Tomorrow, I鈥檒l unveil the 2026 RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings, recognizing the 200 university-based scholars who had the biggest influence on educational practice and policy last year. This will be the 16th edition of the exercise. Today, I want to run through the methodology used to generate the rankings. The list is comprised of university-based scholars who focus primarily on education (with 鈥渦niversity-based鈥� meaning a formal affiliation). Scholars who lack a formal affiliation on a university website are ineligible.
The top 150 finishers from last year automatically qualified for a spot in this year鈥檚 Top 200, so long as they met a threshold for continued activity. Those automatic qualifiers were then augmented by 鈥渁t-large鈥� additions chosen by the RHSU Selection Committee, a disciplinarily, methodologically, and ideologically diverse group of scholars who had automatically qualified for this year鈥檚 rankings.
I鈥檓 indebted to the 2026 RHSU Selection Committee for its assistance and want to acknowledge its members: Bridget Terry Long (Harvard), Carol Ann Tomlinson (U. Virginia), Carolyn Heinrich (Vanderbilt), Dan Goldhaber (U. Washington), Deborah Loewenberg Ball (U. Michigan), Donna Ford (Ohio State), Douglas Harris (Tulane), Eric Hanushek (Stanford), Ernest Morrell (Notre Dame), Helen Ladd (Duke), Ivory Toldson (Howard), Jeffrey Henig (Columbia), Jonathan Plucker (Johns Hopkins), Jonathan Zimmerman (U. Penn), Kevin Welner (CU Boulder), Laura Perna (U. Penn), Marty West (Harvard), Marybeth Gasman (Rutgers), Patrick Wolf (U. Arkansas), Pedro Noguera (USC), Robert Kelchen (U. Tennessee), Robert Pianta (U. Virginia), Sam Wineburg (Stanford), Sarah Turner (U. Virginia), Shaun Harper (USC), Susanna Loeb (Stanford), and Yong Zhao (U. Kansas).
So that鈥檚 how the Top 200 list was compiled. How were the actual rankings calculated? Each scholar was scored in eight categories, yielding a maximum possible score of 200. Scores are calculated as follows:
Google Scholar Score: This figure gauges the number of widely cited articles, books, or papers a scholar has authored. For this purpose, I use each scholar鈥檚 鈥渉-index.鈥� This is a useful, popular way to measure the breadth and impact of a scholar鈥檚 work. It lists a scholar鈥檚 works in descending order of how often each is cited and then identifies the point at which the number of oft-cited works exceeds the cite count. For instance, a scholar who had 23 works that were each cited at least 23 times would score a 23. The search was conducted using the advanced search 鈥渁uthor鈥� filter in Google Scholar. For scholars who have created a Google Scholar account, their h-index is available at a glance. For those without a Google Scholar account, a hand search was employed. While performing this search, results labeled 鈥淸CITATION]鈥� were excluded. This score was capped at 50. (This search was conducted on Dec. 15.)
Book Points: A search on Amazon tallied the number of books a scholar has authored, co-authored, or edited. Scholars received 2 points for a single-authored book, 1 point for a co-authored book in which they were the lead author, and a half-point for co-authored books in which they were not the lead author or for any edited volume. The search was conducted using an 鈥淎dvanced Books Search鈥� for the scholar鈥檚 first and last name. (When necessary, a middle initial or name was used to avoid duplication with authors who had the same name.) 鈥淥ut of print鈥� and not-yet-released volumes were excluded, as were reports, commissioned studies, multiple editions of the same book, special editions of magazines or journals, and books that were only released as e-books. No points were awarded to series editors. I only included books written in English. This measure reflects the conviction that in-print books can play an outsized role in influencing policy and practice. Book points were capped at 20. (This search was conducted on Dec. 16.)
Most Recent Amazon Book Ranking: This measure was adjusted this year. In prior years, I used a scholar鈥檚 highest-ranked book on Amazon. Starting this year, for simplicity and to emphasize more recent activity, this measure considers only a scholar鈥檚 most recent book on Amazon. Books were identified using an 鈥淎dvanced Books Search鈥� for the scholar鈥檚 first and last name and then sorted by publication date. Since the 鈥淏est Sellers Rank鈥� is different for each version of the book (paperback and hardcover), the highest-ranked physical version was used. The number was then subtracted from 400,000, and the result was divided by 20,000 to yield a maximum score of 20. (In other words, a scholar鈥檚 most recent book had to rank in Amazon鈥檚 top 400,000 to earn points.) Amazon鈥檚 ranking algorithm is volatile, making the measure highly imperfect. (This search was conducted on Dec. 16.)
Education Press Mentions: This measures the number of times the scholar was quoted or mentioned in Education Week, the Chronicle of Higher Education, or Inside Higher Education during 2025. Searches were conducted using each scholar鈥檚 first and last name. Searches included common diminutives and were conducted both with and without middle initials. Because searches occasionally returned results about the wrong individual, I hand-searched the text of each result to ensure the scholar was actually mentioned in the article. For the Chronicle of Higher Education, posts mentioned in the weekly book lists are excluded, as are mentions in the 鈥淭ransitions鈥� column. 鈥淓ducation Week Press Discontinued Titles鈥� results on Education Week were also excluded. (And stories about scandals are excluded, as that鈥檚 not the kind of press attention that reflects scholarly influence.) Appearances in the Chronicle and Inside Higher Ed. were averaged (so as not to double-weight higher education), and that tally was added to the number of times a scholar appeared in Education Week. The resulting figure was multiplied by six and then capped at 30. (These searches were conducted on Dec. 16.)
Web Mentions: This reflects the number of times a scholar was referenced, quoted, or otherwise mentioned online in 2025. The search was conducted using Google. The search terms were each scholar鈥檚 name and university. Using affiliation serves a dual purpose: It avoids confusion due to common names and increases the likelihood that mentions are related to university-affiliated activity. Variations of a scholar鈥檚 name (such as common diminutives and middle initials) were included in the search, if applicable. In the rare instances where a scholar shared the same name as another person at their institution, I sampled the search results, calculated what proportion of those results were for the edu-scholar, and adjusted the overall score accordingly. Points were calculated by dividing total mentions by 50 and capped at 25. (This search was conducted on Dec. 15.)
Newspaper Mentions: A ProQuest search was used to determine the number of times a scholar was quoted or mentioned in U.S. newspapers. Again, searches used a scholar鈥檚 name and affiliation; diminutives and middle initials, if applicable, were included in the results. I removed duplicate articles by hand. The tally was multiplied by six, and points were capped at 30. (The search was conducted on Dec. 16.)
Syllabus Points: This seeks to measure a scholar鈥檚 impact on what is being studied by today鈥檚 college students. This metric was scored using OpenSyllabus.org, the most comprehensive extant database of syllabi that houses over 27 million syllabi from universities in 120 countries. This syllabus-points metric measures what gets assigned, offering a snapshot of how widely a scholar鈥檚 work is being assigned. The search function makes it difficult to score a scholar鈥檚 whole body of work, so the result is only for each scholar鈥檚 top-ranked text. The score reflects the number of times that text appeared on syllabi, with the tally then divided by 15. The score was capped at 20 points. (This search was conducted on Dec. 16.)
Congressional Record Mentions: A simple name search in the Congressional Record was used to determine whether a scholar appeared in the record in 2025. The same search was repeated for Committee Materials. Scholars who appeared in either search received 5 points. (This search was conducted on Dec. 15.)
There are lots of provisos when it comes to the results. Different disciplines value books and articles differently. Senior scholars have had more opportunity to exert influence (and the results unapologetically favor scholars with a substantial body of work). The intent is to spur discussion about the nature of public influence: who has it, what they鈥檙e doing, and how constructive their work may be.
A few notes regarding questions that arise every year:
- There are some academics who dabble (very successfully) in education but for whom education is only a sideline. For a scholar to qualify, education must constitute a substantial slice of their scholarship.
- Scholars sometimes change institutions in the course of a year. For the categories where affiliation is used, searches are conducted using a scholar鈥檚 affiliation as checked during the summer or early fall. This avoids concerns about double-counting and reduces the burden on my overworked RAs.
- Some eligible scholars wind up assuming deanships or serving as university provosts or presidents. The rule is that education school deans and provosts are ranked if their scholar page indicates that they are also active researchers. Presidents are not ranked.
- The list represents only a sliver of the nation鈥檚 education researchers. For those interested in scoring additional scholars, it鈥檚 simple to do so using this scoring formula. Indeed, the exercise was designed so that anyone can generate a comparable rating for a given scholar in a half hour or less.
- This is an imperfect exercise. Questions and suggestions are welcome. And if ranked scholars wish to have their names or discipline listed differently, I鈥檓 happy to make adjustments for next year (within the bounds of consistency).
Finally, a note of thanks: For the hard work of coordinating the Selection Committee, assembling the list of nominees, and crunching and double-checking the results for 200 scholars, I owe an immense debt of gratitude to my invaluable research assistants Richard Keck, Aidan Grogan, Greg Fournier, Anna Coulter, and Chris Robinson.
