PURPOSE
- To guide WGU Labs in evaluating whether a company, platform, or service improves outcomes within the educational ecosystem.
- To grow education innovations that expand access and affordability to quality education and improve student outcomes.
Download a printable PDF version.
INDICATORS AND CRITERIA
A. Business Model, Strategic Roadmap
| CRITERIA | EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS (2 points) | MEETS EXPECTATIONS (1 point) | NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (0 points) |
| Social enterprise business model | Certified B Corporation or Benefit Corporation or Section 509(a)(3) supporting Organizations | Social Purpose Corporation or L3C | Purpose-Driven LLC or Corporation |
| Grant funding | Received grant(s) from nonprofit or other institutions (e.g. Dept. of Education) >$50K | Received grant(s) from nonprofit or other institutions (e.g. Dept. of Education) up to $50K | Received no grant funding |
| WGU mission alignment | Explicitly seeks to improve quality, access, and outcomes in education | Indicates a potential to improve quality, access, and outcomes in education | No clear output or intent to improve quality, access, and outcomes in education |
| Target market focus on underserved populations | Intentionally targeting underserved and/or underrepresented populations | Intentionally targeting at least one underserved and/or underrepresented population | Not intentionally targeting underserved and/or underrepresented populations |
| Population size/TAM | 1M+ students | Up to 500k students | < 100k students |
B. Research
| CRITERIA | EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS (2 points) | MEETS EXPECTATIONS (1 point) | NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (0 points) |
| Research base | Documented theory of change or logic model | Implicit logic model present | Unable to communicate research base |
| Intended outcomes | Intended outcomes are clearly defined and Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are reported | Intended outcomes are clearly defined but may not be reported | Intended outcomes have not been identified |
| Experience in efficacy-based product design | Founder(s) and/or senior leader has proven track record in efficacy-based product design | An employee with proven track record in efficacy-based product design | No employees with experience in efficacy-based product design |
| Commitment to research | Completed Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) or Quasi-Experimental Design (QED) | Completed correlational and/or descriptive statistics | No research completed |
| Research rigor | Has a documented research plan | Can articulate research plan | No plans to conduct future research |
C. Marketing and Messaging
| CRITERIA | EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS (2 points) | MEETS EXPECTATIONS (1 point) | NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (0 points) |
| Company mission statement | Mission statement clearly defines commitment to social impact | Mission statement implies commitment to social impact | Mission statement does not address social impact |
| Commitment to social impact is referenced in materials | Commitment to social impact is clearly referenced in all/most externally published and/or customer-facing materials | Commitment to social impact is referenced in some externally published and/or customer-facing materials | Commitment to social impact is not referenced in any externally published and/or customer-facing materials |
| Alignment of public claims with research and efficacy findings | Public claims are consistently aligned with research findings, and business is selective about what is published | General alignment of public claims with research findings | Public claims are misaligned with research findings |
| Public recognition from reputable organizations | Has received awards for educational impact | Has published OpEd(s), press release(s) | N/A |
| Inclusive language | Language used on public-facing materials is people-first, gender neutral, jargon/idiom free, cites Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) | Language used on public-facing materials is people-first and gender neutral | Language used on public-facing materials may be gender neutral, but not people-first or free of jargon/idiom |
D. Diversity and Inclusion
| CRITERIA | EXCEEDS EXPECTATIONS (2 points) | MEETS EXPECTATIONS (1 point) | NEEDS IMPROVEMENT (0 points) |
| Core values | Identified and communicated core values | Has identified and communicated core values | Has not identified or communicated any core values |
| Product accessibility | Implemented online content that aims to meet current (or recent) WCAG 2.0 level AA standard or higher | Meets current (or recent) WCAG 2.0 level A with an understanding of how to get to AA standard | No implementation plans for ADA compliance |
| Diversity and inclusion strategy | Has a formal D&I strategy (e.g. documentation and/or commitments such as the Parity Pledge, CEO Pledge) | Have D&I hiring initiatives for current and future efforts | No formal D&I strategy or initiatives |
| Diversity and belonging: team | Teams are balanced across gender, race, and age (e.g. no one group is underrepresented <30%) | Teams are somewhat balanced across gender, race, and age (e.g. no one group is underrepresented <20%) | Teams are not balanced across gender, race, and age (e.g. no one group is underrepresented <10%) |
| Diversity and belonging: leadership | Senior leaders and/or board members include at least 3 members from underrepresented groups | Senior leaders and/or board members include at least 1 member from an underrepresented group | No representation from underrepresented groups in senior leadership or board |