This version of the CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION model has been further calibrated (additional calibration phases will occur as better standardized data becomes available).  Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Relative magnitudes and durations of impact remain in need of further data & adjustment (calibration). In the interests of maintaining steady progress and respecting budget & time constraints, significant simplifying assumptions have been made: assumptions that mitigate both completeness & accuracy of the outputs.  This model meets the criteria for a Capability demonstration model, but should not be taken as complete or realistic in terms of specific magnitudes of effect or sufficient build out of causal dynamics.  Rather, the model demonstrates the interplay of a minimum set of causal forces on a net student progress construct -- as informed and extrapolated from the non-causal research literature. Provided further interest and funding, this  basic capability model may further de-abstracted and built out to: higher provenance levels -- coupled with increased factorization, rigorous causal inclusion and improved parameterization.

This version of the CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION model has been further calibrated (additional calibration phases will occur as better standardized data becomes available).  Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Relative magnitudes and durations of impact remain in need of further data & adjustment (calibration). In the interests of maintaining steady progress and respecting budget & time constraints, significant simplifying assumptions have been made: assumptions that mitigate both completeness & accuracy of the outputs.  This model meets the criteria for a Capability demonstration model, but should not be taken as complete or realistic in terms of specific magnitudes of effect or sufficient build out of causal dynamics.  Rather, the model demonstrates the interplay of a minimum set of causal forces on a net student progress construct -- as informed and extrapolated from the non-causal research literature. Provided further interest and funding, this  basic capability model may further de-abstracted and built out to: higher provenance levels -- coupled with increased factorization, rigorous causal inclusion and improved parameterization.

This version 8B of the CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION model. A net Benefit ROI has been added. The Compare results feature allows comparison of alternative intervention portfolios.  Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Relative magnitudes and durations of impact remain in need of further data & adjustment (calibration). In the interests of maintaining steady progress and respecting budget & time constraints, significant simplifying assumptions have been made: assumptions that mitigate both completeness & accuracy of the outputs.  This model meets the criteria for a Capability demonstration model, but should not be taken as complete or realistic in terms of specific magnitudes of effect or sufficient build out of causal dynamics.  Rather, the model demonstrates the interplay of a minimum set of causal forces on a net student progress construct -- as informed and extrapolated from the non-causal research literature. Provided further interest and funding, this  basic capability model may further developed and built out to: higher provenance levels -- coupled with increased factorization, rigorous causal inclusion and improved parameterization.

This version of the CAPABILITY DEMONSTRATION model has been further calibrated (additional calibration phases will occur as better standardized data becomes available).  Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Relative magnitudes and durations of impact remain in need of further data & adjustment (calibration). In the interests of maintaining steady progress and respecting budget & time constraints, significant simplifying assumptions have been made: assumptions that mitigate both completeness & accuracy of the outputs.  This model meets the criteria for a Capability demonstration model, but should not be taken as complete or realistic in terms of specific magnitudes of effect or sufficient build out of causal dynamics.  Rather, the model demonstrates the interplay of a minimum set of causal forces on a net student progress construct -- as informed and extrapolated from the non-causal research literature. Provided further interest and funding, this  basic capability model may further de-abstracted and built out to: higher provenance levels -- coupled with increased factorization, rigorous causal inclusion and improved parameterization.

Despite a mature field of inquiry, frustrated educational policy makers face a crisis characterized by little to no clear research-based guidance and significant budget limitations --  in the face of too often marginal or unexpectedly deleterious achievement impacts. As such, education performance has been acknowledged as a complex system and a general call in the literature for causal models has been sounded. This modeling effort represents a strident first step in the development of an evidence-based causal hypothesis: an hypothesis that captures the widely acknowledged complex interactions and multitude of cited influencing factors. This non-piecemeal, causal, reflection of extant knowledge engages a neuro-cognitive definition of students.  Through capture of complex dynamics, it enables comparison of different mixes of interventions to estimate net academic achievement impact for the lifetime of a single cohort of students. Results nominally capture counter-intuitive unintended consequences: consequences that too often render policy interventions effete. Results are indexed on Hattie Effect Sizes, but rely on research identified causal mechanisms for effect propagation. Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Relative magnitudes of impact have been  roughly adjusted to Hattie Ranking Standards (calibration): a non-causal evidence source. This is a demonstration model and seeks to exemplify content that would be engaged in a full or sufficient model development effort.  Budget & time constraints required significant simplifying assumptions. These assumptions mitigate both the completeness & accuracy of the outputs. Features serve to symbolize & illustrate the value and benefits of causal modeling as a performance tool.

Despite a mature field of inquiry, frustrated educational policy makers face a crisis characterized by little to no clear research-based guidance and significant budget limitations --  in the face of too often marginal or unexpectedly deleterious achievement impacts. As such, education performance has been acknowledged as a complex system and a general call in the literature for causal models has been sounded. This modeling effort represents a strident first step in the development of an evidence-based causal hypothesis: an hypothesis that captures the widely acknowledged complex interactions and multitude of cited influencing factors. This non-piecemeal, causal, reflection of extant knowledge engages a neuro-cognitive definition of students.  Through capture of complex dynamics, it enables comparison of different mixes of interventions to estimate net academic achievement impact for the lifetime of a single cohort of students. Results nominally capture counter-intuitive unintended consequences: consequences that too often render policy interventions effete. Results are indexed on Hattie Effect Sizes, but rely on research identified causal mechanisms for effect propagation. Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Relative magnitudes of impact have been  roughly adjusted to Hattie Ranking Standards (calibration): a non-causal evidence source. This is a demonstration model and seeks to exemplify content that would be engaged in a full or sufficient model development effort.  Budget & time constraints required significant simplifying assumptions. These assumptions mitigate both the completeness & accuracy of the outputs. Features serve to symbolize & illustrate the value and benefits of causal modeling as a performance tool.

Despite a mature field of inquiry, frustrated educational policy makers face a crisis characterized by little to no clear research-based guidance and significant budget limitations --  in the face of too often marginal or unexpectedly deleterious achievement impacts. As such, education performance has been acknowledged as a complex system and a general call in the literature for causal models has been sounded. This modeling effort represents a strident first step in the development of an evidence-based causal hypothesis: an hypothesis that captures the widely acknowledged complex interactions and multitude of cited influencing factors. This non-piecemeal, causal, reflection of extant knowledge engages a neuro-cognitive definition of students.  Through capture of complex dynamics, it enables comparison of different mixes of interventions to estimate net academic achievement impact for the lifetime of a single cohort of students. Results nominally capture counter-intuitive unintended consequences: consequences that too often render policy interventions effete. Results are indexed on Hattie Effect Sizes, but rely on research identified causal mechanisms for effect propagation. Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Relative magnitudes of impact have been  roughly adjusted to Hattie Ranking Standards (calibration): a non-causal evidence source. This is a demonstration model and seeks to exemplify content that would be engaged in a full or sufficient model development effort.  Budget & time constraints required significant simplifying assumptions. These assumptions mitigate both the completeness & accuracy of the outputs. Features serve to symbolize & illustrate the value and benefits of causal modeling as a performance tool.

Despite a mature field of inquiry, frustrated educational policy makers face a crisis characterized by little to no clear research-based guidance and significant budget limitations --  in the face of too often marginal or unexpectedly deleterious achievement impacts. As such, education performance has been acknowledged as a complex system and a general call in the literature for causal models has been sounded. This modeling effort represents a strident first step in the development of an evidence-based causal hypothesis: an hypothesis that captures the widely acknowledged complex interactions and multitude of cited influencing factors. This non-piecemeal, causal, reflection of extant knowledge engages a neuro-cognitive definition of students.  Through capture of complex dynamics, it enables comparison of different mixes of interventions to estimate net academic achievement impact for the lifetime of a single cohort of students. Results nominally capture counter-intuitive unintended consequences: consequences that too often render policy interventions effete. Results are indexed on Hattie Effect Sizes, but rely on research identified causal mechanisms for effect propagation. Note that the net causal interactions have been effectively captured in a very scoped and/or simplified format.  Relative magnitudes of impact have been  roughly adjusted to Hattie Ranking Standards (calibration): a non-causal evidence source. This is a demonstration model and seeks to exemplify content that would be engaged in a full or sufficient model development effort.  Budget & time constraints required significant simplifying assumptions. These assumptions mitigate both the completeness & accuracy of the outputs. Features serve to symbolize & illustrate the value and benefits of causal modeling as a performance tool.