The Same-Year Study.
Treatment and Comparison,
Done Right.
Earning ESSA Tier II (Moderate Evidence) requires more than showing students improved — it requires showing they improved relative to similar students who didn’t use your product, in the same school year. You can reach it two ways: a Look Back study, which analyzes data you already have and is our preferred approach, or a Real-Time study that follows a school year as it happens. What matters is that the treatment and comparison groups come from the same year.
Or email us at info@lxdresearch.com
LXD Research ESSA Evidence Badges are listed in the ISTE EdTech Index and regularly shared with Clever, Lightspeed Systems, ClassLink, SchoolDay, and EdVice K12. Free first review and $100 per LXD Evidence Badge through December 31, 2026 for products new to LXD Research. See terms and conditions.
Moderate Evidence.
A claim that carries weight with reviewers and buyers.
ESSA Tier II is the evidence tier that many procurement committees treat as a meaningful differentiator — strong enough to carry weight with state reviewers, distinct enough from basic pre-post growth data. Either design can reach it, as long as treatment and comparison groups come from the same year, are assessed with the same instruments, and are matched on prior achievement and demographics.
ESSA Moderate Evidence
Approved on the Evidence for ESSA (Johns Hopkins) national list, recognized by state and district procurement panels.
Evidence for ESSA Eligible
Same-year comparison group designs, including retrospective Look Back studies, qualify for submission to the most rigorous independent review body in K–12 edtech.
Digital Promise + EduEvidence
We submit to EduEvidence as part of the engagement, Digital Promise submission is available for an additional fee, and we show you how to list your work on ISTE’s EdTech Index (free).
Look Back or Real-Time: Same Tier, Different Timing
ESSA Tier II describes how strong the evidence is. It does not dictate when the study happens. A Look Back study analyzes data from a school year that has already been completed, comparing students who used your product to a matched comparison group from that same year. A Real-Time study designs the comparison before the year begins and follows it as it unfolds. Evidence for ESSA now accepts retrospective studies at the Moderate (Tier II) level, provided the groups are from the same year.
Look Back is our preferred way to do this research. It builds on data your district partners already have, which means less burden on schools, faster results, and a study you can use in months instead of waiting out a full school year. A Real-Time study makes sense when you want to shape implementation while it is running, deliver a mid-year report for your spring sales season, collect interviews and surveys from comparison schools as the year unfolds, or confirm the comparison group before anyone is assessed. Many companies start with a Look Back and add a Real-Time study later.
The Study Design
At its core, a same-year quasi-experimental study, whether Look Back or Real-Time, asks one question: did students using your product gain more than comparable students who weren’t — in the same year, on the same measures? The design is built around answering that question as credibly as possible.
Treatment Group
Schools / classrooms implementing your product. Pre-assessment at the start of the year, post-assessment at the end.
Comparison Group
Matched schools / classrooms not using your product. Same assessments, same calendar, same district where possible.
Both groups are assessed at the same two time points. The analysis measures whether treatment students gained more — and by how much. Effect sizes and significance tests determine whether the difference is meaningful and real.
The comparison group is the study’s backbone. Recruiting and retaining the right comparison schools — similar in demographics, prior achievement, and instructional context — is what separates a study that clears Evidence for ESSA review from one that doesn’t. LXD Research manages this entire process.
Four Things a Real-Time Study Adds
Both study types can reach Tier II. A real-time design is the right choice when you want these extras alongside the credential.
Prospective Comparison Matching
We identify and confirm comparison schools before the study begins — not after, when the available options are whatever data happened to be collected. This produces the clean baseline equivalence Evidence for ESSA reviewers require.
Active Implementation Support
Because we’re working with schools in real time, we can identify implementation problems early and help administrators address them — protecting both study integrity and product outcomes. A Look Back study can’t do this.
Administrator Relationship Building
The district partnerships formed during a real-time study often outlast the research itself. Schools that participated become references, case study partners, and in some cases, long-term customers of your product.
Concurrent Data on Both Groups
Treatment and comparison schools are assessed at the same moments in the school year, with identical instruments. Year-to-year conditions — testing schedule shifts, school disruptions, curriculum changes — don’t create noise between groups.
We Interview and Survey Both Groups — and We’re There All Year.
One of the features that makes a real-time study so methodologically valuable — and so useful for your company beyond the credential — is that our qualitative data collection covers both the treatment and comparison groups. We conduct structured administrator interviews with leaders in treatment and comparison schools, and deploy educator surveys to teachers on both sides. This isn’t just methodological thoroughness: it’s what allows us to understand not just whether your product made a difference, but what conditions shaped that difference.
Comparison school interviews reveal what “business as usual” actually looks like — what other tools and approaches those schools were using, what their professional development context was, and what their administrators prioritized. That context makes your study’s findings more credible and more interpretable. When a reviewer or a district buyer asks “what was the comparison group doing instead?”, this study can answer that question in detail, where most retrospective designs can’t.
Administrator support in treatment schools goes beyond data collection. When teachers encounter adoption friction, when implementation varies across classrooms, when administrators need guidance on fidelity — we’re there. Schools where your product is used with integrity produce cleaner, stronger results and are far more likely to renew and advocate afterward.
Research integrity and real-world outcomes are not in tension here. Supporting treatment administrators to implement well, and understanding comparison administrators deeply, are exactly what the study requires — and what distinguishes a real-time engagement from a passive data collection exercise.
The Mid-Year Report: Results in Hand for Spring Sales Season
Because we’re embedded in the study throughout the school year, we can deliver a mid-year findings report — typically in late winter or early spring — before end-of-year assessment data is complete. This report draws on interim assessment data, administrator interview findings, and educator survey results from both treatment and comparison groups. It’s not the final study, but it’s substantive: real findings, in your hands, while your sales team is in the thick of spring conversations.
The edtech sales cycle runs on spring. Districts making purchasing decisions in March and April don’t always want to wait until August for a study report — and with a mid-year deliverable, they don’t have to. Your sales team can enter those conversations with data on how implementation is going, what administrators in both your treatment and comparison schools are experiencing, and early indications of student progress. That’s a different kind of sales tool than a finalized study report sitting in a PDF.
Interim assessment trends, administrator interview themes from both groups, educator survey findings, and implementation quality observations.
Typically January–March, timed to your spring sales cycle. We work backward from when your team needs it.
Shared in district conversations, conference presentations, and RFP responses while the final study is still completing.
Study Deliverables
Every Tier II study includes a complete package, from district recruitment through publication and certification submission. The mid-year report applies to real-time studies.
Study Design and IRB-Aligned Protocol
We develop the full study design before analysis begins — comparison group criteria, assessment schedule, data sharing agreements, and analysis plan. The design is built to meet Evidence for ESSA’s methodological standards from day one.
District Recruitment and Partnership Management
We identify and recruit both treatment and comparison schools, negotiate data sharing agreements, and manage the district relationship throughout the study. You don’t need to manage the school partnership — we do.
Administrator Interviews — Treatment and Comparison Schools
We conduct structured interviews with administrators in both treatment and comparison schools. Treatment interviews capture implementation quality, fidelity, and adoption dynamics. Comparison interviews document what “business as usual” actually looks like — what other tools were in use, what priorities shaped instruction, and what conditions comparison students were learning in. Both sets of findings appear in the final report and give reviewers the contextual depth that makes a study’s conclusions defensible.
Educator Surveys — Treatment and Comparison Schools
Teachers in both groups complete surveys that capture their instructional context, perceptions of student progress, and professional development experience. Comparison teacher data provides a baseline for what educators experience in similar schools without your product. If your company already has an educator survey instrument, we incorporate it. If not, we develop one. The combined dataset strengthens the study narrative and produces sales collateral that speaks to teacher experience alongside student outcomes.
Mid-Year Findings Report (Real-Time Studies)
Delivered in late winter or early spring — before end-of-year assessment data is complete — the mid-year report summarizes interim assessment trends, administrator interview themes from both groups, and educator survey findings. It is not the final study, but it is substantive research in hand when your sales team needs it most: during spring district conversations, conference season, and RFP cycles. We time delivery to your sales calendar.
Quasi-Experimental Data Analysis
Rigorous statistical analysis of pre- and post-assessment data — effect sizes, significance testing, subgroup breakdowns, and matching or propensity score procedures where applicable. Analysis is designed specifically to meet Evidence for ESSA review criteria.
Academic Research Report
A peer-review-ready study report with full methodology, results, discussion, and limitations — written to the standards of Evidence for ESSA, What Works Clearinghouse, and state-level review bodies. This is the document submitted to review platforms and cited in RFP responses.
Research Summary (Co-Branded)
An educator-friendly executive summary that distills the study’s key findings into a format your sales team can hand to a district leader. Co-branded with your product identity, designed to stand alone without the full report.
Publication and Indexing
Your completed study is submitted to ERIC and indexed on ResearchGate — making it publicly discoverable by district leaders, state reviewers, and procurement teams searching for evidence.
Evidence for ESSA Submission and Certification
LXD Research applies to Evidence for ESSA (Johns Hopkins) and EduEvidence for you as part of the engagement, offers Digital Promise submission for an additional fee, shows you how to list your work on ISTE’s EdTech Index (free), and has a clearinghouse link ready for your state submission.
How a Tier II Study Unfolds
A Look Back study typically takes four to six months, because the data already exists. The steps below describe a real-time study, which takes roughly a school year, and a half-year Moderate study is possible when the timing and data allow. Design, recruitment, and administrator onboarding happen before the school year begins, so the research team can support implementation from the first day.
Study Design, Protocol Development, and IRB Alignment
We finalize the study design, develop the analysis plan, and draft all instruments — assessments, surveys, interview guides, and data agreements. The comparison group criteria are defined before recruitment begins.
District and School Recruitment
We identify treatment and comparison schools, confirm demographic and prior-achievement match, negotiate data sharing agreements, and onboard administrators. Recruitment can run in parallel with design and is often the longest phase.
Data Collection, Interviews, Surveys, and Mid-Year Report
Pre-assessments are collected at the start of the study period. Throughout the year, we conduct administrator interviews and educator surveys with both treatment and comparison groups, monitor implementation, and flag fidelity issues in treatment schools. In late winter or early spring, we deliver the mid-year findings report — so your sales team has substantive data during the spring buying season, before end-of-year assessments are complete. Post-assessments are collected at year’s end.
Quantitative Analysis and Report Drafting
Once post-assessment data arrives, we conduct the full statistical analysis — matching, effect size calculation, significance testing, and subgroup analysis — and draft the research report and educator summary.
Report Delivery, Publication, and Certification Submission
Finalized reports are delivered, submitted to ERIC and ResearchGate for indexing, and submitted to Evidence for ESSA and EduEvidence for review. Digital Promise submission is available as an add-on.
Tier II Studies from Our Portfolio
These are quasi-experimental studies LXD Research has conducted for edtech clients — treatment and comparison groups, rigorous matching, and Evidence for ESSA approval.
95 Percent Group — 95 Phonics Core Program
A prospective quasi-experimental study comparing students in classrooms using 95 Phonics Core Program to matched comparison students in the same districts. Two separate studies are approved on the Evidence for ESSA national list, with results holding across multiple sites and demographic groups. The research partnership has led to seven total Evidence for ESSA approvals across 95 Percent Group’s product portfolio.
Coursemojo — AI-Powered Literacy Instruction
A real-time quasi-experimental study of Coursemojo’s AI-powered literacy instruction on sixth-grade English language arts achievement, earning Moderate Evidence approval on the Evidence for ESSA list. The usage level identified in LXD Research’s earlier Coursemojo studies later became part of the basis for the company’s implementation guidance.
engage2learn — growelab
What began as a Look Back Study was elevated to a real-time design when engage2learn pursued Tier I evidence. The real-time phase followed middle school students in math and science with concurrent comparison schools — ultimately yielding two Evidence for ESSA approvals that moved the product’s status from Promising to Moderate Evidence and opened new state procurement pathways.
A firm with 25+ ESSA-approved studies behind it.
Running a credible Tier II study, whether Look Back or Real-Time, requires more than methodological expertise — it requires the relationships, systems, and track record to recruit schools that stay in the study, collect data that holds up to reviewer scrutiny, and navigate the Evidence for ESSA submission process without surprises. We work exclusively with edtech companies, which means we understand the data systems districts use, the implementation realities of edtech products, and exactly what procurement committees and state review panels are looking for when they evaluate evidence. We design studies for buyers and reviewers — not academic journals.
“Our Real-Time Efficacy Studies helped us gain the ability to be on those required state lists and participate in many more RFPs, giving us a competitive differentiation.”
“Our Real-Time Efficacy Studies helped us gain state-level partnerships where they are seeing the impact that educator support has on teacher retention and student growth.”
“LXD Research has provided us invaluable consultation surrounding research strategy and partnered with districts to conduct rigorous ESSA studies that secured our products on coveted state lists.”
Look Back is our preferred starting point for Tier II: it uses data you already have and can be done in months. Choose a Real-Time study when you want to shape implementation as it happens or have results in hand for a specific sales season. If you are earlier in your evidence journey, a Tier III Look Back study is a good first step. And if your goal is the highest possible evidence tier, a Tier I randomized controlled trial is the logical step beyond this one.
← Start with a Look Back StudyThe researcher behind 25+ Evidence for ESSA approvals.
Dr. Rachel Schechter is the Founder and President of LXD Research. Before founding it, she served as Director of Research at Lexia Learning, where she built a 12-member research department and a portfolio of What Works Clearinghouse-aligned studies. LXD Research has produced 25+ studies approved by Johns Hopkins’ Evidence for ESSA.
She has led real-time efficacy studies for edtech companies across literacy, math, professional development, and formative assessment — designing quasi-experimental studies from the ground up, managing district partnerships through the full school year, and navigating Evidence for ESSA review for studies that have gone on to support state approvals across the country.
Build the comparison that makes
your evidence stand up.
Book a free conversation to assess whether a Tier II study is the right fit — and what recruitment, timeline, and investment look like for your specific situation.
Or email us at info@lxdresearch.com