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
verdict
layer
survival prior
Your situation · from the applicability layer — absence means “not yet assessed,” never “doesn’t apply”
who's delivering
group / setting
Feedback on the task helps modestly; feedback on the person backfires — a stable third of measured effects reverse. The famous 0.4–0.7 number has no computed source.
mixedconf: highgc: low18/1821/48connected:Retrieval practice (the testing efDoes teaching music produce musicaPlacement and mastery diagnosis
Feedback and formative assessment · feedback · ages 5–18 · method
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
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
No study of homeschooling has a counterfactual — the famous percentile claims are selection all the way down. The honest answer: nobody knows.
insufficientconf: lowgc: high23/2336/48connected:Homeschool socialisationThe parent as instructorSystematic/explicit phonics vs whoMath-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
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.