Explore the evidence
4 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”
who's delivering
High-dosage tutoring is education's most reliable lever: ~0.29 SD in trials, ~0.2 well-scaled — not Bloom's 2σ. Groups of 3–4 work; 1:1 is unnecessary.
strong supportconf: highgc: low18/1830/48connected:Class-size reductionDoes educational technology raise The parent as instructorSchool spending, charters, and wha
Tutoring — the honest effect, the Bloom 2-sigma myth, and what survives scale · tutoring · ages 5–18 · method
Perry and Abecedarian: n=123 and n=111, IQ gains gone by adolescence, attainment effects real but multiplicity-fragile. Too thin to carry the policy built on them.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowPerry Preschool and Abecedarian — what the famous studies actually establish · early-childhood · ages 4–5 · structure
Coaching buys ~0.25 SD of score and has for 42 years — a fraction of what's advertised — and none of it is ability. The score moves; the construct doesn't.
mixedconf: mediumgc: medium20/2036/48
Test preparation — does coaching raise scores, and does a raised score mean raised ability? · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
No study of homeschooling has a counterfactual — the famous percentile claims are selection all the way down. The honest answer: nobody knows.
insufficientconf: lowgc: high23/2336/48connected:Homeschool socialisationThe parent as instructorSystematic/explicit phonics vs whoMath-fact fluency and timed practi
Does homeschooling raise achievement and attainment, or does it select the children who would have done well anyway? · homeschool · ages 5–18 · structure
Not yet assessed for this question · 3
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.