Explore the evidence

6 of 88 decisions · clear everything

Survives the gold standard Independent, durable, rigorous The debunked shelf Cheap wins For parents at home Famous numbers, deflated Where we admit ignorance The terrain

evidenceall drop D A–B A only

evaluatorany no dev-led independent

durabilityany follow-up ≥1yr ≥2yr

what are these? →

Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”

who's delivering

group / setting

cost

outcome class

Unallocated money is the worst buy in the database; the same dollars as No-Excuses charters buy +0.3–0.4 SD/yr — and the average charter is a precise null.

mixedconf: highgc: low

8/839/48connected:Tutoring Background knowledge and vocabular Teacher quality Math curriculum choice

School spending, charters, and what school-level choices actually move outcomes · school-structure · ages 4–18 · structure

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: low

22/2225/48connected:Does learning to code improve gene Talent and trainability

Does teaching programming actually teach programming — and does the method matter? · computer-science · 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: low

53/5339/48connected:Placement and mastery diagnosis Mastery learning (teach → test → r Tutoring Class-size reduction

Does educational technology raise learning — CAI, adaptive software, devices, screens, and AI tutors? · edtech · ages 5–18 · structure

What parents are asked to DO is the whole effect: tutoring a skill d≈1.15, listening to reading 0.51, reading aloud ~0.18 — same parent, same child. All deflate under better designs.

mixedconf: mediumgc: medium

33/3336/48connected:Homeschool socialisation Does homeschooling raise achieveme The early home environment Tutoring

The parent as instructor — what survives when the person teaching is the person who raised the child · homeschool · ages 4–18 · method

No study of homeschooling has a counterfactual — the famous percentile claims are selection all the way down. The honest answer: nobody knows.

insufficientconf: lowgc: high

23/2336/48connected:Homeschool socialisation The parent as instructor Systematic/explicit phonics vs who Math-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

Homeschoolers get plenty of social contact but measurably fewer, closer peer ties; whether that helps or harms has never been causally tested.

insufficientconf: lowgc: high

23/2324/48connected:Does homeschooling raise achieveme The parent as instructor

Homeschool socialisation — the most-asked question, and the least answerable one · homeschool · ages 6–18 · structure

The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.