A multidisciplinary group of judges will evaluate submissions based on the following equally weighted criteria and recommend winners for each phase.
Evaluation criteria
Phase 1 evaluation criteria
Ingenuity of infrastructure solution
Extent to which the submission creatively and cohesively incorporates multiple dimensions of infrastructure (physical, digital, social) to address the needs of the entrant’s target student population and community.
Scale of learning need
Extent to which the submission identifies a significant learning need for a community that can be addressed through infrastructure investment, considers how this need may evolve in the future, and articulates how the need is generalizable in other contexts.
Impact
Extent to which the submission describes a theory of change — including an integrated learning experience and infrastructure plan — grounded in learning science, mapping to students’ future success, and proposing reliable metrics to track improved student learning outcomes, especially for historically marginalized populations.
Community engagement
Extent to which the submission demonstrates the entrant team’s authentic local presence and trust, signaled by a knowledge of local needs, barriers, community assets, and partnerships needed for a solution in their community.
Feasibility of implementation
Extent to which the submission articulates an achievable near-term delivery plan and a logical pathway for acquiring the necessary partnerships, capacity, and resources to execute the plan.
Phase 2 criteria are preliminary and will be finalized prior to the beginning of the phase.
Phase 2 evaluation criteria
Ingenuity of infrastructure solution
Extent to which the submission creatively and cohesively integrates holistic infrastructure needs and specifically articulates the ways in which the approach is new or novel.
Scale of learning need
Extent to which the submission has conducted user research to refine and validate a deep understanding of the learning need in the specific target community.
Impact
Extent to which the submission provides a comprehensive logic model including intended program inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes and includes a measurement plan for specific leading indicators during prototyping.
Community engagement
Extent to which the submission demonstrates commitment from all key partners; defines clear and equitable partner roles, responsibilities, and decision-making authority; and articulates plans for community input and feedback through the prototyping process.
Feasibility of implementation
Extent to which the submission includes a refined implementation plan and identifies the largest programmatic assumptions and presents a feasible plan to validate these through a prototyping process.
Phase 3 criteria are preliminary and will be finalized prior to the beginning of the phase.
Phase 3 evaluation criteria
Ingenuity of infrastructure solution
Extent to which the infrastructure solution has been refined based on the learnings from prototyping and advances the broader field by validating a new or novel approach.
Scale of learning need
Extent to which the submission identifies the scale of need in other contexts and articulates a specific pathway to scale the solution beyond the community of initial implementation.
Impact
Extent to which the submission provides early evidence of potential impact through the measurement of leading indicators, includes a plan for rigorous outcome measurement, thoughtfully acknowledges program elements that were unsuccessful, and identifies future changes and iterations based on these learnings.
Community engagement
Extent to which the submission demonstrates community buy-in and ownership of the solution and articulates long-term plans for ongoing community engagement and feedback.
Feasibility of implementation
Extent to which the submission presents a feasible plan for implementation with evidence from prototyping and includes specific detail on funding, governance, and long-term sustainability.