Explore the evidence
9 of 88 decisions · clear everything
- math6
- reading6
- writing6
- early childhood5
- science5
- arts4
- character4
- health4
- assessment3
- debunked3
- foreign language3
- history civics3
- homeschool3
- practice3
- grouping2
- instruction style2
- motor skills2
- music2
- practical2
- time2
- transfer2
- behavior1
- class size1
- computer science1
- curriculum1
- deliberate practice1
- edtech1
- feedback1
- homework1
- mastery1
- physical development1
- retention1
- school structure1
- sport1
- talent1
- teachers1
- tutoring1
Early gains fade by default — halving every 12–18 months, faster when bigger. What persists is trajectory (placement, graduation), not ability.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowFadeout — why early gains disappear, and what actually persists · early-childhood · ages 4–18 · structure
At scale, pre-K doesn't durably raise test scores — Tennessee went negative — yet Boston shows real attainment gains beside a test-score zero. It buys trajectory, not ability.
mixedconf: highgc: lowPreschool at scale — Head Start, state pre-K, and what universal provision delivers · early-childhood · ages 4–5 · structure
Starting school older mostly manufactures an age-at-test artifact: the IQ effect collapses to ~−0.07 once identified. Real residues: less hyperactivity, unchanged attainment.
mixedconf: highgc: lowSchool starting age, relative age, and academic redshirting · early-childhood · ages 4–7 · structure
Most measured 'home environment' effects are parents' genes: three-quarters of parent-child transmission isn't rearing, and a whole better childhood buys ~4 IQ points.
mixedconf: highgc: lowThe early home environment — what parents can and cannot causally move · early-childhood · ages 4–10 · input
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
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
Explicit form-focused teaching beats pure exposure, so the archive's negative verdict on L1 grammar does NOT transfer — but the effects are measured on the taught forms, immediately, mostly on adults.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowComprehensible input or explicit grammar teaching — which builds a second language? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
Attainment falls steadily with age of first exposure, but the sharp critical period is contested and an earlier classroom start buys nothing durable: start young for immersion, not for two lessons a week.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumIs there a critical period for learning a second language, and when should a child start? · foreign-language · ages 4–18
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
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.