Explore the evidence
3 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Survives the gold standardIndependent, durable, rigorousThe debunked shelfCheap winsFor parents at homeFamous numbers, deflatedWhere we admit ignoranceThe terrain
domain
- math6
- reading6
- writing6
- early childhood5
- science5
- arts4
- character4
- assessment3
- debunked3
- foreign language3
- health3
- history civics3
- practice3
- grouping2
- instruction style2
- motor skills2
- music2
- practical2
- transfer2
- behavior1
- class size1
- computer science1
- curriculum1
- deliberate practice1
- edtech1
- feedback1
- homework1
- mastery1
- physical development1
- school structure1
- sport1
- talent1
- teachers1
- time1
- tutoring1
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
outcome class
Selective CTE high schools raise male graduation 8-10pp and early-career earnings 17-35% on lottery and cutoff designs; test scores, degrees, and every outcome for girls are flat.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowDo career and technical education tracks help students — and which students? · practical · ages 14–18
Life-skills courses reliably teach the content and rarely change the conduct; behaviour moves only where instruction sits close in time to the decision, and driver education is worse than nothing.
mixedconf: mediumgc: low11/1148/48
Do life-skills courses — money, cooking, driving, health — change what students actually do? · practical · ages 6–18
Coding instruction teaches coding (d≈0.68) and not thinking: against active controls far transfer is g=0.15, two validated-instrument RCTs found d≈0.00, and a 46-school maths trial found −0.16 to −0.21.
no effectconf: mediumgc: lowDoes learning to code improve general thinking? · transfer · ages 5–16
Not yet assessed for this question · 1
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.