LXD Research vs.
Johns Hopkins CRRE Research Team
LXD Research is an independent edtech research firm founded by Dr. Rachel Schechter, specializing in ESSA-aligned efficacy studies, state approval submissions, and evidence certifications for edtech companies. Unlike academic research institutions, we’re built around one question: what does your product need to prove, and to whom?
There are also two separate Johns Hopkins operations in the ESSA evidence world worth understanding: the Evidence for ESSA review website — a gatekeeper — and the CRRE research team — a vendor. This page compares LXD Research to the latter. Our track record on the platform JHU runs is stronger than theirs. And we bring state approval expertise, educator-friendly reporting, and Digital Promise support that an academic research team doesn’t.
Choose LXD Research if…
- You need the strongest track record on the Evidence for ESSA platform
- You’re pursuing state approval lists in AZ, MI, MS, or elsewhere
- You need school recruitment, IRB, and DSAs handled for you
- You want Digital Promise and EduEvidence certification included
- You need educator-friendly reporting your sales team can actually use
- Your timeline requires faster turnaround than academic institutions allow
Choose JHU CRRE if…
- Institutional Johns Hopkins brand recognition is a priority for your buyers
- You’re pursuing a large-scale federally funded study
- Academic peer-review publication is the primary goal
- You are not aiming for approval on state lists in the near term
The Evidence for ESSA Website and the CRRE Research Team Are Two Different Things
When edtech companies encounter Johns Hopkins in a procurement or competitive context, there’s a common and understandable conflation of two distinct operations. The Evidence for ESSA website — managed by CRRE — is a review platform. Studies are submitted to it; a team of reviewers evaluates them against ESSA Tier criteria; programs that meet the standard are listed publicly with their tier designation. This is a gatekeeping function, not a research production function.
Separately, CRRE has a research team that produces original efficacy studies — studies that can then be submitted to the Evidence for ESSA review process like any other vendor’s work. Some of that work ends up listed on the website; some does not. Being affiliated with the institution that runs the website confers no automatic advantage in the review process — and hiring the CRRE team does not shortcut the submission queue.
LXD Research Has More Studies Approved on Evidence for ESSA Than Any Other Independent Firm
Since 2020, LXD Research has produced 25+ studies approved by Johns Hopkins’ Evidence for ESSA — 64% rated at the two most rigorous tiers (Strong and Moderate). That’s more than any other independent research organization. You can view our full list of approved studies at lxdresearch.com/published-studies.
That track record reflects a deliberate methodology. We don’t design studies and then hope they survive review — we design them to survive review, building in the sample size requirements, standardized outcome measures, and study design specifications that the Evidence for ESSA review panel looks for before a single data point is collected. The result is a submission-ready study, not one that needs rework once findings arrive.
Our reports don’t just satisfy reviewers — they resonate with educators. We bring forward educator voices, translate effect sizes into the metrics practitioners are used to seeing, and frame findings in ways that make sense to a principal, a curriculum director, or a school board — not just a research panel. That’s what makes our evidence actually get used.
Get in TouchState Approval Lists, Digital Promise, and EduEvidence Are Not CRRE’s Focus — They Are Ours
The CRRE research team is an academic research group. Its focus is methodologically rigorous work that can withstand peer review — which is genuinely valuable. What it isn’t focused on is the increasingly specific landscape of state approval lists and edtech certification programs that determine whether a product can be purchased with state literacy funds, appear on a vetted materials list, or earn a Digital Promise or EduEvidence badge that district buyers recognize.
Arizona’s Move On When Reading law requires that products independently meet ESSA evidence standards across three separate categories. Michigan’s literacy rankings directly affect competitive product placement. Mississippi is extending evidence requirements into grades 4–8. Navigating these frameworks requires specific, current knowledge of each state’s documentation requirements, submission windows, and reviewer expectations — knowledge that comes from having worked through those processes with real clients on real deadlines. LXD Research has. The CRRE research team, as an academic group, does not offer this as a service.
On Digital Promise: LXD Research is the only research partner that actively supports certification submissions. We are also guest authors for ISTE on making sense of edtech validation — a practical guide to the edtech validation landscape written for educators and edtech leaders. Between 2022 and 2025, over 60% of all products certified by Digital Promise worked with LXD Research. LXD Research’s approach to evidence-building has been recognized by EdTech Digest — Dr. Rachel Schechter received the Person Setting a Trend award in 2023, and LXD Research received the Service Setting a Trend award in 2025.
Need your study to sail through a state evaluation process with high scores? That’s exactly what we’re built for.
Get in TouchAcademic Reports Are Written for Reviewers. LXD Research Reports Are Written for Both.
The CRRE research team follows academic reporting conventions — methodologically correct, peer-review ready, and written for other researchers. When a study produces null results for the overall student group, the report says so and moves on. For an edtech company whose sales team needs something to work with, a rigorous report with inconclusive whole-group findings can feel like a dead end — even when the data contains a more useful story.
LXD Research applies a pockets-of-success approach: when whole-group results are mixed, we systematically analyze where the program worked best — by subgroup, implementation context, usage level, or grade band — and report those findings with the same rigor as the overall results. We translate effect sizes into weeks or months of additional learning growth, because that’s the unit practitioners and buyers think in. And we go beyond what’s technically required, documenting how many students advanced an entire skill level — moving out of the intervention tier entirely — because that outcome matters deeply to a school, even if it doesn’t appear in a standard effect-size table.
Our reports are also built with educator audiences in mind from the start: clear language, visual summaries, and narrative that makes findings accessible to principals, curriculum directors, and district leaders — not just the methodologists who reviewed the study. The result is research that earns the approval of reviewers and actually gets used by the people it’s meant to inform.
Research that works for your reviewers and your sales team. LXD Research delivers findings that move through approval — and through procurement conversations.
How to Get CertifiedLXD Research vs. Johns Hopkins CRRE Research Team
| Factor | LXD Research | JHU CRRE Research Team |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence Track Record | ||
| Studies approved on Evidence for ESSA | ✓ 25+ approved studies since 2020 — 64% rated Strong or Moderate, more than any independent firm | ◐ Has produced ESSA-reviewed studies; fewer approved for external edtech clients |
| Institutional affiliation with review site | Independent — no affiliation | ◐ Same institution runs the review website (separate department); no review advantage conferred |
| Study Execution | ||
| School recruitment included | ✓ Included — district outreach, support through DSAs and IRB process | ✗ Academic model assumes client-provided school partnerships |
| Turnaround speed | ✓ Built for edtech timelines — significantly faster than academic institutions | ✗ University research processes and academic calendars drive timelines |
| Evidence strategy guidance | ✓ Advises on the right evidence level for your product, market, and gatekeepers — no over-engineering | ✗ Academic research model; strategic guidance on minimum viable evidence not part of the engagement |
| Evidence Credentials | ||
| State approval list expertise (AZ, MI, MS) | ✓ Active expertise; guided state board submissions in AZ, MI, UT, AR, and WY | ✗ Academic focus; state-specific edtech approval navigation not a primary service |
| Digital Promise submission support | ✓ Only partner offering this — 60%+ of certified products (2022–2025) worked with LXD Research | ✗ Not offered by the CRRE research team |
| EduEvidence certification included | ✓ Included in every study package as standard | ✗ Not offered |
| Studies designed for state approval criteria | ✓ Every study designed from the outset to meet state submission requirements | ✗ Academic study design; state approval navigation requires separate work |
| Buyer-Ready Reporting | ||
| Pockets of success reporting | ✓ Mixed methods including qualitative context to explain where and why the program worked best | ✗ Standard academic reporting; null whole-group results reported without systematic subgroup success analysis |
| Growth in educator language | ✓ Effect sizes translated to weeks/months of learning growth alongside required statistics | ✗ Statistical conventions only; effect sizes presented without practitioner-facing translation |
| Skill-level advancement reporting | ✓ Documents students who advanced skill levels and exited intervention — framed for educators | ✗ Effect size and correlation reporting per academic standards; practitioner-level framing not standard |
| Educator-friendly report design | ✓ Reports written for dual audiences — rigorous enough for reviewers, readable enough for district leaders | ✗ Academic report format written primarily for research audiences |
This comparison is based on publicly available information and LXD Research’s own service model as of 2026. JHU CRRE’s offerings may vary by engagement; verify current capabilities directly with their team.
Want to know which ESSA tier your product can realistically pursue? We’ll give you an honest assessment — no obligation.
Get in TouchCommon Questions About LXD Research vs. Johns Hopkins CRRE
Is the Johns Hopkins Evidence for ESSA website the same as the CRRE research team?
Does LXD Research have more studies approved on Evidence for ESSA than the JHU CRRE team?
Does hiring JHU CRRE give my study a better chance of passing the Evidence for ESSA review?
Does LXD Research include school recruitment?
Can LXD Research support Digital Promise and EduEvidence certification?
How does LXD Research’s reporting differ from academic research reports?
Is LXD Research faster than an academic research institution?
More Approved Studies. More State-Level Expertise.
LXD Research has produced more studies approved by Johns Hopkins’ Evidence for ESSA than any other independent research firm — with school recruitment, EduEvidence and Digital Promise certification, state approval guidance, and educator-friendly reporting included in every engagement.