Submissions for the 2025 Tools Competition are open through October 25, 2024. You can read more about our submission process and how to compete on the track specific pages: 

• Accelerating K-12 Learning
• Enhancing Post-Secondary Learning

Please note that each track has somewhat different requirements and eligibility criteria, and may be more or less competitive depending on final funding allocation and the number of competitors in each track. Tracks may also have different total prize pools, depending on sponsor priorities.

Complete the eligibility quiz to determine which track is the best fit for your idea.

Submissions are evaluated against others within the same track and prize level. Reviewers will evaluate submissions based on eligibility requirements for the track and prize level as well as:

• Novelty of the tool and technology
• Potential for impact
• Attention to equity
• User demand
• Ability to support learning engineering
• Scalability

Rubrics will be published on track pages at the start of Phase II.

The Tools Competition seeks to spur new tools and technology. This means that something about the proposed tool needs to be fresh, innovative, or original. This does not mean you have to create a new tool or new platform.

Catalyst prizes are for new ideas. Competitors seeking a Growth or Transform prize must build off an existing platform of varying levels of development and scale. This might be an API that will improve the platform or a new tool to improve effectiveness. Or it could mean adding infrastructure that allows external researchers to access your data. See more about prize levels and eligibility requirements on the track specific pages.

Phase II proposals should not be drastically different from the Phase I abstract, but we do expect that there may be changes as you further refine your idea.

Active users are defined as individuals who are currently using your tool regularly, in contrast to accounts that may not be active or pilot users who may bey testing the functionality of the tool for a specified period of time.

We are looking for user engagement at every stage of development and implementation. This can look like conducting interviews or focus groups to understand user needs, iterating the functionality or features of your tools based on user insights, designing the user interface based on feedback, etc. 

Visit our blog to learn more about engaging end users, and view case studies of how previous winners of the Tools Competition—Springboard Collaborative, Podsie, and Humanitus Learning Sciences and Consulting Services—have successfully engaged users in their work.

You should focus on what the funds from the prize would enable you to do and provide enough information on the overall product to contextualize the proposed tool.

Consider the following recommendations:

• Ensure your proposal speaks to the track objectives and target audience.
• Emphasize if your tool meets any competitive priorities for your selected track.
• Prioritize your tool’s alignment to learning engineering principles. See more on learning engineering here. 
• Incorporate the need and demand of learners, families, and educators into the design and development of the tool. See more on this here. 
• Structure your proposal in key sections and write in clear, comprehensible language. We recommend having a person unfamiliar with your work check your proposal for clarity.

We strongly recommend competitors (1) follow the guidelines provided in the rubric and submission materials; (2) prioritize supporting evidence for their tool, its theory of change, and its impact in order to demonstrate its novelty and innovation; and (3) share their proposal with an unfamiliar audience who can provide feedback on the clarity of the ideas.

The “elevator pitch” video is a brief (30-second) introduction to your team and your tool. We do not recommend you demo your tool in this video. 

This video can be recorded informally on a phone or computer. You will be required to upload your video as an .mp4 attachment in your submission.

You are welcome to start building/enhancing your tool or functionality, but there is no promise of funding.

The competition is designed to be inclusive and support talent and ideas at all stages of development. As such, competitors can compete at one of three prizelevels:

• Catalyst ($50,000): for early stage ideas or products
• Growth ($150,000): for products with some users and scale
• Transform ($300,000): for established platforms with 10,000 or more users

Complete the eligibility quiz to determine which prize level best fits your proposal.

Catalyst tools are early stage ideas or products. This could look like an MVP or a prototype, or you may still be in the ideation phase and taking steps towards these goals as a result of your proposal. While ideas are eligible for Catalyst prizes, you should be able to fully articulate a theory of change grounded in evidence and a plan for development.

If your tool has no active users and/or has not gone to market, we recommend the Catalyst prize level.

No, you are not required to compete at the Transform prize level. You are welcome to compete at a lower prize level if you believe your use of funds and phase of development would be better suited to the Growth level.

Budgets should provide a high-level picture of the major cost drivers for the project. We are looking for budgets to illustrate that the team has a clear sense of how they’ll execute and whether the award will provide the necessary funds to accomplish the goals set out in their proposal.

If the total budget exceeds the award amount, it should be clear how the gaps will be covered. Please note that budgets should be in U.S. Dollars (though they can also include a different local currency in addition to USD). Budgets need not exceed a single page.

Note: Budgets are required from Phase II of the competition only. There is no definitive time period for the prize. Most competitors propose a 1-2 year plan for execution, but this varies widely based on the proposal.

Budgets should be realistic and aligned to what is being proposed. If invited to advance to Phase III of the competition, judges will consider whether the budget will best allow you to maximize your impact.

Indirect costs should not exceed 10 percent of the total budget. Other than that, there are no specific requirements on what costs are allowed or not allowed (within reason, of course). Personnel is an allowable cost.

Indirect costs are not directly attributed to a single product, project, or team function, and are instead related to multiple functions across the organization. This includes the general operating expenses of the organization (also referred to as “overhead costs” or “administrative costs”). 

In your budget, indirect costs should not exceed 10 percent of the total budget. Noting that staff costs related to the design or implementation of your tool are considered direct costs and do not count toward this percentage.

No. As projects vary greatly, we do not provide a budget template. We recommend a spreadsheet or table format outlining the key cost drivers for the project. You may also include a brief budget narrative to provide additional context. We do not recommend that budgets exceed a single page, and please note that budgets should be in U.S. Dollars (though they can also include a local currency in addition to USD).

The prize will be paid in two installments. 

• 50% will be paid after winners are named in May 2025. 
• 50% will be paid after Product Review Day in Fall 2025. To be eligible for the second funding installment, winning proposals should demonstrate progress at Product Review Day measured against the timeline for execution outlined in the proposal.

Each entrant is responsible and liable for all international, Federal, state, and local taxes arising from any prize that may be awarded.

For teams outside of the United States, tax withholding may be required by law, reducing the total amount received by winning Entrants. The Sponsor will determine the withholding percentage after winning Entrants submit appropriate tax forms.

Keep an eye out for our support round-up posts on the blog that detail support opportunities at each phase. Organizers aim to provide clear guidance and case studies that emphasize the level of rigor and type of detail that would be most competitive. Core supports include:

• Launch Event. Hosted annually to announce the competition design, these feature competition sponsors and guest speakers discussing high-priority areas that we’re excited to see competitors tackle through their proposals. See the 2025 Launch Event here. 
• Info sessions. Hosted at each phase of the competition in multiple time zones and sessions, these dive more deeply into the competition design, process, eligibility, and focus areas, and have an opportunity for live Q&A with organizers.
• Webinars. Designed as a learning opportunity and an opportunity to illuminate competition expectations in key areas. These may reflect a competition priority (e.g., How to Develop Your Learning Engineering Plan; Engaging with End Users; Child Safeguarding) or a specific track with more specific requirements. These events often feature competition sponsors, guest speakers, winner case studies, and live Q&A.
• Office Hours. Drop-in live Q&A with competition organizers hosted at each phase of the competition in multiple time zones and sessions. These group sessions are a great opportunity to also hear and learn from fellow competitors. 
• Written guidance. The Tools blog hosts tip sheets, case studies on past winners, and other guidance to help competitors navigate competition requirements, and core objectives like Learning Engineering.
• Technical assistance. Based on competitor feedback and competition objectives, we organize technical assistance to support all competitors in accelerating their work. This includes a database of researchers for competitors to identify strong potential partners. Other past opportunities have focused on core areas such as go-to-market strategy, storytelling with data, and developing school partnerships. Note: some of these opportunities are reserved for winners and finalists.

We’re eager to see competitors take advantage of these opportunities and will always highlight them in our competition communications – and post recordings, when possible.

The competition is designed to be inclusive of talent at all levels – competitors do not need to be fundraising professionals – nor do they need to hire external proposal writing support – to be successful in the competition. If you are interested in engaging external support, there are some terrific groups and experts in this space providing advisory and capacity-building. 

• Learning Engineering Google Group. Listserv and community of over 3,500 members of the learning engineering community. Post updates, seek collaborators, and identify opportunities. This community is managed by The Learning Agency but is not specific to the Tools Competition.
• International Centre for EdTech Impact. Offers services, free resources, and select pro-bono advisory support from learning scientists focused on evidence-based development of learning technologies.
• Edtech Recharge. Offers services for capacity building, research, and impact; as well as numerous free resources, webinars, and templates supporting strong proposal development.
• RYE Consulting. Offers services and workshops, technical assistance, and regular free webinars focused on building and scaling K-12 edtech businesses, with expertise on US markets.
• Promise Venture Studio. Runs an accelerator program, collaborative, demo series, and other resource, community, and advisory services for teams focused on early childhood education.

Note that the Tools Competition is not officially partnered with these groups on competition expectations or organizing. They represent a few leading organizations, including those that have worked with Tools Competition competitors in the past.

See more here on the feedback that you can expect throughout the competition and here on the supports offered through the competition. 

Some competitors may also be interested in advisory support and accelerator-type programming to build capacity on their teams and develop their ideas. Most frequently, we receive requests for detailed feedback on proposal ideas and support related to proposal or budget writing. 

While the competition does not directly provide this type of advising, there are some terrific groups and experts in this space providing advisory support and programming. See the response above to “Should I seek external advising support?”

Competition organizers connect competitors with relevant opportunities and resources, as available. This may include opportunities for funding, programming, networking, visibility, and others.

Perhaps most notably to competitors, we’re proud that many in the funding community look to the Tools Competition network as a pulse on the movement of the field, and as a leading network of innovators. We curate reports on trends and tools based on unique interests and make connections to individual competitors at funder requests. This has led to additional funding for competitors, as well as new speaking, programmatic, and visibility opportunities.

In addition to these supports, we’ll continue to share opportunities as they arise for boosting visibility for your team (check out this winner feature in USA Today and this one on NBC Nightly News), new funding opportunities, and access to our database of in-kind resources like software credits and free course access.

We also encourage all teams to stay connected with the learning engineering community through the Learning Engineering Google Group. This group is run by partners of the Tools Competition as a platform for community and sharing of opportunities and developments in the field.

Winners will receive their prize by check or bank transfer in two installments.

Winners will receive the first installment soon after winning. Eligible winners will receive the second installment of the prize after Product Review Day.

In Fall 2025, winners will present their progress to peers and other leaders during a virtual Product Review Day. This program is an opportunity to gain feedback as winners execute on their proposals.

All winners will participate in an impact study in the twelve months following the competition during which research advisors support teams to collect impact data and build internal evaluation processes. Winners will complete regular surveys during the study and annual surveys following the competition.