When Vendors Should Pursue ESSA Level Studies, and When They Should Wait

The expectation that educational programs demonstrate evidence of effectiveness has grown substantially in recent years, driven in part by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Under ESSA, districts are encouraged to select research-supported interventions, especially when using federal funds. Vendors frequently interpret this as a mandate to conduct costly ESSA studies before their products are widely adopted. Yet the timing of research is as important as its design. When pursued too early, ESSA studies can strain budgets, misrepresent product potential, or produce results that cannot be generalized. When pursued too late, vendors risk falling behind competitors who can demonstrate measurable impact.

Understanding when to invest in ESSA research requires vendors to think strategically about their product lifecycle, market positioning, and internal readiness. Vendors must also understand the distinctions among ESSA levels, which are not merely bureaucratic categories. They reflect differences in methodological rigor and in what districts expect to see during procurement. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) separates evidence into four tiers, each representing a different degree of causal certainty.

Although Level I evidence is often held up as the gold standard, many districts do not require it, especially in fast-evolving fields such as digital learning tools, bilingual supports, or AI-driven instruction. Level III and IV studies are commonly accepted during early procurement cycles because districts recognize that many effective programs are still maturing. Early-stage companies frequently misunderstand this nuance. The assumption that a program must achieve Level II, or I evidence, before entering the market often leads to premature investment, misaligned messaging, or research conducted before product-market fit stabilizes.

One of the most important insights emerging from education research is that evidence must reflect the program as it exists, not as the vendor hopes it will exist (MDRC, 2021). When a product is undergoing rapid improvement, an early study may misrepresent its capabilities. Such studies can become liabilities in RFP processes, where evaluators expect consistency between the product documented in research and the product being offered. This is why many vendors benefit from sequencing their research in alignment with product maturity.

Early in a product’s lifecycle, vendors typically benefit from developing a strong logic model (ESSA Level IV). A logic model articulates the theory of change that links the intervention to expected outcomes and draws on existing research to justify the expected effect. At this stage, the focus is on conceptual clarity, not outcome measurement. This level of evidence is appropriate when vendors are entering the market or piloting their product with initial partners.

As the product gains traction and early results appear promising, vendors may pursue ESSA Level III studies. These studies rely on correlational data and statistical controls to examine the relationship between program participation and student outcomes. Level III evidence is useful in RFPs that request research-driven justification but do not require formal quasi-experimental designs. Because Level III studies draw from real-world implementations, they help vendors refine product design and demonstrate early impact.

Level II studies (quasi-experimental designs) should be pursued when the vendor has stable implementation practices and consistent usage across multiple sites. Not to diminish the validity of ESSA Level II, but it is the level you need to check the boxes in vital next-step opportunities as a curriculum provider. ESSA II is required for state-level adoptions and for approved provider lists, and it creates a competitive advantage. Finally, the achievement of obtaining your ESSA II sends a clear message that your company is putting students first above all else. These studies require clear treatment and comparison groups and depend on reliable data collection. Conducting quasi-experimental studies before the vendor has a substantial implementation model risks producing inconclusive results.

Level I studies, involving randomized controlled trials, are most appropriate for vendors with a national footprint or programs intended for statewide adoption. These studies provide the highest degree of causal certainty but are also the most demanding in terms of sample size, data quality, and implementation fidelity.

To determine the appropriate timing for ESSA research, vendors should consider the relationship between evidence and procurement. Research should arrive at a moment when procurement demands it, not long before or after. Many districts evaluate vendors using a combination of evidence, implementation readiness, pricing, alignment with standards, and compliance. ESSA studies strengthen one dimension of a vendor’s story, but only when integrated with a broader narrative about product quality and organizational capacity.

A strategic approach to ESSA research follows a progression that maps to product and market maturity:

When pursuing an ESSA study, vendors must consider their capacity to maintain consistent implementation, their ability to collect reliable data, and their commitment to integrating research findings into product improvement. When approached intentionally, ESSA evidence becomes a long-term asset to build a strong national footprint and provide evidence-based materials to our nation's students, the future of this country.

Write Way Consulting

Your partner in research-based strategy, K–12 expertise, and sustainable organizational growth.

References
Institute of Education Sciences. (2022). Using Evidence Under ESSA.
MDRC. (2021). Building Evidence for Education Programs.