ESSA Tier 3 & Tier 4 Evidence Package Qualify for ESSA Tier 3 or Tier 4 with independent classroom research designed for EdTech companies that need defensible evidence to close more deals with K-12 districts

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What outcomes can you measure?

We match measurement to what your product claims to do. The common categories: learning and understanding (concept inventories, knowledge checks, grade data), confidence and self-efficacy (adapted scales matched to the domain), engagement and participation (attendance, assignment completion, time-on-task), workload and efficiency (perceived workload, instructor time savings), instructor observations (structured reflections — always included), and product usage (your own analytics, triangulated with self-report).

We use independent, validated assessments rather than company-created tests to ensure credibility with buyers.

How is this different from traditional impact research?

The core distinction is methodological. Traditional impact research is built around randomized controlled trials (RCTs) — randomly assigning who gets the product and who doesn't, then comparing outcomes. That's the gold standard for causal proof and the basis for ESSA Tier 1 evidence. It's also expensive, slow, and logistically difficult in real classrooms — telling a teacher "you don't get the tool this semester" is a tough sell. RCTs typically require multi-site implementation (often 350+ students across multiple schools under the most widely used review standards), extensive data collection over multiple semesters, and often peer review and publication. They can take 18+ months and cost $100K or more.

This package uses a quasi-experimental design — specifically difference-in-differences — which works with naturally occurring comparison groups instead of random assignment. We compare classrooms that are already using your product to similar classrooms that aren't, and measure the difference in improvement. It's not as airtight as an RCT, but it's rigorous, defensible, and achievable within a single semester at a fraction of the cost.

Traditional impact research tells the field "this product works across many contexts." This package tells your buyers "this product worked in real classrooms with real teachers, and here's the data."

Both are valuable. They serve different purposes and timelines.

How long does it take?

One academic term (16–18 weeks). Our active work is concentrated in the first 2 weeks and last 3–4 weeks. The middle is instructional time.

Do you guarantee positive results?

No. The core value here is credibility. If the evidence is strong, you use it. If it's mixed, you learn from it and improve. If it's negative, you're glad you found out before committing to a larger rollout.

What if we can't set up a comparison group?

If you can't provide both a treatment group and a comparison group in the same term, this package isn't the right fit yet, and we'll tell you that honestly. We can help you think through how to set up those conditions for a future term, and in the meantime, there may be lighter-weight evidence work that still moves you forward.

 

---

Detailed Guide: How the ESSA evidence system actually works and why it matters to EdTech providers

ESSA (the Every Student Succeeds Act) defines four tiers of evidence that K-12 districts are expected to consider when spending federal funds. The tiers describe how strong the research behind a product or program is — from "we have a theory for why this should work" to "this has been rigorously proven across multiple sites."

Here's what most people get wrong: There is no single federal office that certifies products at a specific tier. ESSA defines the framework. Districts are responsible for evaluating the evidence behind the products they buy. In practice, this means the system operates on three layers:

Layer 1: The government reference point. The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC), run by the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education, reviews published research and categorizes studies by ESSA tier. But WWC reviews studies, not products — and it only reviews what's publicly published and what it decides to look at. You cannot submit your product to WWC and ask for a tier rating.

Layer 2: Independent third-party reviewers. Several organizations have built review processes for evaluating evidence and issuing certifications or badges. These are the practical pathway for most EdTech companies. The main ones are covered below.

Layer 3: The company itself. An EdTech company can claim their product meets a specific ESSA tier based on their own assessment. There is no law preventing this. But districts increasingly want third-party validation — not self-reported claims. That's the market signal driving demand for this kind of work.

Bottom line: The evidence package Openfield produces gives you the materials. Third-party reviewers give you the certification. Districts decide whether to trust it. Our job is to make all three of those steps as clean as possible.

• Pricing for the Classroom Evidence Package — discussed during the discovery call based on scope

During an initial discovery call, we can discuss whether your specific product is ready for this and which certification pathway is best.

 

---

Understanding the four tiers of ESSA certification

Tier 4: Demonstrates a Rationale

What it means: You have a well-specified logic model grounded in research, plus an active effort to study your product's effectiveness.

What's required:

• A logic model that maps inputs → activities → outputs → short-term outcomes → long-term outcomes, with each link supported by relevant research
• An ongoing effort to examine the product's impact (i.e., an active study or evaluation)

Where this package fits: Tier 4 documentation is a built-in byproduct of the engagement. The logic model we create together in the first week, combined with the study contract itself, satisfies both requirements. You qualify for Tier 4 from the moment the study begins.

Why it matters: Many districts have procurement rules requiring at least Tier 4 evidence for purchases using federal funds (Title I, Title II, school improvement grants, etc.). Without any evidence, you're ineligible for consideration. With Tier 4, you're qualified for pilot programs and initial contracts while you gather stronger evidence.

Important: Tier 4 is a starting position, not a permanent one. It signals "we're doing the work." Districts expect you to eventually demonstrate results.

 

---

Tier 3: Promising Evidence

What it means: You have a completed study showing a statistically significant positive relationship between your product and student outcomes.

What's required (federal definition): At least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias. OR a quasi-experimental study that meets some but not all of the requirements for Tier 2.

How our methodology maps: The difference-in-differences design used in this package is quasi-experimental — which is technically Tier 2 methodology. However, at the scale most of our clients operate (a handful of classrooms in one school or district), the study typically won't meet the full Tier 2 bar (which requires meeting all WWC standards for quasi-experimental design, including baseline equivalence and sufficient sample size). A quasi-experimental study that meets some but not all Tier 2 criteria qualifies for Tier 3.

What this means practically: The methodology is rigorous. The tier designation reflects scale, not quality. If the data shows a statistically significant positive effect, you have evidence for Tier 3 certification. Scaling up the study (more classrooms, more sites) in future terms creates a pathway to Tier 2.

Why we can't guarantee Tier 3: Two things have to go right:

1. The data has to show a statistically significant positive effect. This is real classrooms with real students — there's a chance the data shows no difference, or the difference is too small to be statistically meaningful. Reasons this happens: product usage was too low, the intervention period was too short, the outcome measure wasn't sensitive enough, or the product simply didn't produce the expected effect.
2. The study has to meet the design standards of the reviewing body you submit to. Each reviewer has its own criteria (covered below). We design for these standards, but the tier designation is ultimately their call, not ours.

 

---

Tier 2: Moderate Evidence

What it means: You have a quasi-experimental study that meets WWC standards (with or without reservations).

What's required: The study must demonstrate baseline equivalence between groups, manage attrition within WWC thresholds, and meet other design quality standards defined in the WWC Standards Handbook (currently version 5.0). Under the Evidence for ESSA review standards, Tier 2 also requires a minimum sample of 350 students across multiple sites.

Where this package fits: Our DiD methodology is Tier 2 in design. Whether the executed study meets Tier 2 depends on sample size, baseline equivalence, and implementation fidelity — factors that are partly within your control (how many classrooms you can provide) and partly dependent on what happens during the semester. For most first-time engagements at pilot scale, Tier 3 is the realistic target. Tier 2 becomes achievable when you can run the study across multiple sites with larger samples.

 

---

Tier 1: Strong Evidence

What it means: You have an experimental study (randomized controlled trial) demonstrating a positive effect.

What's required: Random assignment to treatment and control, meeting WWC standards without reservations, multi-site implementation, and (under Evidence for ESSA standards) a minimum of 350 students.

Where this package fits: This package does not produce Tier 1 evidence. RCTs require random assignment, which is rarely practical or ethical in classroom settings for an EdTech product evaluation. Tier 1 is a long-term goal for mature products with stable implementation across many sites.

 

---

Sample size and statistical power — the honest picture

One of the most common questions: how many students do we need?

The short answer: More is better, and we recommend at least 3–4 classrooms per condition when possible.

The longer answer: For a difference-in-differences design with students clustered in classrooms, the sample size needed to detect an effect depends on several factors:

• Effect size: How big is the difference you expect your product to produce? In education research, a "small" effect is around d = 0.2, "medium" is 0.5. For an EdTech intervention over one semester, realistic effects are typically in the 0.3–0.5 range.
• Clustering: Students in the same classroom share a teacher, a schedule, a learning environment. This means 30 students in one class are not 30 independent observations — they're correlated. The intraclass correlation (ICC) for educational outcomes is typically .15–.25, which inflates the required sample size.
• Pre-post correlation: Measuring students at both the start and end of the term reduces the variance you need to account for, which helps. Typical pre-post correlations in education are around .50–.70.

What this means practically: At typical pilot scale (2–4 classrooms per condition, 25–30 students each), you can reliably detect large effects (d ≥ 0.8) but may not have enough power to detect smaller, real effects. We report effect sizes, confidence intervals, and achieved statistical power alongside all findings — so you and any reviewer can see exactly what the study was able to detect.

We have an R-based power calculator that we run for every engagement during scoping. It takes your specific parameters (number of classrooms, average class size, expected ICC) and tells you what effect sizes the study can realistically detect. This is part of the honest conversation we have before you commit.

 

---

Certification pathways: where to submit your evidence

After the study is complete, you'll have a logic model, a study report, a methods appendix, and approved claim language. Here's where that evidence goes.

Digital Promise — Product Certifications

What it is: The most structured certification pathway for Tier 3 specifically. Digital Promise runs a formal application process with trained reviewers and a defined rubric.

What you submit:

• A logic model with research-backed connections
• An annotated bibliography documenting at least five research-backed design decisions, with at least five distinct empirical citations
• At least one completed study (your Classroom Evidence Package study)
• Public-facing research documentation (e.g., a research page on your website)

How it works: Two trained reviewers independently score your application against a rubric. If approved, you earn a digital Tier 3 certification badge valid for 2 years.

What Openfield provides: The logic model, the study, the methods documentation, and guidance on preparing the annotated bibliography. The annotated bibliography itself requires linking specific product design decisions to published research — which may require additional work beyond what the evidence package produces, depending on how well-documented your product's research basis already is.

Fee: Digital Promise charges an application fee (check their current pricing).

Best for: Companies that want the most recognized, structured certification and are willing to invest in a thorough application.

 

---

Evidence for ESSA (Johns Hopkins University)

What it is: An independent review service that evaluates published research against ESSA tier criteria. Programs that pass are listed in a searchable database used by districts nationwide.

What's required:

• Your study needs to be publicly accessible (published or posted publicly)
• The study must meet their design and reporting standards, which are closely aligned to WWC standards
• For Tier 2, they require a minimum of 350 students across multiple sites
• Studies must be at least 12 weeks in duration

How it works: Evidence for ESSA proactively reviews research, but you can also submit studies for review. Their team evaluates the study against their standards and, if it qualifies, lists the program in their database with the appropriate tier designation.

What Openfield provides: A study designed to meet these standards. The main variable is whether your study is publicly accessible — which may require posting it on your website or submitting it to a repository.

Best for: Companies that want academic credibility and visibility in the most widely-referenced evidence database.

 

---

LearnPlatform by Instructure

What it is: A platform districts use to manage their EdTech ecosystem. LearnPlatform issues ESSA Evidence Badges using a rubric aligned to federal standards.

How it works: You submit evidence through their platform. Their team reviews it and, if it meets their criteria, issues an Evidence Badge that appears when a district looks up your product in their system.

Important context: LearnPlatform also offers its own evidence-as-a-service — they'll design and run studies for EdTech companies. This makes them both a certification pathway and a potential competitor to what Openfield offers. Worth being aware of this when deciding which pathway to pursue.

Best for: Companies whose district customers already use LearnPlatform for EdTech management and would benefit from visibility within that ecosystem.

 

 

What to do after the study

Step 1: Package the evidence

Your deliverables from Openfield form the core of what you need:

• Logic model — satisfies Tier 4 and is required by Digital Promise and most reviewers
• Study report and methods appendix — the evidence itself
• Approved claim language — what you can and can't say, vetted by the research team

For formal submission, you may also need:

• An annotated bibliography linking product design decisions to published research (required by Digital Promise — 5+ empirical citations)
• Public-facing research documentation on your website (required by Digital Promise, recommended for Evidence for ESSA)

We help you identify what additional materials are needed for your chosen pathway.

Step 2: Submit for third-party review

Choose one or more of the pathways above based on where your district customers look for evidence. Digital Promise is the most practical starting point for Tier 3 certification. Evidence for ESSA carries the most academic weight.

Timeline expectation: Review processes take weeks to months depending on the organization. Factor this into your sales and procurement planning.

Step 3: Put the evidence to work

• Sales kit: Give your evidence brief and claim language to your sales team. Coach them on what the evidence supports and where the boundaries are — overclaiming undermines credibility.
• RFP responses: When a district asks "Provide evidence of effectiveness," attach the evidence brief and cite any third-party certification.
• Website: Post your research basis publicly. Reviewing organizations value transparency, and districts increasingly check.
• Investor conversations: The logic model, the methodology, and the findings give you a structured story about product impact that goes beyond anecdotes.

Step 4: Keep building

ESSA evidence is not one-and-done:

• Digital Promise certifications expire after 2 years
• Districts want to see continuous investment in studying your product
• Each additional term or site strengthens your evidence base
• Replication across contexts is what moves you from Tier 3 toward Tier 2

Treat this study as the first cycle of an evidence engine — not a one-time project.

 

---

IRB and FERPA considerations

IRB (Institutional Review Board)

The key question: Is this activity a "systematic investigation designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge"? If yes, it's human subjects research and requires IRB review.

For the ESSA pathway specifically: If your goal is to submit evidence to a third-party reviewer (Digital Promise, Evidence for ESSA, LearnPlatform), post the study publicly, and use the findings to make claims that generalize beyond the specific classrooms studied — that is, by definition, generalizable knowledge. The quality improvement exception is difficult to argue when the explicit purpose is public evidence submission to a national database.

Our recommendation: If you're pursuing ESSA certification, plan for IRB review. This adds time (typically 4–8 weeks for expedited review) and requires either partnering with a university IRB or using a commercial IRB service. We factor this into the project timeline during scoping.

For clients not pursuing ESSA certification: If the findings are used internally — for your own sales conversations, product decisions, or investor presentations, without public submission to an evidence registry — the quality improvement framing may apply. This is a judgment call that should be discussed with appropriate institutional or legal counsel, not determined by Openfield.

What Openfield does and doesn't do: We design the study. We identify during scoping that IRB review is likely needed and help you plan for the timeline. We do not serve as an IRB, provide legal guidance on whether IRB applies in your specific case, or manage the IRB submission process. That's between you, your institutional partners, and your legal team.

FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act)

What it covers: Student education records — grades, test scores, attendance, any personally identifiable information maintained by a school.

What Openfield does: During scoping, we specify exactly what data the study requires — which variables, in what format, for which students. This makes the data request precise and minimally invasive, which simplifies the compliance conversation.

What Openfield doesn't do: We don't draft FERPA agreements, provide legal guidance on FERPA compliance, or manage the data-sharing process between you and the district. The legal pathway for sharing data — including FERPA's studies exception (34 CFR § 99.31(a)(6)), consent processes, and data governance agreements — is between the client, their district partners, and their legal teams.

What to expect: Districts have established processes for sharing data for evaluation purposes. The FERPA component is usually manageable when the data request is specific and well-scoped — which is why we invest time in this during the design phase. But it does add a timeline and requires coordination with district legal and data governance teams.