A Comprehensive Analysis of Results-Based vs. Evidence-Based Education and Their Impact on Students with ADHD

Executive Summary

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of two distinct educational philosophies: Results-Based Education (RBE), also known as Outcome-Based Education (OBE), and Evidence-Based Education (EBE). The primary purpose is to compare and contrast these frameworks and examine their specific impacts on a vulnerable student population: those with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The analysis concludes that while EBE offers a promising, data-driven framework for implementing proven interventions, its efficacy is often undermined by systemic resource issues, such as chronic underfunding and teacher shortages. Conversely, RBE’s rigid, top-down model, with its emphasis on standardized, universal outcomes, is fundamentally at odds with the flexible, individualized needs of students with ADHD. This philosophical mismatch can lead to profound negative academic and social outcomes for these students. Ultimately, a successful educational model must be a hybrid: one that is evidence-informed, flexible, and responsive to the student’s unique needs, while simultaneously being supported by the political will and financial investment required to make it a reality for all.

1. Introduction: Framing the Educational Landscape

The modern educational landscape is characterized by a dynamic tension between two influential, yet often conflicting, philosophies. The first, Results-Based Education (RBE), is a top-down approach that prioritizes the achievement of predetermined, measurable goals. The second, Evidence-Based Education (EBE), is a research-driven model that advocates for the use of scientifically validated practices. While both claim to improve student outcomes, their core principles, practical applications, and effects on diverse student populations vary dramatically. This report undertakes a detailed comparison of these two frameworks, with a specific focus on their impact on students with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

Results-Based Education, often referred to as Outcomes-Based Education (OBE), is an educational theory that structures every component of an educational system around specific, desired goals, or "outcomes".1 The central premise of RBE is that by the end of a given educational experience, each student should have achieved a predefined set of competencies or skills. This approach organizes the curriculum and instructional methods with the end-goal in mind, allowing faculty to adapt their content to a class's specific requirements.3

In stark contrast, Evidence-Based Education (EBE) is a guiding principle asserting that educational practices should be grounded in the most robust, available scientific evidence, rather than on tradition, personal judgment, or anecdotal success.4 Within this framework, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" for research, and meta-analyses—which statistically combine the results of multiple studies—are used to draw more reliable conclusions about an intervention’s effectiveness.4 This approach is intrinsically tied to the broader movement towards evidence-based practices in fields like medicine and psychology.

The purpose of this report is to move beyond a simple comparison of definitions to analyze how the distinct principles and practical implementation of each philosophy affect students with ADHD. This analysis will integrate a deep understanding of ADHD’s academic, social, and emotional impacts with a critical review of educational frameworks. Ultimately, this report aims to provide a synthesis of findings and actionable recommendations for policy and practice to improve the educational experience for this population.

2. The Foundations and Flaws of Results-Based Education (RBE)

2.1 Core Principles and Historical Roots

Results-Based Education, or Outcomes-Based Education, is a pedagogical approach that focuses on a clearly articulated idea of what students are expected to know and be able to do at the conclusion of their educational journey.2 It is an educational theory that bases each part of a system around a defined goal, and it judges educational effectiveness based on these measurable results, rather than on inputs like the amount of time a student spends in class.1 In this model, the curriculum and instructional methods are designed with the end-goal in mind, and teachers are empowered to mold content to their students’ needs, as long as the predetermined outcomes are met.3

Historically, RBE has deep roots in concepts like "Mastery Learning," a process that segments curriculum into small, distinct units that students must master before progressing.2 One of the most significant and well-documented RBE-type experiments, Mastery Learning, was implemented in Chicago in the 1970s and was ultimately abandoned due to what critics described as "appallingly low" test scores.6 Despite this, the foundational principles of RBE gained significant national momentum in the United States with the passage of the

Goals 2000: Educate America Act in 1994. This top-down push for accountability was further institutionalized by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, which mandated the use of standardized tests as the primary metric for holding schools accountable for student achievement and tied these results to federal education funds.1 The NCLB Act created a system where the pressure of high-stakes testing was believed to be the catalyst for improved student performance.7

2.2 A Critical Examination of RBE

While the stated goal of RBE—to ensure all students achieve success—is appealing, its practical implementation has faced significant and enduring criticism. A primary objection is the accusation that RBE acts as an egalitarian scheme that stifles excellence by holding the entire class to the level of the slowest learner.6 Critics argue that to achieve "success for all," the outcomes are "dumbed-down," leading to a culture of mediocrity rather than one that fosters academic excellence.6 In this framework, faster learners may be given "busy work" or asked to engage in "peer tutoring" instead of being allowed to progress, which reduces their incentive and motivation.6

A central point of contention is RBE's heavy reliance on standardized test scores and other quantifiable outcomes for accountability.7 While the NCLB Act was founded on the theory that this pressure would increase achievement, a study found that high-stakes testing had "almost no important influence on student academic performance".7 A further critique of this measurement system is that standardized tests often measure a student's ability to take a test, not their genuine knowledge or skill.9 This reliance on what can be easily measured leads to a narrowing of the curriculum, with teachers focusing only on content that will be on the test and leaving out other important topics.8

The RBE philosophy can lead to a loss of holistic learning and creativity in the classroom.10 When an entire educational system is organized around specific, observable outcomes, the learning process can feel reduced and artificial.1 As a result, there is a risk that the intrinsic joy of discovery and the potential for a deeper, more meaningful learning experience are lost. One student described a high school class where the teacher put "dots" on the board to mark each outcome they would cover, leaving no room for surprise or genuine curiosity.10 This kind of teaching, which feels like a race to meet predefined goals, can lead to students who are less engaged and teachers who are simply "pushing things forward" to meet their outcomes rather than truly listening and responding to their students.10

The NCLB-era implementation of the RBE philosophy created a distinct cause-and-effect chain. The federal mandate for accountability based on standardized test scores 7 led states to create high-pressure accountability systems. This pressure, in turn, led to a pervasive narrowing of the curriculum and a focus on "teaching to the test".8 This is a direct consequence of a top-down, results-driven model where the

ends (test scores) are seen to justify the means (curricular reductionism and reduced teacher autonomy). This model creates an environment that inherently clashes with the needs of diverse learners. For a student with ADHD, who may excel in creative thinking but struggle with the timed, repetitive nature of standardized testing, this system creates an environment of constant failure, not a path to "success".11 The rigid nature of the framework penalizes neurodivergence rather than accommodating it, reinforcing a negative feedback loop for the student’s self-esteem and academic identity.

3. The Foundations and Pragmatism of Evidence-Based Education (EBE)

3.1 Core Principles and Methodologies

Evidence-Based Education is a movement that argues for basing educational practices on robust scientific evidence, with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) considered the gold standard.4 The central premise of EBE is that teachers should use evidence to determine a student’s starting point, select appropriate teaching strategies, and then monitor student progress and evaluate the effectiveness of their chosen methods.12 This approach seeks to move beyond traditional or anecdotal teaching methods and provide a framework for using interventions that have a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes.4

The U.S. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which replaced NCLB, formalized this approach by establishing a framework with four tiers of evidence for educational interventions.4 Tier 1, considered "Strong Evidence," is supported by well-designed and implemented randomized controlled studies. Tier 2, or "Moderate Evidence," is backed by quasi-experimental studies, while Tier 3, "Promising Evidence," is supported by correlational studies with statistical controls. This tiered framework is designed to help educators and policymakers make informed, data-driven decisions about which programs to adopt.4

3.2 Challenges and Criticisms

Despite its scientific grounding, EBE has faced its own set of challenges and criticisms. A significant concern, similar to that levied against RBE, is the perceived over-reliance on standardized test scores as the primary measure of a program's effectiveness.9 Critics argue that this narrow definition of "evidence" may not capture deeper, more meaningful aspects of learning, such as student engagement, curiosity, or critical thinking.9 The use of a simple "effect size" to quantify learning can create an "illusion of truth" that fails to account for important contextual factors, such as a teacher's natural ability or a student's home life.9

Another major criticism of EBE is that it can be seen as taking professional control away from teachers and giving it to educational researchers.9 Teachers may feel pressured to implement a "laundry list of 'approved' methods" that do not fit the unique dynamics of their classrooms or the individual needs of their students.9 This lack of trust in a teacher’s professional judgment can contribute to burnout and a lack of engagement, as cited in a Gallup survey where over half of educators reported feeling "not engaged" in their work.9 This dynamic has led to the emergence of a modified approach called "evidence-informed teaching," which advocates for a hybrid model that combines robust research with a teacher’s personal experience and good judgment.4

While EBE is presented as a rational, scientific solution to educational challenges, its implementation can create its own set of problems. The reliance on studies with "high-quality" research 13 often translates into a focus on interventions that produce a measurable "effect size," such as the school-based interventions for ADHD that show a positive effect on academic performance. This can lead schools to adopt a program that is academically effective but ignores broader contextual issues, such as whether it is feasible to implement with limited staff 13 or whether it addresses a student’s social-emotional needs. The consequence is a system where schools may "check a box" by implementing an "evidence-based" program without the necessary resources or context to make it truly effective for all students, particularly those with complex, multi-faceted needs.

4. The Educational Context of Students with ADHD: A Deep Dive

4.1 Core Symptoms and Their Impact on School Life

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that affects millions of children and often continues into adulthood. The disorder is characterized by a mix of ongoing problems related to inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. In a school setting, these symptoms manifest in a variety of ways that can significantly impact a student's academic and social life.15 A student with the predominantly inattentive type may struggle to pay close attention to details, make "careless mistakes" in schoolwork, or have trouble staying focused during long lectures or reading assignments. Conversely, a student with the predominantly hyperactive and impulsive type may be "on the go," talk excessively, or "blurt out an answer before a question has been finished". Beyond these core symptoms, many students with ADHD also have deficits in executive functioning skills, which are essential for success in academic settings and include organization, planning, and time management.16

The impact of ADHD extends far beyond academic performance. Students with ADHD are at a high risk for scholastic and social failure compared to their peers. Their impulsive, inattentive, and hyperactive tendencies can lead to significant challenges in social settings, resulting in peer rejection, fewer friendships, and conflict with teachers and parents. This dynamic can create a vicious cycle: their disruptive behaviors lead to social exclusion, which in turn reduces their opportunities to practice social skills and lowers their confidence.16 This social and emotional distress can then exacerbate their academic struggles, leading to poor self-esteem and a high risk of school dropout.5

4.2 Systemic Support and Legal Frameworks

In the U.S., students with ADHD are protected by federal legal frameworks, primarily the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.20 A student with a severe ADHD diagnosis may qualify for an Individualized Education Program (IEP) under the "Other Health Impairment" (OHI) category, especially if the condition co-occurs with other challenges like a learning disability.20 An IEP is a detailed, legally binding document that outlines a student's current performance, establishes specific goals, and defines the special education services, accommodations, and modifications they will receive.21

For students who do not meet the stringent eligibility requirements for an IEP, a 504 Plan is often provided.22 This plan ensures that the needs of students with physical or mental impairments are met as adequately as those of their peers without disabilities.22 A 504 Plan is typically less formal than an IEP and provides accommodations—such as extended time on tests or a quiet study area—within the general education classroom.20 A critical legal detail is that a student's eligibility for a 504 Plan must be determined without taking into account the effect of treatments like medication or behavioral interventions that may alleviate symptoms.20

4.3 The Critical Role of Teachers and Staff

The effectiveness of these legal frameworks and the support they provide is heavily dependent on the knowledge and capacity of teachers and school staff. However, many teachers feel "ill-equipped" to meet the diverse needs of students with ADHD, often demonstrating minimal understanding of the condition and its impact on behavior and learning. This lack of knowledge can lead to a fundamental misunderstanding, where ADHD-related behaviors, such as fidgeting or interrupting, are seen as intentional acts of defiance rather than a manifestation of the disorder.17

Professional development programs on ADHD exist and have been shown to improve teachers' knowledge and promote more positive behaviors toward students with ADHD. However, one systematic review and meta-analysis found that while teacher knowledge improved in the short term, this gain was not sustained over time, and there was insufficient evidence to conclude that it directly improved student behaviors.

The challenges faced by students with ADHD, such as inattention and poor social skills, can create a negative feedback loop that goes far beyond the academic sphere. Their inattentive or impulsive behaviors can lead to peer rejection and conflict with teachers.16 This, in turn, reduces their opportunities to practice social skills and lowers their self-esteem, leading to further social exclusion and avoidance of social situations.16 This social and emotional distress can then exacerbate their academic struggles. This report must emphasize that the impact of education on students with ADHD is not limited to academic outcomes; it extends to their social and emotional well-being, which has lifelong implications for their relationships, employment, and overall achievement.5 A purely academic-focused approach (like RBE) or a program that only targets symptoms (some EBE programs) will likely fail to address the underlying cyclical problems of the disorder.

5. Analysis of Impact: The Clashing Philosophies

5.1 RBE's Mismatch with the ADHD Experience

The core principles of RBE—its emphasis on standardized, universal outcomes and high-stakes accountability—are in direct conflict with the variable and individualized needs of a student with ADHD. The RBE assumption that "all students can learn" a specific outcome at a specific time is inherently at odds with the nature of ADHD, which is characterized by fluctuating symptoms and executive functioning deficits.16 A rigid, standardized curriculum will inevitably penalize a student on a day when their symptoms are severe, regardless of their underlying knowledge or ability.

This conflict is most apparent in RBE’s approach to discipline. While a rigid, punitive system with "swift consequences" may be a feature of some RBE-like behavior management programs 25, this approach fails to acknowledge that many disruptive behaviors are a direct manifestation of the student’s disability.26 Legal frameworks like IDEA recognize this distinction and require a Manifestation Determination Review to determine if a behavior was caused by or directly related to the student’s disability before a punitive "change of placement" is imposed.26 The laws require schools to address these behaviors by teaching the student coping mechanisms and implementing appropriate behavioral supports, rather than simply applying a standard punishment.26 This legal mandate is a clear rejection of a purely results-driven disciplinary model.

The focus on universal, "dumbed-down" outcomes in RBE creates a unique problem for students with ADHD who are also gifted or highly intelligent.27 While their ADHD symptoms (e.g., inattention) may cause them to struggle with meeting basic, standardized requirements, their high cognitive ability means the curriculum is often unchallenging and fails to engage them.27 This can lead to boredom, which exacerbates inattention and hyperactivity, further widening the gap between their potential and their measured performance.11 The RBE model thus creates a system where these students are simultaneously over- and under-challenged, leading to a profound sense of failure.11

5.2 The Promises and Practicalities of EBE

In contrast to RBE, Evidence-Based Education offers a more promising framework for educating students with ADHD, as it provides a wide range of proven, targeted interventions and accommodations. These include academic interventions such as Computer Assisted Instruction and self-monitoring strategies. Behavioral interventions, identified as a key component of EBE, include behavior modification, parent training, and classroom-based interventions like the use of visual supports and clear expectations.28 Meta-analyses have shown that school-based interventions are effective at improving inattention, social skills, and academic performance.5 Specific behavioral strategies, such as contingency management—a system of rewards and/or punishments—have been identified as the most frequently used intervention in school-based programs.

The accommodations provided to students with ADHD under a 504 Plan or IEP are a form of evidence-based practice.29 These strategies are grounded in the understanding of how ADHD symptoms affect a student’s ability to learn and function in the classroom.29 Examples include breaking down large tasks into smaller steps, providing extra time on tests, using visual aids, and allowing for frequent movement breaks to help manage hyperactivity. These interventions are supported by a body of research and are tailored to meet the individual student’s needs.12

The EBE framework, with its requirement for ongoing monitoring and modification of interventions, aligns well with the dynamic nature of ADHD.25 The process is designed to be data-driven and flexible: if a program's initial success deteriorates or if it fails to work, it signals that the program needs to be modified.25 This aligns with the individualized, responsive support required for a condition like ADHD. A school that adopts this approach can move from a rigid, one-size-fits-all model to a dynamic system that is constantly adapting to the student's needs. The challenge, however, is that this "ongoing monitoring and modification" requires resources and time 25, which are often lacking due to systemic issues.

A school or district can adopt a list of "evidence-based" interventions, but if it lacks the trained, qualified staff to implement them with "fidelity" 19, the effectiveness of those interventions will be compromised. The promise of EBE remains an unfulfilled theory on paper, while students with ADHD suffer from a lack of consistent, high-quality support in practice.

The following table provides a succinct comparison of the two educational frameworks, highlighting their core philosophies and practical implications for students with ADHD.

Results-Based Education (RBE)

Evidence-Based Education (EBE)

Core Philosophy

Outcome-focused, universal mastery of pre-defined goals

Scientifically-based, use of proven interventions and practices

Primary Metric of Success

Standardized test scores, predefined outcomes

Effect sizes, multi-metric outcomes (academic, social, behavioral)

Impact on Teacher Autonomy

Reduced; teaching is constrained by the need to meet specific, quantifiable outcomes

Potential for reduced autonomy, but also promotes "evidence-informed" professional judgment

View of Student Failure

Considered a systemic failure; requires more time and support for the student to catch up

Indicates a need to switch to a different, proven intervention that is a better fit for the student

Impact on Students with ADHD

Fundamentally negative; the rigid, one-size-fits-all model penalizes variable symptoms and fails to accommodate complex needs

Potentially positive; offers a toolkit of proven strategies, but its efficacy is severely limited by a lack of resources and qualified staff

The following table provides a detailed overview of specific evidence-based interventions and accommodations that can support students with ADHD.

Category

Intervention/Accommodation

Description

Source(s)

Behavioral

Contingency Management

A package of rewards and/or punishments to change, alter, or redirect a child's behavior. It is the most frequently used intervention in school-based programs.

Behavioral Therapy

Focuses on identifying and modifying specific behaviors. Techniques include self-monitoring, reinforcement strategies, and behavior contracts.

Parent Training

Programs that provide parents with skills and strategies to manage a child's behavior, improve communication, and create consistent routines.

Academic

Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)

Computer-based programs that provide frequent feedback to improve academic achievement and fully engage students with ADHD.

Breaking Down Tasks

Dividing large tasks and tests into smaller, more manageable sections to help with sustained attention and focus.

Use of Visual Aids

Using charts, pictures, color-coding, and other visual tools to simplify and structure instructions and improve understanding.

29

Classroom

Preferential Seating

Seating a student away from windows and doors, or near a teacher or an appropriate peer, to reduce distractions.

15

Accommodations

Adjustments to the learning environment, such as extended time on tests, frequent movement breaks, or using a quiet study area.

30

Teacher-Student Cues

Using unobtrusive, private signals, such as a shoulder squeeze or a sticky note on a desk, to remind a student to stay on task.

29

6. The Systemic Barriers: Bridging the Gap Between Philosophy and Reality

The debate between RBE and EBE becomes purely academic without the necessary resources to implement either philosophy effectively. The reality on the ground is that systemic issues often prevent even the most promising, evidence-based practices from reaching the students who need them most.

6.1 The Chronic Shortage of Qualified Staff

The United States faces a persistent and critical shortage of special education teachers, with nearly every state citing it as a "high-need area".33 This problem is a result of high turnover rates—with special education teachers leaving at almost double the rate of general education teachers—and a declining number of new teachers entering the field.33 The issue is particularly acute in rural areas and in schools that serve a higher proportion of students from marginalized or lower socioeconomic backgrounds.33

This lack of qualified personnel has direct and severe consequences. Students with disabilities may not receive the services outlined in their legally binding IEPs or 504 Plans because there are simply not enough teachers or related service providers available.33 The teachers who are available are often burdened with excessive caseloads and administrative demands, leaving them with insufficient time to plan and deliver the intensive, individualized instruction that students with ADHD require to succeed.33

6.2 The Unmet Promise of Funding

Underlying the staffing crisis is a fundamental issue of chronic underfunding. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), enacted to ensure all children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education, has never been fully funded.36 While Congress originally committed to funding 40% of the average per-pupil cost for special education, the federal share has historically been less than 12%.36

This massive funding shortfall passes the financial burden onto states and local school districts, which are often forced to transfer money from their general funds to pay for special education programs.37 This practice, known as "encroachment," creates significant tension between general and special education programs and leads to resource scarcity for all students.37

The underfunding of IDEA is a root cause of the special education teacher shortage. The lack of federal funding leads to low pay and stressful working conditions, which in turn drive experienced teachers out of the profession.34 The resulting staffing gaps mean that EBE interventions, which are often labor-intensive and require specialized knowledge, cannot be implemented with fidelity. The debate between RBE and EBE becomes moot without the necessary resources to make either philosophy work. The real-world situation is not a philosophical battle but a resource crisis, and this crisis disproportionately affects marginalized students, perpetuating an educational equity gap where only students in affluent districts can truly benefit from a well-supported educational model.37

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Synthesis of Findings

This analysis concludes that neither Results-Based Education nor Evidence-Based Education, in their pure and dogmatic forms, is a panacea for educating students with ADHD. RBE's rigid, standardized, and accountability-driven model is fundamentally mismatched with the variable and individualized nature of ADHD symptoms, often leading to negative academic and social outcomes. The philosophy's focus on universal, measurable outcomes can also penalize gifted students with ADHD by failing to challenge them, thus exacerbating their core symptoms.

In contrast, EBE offers a more promising framework, providing a toolkit of proven interventions and accommodations that can directly address the academic, behavioral, and social challenges of students with ADHD. This data-driven, flexible approach is designed to adapt to a student's needs and can, in theory, create a responsive and dynamic learning environment. However, EBE's efficacy is severely limited by a lack of resources, chronic underfunding for special education, and systemic issues that have led to a persistent and complex teacher shortage. The perfect, peer-reviewed plan is rendered useless by a lack of trained, available staff.

A truly effective educational approach must be a hybrid model that is both "evidence-informed" and "outcomes-oriented." This means using the best available research to guide flexible, individualized, and responsive teaching, while simultaneously holding the system accountable for meaningful, holistic outcomes that go beyond simple test scores. The challenge is not a lack of knowledge about what works, but a lack of political will and public investment to implement it effectively on a large scale.

7.2 Actionable Recommendations for a New Educational Model

Based on this analysis, the following recommendations are proposed to bridge the gap between educational theory and practical implementation for students with ADHD:

For Policymakers:

• Address the IDEA Funding Gap: Congress must honor its decades-old commitment to fully funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).36 A significant increase in federal funding is a moral and economic imperative that would provide schools with the vital resources needed to attract and retain qualified staff, reduce caseloads, and deliver high-quality interventions.

• Redefine Accountability: Move beyond high-stakes, standardized testing as the primary measure of school success.7 Implement a flexible, multi-metric accountability system that measures not only academic achievement but also social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes.

For School Administrators:

• Invest in Long-Term Teacher Training: Implement ongoing, multi-session professional development that equips all teachers with in-depth knowledge of ADHD and a "toolkit of strategies".

• Combat Staffing Shortages: Shift from traditional caseload caps to a workload model that more fairly distributes responsibilities among staff.34 Actively recruit and support special education teachers through loan payback programs and competitive pay to combat high attrition rates.33

• Create a Culture of Collaboration: Foster a school environment that encourages open communication between parents, teachers, and students.39 Parents should be proactively included in decision-making and equipped with the knowledge to advocate for their child's needs.

For Educators and Parents:

• Embrace an Evidence-Informed, Clinical Approach: Teachers should be empowered to act as "critical users of research" 4, combining proven EBE strategies with professional judgment and responsive teaching to meet a student's unique needs.

• Advocate for a Holistic View of Success: Encourage a focus on a student’s overall well-being, including their social-emotional development, as a core component of their educational journey. This ensures that interventions and accommodations are designed to support the whole student, not just their academic output.

ADHD Learning Pathways can Help

Works cited

1. Outcome-based education - Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcome-based_education

2. Outcome-Based Education outcome based - Connecticut General Assembly, accessed August 22, 2025, https://cga.ct.gov/PS94/rpt%5Colr%5Chtm/94-R-0290.htm

3. Beginner's Guide to Outcome Based Education | What is OBE, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.iitms.co.in/blog/beginners-guide-to-outcome-based-education.html

4. Evidence-based education - Wikipedia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_education

5. School-based randomized controlled trials for ADHD and ... - Frontiers, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1611145/full

6. What's Wrong With Outcome-Based Education? - Our Civilization, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.ourcivilisation.com/dumb/dumb3.htm

7. High-Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Problems for the No ..., accessed August 22, 2025, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED531535

8. Standardized Testing and the No Child Left Behind Act: A Failing Attempt at Reform By - Registrar | ECU, accessed August 22, 2025, https://registrar.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/242/2017/06/2009-Keats-Sparrow-Award-Winner-%E2%80%8B-1st.-Standardized-Testing-and-the-No-Child-Left-Behind-Act-A-Failing-Attempt-at-Reform.pdf

9. 5 Things That Are Wrong With Evidence Based Teaching |, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.institute4learning.com/2020/01/13/5-things-that-are-wrong-with-evidence-based-teaching/

10. Against Outcome-Based Education - Professor Jennifer Hurley, accessed August 22, 2025, https://profhurley.medium.com/against-outcome-based-education-3262e603e5c0

11. teaching and managing students with - ADHD Foundation, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.adhdfoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Teaching-and-Managing-Students-with-ADHD.pdf

12. The role of evidence in teaching and learning - Teacher Magazine, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.teachermagazine.com/au_en/articles/the-role-of-evidence-in-teaching-and-learning

13. Picking 'Evidence-Based' Programs: 5 Mistakes for Educators to Avoid, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/picking-evidence-based-programs-5-mistakes-for-educators-to-avoid/2024/01

14. Web-Based Intervention for Teachers of Elementary Students With ADHD: Randomized Controlled Trial - ResearchGate, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281713389_Web-Based_Intervention_for_Teachers_of_Elementary_Students_With_ADHD

15. ADHD and School | Nemours KidsHealth, accessed August 22, 2025, https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/adhd-school.html

16. How ADHD May Be Impacting Your Child's Social Skills and What You Can Do To Help, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.foothillsacademy.org/community/articles/adhd-social-skills

17. TEACHER INCLUSIVE PRACTICES FOR STUDENTS WITH ADHD, accessed August 22, 2025, https://sites.gcu.edu/jse/files/2025/06/25REA00018-JSE-June-30_Phelps.pdf

18. How ADHD May Be Affecting Your Child's Social Skills? - The Ladder Method, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.theladdermethod.com/blog/how-adhd-may-be-affecting-your-childs-social-skills

19. Full article: Supporting students with disability to improve academic, social and emotional, and self-determination and life-skills outcomes: umbrella review of evidence-based practices - Taylor & Francis Online, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13603116.2023.2221239

20. Qualifying for a 504 Plan or IEP with ADHD | Huntington Learning Center, accessed August 22, 2025, https://huntingtonhelps.com/blog/qualifying-for-a-504-or-iep/

21. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions | Congress.gov, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R41833

22. IEP vs. 504 Plan for ADHD: Best Accommodations for ADD and LD, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.additudemag.com/iep-step-5-evaluate-your-options/

23. For Teachers: Rethink Homework for ADHD Students - ADDitude, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.additudemag.com/rethinking-homework/

24. Home | Legal Framework, accessed August 22, 2025, https://fw.escapps.net/+15124639560

25. 10 Rules for Managing ADHD in School | PESI, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.pesi.com/blogs/10-rules-for-managing-adhd-in-school/

26. School Discipline: Your Child's Rights - Smart Kids, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.smartkidswithld.org/getting-help/know-your-childs-rights/school-discipline-your-childs-rights/

27. Meeting the Needs of Students With ADHD | Edutopia, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.edutopia.org/blog/bridging-the-adhd-gap-merle-huerta

28. Evidence Based Interventions for ADHD - Parallel Learning, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.parallellearning.com/post/evidence-based-interventions-for-adhd

29. Teaching Students with ADHD - HelpGuide.org, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.helpguide.org/mental-health/adhd/teaching-students-with-adhd

30. ADHD Accommodations: K to 12 and College Level - Healthline, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.healthline.com/health/adhd/adhd-accommodations

31. Recommended Accommodations for College Students with ADHD - ADDA - Attention Deficit Disorder Association, accessed August 22, 2025, https://add.org/recommended-accommodations-college-students-adhd/

32. Evidence-Based vs. Research-Based: What's the Difference? - Aperture Education, accessed August 22, 2025, https://apertureed.com/blog/evidence-based-vs-research-based/

33. How the Special Education Teacher Shortage Affects Students with LD, and What to Do About it - Learning Disabilities Association of America, accessed August 22, 2025, https://ldaamerica.org/how-the-special-education-teacher-shortage-affects-students-with-ld-and-what-to-do-about-it/

34. Solving the Special Education Teacher Shortage: 2025 and Beyond | SLP Now, accessed August 22, 2025, https://slpnow.com/blog/solving-the-special-education-teacher-shortage-2025-and-beyond/

35. Special Education Teacher Shortage: Driving Factors | American University, accessed August 22, 2025, https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/special-education-teacher-shortage/

36. Fetterman, Van Hollen, Huffman Push Bill to End Decades of Underfunding in Special Education, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.fetterman.senate.gov/fetterman-van-hollen-huffman-push-bill-to-end-decades-of-underfunding-in-special-education/

37. Overview of Funding for Pre-K–12 Education - ASHA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.asha.org/advocacy/schoolfundadv/overview-of-funding-for-pre-k-12-education/

38. Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Funding Gaps by School District | NEA, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.nea.org/resource-library/individual-disabilities-education-act-idea-funding-gaps-school-district

39. Special education complaints jump in Michigan, as odds stacked ..., accessed August 22, 2025, https://apnews.com/46fb4420632bbaa4626d9451232dc472

40. IEP Testing: Formal Assessments and School Evaluations for ADHD - ADDitude, accessed August 22, 2025, https://www.additudemag.com/adhd-school-evaluation-iep-testing/