Explore the evidence

9 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

low1

outcome class

domain skill1

Systematic phonics beats whole language for word reading — largest in K-1 and for at-risk readers; near-null for comprehension and past grade 3.

strong supportconf: highgc: low

18/1836/48connected:Does teaching a growth mindset rai Does homeschooling raise achieveme Phonemic awareness training (and w Reading-comprehension strategy ins+3

Systematic/explicit phonics vs whole language and balanced literacy · reading · ages 4–9

Feedback on the task helps modestly; feedback on the person backfires — a stable third of studies reverse. The famous 0.4–0.7 number has no computed source.

mixedconf: highgc: low

18/1812/48connected:Retrieval practice (the testing ef Does teaching music produce musica Placement and mastery diagnosis

Feedback and formative assessment · feedback · ages 5–18 · method

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: low

5/518/48connected:Curriculum choice as a school-leve Should history be built on content Math curriculum choice Systematic/explicit phonics vs who+3

Background knowledge and vocabulary as drivers of reading comprehension · reading · ages 5–14

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

Phonemic awareness transfers to reading only with letters attached: speech-only training peaks near 10 hours and moves reading d=0.19; with print, 0.66.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low

6/67/48connected:Systematic/explicit phonics vs who

Phonemic awareness training (and whether it needs letters) · reading · ages 4–7

Guided oral reading works, but the ingredient is volume, not repetition: at equal exposure, re-reading has no edge over wide reading.

moderate supportconf: mediumgc: low

4/46/48

Reading fluency — guided repeated oral reading, and whether repetition matters · reading · ages 6–12

Early specialization predicts junior success; later starts plus other sports predict adult world-class. Selecting on junior results selects the wrong athletes.

mixedconf: mediumgc: medium

7/724/48

Early sport specialization, talent selection, and the relative age effect · sport · ages 6–18

Reading Recovery buys large short-term gains at high cost; the only US long-term estimate is negative. Early 1:1 tutoring works — this model's durability is unproven.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low

5/527/48connected:Systematic/explicit phonics vs who

Reading Recovery and Tier-2 1:1 early-literacy tutoring · reading · ages 5–8

Strategy instruction is a one-time boost, not a trainable skill: six sessions buy what fifty do, and modern at-scale trials are ~null.

mixedconf: mediumgc: low

4/46/48connected:Does teaching grammar improve chil Systematic/explicit phonics vs who Background knowledge and vocabular Does teaching spelling work, and w

Reading-comprehension strategy instruction (reciprocal teaching, summarizing, questioning) · reading · ages 8–14

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