting (not progressing); screening plus free glasses raises test scores in children who need them. Two claims, both real.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowVision — outdoor time against myopia, and screening and correction for achievement · health · ages 4–18 · input
Correcting a real deficiency moves cognition (iron in anaemic children: 0.79 SD); supplementing already-fed children moves nothing (35 RCTs, 19,343 children).
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowBreakfast, school meals, and micronutrients — what feeding children actually buys · health · ages 4–18 · input
A missed day costs little (~0.005 SD); interventions reliably buy days back cheaply, but nobody has shown the recovered days move achievement.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumChronic absenteeism — does raising attendance raise achievement? · time · ages 4–18 · input
Civics teaching buys civic knowledge (d = 0.49) that fades to the control mean in two years and moves neither attitudes nor validated turnout; what moves voting is school quality and noncognitive skill.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowDoes civic education produce civic knowledge, and does civic knowledge produce civic behaviour? · history-civics · ages 5–18
Sort by what the software replaces: adaptive drill inside the school day buys +0.05-0.20 SD; a device, a connection or the teacher buys zero to negative; LLM tutors have no usable evidence at all.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowDoes educational technology raise learning — CAI, adaptive software, devices, screens, and AI tutors? · edtech · ages 5–18 · structure
Early specialization predicts junior success; later starts plus other sports predict adult world-class. Selecting on junior results selects the wrong athletes.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumEarly sport specialization, talent selection, and the relative age effect · sport · ages 6–18
The received wisdom that retention is harmful was two measurement errors, not a finding. Fix them and the achievement effect is zero — but the grade at which you hold a child back decides everything.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowGrade retention — holding a child back versus promoting, and test-based promotion policies · retention · ages 5–18 · structure
Classroom order is causally worth a great deal — one disruptive peer costs classmates 3% of adult earnings — yet no branded behaviour programme reliably delivers it and exclusion makes things worse.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowHow should a school run its classrooms and its discipline system? · behavior · ages 4–18 · structure
Taking time away hurts measurably; adding it back buys almost nothing. The return per hour is ~0.02-0.03 SD, concave, and near zero in disorderly classrooms.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowLength of the school day and year, time-on-task, extended time, and summer · time · ages 4–18 · structure
No trial has ever varied the sequence of science content and measured the result. The one quasi-experimental test of course order found nothing, and depth-over-breadth is a retrospective survey worth 0.08-0.13 SD.
insufficientconf: mediumgc: mediumScience content sequencing — coherence, prerequisites, and course order · science · ages 5–18
- Does arts education raise academic achievement?
- Does learning to code improve general thinking?
- Physical activity as an input — dose, fitness, and school outcomes
- Does teaching grammar improve children's writing?
- Brain Gym, Whole Brain Teaching, and the smaller classroom brain fads
- Should Gardner's multiple intelligences be used as a basis for instruction?
- Teaching students to think scientifically — does it transfer?
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.