I. Randomized Controlled Trials

The Learning Engineering Virtual Institute (LEVI) was established to tackle some of education’s most persistent challenges by developing and scaling AI-based tools that transform teaching and learning. This mission requires continuous improvements paired with producing rigorous research to push the field forward. As LEVI enters Year 5, its seven teams are shifting focus from earlier pilot studies to rigorous, large-scale Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). At MC² Education, we know that effective RCTs depend on robust recruitment to ensure the large sample sizes needed for generalizable results.

Recruitment is notoriously difficult, but we provide targeted technical assistance and hands-on support across a number of LEVI programs. Drawing on our experience bridging the gap between research goals and school realities, here are our key lessons for successful engagement and recruitment.

II. Recruitment as Partnership-Building, Not Site Enrollment

Well-designed randomized controlled trials of educational interventions and supports often succeed or fail not because of how schools and districts are meaningfully engaged from the start of recruitment. Rushed or misaligned recruitment can undermine implementation, increase attrition, and weaken study findings. Effective research teams treat recruitment as the beginning of a long-term partnership.

Schools and districts are not simply places where research happens; they are collaborators whose priorities, constraints, and expertise shape what is possible in practice. Recruitment is a process of forming a relationship that establishes the foundation for deeply impactful research built with trust, communication, and mutual understanding.

This process requires transparency around random assignment, expected dosage, data collection requirements, and the specific “asks” of participating sites signals respect for educators’ time and capacity. It also involves navigating the complex, layered decision-making structures of school systems, where district approval does not guarantee teacher participation.

By acknowledging these operational constraints and aligning research goals with district priorities early on, researchers can build trust and reduce the risk of misalignment later.

III. What Makes Recruitment Work: Five Conditions for Strong Partnerships

Our experience across education research suggests that partnerships are most successful when several core conditions are in place. Together, these conditions shape whether partnerships are not only feasible at the outset, but sustainable over the life of a randomized controlled trial.

1. Feasibility and Timing
Strong research partnerships depend first on whether a district or school context can realistically support implementation of the study. Alignment with district priorities and strategic plans matters, but logistical feasibility is equally critical. For example, if random assignment requires a school to adjust its class schedule for the start of the following school year, recruitment conversations need to happen before schedules are finalized—often months earlier. In this case, a strong, potential partner might have been lost because timing makes implementation impractical, rather than due to a lack of interest.
2. Relevance to District and School Needs

Beyond feasibility, participation is most viable when the study addresses a clear and timely need. Districts and schools are more likely to engage when research aligns with instructional gaps, student needs, or pressing system priorities. Studies that respond to real challenges facing educators and students gain traction more readily than those that are merely interesting from a research perspective. Relevance, not novelty, often determines whether participation feels worthwhile.

3. Active Leadership Support
Effective partnerships also depend on leaders involved in the process beyond formal approvals. District and school leaders who actively support a study play a critical role in translating research expectations into local practice and helping educators navigate timelines, requirements, and competing priorities. This kind of leadership involvement supports continuity over time, particularly when implementation challenges arise or conditions change during the study.
4. Clarity of Design Expectations
Clear explanations of study design and expectations allow schools and districts to make informed participation decisions and reduce the likelihood of disruption later in the study. Understanding why specific design decisions were made—such as dosage requirements or the choice of randomization unit—helps educators anticipate how participation may affect practice, scheduling, staffing, or data use, rather than discovering these implications midstream. When expectations are explicit early on, sites are better positioned to commit with confidence and adapt as challenges arise.
5. A Balanced Value Proposition

Finally, participation decisions hinge on whether the benefits of the study outweigh the demands placed on educators and students. These may include access to programs, tools, or data; opportunities to serve more students; or participation in research that contributes to broader knowledge while delivering local value. Sustainable partnerships are most likely when contributions to the field are balanced with tangible benefits for participating communities.

IV. From Recruitment to Sustained Engagement

Once a district or school agrees to participate, it marks the transition into an active research partnership. The period immediately following agreement is often one of the most fragile phases of a study, as expectations move from planning to practice. Onboarding and early implementation support are critical during this transition. Site visits can surface implementation challenges, while onboarding sessions for school leaders and teachers provide opportunities to clarify roles, timelines, and responsibilities before issues escalate. These early interactions also create space for researchers and practitioners to connect as people, helping establish the working relationships which help to navigate implementation challenges.

As implementation begins, maintaining continuity in study expectations becomes critical for preventing drift, frustration, or disengagement. As studies unfold, sustained engagement is essential for minimizing attrition and protecting data quality. Ongoing communication, responsiveness to site needs, and support during periods of change—including leadership turnover at both the district and school levels—help partnerships remain intact over time. When relationships are distributed across roles rather than concentrated in a single individual, continuity is more likely. For example, if a principal leaves mid-study, an instructional leader or department chair who understands the study can help orient new leadership and maintain momentum.
Relationship maintenance is not ancillary to research; it is what helps partnerships endure when plans shift, challenges emerge, and studies unfold in real-world settings.

V. Why This Matters for the Field

Reframing recruitment as partnership-building has implications beyond a single study or initiative. When recruitment is approached as a core research practice, it supports ethical participation, strengthens implementation, and increases the likelihood that findings reflect real-world conditions rather than idealized ones. For funders, researchers, and policymakers, attention to recruitment practices offers a practical lever for improving both rigor and relevance — not by adding complexity, but by reducing avoidable misalignment and attrition.
As the field continues to invest in large-scale randomized controlled trials of educational interventions, treating recruitment as more than a preliminary step will be essential for producing evidence that is both rigorous and usable. Recruitment is a marker of research quality, shaping not only who participates, but how studies unfold over time. Rethinking how success is defined — with feasibility, continuity, and sustainability at the center — can strengthen the impact of education research as a whole.