The LifeWise Academy “study” was not built to inform you.
It was built to sell you something.

And it did.

This was not just a report sitting on a website. LifeWise has used it as part of the pitch to parents, school officials, and lawmakers. On its own impact page, LifeWise presents the report as evidence that the program improves outcomes.

Then it moved into policy advocacy.

Indiana. Alabama. State officials. Lawmakers. Superintendents.

In Indiana, LifeWise said its CEO cited the Thomas P. Miller study while testifying for HB 1137, the bill changing released-time access from “may” to “shall.” In LifeWise’s own account, he pointed to attendance and suspension claims from the study and argued schools “actually get more time with students” when they implement LifeWise.

In Alabama, Lt. Gov. Will Ainsworth promoted LifeWise directly to superintendents and cited an “independent study” for claims about improved mental health, academics, attendance, and discipline.

That is exactly why SEA published a rebuttal.

Because bad research should not get to become public policy just because it was packaged well.

You may see other rebuttals circulating. Not all of them deserve equal weight. If you are going to challenge a study, you should cite your data, cite your sources, and let people evaluate the work for themselves.

SEA did.

See LifeWise’s promotional framing: https://lifewise.org/impact/

Read the LifeWise report: https://lifewise.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/LifeWise-Outcomes-Report-2023-2.pdf

Read SEA’s rebuttal: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x7xv87VBSBXyQKPe79Sg-uW8OSh7fn5u/view

View original post on Facebook