Frequently Asked Questions

No. We believe the learner-centered innovation ecosystem is complex and evolving. The data reflect information gathered over a set period (April and May 2022). We identified over 500 entities for the map, and ended up including 489. If you have an idea for a correction or an entity to add, let us know via this form.

A lot, and we're still working through some inconsistencies! Questions we're wrestling with include but aren't limited to...

• Mapping specific initiatives versus entities. This seems especially important for initiatives targeted at certain purposes, or are a pilot of a larger organization or collaboration across organizations. Right now, we've tried to do both, but acknowledge that some entities have many initiatives not captured here.

• Referring to tool names versus entities. Many of the learning supports referred for mapping are specific tools used in classrooms/learning environments (e.g. a specific LMS or assessment tool). We tried to use those recognizable product names, tagging the entity as a tool versus an organization or initiative. We included corporate information for the owning/developing entity. In other cases, certain organizations produce multiple tools and also publish and produce research and informing resources (e.g. a well-known testing organization). In that case, we mapped to the organization, not the specific tool.

We looked for publicly available data on organizational websites, Crunchbase, and LinkedIn. Additional data were provided by self-report via the survey.

For the purposes of this map, we did not attempt to catalog all emerging school and learning models, nor did we include networks of models run by one entity for the express purpose of expansion of sites (e.g. a charter management organization). Instead, we were looking for entities that were building the capacity of those models. Some models are included because they have specifically launched related initiatives or services designed to spread, share, or propagate their model components to others.

All of the organizations listed on this map have at least some aspect of work (be it a function, initiative, or whole model) that was identified as supporting personalized, mastery-/competency-based learning, or whole child development.

Given the complexity of the work, subjectivity of terms, and quickly evolving market, we chose to be as expansive and inclusive as possible. For example, some organizations were added because we are aware of an innovation pilot they are running in response to the pandemic. Another might have been included because they are tackling one specific dimension, such as offering a self-paced learning tool, tutoring program, or student-directed, or holistic support beyond academics (e.g. identity development, or career-based learning).

In initial diligence, TLA identified 40+ funders supporting learner-centered innovations. Given we are aware many are currently evolving and changing strategies, and that funding provided to one organization or initiative may not be representative of an entity's overall or current approach, we did not include them in the full data set at this time. For this version of the map, we decided to only include those funders who were acting as intermediaries, offering technical assistance, and/or providing other supports or services to the sector.

Some large organizations operate functionally distinct initiatives that play significant roles in the ecosystem. For example, Digital Promise operates as a standalone entity conducting research and offering a variety of supports to the sector through resources and design initiatives. The League of Innovative Schools (a district network) and Verizon Innovative Schools Initiatives (a middle and high school network), both stewarded by Digital Promise, operate as distinct entities with different purposes and operating models working with thousands of schools nationally. We felt these initiatives (coded as such rather than standalone organizations) warranted separate inclusion on the map.