Frequently Asked Questions

The current Standards and Procedures document may be found here. The former version may be found here. The updates are being made to more accurately reflect the intent of ESSA and to better enable educators to select effective educational tools.

Because there are many distinct measures of SEL and two of attendance, there are several unique features of these sections, as follows:

Social-Emotional Learning (SEL) Outcomes

Procedures are somewhat different for SEL studies because there are many quite diverse measures used in such studies. Although they are subject to the same requirements as above, outcomes in any one of four categories are accepted.

Social-Emotional Learning outcomes are organized into four domains:

1. Academic.

2. Problem Behaviors.

3. Social Relationships.

4. Emotional Well-Being.

Results from multiple SEL outcomes are aggregated and reported at the domain level.

Attendance Outcomes

There are two approved metrics in the Attendance category:

• Average Daily Attendance.

• Chronic Absenteeism (defined as missing >10% of school days each year).

Results from multiple Attendance outcomes are aggregated and reported at the domain level.

The Every Student Succeeds Act, also known as ESSA, is the main federal law governing k-12 education.  It replaced No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

ESSA recognizes four levels of evidence. The top three levels require findings of a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes.

• Strong evidence: At least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental (i.e., randomized) study.
• Moderate evidence: At least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental (i.e., matched) study.
• Promising evidence: At least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias.

The fourth level is a program or practice that does not yet have evidence qualifying for the top 3 levels, and can be considered evidence-building and under evaluation.

This website identifies programs that fall into the strong, moderate, and promising definitions under ESSA because they have met scientific evidence of effectiveness. All other programs, including those in the fourth level, will be recognized as either Qualifying Studies Found No Significant Positive Outcomes (not proven) or No Studies Met Inclusion Requirements (not proven or had no qualifying studies to review) according to the ESSA evidence standards. Programs that have been reviewed but did not qualify for a program page can be located by typing in the program name in the green search bar in the upper right corner of the homepage.

The Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE) at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) has long worked to promote evidence-based reform in education, especially by publishing reviews of research on effective programs and practices in most subjects and grade levels, pre-k to 12.

We believe that using proven programs is morally and fiscally responsible, increasing the likelihood of student success as well as a greater return on financial investments in education.

While there are several databases with information about education programs, such as the What Works Clearinghouse and Best Evidence Encyclopedia, this is the only website explicitly tailored to making education leaders aware of specific programs that meet the ESSA evidence standards.

The website provides information on programs and practices that meet each of the top three ESSA standards in a given subject and grade level. So far, the website covers grades PK-12 reading, mathematics, science, social-emotional learning, attendance, and family engagement. The website includes brief program descriptions, information on costs, availability, and other pragmatics, and links to program web sites. You can refine a search to look for programs that have been successful with particular populations (e.g., English learners, special education), communities (e.g., urban or rural), and other special interest areas.

You can also search by program name, enabling you to find information about evidence for all programs, including those that have not yet been successfully evaluated. Enter the program name into the green search bar in the upper right corner of the homepage.

Additional topics will be added in the future. The website is continually updated to include new programs and to reflect new evaluations.

Schools applying for school improvement funding under ESSA are required to select and implement programs with strong, moderate, or promising evidence of effectiveness. Any of the programs on this website that are categorized as strong, moderate, or promising will meet this requirement. Other federal and state funding initiatives also encourage use of proven programs.

The website is produced by the Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE) at Johns Hopkins University School of Education, in collaboration with a distinguished Technical Work Group. It is information solely intended to be useful to educators and the public and has no official status.

Start-up funding for Evidence for ESSA was provided by the Annie E. Casey Foundation. The SEL and Attendance sections were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. We thank them for their support but acknowledge that the findings and conclusions presented in this site are those of the author(s) alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Foundation.

CRRE Team

The main development team for Evidence for ESSA:

Robert Slavin, Director for the Center of Research and Reform in Education at JHU

Cynthia Lake

Amanda Inns

Nancy Madden

Marta Pellegrini, University of Florence, Italy

Sooyeun Byun

Susan Davis

Chenchen Shi, Beijing Normal University

Other important contributors:

Jennifer Morrison

Betsy Wolf

Sharon Fox

Beth Comstock

Liz Kim

Nathan Storey

Ariane Baye, University of Liege, Belgium

Alan Cheung, Chinese University of Hong Kong

Bette Chambers, University of York, England

Chen Xie, East China Normal University

Mariette Hardiman, University of Groningen

A Technical Work Group (TWG) consulted on development of content, standards and review procedures, and key decisions for the web site. For programs associated with the authors, TWG members made decisions independently.

Members of the TWG are distinguished professionals in the field of education with experience in evidence and evaluations. They also represent the types of professionals that serve as peer reviewers, and therefore understand the complexities faced by states, districts, and schools working to create plans that address local needs and satisfy the requirements established in ESSA. 

More information about the TWG can be found here.

Programs meeting ESSA evidence standards within a given topic show whether they meet the strong, moderate, or promising standards according to the law. Within categories, programs are listed in order beginning with the strongest using a formula that includes average effect size, number of studies, quality of studies, and overall sample size of the studies. In general, the higher on each list you look, the stronger and more reliable the impact.

A program with at least two strong qualifying studies will be marked with a starred badge on its subject area page listing.

The search page contains filters that allow you to look at studies involving schools with specific characteristics. In addition, once you click on an individual program that meets one of the top three standards, the information provided on the program page will summarize use and outcome information for students and schools, if such information was available from the evaluations.

An effect size is a widely accepted number indicating how much of a difference a program made in student learning. An effect size of +0.10 is small, and larger effect sizes indicate larger impacts. (Reported effect sizes are an average of all qualifying studies of the program, not just the studies that caused the program to meet one of the top three ESSA standards.) When comparing effect sizes, you should compare apples to apples, and oranges to oranges, but you cannot compare apples to oranges. What we mean by this is that different kinds of programs may have different average effect sizes and still be strong. For example, effective tutoring interventions may have an average effect size of about .30, while effective classroom approaches for teaching math might have an effect size of .15.  Therefore, an effect size of +0.25 might be considered “large” for classroom approaches, “moderate” for tutoring.

Every program currently in use should appear on the website. You can search for them by typing their name into the green search box in the upper right corner. If you cannot find a program, it may be listed under another name. If you think we have missed a program, please tell us about it by emailing us at EvidenceforESSA@jhu.edu.

CRRE is committed to keeping the site current. If we learn of a qualifying study, we will post it within a month.

Write to us at EvidenceforESSA@jhu.edu. We update the web site regularly based on new information and new research.

In most respects, Evidence for ESSA follows the current WWC Standards and Procedures Guide and therefore usually comes to similar or identical conclusions.  However, there are differences in our standards, guided by the Evidence for ESSA Technical Working Group (TWG). For example, Evidence for ESSA does not accept measures made by developers or researchers, it does not accept after-the-fact (post-hoc) designs, and it requires a minimum study duration of twelve weeks. A link to the Evidence for ESSA Standards and Procedures can be found in the first FAQ. 

Evidence for ESSA only considers programs’ evidence of outcomes on achievement or other objective outcomes, such as social-emotional learning and attendance. Educators may also take into account other factors, but the purpose of Evidence for ESSA is to help them select programs proven to make a difference with students.

Yes. We expect to continue to add topics indefinitely. In addition to the topics we have released so far, we hope to add sections on English learners, special education, technology, and other topics as funding becomes available.

If a program’s quantitative research study meets Evidence for ESSA inclusion standards, qualitative findings (including survey, interview, or focus group data) within the same research paper will also be included if they meet eligibility
criteria.

These criteria are:

• The qualitative data provide information that will assist in decision-making regarding
  product adoption or implementation.
• The qualitative research assessing stakeholder satisfaction must be conducted by an
  independent third party (e.g., school district or external evaluator), not by the intervention
  owner or developer.
• Surveys must have at least 20 respondents, and interviews or focus groups must have at
  least 10, and appear to reflect representativeness of the target group (e.g., teachers,
  students, parents).
• The study must describe the selection and engagement of respondents, the satisfaction
  instrument (survey, interview, and/or focus group) with enough detail to assess face
  validity (i.e., whether questions were appropriate/unbiased), and the method of analysis.
• The study describes the qualitative research component sample size, response rates, and
  findings comprehensively rather than selectively.
• For comparison analyses (e.g., studies comparing change in perceptions over time or
  studies comparing intervention and control group perceptions), the study must meet these
  criteria for all groups or time points in order for their outcomes to be considered for
  inclusion in Evidence for ESSA.
  **Note: Evidence-strength determinations are based solely on quantitative impact evidence.

If you need help interpreting a program page, or applying these results to your particular context, please write to us, we are happy to help! Our email is evidenceforessa@jhu.edu.

U.S. Department of Education:

• ESSA home page 
• Non-Regulatory Guidance: Using Evidence to Strengthen Education Investments, issued September 16, 2016