Explore the evidence
18 of 88 decisions · clear everything
Teacher quality is the largest within-school lever — 1 SD of teacher ≈ 0.10–0.15 SD/yr, worth more than ten fewer students — and credentials predict none of it. Select; don't workshop.
strong supportconf: highgc: lowTeacher quality — selection over credentials and workshops · teachers · ages 4–18 · structure
Group within classes or across grades by subject: modest, nearly free wins. Whole-school streaming does nothing, and early between-school tracking harms the bottom.
moderate supportconf: highgc: lowAbility grouping and tracking — four practices, four verdicts · grouping · ages 5–18 · structure
Accelerate ready kids: they keep pace with older classmates, bank a year, and show no social-emotional harm at 50. The gifted label itself does nothing; the content does.
moderate supportconf: highgc: mediumAcceleration and gifted programs — the label vs the content · grouping · ages 5–18 · structure
Smaller classes buy real K-1 gains that fade on tests yet persist in attainment — at roughly triple tutoring's cost, and diluted to nothing when scaled fast.
mixedconf: highgc: lowClass-size reduction · class-size · ages 4–18 · structure
Curriculum is nearly free, so choosing beats not choosing — but the payoff is avoiding a demonstrated loser, not finding a magic winner. Content is the high-upside bet.
mixedconf: highgc: lowCurriculum choice as a school-level lever · curriculum · ages 4–14 · structure
Mastery learning moves tests of what it taught (~0.25) and barely moves independent measures (~0.05) — and time-to-mastery gaps widen, converting ability differences into time.
mixedconf: highgc: lowMastery learning (teach → test → reteach to criterion → advance) · mastery · ages 6–18 · 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
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: lowSchool spending, charters, and what school-level choices actually move outcomes · school-structure · ages 4–18 · 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
Later bells buy adolescents 40+ measured minutes of sleep — the best-identified positive effect in the archive; the achievement payoff is real but far smaller.
strong supportconf: mediumgc: lowDo later school start times increase adolescent sleep, and does that raise achievement? · health · ages 11–18 · input
Outdoor time prevents myopia from starting (not progressing); screening plus free glasses raises test scores in children who need them. Two claims, both real.
moderate supportconf: mediumgc: lowVision — outdoor time against myopia, and screening and correction for achievement · health · ages 4–18 · input
Correcting a real deficiency moves cognition (iron in anaemic children: 0.79 SD); supplementing already-fed children moves nothing (35 RCTs, 19,343 children).
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowBreakfast, school meals, and micronutrients — what feeding children actually buys · health · ages 4–18 · input
A missed day costs little (~0.005 SD); interventions reliably buy days back cheaply, but nobody has shown the recovered days move achievement.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumChronic absenteeism — does raising attendance raise achievement? · time · ages 4–18 · input
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: lowDoes educational technology raise learning — CAI, adaptive software, devices, screens, and AI tutors? · edtech · ages 5–18 · structure
The received wisdom that retention is harmful was two measurement errors, not a finding. Fix them and the achievement effect is zero — but the grade at which you hold a child back decides everything.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowGrade retention — holding a child back versus promoting, and test-based promotion policies · retention · ages 5–18 · structure
Classroom order is causally worth a great deal — one disruptive peer costs classmates 3% of adult earnings — yet no branded behaviour programme reliably delivers it and exclusion makes things worse.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowHow should a school run its classrooms and its discipline system? · behavior · ages 4–18 · structure
Taking time away hurts measurably; adding it back buys almost nothing. The return per hour is ~0.02-0.03 SD, concave, and near zero in disorderly classrooms.
mixedconf: mediumgc: lowLength of the school day and year, time-on-task, extended time, and summer · time · ages 4–18 · structure
Coaching buys ~0.25 SD of score and has for 42 years — a fraction of what's advertised — and none of it is ability. The score moves; the construct doesn't.
mixedconf: mediumgc: mediumTest preparation — does coaching raise scores, and does a raised score mean raised ability? · assessment · ages 5–18 · structure
The URL is the state — any view you build here is a permalink you can hand to someone mid-argument.