Fairview School District

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 5/5

Research. Missing 10 percent or more of school days lowers achievement and engagement from kindergarten on, and the share of students chronically absent nearly doubled after the pandemic. Controlled studies show that early, supportive, family-facing responses (mailed and texted attendance information, caseworkers who remove material barriers, structured adult mentoring) cut chronic absence by roughly 8 to 23 percent at modest cost, while no rigorous US study shows that fines, prosecution or court referral improve attendance. (Family mailings and texts: chronic absence -10% to -15% (2 to 7 points); school-based material-needs caseworkers: -8%; Check & Connect mentoring: -4.2 days (-23%) in grades 5-7, nothing in grades 1-4; pooled attendance interventions small (g = 0.09 to 0.25))

Mixed evidence. Average effects are small and uneven. Eklund et al. (2022) pooled g = 0.25 across 22 controlled studies and the family-school partnership category's confidence interval included zero; Li et al. (2026) pooled g = 0.09 across 13 post-2020 studies, with weaker effects in majority students-of-color samples. Check & Connect had no detectable effect in grades 1 to 4 and none on test scores or GPA; texting cut chronic absence but not achievement (Heppen et al. 2020). On punishment: Maynard et al. (2012) found court-based truancy programs did not differ from school- or community-based ones on short-term attendance, and an Australian RCT of a police-school partnership raised attendance, so 'punitive responses never work' overstates the record. What the evidence does support is narrower: no rigorous US study shows fines or prosecution improve attendance; Texas truancy filings fell about 90 percent after 2015 decriminalization with no drop in statewide attendance (descriptive only); and in a 131,312-student RCT the standard legalistic, punitively worded truancy notice was outperformed by a plain, supportive one.

Standard. Policy requires monthly identification of every student at or trending toward 10 percent absence, a documented supportive family contact and barrier assessment before any penalty, a written plan at Tier 2 and case management at Tier 3, and quarterly public reporting by building and subgroup; court or truancy referral is permitted only after the supportive steps are documented.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires a documented supportive family contact and barrier assessment before any penalty for absence. core
• ✕The policy requires monthly identification of every student at or trending toward 10 percent absence.
• ✕The policy requires a written plan for students at Tier 2.
• ✕The policy requires case management for students at Tier 3.
• ✕The policy requires quarterly public reporting of attendance by building and subgroup.
• ✕The policy permits court or truancy referral only after the supportive steps are documented.

What the manual says. 204 Attendance, revised March 9, 2020:

Recommended. Amend 204 Attendance

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Eklund K, Burns MK, Oyen K, DeMarchena S, McCollom EM (2022). Addressing chronic absenteeism in schools: a meta-analysis of evidence-based interventions. School Psychology Review 51(1):95-111. doi · Li D, Singh S, Jeldi N, Chang S, Zhu M, Dailey K, Karabukayeva A, Cai C (2026). What works to keep students in school? A meta-analysis of interventions to reduce school absenteeism. Behavioral Sciences 16(5):697. doi · Rogers T, Feller A (2018). Reducing student absences at scale by targeting parents' misbeliefs. Nature Human Behaviour 2(5):335-342. doi · Robinson CD, Lee MG, Dearing E, Rogers T (2018). Reducing student absenteeism in the early grades by targeting parental beliefs. American Educational Research Journal 55(6):1163-1192. doi · Lasky-Fink J, Robinson CD, Chang HN, Rogers T (2021). Using behavioral insights to improve school administrative communications: the case of truancy notifications. Educational Researcher 50(7):442-450. doi · Guryan J, Christenson S, Cureton A, Lai I, Ludwig J, Schwarz C, Shirey E, Turner MC (2021). The effect of mentoring on school attendance and academic outcomes: a randomized evaluation of the Check & Connect program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 40(3):841-882. doi · Sokol R, Degli Esposti M, Victor BG, Kernsmith P, Medina Del Toro V, Heinze J, Portugal J, Grinnell R, Gernaat E (2025). A school-based material needs intervention for chronic absenteeism: a state-wide staggered interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 80(3):174-181. doi · Maynard BR, McCrea KT, Pigott TD, Kelly MS (2012). Indicated truancy interventions: effects on school attendance among chronic truant students. Campbell Systematic Reviews 8(1). doi · Mazerolle L, Antrobus E, Bennett S, Eggins E (2017). Reducing truancy and fostering a willingness to attend school: results from a randomized trial of a police-school partnership program. Prevention Science 18(4):469-480. doi · Gottfried MA (2014). Chronic absenteeism and its effects on students' academic and socioemotional outcomes. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 19(2):53-75. doi · Dee TS (2024). Higher chronic absenteeism threatens academic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121(3):e2312249121. doi · Gubbels J, van der Put CE, Assink M (2019). Risk factors for school absenteeism and dropout: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48(9):1637-1667. doi · Cook PJ, Dodge KA, Gifford EJ, Schulting AB (2017). A new program to prevent primary school absenteeism: results of a pilot study in five schools. Children and Youth Services Review 82:262-270. doi · Heppen JB, Kurki A, Brown S (2020). Can texting parents improve attendance in elementary school? A test of an adaptive messaging strategy. NCEE 2020-006. Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. link · Balfanz R, Byrnes V (2012). The importance of being in school: a report on absenteeism in the nation's public schools. Everyone Graduates Center, Johns Hopkins University. link · Attendance Works (2024). 3 tiers of intervention: a multi-tiered system of support for attendance. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 5/5

Research. Systematic, explicit phonics instruction in K-1 raises word reading, spelling and comprehension by a moderate amount (about 0.4 SD) and is the only reading-disability treatment whose efficacy is confirmed in randomized trials; curriculum-based screening in K-2 predicts later reading well enough to find at-risk readers early. State 'science of reading' laws raise high-stakes elementary reading scores by a small amount so far, mainly where the policy is comprehensive, and the gains on low-stakes NAEP are not yet statistically clear. (Phonics d = 0.41 overall, 0.55 when begun in K-1; intensive K-3 interventions about 0.3 to 0.4 SD; state literacy laws +0.025 to +0.10 SD on state tests, NAEP effect not significant)

Mixed evidence. Suggate (2016) found phonics-only gains fade more at follow-up than phonemic awareness and comprehension gains, so phonics is necessary but not sufficient. Bowers (2020) reviewed 12 meta-analyses and argues the advantage of systematic phonics over alternative methods is smaller and less consistent than usually claimed; Torgerson et al. (2018) rate the effect moderate and the evidence base thinner than policy rhetoric implies. Westall and Cummings (2023) find that state early literacy laws move high-stakes scores by only 0.025 to 0.05 SD on average, that effects fade by middle school unless the policy is comprehensive, and that NAEP gains are not statistically significant; Mississippi's rise from 49th to the national average on fourth-grade NAEP reading (2013 to 2019) coincided with a package of screening, LETRS teacher training, coaching and third-grade retention, so no single component can claim the credit. Screening accuracy varies by tool and by how it is administered.

Standard. The policy shall require that core K-3 reading instruction be explicit and systematic in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, shall prohibit three-cueing as the primary word-reading strategy, and shall require a valid universal screener three times a year in K-3 with intervention for every student flagged at risk.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (academics and access)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Ehri LC, Nunes SR, Stahl SA, Willows DM (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 71(3):393-447. doi · National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. NIH Publication 00-4769. link · Galuschka K, Ise E, Krick K, Schulte-Korne G (2014). Effectiveness of treatment approaches for children and adolescents with reading disabilities: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 9(2):e89900. doi · Suggate SP (2016). A meta-analysis of the long-term effects of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and reading comprehension interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities 49(1):77-96. doi · Wanzek J, Stevens EA, Williams KJ, Scammacca N, Vaughn S, Sargent K (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities 51(6):612-624. doi · January SA, Klingbeil DA (2020). Universal screening in grades K-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of early reading curriculum-based measures. Journal of School Psychology 82:103-122. doi · Westall J, Cummings A (2023). The effects of early literacy policies on student achievement. EdWorkingPaper 23-788, Annenberg Institute at Brown University. doi · Novicoff S, Dee TS (2025). The achievement effects of scaling early literacy reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 48(2):589-612. doi · Torgerson C, Brooks G, Gascoine L, Higgins S (2018). Phonics: reading policy and the evidence of effectiveness from a systematic 'tertiary' review. Research Papers in Education 34(2):208-238. doi · Bowers JS (2020). Reconsidering the evidence that systematic phonics is more effective than alternative methods of reading instruction. Educational Psychology Review 32(3):681-705. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 4/5

Research. Two independent lottery-based randomized studies of early college high schools (North Carolina, followed 17 years, and the AIR national study, followed six years past graduation) find higher high school graduation, college enrollment, and degree completion, with very large effects on associate degrees and bachelor's gains for low-income and first-generation students. A Tennessee RCT of a dual-credit math course shifted students from remedial to precalculus and AP math and from two-year to four-year colleges, though it did not raise overall college enrollment. The What Works Clearinghouse rates dual enrollment as having positive effects on degree attainment, credit accumulation, and completing school. (Early college: college enrollment +7 percentage points (84 vs 77 percent at year 10 in NC), bachelor's +5 points (30 vs 25 percent), associate degree effects very large; AIR study: enrollment and degree completion up within six years. Dual-credit math RCT: no change in overall enrollment, shift toward four-year colleges for mid-achievers. Observational dual enrollment: degree attainment gains largest for low-income students.)

Mixed evidence. Early college effects come from a whole-school model with college-going culture, supports, and a community college partner on site; a la carte dual enrollment courses are not the same intervention. The Tennessee RCT of a single dual-credit course found no effect on overall college enrollment and only limited evidence of better college math performance. Dual enrollment and AP participation gaps by race exist in most districts, and gaps widen where seats expand without equity supports (Xu, Solanki and Fink 2021). Credits earned may not transfer to the student's eventual college, and some AIR early college impacts were stronger for students with higher prior achievement. Early college GPA at completion and double-majoring did not differ from controls.

Standard. Every high school shall offer dual enrollment with a public college partner at no cost to students, with automatic eligibility for students meeting an objective threshold, transportation and textbooks provided, and participation and credit outcomes reported annually by student group; districts of sufficient size shall operate or partner with an early college pathway.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (academics and access)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Edmunds JA, Unlu F, Phillips V, Glennie E, Mulhern C (2024). The Impact of Early Colleges on Postsecondary Performance and Completion. AERA Open 10. doi · Edmunds JA, Unlu F, Furey J, Glennie E, Arshavsky N (2020). What Happens When You Combine High School and College? The Impact of the Early College Model on Postsecondary Performance and Completion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 42(2):257-278. doi · Edmunds JA, Unlu F, Glennie E, Bernstein L, Fesler L, Furey J, Arshavsky N (2017). Smoothing the Transition to Postsecondary Education: The Impact of the Early College Model. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 10(2):297-325. doi · Song M, Zeiser K, Atchison D, Brodziak de los Reyes I (2021). Early College, Continued Success: Longer-Term Impact of Early College High Schools. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 14(1):116-142. doi · Hemelt SW, Schwartz NL, Dynarski SM (2020). Dual-Credit Courses and the Road to College: Experimental Evidence from Tennessee. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 39(3):686-719. doi · An BP (2013). The Impact of Dual Enrollment on College Degree Attainment: Do Low-SES Students Benefit? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 35(1):57-75. doi · Rosen R, Alterman E, Dixon M (2026). The P-TECH Model: Secondary and Postsecondary Findings From an Evaluation in New York City. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi · Xu D, Solanki S, Fink J (2021). College Acceleration for All? Mapping Racial Gaps in Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment Participation. American Educational Research Journal 58(5):954-992. doi · What Works Clearinghouse (2017). Dual Enrollment Programs: Intervention Report. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 4/5

Research. Across 96 randomized trials, tutoring raises achievement by about 0.29 SD, with the largest effects when teachers or paraprofessionals tutor, sessions run at least three days a week, and tutoring happens during the school day. Post-pandemic programs run at district scale have produced much smaller gains (0.04 to 0.09 SD in reading and no math effect in Nashville), and a 263-trial reanalysis puts the realistic effect of large, test-targeted programs at 0.16 to 0.22 SD. (+0.29 SD pooled in RCTs; +0.18 to +0.40 SD math in Chicago Saga RCTs; +0.16 to +0.22 SD expected at scale; Nashville district program +0.04 to +0.09 SD reading, 0 in math)

Mixed evidence. Effects shrink sharply with program scale: Kraft, Schueler and Falken (2026) find pooled effects fall from 0.40 SD in the full sample to 0.16 to 0.22 SD in studies that resemble large, standardized-test-targeted programs. Metro Nashville's district-run program, delivered partly before and after school by a mix of teachers and volunteers, produced only small reading gains and no math or grade effects (Kraft, Edwards and Cannata 2024). Opt-in and on-demand online tutoring is rarely used (under 1 percent of eligible students in New Mexico) and reaches higher-performing students. Pre-pandemic RCT effects came from programs costing several thousand dollars per student; thinner programs should expect thinner results.

Standard. Every student below benchmark on the district assessment shall be scheduled for tutoring in groups of four or fewer, at least three sessions a week of 30 minutes or more, during the school day, with a consistent trained tutor, and the district shall track delivered dosage and report it by school and student group.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain (1 sections touch related words but do not govern it). Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (academics and access)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Nickow A, Oreopoulos P, Quan V (2024). The Promise of Tutoring for PreK-12 Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. American Educational Research Journal 61(1):74-107. doi · Nickow A, Oreopoulos P, Quan V (2020). The Impressive Effects of Tutoring on PreK-12 Learning: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence. NBER Working Paper 27476. doi · Kraft MA, Schueler BE, Falken G (2026). What Impacts Should We Expect From Tutoring at Scale? Exploring Meta-Analytic Generalizability. Review of Educational Research. doi · Guryan J, Ludwig J, Bhatt MP, Cook PJ, Davis JMV, Dodge K, et al. (2023). Not Too Late: Improving Academic Outcomes among Adolescents. American Economic Review 113(3):738-765. doi · Kraft MA, Falken GT (2021). A Blueprint for Scaling Tutoring and Mentoring Across Public Schools. AERA Open 7. doi · Kraft MA, Edwards DS, Cannata M (2024). The Scaling Dynamics and Causal Effects of a District-Operated Tutoring Program. EdWorkingPaper 24-1030, Annenberg Institute at Brown University. doi · Dietrichson J, Bog M, Filges T, Klint Jorgensen AM (2017). Academic Interventions for Elementary and Middle School Students With Low Socioeconomic Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 87(2):243-282. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 4/5

Research. Which textbook a district adopts can move achievement as much as many costlier reforms: in California the best-performing elementary math series outscored its rivals by 0.05 to 0.08 SD at near-zero marginal cost, a randomized IES trial found differences of 4 to 7 percentile points between first and second grade math curricula, and a field experiment giving teachers high-quality off-the-shelf lessons raised math achievement by 0.06 SD at about 6 dollars per student. Effects depend on the specific materials and their use with aligned professional development; districts' formal adoption processes rarely examine evidence of effectiveness. (Textbook choice: 0.05 to 0.08 SD (California), roughly 0.1 to 0.17 SD between best and worst in the IES RCT. Online lessons plus supports: +0.06 SD math (RCT). Curriculum plus curriculum-based PD: positive effects on science achievement (RCT). Six-state Common Core era study: no detectable differences among textbooks.)

Mixed evidence. Blazar et al. (2020) examined elementary math textbooks across six states after the Common Core transition and found no meaningful differences in achievement among the most widely used books, a null that contrasts with the earlier California and Indiana findings; one explanation is that textbook use had become fragmented and teachers supplemented heavily. Effects in the IES trial and in California varied by grade and did not always persist. Standards alignment on the cover is unreliable: Polikoff (2015) found textbooks labeled Common Core aligned were poorly aligned. Materials without aligned professional development and without time to implement show weak effects, and Jackson and Makarin's gains were concentrated among teachers who actually used the lessons. Evidence for English language arts and secondary materials is thinner than for elementary math.

Standard. The district shall adopt core instructional materials for each subject and grade through a published process that requires an independent quality review, consideration of effectiveness evidence, a classroom pilot, and a curriculum-specific professional development plan, and shall maintain a public inventory of materials in use with achievement tracked after each adoption.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires the district to adopt core instructional materials for each subject and grade through a published adoption process. core
• ✕The policy requires an independent quality review of candidate materials before adoption.
• ✕The policy requires consideration of evidence of effectiveness before materials are adopted.
• ✕The policy requires a classroom pilot of candidate materials before adoption.
• ✕The policy requires a curriculum-specific professional development plan as part of each adoption.
• ✕The policy requires a public inventory of materials in use with achievement tracked after each adoption.

What the manual says. 108 Adoption of Textbooks, revised February 25, 2008:

Also governs: 107 Adoption of Courses of Study

Recommended. Amend 108 Adoption of Textbooks

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Koedel, C., Li, D., Polikoff, M. S., Hardaway, T., & Wrabel, S. L. (2017). Mathematics Curriculum Effects on Student Achievement in California. AERA Open 3(1). doi · Koedel, C., & Polikoff, M. (2017). Big bang for just a few bucks: The impact of math textbooks in California. Evidence Speaks Reports 2(5). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. link · Jackson, C. K., & Makarin, A. (2018). Can Online Off-the-Shelf Lessons Improve Student Outcomes? Evidence from a Field Experiment. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 10(3):226-254. doi · Agodini, R., Harris, B., Thomas, M., Murphy, R., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Achievement Effects of Four Early Elementary School Math Curricula: Findings for First and Second Graders. NCEE 2011-4001. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. link · Bhatt, R., & Koedel, C. (2012). Large-Scale Evaluations of Curricular Effectiveness: The Case of Elementary Mathematics in Indiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34(4):391-412. doi · Blazar, D., Heller, B., Kane, T. J., Polikoff, M., Staiger, D. O., Carrell, S., Goldhaber, D., Harris, D. N., Hitch, R., Holden, K. L., & Kurlaender, M. (2020). Curriculum Reform in the Common Core Era: Evaluating Elementary Math Textbooks Across Six U.S. States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 39(4):966-1019. doi · Taylor, J. A., Getty, S. R., Kowalski, S. M., Wilson, C. D., Carlson, J., & Van Scotter, P. (2015). An Efficacy Trial of Research-Based Curriculum Materials With Curriculum-Based Professional Development. American Educational Research Journal 52(5):984-1017. doi · Polikoff, M. S., Campbell, S. E., Rabovsky, S., Koedel, C., Le, Q. T., Hardaway, T., & Gasparian, H. (2020). The formalized processes districts use to evaluate mathematics textbooks. Journal of Curriculum Studies 52(4):451-477. doi · Kaufman, J. H., Doan, S., & Fernandez, M. P. (2021). The Rise of Standards-Aligned Instructional Materials for U.S. K-12 Mathematics and English Language Arts Instruction. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. doi · Steiner, D. (2017). Curriculum Research: What We Know and Where We Need to Go. Washington, DC: StandardsWork, for the Knowledge Matters Campaign. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 4/5

Research. The components of a tiered system work when they are done well: K-3 supplemental reading interventions average about 0.4 SD across dozens of rigorous studies, early K-2 screeners predict later reading, and a randomized trial shows that starting intervention immediately after screening beats waiting a semester (d = 0.36). The one large evaluation of RtI as schools actually ran it (Balu et al. 2015, 146 schools in 13 states) found that first graders just below the cutoff who were pulled into Tier 2 or 3 scored lower in spring than peers just above it, with no effect in grades 2 and 3. (Tier 2 and intensive K-3 reading interventions ES about 0.3 to 0.5; immediate versus delayed intervention d = 0.36; national RtI evaluation: grade 1 negative (about -0.1 SD), grades 2-3 null)

Mixed evidence. Balu et al. (2015) is the only large-scale evaluation of RtI practice and its result was null to negative; Gersten, Jayanthi and Dimino (2017) and Fuchs and Fuchs (2017) argue the design captured students near the cutoff who were often pulled from core instruction into undifferentiated groups, so it tests weak implementation rather than the model, but the finding stands as a warning that labels and tiers do not help by themselves. Burns et al. (2005) reported very large effects for RtI models, but from a small set of mostly non-experimental field studies. Most district MTSS policies describe structures (teams, tiers, forms) and not instructional content, intensity or dosage, which is where the measurable effects live. Universal screening generates false positives at the K-1 level and its accuracy depends on the measure and administration quality.

Standard. The policy shall name the screener, the screening windows, the timeline from flag to intervention, the minimum dosage of Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction delivered in addition to core instruction, the progress-monitoring interval and the decision rule for moving students between tiers.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (academics and access)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Balu R, Zhu P, Doolittle F, Schiller E, Jenkins J, Gersten R (2015). Evaluation of Response to Intervention Practices for Elementary School Reading. NCEE 2016-4000. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. link · Gersten R, Jayanthi M, Dimino J (2017). Too much, too soon? Unanswered questions from national Response to Intervention evaluation. Exceptional Children 83(3):244-254. doi · Fuchs D, Fuchs LS (2017). Critique of the national evaluation of Response to Intervention: A case for simpler frameworks. Exceptional Children 83(3):255-268. doi · Gersten R, Haymond K, Newman-Gonchar R, Dimino J, Jayanthi M (2020). Meta-analysis of the impact of reading interventions for students in the primary grades. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 13(2):401-427. doi · Wanzek J, Vaughn S, Scammacca N, Gatlin B, Walker MA, Capin P (2016). Meta-analyses of the effects of Tier 2 type reading interventions in grades K-3. Educational Psychology Review 28(3):551-576. doi · Wanzek J, Stevens EA, Williams KJ, Scammacca N, Vaughn S, Sargent K (2018). Current evidence on the effects of intensive early reading interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities 51(6):612-624. doi · Al Otaiba S, Connor CM, Folsom JS, Wanzek J, Greulich L, Schatschneider C, Wagner RK (2014). To wait in Tier 1 or intervene immediately: A randomized experiment examining first-grade response to intervention in reading. Exceptional Children 81(1):11-27. doi · January SA, Klingbeil DA (2020). Universal screening in grades K-2: A systematic review and meta-analysis of early reading curriculum-based measures. Journal of School Psychology 82:103-122. doi · Jenkins JR, Hudson RF, Johnson ES (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a Response to Intervention framework. School Psychology Review 36(4):582-600. doi · Gersten R, Compton D, Connor CM, Dimino J, Santoro L, Linan-Thompson S, Tilly WD (2009). Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades. IES Practice Guide NCEE 2009-4045. What Works Clearinghouse. link · Burns MK, Appleton JJ, Stehouwer JD (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 23(4):381-394. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Structured CTE pathways, meaning multi-year sequences with employer partners, work-based learning, and a credential, raise graduation and earnings in causal studies: the MDRC career academies RCT found earnings 11 percent higher eight years after high school (17 percent for young men), Massachusetts and Connecticut regression-discontinuity studies find 7 to 10 point gains in on-time graduation and, in Connecticut, 32 percent higher quarterly earnings for men, and New York City's lottery-based P-TECH evaluation found associate degree completion up 5 percentage points with dual enrollment more than doubled. Effects come from depth in one field, not scattered introductory courses, and are concentrated among young men. (Career academies: earnings +11 percent per year over 8 years (+17 percent men), attainment unchanged. Massachusetts regional vocational schools: on-time graduation +7 to +10 points. Connecticut technical high schools: graduation +10 points and quarterly earnings +32 percent for men, no effect for women. P-TECH: associate degree +5 points, internships +38 points. Upper-level CTE courses: about +2 percent wages per additional year; introductory courses 0.)

Mixed evidence. Gains are uneven. Career academies did not raise educational attainment, and the Connecticut technical schools had no measurable effect on women. P-TECH's degree effects were concentrated among young men, and its interim credits were mostly in CTE and non-academic subjects. Earnings returns vary widely by field, with health care and IT far above others and some fields near zero (Ecton and Dougherty 2023), and returns accrue only to upper-level coursework in a single field (Kreisman and Stange 2020). The strongest effects come from whole-school or regional CTE models with oversubscribed admissions; a single elective or a program without employer partners should not expect these results. Kemple warned that partial implementation of the academy model may not reproduce the impacts.

Standard. Every high school shall offer at least one multi-year CTE pathway aligned to a regional high-wage field with an employer partner, work-based learning, dual credit, and an industry credential; admission to oversubscribed pathways shall be by lottery or objective criteria, and completion and post-graduation outcomes shall be reported by student group.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires every high school to offer at least one multi-year CTE pathway aligned to a regional high-wage field. core
• ✕The policy requires each pathway to include an employer partner and work-based learning.
• ✕The policy requires each pathway to include dual credit and an industry credential.
• ✕The policy requires admission to oversubscribed pathways to be by lottery or objective criteria.
• ✕The policy requires completion and post-graduation outcomes to be reported by student group.

What the manual says. 115 Vocational Technical Education, revised December 18, 2006:

Recommended. Amend 115 Vocational Technical Education

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Kemple JJ, Willner CJ (2008). Career Academies: Long-Term Impacts on Labor Market Outcomes, Educational Attainment, and Transitions to Adulthood. MDRC. link · Dougherty SM (2018). The Effect of Career and Technical Education on Human Capital Accumulation: Causal Evidence from Massachusetts. Education Finance and Policy 13(2):119-148. doi · Brunner EJ, Dougherty SM, Ross SL (2023). The Effects of Career and Technical Education: Evidence from the Connecticut Technical High School System. Review of Economics and Statistics 105(4):867-882. doi · Rosen R, Alterman E, Dixon M (2026). The P-TECH Model: Secondary and Postsecondary Findings From an Evaluation in New York City. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. doi · Rosen R, Alterman E, Treskon L, Parise L, Dixon M, Wuest C (2023). P-TECH 9-14 Pathways to Success: Implementation, Impact, and Cost Findings from the New York City P-TECH 9-14 Schools Evaluation. MDRC. link · Kreisman D, Stange K (2020). Vocational and Career Tech Education in American High Schools: The Value of Depth Over Breadth. Education Finance and Policy 15(1):11-44. doi · Ecton WG, Dougherty SM (2023). Heterogeneity in High School Career and Technical Education Outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 45(1):157-181. doi · Hemelt SW, Lenard MA, Paeplow CO (2019). Building bridges to life after high school: Contemporary career academies and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review 68:161-178. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Voluntary summer programs with at least five weeks and three hours of daily academic instruction produce modest gains for students who attend regularly: a meta-analysis of 37 studies finds +0.10 SD in math, a meta-analysis of 41 summer reading interventions finds significant reading gains concentrated among low-income children, and the RAND five-district randomized study found a near-term math benefit after one summer with persistent math and language arts advantages for high attenders after two. Extending the regular school day for literacy in low-performing Florida schools raised reading 0.05 SD in a regression-discontinuity design. (Summer math programs +0.10 SD (meta-analysis); summer reading interventions significant, larger for low-income children; RAND RCT: math gain after one summer that faded by fall, high attenders ahead in math and language arts through spring of the following year; Florida extra literacy hour +0.05 SD reading)

Mixed evidence. Intent-to-treat effects are small and fade: in the RAND study the causal benefit of being offered the program dissipated by the next fall, offering a second summer showed no significant causal effect, and three years later high-attender advantages were no longer statistically significant. Attendance is the binding constraint, and the students who attend 20 or more days differ from those who do not, so the high-attender estimates are correlational. Von Hippel and Hamrock (2019) show that much of the canonical summer-learning-loss literature was distorted by test scaling artifacts, and gaps form mainly before school entry, which weakens the rationale for summer programs as a gap-closing tool. Extended-day and extended-year studies are mostly weak in design (Patall et al. 2010), and added time costs staff pay and transportation.

Standard. The district offers a free summer program of at least five weeks with at least three hours of daily academic instruction by certified teachers, prioritized for students below grade level, and reports attendance and achievement growth for attenders each year.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy provides a free summer program of at least five weeks with at least three hours of daily academic instruction. core
• ✕The policy requires that summer academic instruction be delivered by certified teachers.
• ✕The policy prioritizes summer program enrollment for students performing below grade level.
• ✕The policy requires annual reporting of summer program attendance.
• ✕The policy requires annual reporting of achievement growth for students who attended the summer program.

What the manual says. 124 Summer School, revised June 20, 1994:

Recommended. Amend 124 Summer School

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Lynch K, An L, Mancenido Z (2023). The impact of summer programs on student mathematics achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 93(2):275-315. doi · Kim JS, Quinn DM (2013). The effects of summer reading on low-income children's literacy achievement from kindergarten to grade 8: A meta-analysis of classroom and home interventions. Review of Educational Research 83(3):386-431. doi · Augustine CH, McCombs JS, Pane JF, Schwartz HL, Schweig J, McEachin A, Siler-Evans K (2016). Learning from summer: Effects of voluntary summer learning programs on low-income urban youth. RAND Corporation, RR-1557-WF. doi · McCombs JS, Augustine CH, Pane JF, Schweig J (2020). Every summer counts: A longitudinal analysis of outcomes from the National Summer Learning Project. RAND Corporation, RR-3201-WF. doi · Figlio D, Holden KL, Ozek U (2018). Do students benefit from longer school days? Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida's additional hour of literacy instruction. Economics of Education Review 67:171-183. doi · Patall EA, Cooper H, Allen AB (2010). Extending the school day or school year: A systematic review of research (1985-2009). Review of Educational Research 80(3):401-436. doi · Kidron Y, Lindsay J (2014). The effects of increased learning time on student academic and nonacademic outcomes: Findings from a meta-analytic review. REL 2014-015. Washington, DC: Regional Educational Laboratory Appalachia, Institute of Education Sciences. link · Atteberry A, McEachin A (2021). School's out: The role of summers in understanding achievement disparities. American Educational Research Journal 58(2):239-282. doi · von Hippel PT, Hamrock C (2019). Do test score gaps grow before, during, or between the school years? Measurement artifacts and what we can know in spite of them. Sociological Science 6:43-80. doi · Fitzpatrick MD, Grissmer D, Hastedt S (2011). What a difference a day makes: Estimating daily learning gains during kindergarten and first grade using a natural experiment. Economics of Education Review 30(2):269-279. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Causal studies find that participation pays: Houston's randomized arts-access initiative (42 schools, more than 10,000 students) reduced disciplinary infractions, raised writing achievement and increased empathy and, for elementary students, school engagement and college aspirations; Title IX's forced expansion of girls' sports raised women's college attendance and employment (Stevenson); German sports-club participation improved grades and health. Longitudinal work (Fredricks and Eccles) links breadth of participation to higher GPA, college enrollment and lower risk behavior. Fees are the main access barrier: average required fees in 2018 to 2019 were $161 for sports, $86 for arts and $46 for clubs, lower-income students are twice as likely not to participate, and only 7% of parents have ever requested a waiver. (arts RCT: discipline referrals down, writing up, empathy up; Title IX sports expansion: +1 pp college attendance per 10 pp participation; lower-income nonparticipation about 2x; waiver uptake 7%)

Mixed evidence. Most of the participation literature is correlational and selection runs strongly (motivated, better-resourced students join), so effect sizes from longitudinal studies overstate causal returns. The Houston RCT found no effect on attendance, math, reading or science scores, and only elementary students showed engagement gains. Zdroik and Veliz found Michigan schools with pay-to-play fees had similar participation rates to schools without fees, but the schools able to charge fees were larger, whiter and lower-poverty, which is the selection problem itself rather than evidence that fees are harmless. Fee elimination has a real budget cost and the research does not show which activities yield the most per dollar. Sports carry injury and concussion costs that the achievement studies do not count.

Standard. The district shall guarantee that no student is excluded from any school-sponsored activity for inability to pay, shall grant automatic fee waivers to students eligible for free or reduced-price meals without a separate application, shall provide weekly arts instruction in every elementary grade, and shall report participation by subgroup to the board annually.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy guarantees that no student is excluded from any school-sponsored activity for inability to pay. core
• ✕The policy grants automatic fee waivers to students eligible for free or reduced-price meals.
• ✕The policy requires no separate application for the fee waiver.
• ✕The policy provides weekly arts instruction in every elementary grade.
• ✕The policy requires participation to be reported by subgroup to the board annually.

What the manual says. 122 Extracurricular Activities, revised September 27, 2021:

Recommended. Amend 123 Interscholastic Athletics

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Bowen DH, Kisida B (2023). Investigating the Causal Effects of Arts Education. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 42(3):624-647. doi · Fredricks JA, Eccles JS (2006). Is extracurricular participation associated with beneficial outcomes? Concurrent and longitudinal relations. Developmental Psychology 42(4):698-713. doi · Stevenson B (2010). Beyond the Classroom: Using Title IX to Measure the Return to High School Sports. Review of Economics and Statistics 92(2):284-301. doi · Felfe C, Lechner M, Steinmayr A (2016). Sports and Child Development. PLOS ONE 11(5):e0151729. doi · Zdroik J, Veliz P (2016). The Influence of Pay-To-Play Fees on Participation in Interscholastic Sports: A School-Level Analysis of Michigan's Public Schools. Journal of Physical Activity and Health 13(12):1317-1324. doi · C.S. Mott Children's Hospital National Poll on Children's Health (2019). Pay-to-Participate: Impact on School Activities. March 18, 2019. link · Farb AF, Matjasko JL (2012). Recent advances in research on school-based extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Developmental Review 32(1):1-48. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Replacing teacher or parent referral with universal screening of every student, with no change in the eligibility cutoff, raised gifted identification in Broward County from 3.3 to 5.5 percent of second graders, with the largest gains for low-income, Black, Hispanic and English learner students who had been systematically under-referred. Black students with the same test scores are referred less often than White students, especially by non-Black teachers, which is why referral-based systems miss them. (Broward universal screening: identification rate +67 percent overall; Hispanic identification roughly +130 percent, Black +80 percent, with eligibility cutoffs unchanged. Local (school) norms would further raise Black and Latinx representation. Gifted services themselves: achievement effects for marginal students near zero in RD studies, though high-achiever classrooms raised Black and Hispanic scores by 0.5 SD in one district.)

Mixed evidence. Universal screening fixes who is found, not what they get: regression-discontinuity and lottery studies find little or no short-run achievement gain for students at the margin of gifted eligibility (Bui, Craig and Imberman 2014), and nationally representative data show Black and low-income students do not see the small gains their peers get from gifted services (Redding and Grissom 2021). Broward suspended universal screening during budget cuts and identification fell back, showing the policy needs a funded test every year. Screening with a single nonverbal test can still under-identify English learners unless local norms or multiple measures are used.

Standard. Every student shall be screened for advanced learning services with a validated instrument at least once in the primary grades and once in middle school, without a prior referral, using multiple measures and local norms, and identification rates by student group shall be published annually.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires every student to be screened for advanced learning services without a prior teacher or parent referral. core
• ✕The policy requires the screening to use a validated instrument.
• ✕The policy requires screening at least once in the primary grades and once in middle school.
• ✕The policy requires identification to use multiple measures and local norms.
• ✕The policy requires identification rates by student group to be published annually.

What the manual says. 114 Programs for Gifted Students, revised October 18, 2018:

Recommended. Amend 114 Programs for Gifted Students

Sources. Card D, Giuliano L (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(48):13678-13683. doi · Grissom JA, Redding C (2016). Discretion and Disproportionality: Explaining the Underrepresentation of High-Achieving Students of Color in Gifted Programs. AERA Open 2(1). doi · McBee MT, Peters SJ, Miller EM (2016). The Impact of the Nomination Stage on Gifted Program Identification: A Comprehensive Psychometric Analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly 60(4):258-278. doi · Peters SJ, Rambo-Hernandez K, Makel MC, Matthews MS, Plucker JA (2019). Effect of Local Norms on Racial and Ethnic Representation in Gifted Education. AERA Open 5(2). doi · Card D, Giuliano L (2016). Can Tracking Raise the Test Scores of High-Ability Minority Students? American Economic Review 106(10):2783-2816. doi · Bui SA, Craig SG, Imberman SA (2014). Is Gifted Education a Bright Idea? Assessing the Impact of Gifted and Talented Programs on Students. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 6(3):30-62. doi · Redding C, Grissom JA (2021). Do Students in Gifted Programs Perform Better? Linking Gifted Program Participation to Achievement and Nonachievement Outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(3):520-544. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Regression discontinuity studies of test-based third-grade retention paired with intensive reading intervention (Florida, Indiana, Mississippi) show large short-run reading gains, with Indiana and Mississippi gains persisting into middle school. Long-run evidence is split: Florida retainees reached high school with higher GPAs and less remediation and no graduation penalty, while a 2026 Texas study finds retained third graders were 9 points less likely to graduate and earned 19 percent less at 26, and retention in later grades (Chicago grade 8, Louisiana grade 8) raises dropout and juvenile crime. (Short-run reading gains of roughly 0.2 to 0.6 SD that fade or persist by state; Texas: graduation -9 pp, earnings at 26 -19%; older grades: dropout up; disciplinary incidents up short-run (Florida))

Mixed evidence. Zhong (2026, Texas) is the longest follow-up of a modern test-based policy and finds net harm: higher absenteeism, violent behavior and juvenile crime, lower graduation and earnings despite temporary score gains. Ozek (2015) finds Florida retention raised disciplinary incidents and suspensions in the short run, concentrated among poor and male students. Jacob and Lefgren (2009) find grade 8 retention in Chicago raises dropout. Eren, Depew and Barnes (2017) find grade 8 retention in Louisiana raises juvenile crime. The pre-2000 literature summarized by Jimerson (2001) associated retention with worse achievement and adjustment, though Allen et al. (2009) show the negative estimates shrink toward zero in better-designed studies. The positive results all come from retention bundled with summer reading camps, high-quality teachers and intervention plans; nothing in the evidence supports retention alone. Retention costs taxpayers about one additional year of schooling per retained student, less than previously estimated (Winters 2022) but still substantial.

Standard. The policy shall prohibit retention as a stand-alone response, shall require that any retention in grades K-3 be preceded by documented intervention and followed by a written individual reading plan with a different and more intensive program, shall provide good-cause exemptions, and shall prohibit retention in grades 6 through 8 as a consequence of test scores alone.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy prohibits retention as a stand-alone response to a student's academic performance. core
• ✕The policy requires that any retention in grades K-3 be preceded by documented intervention.
• ✕The policy requires that any retention in grades K-3 be followed by a written individual reading plan.
• ✕The policy requires that the individual reading plan for a retained K-3 student use a different and more intensive program.
• ✕The policy provides good-cause exemptions from retention.
• ✕The policy prohibits retention in grades 6 through 8 as a consequence of test scores alone.

What the manual says. 215 Promotion and Retention, revised June 20, 1994:

Recommended. Amend 215 Promotion and Retention

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Schwerdt G, West MR, Winters MA (2017). The effects of test-based retention on student outcomes over time: Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida. Journal of Public Economics 152:154-169. doi · Hwang NY, Koedel C (2023). Helping or hurting: The effects of retention in the third grade on student outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 47(1):65-88. doi · Slungaard Mumma K, Winters MA (2023). The Effect of Retention Under Mississippi's Test-Based Promotion Policy. Working paper, Wheelock Educational Policy Center, Boston University. link · Zhong J (2026). Early grade retention harms adult earnings. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 18(4):276-308. doi · Jacob BA, Lefgren L (2009). The effect of grade retention on high school completion. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(3):33-58. doi · Eren O, Depew B, Barnes S (2017). Test-based promotion policies, dropping out, and juvenile crime. Journal of Public Economics 153:9-31. doi · Ozek U (2015). Hold back to move forward? Early grade retention and student misbehavior. Education Finance and Policy 10(3):350-377. doi · Figlio D, Ozek U (2020). An extra year to learn English? Early grade retention and the human capital development of English learners. Journal of Public Economics 186:104184. doi · Allen CS, Chen Q, Willson VL, Hughes JN (2009). Quality of research design moderates effects of grade retention on achievement: A meta-analytic, multilevel analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31(4):480-499. doi · Jimerson SR (2001). Meta-analysis of grade retention research: Implications for practice in the 21st century. School Psychology Review 30(3):420-437. doi · Winters MA (2022). The cost of retention under a test-based promotion policy for taxpayers and students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 45(4):688-695. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. The evidence favors objective, transparent placement into accelerated math with instructional support, and cuts against both extremes. Placing moderately prepared students into Algebra I in eighth grade without extra support lowered their pass rates and later math course completion in North Carolina and reduced tenth grade math scores in California's push for algebra for all; placing students by an objective prior-achievement rule in Wake County removed race and income from placement decisions, and a randomized Dee and Huffaker study found that putting below-grade-level ninth graders into Algebra I with teacher training raised grade 11 math achievement by up to 0.2 SD. Delaying algebra for everyone, as San Francisco did, cut AP math participation 15 percent at first and left ethnoracial gaps unchanged. (Universal early algebra without support: negative on test scores and later course passing. Objective placement rule: equity of placement improved, test scores unchanged, grades lower. Detracking plus teacher training (Algebra I for below-grade-level ninth graders): +0.2 SD grade 11 math, attendance up. SFUSD delay of Algebra I: AP math participation initially down 6 percentage points, gaps unchanged. Double-dose algebra for low scorers: college enrollment up.)

Mixed evidence. Results depend on who is accelerated and what support comes with it. Clotfelter, Ladd and Vigdor (2015) found that Charlotte-Mecklenburg students accelerated into eighth grade algebra scored lower on the Algebra I exam and were less likely to pass geometry and Algebra II later. Domina et al. (2015) found that raising eighth grade algebra enrollment lowered tenth grade math achievement in large California districts. Chicago's curriculum-for-all policy raised algebra credits but also failure rates with no test score gains (Allensworth et al. 2009). Wake County's objective rule improved access but accelerated students did not gain on test scores or college readiness and earned lower grades (Dougherty et al. 2017). On the other side, removing eighth grade algebra for all students in San Francisco did not close gaps and initially reduced AP calculus participation (Huffaker, Novicoff and Dee 2025). High-achiever classrooms raised Black and Hispanic scores by 0.5 SD in one district (Card and Giuliano 2016), so grouping by readiness can help the students it is meant to help when seats are allocated by objective criteria.

Standard. Math placement shall use published objective criteria from multiple measures, place every student who meets them in the accelerated course with parent opt-out, provide a supported path (double period, tutoring, or summer bridge) for students near the cutoff, and never bar a readiness-qualified student from Algebra I in eighth grade.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (academics and access)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Dougherty SM, Goodman JS, Hill DV, Litke EG, Page LC (2015). Middle School Math Acceleration and Equitable Access to Eighth-Grade Algebra: Evidence From the Wake County Public School System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37(1S):80S-101S. doi · Dougherty SM, Goodman JS, Hill DV, Litke EG, Page LC (2017). Objective course placement and college readiness: Evidence from targeted middle school math acceleration. Economics of Education Review 58:141-161. doi · Clotfelter CT, Ladd HF, Vigdor JL (2015). The Aftermath of Accelerating Algebra: Evidence from District Policy Initiatives. Journal of Human Resources 50(1):159-188. doi · Domina T, McEachin A, Penner A, Penner E (2015). Aiming High and Falling Short: California's Eighth-Grade Algebra-for-All Effort. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37(3):275-295. doi · Allensworth E, Nomi T, Montgomery N, Lee VE (2009). College Preparatory Curriculum for All: Academic Consequences of Requiring Algebra and English I for Ninth Graders in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 31(4):367-391. doi · Cortes KE, Goodman JS, Nomi T (2015). Intensive Math Instruction and Educational Attainment: Long-Run Impacts of Double-Dose Algebra. Journal of Human Resources 50(1):108-158. doi · Dee TS, Huffaker E (2026). Accelerating Opportunity: The Effects of Instructionally Supported Detracking. American Educational Research Journal 63(2):307-350. doi · Huffaker E, Novicoff S, Dee TS (2025). Ahead of the Game? Course-Taking Patterns Under a Math Pathways Reform. Educational Researcher 54(2):91-102. doi · Card D, Giuliano L (2016). Can Tracking Raise the Test Scores of High-Ability Minority Students? American Economic Review 106(10):2783-2816. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. When districts automatically place every student who meets an objective readiness threshold into the next advanced course, with parent opt-out instead of opt-in, advanced course enrollment rises and gaps by race and income narrow without lowering grades or graduation; Washington's Academic Acceleration policies raised the chance of taking any advanced course by about 5 percent district-wide and more among proficient students who had been passed over. Effects on later college enrollment and persistence from the high school version of the policy are null so far. (WA Academic Acceleration: advanced course enrollment up, gaps narrowed, GPA and graduation unchanged; college enrollment and persistence unchanged. Wake County objective math placement: income and race no longer predicted placement; on-track-for-algebra share up. Earning AP credit raises degree completion (regression discontinuity).)

Mixed evidence. The best-studied high school automatic enrollment policy (Washington, grades 11 and 12) did not change college enrollment, first-year coursetaking, or persistence to a second year (Austin et al. 2026). Wake County's objective placement improved access but accelerated students earned lower course grades in middle school and the acceleration did not raise test scores or college readiness measures (Dougherty et al. 2017). Expanding AP and dual enrollment seats without supports is associated with wider, not narrower, racial participation gaps across districts (Xu, Solanki and Fink 2021). Access is necessary but not sufficient; the courses must be taught well and students supported to pass them.

Standard. The policy shall name an objective readiness threshold, require automatic enrollment of every student who meets it in the next most rigorous course offered, allow only written parent opt-out, and require annual public reporting of participation and success by student group.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (academics and access)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Austin M, Backes B, Goldhaber D, Li D, Streich F (2025). Leveling Up: An Academic Acceleration Policy to Increase Equity in Advanced High School Course Taking. American Educational Research Journal 62(1):136-179. doi · Austin M, Mbekeani P, Backes B, Chen B, Goldhaber D (2026). High School Academic Acceleration and Early Postsecondary Outcomes: Evidence from Washington State. CALDER Working Paper 341-0826. link · Dougherty SM, Goodman JS, Hill DV, Litke EG, Page LC (2015). Middle School Math Acceleration and Equitable Access to Eighth-Grade Algebra: Evidence From the Wake County Public School System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37(1S):80S-101S. doi · Dougherty SM, Goodman JS, Hill DV, Litke EG, Page LC (2017). Objective course placement and college readiness: Evidence from targeted middle school math acceleration. Economics of Education Review 58:141-161. doi · Card D, Giuliano L (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(48):13678-13683. doi · Smith J, Hurwitz M, Avery C (2017). Giving College Credit Where It Is Due: Advanced Placement Exam Scores and College Outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics 35(1):67-147. doi · Jackson CK (2014). Do College-Preparatory Programs Improve Long-Term Outcomes? Economic Inquiry 52(1):72-99. doi · Xu D, Solanki S, Fink J (2021). College Acceleration for All? Mapping Racial Gaps in Advanced Placement and Dual Enrollment Participation. American Educational Research Journal 58(5):954-992. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Receiving special education services causally raises achievement and attainment for students with disabilities (Texas: removing services lowered high school completion and college enrollment; NYC and Texas: entering special education raised test scores by roughly 0.1 SD), and large correlational and meta-analytic literatures find that students with disabilities who spend most of the day in general education classrooms do better academically with no detectable cost to their peers (d = 0.35 for students with general learning difficulties; peers d = 0.12 to null). Co-teaching shows a medium positive effect in a 2021 meta-analysis. The causal evidence on placement itself, as opposed to services, is thin and contested, so the best-supported policy is a documented, data-driven least restrictive environment decision for each student rather than a placement quota in either direction. (Special education services: about +0.1 SD achievement; service removal lowered high school completion and college entry. Inclusive placement: d = 0.35 cognitive outcomes for students with learning difficulties (meta-analysis of mostly non-randomized studies); peers d = 0.12 (small positive) to null. Co-teaching: medium positive effect on achievement for students with disabilities.)

Mixed evidence. Gilmour (2018) and Gilmour, Fuchs and Wehby (2018) show that the inclusion-achievement correlation is confounded by selection: students with stronger skills and fewer behavior challenges are placed in general education, and the reading gap for students with disabilities is about 1.2 SD regardless of setting. Hanushek, Kain and Rivkin (2002) found special education raised math for students with learning and emotional disabilities but found no difference between general and special classroom settings. Krämer, Möller and Zimmermann (2021) report no psychosocial benefit of inclusion (d = 0.00) and note selection effects in the underlying studies. Correlational work finds higher teacher turnover and more management time in classes with larger shares of students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Co-teaching effects depend on implementation; much co-teaching in practice is one-teach, one-assist with little specialized instruction. Inclusion done by moving students without moving services or training is not supported by any of this evidence.

Standard. Every placement decision shall start from the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services, document in the IEP the specific reasons a more restrictive setting is required, and be reviewed against the student's academic and behavioral data at least annually; the district shall report placement and outcome data for students with disabilities by school each year.

Checklist. 0 of 4 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires every placement decision to start from the general education classroom with supplementary aids and services. core
• ✕The policy requires the IEP to document the specific reasons a more restrictive setting is required.
• ✕The policy requires each placement to be reviewed against the student's academic and behavioral data at least annually.
• ✕The policy requires the district to report placement and outcome data for students with disabilities by school each year.

What the manual says. 113 Special Education, revised September 23, 2002:

Recommended. Amend 113 Special Education

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Hehir, T., Grindal, T., Freeman, B., Lamoreau, R., Borquaye, Y., & Burke, S. (2016). A Summary of the Evidence on Inclusive Education. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, for Instituto Alana. link · Cole, S. M., Murphy, H. R., Frisby, M. B., Grossi, T. A., & Bolte, H. R. (2020). The Relationship of Special Education Placement and Student Academic Outcomes. The Journal of Special Education 54(4):217-227. doi · Gilmour, A. F. (2018). Has Inclusion Gone Too Far? Weighing Its Effects on Students With Disabilities, Their Peers, and Teachers. Education Next 18(4). link · Gilmour, A. F., Fuchs, D., & Wehby, J. H. (2019). Are Students With Disabilities Accessing the Curriculum? A Meta-Analysis of the Reading Achievement Gap Between Students With and Without Disabilities. Exceptional Children 85(3):329-346. doi · Ballis, B., & Heath, K. (2021). The Long-Run Impacts of Special Education. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 13(4):72-111. doi · Schwartz, A. E., Hopkins, B. G., & Stiefel, L. (2021). The Effects of Special Education on the Academic Performance of Students with Learning Disabilities. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 40(2):480-520. doi · Hurwitz, S., Perry, B., Cohen, E. D., & Skiba, R. (2020). Special Education and Individualized Academic Growth: A Longitudinal Assessment of Outcomes for Students With Disabilities. American Educational Research Journal 57(2):576-611. doi · Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2002). Inferring Program Effects for Special Populations: Does Special Education Raise Achievement for Students with Disabilities? Review of Economics and Statistics 84(4):584-599. doi · Krämer, S., Möller, J., & Zimmermann, F. (2021). Inclusive Education of Students With General Learning Difficulties: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research 91(3):432-478. doi · Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Karwowski, M. (2017). Academic achievement of students without special educational needs in inclusive classrooms: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 21:33-54. doi · King-Sears, M. E., Stefanidis, A., Berkeley, S., & Strogilos, V. (2021). Does co-teaching improve academic achievement for students with disabilities? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 34:100405. doi · Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & McCulley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools 49(5):498-510. doi · Theobald, R. J., Goldhaber, D. D., Gratz, T. M., & Holden, K. L. (2019). Career and Technical Education, Inclusion, and Postsecondary Outcomes for Students With Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities 52(2):109-119. doi · Gilmour, A. F., & Henry, G. T. (2018). A Comparison of Teacher Quality in Math for Late Elementary and Middle School Students With and Without Disabilities. The Elementary School Journal 118(3):426-451. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier C: consistent correlational evidencestakes 2/5

Research. Grades measure a mix of academic mastery and behavior and vary widely from teacher to teacher. The causal evidence favors two things: higher grading standards raise learning (Algebra I students of tougher graders learn more and keep the gain in later courses), and a standards-based system with formative feedback and reassessment for full credit raised ninth-grade math test scores by 0.33 SD in a cluster RCT. The specific rules districts fight over, no zeros, 50-percent floors and late-work penalties, have almost no outcome research; the one study of a minimum-grade policy is from a single school. (Higher teacher grading standards: positive effect on test scores and later math courses; PARLO standards-based grading RCT: +0.33 SD; minimum-grade and no-zero policies: no causal outcome evidence)

Mixed evidence. Carey and Carifio (2012) found no grade inflation or social promotion under a 50-point floor at one urban high school over seven years, but it is a single site with no comparison group. Reeves (2004) argues against zeros on arithmetic grounds (a zero on a 100-point scale is a six-point penalty on a 4-point scale), which is a measurement argument, not outcome evidence. Welsh, D'Agostino and Kaniskan (2013) find standards-based report-card grades only moderately converge with state test scores and vary more within schools than between them. Hjorth-Trolle, Rosenqvist and Hed (2021) show that changing grading practice (Sweden's move from relative to absolute grades) widened the gap between students of low- and high-educated parents, so grading reforms can move equity in either direction. Gershenson, Holt and Tyner (2024), Betts and Grogger (2003) and Figlio and Lucas (2004) all point the other way from lenient grading: students learn more under higher standards. Equity-grading programs such as Feldman's have practitioner and pilot data but no peer-reviewed causal evaluation.

Standard. The policy shall require every course to publish, before the first grading period, how grades are computed, shall separate academic achievement from behavior and compliance in the reported grade, shall allow at least one reassessment of a summative standard for credit, and shall not mandate or forbid numeric floors without the district's own grade-to-test data.

Checklist. 0 of 4 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires every course to publish how grades are computed before the first grading period.
• ✕The policy separates academic achievement from behavior and compliance in the reported grade. core
• ✕The policy allows at least one reassessment of a summative standard for credit.
• ✕The policy does not mandate or forbid numeric grade floors without the district's own grade-to-test data.

What the manual says. 213 Assessment of Student Progress, revised November 21, 2016:

Recommended. Amend 213 Assessment of Student Progress

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Brookhart SM, Guskey TR, Bowers AJ, McMillan JH, Smith JK, Smith LF, Stevens MT, Welsh ME (2016). A century of grading research: Meaning and value in the most common educational measure. Review of Educational Research 86(4):803-848. doi · Kramer SL, Posner B, Browman A, Lawrence N, Cardichon J (2024). The impacts of a standards-based grading system emphasizing formative assessment, feedback, and re-assessment: A mixed methods, cluster randomized control trial in ninth grade mathematics classrooms. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 18(1):56-87. doi · Gershenson S, Holt SB, Tyner A (2024). Making the grade: The effect of teacher grading standards on student outcomes. Contemporary Economic Policy 42(2):305-318. doi · Betts JR, Grogger J (2003). The impact of grading standards on student achievement, educational attainment, and entry-level earnings. Economics of Education Review 22(4):343-352. doi · Figlio DN, Lucas ME (2004). Do high grading standards affect student performance? Journal of Public Economics 88(9-10):1815-1834. doi · Carey T, Carifio J (2012). The minimum grading controversy: Results of a quantitative study of seven years of grading data from an urban high school. Educational Researcher 41(6):201-208. doi · Carifio J, Carey T (2009). A critical examination of current minimum grading policy recommendations. The High School Journal 93(1):23-37. doi · Reeves DB (2004). The case against the zero. Phi Delta Kappan 86(4):324-325. doi · Welsh ME, D'Agostino JV, Kaniskan B (2013). Grading as a reform effort: Do standards-based grades converge with test scores? Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 32(2):26-36. doi · Guskey TR, Link LJ (2019). Exploring the factors teachers consider in determining students' grades. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice 26(3):303-320. doi · Hjorth-Trolle A, Rosenqvist E, Hed H (2021). Grading practices and the social gradient in GPA: Quasi-experimental evidence from Sweden. European Sociological Review 38(3):455-471. doi · Feldman J (2018). Grading for Equity: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How It Can Transform Schools and Classrooms. Corwin, Thousand Oaks CA. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier C: consistent correlational evidencestakes 2/5

Research. Homework has a small to moderate positive association with achievement in secondary grades and little or none in elementary grades; the relation runs through how often and how well homework is assigned, not how many hours students spend on it. Beyond roughly ten minutes per grade level per night the returns flatten, stress rises, and the benefit accrues more to higher-income students. (Cooper 2006: d about 0.6 in the few experimental comparisons, secondary correlations r about 0.25, elementary near zero; Fan 2017: small positive effect in math and science; high-performing high schools average 3 hours per night with higher stress)

Mixed evidence. The meta-analyses pool mostly correlational studies, and time on homework may reflect struggling as much as learning (Trautwein 2007 finds frequency, not time, predicts achievement). Daw (2012) and Ronning (2011) find that homework widens socioeconomic gaps because higher-income students gain more from each hour, and Ronning finds low-SES students may be harmed. Galloway, Conner and Pope (2013) report that high-performing high school students averaging more than three hours a night show more academic stress, physical complaints and less balance. Pressman et al. (2015) find primary school children receive about three times the ten-minute guideline and that family stress rises with load. Eren and Henderson (2008) find positive effects that are concentrated among high and low achievers, with a share of students responding negatively to more homework. No randomized trial of district homework policy exists.

Standard. The policy shall state maximum nightly homework time by grade band (none required in K-2, no more than ten minutes per grade level through grade 8, no more than two hours total in high school), shall cap homework at a minor share of the academic grade, and shall require that assigned homework be practice of taught material that a student can complete without adult help or paid resources.

Checklist. 0 of 4 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy states maximum nightly homework time by grade band: none required in K-2, no more than ten minutes per grade level through grade 8, no more than two hours total in high school. core
• ✕The policy caps homework at a minor share of the academic grade.
• ✕The policy requires that assigned homework be practice of material already taught in class.
• ✕The policy requires that assigned homework be completable by a student without adult help or paid resources.

What the manual says. 130 Homework, revised June 20, 1994:

Recommended. Amend 130 Homework

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Cooper H, Robinson JC, Patall EA (2006). Does homework improve academic achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987-2003. Review of Educational Research 76(1):1-62. doi · Fan H, Xu J, Cai Z, He J, Fan X (2017). Homework and students' achievement in math and science: A 30-year meta-analysis, 1986-2015. Educational Research Review 20:35-54. doi · Bas G, Senturk C, Cigerci FM (2017). Homework and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Issues in Educational Research 27(1):31-50. link · Trautwein U (2007). The homework-achievement relation reconsidered: Differentiating homework time, homework frequency, and homework effort. Learning and Instruction 17(3):372-388. doi · Fernandez-Alonso R, Suarez-Alvarez J, Muniz J (2015). Adolescents' homework performance in mathematics and science: Personal factors and teaching practices. Journal of Educational Psychology 107(4):1075-1085. doi · Eren O, Henderson DJ (2008). The impact of homework on student achievement. Econometrics Journal 11(2):326-348. doi · Ronning M (2011). Who benefits from homework assignments? Economics of Education Review 30(1):55-64. doi · Daw J (2012). Parental income and the fruits of labor: Variability in homework efficacy in secondary school. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 30(3):246-264. doi · Galloway M, Conner J, Pope D (2013). Nonacademic effects of homework in privileged, high-performing high schools. Journal of Experimental Education 81(4):490-510. doi · Pressman RM, Sugarman DB, Nemon ML, Desjarlais J, Owens JA, Schettini-Evans A (2015). Homework and family stress: With consideration of parents' self confidence, educational level, and cultural background. American Journal of Family Therapy 43(4):297-313. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Lottery studies show dual-language immersion raises English reading achievement (Portland: +13 percentile points by grade 5 and +22 by grade 8, with no loss in math or science; Charlotte: +0.04 to 0.05 SD per year in math and reading for English learners and non-learners alike) and raises the share of English learners reclassified by grade 6. Regression-discontinuity studies of reclassification show that the rule matters more than the label: reclassifying students on a single lenient test score harmed later outcomes, while multi-measure criteria that keep supports in place removed the harm, and timely reclassification before the grade 5 and grade 8 transitions improved on-time graduation. (Dual-language immersion: English reading +13 to +22 percentile points by grade 5 to 8 (Portland lottery); +0.04 to 0.05 SD per year (Charlotte lottery). Reclassification effects: +0.25 SD English test scores for marginal grade 2 to 4 reclassifiers in Los Angeles; harmful under single-test lenient criteria, null under multi-measure criteria.)

Mixed evidence. Dual-language immersion effects are concentrated in English reading; the Portland lottery found no effect on math or science and the Charlotte study found no effect on EL status. Reclassification effects vary by district: Cimpian, Thompson and Makowski (2017) found that where reclassification cuts off services abruptly, marginal reclassified students lost ground, and Pope (2016) found no benefit for students reclassified in later grades. Johnson (2019) found no effect of initial EL classification on graduation or college entry, so the classification itself is not the lever; program quality and exit rules are. Dual immersion students in San Francisco scored lower in English language arts in early grades before catching up and passing peers by middle school (Valentino and Reardon 2015), which can look like failure on short-horizon accountability measures. Program seats are limited by the supply of bilingual teachers.

Standard. The district shall offer a dual-language or bilingual program where enrollment supports it, use multiple measures (state proficiency test plus academic performance and teacher input) for reclassification, continue academic monitoring and supports for at least four years after exit, and place English learners in grade-level core content with language support rather than in separate lower-track courses.

Checklist. 0 of 4 elements of the standard are in the manual, 2 partly.

• ✕The policy requires reclassification to use multiple measures: the state proficiency test plus academic performance and teacher input. core
• ◐The policy requires the district to offer a dual-language or bilingual program where enrollment supports it. partly, 138 Limited English Proficiency Program
• ✕The policy requires academic monitoring and supports to continue for at least four years after a student exits English learner status.
• ◐The policy requires English learners to be placed in grade-level core content with language support rather than separate lower-track courses. partly, 138 Limited English Proficiency Program

What the manual says. 138 Limited English Proficiency Program, revised September 26, 2022:

Recommended. Amend 138 Limited English Proficiency Program

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Steele, J. L., Slater, R. O., Zamarro, G., Miller, T., Li, J., Burkhauser, S., & Bacon, M. (2017). Effects of Dual-Language Immersion Programs on Student Achievement: Evidence From Lottery Data. American Educational Research Journal 54(1_suppl):282S-306S. doi · Bibler, A. (2021). Dual Language Education and Student Achievement. Education Finance and Policy 16(4):634-658. doi · Umansky, I. M., & Reardon, S. F. (2014). Reclassification Patterns Among Latino English Learner Students in Bilingual, Dual Immersion, and English Immersion Classrooms. American Educational Research Journal 51(5):879-912. doi · Valentino, R. A., & Reardon, S. F. (2015). Effectiveness of Four Instructional Programs Designed to Serve English Learners: Variation by Ethnicity and Initial English Proficiency. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37(4):612-637. doi · Robinson-Cimpian, J. P., & Thompson, K. D. (2016). The Effects of Changing Test-Based Policies for Reclassifying English Learners. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 35(2):279-305. doi · Cimpian, J. R., Thompson, K. D., & Makowski, M. B. (2017). Evaluating English Learner Reclassification Policy Effects Across Districts. American Educational Research Journal 54(1_suppl):255S-278S. doi · Pope, N. G. (2016). The marginal effect of K-12 English language development programs: Evidence from Los Angeles schools. Economics of Education Review 53:311-328. doi · Johnson, A. (2019). The Effects of English Learner Classification on High School Graduation and College Attendance. AERA Open 5(2). doi · Umansky, I. M. (2016). Leveled and Exclusionary Tracking: English Learners' Access to Academic Content in Middle School. American Educational Research Journal 53(6):1792-1833. doi · Umansky, I. M., & Dumont, H. (2021). English Learner Labeling: How English Learner Classification in Kindergarten Shapes Teacher Perceptions of Student Skills and the Moderating Role of Bilingual Instructional Settings. American Educational Research Journal 58(5):993-1031. doi · National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017). Promoting the Educational Success of Children and Youth Learning English: Promising Futures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 4/5

Research. Every rigorous evaluation finds public pre-K raises school readiness at kindergarten entry (Boston 0.4 to 0.6 SD in language and math, Tulsa large gains, Tennessee gains at end of pre-K), but what happens next depends on the program and the schools that follow: Boston's lottery cohorts showed no later test-score gains yet higher high school graduation, SAT taking and college enrollment and less juvenile incarceration, Tulsa's cohorts kept middle school math and course-taking advantages, and Tennessee's statewide program, a randomized trial, left participants worse off than controls on achievement, discipline and special education by sixth grade. A meta-analysis of 22 causal studies finds average long-run reductions in special education placement (8 points) and grade retention (8 points) and higher graduation (11 points). (Kindergarten entry: +0.4 to +0.6 SD (Boston); long run: special education -8.1 points, grade retention -8.3 points, high school graduation +11.4 points (meta-analysis); Boston lottery: college enrollment up, juvenile incarceration down, test scores null; Tennessee RCT: sixth-grade achievement, discipline and special education all worse than controls)

Mixed evidence. The only large randomized trial of a scaled state program (Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K, n 2,990) found that children offered pre-K had lower state test scores in grades 3 through 6, more disciplinary infractions, worse attendance and more special education designations than wait-listed controls. Test-score fadeout by grade 3 is the norm even in positive studies (Bailey et al. 2017), and the Boston long-run gains came from a program with coached teachers, a shared curriculum and small classes that most districts do not replicate. The Tulsa evidence relies on propensity-score weighting, not randomization. Pre-K is among the most expensive grades to add, and poor-quality programs can be worse than the child-care arrangements they replace.

Standard. District pre-K uses an adopted evidence-based curriculum, certified lead teachers with ongoing coaching, class sizes of 20 or fewer with two adults, and a full instructional day, and the district tracks each pre-K cohort through third grade and reports readiness and later outcomes by subgroup.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain (6 sections touch related words but do not govern it).

Recommended.

Sources. Durkin K, Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Wiesen SE (2022). Effects of a statewide pre-kindergarten program on children's achievement and behavior through sixth grade. Developmental Psychology 58(3):470-484. doi · Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Durkin K (2018). Effects of the Tennessee Prekindergarten Program on children's achievement and behavior through third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 45:155-176. doi · Gray-Lobe G, Pathak PA, Walters CR (2023). The long-term effects of universal preschool in Boston. Quarterly Journal of Economics 138(1):363-411. doi · Weiland C, Yoshikawa H (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development 84(6):2112-2130. doi · Gormley WT Jr, Phillips D, Gayer T (2008). Preschool programs can boost school readiness. Science 320(5884):1723-1724. doi · Gormley WT Jr, Phillips D, Anderson S (2018). The effects of Tulsa's pre-K program on middle school student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 37(1):63-87. doi · Amadon S, Gormley WT, Claessens A, Magnuson K, Hummel-Price D, Romm K (2022). Does early childhood education help to improve high school outcomes? Results from Tulsa. Child Development 93(4):e379-e395. doi · McCoy DC, Yoshikawa H, Ziol-Guest KM, Duncan GJ, Schindler HS, Magnuson K, Yang R, Koepp A, Shonkoff JP (2017). Impacts of early childhood education on medium- and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher 46(8):474-487. doi · Bailey D, Duncan GJ, Odgers CL, Yu W (2017). Persistence and fadeout in the impacts of child and adolescent interventions. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 10(1):7-39. doi · Phillips DA, Lipsey MW, Dodge KA, et al. (2017). Puzzling it out: The current state of scientific knowledge on pre-kindergarten effects. A consensus statement. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and Duke University. link · Puma M, Bell S, Cook R, Heid C, et al. (2010). Head Start Impact Study: Final report. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Full-day kindergarten raises achievement at the end of the kindergarten year by about 0.25 to 0.35 SD compared with half-day programs (meta-analysis of 40 studies; Community Guide systematic review; an Indiana lottery experiment found 0.31 SD in literacy, larger for Hispanic children and low-entering-skill children), but in most US studies the test-score advantage fades by third grade. (End of kindergarten: +0.25 SD (meta-analysis) to +0.35 SD (Community Guide; verbal +0.46, math +0.24); lottery experiment: literacy +0.31 SD, Hispanic children +0.70 SD; advantage largely gone by grade 3 in ECLS-K studies)

Mixed evidence. Fadeout is the consistent finding: Cannon, Jacknowitz and Painter (2006) and Cooper et al. (2010) both find the achievement difference disappears by third grade, and the 2006 study found no extra benefit for children below the poverty line. Cooper's meta-analysis also found suggestive evidence of less positive attitudes toward school and more behavior problems in full-day programs. Ontario's play-based full-day program showed lasting gains through grade 2 and grade 3 reading, so persistence may depend on program design and the quality of the grades that follow. Full-day kindergarten roughly doubles the staffing and space cost of the grade.

Standard. The district offers tuition-free full-day kindergarten, with the same daily instructional minutes as grade 1, to every eligible child in every attendance area, and reports enrollment and end-of-year readiness results by subgroup.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain (1 sections touch related words but do not govern it).

Recommended.

Sources. Cooper H, Allen AB, Patall EA, Dent AL (2010). Effects of full-day kindergarten on academic achievement and social development. Review of Educational Research 80(1):34-70. doi · Hahn RA, Rammohan V, Truman BI, et al., Community Preventive Services Task Force (2014). Effects of full-day kindergarten on the long-term health prospects of children in low-income and racial/ethnic-minority populations: A Community Guide systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 46(3):312-323. doi · Gibbs CR (2014). Experimental evidence on early intervention: The impact of full-day kindergarten. University of Virginia Batten School working paper (ERIC ED564096). link · Cannon JS, Jacknowitz A, Painter G (2006). Is full better than half? Examining the longitudinal effects of full-day kindergarten attendance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25(2):299-321. doi · DeCicca P (2007). Does full-day kindergarten matter? Evidence from the first two years of schooling. Economics of Education Review 26(1):67-82. doi · Pelletier JP, Corter JE (2019). A longitudinal comparison of learning outcomes in full-day and half-day kindergarten. Journal of Educational Research 112(2):192-210. doi · Atteberry A, Bassok D, Wong VC (2019). The effects of full-day prekindergarten: Experimental evidence of impacts on children's school readiness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 41(4):537-562. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Adolescent circadian timing shifts later, and middle and high schools that start at or after 8:30 a.m. get measurably more sleep from students; a Seattle district-wide delay of nearly an hour produced 34 more minutes of sleep per night, a 4.5 percent rise in median grades and better attendance, and a Florida time-zone natural experiment found each hour of later start relative to sunrise raised adolescent math scores by 0.08 SD. Meta-analyses and a Cochrane review agree on the sleep and attendance effects; achievement effects are positive but smaller and less consistent. (+34 min sleep per school night (Seattle); grades +4.5 percent; math +0.08 SD and reading +0.06 SD per hour later start (Florida); fewer absences and tardies; achievement gains small or mixed in some district studies)

Mixed evidence. Achievement gains are modest and uneven: Bastian and Fuller (2018) found mixed positive and negative test-score associations across North Carolina high schools even where suspensions fell and grades rose, and the Cochrane review (2017) rated the underlying studies as low quality. Costs are real: later secondary starts usually force bus-tier changes, and RAND (2017) modeled roughly 150 dollars per student per year in added transportation cost plus a one-time facilities cost, with net benefits that turn positive only after several years in high-cost scenarios. Moving secondary schools later can push elementary schools earlier, and after-school activities and student work hours are compressed. Florida enacted a 2023 mandate and then, in 2025, replaced it with a report-and-consider requirement after districts objected to bus and staffing costs.

Standard. Instruction in every school serving any of grades 6 through 12 begins no earlier than 8:30 a.m., and the policy names who reports compliance and by when.

Checklist. 0 of 4 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires instruction in every school serving any of grades 6 through 12 to begin no earlier than 8:30 a.m. core
• ✕The policy applies the start time floor to every school serving any grade from 6 through 12, including middle schools.
• ✕The policy names who reports compliance with the start time requirement.
• ✕The policy states by when the compliance report is due.

What the manual says. 804 School Day, revised June 20, 1994:

Recommended. Amend 804 School Day

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Adolescent Sleep Working Group, Committee on Adolescence, Council on School Health, American Academy of Pediatrics (2014). School start times for adolescents. Pediatrics 134(3):642-649. doi · Dunster GP, de la Iglesia L, Ben-Hamo M, Nave C, Fleischer JG, Panda S, de la Iglesia HO (2018). Sleepmore in Seattle: Later school start times are associated with more sleep and better performance in high school students. Science Advances 4(12):eaau6200. doi · Heissel JA, Norris S (2018). Rise and shine: The effect of school start times on academic performance from childhood through puberty. Journal of Human Resources 53(4):957-992. doi · Carrell SE, Maghakian T, West JC (2011). A's from Zzzz's? The causal effect of school start time on the academic achievement of adolescents. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3(3):62-81. doi · Bowers JM, Moyer A (2017). Effects of school start time on students' sleep duration, daytime sleepiness, and attendance: a meta-analysis. Sleep Health 3(6):423-431. doi · Minges KE, Redeker NS (2016). Delayed school start times and adolescent sleep: A systematic review of the experimental evidence. Sleep Medicine Reviews 28:86-95. doi · Marx R, Tanner-Smith EE, Davison CM, et al. (2017). Later school start times for supporting the education, health, and well-being of high school students. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 7:CD009467. doi · Wheaton AG, Chapman DP, Croft JB (2016). School start times, sleep, behavioral, health, and academic outcomes: A review of the literature. Journal of School Health 86(5):363-381. doi · Lenard M, Morrill M, Westall J (2020). High school start times and student achievement: Looking beyond test scores. Economics of Education Review 76:101975. doi · Groen JA, Pabilonia SW (2019). Snooze or lose: High school start times and academic achievement. Economics of Education Review 72:204-218. doi · Bastian KC, Fuller SC (2018). Answering the bell: High school start times and student academic outcomes. AERA Open 4(4):1-14. doi · Hafner M, Stepanek M, Troxel WM (2017). Later school start times in the U.S.: An economic analysis. RAND Corporation, RR-2109. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 2/5

Research. Remote instruction delivers less learning than in-person instruction and widens gaps. In 2020 to 2021, districts that stayed in person lost 13 percentage points less in math pass rates than remote districts (Jack et al.), remote instruction was the primary driver of widened gaps by race and poverty (Goldhaber et al.), and the national decline reached 0.20 to 0.27 SD in math (Kuhfeld et al.). Randomized trials of online delivery at West Point (-0.215 SD in grades) and in Chicago algebra credit recovery (lower pass rates) confirm the direction outside the pandemic. A few weather closures do not measurably hurt achievement, so a remote day mainly needs to beat a day off, which it fails to do when attendance collapses. (remote vs in-person: about -0.2 SD (RCTs and pandemic natural experiments), largest for low-income and Black students; a handful of closure days: about 0)

Mixed evidence. No study isolates occasional virtual snow days specifically; the pandemic evidence covers months of remote schooling under crisis conditions and likely overstates the cost of a single day. Goodman (2014) found that a few snow days did not reduce Massachusetts test scores because schools made the time up, while Marcotte and Hemelt (2008) found that about five unscheduled closures before Maryland's spring tests lowered third-grade proficiency rates by nearly 3 percent, so the cost of lost days is real when they are not recovered before assessment. Blended programs that keep in-person contact perform about as well as in-person classes (Escueta et al.). Remote days do protect calendar end dates and staff pay, and for a multi-day emergency closure a well-run remote day beats nothing.

Standard. The district shall use remote instruction days only for weather or emergency closures, shall cap them at five per year counted toward instructional time, shall require live synchronous instruction and attendance taking on every remote day, shall confirm device and internet access for every student in advance, and shall make up any closure beyond the cap with in-person days.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain (1 sections touch related words but do not govern it).

Recommended.

Sources. Kuhfeld M, Soland J, Lewis K (2022). Test Score Patterns Across Three COVID-19-Impacted School Years. Educational Researcher 51(7):500-506. doi · Goldhaber D, Kane TJ, McEachin A, Morton E, Patterson T, Staiger DO (2023). The Educational Consequences of Remote and Hybrid Instruction during the Pandemic. American Economic Review: Insights 5(3):377-392. doi · Jack R, Halloran C, Okun J, Oster E (2023). Pandemic Schooling Mode and Student Test Scores: Evidence from US School Districts. American Economic Review: Insights 5(2):173-190. doi · Kofoed MS, Gebhart L, Gilmore D, Moschitto R (2024). Zooming to Class? Experimental Evidence on College Students' Online Learning during COVID-19. American Economic Review: Insights 6(3):324-340. doi · Heppen JB, Sorensen N, Allensworth E, Walters K, Rickles J, Taylor SS, Michelman V (2017). The Struggle to Pass Algebra: Online vs. Face-to-Face Credit Recovery for At-Risk Urban Students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 10(2):272-296. doi · Marcotte DE, Hemelt SW (2008). Unscheduled School Closings and Student Performance. Education Finance and Policy 3(3):316-338. doi · Goodman J (2014). Flaking Out: Student Absences and Snow Days as Disruptions of Instructional Time. NBER Working Paper 20221. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Difference-in-differences studies across Oregon, a multi-state NWEA sample and a RAND study of Idaho, New Mexico and Oklahoma agree that moving to a four-day week lowers achievement growth modestly (spring reading about -0.07 SD and fall-to-spring growth about -0.06 SD in math and reading), with the loss concentrated in non-rural districts and in schedules that cut total instructional time; the saving is small, about 1 to 3 percent of operating spending, and there is no evidence of better attendance. (Oregon: -0.042 SD math after switching; multi-state: spring reading -0.07 SD, fall-to-spring growth -0.06 SD; RAND: slower achievement growth than matched five-day districts; expenditures -1 to -3 percent; juvenile crime +20 percent in Colorado counties; no attendance gain)

Mixed evidence. Anderson and Walker (2015) found positive effects on Colorado elementary math and reading, and Morton (2022) found no detectable effect on Oklahoma high school ACT scores or attendance and 31 to 39 percent fewer fighting and bullying incidents (partly mechanical, since students are in school less). Thompson and Ward (2022) show the harm is near zero in four-day districts that keep total hours at five-day levels, so the schedule itself is less the problem than lost time. Families, students and teachers report high satisfaction, and RAND found qualitative support for teacher recruitment in rural districts. Districts under severe revenue loss may use the small savings to protect instructional spending.

Standard. A district adopts or retains a four-day week only after showing that total instructional hours will equal or exceed its prior five-day calendar, with a published pre-adoption analysis, fifth-day meal and supervision provisions, and a dated outcome review that triggers reconsideration if achievement growth falls.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence is acceptable here.

Recommended.

Sources. Thompson PN (2021). Is four less than five? Effects of four-day school weeks on student achievement in Oregon. Journal of Public Economics 193:104308. doi · Morton E, Thompson PN, Kuhfeld M (2024). A multi-state, student-level analysis of the effects of the four-day school week on student achievement and growth. Economics of Education Review 100:102524. doi · Thompson PN, Ward J (2022). Only a matter of time? The role of time in school on four-day school week achievement impacts. Economics of Education Review 86:102198. doi · Kilburn MR, Phillips A, Gomez CJ, Mariano LT, Doss CJ, Troxel WM, Morton E, Estes K (2021). Does four equal five? Implementation and outcomes of the four-day school week. RAND Corporation, RR-A373-1. doi · Morton E (2022). Effects of 4-day school weeks on older adolescents: Examining impacts of the schedule on academic achievement, attendance, and behavior in high school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 45(1):52-78. doi · Anderson DM, Walker MB (2015). Does shortening the school week impact student performance? Evidence from the four-day school week. Education Finance and Policy 10(3):314-349. doi · Fischer S, Argyle D (2018). Juvenile crime and the four-day school week. Economics of Education Review 64:31-39. doi · Thompson PN (2021). Does a day lost equal dollars saved? The effects of four-day school weeks on school district expenditures. National Tax Journal 74(1):147-183. doi · Thompson PN, Gunter KB, Schuna JM Jr, Tomayko EJ (2021). Are all four-day school weeks created equal? A national assessment of four-day school week policy adoption and implementation. Education Finance and Policy 16(4):558-583. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 5/5

Research. Out-of-school suspension lowers the suspended student's own math and reading achievement (Philadelphia student panel with instrumental variables), and attending a school with a one standard deviation higher suspension rate raises the chance of adult arrest and incarceration by 15 to 20 percent (North Carolina boundary-change natural experiment). Reforms that ended suspension for minor nonviolent conduct raised achievement and attendance in New York City and Chicago, while reforms that cut suspensions without a replacement behavior system lowered achievement and raised absences for most students in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. (Suspended student: lower math and reading scores; strict school: +15 to 20% adult arrest and incarceration; NYC reform: +0.05 SD math over three years; LAUSD reform: lower scores and GPA, more absences for most students; Chicago reform: about +1 day attendance per year.)

Mixed evidence. Peer effects cut both ways. Pope and Zuo (2023) find Los Angeles' near-elimination of suspensions lowered test scores and GPAs and raised absences and teacher turnover for most students, with gains only for the highest-risk students. Lacoe and Steinberg (2018) find Philadelphia's 2012 reform did not cut total suspensions, and serious misconduct, truancy and achievement all moved the wrong way district-wide; the companion paper shows peers were unharmed only in schools that fully implemented the reform. Hwang and Domina (2021) find classmates' math scores rise when disruptive peers are suspended in a low-suspension district, and Carrell, Hoekstra and Kuka (2018) show one disruptive elementary classmate lowers peers' adult earnings 3 percent. Sorensen et al. (2022) find harsher principals do reduce reported minor misconduct, at the cost of more juvenile complaints and lower graduation for everyone in the building. The 2025 Campbell meta-analysis finds school-based programs reduce exclusion only modestly, and out-of-school suspension is the least responsive outcome. The lesson across studies is that removing suspension without an alternative system harms peers; pairing it with a tiered behavior system (see pbis-restorative) does not.

Standard. Out-of-school suspension is limited to conduct that endangers persons or seriously disrupts instruction after documented alternatives, is barred for defiance, dress code, tardiness and attendance offenses, is capped in length, continues instruction during exclusion, and is reported annually with disparity ratios by building.

Checklist. 1 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual, 1 partly.

• ✕The policy limits out-of-school suspension to conduct that endangers persons or seriously disrupts instruction. core
• ✕The policy requires documented alternatives to be tried before an out-of-school suspension is imposed.
• ✕The policy bars out-of-school suspension for defiance, dress code, tardiness and attendance offenses.
• ✓The policy caps the length of an out-of-school suspension. 233 Suspension and Expulsion
• ◐The policy requires instruction to continue for the student during the period of exclusion. partly, 233 Suspension and Expulsion
• ✕The policy requires annual reporting of suspensions with disparity ratios by building.

What the manual says. 233 Suspension and Expulsion, revised March 9, 2020:

Also governs: 113.1 Discipline of Students With Disabilities

Recommended. Amend 233 Suspension and Expulsion

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Bacher-Hicks A, Billings SB, Deming DJ (2024). The school-to-prison pipeline: long-run impacts of school suspensions on adult crime. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 16(4):165-193. doi · Lacoe J, Steinberg MP (2019). Do suspensions affect student outcomes? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 41(1):34-62. doi · Sorensen LC, Bushway SD, Gifford EJ (2022). Getting tough? The effects of discretionary principal discipline on student outcomes. Education Finance and Policy 17(2):255-284. doi · Craig AC, Martin DC (2025). Discipline reform, school culture and student achievement. The Economic Journal 136(675):1029-1065. doi · Hinze-Pifer R, Sartain L (2018). Rethinking universal suspension for severe student behavior. Peabody Journal of Education 93(2):228-243. doi · Pope NG, Zuo GW (2023). Suspending suspensions: the education production consequences of school suspension policies. The Economic Journal 133(653):2025-2054. doi · Lacoe J, Steinberg MP (2018). Rolling back zero tolerance: the effect of discipline policy reform on suspension usage and student outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education 93(2):207-227. doi · Steinberg MP, Lacoe J (2018). Reforming school discipline: school-level policy implementation and the consequences for suspended students and their peers. American Journal of Education 125(1):29-77. doi · Hwang N, Domina T (2021). Peer disruption and learning: links between suspensions and the educational achievement of non-suspended students. Education Finance and Policy 16(3):443-463. doi · Carrell SE, Hoekstra M, Kuka E (2018). The long-run effects of disruptive peers. American Economic Review 108(11):3377-3415. doi · Noltemeyer AL, Ward RM, Mcloughlin C (2015). Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: a meta-analysis. School Psychology Review 44(2):224-240. doi · Rosenbaum J (2020). Educational and criminal justice outcomes 12 years after school suspension. Youth and Society 52(4):515-547. doi · Mittleman J (2018). A downward spiral? Childhood suspension and the path to juvenile arrest. Sociology of Education 91(3):183-204. doi · Valdebenito S, Gaffney H, Arosemena-Burbano F, et al. (2025). School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: an updated systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 21(4). doi · Welsh RO, Little S (2018). The school discipline dilemma: a comprehensive review of disparities and alternative approaches. Review of Educational Research 88(5):752-794. doi · American Academy of Pediatrics Council on School Health (2013). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics 131(3):e1000-e1007. doi · US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2023). Student Discipline and School Climate in U.S. Public Schools, 2020-21 Civil Rights Data Collection. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 4/5

Research. School-wide PBIS has the strongest evidence of any discipline framework: a meta-analysis of 29 group studies including seven RCTs finds small-to-medium reductions in discipline referrals and gains in achievement, and the five-year Maryland RCT found children in PBIS schools 33 percent less likely to receive an office referral with fewer suspensions. Restorative practices are promising but mixed: the Pittsburgh RCT cut days lost to suspension 36 percent against 18 percent in controls and narrowed racial gaps, but did not improve achievement and worsened it in grades 6 to 8, while the Maine middle school RCT found no significant intent-to-treat effects. (PBIS: 33% lower odds of an office referral (Maryland RCT); meta-analytic effects small to medium on discipline and achievement. Restorative: suspension days -36% vs -18% control (Pittsburgh RCT), academic harm in grades 6 to 8, null in Maine.)

Mixed evidence. PBIS effects depend on implementation fidelity and are modest; most RCT evidence is from elementary schools, and a 2026 meta-analysis limited to children through grade 5 found no statistically significant pooled effect, with hints of larger effects in pre-K and kindergarten. PBIS is a framework rather than a curriculum, so naming it in policy without the tiered systems, data review and coaching does not reproduce the trial results. For restorative practices, the two RCTs disagree: Pittsburgh showed suspension reductions in elementary grades but no improvement in middle grades, for male students, for students with IEPs or for violent incidents, no reduction in arrests and lower middle-grade achievement; Maine showed no intent-to-treat effect, and reviews (Darling-Hammond et al. 2020; Lodi et al. 2021) rest mostly on non-experimental studies. Trauma-informed whole-school approaches had no eligible rigorous evidence as of a 2019 Campbell review. The honest position is PBIS as the spine, restorative practices as a complement for repair after incidents, and two or more years of coaching for either.

Standard. Every building operates a school-wide tiered behavior support system named in policy, with a leadership team, taught expectations, data review at least monthly, Tier 2 and Tier 3 interventions, annual fidelity assessment with a recognized instrument, and public reporting of referrals, exclusions and fidelity by building; restorative practices are adopted as a complement with the same reporting.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (discipline and climate)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Lee A, Gage NA (2020). Updating and expanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effects of school-wide positive behavior interventions and supports. Psychology in the Schools 57(5):783-804. doi · Bradshaw CP, Mitchell MM, Leaf PJ (2010). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 12(3):133-148. doi · Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, Leaf PJ (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics 130(5):e1136-e1145. doi · Horner RH, Sugai G, Smolkowski K, et al. (2009). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 11(3):133-144. doi · Lee J, Watson K, Yang HW (2026). Positive enough? A meta-analysis on positive behavior support for young children. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. doi · Augustine CH, Engberg J, Grimm GE, et al. (2018). Can Restorative Practices Improve School Climate and Curb Suspensions? An Evaluation of the Impact of Restorative Practices in a Mid-Sized Urban School District. RAND Corporation, RR-2840-DOJ. doi · Acosta J, Chinman M, Ebener P, et al. (2019). Evaluation of a whole-school change intervention: findings from a two-year cluster-randomized trial of the Restorative Practices Intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48(5):876-890. doi · Darling-Hammond S, Fronius TA, Sutherland H, et al. (2020). Effectiveness of restorative justice in US K-12 schools: a review of quantitative research. Contemporary School Psychology 24(3):295-308. doi · Lodi E, Perrella L, Lepri GL, Scarpa ML, Patrizi P (2022). Use of restorative justice and restorative practices at school: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(1):96. doi · Valdebenito S, Gaffney H, Arosemena-Burbano F, et al. (2025). School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: an updated systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 21(4). doi · Maynard BR, Farina A, Dell NA, Kelly MS (2019). Effects of trauma-informed approaches in schools: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 15(1-2):e1018. doi · Kellam SG, Brown CH, Poduska JM, et al. (2008). Effects of a universal classroom behavior management program in first and second grades on young adult behavioral, psychiatric, and social outcomes. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 95(Suppl 1):S5-S28. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier D: professional standard or expert consensusstakes 4/5

Research. No outcome study shows that restraint or seclusion improves behavior or learning; the GAO found hundreds of allegations of abuse and death linked to their use in schools between 1990 and 2009, with untrained staff and non-aggressive children with disabilities as the recurring pattern. In 2021-22 about 105,700 students were restrained or secluded, and students served under IDEA were 14 percent of enrollment but 76 percent of those physically restrained and 68 percent of those secluded. A systematic review of 15 studies finds that school-wide prevention approaches reduce the frequency of restraint, but none is an RCT. (IDEA students: 14% of enrollment, 76% of physical restraints, 68% of seclusions (2021-22); earlier CRDC analysis: students with disabilities 7 times as likely to be restrained and 4 times as likely to be secluded; reduction programs: most of 15 studies report significant decreases, magnitudes uncontrolled.)

Mixed evidence. The evidence base is thin and the tier reflects that. Harm evidence is case-based (GAO's closed cases, media investigations) and from medical literature on restraint deaths rather than from controlled school studies. The reduction literature (Hodgkiss and Harding 2023; Trader et al. 2017) is mostly single-site pre-post designs without control groups. Federal counts are unreliable: GAO found about 70 percent of districts reported zero incidents in 2015-16 and that large districts had reported zeros in error, so trend claims from the CRDC are weak. Practitioners argue that restraint remains necessary in genuine emergencies to prevent injury, and no study claims otherwise; the standard here limits rather than bans physical restraint while banning seclusion, mechanical and chemical restraint and restraints that restrict breathing.

Standard. Seclusion, mechanical restraint, chemical restraint and any restraint that restricts breathing are prohibited; physical restraint is limited to imminent danger of serious physical harm, performed by trained staff, with same-day parent notice, a written incident report, a debrief, a behavior-plan review after repeated use, and quarterly public reporting.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain (1 sections touch related words but do not govern it). Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (discipline and climate)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. US Government Accountability Office (2009). Seclusions and Restraints: Selected Cases of Death and Abuse at Public and Private Schools and Treatment Centers. GAO-09-719T, May 19, 2009. link · US Government Accountability Office (2019). K-12 Education: Education Should Take Immediate Action to Address Inaccuracies in Federal Restraint and Seclusion Data. GAO-19-551R, June 18, 2019. link · US Government Accountability Office (2020). K-12 Education: Education Needs to Address Significant Quality Issues with its Restraint and Seclusion Data. GAO-20-345, April 21, 2020. link · US Department of Education (2012). Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document. Washington, DC, May 15, 2012. link · US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2025). 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection: A First Look. link · Gage NA, Pico DL, Evanovich L (2022). National trends and school-level predictors of restraint and seclusion for students with disabilities. Exceptionality 30(1):1-13. doi · Hodgkiss B, Harding E (2023). Reducing physical restraint in educational settings: a systematic literature review. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 23(4):265-277. doi · Trader B, Stonemeier J, Berg T, et al. (2017). Promoting inclusion through evidence-based alternatives to restraint and seclusion. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities 42(2):75-88. doi · Kern L, George HP, Evanovich LL, Hodnett JM, Freeman J (2024). A review of U.S. policy guidance and legislation on restraint and seclusion in schools: considerations for improvement. Exceptional Children 90(4):382-397. doi · Mohr WK, Petti TA, Mohr BD (2003). Adverse effects associated with physical restraint. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 48(5):330-337. doi · Scheuermann B, Peterson R, Ryan JB, Billingsley G (2016). Professional practice and ethical issues related to physical restraint and seclusion in schools. Journal of Disability Policy Studies 27(2):86-95. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier D: professional standard or expert consensusstakes 3/5

Research. This domain is governed by constitutional standards rather than outcome research: Goss v. Lopez requires notice and an opportunity to respond before any suspension of ten days or less, New Jersey v. T.L.O. permits school searches on reasonable suspicion when justified at inception and reasonable in scope, and Safford v. Redding holds that a search of a student's underwear requires suspicion that the item is dangerous or hidden there. The one federal randomized trial of random drug testing found lower self-reported use among tested students (16 versus 22 percent) with no spillover to untested students, while national correlational studies find no association between testing and student drug use. (Legal standards, not effect sizes. Drug testing: tested students 16% vs 22% past-30-day use in the federal RCT; no effect on untested students or on intentions; national surveys show no association.)

Mixed evidence. Outcome evidence on searches and hearings is almost nonexistent; nobody has randomized due process. The drug-testing literature is the only causal evidence and it is mixed: the federal RCT (James-Burdumy et al. 2010) found less reported use among students actually subject to testing in seven volunteer districts, with no generalizable national estimate, while Yamaguchi et al. (2003) found no association between school testing and student drug use in national Monitoring the Future data, the SATURN prospective trial of athlete testing found no reduction in past-month use, and Sznitman and Romer (2014) found that a positive school climate, not testing, predicted less use. Courts have upheld suspicionless drug testing of students in extracurricular activities (Vernonia 1995; Earls 2002), so the limit on it here is a policy choice grounded in weak benefit evidence, not a legal requirement. Procedural-justice research in schools is correlational: students who see discipline as fair report less misconduct and more engagement, but the designs cannot show that hearings cause the difference.

Standard. Policy states the Goss procedures for every short suspension and a formal hearing with written notice, representation, evidence and a written decision for any exclusion beyond ten days; searches require individualized reasonable suspicion documented in writing, strip searches are prohibited, and searches and hearings are logged and reported by student group.

Checklist. 2 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✓The policy requires notice and an opportunity to respond before every suspension of ten days or less. core 233 Suspension and Expulsion
• ✕The policy requires a formal hearing with written notice, representation, evidence and a written decision for any exclusion beyond ten days.
• ✕The policy requires individualized reasonable suspicion for any search of a student.
• ✓The policy requires that the suspicion for each search be documented in writing. 226 Searches
• ✕The policy prohibits strip searches.
• ✕The policy requires that searches and hearings be logged and reported by student group.

What the manual says. 226 Searches, revised November 21, 2016:

Also governs: 233 Suspension and Expulsion; 218 Student Discipline

Recommended. Amend 226 Searches

Sources. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Supreme Court of the United States, decided January 22, 1975. link · New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Supreme Court of the United States, decided January 15, 1985. link · Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009). Supreme Court of the United States, decided June 25, 2009. link · Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995). Supreme Court of the United States. link · Board of Education of Independent School District No. 92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002). Supreme Court of the United States. link · James-Burdumy S, Goesling B, Deke J, Einspruch E (2010). The Effectiveness of Mandatory-Random Student Drug Testing. NCEE 2010-4025. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. link · Yamaguchi R, Johnston LD, O'Malley PM (2003). Relationship between student illicit drug use and school drug-testing policies. Journal of School Health 73(4):159-164. doi · Goldberg L, Elliot DL, MacKinnon DP, et al. (2007). Outcomes of a prospective trial of student-athlete drug testing: the Student Athlete Testing Using Random Notification (SATURN) study. Journal of Adolescent Health 41(5):421-429. doi · Sznitman SR, Romer D (2014). Student drug testing and positive school climates: testing the relation between two school characteristics and drug use behavior in a longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs 75(1):65-73. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 4/5

Research. Whole-school anti-bullying programs reduce bullying perpetration by about 19 to 20 percent and victimization by about 15 to 16 percent on average across roughly 100 evaluations, with RCT-only estimates smaller (d about 0.15) but still showing mental-health gains. Written policies matter too: students in states whose anti-bullying laws contain the core US Department of Education components had 24 percent lower odds of being bullied and 20 percent lower odds of cyberbullying, and enumerated policies that name sexual orientation and gender identity are associated with lower suicide-attempt risk among LGB youth. (Perpetration -19 to -20%; victimization -15 to -16% (program meta-analyses); RCT pooled d = -0.15 bullying, -0.21 mental health; compliant state laws: 24% lower odds of bullying, 20% lower odds of cyberbullying.)

Mixed evidence. Program effects shrink with age: a three-level meta-analysis found effects near zero for grade 8 and above, so a program that works in elementary school may do nothing in high school. RCT-only pooled effects are small (d about 0.15). The policy-content findings (Hatzenbuehler 2013, 2015; Meyer 2019; Kull 2016) are cross-sectional associations between state or district policy and student reports, not causal estimates. Most trials are European; KiVa's large cluster-randomized effects in Finland have not been replicated at the same scale in US districts. Self-report prevalence varies several-fold with the definition and recall window used, so year-to-year comparisons require a fixed instrument.

Standard. The policy shall name a specific evidence-based whole-school program with a written policy and classroom rules, enumerate protected characteristics including sexual orientation and gender identity, require a published reporting channel with an investigation deadline, and require an annual prevalence survey and report to the Board.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual, 1 partly.

• ✕The policy names a specific evidence-based whole-school anti-bullying program with a written policy and classroom rules. core
• ✕The policy enumerates protected characteristics and the list includes sexual orientation and gender identity.
• ✕The policy requires a published channel for reporting bullying.
• ✕The policy sets a deadline by which a reported incident must be investigated.
• ✕The policy requires an annual survey measuring the prevalence of bullying.
• ◐The policy requires an annual report on bullying prevalence to the Board. partly, 249 Bullying/Cyberbullying

What the manual says. 249 Bullying/Cyberbullying, revised September 23, 2024:

Recommended. Amend 249 Bullying/Cyberbullying

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Gaffney H, Ttofi MM, Farrington DP (2019). Evaluating the effectiveness of school-bullying prevention programs: An updated meta-analytical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 45:111-133. doi · Gaffney H, Farrington DP, Ttofi MM (2019). Examining the effectiveness of school-bullying intervention programs globally: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention 1(1):14-31. doi · Gaffney H, Ttofi MM, Farrington DP (2021). What works in anti-bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components. Journal of School Psychology 85:37-56. doi · Fraguas D, Diaz-Caneja CM, Ayora M, et al. (2021). Assessment of school anti-bullying interventions: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Pediatrics 175(1):44-55. doi · Ttofi MM, Farrington DP (2011). Effectiveness of school-based programs to reduce bullying: a systematic and meta-analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology 7(1):27-56. doi · Karna A, Voeten M, Little TD, Poskiparta E, Kaljonen A, Salmivalli C (2011). A large-scale evaluation of the KiVa antibullying program: grades 4-6. Child Development 82(1):311-330. doi · Karna A, Voeten M, Little TD, Alanen E, Poskiparta E, Salmivalli C (2013). Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: grades 1-3 and 7-9. Journal of Educational Psychology 105(2):535-551. doi · Waasdorp TE, Bradshaw CP, Leaf PJ (2012). The impact of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on bullying and peer rejection: a randomized controlled effectiveness trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 166(2):149-156. doi · Hatzenbuehler ML, Schwab-Reese L, Ranapurwala SI, Hertz MF, Ramirez MR (2015). Associations between antibullying policies and bullying in 25 states. JAMA Pediatrics 169(10):e152411. doi · Hatzenbuehler ML, Keyes KM (2013). Inclusive anti-bullying policies and reduced risk of suicide attempts in lesbian and gay youth. Journal of Adolescent Health 53(1 Suppl):S21-S26. doi · Meyer IH, Luo F, Wilson BDM, Stone DM (2019). Sexual orientation enumeration in state antibullying statutes in the United States: associations with bullying, suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts among youth. LGBT Health 6(1):9-14. doi · Kull RM, Greytak EA, Kosciw JG, Villenas C (2016). Effectiveness of school district antibullying policies in improving LGBT youths' school climate. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity 3(4):407-415. doi · Yeager DS, Fong CJ, Lee HY, Espelage DL (2015). Declines in efficacy of anti-bullying programs among older adolescents: theory and a three-level meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 37:36-51. doi · Modecki KL, Minchin J, Harbaugh AG, Guerra NG, Runions KC (2014). Bullying prevalence across contexts: a meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health 55(5):602-611. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier C: consistent correlational evidencestakes 2/5

Research. The best causal evidence on uniforms (school fixed effects in a large urban district) finds a modest attendance gain in secondary grades and no effect on achievement or discipline, and national longitudinal data show no behavior or attendance advantage; the evidence that dress rules improve learning is weak. The evidence on enforcement is clearer: GAO's national review found dress codes restrict items typically worn by girls more than boys, strict enforcement in more than four in five predominantly Black schools against about one third of predominantly white schools, informal class removals in 44 percent of codes, and body-measuring rules in 60 percent; Black girls receive disproportionate office referrals for dress code and other subjective infractions. (Uniforms: small secondary attendance gain, no achievement effect (Gentile and Imberman); no behavior or attendance link in national elementary data (Ansari et al.); physical-activity-enabling uniforms: no significant MVPA gain in a 42-school cluster RCT. Enforcement: strict codes in more than 80% of predominantly Black schools vs about 33% of predominantly white schools (GAO).)

Mixed evidence. Gentile and Imberman (2012) do find an attendance improvement in middle and high school and large increases in elementary teacher retention after uniform adoption, and Ansari et al. (2022) find low-income students in uniform schools attended better, so uniforms are not harmful on the evidence; they are simply not a lever for achievement. Cross-national PISA correlations (Baumann and Krskova 2016) link uniforms with better classroom discipline, but they cannot separate uniforms from the schools that choose them. Brunsma and Rockquemore (1998) found a small negative achievement association that later commentators disputed. The GAO findings describe enforcement patterns, not outcomes, and the harm case for strict dress codes rests on the exclusionary-discipline evidence (see exclusionary-discipline) rather than on dress-code studies themselves. The one RCT in this area (Nathan et al. 2021) tested sports uniforms for physical activity and found no significant primary effect.

Standard. Dress rules are limited to health, safety and the prohibition of hate speech and obscenity, apply identically to all students regardless of sex, do not require measuring bodies or clothing, protect religious and cultural dress and natural hair, and are enforced without removal from instruction or exclusion from school, with enforcement data reported by student group.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual, 2 partly.

• ✕The policy limits dress rules to health, safety, and the prohibition of hate speech and obscenity. core
• ✕The policy applies dress rules identically to all students regardless of sex.
• ◐The policy does not require measuring students' bodies or clothing to determine compliance. partly, 221 Dress and Grooming
• ✕The policy protects religious and cultural dress and natural hair.
• ◐The policy enforces dress rules without removing students from instruction or excluding them from school. partly, 221 Dress and Grooming
• ✕The policy requires enforcement data to be reported by student group.

What the manual says. 221 Dress and Grooming, revised June 20, 1994:

Recommended. Amend 221 Dress and Grooming

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Gentile E, Imberman SA (2012). Dressed for success? The effect of school uniforms on student achievement and behavior. Journal of Urban Economics 71(1):1-17. doi · Brunsma DL, Rockquemore KA (1998). Effects of student uniforms on attendance, behavior problems, substance use, and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Research 92(1):53-62. doi · Ansari A, Shepard M, Gottfried MA (2022). School uniforms and student behavior: is there a link? Early Childhood Research Quarterly 58:278-286. doi · Yeung R (2009). Are school uniforms a good fit? Results from the ECLS-K and the NELS. Educational Policy 23(6):847-874. doi · Reidy J (2021). Reviewing school uniform through a public health lens: evidence about the impacts of school uniform on education and health. Public Health Reviews 42:1604212. doi · Nathan N, McCarthy N, Hope K, et al. (2021). The impact of school uniforms on primary school student's physical activity at school: outcomes of a cluster randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 18:17. doi · US Government Accountability Office (2022). K-12 Education: Department of Education Should Provide Information on Equity and Safety in School Dress Codes. GAO-23-105348, October 25, 2022. link · Edwards TK, Marshall C (2020). Undressing policy: a critical analysis of North Carolina (USA) public school dress codes. Gender and Education 32(6):732-750. doi · Morris EW, Perry BL (2017). Girls behaving badly? Race, gender, and subjective evaluation in the discipline of African American girls. Sociology of Education 90(2):127-148. doi · Baumann C, Krskova H (2016). School discipline, school uniforms and academic performance. International Journal of Educational Management 30(6):1003-1029. doi · National Women's Law Center (2018). Dress Coded: Black Girls, Bodies, and Bias in D.C. Schools. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 4/5state law covers it

Research. The meta-analysis specific to school corporal punishment (Visser et al. 2022) finds it associated with more externalizing behavior (r = 0.27, 21 studies, 67,400 children), more internalizing problems (r = 0.16) and lower school performance (r = -0.11, 977,367 children); a propensity-matched sample of young adults from the 19 states where it was legal shows lower high school GPA and more depressive symptoms; the 75-study meta-analysis of physical punishment finds 13 of 17 outcomes significantly worse and none better. No study has found that corporal punishment improves behavior or learning, and no study has found that ending it increases misbehavior. (School CP: externalizing r = 0.27, internalizing r = 0.16, school performance r = -0.11; physical punishment generally: 13 of 17 outcomes worse (mental health problems d = 0.53, aggression d = 0.37), immediate compliance not even reliably improved (d = 0.14, n.s.).)

Mixed evidence. The evidence is meta-analytic but correlational: no randomized or natural-experiment study of school corporal punishment exists, and none is likely, so the direction of causation is argued from consistency, dose and the absence of any benefit rather than from an experiment. Font and Cage (2018) found only physical abuse, not mild corporal punishment, predicted declines in cognitive test performance, though every form predicted lower school engagement; do not claim that mild corporal punishment measurably lowers test scores on that study. There is no US difference-in-differences study of suspensions or achievement before and after a state or district ban, so a district that ends paddling without a replacement behavior system could shift to suspension; the cross-national evidence that bans are followed by less adolescent fighting (Elgar et al. 2018) is ecological. The commonly repeated claim that states permitting corporal punishment have lower ACT scores has no locatable primary source and should not be used.

Standard. Corporal punishment is prohibited in policy for every student in every setting, with physical force limited to the restraint standard, and the prohibition is communicated to staff and families annually.

Checklist. 2 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual, 2 partly.

• ◐The policy prohibits corporal punishment for every student in every setting. core partly, 218 Student Discipline
• ◐The policy limits any physical force to the restraint standard. partly, 218 Student Discipline
• ✕The policy requires the prohibition to be communicated to staff annually.
• ✕The policy requires the prohibition to be communicated to families annually.
• ✓The policy does not list corporal punishment among permitted consequences or allow it by the principal or designee. 218 Student Discipline
• ✓The policy contains no parental consent forms, witness, instrument or number-of-licks rules, or reasonable force defined to include paddling. 218 Student Discipline

What the manual says. 218 Student Discipline, revised September 27, 2021:

Recommended. Amend 218 Student Discipline

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Visser LN, van der Put CE, Assink M (2022). The association between school corporal punishment and child developmental outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Children 9(3):383. doi · Gershoff ET, Grogan-Kaylor A (2016). Spanking and child outcomes: old controversies and new meta-analyses. Journal of Family Psychology 30(4):453-469. doi · Gershoff ET, Sattler KMP, Holden GW (2019). School corporal punishment and its associations with achievement and adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 63:1-8. doi · Heekes SL, Kruger CB, Lester SN, Ward CL (2022). A systematic review of corporal punishment in schools: global prevalence and correlates. Trauma, Violence, and Abuse 23(1):52-72. doi · Gershoff ET (2017). School corporal punishment in global perspective: prevalence, outcomes, and efforts at intervention. Psychology, Health and Medicine 22(sup1):224-239. doi · Gershoff ET, Font SA (2016). Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools: prevalence, disparities in use, and status in state and federal policy. Social Policy Report 30(1):1-26. doi · Font SA, Cage J (2018). Dimensions of physical punishment and their associations with children's cognitive performance and school adjustment. Child Abuse and Neglect 75:29-40. doi · Elgar FJ, Donnelly PD, Michaelson V, et al. (2018). Corporal punishment bans and physical fighting in adolescents: an ecological study of 88 countries. BMJ Open 8(9):e021616. doi · Zolotor AJ, Puzia ME (2010). Bans against corporal punishment: a systematic review of the laws, changes in attitudes and behaviours. Child Abuse Review 19(4):229-247. doi · Allison MA, Beers N, Peterson JW, AAP Council on School Health (2023). Corporal punishment in schools. Pediatrics 152(3):e2023063284. doi · Sege RD, Siegel BS, AAP Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (2018). Effective discipline to raise healthy children. Pediatrics 142(6):e20183112. doi · US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2023). Corporal Punishment in Public Schools (Focus on Student Discipline, Part 4 of 5), 2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection. link · US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2025). 2021-22 Civil Rights Data Collection: A First Look. link · Cardona MA (2023). Letter from the Secretary of Education to governors and chief state school officers calling for an end to corporal punishment in schools, March 24, 2023. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Universal, sequenced social-emotional learning programs improve social-emotional skills, behavior and achievement: the 2011 meta-analysis of 213 programs found skills gains of 0.57 SD and an 11 percentile-point achievement gain in the 35 studies that measured it, follow-up effects persist at 0.13 to 0.33 SD six months to years later, and the 2023 meta-analysis of 424 studies with 575,361 students confirms positive effects across skills, behavior, climate and achievement. Effects are smaller in independent, at-scale trials than in developer-led efficacy trials and depend on implementation quality; some universal mental-health curricula have produced null or harmful results. (Skills +0.57 SD, achievement +0.27 SD (11 percentile points), conduct problems -0.22 SD, emotional distress -0.24 SD (Durlak 2011); follow-up academic +0.33 SD in the few studies measuring it (Taylor 2017); reading and math about +0.25 SD (Corcoran 2018); effects roughly halve in independent at-scale trials (Wigelsworth 2016).)

Mixed evidence. The 11 percentile-point figure comes from 35 of 213 studies, mostly developer-led, and Wigelsworth's 2016 meta-analysis found effects shrink substantially when trials are run independently and at scale. The largest independent UK trial of PATHS (45 schools, 4,516 children) found only small teacher-rated gains in social competence and nothing on academic outcomes, and effects of the 4Rs program in New York were modest after two years. Universal mental-health-flavored programs have failed outright: the MYRIAD mindfulness trial was null in 85 schools and a DBT-skills program worsened depression and anxiety. Program adoption without fidelity monitoring is the common failure mode; Durlak's SAFE criteria (sequenced, active, focused, explicit) and implementation quality moderate every meta-analytic estimate. SEL has also become politically contested in several states, and districts that cannot explain what is taught lose parent trust.

Standard. A sequenced, explicitly taught SEL program with an independent evidence rating is delivered in every grade K-12 at its designed dose, with annual implementation-fidelity checks, published scope and sequence for families, and annual measurement on the climate survey.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain.

Recommended.

Sources. Durlak JA, Weissberg RP, Dymnicki AB, Taylor RD, Schellinger KB (2011). The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development 82(1):405-432. doi · Taylor RD, Oberle E, Durlak JA, Weissberg RP (2017). Promoting positive youth development through school-based social and emotional learning interventions: A meta-analysis of follow-up effects. Child Development 88(4):1156-1171. doi · Durlak JA, Mahoney JL, Boyle AE (2022). What we know, and what we need to find out about universal, school-based social and emotional learning programs for children and adolescents: A review of meta-analyses and directions for future research. Psychological Bulletin 148(11-12):765-782. doi · Cipriano C, Strambler MJ, Naples LH, et al. (2023). The state of evidence for social and emotional learning: A contemporary meta-analysis of universal school-based SEL interventions. Child Development 94(5):1181-1204. doi · Corcoran RP, Cheung ACK, Kim E, Xie C (2018). Effective universal school-based social and emotional learning programs for improving academic achievement: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 50 years of research. Educational Research Review 25:56-72. doi · Wigelsworth M, Lendrum A, Oldfield J, Scott A, ten Bokkel I, Tate K, Emery C (2016). The impact of trial stage, developer involvement and international transferability on universal social and emotional learning programme outcomes: A meta-analysis. Cambridge Journal of Education 46(3):347-376. doi · Humphrey N, Barlow A, Wigelsworth M, et al. (2016). A cluster randomized controlled trial of the Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) curriculum. Journal of School Psychology 58:73-89. doi · Jones SM, Brown JL, Aber JL (2011). Two-year impacts of a universal school-based social-emotional and literacy intervention: An experiment in translational developmental research. Child Development 82(2):533-554. doi · Kuyken W, Ball S, Crane C, et al. (2022). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of universal school-based mindfulness training compared with normal school provision in reducing risk of mental health problems and promoting well-being in adolescence: The MYRIAD cluster randomised controlled trial. Evidence-Based Mental Health 25(3):99-109. doi · Harvey LJ, White FA, Hunt C, Abbott M (2023). Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy 169:104408. doi · Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL). The CASEL framework and the CASEL Program Guide (SELect program ratings). link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier C: consistent correlational evidencestakes 3/5

Research. School climate is a medium-sized correlate of achievement (meta-analysis of 37 K-12 studies), buffers the achievement penalty of low socioeconomic status, and predicts adolescent mental health, engagement and graduation; within-school improvements in safety, leadership and academic expectations measured on New York City's annual survey track lower teacher turnover and higher achievement in a design the authors call consistent with causation. Climate is changeable: a cluster-randomized trial of schoolwide PBIS reduced office referrals by 33 percent. What the evidence does not show is that surveying alone changes anything; the survey is the instrument that makes the rest of the manual's climate commitments testable. (School climate to achievement: medium pooled correlation (37 studies); safety and expectations gains linked to achievement gains and lower teacher turnover within schools over time; climate intervention RCT: office referrals -33%; no direct effect estimated for the act of surveying.)

Mixed evidence. Nearly all climate-outcome evidence is correlational and most reviews say so; schools with high achievement may produce good climate reports rather than the reverse. Definitions and instruments vary widely, which inflates heterogeneity across studies. Self-report scales show reference bias and normative developmental declines after grade 6 that can be misread as a worsening school, so year-over-year comparisons need a fixed instrument and cohort-aware interpretation. Using climate scores for high-stakes accountability may distort responses; the CORE districts use them for improvement, not sanctions. Response rates below about 70 percent make school-level scores unreliable, and no study evaluates whether mandating a survey, by itself, improves outcomes.

Standard. The policy shall require a validated climate survey of students, staff and families every year, with a fixed instrument, a minimum response rate, results published by school and demographic group, and a requirement that each school improvement plan respond to its lowest climate domain.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain.

Recommended.

Sources. Thapa A, Cohen J, Guffey S, Higgins-D'Alessandro A (2013). A review of school climate research. Review of Educational Research 83(3):357-385. doi · Wang MT, Degol JL (2016). School climate: a review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review 28(2):315-352. doi · Erdem C, Kaya M (2024). The relationship between school and classroom climate, and academic achievement: a meta-analysis. School Psychology International 45(4):380-408. doi · Berkowitz R, Moore H, Astor RA, Benbenishty R (2017). A research synthesis of the associations between socioeconomic background, inequality, school climate, and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research 87(2):425-469. doi · Aldridge JM, McChesney K (2018). The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research 88:121-145. doi · Kraft MA, Marinell WH, Yee DS (2016). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement: evidence from panel data. American Educational Research Journal 53(5):1411-1449. doi · Konold T, Cornell D, Jia Y, Malone M (2018). School climate, student engagement, and academic achievement: a latent variable, multilevel multi-informant examination. AERA Open 4(4). doi · Daily SM, Mann MJ, Kristjansson AL, Smith ML, Zullig KJ (2019). School climate and academic achievement in middle and high school students. Journal of School Health 89(3):173-180. doi · Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, Leaf PJ (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics 130(5):e1136-e1145. doi · West MR, Pier L, Fricke H, Hough H, Loeb S, Meyer RH, Rice AB (2020). Trends in student social-emotional learning: evidence from the first large-scale panel student survey. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 42(2):279-303. doi · Duckworth AL, Yeager DS (2015). Measurement matters: assessing personal qualities other than cognitive ability for educational purposes. Educational Researcher 44(4):237-251. doi · National Center for Education Statistics. ED School Climate Surveys (EDSCLS). link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Announced, procedure-only lockdown drills paired with training raise students' and staff's sense of preparedness and correct execution (classroom procedural accuracy up 27 percentage points after training) without raising measured anxiety, and students in one district reported less fear and lower perceived risk after drills. High-intensity simulations with actors, gunfire or deception are a different intervention: a 114-school interrupted time series of 54 million social media posts found anxiety and stress up 42 percent and depression up 39 percent after active shooter drills, and the American Academy of Pediatrics calls for ending children's participation in high-intensity drills and prohibiting deception. (Procedure-only drills with training: preparedness up, lockdown accuracy +27 points, state anxiety not higher (one study lower) post-drill; simulation-style drills: anxiety and stress +42%, depression +39% in community social media after drills; 60% of youth in a national text poll say drills make them feel scared and hopeless.)

Mixed evidence. No randomized or controlled comparison of drill types exists; the preparedness and anxiety findings come from pre-post surveys without control groups, mostly from one research team (Schildkraut and Nickerson) in one large urban district and one rural high school. The Everytown and Georgia Tech social media study cannot separate the effect of the drill from news coverage or the type of drill, and was funded by an advocacy organization. Avoidance behaviors increased after drills even as fear fell. No study shows that drills reduce deaths; the real-event analysis of lockdowns is descriptive. Younger children, students with disabilities and students with trauma histories are under-studied, and the effects of monthly drill frequencies mandated in some states are unknown.

Standard. The policy shall require lockdown drills to be announced in advance to staff, students and families, to teach the procedure without simulated gunfire, actors, props or deception, to be developmentally adjusted and accommodate students with disabilities and trauma histories, to include a debrief, and to be observed and reported annually; student participation in any high-intensity simulation shall be prohibited.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (safety)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. ElSherief M, Saha K, Gupta P, Mishra S, Seybolt J, Xie J, O'Toole M, Burd-Sharps S, De Choudhury M (2021). Impacts of school shooter drills on the psychological well-being of American K-12 school communities: a social media study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 8:315. doi · Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association (2020, updated 2024). The Impact of Active Shooter Drills in Schools. link · Schildkraut J, Nickerson AB (2020). Ready to respond: effects of lockdown drills and training on school emergency preparedness. Victims and Offenders 15(5):619-638. doi · Schildkraut J, Nickerson AB (2022). Effects of lockdown drills on students' fear, perceived risk, and use of avoidance behaviors: a quasi-experimental study. Criminal Justice Policy Review 33(8):787-813. doi · Nickerson AB, Schildkraut J (2021). State anxiety prior to and after participating in lockdown drills among students in a rural high school. School Psychology Review 53(6):619-631. doi · Schildkraut J, Nickerson AB, Ristoff T (2020). Locks, lights, out of sight: assessing students' perceptions of emergency preparedness across multiple lockdown drills. Journal of School Violence 19(1):93-106. doi · Schildkraut J, Greene-Colozzi E, Nickerson AB, Florczykowski A (2023). Can school lockdowns save lives? An assessment of drills and use in real-world events. Journal of School Violence 22(2):167-182. doi · Zhe EJ, Nickerson AB (2007). Effects of an intruder crisis drill on children's knowledge, anxiety, and perceptions of school safety. School Psychology Review 36(3):501-508. doi · Dickson MJ, Vargo KK (2017). Training kindergarten students lockdown drill procedures using behavioral skills training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 50(2):407-412. doi · Huskey MG, Connell NM (2021). Preparation or provocation? Student perceptions of active shooter drills. Criminal Justice Policy Review 32(1):3-26. doi · Moore-Petinak N, Waselewski M, Patterson BA, Chang T (2020). Active shooter drills in the United States: a national study of youth experiences and perceptions. Journal of Adolescent Health 67(4):509-513. doi · Schonfeld DJ, Rossen E, Woodard D, et al., American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention and Council on School Health (2020). Participation of children and adolescents in live crisis drills and exercises. Pediatrics 146(3):e2020015503. doi · National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of School Resource Officers, Safe and Sound Schools (2021). Best Practice Considerations for Armed Assailant Drills in Schools. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 4/5

Research. Schools that use the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guidelines (CSTAG, formerly the Virginia guidelines) resolve student threats with far less exclusion: in a randomized trial, threatened students in CSTAG schools were about one third as likely to receive a long-term suspension (OR 0.35) and four times as likely to receive counseling, and statewide Virginia comparisons show lower odds of suspension (OR 0.59) and law-enforcement action (OR 0.47) than under generic threat procedures, with almost no threats carried out and no racial disparity in outcomes among assessed students. (Long-term suspension OR 0.35 and alternative placement OR 0.13 (RCT); suspension OR 0.59, police action OR 0.47 versus generic approaches (statewide); about 1 in 100 threats attempted; no Black-White gap in suspension among assessed students.)

Mixed evidence. Nearly all outcome research comes from the model's developer (Cornell and colleagues at the University of Virginia), who has a financial interest in CSTAG training. The single RCT is small (201 students in 40 schools) and measures disciplinary responses, not whether violence was prevented; no study can show that threat assessment reduces attacks because attacks are rare. In Florida's statewide data, Black students are over-referred for threat assessment relative to enrollment even though outcomes after referral show smaller disparities than general discipline, so parity after referral does not mean parity in who gets referred. Students receiving special education were about a third of Virginia cases, well above their enrollment share. Teams that are poorly trained reclassify transient threats as substantive and the exclusion benefit disappears; fidelity predicted lower suspension in the RCT.

Standard. The policy shall establish a multidisciplinary threat assessment team at every school using a named, evidence-based model (CSTAG or equivalent), require initial and refresher training for every team member, require that the team's default response is support and supervision rather than exclusion, and require annual reporting of case counts, outcomes and demographic referral rates to the Board.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual, 1 partly.

• ✕The policy requires that the threat assessment team's default response is support and supervision rather than exclusion. core
• ✕The policy establishes a multidisciplinary threat assessment team at every school.
• ✕The policy names an evidence-based threat assessment model, such as CSTAG or an equivalent, that the teams use.
• ◐The policy requires initial and refresher training for every threat assessment team member. partly, 236.1 Threat Assessment
• ✕The policy requires annual reporting to the Board of case counts, outcomes and demographic referral rates.

What the manual says. 236.1 Threat Assessment, revised September 23, 2024:

Recommended. Amend 236.1 Threat Assessment

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Cornell DG, Allen K, Fan X (2012). A randomized controlled study of the Virginia Student Threat Assessment Guidelines in kindergarten through grade 12. School Psychology Review 41(1):100-115. doi · Maeng JL, Cornell DG, Huang FL (2020). Student threat assessment as an alternative to exclusionary discipline. Journal of School Violence 19(3):377-388. doi · Cornell D, Maeng JL, Burnette AG, Jia Y, Huang F, Konold T, Datta P, Malone M, Meyer P (2018). Student threat assessment as a standard school safety practice: results from a statewide implementation study. School Psychology Quarterly 33(2):213-222. doi · Cornell D, Maeng J, Huang F, Shukla K, Konold T (2018). Racial/ethnic parity in disciplinary consequences using student threat assessment. School Psychology Review 47(2):183-195. doi · Maeng JL, Cornell DG, Edwards K (2024). Threat assessment and disparities in school discipline. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management 11(3):186-196. doi · Nekvasil EK, Cornell DG (2015). Student threat assessment associated with safety in middle schools. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management 2(2):98-113. doi · Cornell DG, Sheras PL, Gregory A, Fan X (2009). A retrospective study of school safety conditions in high schools using the Virginia Threat Assessment Guidelines versus alternative approaches. School Psychology Quarterly 24(2):119-129. doi · Burnette AG, Datta P, Cornell D (2018). The distinction between transient and substantive student threats. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management 5(1):4-20. doi · US Secret Service National Threat Assessment Center (2019). Protecting America's Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 4/5

Research. The strongest causal studies agree that placing police in schools increases suspensions, expulsions, police referrals and arrests, with the largest increases for Black students, male students and students with disabilities; a Texas quasi-experiment ties federal school-police grants to a 6 percent rise in middle school discipline, a 2.5 percent drop in high school graduation and a 4 percent drop in college enrollment. Safety effects are mixed: a national regression discontinuity finds SROs reduce some violence but not gun incidents, while a matched COPS-grant study finds no safety gain and more recorded drug and weapon offenses. (Discipline +6% (Texas); graduation -2.5%, college enrollment -4%; exclusionary discipline rate ratio 1.21 (meta-analysis); suspensions, referrals and arrests up with largest effects for Black students and students with disabilities; some non-gun violence down (RD), gun incidents unchanged.)

Mixed evidence. Sorensen et al. 2023 find real reductions in some forms of in-school violence, and Owens 2017 finds SROs improve measured safety and help police make drug arrests, so the claim that SROs do nothing for safety is not supported. Much of the recorded-offense increase may be detection and reporting rather than more misbehavior. Several studies identify effects off federal COPS grants, which may not generalize to districts that fund officers locally. The 2023 Campbell review found no true experiments and high heterogeneity, with the direction of effects depending on how officers are used; surveys show many students and staff feel safer with an officer present. Officer role (law enforcement only versus mixed mentoring role) changes recording and referral behavior, which is why the MOU, not the headcount, is the policy lever.

Standard. If the district places law-enforcement officers in schools, the policy shall require a written memorandum of understanding that bars officer involvement in routine discipline, defines the narrow conditions for arrest or referral, requires youth-specific training, and requires annual public reporting of arrests, referrals and use of force by school and demographic group; the Board shall review the data before renewing any officer assignment.

Checklist. 1 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires a written memorandum of understanding that bars officer involvement in routine student discipline. core
• ✕The policy requires the memorandum of understanding to define the narrow conditions under which an officer may arrest or refer a student.
• ✓The policy requires officers placed in schools to complete youth-specific training. 805.3 Use of Force
• ✕The policy requires annual public reporting of arrests, referrals and use of force by school and demographic group.
• ✕The policy requires the Board to review the reported data before renewing any officer assignment.

What the manual says. 805.3 Use of Force, revised February 27, 2023:

Also governs: 805.2 School Security Personnel; 225 Students and the Police

Recommended. Amend 805.2 School Security Personnel

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Sorensen LC, Avila-Acosta M, Engberg JB, Bushway SD (2023). The thin blue line in schools: new evidence on school-based policing across the U.S. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 42(4):941-970. doi · Gottfredson DC, Crosse S, Tang Z, Bauer EL, Harmon MA, Hagen CA, Greene AD (2020). Effects of school resource officers on school crime and responses to school crime. Criminology and Public Policy 19(3):905-940. doi · Weisburst EK (2019). Patrolling public schools: the impact of funding for school police on student discipline and long-term education outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 38(2):338-365. doi · Owens EG (2017). Testing the school-to-prison pipeline. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 36(1):11-37. doi · Fisher BW, Hennessy EA (2016). School resource officers and exclusionary discipline in U.S. high schools: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Adolescent Research Review 1(3):217-233. doi · Fisher BW, Petrosino A, Sutherland H, Guckenburg S, Fronius T, Benitez I, Earl K (2023). School-based law enforcement strategies to reduce crime, increase perceptions of safety, and improve learning outcomes in primary and secondary schools: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 19(4):e1360. doi · Na C, Gottfredson DC (2013). Police officers in schools: effects on school crime and the processing of offending behaviors. Justice Quarterly 30(4):619-650. doi · Devlin DN, Gottfredson DC (2018). The roles of police officers in schools: effects on the recording and reporting of crime. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 16(2):208-223. doi · Peterson J, Densley J, Erickson G (2021). Presence of armed school officials and fatal and nonfatal gunshot injuries during mass school shootings, United States, 1980-2019. JAMA Network Open 4(2):e2037394. doi · Livingston MD, Rossheim ME, Hall KS (2019). A descriptive analysis of school and school shooter characteristics and the severity of school shootings in the United States, 1999-2018. Journal of Adolescent Health 64(6):797-799. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Hazing is common in high school (48 percent of students in groups report hazing activities, 17 percent of grade 6 to 12 athletes in one survey, and only 14 percent of hazed students call it hazing), but no controlled study shows that any hazing policy or program reduces hazing; the evidence supports clear definitions, mandatory reporting and consent-does-not-matter language as a standard. For concussion, state remove-from-play and return-to-play laws produced a rise in reported concussions (better identification) followed by falling recurrent-concussion rates about 2.6 years after passage, and mandated preseason heat-acclimatization rules cut exertional heat illness in football by roughly half. (Hazing: prevalence 17% (athletes) to 48% (all group members); no measured program effect. Concussion laws: reported concussions up (reporting 47% to 71%), recurrent concussion rate declining 2.6 years post-law; incident rate trend reversed from +1.85% to -1.08% per month. Heat rules: exertional heat illness IRR about 0.45 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.87).)

Mixed evidence. The hazing half of this domain is tier D: prevalence surveys are old (Alfred 2000, Hazing in View 2008, Gershel 2003) and self-reported, and the only published high school prevention evaluation is a two-school pilot that measured knowledge, not behavior. For concussion laws, all evaluations are ecological interrupted time series; the initial rise in reported concussions is almost certainly detection, and the later decline in new concussions could partly reflect reporting fatigue rather than prevention. Laws do not include prevention components (contact limits), and recurrent-concussion declines were larger but not statistically significant in states that named the clearing provider. Emergency action plans, athletic trainer coverage and sudden cardiac arrest protocols rest on professional-body standards (NATA, Korey Stringer Institute) with policy rankings rather than outcome trials.

Standard. The policy shall define hazing by listed behaviors regardless of consent, require every coach, sponsor and student participant to receive annual training, require coaches to report suspected hazing to the principal within 24 hours, and require immediate removal from play after a suspected concussion with written clearance by a licensed health care provider, a preseason heat-acclimatization schedule, and a venue-specific emergency action plan rehearsed annually.

Checklist. 1 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✓The policy defines hazing by listed behaviors and states that the definition applies regardless of the participant's consent. core 247 Hazing
• ✕The policy requires every coach, sponsor and student participant to receive annual hazing training.
• ✕The policy requires coaches to report suspected hazing to the principal within 24 hours.
• ✕The policy requires immediate removal from play after a suspected concussion, with return permitted only on written clearance by a licensed health care provider.
• ✕The policy requires a preseason heat-acclimatization schedule.
• ✕The policy requires a venue-specific emergency action plan that is rehearsed annually.

What the manual says. 247 Hazing, revised June 13, 2016:

Recommended. Amend 247 Hazing

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Hoover NC, Pollard NJ (2000). Initiation Rites in American High Schools: A National Survey. Alfred University. link · Allan EJ, Madden M (2008). Hazing in View: College Students at Risk. University of Maine. link · Allan EJ, Madden M (2012). The nature and extent of college student hazing. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health 24(1):83-90. doi · Gershel JC, Katz-Sidlow RJ, Small E, Zandieh S (2003). Hazing of suburban middle school and high school athletes. Journal of Adolescent Health 32(5):333-335. doi · Diamond AB, Callahan ST, Chain KF, Solomon GS (2016). Qualitative review of hazing in collegiate and school sports: consequences from a lack of culture, knowledge and responsiveness. British Journal of Sports Medicine 50(3):149-153. doi · Hakkola L, Allan EJ, Kerschner D (2019). Applying utilization-focused evaluation to high school hazing prevention: a pilot intervention. Evaluation and Program Planning 75:61-68. doi · Yang J, Comstock RD, Yi H, Harvey HH, Xun P (2017). New and recurrent concussions in high-school athletes before and after traumatic brain injury laws, 2005-2016. American Journal of Public Health 107(12):1916-1922. doi · Arakkal AT, Baron AE, Lamb MM, Fields SK, Comstock RD (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of traumatic brain injury state laws among high school athletes. Injury Epidemiology 7:12. doi · Gibson TB, Herring SA, Kutcher JS, Broglio SP (2015). Analyzing the effect of state legislation on health care utilization for children with concussion. JAMA Pediatrics 169(2):163-168. doi · Bompadre V, Jinguji TM, Yanez ND, Satchell EK, Gilbert K, Burton M, Conrad EU, Herring SA (2014). Washington State's Lystedt Law in concussion documentation in Seattle public high schools. Journal of Athletic Training 49(4):486-492. doi · LaRoche AA, Nelson LD, Connelly PK, Walter KD, McCrea MA (2016). Sport-related concussion reporting and state legislative effects. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 26(1):33-39. doi · Harvey HH (2013). Reducing traumatic brain injuries in youth sports: youth sports traumatic brain injury state laws, January 2009-December 2012. American Journal of Public Health 103(7):1249-1254. doi · Kerr ZY, Register-Mihalik JK, Pryor RR, Pierpoint LA, Scarneo SE, Adams WM, Kucera KL, Casa DJ, Marshall SW (2019). The association between mandated preseason heat acclimatization guidelines and exertional heat illness during preseason high school American football practices. Environmental Health Perspectives 127(4):047003. doi · Adams WM, Scarneo SE, Casa DJ (2017). State-level implementation of health and safety policies to prevent sudden death and catastrophic injuries within secondary school athletics. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 5(9):2325967117727262. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 4/5

Research. Mental health services delivered in school by school staff reduce student mental health problems (Hedges g = 0.39 across 43 controlled trials with 49,941 elementary students; g = 0.76 for targeted services), and placing licensed clinicians in schools raised treatment use 8 percent and cut self-reported suicide attempts about 15 percent across 263 Minnesota schools. Counselors have causal effects: an additional counselor reduces disciplinary incidents and raises achievement (Carrell and Hoekstra), individual counselors move graduation and college attendance as much as teachers do (Mulhern), and one more high school counselor raises four-year college enrollment by up to 10 points in a regression-discontinuity design. Universal suicide prevention programs that teach help-seeking (YAM in the SEYLE trial, SOS) roughly halve new suicide attempts, but the largest Sources of Strength trial found no overall reduction and harm where fidelity was poor. (Services: g = 0.39 overall, 0.76 targeted; in-school clinicians: treatment use +8%, suicide attempts -15%; counselors: fewer disciplinary incidents and higher attainment, effects comparable to teacher effects; YAM: new suicide attempts and severe ideation about -50% at 12 months; Sources of Strength: no overall effect on attempts across 40 schools.)

Mixed evidence. The ASCA 250:1 ratio is a professional benchmark, not a research finding: the 2021 meta-analysis found only a small negative effect of higher ratios with serious design bias in the underlying studies, and ratio evidence does not say which staff or services matter. Universal programs can backfire: the MYRIAD trial (85 UK schools) found no benefit from school mindfulness training, a 1,071-student DBT-skills program (WISE Teens) worsened depression (d = -0.22) and anxiety (d = -0.28), and in the 40-school Sources of Strength trial poorly implemented schools saw more new suicide attempts among 9th graders than controls. The Minnesota suicide-attempt result is self-reported and the suspension result there is weaker. Counselor effects vary widely between individuals (Mulhern), so headcount alone does not guarantee results. Universal screening finds more students with depression but creates a referral load the district must be able to meet.

Standard. Every school meets or has a funded plan to reach 250 students per counselor, 500 per school psychologist and 250 per school social worker; every school has a licensed mental health clinician on site at least weekly through district staff or a community partner; secondary students are screened annually for depression with parental consent and a same-week referral pathway; every secondary school runs an evidence-based suicide prevention program with annual fidelity monitoring and a written postvention protocol.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires every school to meet, or have a funded plan to reach, 250 students per counselor, 500 per school psychologist and 250 per school social worker. core
• ✕The policy requires every school to have a licensed mental health clinician on site at least weekly through district staff or a community partner.
• ✕The policy requires secondary students to be screened annually for depression with parental consent.
• ✕The policy provides a same-week referral pathway for students identified through depression screening.
• ✕The policy requires every secondary school to run an evidence-based suicide prevention program with annual fidelity monitoring.
• ✕The policy requires every secondary school to have a written postvention protocol.

What the manual says. 820 Suicide Awareness, Prevention, & Response, revised August 10, 2015:

Also governs: 146 Student Services; 238 Student Assistance Program

Recommended. Amend 820 Suicide Awareness, Prevention, & Response

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Sanchez AL, Cornacchio D, Poznanski B, Golik AM, Chou T, Comer JS (2018). The effectiveness of school-based mental health services for elementary-aged children: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 57(3):153-165. doi · Golberstein E, Zainullina I, Sojourner A, Sander MA (2024). Effects of school-based mental health services on youth outcomes. Journal of Human Resources 59(S):S256-S281. doi · Carrell SE, Hoekstra M (2014). Are school counselors an effective education input? Economics Letters 125(1):66-69. doi · Reback R (2010). Schools' mental health services and young children's emotions, behavior, and learning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 29(4):698-725. doi · Mulhern C (2023). Beyond teachers: Estimating individual school counselors' effects on educational attainment. American Economic Review 113(11):2846-2893. doi · Hurwitz M, Howell J (2014). Estimating causal impacts of school counselors with regression discontinuity designs. Journal of Counseling and Development 92(3):316-327. doi · Kearney C, Akos P, Domina T, Young Z (2021). Student-to-school counselor ratios: A meta-analytic review of the evidence. Journal of Counseling and Development 99(4):418-428. doi · Wasserman D, Hoven CW, Wasserman C, et al. (2015). School-based suicide prevention programmes: The SEYLE cluster-randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 385(9977):1536-1544. doi · Schilling EA, Aseltine RH, James A (2016). The SOS Suicide Prevention Program: Further evidence of efficacy and effectiveness. Prevention Science 17(2):157-166. doi · Wyman PA, Brown CH, LoMurray M, et al. (2010). An outcome evaluation of the Sources of Strength suicide prevention program delivered by adolescent peer leaders in high schools. American Journal of Public Health 100(9):1653-1661. doi · Wyman PA, Cero I, Brown CH, et al. (2023). Impact of Sources of Strength on adolescent suicide deaths across three randomized trials. Injury Prevention 29(6):474-481. doi · Wyman PA, Cero I, Pisani AR, et al. (2025). Impact of the Sources of Strength peer leader program on suicide attempt rates in 40 high schools: A hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized trial. School Mental Health. doi · Sekhar DL, Schaefer EW, Waxmonsky JG, et al. (2021). Screening in high schools to identify, evaluate, and lower depression among adolescents: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 4(11):e2131836. doi · Kuyken W, Ball S, Crane C, et al. (2022). Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of universal school-based mindfulness training compared with normal school provision in reducing risk of mental health problems and promoting well-being in adolescence: The MYRIAD cluster randomised controlled trial. Evidence-Based Mental Health 25(3):99-109. doi · Harvey LJ, White FA, Hunt C, Abbott M (2023). Investigating the efficacy of a Dialectical behaviour therapy-based universal intervention on adolescent social and emotional well-being outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy 169:104408. doi · Foulkes L, Stringaris A (2023). Do no harm: Can school mental health interventions cause iatrogenic harm? BJPsych Bulletin 47(6):349-351. doi · American School Counselor Association. School counselor roles and ratios (recommended ratio 250:1; national average 372:1 in 2024-25). link · National Association of School Psychologists. Shortage of school psychologists (recommended ratio 1 psychologist per 500 students). link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Heat cuts learning: across 10 million PSAT retakers, each 1 degree F hotter school year reduced that year's learning by about 1 percent in schools without air conditioning, and air conditioning offset nearly all of it; hot school days fall hardest on Black and Hispanic students and explain roughly 5 percent of the racial achievement gap. Poor ventilation costs attendance and scores: in 162 California classrooms each additional 1 L/s per person of outdoor air cut illness absence 1.6 percent, a 140-classroom study found math scores rose 0.5 percent per L/s-person up to the 7.1 L/s-person standard and a further 0.5 percent per degree C cooler within 20 to 25 C, and a double-blind crossover experiment found 3 to 7 percent more correct answers when outdoor air rose from 1.7 to 6.6 L/s-person. (Learning -1% per +1 F school-year temperature without AC, mostly offset by AC; illness absence -1.6% per +1 L/s-person ventilation; math +0.5% per L/s-person and +0.5% per 1 C cooler (20 to 25 C); test speed +12% and errors -2% when classroom CO2 falls from 2100 to 900 ppm (pooled model); most US classrooms ventilate below the ASHRAE 62.1 rate.)

Mixed evidence. The heat evidence is tier A (several large natural experiments agree); the ventilation evidence is weaker: Mendell and Haverinen-Shaughnessy are prospective observational studies, Petersen is a small crossover with four classrooms, and Wargocki's 12 percent figure is a pooled model prediction rather than a measured effect. Graff Zivin, Hsiang and Neidell found heat lowers math performance on the day of the test but found no long-run effect of early-life temperature exposure. Stafford's Texas study found renovations that fixed indoor air problems raised test scores, but renovations change many things at once. Air conditioning and ventilation upgrades are capital-intensive (an elementary school HVAC replacement runs into the millions) and raise energy costs, and ASHRAE 241 is a voluntary standard. CO2 is an indicator of ventilation, not a pollutant at classroom levels.

Standard. Every occupied classroom is kept between 68 and 78 F during instruction, every classroom is ventilated at or above the ASHRAE 62.1 outdoor air rate with MERV-13 filtration and continuous CO2 monitoring held below 1,000 ppm, and the district has a written heat response plan with a trigger temperature, cooling priorities and a capital plan to air-condition every classroom.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (health and wellbeing)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Park RJ, Goodman J, Hurwitz M, Smith J (2020). Heat and learning. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 12(2):306-339. doi · Park RJ (2022). Hot temperature and high-stakes performance. Journal of Human Resources 57(2):400-434. doi · Park RJ, Behrer AP, Goodman J (2021). Learning is inhibited by heat exposure, both internationally and within the United States. Nature Human Behaviour 5(1):19-27. doi · Graff Zivin J, Hsiang SM, Neidell M (2018). Temperature and human capital in the short and long run. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 5(1):77-105. doi · Cho H (2017). The effects of summer heat on academic achievement: A cohort analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 83:185-196. doi · Mendell MJ, Eliseeva EA, Davies MM, et al. (2013). Association of classroom ventilation with reduced illness absence: A prospective study in California elementary schools. Indoor Air 23(6):515-528. doi · Haverinen-Shaughnessy U, Moschandreas DJ, Shaughnessy RJ (2011). Association between substandard classroom ventilation rates and students' academic achievement. Indoor Air 21(2):121-131. doi · Haverinen-Shaughnessy U, Shaughnessy RJ (2015). Effects of classroom ventilation rate and temperature on students' test scores. PLOS ONE 10(8):e0136165. doi · Petersen S, Jensen KL, Pedersen ALS, Rasmussen HS (2016). The effect of increased classroom ventilation rate indicated by reduced CO2 concentration on the performance of schoolwork by children. Indoor Air 26(3):366-379. doi · Wargocki P, Porras-Salazar JA, Contreras-Espinoza S (2019). The relationship between classroom temperature and children's performance in school. Building and Environment 157:197-204. doi · Wargocki P, Porras-Salazar JA, Contreras-Espinoza S, Bahnfleth W (2020). The relationships between classroom air quality and children's performance in school. Building and Environment 173:106749. doi · Fisk WJ (2017). The ventilation problem in schools: Literature review. Indoor Air 27(6):1039-1051. doi · Gaihre S, Semple S, Miller J, Fielding S, Turner S (2014). Classroom carbon dioxide concentration, school attendance, and educational attainment. Journal of School Health 84(9):569-574. doi · Stafford TM (2015). Indoor air quality and academic performance. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 70:34-50. doi · ASHRAE. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1, Ventilation and acceptable indoor air quality (classroom outdoor air rate: 10 cfm per person plus 0.12 cfm per square foot). link · ASHRAE (2023). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 241, Control of infectious aerosols (equivalent clean airflow target of 20 L/s per person for classrooms in infection risk management mode). link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Daily recess is associated with better classroom behavior and attention: in a national sample of 11,000 third graders, children with at least one daily recess of 15 or more minutes had better teacher-rated class behavior, a within-subject experiment found fourth graders more on task and less fidgety on recess days, and a cluster-randomized trial of a structured-recess program (Playworks) in 27 to 29 schools reduced teacher-reported bullying and exclusion and cut transition time back to learning. The AAP and CDC state that recess is a necessary break and should not be withheld as punishment or to complete work. (Daily recess of 15 or more minutes: better teacher-rated class behavior (n about 11,000); recess days: more on task, less fidgeting, all ADHD children benefited; Playworks RCT: less bullying and exclusion, fewer minutes lost in transition; LiiNK four 15-minute recesses: off-task behavior down, attentional focus up)

Mixed evidence. No randomized trial varies the amount of recess itself; the Playworks RCT tests a coached recess program, and its accelerometer and student-survey measures of physical activity showed null or marginal effects even where teacher reports were positive. The LiiNK results come from two private schools with no random assignment. Brez and Sheets (2017) found no clear classroom benefit of recess timing in their small experiment. The large national association (Barros et al. 2009) is cross-sectional and children without recess were disproportionately poor, Black and urban, so the comparison is confounded. Recess competes with instructional minutes and requires supervision staffing.

Standard. Every elementary student receives at least 20 minutes of daily supervised recess, scheduled separately from physical education and lunch, which no staff member may withhold as a disciplinary consequence or to complete academic work.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (health and wellbeing)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Council on School Health, American Academy of Pediatrics (2013). The crucial role of recess in school. Pediatrics 131(1):183-188. doi · Barros RM, Silver EJ, Stein REK (2009). School recess and group classroom behavior. Pediatrics 123(2):431-436. doi · Jarrett OS, Maxwell DM, Dickerson C, Hoge P, Davies G, Yetley A (1998). Impact of recess on classroom behavior: Group effects and individual differences. Journal of Educational Research 92(2):121-126. doi · Beyler N, Bleeker M, James-Burdumy S, Fortson J, Benjamin M (2014). The impact of Playworks on students' physical activity during recess: Findings from a randomized controlled trial. Preventive Medicine 69(Suppl 1):S20-S26. doi · Fortson J, James-Burdumy S, Bleeker M, Beyler N, London RA, Westrich L, Stokes-Guinan K, Castrechini S (2013). Impact and implementation findings from an experimental evaluation of Playworks: Effects on school climate, academic learning, student social skills and behavior. Mathematica Policy Research and John W. Gardner Center, Stanford University. link · London RA, Westrich L, Stokes-Guinan K, McLaughlin M (2015). Playing fair: The contribution of high-functioning recess to overall school climate in low-income elementary schools. Journal of School Health 85(1):53-60. doi · Rhea DJ, Rivchun AP (2018). The LiiNK Project: Effects of multiple recesses and character curriculum on classroom behaviors and listening skills in grades K-2 children. Frontiers in Education 3:9. doi · Massey WV, Thalken J, Szarabajko A, Neilson L, Geldhof J (2021). Recess quality and social and behavioral health in elementary school students. Journal of School Health 91(9):730-740. doi · Brez C, Sheets V (2017). Classroom benefits of recess. Learning Environments Research 20(3):433-445. doi · Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and SHAPE America (2017). Strategies for recess in schools. Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier C: consistent correlational evidencestakes 3/5

Research. A full-time registered nurse in every school pays for itself: the Massachusetts cost-benefit study found $2.20 in avoided medical costs, teacher time and parent lost wages for every $1 spent. Schools that add a full-time nurse show lower illness absence, with the clearest gains for students with asthma (23 percent fewer days missed with a full-time versus part-time nurse in Toledo; fewer illness absences and emergency visits after San Jose added full-time nurses), but the attendance evidence is quasi-experimental, integrative reviews rate it weak, and no study shows a nurse effect on test scores. (Benefit-cost ratio 2.2 (Massachusetts); students with asthma -23% days absent with full-time vs part-time nurse; illness absence fell in schools adding full-time RNs; teachers in schools without a full-time nurse spent about an hour a day on student health; achievement effects unproven.)

Mixed evidence. No randomized or natural-experiment study of nurse staffing exists; the two best quasi-experiments (Telljohann 2004, Rodriguez 2013) are small and matched rather than randomized, and Yoder's 2019 review found nurse presence associated with less absence and missed class time but not with achievement. A matched 46-school study of licensed practical nurses (not RNs) found at best negligible attendance gains at $68,228 per school per year (Leach 2022), which suggests the benefit depends on scope of practice and on what the nurse is asked to do. The Massachusetts benefit-cost figure rests on modeled productivity savings, not measured outcomes. NASN itself abandoned the fixed 1:750 ratio in 2020 in favor of a workload and acuity analysis, so there is no single staffing number the research supports.

Standard. Every school building has a licensed registered nurse on site for the full instructional day, every day school is in session, with additional nursing staff assigned from an annual workload and acuity analysis; LPNs and unlicensed health aides work only under RN delegation and supervision.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires a licensed registered nurse on site in every school building for the full instructional day, every day school is in session. core
• ✕The policy assigns additional nursing staff based on an annual workload and acuity analysis.
• ✕The policy allows LPNs and unlicensed health aides to work only under registered nurse delegation and supervision.
• ✕The policy contains no language making nurse presence contingent on available funding, sharing a nurse among buildings, or as-needed contracting.
• ✕The policy contains no language allowing clerical staff or health aides to staff the health office in a nurse's absence.

What the manual says. 146 Student Services, revised November 4, 2019:

Recommended. New policy (health and wellbeing)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Wang LY, Vernon-Smiley M, Gapinski MA, Desisto M, Maughan E, Sheetz A (2014). Cost-benefit study of school nursing services. JAMA Pediatrics 168(7):642-648. doi · Telljohann SK, Dake JA, Price JH (2004). Effect of full-time versus part-time school nurses on attendance of elementary students with asthma. Journal of School Nursing 20(6):331-334. doi · Rodriguez E, Rivera DA, Perlroth D, Becker E, Wang NE, Landau M (2013). School nurses' role in asthma management, school absenteeism, and cost savings: A demonstration project. Journal of School Health 83(12):842-850. doi · Best NC, Oppewal S, Travers D (2018). Exploring school nurse interventions and health and education outcomes: An integrative review. Journal of School Nursing 34(1):14-27. doi · Yoder CM (2020). School nurses and student academic outcomes: An integrative review. Journal of School Nursing 36(1):49-60. doi · Leach SM, Hollands FM, Stone E, et al. (2022). Costs and effects of school-based licensed practical nurses on elementary student attendance and chronic absenteeism. Prevention Science 23(8):1414-1427. doi · Harris K, Kneale D, Lasserson TJ, McDonald VM, Grigg J, Thomas J (2019). School-based self-management interventions for asthma in children and adolescents: A mixed methods systematic review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1:CD011651. doi · Hill NJ, Hollis M (2012). Teacher time spent on student health issues and school nurse presence. Journal of School Nursing 28(3):181-186. doi · Willgerodt MA, Tanner A, McCabe E, Jameson B, Brock D (2024). Public school nurses in the United States: National School Nurse Workforce Study 2.0. Journal of School Nursing 40(5):468-481. doi · National Association of School Nurses (2025). Position statement: School nurse workload, essential staffing for safe and equitable student care. Journal of School Nursing 41(5):642-645. doi · Council on School Health, American Academy of Pediatrics (2016). Role of the school nurse in providing school health services. Pediatrics 137(6):e20160852. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 2/5

Research. Meta-analyses of experimental studies find that physical activity delivered through physical education improves classroom behavior and academic outcomes, with the gains concentrated in programs that raise the quality and intensity of PE lessons (cognition g 0.38, academic performance g 0.15) rather than in simply adding minutes (academic g 0.09, not significant). Instrumental-variable estimates using state PE mandates show more PE time increases physical activity and lowers obesity among fifth-grade boys without crowding out test scores. SHAPE America's standard is 150 minutes per week in elementary and 225 in secondary school. (Quality-focused PE interventions: cognition +0.38 SD, academic performance +0.15 SD; PA interventions: math +0.21 SD, on-task behavior +0.77 SD; more PE time: no crowd-out of test scores, lower BMI z-score for boys; added minutes alone: academic +0.09 SD (null))

Mixed evidence. Adding PE minutes without changing lesson quality has little measurable academic effect. Packham and Street (2019) used a regression discontinuity on Texas Fitness Now, a 37 million dollar daily-PE mandate for low-income middle schools, and found no overall fitness improvement, no test-score or attendance gain, and some evidence of lower attendance and more disciplinary incidents. Cawley, Meyerhoefer and Newhouse (2007) found binding state PE requirements raised activity but not weight outcomes for high school students. Singh et al. (2019) rated only 11 of 58 PA intervention studies as high quality and called the evidence on overall academic performance inconclusive, while confirming math benefits. Observed PE lessons average well under the 50 percent moderate-to-vigorous activity target, so minutes on a schedule overstate activity delivered.

Standard. Every student receives at least 150 minutes per week of PE in elementary and 225 minutes per week in secondary grades, taught by a certified physical educator, with no waivers for athletics or other courses and no PE time withheld as punishment.

Checklist. 0 of 4 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy guarantees every student at least 150 minutes per week of PE in elementary grades and 225 minutes per week in secondary grades. core
• ✕The policy requires that PE be taught by a certified physical educator.
• ✕The policy allows no waivers from PE for athletics, band, JROTC, or other courses.
• ✕The policy prohibits withholding PE time as punishment.

What the manual says. 246 Wellness, revised August 21, 2017:

Recommended. Amend 246 Wellness

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Garcia-Hermoso A, Ramirez-Velez R, Lubans DR, Izquierdo M (2021). Effects of physical education interventions on cognition and academic performance outcomes in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine 55(21):1224-1232. doi · Alvarez-Bueno C, Pesce C, Cavero-Redondo I, Sanchez-Lopez M, Garrido-Miguel M, Martinez-Vizcaino V (2017). Academic achievement and physical activity: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics 140(6):e20171498. doi · Singh AS, Saliasi E, van den Berg V, et al. (2019). Effects of physical activity interventions on cognitive and academic performance in children and adolescents: a novel combination of a systematic review and recommendations from an expert panel. British Journal of Sports Medicine 53(10):640-647. doi · Donnelly JE, Hillman CH, Castelli D, et al. (2016). Physical activity, fitness, cognitive function, and academic achievement in children: A systematic review. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 48(6):1197-1222. doi · Cawley J, Frisvold D, Meyerhoefer C (2013). The impact of physical education on obesity among elementary school children. Journal of Health Economics 32(4):743-755. doi · Packham A, Street B (2019). The effects of physical education on student fitness, achievement, and behavior. Economics of Education Review 72:1-18. doi · Cawley J, Meyerhoefer C, Newhouse D (2007). The impact of state physical education requirements on youth physical activity and overweight. Health Economics 16(12):1287-1301. doi · Lonsdale C, Rosenkranz RR, Peralta LR, Bennie A, Fahey P, Lubans DR (2013). A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions designed to increase moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in school physical education lessons. Preventive Medicine 56(2):152-161. doi · Hollis JL, Williams AJ, Sutherland R, et al. (2016). A systematic review and meta-analysis of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity levels in elementary school physical education lessons. Preventive Medicine 86:34-54. doi · SHAPE America (2015). The essential components of physical education. Reston, VA: SHAPE America. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 2/5

Research. Lead harms learning at every measured level: in Rhode Island, each 1 ug/dL lower average preschool blood lead cut the chance of scoring substantially below proficient in third-grade reading by about 1 percentage point on a 12 percent base, Swedish and North Carolina natural experiments find the same for school grades, crime and suspensions, and Flint's water crisis lowered math achievement and raised special education classification district-wide. Lead in school water is common: in seven state testing programs 13 to 81 percent of tested schools had at least one outlet above 5 ppb, and 37 percent of US districts that tested found elevated lead, but no study links school-water lead itself to achievement, so testing policy rests on the blood-lead evidence plus prevalence data. (Below-proficient reading -0.96 pct points per 1 ug/dL lower blood lead (base 12%); Flint: math achievement down and special education classification up across the district; 37% of testing districts found elevated lead (GAO); 4 of 7 states found more than 20% of schools with an outlet above 5 ppb.)

Mixed evidence. The causal chain is indirect: the strong studies measure blood lead from all sources (paint, soil, water) and no study isolates school drinking water's contribution to blood lead or achievement, and Flint's effects appeared even in homes with copper service lines, which points to stress and disruption as well as lead. Water is a smaller lead source than paint and dust for most children, and a child drinks only part of the day's water at school. Sampling results depend heavily on protocol (first draw versus flushed, stagnation time, which outlets), so a single clean test does not prove safety and a single high test may reflect one fixture. Remediation costs are real (fixture replacement, filtered bottle fillers, re-testing every few years) and there is no agreed health-based action level for schools: EPA uses 15 ppb for water systems and recommends schools act at 5 ppb or lower, AAP recommends 1 ppb.

Standard. Every outlet used for drinking or cooking in every building is tested for lead with first-draw samples at least every 3 years and after any plumbing work, any outlet above 5 ppb is taken out of service within 24 hours until fixed or replaced, results are posted publicly within 30 days, and every building has filtered drinking stations.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (health and wellbeing)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Aizer A, Currie J, Simon P, Vivier P (2018). Do low levels of blood lead reduce children's future test scores? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10(1):307-341. doi · Aizer A, Currie J (2019). Lead and juvenile delinquency: New evidence from linked birth, school, and juvenile detention records. Review of Economics and Statistics 101(4):575-587. doi · Gronqvist H, Nilsson JP, Robling PO (2020). Understanding how low levels of early lead exposure affect children's life trajectories. Journal of Political Economy 128(9):3376-3433. doi · Billings SB, Schnepel KT (2018). Life after lead: Effects of early interventions for children exposed to lead. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 10(3):315-344. doi · Sorensen LC, Fox AM, Jung H, Martin EG (2019). Lead exposure and academic achievement: Evidence from childhood lead poisoning prevention efforts. Journal of Population Economics 32(1):179-218. doi · Lanphear BP, Hornung R, Khoury J, et al. (2005). Low-level environmental lead exposure and children's intellectual function: An international pooled analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives 113(7):894-899. doi · Reyes JW (2015). Lead exposure and behavior: Effects on antisocial and risky behavior among children and adolescents. Economic Inquiry 53(3):1580-1605. doi · Hanna-Attisha M, LaChance J, Sadler RC, Champney Schnepp A (2016). Elevated blood lead levels in children associated with the Flint drinking water crisis: A spatial analysis of risk and public health response. American Journal of Public Health 106(2):283-290. doi · Trejo S, Yeomans-Maldonado G, Jacob B (2024). The effects of the Flint water crisis on the educational outcomes of school-age children. Science Advances 10(5):eadk4737. doi · Cradock AL, Barrett JL, Poole MK, Flax CN, Vollmer L, Hecht C (2022). Lead concentrations in US school drinking water: Testing programs, prevalence, and policy opportunities, 2016-2018. American Journal of Public Health 112(S7):S679-S689. doi · Lambrinidou Y, Triantafyllidou S, Edwards M (2010). Failing our children: Lead in U.S. school drinking water. NEW SOLUTIONS 20(1):25-47. doi · Council on Environmental Health, American Academy of Pediatrics (2016). Prevention of childhood lead toxicity. Pediatrics 138(1):e20161493. doi · US Government Accountability Office (2018). K-12 Education: Lead testing of school drinking water would benefit from improved federal guidance. GAO-18-382. link · US Environmental Protection Agency. 3Ts for reducing lead in drinking water in schools and child care facilities (Training, Testing, Taking Action). link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Making meals free for every student (the Community Eligibility Provision or a district-wide universal free lunch) raises school-meal participation and produces small but real gains in test scores and fewer suspensions: the New York City difference-in-differences study found math and ELA gains of 0.03 to 0.08 SD, state CEP rollouts found elementary math gains of about 0.02 to 0.06 SD, and CEP cut suspensions by roughly 17 percent for white elementary boys with negative but imprecise estimates elsewhere. Moving breakfast after the bell reliably raises breakfast participation (from about 43 to 74 percent of students in one 446-school district), but the best causal studies of breakfast-in-classroom find little or no test-score gain from the service change itself. (Universal free lunch: math +0.03 to +0.06 SD, ELA +0.03 to +0.08 SD; participation +5 to +11 pct points; suspensions about -17% for one elementary subgroup; no BMI increase. Breakfast after the bell: participation roughly +30 pct points; test-score effect near zero in NYC and in a 446-school propensity study.)

Mixed evidence. Breakfast-in-classroom raised participation in New York City with no detectable gain in achievement or attendance (Corcoran, Elbel and Schwartz 2016), and the 446-school Anzman-Frasca study found better participation and slightly better attendance but no achievement change; only Imberman and Kugler (2014) found test-score gains from in-class breakfast, and they could not separate nutrition from the timing of the test. The 2024 JAMA Network Open systematic review of CEP rated the attendance evidence low certainty (no or slight improvement in 2 studies) and the suspension and obesity evidence very low certainty. Gordon and Ruffini could not rule out large positive or negative discipline effects for middle and high schools, and the math gains in CEP studies are small (0.02 to 0.06 SD) and concentrated among elementary students and students newly gaining access. Districts with an identified student percentage near the 25 percent floor receive less than full federal reimbursement under CEP and must cover the gap from general funds.

Standard. Every school with an identified student percentage at or above the federal CEP threshold operates under CEP or a state universal-meals program so that no student is charged for breakfast or lunch, and every school serves breakfast after the start of the instructional day (in-classroom, grab-and-go, or second-chance) so that breakfast participation reaches at least 70 percent of lunch participation.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain.

Recommended.

Sources. Schwartz AE, Rothbart MW (2020). Let them eat lunch: The impact of universal free meals on student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 39(2):376-410. doi · Ruffini K (2022). Universal access to free school meals and student achievement: Evidence from the Community Eligibility Provision. Journal of Human Resources 57(3):776-820. doi · Gordon NE, Ruffini K (2021). Schoolwide free meals and student discipline: Effects of the Community Eligibility Provision. Education Finance and Policy 16(3):418-442. doi · Gordanier J, Ozturk O, Williams B, Zhan C (2020). Free lunch for all! The effect of the Community Eligibility Provision on academic outcomes. Economics of Education Review 77:101999. doi · Spill MK, Trivedi R, Thoerig RC, et al. (2024). Universal free school meals and school and student outcomes: A systematic review. JAMA Network Open 7(8):e2424082. doi · Cohen JFW, Hecht AA, McLoughlin GM, Turner L, Schwartz MB (2021). Universal school meals and associations with student participation, attendance, academic performance, diet quality, food security, and body mass index: A systematic review. Nutrients 13(3):911. doi · Frisvold DE (2015). Nutrition and cognitive achievement: An evaluation of the School Breakfast Program. Journal of Public Economics 124:91-104. doi · Imberman SA, Kugler AD (2014). The effect of providing breakfast in class on student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 33(3):669-699. doi · Corcoran SP, Elbel B, Schwartz AE (2016). The effect of Breakfast in the Classroom on obesity and academic performance: Evidence from New York City. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 35(3):509-532. doi · Anzman-Frasca S, Djang HC, Halmo MM, Dolan PR, Economos CD (2015). Estimating impacts of a Breakfast in the Classroom program on school outcomes. JAMA Pediatrics 169(1):71-77. doi · Bartfeld JS, Berger L, Men F, Chen Y (2019). Access to the School Breakfast Program is associated with higher attendance and test scores among elementary school students. Journal of Nutrition 149(2):336-343. doi · Leos-Urbel J, Schwartz AE, Weinstein M, Corcoran SP (2013). Not just for poor kids: The impact of universal free school breakfast on meal participation and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review 36:88-107. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 2/5

Research. Screening every student and then delivering eye exams and free glasses on site improves reading: the Baltimore cluster randomized trial of 2,304 students in grades 3 to 7 found a 0.09 SD reading gain after one year, with gains of 0.28 SD for students in the lowest baseline quartile and 0.25 SD for students in special education; rural China trials found math gains of 0.11 to 0.16 SD from free glasses. The gains fade by the second year unless glasses are replaced and wear is followed up, and screening alone, without exams and glasses, does nothing for achievement. (Reading +0.09 SD at 1 year overall, +0.28 SD for lowest-quartile readers (Baltimore RCT); math +0.11 to +0.16 SD (China cluster RCTs); FCAT pass rate +2 pct points averaged over all students (Florida RCT); no sustained effect at 2 years without follow-up.)

Mixed evidence. Effects fade: Baltimore found no sustained impact at two years and no effect on the state PARCC test, and the Florida trial also reports fade-out. Screening without a guaranteed exam and glasses did not raise achievement in Florida, and the 2018 Cochrane review found only low-certainty evidence that school screening programs by themselves improve outcomes. Compliance is the binding constraint: many students stop wearing or lose their glasses within months, and the Baltimore and Los Angeles programs needed replacement pairs and classroom follow-up. Math effects in the US trials were small (0.03 SD in Baltimore elementary grades) and the Los Angeles study was observational.

Standard. Every student is screened for distance and near vision at school entry and at least every two years thereafter (and whenever a teacher refers), every student who fails is guaranteed a comprehensive eye exam and glasses at no cost to the family, delivered on site or through a partner within 90 days, with a replacement pair and a documented wear check each semester.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain.

Recommended.

Sources. Neitzel AJ, Wolf B, Guo X, et al. (2021). Effect of a randomized interventional school-based vision program on academic performance of students in grades 3 to 7: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmology 139(10):1104-1114. doi · Glewwe P, Park A, Zhao M (2016). A better vision for development: Eyeglasses and academic performance in rural primary schools in China. Journal of Development Economics 122:170-182. doi · Ma X, Zhou Z, Yi H, et al. (2014). Effect of providing free glasses on children's educational outcomes in China: Cluster randomized controlled trial. BMJ 349:g5740. doi · Glewwe P, West KL, Lee J (2018). The impact of providing vision screening and free eyeglasses on academic outcomes: Evidence from a randomized trial in Title I elementary schools in Florida. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 37(2):265-300. doi · Slavin RE, Collins ME, Repka MX, et al. (2018). In plain sight: Reading outcomes of providing eyeglasses to disadvantaged children. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 23(3):250-258. doi · Dudovitz RN, Sim MS, Elashoff D, et al. (2020). Receipt of corrective lenses and academic performance of low-income students. Academic Pediatrics 20(4):527-533. doi · Evans JR, Morjaria P, Powell C (2018). Vision screening for correctable visual acuity deficits in school-age children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2:CD005023. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 2/5

Research. Children with fewer than 20 minutes seated to eat consume less of their lunch, especially fruit and vegetables: in a randomized crossover trial, 10 minutes of seated time versus 20 cut fruit consumption by 11 percentage points and vegetables by 14 points, and observational cafeteria studies in Massachusetts and California show the same pattern at scale. CDC guidance is at least 20 minutes seated after being served. (10 vs 20 seated minutes: fruit consumption -11 percentage points, vegetables -14 points (RCT); under 20 minutes: entree, milk and vegetable consumption all lower (observational); longer lunch period raises odds of eating fruit 1.4x and vegetables 1.5x)

Mixed evidence. The only randomized trial (Burg et al. 2021) enrolled 38 children at a university summer camp, not a school cafeteria, and found no difference in entree or beverage consumption between 10 and 20 minutes. The school-based studies are cross-sectional and cannot rule out that schools with longer lunches differ in other ways. No study links seated lunch minutes to achievement or attendance; the outcome evidence is dietary intake and plate waste. Longer lunches cost instructional minutes or require staggered periods and more cafeteria supervision.

Standard. Every building schedule provides each student at least 20 minutes seated to eat lunch after being served, and the district measures and reports seated time, not period length.

Checklist. 1 of 4 elements of the standard are in the manual, 1 partly.

• ✓The policy guarantees every student at least 20 minutes seated to eat lunch after being served. core 246 Wellness
• ◐The policy applies the seated lunch time requirement to every building schedule in the district. partly, 246 Wellness
• ✕The policy requires the district to measure seated eating time rather than lunch period length.
• ✕The policy requires the district to report seated eating time, not period length.

What the manual says. 246 Wellness, revised August 21, 2017:

Recommended. New policy (health and wellbeing)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Burg X, Metcalfe JJ, Ellison B, Prescott MP (2021). Effects of longer seated lunch time on food consumption and waste in elementary and middle school-age children: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open 4(6):e2114148. doi · Cohen JFW, Jahn JL, Richardson S, Cluggish SA, Parker E, Rimm EB (2016). Amount of time to eat lunch is associated with children's selection and consumption of school meal entree, fruits, vegetables, and milk. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 116(1):123-128. doi · Gosliner W (2014). School-level factors associated with increased fruit and vegetable consumption among students in California middle and high schools. Journal of School Health 84(9):559-568. doi · Price J, Just DR (2015). Lunch, recess and nutrition: Responding to time incentives in the cafeteria. Preventive Medicine 71:27-30. doi · Hunsberger M, McGinnis P, Smith J, Beamer BA, O'Malley J (2014). Elementary school children's recess schedule and dietary intake at lunch: a community-based participatory research partnership pilot study. BMC Public Health 14:156. doi · Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011). School health guidelines to promote healthy eating and physical activity. MMWR Recommendations and Reports 60(RR-5):1-76. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Randomized trials show that specific, frequent, two-way teacher-to-family communication about a child's own effort, attendance and missed work raises engagement and achievement: daily teacher messages increased homework completion 40 percent, weekly one-sentence notes cut course failure 41 percent, automated missed-assignment alerts cut course failures 27 percent, and parent-school meetings in France reduced truancy and discipline sanctions by about 0.15 SD. Meta-analyses of family-school partnership programs find small to moderate positive associations with achievement (r about 0.12 for involvement overall; about 0.3 SD for structured programs), strongest for communication about schoolwork and parental expectations rather than attendance at events. (Teacher-family communication RCTs: homework completion +40%, course failure -27% to -41%, truancy and sanctions -0.15 SD; involvement meta-analyses: r = 0.12 overall, programs about +0.3 SD; achievement effects of information nudges concentrated in grades, not state tests)

Mixed evidence. Most of the 'family engagement' literature is correlational and the strong associations in meta-analyses (Jeynes 2012, Castro 2015) partly reflect which families are already engaged; Hill and Tyson (2009) found school-based involvement (volunteering, attending events) and homework help have the weakest or even negative links to achievement in middle school, so policies that count event attendance measure the wrong thing. The causal trials show effects on grades, homework and course passing but generally not on state test scores (Bergman and Chan 2021, Avvisati et al. 2014), and they involve information about the specific child, delivered by the teacher or an automated system, not generic newsletters or parent nights. Eklund et al. (2022) found the family-school partnership category of attendance interventions had a confidence interval including zero. Take-up collapses under opt-in enrollment, and immigrant and limited-English families report the most barriers, so an unfunded two-way expectation can widen gaps rather than close them.

Standard. Policy sets a measurable district-wide expectation (not only Title I schools) of at least two individualized two-way contacts per family per year about the child's own progress, attendance and missed work, in the family's preferred language, logged in the student information system; requires default enrollment of all families in progress alerts; and requires annual public reporting of contact rates, conference participation and family survey results by school and subgroup.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy requires at least two individualized two-way contacts per family per year about the child's own progress, attendance and missed work. core
• ✕The policy applies the family contact expectation district-wide to all schools, not only Title I schools.
• ✕The policy requires that family contacts be made in the family's preferred language.
• ✕The policy requires that family contacts be logged in the student information system.
• ✕The policy requires default enrollment of all families in progress alerts.
• ✕The policy requires annual public reporting of contact rates, conference participation and family survey results by school and subgroup.

What the manual says. 918 District-Wide Parental Involvement, revised September 24, 2013:

Also governs: 212 Reporting Pupil Progress; 908 Relations With Parents

Recommended. Amend 918 District-Wide Parental Involvement

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Kraft MA, Dougherty SM (2013). The effect of teacher-family communication on student engagement: evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 6(3):199-222. doi · Kraft MA, Rogers T (2015). The underutilized potential of teacher-to-parent communication: evidence from a field experiment. Economics of Education Review 47:49-63. doi · Bergman P (2021). Parent-child information frictions and human capital investment: evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Political Economy 129(1):286-322. doi · Bergman P, Chan EW (2021). Leveraging parents through low-cost technology: the impact of high-frequency information on student achievement. Journal of Human Resources 56(1):125-158. doi · Avvisati F, Gurgand M, Guyon N, Maurin E (2014). Getting parents involved: a field experiment in deprived schools. Review of Economic Studies 81(1):57-83. doi · Smith TE, Sheridan SM, Kim EM, Park S, Beretvas SN (2020). The effects of family-school partnership interventions on academic and social-emotional functioning: a meta-analysis exploring what works for whom. Educational Psychology Review 32(2):511-544. doi · Castro M, Exposito-Casas E, Lopez-Martin E, Lizasoain L, Navarro-Asencio E, Gaviria JL (2015). Parental involvement on student academic achievement: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 14:33-46. doi · Hill NE, Tyson DF (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology 45(3):740-763. doi · Jeynes W (2012). A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different types of parental involvement programs for urban students. Urban Education 47(4):706-742. doi · York BN, Loeb S, Doss C (2019). One step at a time: the effects of an early literacy text-messaging program for parents of preschoolers. Journal of Human Resources 54(3):537-566. doi · Doss C, Fahle EM, Loeb S, York BN (2019). More than just a nudge: supporting kindergarten parents with differentiated and personalized text messages. Journal of Human Resources 54(3):567-603. doi · Bergman P, Lasky-Fink J, Rogers T (2020). Simplification and defaults affect adoption and impact of technology, but decision makers do not realize it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 158:66-79. doi · Gubbels J, van der Put CE, Assink M (2019). Risk factors for school absenteeism and dropout: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 48(9):1637-1667. doi · Eklund K, Burns MK, Oyen K, DeMarchena S, McCollom EM (2022). Addressing chronic absenteeism in schools: a meta-analysis of evidence-based interventions. School Psychology Review 51(1):95-111. doi · Elementary and Secondary Education Act Section 1116, Parent and family engagement, 20 U.S.C. 6318 (as amended by ESSA 2015). link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Quasi-experimental evaluations of the two largest community school systems find consistent gains in attendance and behavior and smaller, slower gains in achievement: New York City's 2014 initiative cut chronic absence by 7 to 8 percentage points, raised graduation 4.9 points over three years and credits earned by 1.3 per year, reduced disciplinary incidents in elementary and middle schools, and raised grade 3-8 math by 0.13 SD only in year three with no ELA effect; California's 2022 grantee cohort cut chronic absence about 30 percent and suspensions about 15 percent relative to matched schools with math +0.06 SD and ELA +0.05 SD in the first year. Longitudinal studies of City Connects, the best-studied integrated-support model, show higher middle-school test scores and roughly half the odds of high school dropout for students served in elementary school. (NYC: chronic absence -7.3 points (K-8) and -8.3 points (HS), graduation +4.9 points, credits +1.3/year, math +0.13 SD (year 3 only), ELA null; California: chronic absence -30%, suspensions -15%, math +0.06 SD, ELA +0.05 SD; City Connects: dropout 9.2% vs 16.6%; Michigan caseworkers: chronic absence -8%)

Mixed evidence. No randomized trial of the whole-school community schools model exists; the NYC and California estimates rest on matched-comparison designs that cannot rule out selection into the initiative, and the California window is one year. The one RCT of a core component, Communities In Schools case management (24 secondary schools, two years), found no effect on attendance, achievement, progress or behavior despite higher service receipt, improving only attitudes and relationships; MDRC's quasi-experimental study of the whole-school CIS model found attendance gains in elementary but not secondary schools. Heers et al. (2016), reviewing the literature, concluded that causal evidence for community schools as such is lacking and that extracurricular activities do not appear to raise achievement. Achievement effects where found are small (0.05 to 0.13 SD) and arrive after two to three years; ELA effects are repeatedly null. Costs run from a few hundred dollars per student for a coordinator to several thousand with wraparound services, and the Michigan material-needs program shows effects concentrated in schools with higher dosage and, uncomfortably, in wealthier and less diverse schools.

Standard. Policy defines the community school strategy by its four pillars (integrated student supports, expanded learning time, family and community engagement, collaborative leadership), requires each designated school to have a funded full-time coordinator, an annual needs assessment, a universal student support review, and a lead partner agreement, and requires annual reporting of attendance, discipline and achievement against matched comparison schools.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy defines the community school strategy by four pillars: integrated student supports, expanded learning time, family and community engagement, collaborative leadership. core
• ✕The policy requires each designated community school to have a funded full-time coordinator.
• ✕The policy requires each designated community school to conduct an annual needs assessment.
• ✕The policy requires each designated community school to conduct a universal student support review.
• ✕The policy requires each designated community school to have a lead partner agreement.
• ✕The policy requires annual reporting of attendance, discipline and achievement against matched comparison schools.

What the manual says. 146 Student Services, revised November 4, 2019:

Recommended. Amend 146 Student Services

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Johnston WR, Engberg J, Opper IM, Sontag-Padilla L, Xenakis L (2020). Illustrating the promise of community schools: an assessment of the impact of the New York City Community Schools Initiative. RR-3245-NYCCEO. RAND Corporation. doi · Swain W, Leung-Gagne M, Maier A, Rubinstein CF (2025). Community schools impact on student outcomes: evidence from California. Learning Policy Institute. doi · Heers M, Van Klaveren C, Groot W, Maassen van den Brink H (2016). Community schools: what we know and what we need to know. Review of Educational Research 86(4):1016-1051. doi · Maier A, Daniel J, Oakes J, Lam L (2017). Community schools as an effective school improvement strategy: a review of the evidence. Learning Policy Institute and National Education Policy Center. link · Walsh ME, Madaus GF, Raczek AE, Dearing E, Foley C, An C, Lee-St. John TJ, Beaton A (2014). A new model for student support in high-poverty urban elementary schools: effects on elementary and middle school academic outcomes. American Educational Research Journal 51(4):704-737. doi · Lee-St. John TJ, Walsh ME, Raczek AE, Vuilleumier CE, Foley C, Heberle A, Sibley E, Dearing E (2018). The long-term impact of systemic student support in elementary school: reducing high school dropout. AERA Open 4(4). doi · Dearing E, Walsh ME, Sibley E, Lee-St. John T, Foley C, Raczek AE (2016). Can community and school-based supports improve the achievement of first-generation immigrant children attending high-poverty schools? Child Development 87(3):883-897. doi · Sokol R, Degli Esposti M, Victor BG, Kernsmith P, Medina Del Toro V, Heinze J, Portugal J, Grinnell R, Gernaat E (2025). A school-based material needs intervention for chronic absenteeism: a state-wide staggered interrupted time series analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 80(3):174-181. doi · Parise L, Corrin W, Granito K, Haider Z, Somers MA, Cerna O (2017). Two years of case management: final findings from the Communities In Schools random assignment evaluation. MDRC. link · Biag M, Castrechini S (2016). Coordinated strategies to help the whole child: examining the contributions of full-service community schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 21(3):157-173. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier D: professional standard or expert consensusstakes 3/5

Research. Federal civil rights law (Title VI, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act and Lau v. Nichols) requires districts to communicate with limited-English parents in a language they understand, and IDEA requires native-language notices and interpreters for special education. Nationally representative data show that immigrant parents report the most barriers to school involvement and that English ability predicts how involved they are; the largest communication RCT that improved attendance (131,312 students) delivered its notices in five languages, and a vendor-funded matched study of a translated two-way messaging platform reports attendance gains concentrated among English learner and Latino families. (Compliance obligation; involvement gap by English proficiency documented in ECLS-K and PISA; translated two-way messaging platform (vendor study): absence -24% in Tulsa, larger gains for ELs; no causal estimate of translation itself)

Mixed evidence. No randomized or quasi-experimental study isolates the effect of translating or interpreting school communication on student outcomes; the trials that used home-language messages did not report results by language, and the strongest platform evidence (TalkingPoints) is produced by the vendor from matched comparisons. Machine translation can carry errors in high-stakes documents (discipline notices, IEPs, consent forms), and Cheatham (2011) documents interpretation in special education that fails IDEA's participation and consent standards even when an interpreter is present. Federal enforcement has weakened: Executive Order 14224 (March 2025) revoked EO 13166, the Department of Justice rescinded its LEP guidance in July 2025, and the Department of Education rescinded the January 2015 Dear Colleague letter in August 2025; the statutes and Lau remain binding but complaint-driven enforcement is less predictable, so the obligation increasingly rests on district policy and state law.

Standard. Policy identifies each family's preferred language at enrollment, translates all vital documents into every language spoken by 5 percent or 1,000 families (whichever is less) and provides free qualified interpretation on request for any language, prohibits reliance on children or untrained staff as interpreters, names a district language access coordinator, and reports delivery rates by language annually.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (family and community)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Turney K, Kao G (2009). Barriers to school involvement: are immigrant parents disadvantaged? Journal of Educational Research 102(4):257-271. doi · Kim Y (2009). Minority parental involvement and school barriers: moving the focus away from deficiencies of parents. Educational Research Review 4(2):80-102. doi · Cheatham GA (2011). Language interpretation, parent participation, and young children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 31(2):78-88. doi · OECD (2017). PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students' Well-Being. OECD Publishing, Paris. doi · Lasky-Fink J, Robinson CD, Chang HN, Rogers T (2021). Using behavioral insights to improve school administrative communications: the case of truancy notifications. Educational Researcher 50(7):442-450. doi · TalkingPoints (2025). Boosting attendance and reducing suspensions with TalkingPoints: a two-year quasi-experimental study in a large urban district. link · Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). link · Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000d. link · Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. 1703(f). link · Elementary and Secondary Education Act Section 1116(f), 20 U.S.C. 6318(f). link · 34 CFR 300.503(c) and 300.322(e), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regulations on prior written notice and parent participation. link · US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and US Department of Justice (2015). Dear Colleague Letter: English learner students and limited English proficient parents. January 7, 2015. Rescinded August 2025 and retained online for historical purposes. link · US Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (2025). Memorandum: Implementation of Executive Order 14224, Designating English as the Official Language of the United States. July 14, 2025. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. Large randomized trials show that plain, personalized letters and text messages telling families how many days their child has missed, and why it matters, reduce chronic absence by about 10 to 15 percent (2 to 7 percentage points) at a cost of roughly $6 to $9 per student or $5 to $10 per added day of attendance. Supportive, simply worded messages outperform legalistic ones, and automated alerts about missed classes and assignments also cut course failure in secondary school. (Mailings: chronic absence -10% (K-12) to -15% (K-5); texts: -2 to -7 points in grades 3-5, -20% in Head Start; supportive truancy notice: 40% more effective than standard notice; cost $5 to $10 per added day)

Mixed evidence. Effects on attendance are real but modest: a 10 percent reduction in chronic absence leaves nine in ten chronically absent students still absent, and the adaptive-text trial found no achievement gain after one year. Message content matters less than expected (benefit-framed and consequence-framed texts performed alike), while delivery details matter a lot: an opt-in default for an alert platform produced near-zero take-up compared with opt-out (Bergman, Lasky-Fink and Rogers 2020). Nudges that worked in district trials have failed when scaled by states or national organizations in another domain (FAFSA completion), so district-level ownership and data linkage appear to be preconditions. Check & Connect mentoring produced larger per-student gains than letters but at roughly 50 times the cost per added day, so messaging is a complement to, not a substitute for, case management for the most absent students.

Standard. Policy requires the district to send every family a plain-language, personalized absence update (days missed, why it matters, whom to call) at least when a student reaches 5 and 10 percent absence and again at each term, by mail and text in the family's preferred language, with supportive rather than legalistic wording, and to maintain current family contact information; legal truancy notices required by state law must use the same plain-language format.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain (1 sections touch related words but do not govern it).

Recommended.

Sources. Rogers T, Feller A (2018). Reducing student absences at scale by targeting parents' misbeliefs. Nature Human Behaviour 2(5):335-342. doi · Robinson CD, Lee MG, Dearing E, Rogers T (2018). Reducing student absenteeism in the early grades by targeting parental beliefs. American Educational Research Journal 55(6):1163-1192. doi · Lasky-Fink J, Robinson CD, Chang HN, Rogers T (2021). Using behavioral insights to improve school administrative communications: the case of truancy notifications. Educational Researcher 50(7):442-450. doi · Heppen JB, Kurki A, Brown S (2020). Can texting parents improve attendance in elementary school? A test of an adaptive messaging strategy. NCEE 2020-006. Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. link · Bergman P, Chan EW (2021). Leveraging parents through low-cost technology: the impact of high-frequency information on student achievement. Journal of Human Resources 56(1):125-158. doi · Kalil A, Mayer SE, Gallegos S (2021). Using behavioral insights to increase attendance at subsidized preschool programs: the Show Up to Grow Up intervention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 163:65-79. doi · Smythe-Leistico K, Page LC (2018). Connect-Text: leveraging text-message communication to mitigate chronic absenteeism and improve parental engagement in the earliest years of schooling. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 23(1-2):139-152. doi · Bergman P, Lasky-Fink J, Rogers T (2020). Simplification and defaults affect adoption and impact of technology, but decision makers do not realize it. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 158:66-79. doi · Kraft MA, Rogers T (2015). The underutilized potential of teacher-to-parent communication: evidence from a field experiment. Economics of Education Review 47:49-63. doi · Guryan J, Christenson S, Cureton A, Lai I, Ludwig J, Schwarz C, Shirey E, Turner MC (2021). The effect of mentoring on school attendance and academic outcomes: a randomized evaluation of the Check & Connect program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 40(3):841-882. doi · Bird KA, Castleman BL, Denning JT, Goodman J, Lamberton C, Rosinger KO (2021). Nudging at scale: experimental evidence from FAFSA completion campaigns. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 183:105-128. doi · Eklund K, Burns MK, Oyen K, DeMarchena S, McCollom EM (2022). Addressing chronic absenteeism in schools: a meta-analysis of evidence-based interventions. School Psychology Review 51(1):95-111. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier C: consistent correlational evidencestakes 2/5

Research. Matched-comparison studies of relationship-building teacher home visits (the Parent Teacher Home Visits model and the DC Family Engagement Partnership) consistently find that visited students are less likely to be chronically absent (21 to 24 percent lower odds or fewer absences), somewhat more likely to score proficient in reading, and have fewer disciplinary incidents, with small positive effects on grades (d about 0.12) and math (about 0.11 SD). Schools that visit at least 10 percent of families show school-wide attendance gains that reach non-visited students. (Chronic absence odds -21% (visited students) and -22% (schools visiting 10%+ of families); ELA proficiency odds +35% at school level; attendance +0.35 points and disciplinary incidents 9.3% vs 12.2% in DC; math +0.11 SD; grades d = 0.12 to 0.13)

Mixed evidence. No randomized trial of teacher home visits in US K-12 has been published; every outcome study uses matched or regression-adjusted comparison groups, and families who accept a visit (or teachers who volunteer to make them) likely differ from those who do not, so the estimates are upper bounds. Effects on achievement are small and inconsistent: Sheldon and Jung (2018) found ELA gains at the school level only in some districts and math gains in two of four; the DC study found math but not ELA gains; Wright et al. (2018) found higher positive-behavior points and grades but no difference in discipline points. Most evaluations were commissioned by the program or its funders. Cost is real: visits take 30 to 60 minutes of paid teacher time outside the school day per family plus training, and the model's own fidelity rules (voluntary for both sides, no targeting of 'problem' students, no agenda beyond hopes and dreams) limit who gets visited. The well-known RCT evidence on home visiting (nurse and parent-educator visits to families of infants) is a different intervention and should not be cited for teacher visits.

Standard. Policy authorizes and funds voluntary, paid, relationship-building teacher home visits following a recognized model (visits in pairs, trained staff, family's language, no targeting of 'problem' students), sets a reach target of at least 10 percent of families per school with priority on transition grades and chronically absent students who volunteer, and requires annual reporting of reach and attendance outcomes.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain.

Recommended.

Sources. Sheldon SB, Jung SB (2018). Student outcomes and parent teacher home visits. Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University, for Parent Teacher Home Visits. link · Sheldon SB, Jung SB (2015). The Family Engagement Partnership: student outcome evaluation. Center on School, Family, and Community Partnerships, Johns Hopkins University, for Flamboyan Foundation and District of Columbia Public Schools. link · McKie A, Terziev J, Gill B (2021). Impacts of home visits on students in District of Columbia Public Schools. REL 2022-128. Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic, Institute of Education Sciences. link · Wright KB, Shields SM, Black K, Waxman HC (2018). The effects of teacher home visits on student behavior, student academic achievement, and parent involvement. School Community Journal 28(1):67-90. link · Meyer JA, Mann MB (2006). Teachers' perceptions of the benefits of home visits for early elementary children. Early Childhood Education Journal 34(1):93-97. doi · Cook PJ, Dodge KA, Gifford EJ, Schulting AB (2017). A new program to prevent primary school absenteeism: results of a pilot study in five schools. Children and Youth Services Review 82:262-270. doi · Kraft MA, Dougherty SM (2013). The effect of teacher-family communication on student engagement: evidence from a randomized field experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 6(3):199-222. doi · Smith TE, Sheridan SM, Kim EM, Park S, Beretvas SN (2020). The effects of family-school partnership interventions on academic and social-emotional functioning: a meta-analysis exploring what works for whom. Educational Psychology Review 32(2):511-544. doi · Attendance Works and Parent Teacher Home Visits (2019). Parent Teacher Home Visits: improving attendance through relationship-building home visits. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. The Tennessee STAR experiment shows that classes of 13 to 17 students in K-3 raise test scores by about 4 percentile points in the first year and roughly 1 point a year after, with larger gains for Black students and students on free lunch, and the same students were 2.7 percentage points more likely to attend college. Large-scale rollouts deliver less than the experiment because they dilute teacher quality and cost a great deal per student. (STAR: +0.2 SD in K-3, college attendance +2.7 pp (+7.3 pp in the poorest third of schools); Campbell review pooled effect on reading small, on math null; California CSR gains partly offset by inexperienced teachers)

Mixed evidence. Hoxby (2000) finds no effect of class size in Connecticut and rules out even modest effects. Leuven and Lokken (2020) find no average long-run effect of class size in Norway. The Campbell systematic review (Filges et al. 2018) finds at best a small effect on reading and a non-significant negative effect on math across ten studies. Jepsen and Rivkin (2009) show that California's statewide reduction to 20 students raised achievement but the rush to hire 25,000 new teachers brought in uncertified and inexperienced staff, which dampened the gains most in high-poverty, high-minority schools. Chetty et al. (2011) find small classes raised college attendance but the effect on earnings at 27 is not statistically significant. Class size reduction is among the most expensive interventions per unit of effect; most reviews conclude money is better spent on teacher quality once classes are below the mid-20s.

Standard. The policy shall set a numeric K-3 class-size cap (not above 20 students, or 22 with a full-time aide), shall apply the cap first in the highest-poverty schools, and shall pair any class-size reduction with a certification requirement for the teachers hired to meet it.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy sets a numeric K-3 class-size cap not above 20 students, or 22 students with a full-time aide. core
• ✕The policy applies the cap to each individual class section rather than as a district-wide average.
• ✕The policy applies the class-size cap first in the highest-poverty schools.
• ✕The policy requires that teachers hired to meet a class-size reduction hold full certification.
• ✕The policy requires Board notice before any waiver of the K-3 class-size cap.
• ✕The policy requires reporting of actual K-3 class sizes against the cap.

What the manual says. 126 Class Size, revised June 20, 1994:

Recommended. Amend 126 Class Size

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Krueger AB (1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(2):497-532. doi · Chetty R, Friedman JN, Hilger N, Saez E, Schanzenbach DW, Yagan D (2011). How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project STAR. Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4):1593-1660. doi · Dynarski S, Hyman J, Schanzenbach DW (2013). Experimental evidence on the effect of childhood investments on postsecondary attainment and degree completion. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32(4):692-717. doi · Jepsen C, Rivkin S (2009). Class size reduction and student achievement: The potential tradeoff between teacher quality and class size. Journal of Human Resources 44(1):223-250. doi · Fredriksson P, Ockert B, Oosterbeek H (2013). Long-term effects of class size. Quarterly Journal of Economics 128(1):249-285. doi · Angrist JD, Lavy V (1999). Using Maimonides' rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(2):533-575. doi · Filges T, Sonne-Schmidt CS, Nielsen BCV (2018). Small class sizes for improving student achievement in primary and secondary schools: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 14(1):1-107. doi · Hoxby CM (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from population variation. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(4):1239-1285. doi · Leuven E, Lokken SA (2020). Long-term impacts of class size in compulsory school. Journal of Human Resources 55(1):309-348. doi · Schanzenbach DW (2014). Does Class Size Matter? Policy brief. National Education Policy Center, Boulder CO. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier A: meta-analysis or several causal studies agreestakes 3/5

Research. A meta-analysis of 60 causal studies finds that one-on-one instructional coaching improves teaching practice by 0.49 SD and student achievement by 0.18 SD, far more than the one-off workshops that make up most district professional development, which show no achievement effect in large randomized trials. Effects shrink as programs scale (programs over 100 teachers: 0.34 SD practice, 0.10 SD achievement) and depend on coaches observing real lessons and giving specific feedback in cycles over a year. (Coaching: +0.49 SD on instructional practice, +0.18 SD on student achievement (meta-analysis of 60 causal studies); at scale +0.34 and +0.10 SD. Content-focused workshops without coaching: null on achievement in IES RCTs. STEM PD meta-analysis: +0.21 SD when PD is paired with curriculum materials.)

Mixed evidence. Not all coaching works: Kraft and Blazar (2017) found large practice gains but no achievement gain in one year; Blazar and Kraft (2015) found the same program succeeded in one cohort and failed in the next when coaching dosage and school conditions changed; Kraft and Hill (2020) found web-based coaching improved observed instruction and student perceptions without a detectable achievement effect. Campbell and Malkus (2011) found math coaches had no effect in their first year and positive effects only in years two and three. Two IES randomized trials of intensive content PD (Garet et al. 2016; Jacob, Hill and Corey 2017) raised teacher knowledge but did not raise student achievement. Coaching is expensive (one coach per 10 to 20 teachers) and scaling dilutes coach quality. Studies are mostly elementary literacy and math with short follow-up.

Standard. District professional development shall be organized around sustained, content-specific coaching cycles for teachers in their first three years and for any teacher rated below effective, with coach caseloads of no more than 20 teachers, and the district shall report coaching dosage and teacher growth annually.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy organizes district professional development around sustained, content-specific coaching cycles for teachers. core
• ✕The policy provides coaching cycles to teachers in their first three years.
• ✕The policy provides coaching cycles to any teacher rated below effective.
• ✕The policy caps coach caseloads at no more than 20 teachers.
• ✕The policy requires the district to report coaching dosage and teacher growth annually.

What the manual says. 333 Professional Development, revised March 9, 2026:

Recommended. Amend 333 Professional Development

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence. Review of Educational Research 88(4):547-588. doi · Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An Interaction-Based Approach to Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement. Science 333(6045):1034-1037. doi · Kraft, M. A., & Blazar, D. (2017). Individualized Coaching to Improve Teacher Practice Across Grades and Subjects: New Experimental Evidence. Educational Policy 31(7):1033-1068. doi · Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2015). Exploring Mechanisms of Effective Teacher Coaching: A Tale of Two Cohorts From a Randomized Experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 37(4):542-566. doi · Kraft, M. A., & Hill, H. C. (2020). Developing Ambitious Mathematics Instruction Through Web-Based Coaching: A Randomized Field Trial. American Educational Research Journal 57(6):2378-2414. doi · Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The Impact of Elementary Mathematics Coaches on Student Achievement. The Elementary School Journal 111(3):430-454. doi · Lynch, K., Hill, H. C., Gonzalez, K. E., & Pollard, C. (2019). Strengthening the Research Base That Informs STEM Instructional Improvement Efforts: A Meta-Analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 41(3):260-293. doi · Garet, M. S., Heppen, J. B., Walters, K., Parkinson, J., Smith, T. M., Song, M., Garrett, R., Yang, R., & Borman, G. D. (2016). Focusing on Mathematical Knowledge: The Impact of Content-Intensive Teacher Professional Development. NCEE 2016-4010. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. link · Jacob, R., Hill, H., & Corey, D. (2017). The Impact of a Professional Development Program on Teachers' Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching, Instructional Practice, and Student Achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 10(2):379-407. doi · Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. The one large randomized trial (Glazerman et al. 2010, 1,009 teachers in 17 districts) found that two years of comprehensive induction raised student achievement in the teachers' third year (+4 percentile points reading, +8 math; about 0.11 and 0.20 SD) but one year did not, and neither version changed retention. Nationally representative surveys and a field experiment on structured peer pairing find that first-year mentoring, common planning time and collaboration predict lower attrition and that pairing low-performing teachers with high-performing colleagues raised their students' achievement by about 0.12 SD. (Two-year comprehensive induction: +0.11 SD reading, +0.20 SD math in year 3 (RCT); retention: null in RCT, lower turnover in survey studies (comprehensive package associated with roughly half the turnover of no support). Structured peer mentoring: +0.12 SD student achievement for low-performing teachers (field experiment).)

Mixed evidence. The IES randomized trial found no effect on retention after one, two or three years and no effect on observed classroom practice; its achievement effect appeared only for the two-year treatment and only in year three, and a reanalysis has questioned it. One-year induction produced nothing. Rockoff (2008) found that New York City's mentoring program had limited effects on retention except when the mentor had worked in the same school, though more mentoring hours were associated with higher achievement. The retention findings of Smith and Ingersoll (2004) and Ronfeldt and McQueen (2017) are correlational; teachers who receive more support may be in better-run schools. Induction that consists of an assigned mentor with no release time, no training and no common planning is the common form and has no evidence behind it.

Standard. Every teacher in the first two years of service shall receive a trained mentor in the same subject or grade band with scheduled release time, weekly contact in year one, common planning time, and structured observation with feedback; the district shall track retention and mentor contact and report both annually.

What the manual says. Nothing found on this domain. Silence here leaves the practice to chance.

Recommended. New policy (staffing and instruction)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Glazerman, S., Isenberg, E., Dolfin, S., Bleeker, M., Johnson, A., Grider, M., & Jacobus, M. (2010). Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final Results from a Randomized Controlled Study. NCEE 2010-4027. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences. link · Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The Impact of Induction and Mentoring Programs for Beginning Teachers: A Critical Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research 81(2):201-233. doi · Ronfeldt, M., & McQueen, K. (2017). Does New Teacher Induction Really Improve Retention? Journal of Teacher Education 68(4):394-410. doi · Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What Are the Effects of Induction and Mentoring on Beginning Teacher Turnover? American Educational Research Journal 41(3):681-714. doi · Rockoff, J. E. (2008). Does Mentoring Reduce Turnover and Improve Skills of New Employees? Evidence from Teachers in New York City. NBER Working Paper 13868. doi · Papay, J. P., Taylor, E. S., Tyler, J. H., & Laski, M. E. (2020). Learning Job Skills from Colleagues at Work: Evidence from a Field Experiment Using Teacher Performance Data. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 12(1):359-388. doi · Helms-Lorenz, M., van de Grift, W., & Maulana, R. (2016). Longitudinal effects of induction on teaching skills and attrition rates of beginning teachers. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 27(2):178-204. doi · Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Teacher Turnover: Why It Matters and What We Can Do About It. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 2/5

Research. Well-run evaluation with trained observers and substantive feedback can improve teaching: Cincinnati teachers' students gained about 0.1 SD in math in the years after a rigorous peer evaluation, and Washington DC's IMPACT raised the performance of low-rated teachers by 0.27 SD and pushed the lowest performers out, with their replacements raising achievement. But the 2010s wave of state evaluation reforms, taken as a whole, produced precisely estimated null effects on achievement and attainment, rated fewer than 1 percent of teachers below proficient, and reduced the supply of new teachers. (Cincinnati peer evaluation: +0.11 SD math in years after evaluation. DC IMPACT: +0.27 SD teacher performance for low-rated teachers facing dismissal threat; turnover of low performers raised student achievement by 0.08 to 0.14 SD. Statewide reforms 2009 to 2017: null, ruling out effects as small as 0.015 SD on achievement and 1 percentage point on graduation or college enrollment.)

Mixed evidence. Bleiberg et al. (2025) find the 44-state evaluation reform wave had no average effect on achievement, graduation or college enrollment regardless of design rigor. Kraft and Gilmour (2017) found that under the new systems fewer than 1 percent of teachers were rated below proficient in most states, little different from the systems they replaced. The 575 million dollar Gates Intensive Partnerships produced no gains in achievement, graduation or access to effective teachers (Stecher et al. 2018). Kraft et al. (2020) show the reforms reduced the number of new teacher candidates without improving their quality. The IES feedback trial (Garet et al. 2017) improved one observation measure but not reading, and math gains were not sustained in year two. Steinberg and Sartain (2015) found Chicago's Danielson pilot raised reading only in higher-achieving, lower-poverty schools. Phipps and Wiseman (2021) show teachers raise their practice during scheduled observation windows, so observation scores partly measure performance for the observer. Positive effects came from a few high-capacity districts with trained observers, real consequences and compensating pay, not from rubrics alone.

Standard. Evaluation shall rest on multiple trained and calibrated observers, at least two observations per year with at least one unannounced, written feedback within five school days, and a growth plan with coaching for any teacher rated below effective; the district shall publish rating distributions and evaluator calibration results annually and shall not use a single test-based measure as more than one third of a rating.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual, 1 partly.

• ✕The policy requires at least two observations per year by multiple trained and calibrated observers, with at least one unannounced. core
• ✕The policy requires written feedback to the teacher within five school days of an observation.
• ◐The policy requires a growth plan with coaching for any teacher rated below effective. partly, 313 Evaluation of Employees
• ✕The policy requires the district to publish rating distributions and evaluator calibration results annually.
• ✕The policy limits any single test-based measure to no more than one third of a teacher's rating.

What the manual says. 313 Evaluation of Employees, revised May 5, 2025:

Recommended. Amend 313 Evaluation of Employees

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Taylor, E. S., & Tyler, J. H. (2012). The Effect of Evaluation on Teacher Performance. American Economic Review 102(7):3628-3651. doi · Dee, T. S., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Incentives, Selection, and Teacher Performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 34(2):267-297. doi · Adnot, M., Dee, T., Katz, V., & Wyckoff, J. (2017). Teacher Turnover, Teacher Quality, and Student Achievement in DCPS. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 39(1):54-76. doi · Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2017). Revisiting The Widget Effect: Teacher Evaluation Reforms and the Distribution of Teacher Effectiveness. Educational Researcher 46(5):234-249. doi · Bleiberg, J., Brunner, E., Harbatkin, E., Kraft, M. A., & Springer, M. G. (2025). Taking Teacher Evaluation to Scale: The Effect of State Reforms on Achievement and Attainment. Journal of Political Economy Microeconomics 3(3):568-610. doi · Steinberg, M. P., & Sartain, L. (2015). Does Teacher Evaluation Improve School Performance? Experimental Evidence from Chicago's Excellence in Teaching Project. Education Finance and Policy 10(4):535-572. doi · Garet, M. S., Wayne, A. J., Brown, S., Rickles, J., Song, M., & Manzeske, D. (2017). The Impact of Providing Performance Feedback to Teachers and Principals: Final Report. NCEE 2018-4001. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. link · Stecher, B. M., Holtzman, D. J., Garet, M. S., Hamilton, L. S., Engberg, J., Steiner, E. D., Robyn, A., Baird, M. D., Gutierrez, I. A., Peet, E. D., Brodziak de los Reyes, I., Fronberg, K., Weinberger, G., Hunter, G. P., & Chambers, J. (2018). Improving Teaching Effectiveness: Final Report. The Intensive Partnerships for Effective Teaching Through 2015-2016. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. doi · Kraft, M. A., Brunner, E. J., Dougherty, S. M., & Schwegman, D. J. (2020). Teacher accountability reforms and the supply and quality of new teachers. Journal of Public Economics 188:104212. doi · Cullen, J. B., Koedel, C., & Parsons, E. (2021). The Compositional Effect of Rigorous Teacher Evaluation on Workforce Quality. Education Finance and Policy 16(1):7-41. doi · Phipps, A. R., & Wiseman, E. A. (2021). Enacting the Rubric: Teacher Improvements in Windows of High-Stakes Observation. Education Finance and Policy 16(2):283-312. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Giving every student a device does not by itself raise achievement: the large randomized One Laptop per Child trial and the Swedish 1:1 rollout found no effect on test scores, and the Swedish study found losses for children of less-educated parents. Gains appear only where the device carries targeted software (computer-assisted learning, especially in math) and teachers get sustained support; the one positive US district study (Mooresville) found no short-run effect and +0.13 SD in math after several years alongside changed teaching practice. (access alone: about 0; targeted computer-assisted learning in math: positive; well-supported district program: +0.13 SD math after 4 to 5 years)

Mixed evidence. The 2016 meta-analysis (Zheng et al.) reports positive average effects in English, writing, math and science, but it pools only 10 mostly non-randomized studies and the authors attribute gains to programs that supported teachers as well as students. Causal studies disagree on direction: Cristia et al. (Peru RCT, 318 schools) found nothing on math or language; Hall, Lundin and Sibbmark (Sweden) found no average effect and worse math outcomes and less college-preparatory enrollment for students with less-educated parents; Hull and Duch found gains, but neighboring districts without laptops improved at similar rates and the study cannot isolate which component mattered. Escueta et al. find that fully online courses underperform in-person ones. Device programs also carry recurring cost, screen-time and data-privacy trade-offs that the achievement literature does not price.

Standard. The district shall not purchase or renew a 1:1 device program or instructional software above a set dollar threshold without a written evidence review, a named instructional purpose, a teacher training plan and a usage-and-outcome report to the board each year, and shall retire products whose usage or results do not meet the stated purpose.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy prohibits purchasing or renewing a 1:1 device program or instructional software above a set dollar threshold without a written evidence review. core
• ✕The policy requires a named instructional purpose for each device program or instructional software purchase or renewal above the threshold.
• ✕The policy requires a teacher training plan for each device program or instructional software purchase or renewal above the threshold.
• ✕The policy requires a usage-and-outcome report to the board each year for each covered device program or instructional software.
• ✕The policy requires retiring products whose usage or results do not meet the stated instructional purpose.

What the manual says. 109 Resource/Supplementary Materials, revised April 28, 2008:

Recommended. Amend 109 Resource/Supplementary Materials

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Zheng B, Warschauer M, Lin CH, Chang C (2016). Learning in One-to-One Laptop Environments: A Meta-Analysis and Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research 86(4):1052-1084. doi · Hull M, Duch K (2019). One-to-One Technology and Student Outcomes: Evidence From Mooresville's Digital Conversion Initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 41(1):79-97. doi · Escueta M, Nickow AJ, Oreopoulos P, Quan V (2020). Upgrading Education with Technology: Insights from Experimental Research. Journal of Economic Literature 58(4):897-996. doi · Cristia J, Ibarraran P, Cueto S, Santiago A, Severin E (2017). Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 9(3):295-320. doi · Hall C, Lundin M, Sibbmark K (2021). A laptop for every child? The impact of technology on human capital formation. Labour Economics 69:101957. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier D: professional standard or expert consensusstakes 2/5

Research. Audits find that most school-assigned apps send student data to third parties (Internet Safety Labs: 96% of apps used in a sample of 663 US schools; Human Rights Watch: 146 of 164 government-endorsed products worldwide, 89%, engaged in practices that risked children's rights), and breaches are frequent and large (99 K-12 breaches reported to the GAO sample 2016 to 2020; the December 2024 PowerSchool breach reached tens of millions of student records). There is no outcome research showing that any particular policy reduces harm; the standard rests on federal and state law and professional consensus. (not measurable as a student outcome; harm prevention standard (96% of school apps share data with third parties absent controls))

Mixed evidence. No study links district privacy policy strength to measured student harm or benefit, and the audit figures count data flows, not demonstrated injury. Strict contracting raises procurement cost and can delay useful tools; blanket bans on consumer tools push use to personal accounts that the district cannot govern. Over-collection often starts with the district itself (surveillance and monitoring software), not the vendor, and that trade-off between safety monitoring and privacy has no empirical resolution.

Standard. No product that collects student data shall be used until a signed agreement is on file that limits collection to the stated educational purpose, bars sale, advertising and model training, requires deletion on request or at contract end, and sets breach notice within 72 hours, and the district shall publish the product inventory and report compliance to the board annually.

Checklist. 0 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual.

• ✕The policy bars use of any product that collects student data until a signed data privacy agreement is on file. core
• ✕The policy requires the agreement to limit data collection to the stated educational purpose.
• ✕The policy requires the agreement to bar sale of student data, advertising, and model training.
• ✕The policy requires the agreement to require deletion of student data on request or at contract end.
• ✕The policy requires the agreement to set breach notice within 72 hours.
• ✕The policy requires the district to publish the product inventory and report compliance to the board annually.

What the manual says. 216 Student Records, revised December 18, 2006:

Recommended. New policy (technology and data)

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Federal Trade Commission (2022). Policy Statement of the Federal Trade Commission on Education Technology and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. Adopted May 19, 2022. link · Human Rights Watch (2022). How Dare They Peep into My Private Life? Children's Rights Violations by Governments that Endorsed Online Learning during the Covid-19 Pandemic. link · Internet Safety Labs (2022). 2022 K-12 EdTech Safety Benchmark: National Findings, Part 1. December 13, 2022. link · U.S. Government Accountability Office (2020). Data Security: Recent K-12 Data Breaches Show That Students Are Vulnerable to Harm. GAO-20-644. link · Sallay D, Future of Privacy Forum (2023). Written testimony on Massachusetts H.532 (student data privacy). link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Design determines the effect. In a field RCT with nearly 1,000 high-school math students, unrestricted GPT-4 access raised practice scores (+48%) but cut unaided exam scores by 17% relative to no access; a version with guardrails that withheld answers removed the harm. A college physics RCT found a purpose-built AI tutor produced about double the learning gain of active-learning classes in less time, and an essay-writing RCT found gains persisted a week later only when students used the model as a tutor rather than to write for them. The K-12 evidence base is still one school, one subject and a few weeks. (unrestricted chatbot: -17% on unaided exam; guardrailed tutor: harm removed; purpose-built tutor (college): about 2x learning gain; effects persist only for tutor-style use)

Mixed evidence. Only one K-12 RCT exists (Bastani et al., one Turkish high school, four sessions covering 15% of the curriculum), and the positive tutor results come from Harvard undergraduates and Middlebury undergraduates, not children. The most-cited 2025 meta-analysis reporting large positive effects of ChatGPT on learning was retracted in April 2026, so there is no reliable pooled estimate. Lehmann, Cornelius and Sting (working paper) find harm concentrated in answer-generation use and no gain from explanation use, a pattern consistent with the RCTs but not peer reviewed. Detection tools are unreliable and produce false accusations; student-facing products carry data-privacy and age-limit (13+) constraints; teacher-facing uses (lesson planning, feedback) have essentially no outcome research. Policies that ban AI outright push use off campus where no guardrails exist, while policies that mandate adoption buy unproven products.

Standard. The district shall maintain a published list of approved AI tools, each with a stated instructional purpose, a guardrail configuration that withholds direct answers during practice, a data-privacy review and an age gate, shall require every course to state in writing when and how students may use AI, shall prohibit discipline based solely on detection software, and shall report usage and unaided-assessment results to the board annually.

Checklist. 0 of 5 elements of the standard are in the manual, 1 partly.

• ✕The policy requires a published list of approved AI tools, each configured to withhold direct answers during student practice. core
• ✕The policy requires each approved AI tool to have a stated instructional purpose, a data-privacy review and an age gate.
• ◐The policy requires every course to state in writing when and how students may use AI. partly, 207 Academic Integrity
• ✕The policy prohibits discipline based solely on AI detection software.
• ✕The policy requires annual reporting of AI usage and unaided-assessment results to the board.

What the manual says. 207 Academic Integrity, revised December 16, 2024:

Recommended. Amend 207 Academic Integrity

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Bastani H, Bastani O, Sungu A, Ge H, Kabakci O, Mariman R (2025). Generative AI without guardrails can harm learning: Evidence from high school mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 122(26):e2422633122. doi · Kestin G, Miller K, Klales A, Milbourne T, Ponti G (2025). AI tutoring outperforms in-class active learning: an RCT introducing a novel research-based design in an authentic educational setting. Scientific Reports 15. doi · Contractor Z, Reyes G (2026). Experimental Evidence on the Learning Impact of Generative AI. arXiv:2607.08849 (also NBER / IZA DP 18792). link · Lehmann M, Cornelius PB, Sting FJ (2024). AI Meets the Classroom: When Does ChatGPT Harm Learning? SSRN working paper. doi · Wang J, Fan W (2026). Retraction Note: The effect of ChatGPT on students' learning performance, learning perception, and higher-order thinking: insights from a meta-analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 13. doi · U.S. Department of Education (2025). Dear Colleague Letter: Use of federal grant funds to support responsible AI integration in education, July 22, 2025. link

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence

Tier B: one strong causal study or consistent quasi-experimentsstakes 3/5

Research. Banning phone possession during the school day raises test scores modestly, with the gain concentrated among lower-achieving students (England: +0.07 SD overall, about +0.14 SD for the lowest quintile). Norway's middle-school bans cut bullying for both sexes and improved girls' grades, academic-track placement and mental-health care use, with no average effect on boys; the pooled effect across five European studies is small (d = 0.16) and larger for social wellbeing than for achievement. (+0.07 SD test scores (England), +0.14 SD for low achievers; Norway girls' GPA up and bullying down; pooled d = 0.16; mental-health effects unproven)

Mixed evidence. Sweden found no effect of use bans on achievement (Kessel et al. 2020), and the difference between banning possession and banning use may explain the split. The largest UK study (SMART Schools, 30 schools, 1,227 pupils) found restrictive school policies reduced in-school phone time but were not associated with better wellbeing, sleep, or attainment, because total daily phone use was unchanged; it is cross-sectional and cannot establish causation either way. Early US evidence (NSCH 2016 to 2024, three ban states, synthetic DiD) shows no clear change in screen time or wellbeing but is underpowered. The Dutch national evaluation is school-leader self-report, not outcome data. Bans impose real costs for students with medical or accessibility needs and for families who rely on reachability, so exceptions and a communication path matter.

Standard. Students shall keep personal phones and smartwatches powered off and stored away from their person from the first bell to the last bell, with written exceptions limited to documented medical, IEP or Section 504 needs and teacher-directed instructional use, and the district shall report compliance and referral data to the board annually.

Checklist. 2 of 6 elements of the standard are in the manual, 1 partly.

• ✓The policy requires students to keep personal phones powered off and stored away from their person from the first bell to the last bell. core 237 Electronic Devices
• ✓The policy applies the same powered-off and stored-away requirement to smartwatches. 237 Electronic Devices
• ◐The policy allows written exceptions for documented medical, IEP or Section 504 needs. partly, 237 Electronic Devices
• ✕The policy allows teacher-directed instructional use as an exception.
• ✕The policy limits exceptions to those documented needs and teacher-directed instructional use and no others.
• ✕The policy requires the district to report compliance and referral data to the board annually.

What the manual says. 237 Electronic Devices, revised April 20, 2026:

Recommended. Amend 237 Electronic Devices

Written for this manual from the model clause; numbers checked against the inputs.

Sources. Beland LP, Murphy R (2016). Ill Communication: Technology, distraction and student performance. Labour Economics 41:61-76. doi · Abrahamsson S (2026). Smartphone Bans, Student Outcomes and Mental Health. Journal of Human Resources, 0224-13403R2 (online first). doi · Kessel D, Hardardottir HL, Tyrefors B (2020). The impact of banning mobile phones in Swedish secondary schools. Economics of Education Review 77:102009. doi · Bottger T, Zierer K (2024). To Ban or Not to Ban? A Rapid Review on the Impact of Smartphone Bans in Schools on Social Well-Being and Academic Performance. Education Sciences 14(8):906. doi · Goodyear VA, Randhawa A, Adab P, et al. (2025). School phone policies and their association with mental wellbeing, phone use, and social media use (SMART Schools): a cross-sectional observational study. The Lancet Regional Health - Europe, 101211. doi · Carrion Braakman I, Krepel A, Stronkhorst E, Klein T, de Roode J, van de Vrie M, Dirix L (2025). Monitoring landelijke afspraak mobiele telefoons en andere devices in de klas: Eindrapport, eenmeting. Kohnstamm Instituut Rapport 1147 / Oberon, for the Dutch Ministry of Education. link · Pawlowski CS, Nielsen JV, Schmidt T (2021). A Ban on Smartphone Usage during Recess Increased Children's Physical Activity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(4):1907. doi · Saffer H (2026). Youth Mental Health and School Smartphone Bans: Early Evidence. NBER Working Paper 35181. doi

Dispute this verdict or submit evidence