Key Takeaways

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

• The think tanks ranked highest in public influence are conservative and/or market-oriented organizations.
• The think tanks ranked highest in scholarly expertise are centrist or liberal organizations.
• Major disconnects between influence and expertise persist.
• Organizations with high levels of expertise do not seem to be as visible as others with less expertise

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

The Center for Evaluation and ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Policy’s (CEEP) annual ranking of think tanks active in education policy examines the influence of these organizations (and individuals therein) relative to their actual expertise on this topic. 

Of course, think tanks have become predominant players in discussions of public policy in the US and around the globe. ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø policy is no exception to that, and indeed may be somewhat unique regarding the degree to which these organizations, and the funders they represent, seek to impose their agendas on public spending and on the education of our children.  Indeed, the fact that education is such a contested area, with multiple special interests competing to be heard, means policy makers often turn to think tanks and similar organizations to make sense of what may often appear to be confusing and contradictory claims.

In that regard, it makes sense to consider the actual expertise of these organizations, and the people that work in them, with regard to the issues on which they claim to be authorities.

Our initial interest in this topic was sparked by a similar ranking exercise. Every year, the trade publication hosts a think tank policy director’s ranking of university-based scholars on their influence on education policy. While such efforts may be fun and even informative, they are also somewhat limited. In particular, that ranking measures researchers at universities on their performance for job activities which are often more associated with think tanks. For example, it considers how much researchers have been cited in Congress, or mentioned in the news media. While these types of accolades may be pursued by those scholars, they are really not the types of metrics that appear in the job descriptions or promotion and tenure criteria at universities, which value things that are not found on the EdWeek list, like grants, publications, teaching, and service on committees. Instead, those rankings would actually be more applicable to employees at think tanks.

So that’s what we do here. In a sense, we turned the focus on to think tanks instead of universities, using some of those same metrics. This is actually more appropriate in some ways because think tanks value public and policy influence as part of their mission, more than do universities.  And in many ways, think tanks are indeed becoming more influential in policy discussions.

But we also expand the question. Instead of focusing only on the influence of these organizations and individuals, we also compare that influence to their actual expertise in the field. This is a critical question. Indeed, it was motivated by the fact that we often see some think tanks, and the individuals that work in them, positioning themselves as authorities on questions of education, while actually having no real expertise in that area.  While “expertise” may be more baked into the DNA of universities, we may also hope that influential think tanks that are influencing public policy have some mastery over the topics they cover.

In our previous work on this topic, we were happy to see that there are several instances where influential think tanks and individuals have demonstratable expertise in the area of education policy. That is, they have the chops to back up their influence in shaping discussion of education policy. But at the same time, our research highlighted numerous instances where particular organizations and individuals occupy enviable roles in shaping these discussions, but don’t really have any demonstrated record of expertise on the topic.

In some ways, this sad situation might be predictable. Philanthropies and other funders active in promoting their agendas in education policy are often more interested in supporting organizations with political and media connections, rather than research expertise.  Furthermore, education is an area where many people feel like they have some expertise just by the fact that they were in the education system themselves as students. And the US has school systems that are somewhat open to non-expert opinion through, say, school board elections or some administrative positions that don’t necessarily require demonstrated expertise.

But one of the concerning trends that careful observers will note is that it is often people and organizations with little background in education that are promoting reform agendas that further diminish the role of expertise in education.  That is, these are groups that for different reasons are seeking to elevate non-credentialed teachers or administrators, or self-appointed non-government officials, for example, to take greater control of the education system at the expense of people who have earned expertise through training or experience.

We notice similar patterns in this year’s edition as well. The report shows the influence of many organizations and individuals that have little to no real expertise and education. But at the same time, we see examples of substantial expertise that are sidelined, with little influence and education policy discussions.

These frequent disconnects between expertise and influence highlight the need for policymakers, journalists, and the public to carefully vet the claims made in education policy discussions, and to determine the expertise and agendas of those making those claims. Of course, this is not always an easy thing to do. But in some ways, this report offers a quick reference guide that can assist readers in “doing their own research” on those pushing particular remedies and reforms in education.

Data and Methods

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

The 2026 organization list included think tanks and advocacy organizations identified in last year’s list. A survey of CEEP fellows was conducted in November of 2025 to determine whether or not any additional organizations should be considered. Fellows were asked simply to provide the names of three or more think tanks. The results of the survey confirmed our 2025 list, and also revealed think tanks that, upon further investigation, did not meet our criteria. Most eligible organizations had been previously identified using the database. Organizations were included if they were US-based think tanks with a significant emphasis on US education broadly, that were not university-affiliated, and that had relevant individuals on their team.

A review of eligible individuals based on last year’s list was conducted between March 11 – 29, 2026. Thirty-six individuals were removed from the previous list because they no longer met our inclusion criteria. Data were collected between April 14-21, 2026. Their influence measure was based upon the following metrics: social media followers (X or BlueSky in the absence of an X account), book popularity (based on Amazon ratings), news attention (Access World News database), and Congressional record mentions. We discontinued the Google search numbers this year. We also changed the way the news attention score was collected. Last year, we took the average from three databases: Access World News, ProQuest US Newsstream Collection, and Nexis Uni. This year, in the interest of time and efficiency, we only used Access World News, which was the method employed for the 2024 project. The expertise score includes citation impact (h-index), the number of non-fiction education-related books published, the number of education-related articles published in prestigious scholarly journals, and degree attainment.

Findings

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Starting at the organizational level, in terms of influence, the Manhattan Institute is once again the highest ranked think tank for the third year in a row. Other highly ranked think tanks are all familiar names at the top of the list, although their rankings have shifted slightly. The second most influential organization on these measures remains the American Enterprise Institute, and The Heritage Foundation has replaced New America Foundation for third place. Other highly ranked organizations include the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, the Cato Institute, the Center for ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Reform (CER), and EdChoice, representing the more conservative or market-oriented side of the spectrum, typically favoring school choice and other types of incentivist reforms. At the same time, we see centrist organizations like Third Way and the Progressive Policy Institute included in the list of top 10 most influential organizations.

But once again, a somewhat different picture appears when we turn our focus to measurable expertise. We still see AEI, Third Way, EdChoice, and The Heritage Foundation — indicating that these organizations excel in both influence and expertise.  But the Manhattan Institute fails to rank highly on expertise in education, nowhere near proportionate with its influence. At the same time, centrist and liberal groups like the Urban Institute, New America Foundation, and the Learning Policy Institute — which ranked number one — ranked highly in measures of expertise.  This indicates that they may not be getting the attention due to them based on their capacity for evidence-based insights into education policy issues.

Similar patterns are apparent at the individual level, for people working in these organizations. At the top of the list, Christopher Rufo of the Manhattan Institute enjoys substantial influence that is significantly disproportionate to measures of his expertise. Other such highly ranked individuals on the influence scale include Jeanne Allen of the Center for ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Reform and Jonathan Butcher of The Heritage Foundation, neither of whom were ranked particularly high in terms of expertise.

Indeed, on measures of individual expertise we see high rankings for scholars like Matthew Chingos of the Urban Institute, Jon Valant and Michael Hansen of Brookings, Emily Germain, Heather Price, and Stephen Wojcikiewicz of the Learning Policy Institute. Of particular note would be Rick Hess and Corey DeAngelis, who were both highly ranked in terms of individual expertise and influence. While these two are associated with more conservative organizations, their dual success on both measures suggests a model for how scholars across the political spectrum can excel on different dimensions simultaneously.

Conclusion

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Our findings show some shifts, but more importantly, some continuity in the disconnect between influence and expertise that should give us all cause for concern.

While the complete rankings are available on our dashboard, just looking at the top performers shows only a few instances of organizations that are able to (admirably) leverage their expertise into influence in the policy areas.  Likewise, there are a few individuals who excel at effectively engaging broader public and policy debates, talking with the press and so forth while simultaneously demonstrating scholarly credentials and accomplishments on measures such as research publishing and citation counts.

But at the same time, we are still seeing major disconnects between influence and expertise in many instances. Some of the most influential organizations and individuals, such as Christopher Rufo at the Manhattan Institute or Jeanne Allen at the Center for ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø Reform, present highly imbalanced cases where their relative impact is substantially disproportionate to the measures of their expertise. Equally as concerning is the fact that organizations such as the Urban Institute and the Learning Policy Institute are not having the same visibility that one might hope for given their high levels of expertise.

This report raises the question of the disconnect between expertise and influence that has been demonstrated over several years now in policy discussions around schooling. In short, do we want influencers or experts looking after the education of our children?

Appendix

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø

Public Influence

The Public Influence total is the sum of the Social Following (divided by 1000), Book Popularity (divided by 10), News Attention (divided by 10), and Congressional Mentions scores. Scores are rounded to the nearest whole number. Details regarding how data were collected described below.

Social Following

The Social Following metric is the total number of Twitter/X followers. If the individual did not have a Twitter/X account, Bluesky was examined as an alternative. Profiles were found either through direct links from the individual's profile on the organization's website or through a basic Google search of the individual and their organizational affiliation. If found through Google search, individual results were examined by hand to deal with name disambiguation. Data was collected April 20-21, 2026.

Book Popularity

The Book Popularity metric is the total number of Amazon ratings on authored nonfiction results related to education in the Books category. It excludes results on which the individual was an editor and results on which the individual was a contributing author to an edited volume. Individual results were examined by hand to deal with name disambiguation, to determine whether the result was a nonfiction work related to education or not, and to verify the nature of the individual's authorship as described above. Data was collected April 14-15, 2026.

News Attention

The News Attention metric is the total number of results mentioning the individual within the Access World News database in which their affiliated organization also appears. The search included the individual's and organization's name variants as well as several keywords to help narrow the results: ("primary name" OR "name variant") AND (education OR school OR student OR teacher) AND ("organization name" OR "organization variant"). Data was collected April 15-16, 2026.

Congressional Mentions

The Congressional Mentions metric is the total number of times the individual appeared in the Congressional record for their professional work related to education since 1995. The search included the individual's name variant as well as several keywords to help narrow the results: ("primary name" OR "name variant") AND (education OR school OR student OR teacher). Individual results were examined by hand to deal with name disambiguation and to determine whether the mention was in regard to the individual's professional work related to education or not. Data was collected April 17-18, 2026.

Scholarly Expertise

The Scholarly Expertise total is the sum of the Citation Impact, Book Publishing (multiplied by 2), Journal Publishing (multiplied by 2), and Degree Attainment scores. Details regarding how data were collected described below.

Citation Impact

The Citation Impact metric is the h-index as calculated by Scopus. Searches were conducted using both the individual's name and their name variant. Best effort was made to include all entries for that individual using information such as their prior institutional affiliations, sometimes using the "view citation overview" feature to combine separate records that referred to the same individual. Data was collected April 18, 2026.

Book Publishing

The Book Publishing metric is the total number of authored nonfiction results related to education in the Books category that were published by a university-affiliated press. It excludes results on which the individual was an editor and results on which the individual was a contributing author to an edited volume. Individual results were examined by hand to deal with name disambiguation, to determine whether the result was a nonfiction work related to education or not, to verify the nature of the individual's authorship as described above, and to determine the work's publishing house. Data was collected April 14-15, 2026.

Journal Publishing

The Journal Publishing metric is the total number of articles as returned by a Scopus search published by the individual in relevant top-tier journals. Searches were conducted using both the individual's name and their name variant. Best effort was made to include all entries for that individual using information such as their prior institutional affiliations, sometimes using the "View citation overview" feature to combine separate records that referred to the same individual. The 144 top-tier journals were identified as the Q1 journals in the US under the following categories of Clarivate's Journal Citation Reports for 2023: ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø & ºÚÁϳԹÏÍøal Research, Special ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø, ºÚÁϳԹÏÍøal Psychology, Economics, and Public Administration. Data was collected April 18, 2026.

Degree Attainment

The Degree Attainment metric assigns points to individuals for the highest degree they have attained in any field. Individuals received either 1 point for a master’s, 3 points for a specialist, or 5 points for a doctorate. In addition to those points, individuals also received extra points (either another 1 for master’s, 3 for specialist, or 5 for doctorate) for their highest attained graduate degree in education or a field related to education policy (public administration/policy/management, political science/philosophy, government, policy analysis, or economics). Individuals outside of these fields whose doctoral dissertation dealt significantly with education were also given the 5 extra points. Information was gleaned from the individual's profile on the organization's website and verified via LinkedIn if possible; if these sources were not sufficient a Google search was performed to find additional sources. Data was verified April 21, 2026.