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
domain
- writing6
- science5
- arts4
- character4
- early childhood4
- math4
- assessment3
- debunked3
- foreign language3
- health3
- history civics3
- homeschool3
- practice3
- grouping2
- instruction style2
- music2
- reading2
- transfer2
- behavior1
- class size1
- computer science1
- curriculum1
- edtech1
- feedback1
- homework1
- mastery1
- physical development1
- practical1
- teachers1
- time1
verdict
layer
survival prior
- nothing assessed yet
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
cost
outcome class
Minimal-guidance math trailed every rival in the one multi-curriculum RCT; explicit instruction for strugglers is math's most replicated result.
moderate supportconf: highgc: lowExplicit vs reform/constructivist math instruction · math · ages 5–18
Neither acceleration mandates nor delay mandates work — readiness-matched placement does. Push everyone and the median falls; hold everyone back and the top falls.
mixedconf: highgc: lowAlgebra timing — acceleration mandates, delay mandates, and readiness-based placement · math · ages 11–18
Manipulatives help when bland, guided, and aged ~7–11 — a guided-representation effect, not 'hands-on learning.' Rich, toy-like objects hurt transfer.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low3/36/48
Manipulatives and concrete-representational-abstract (CRA) sequences · math · ages 5–14
Word-problem solving is its own skill: computation fluency doesn't produce it. Teaching problem schemas explicitly does (~0.25–0.45 SD on trained content).
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowWord problems, schema instruction, and the conceptual-vs-procedural question · math · ages 6–14
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.