Based on the review of Phase I abstracts and lessons learned from previous years’ competitions, we’ve compiled tips for developing clear and compelling proposals.
Phase II will require a detailed proposal, and submissions that do not reflect these guidelines will not advance. We recommend you review and revise your proposals with these suggestions in mind.
Tip 1: Align with your track’s objectives and rubric, and prize level
Each proposal will be scored using a track-specific rubric, which outlines what reviewers look for. Reviewing your track’s objectives and rubric is the most effective way to strengthen your proposal. You can find rubrics, track objectives, and examples of past winners on each track page. Refer closely to these materials as you develop your proposal, in order to clearly and thoroughly addressing each component.
Ensure your tool meets prize-level criteria. Growth and Transform prizes are reserved for tools that currently have some scale. If you cannot demonstrate that you’ve met the required scale in your proposal, we strongly encourage you to consider a different prize level.
Tip 2: Meaningfully apply learning engineering to your work
Show how your tool uses data and research to improve learning outcomes. Clearly describe the data collected and how it informs improvements. You should also show how your work contributes to the field, such as through:
- Research partnerships: Note any confirmed or planned collaborations with external researchers. These strengthen Growth and Transform proposals; early-stage Catalyst teams should describe their intentions.
- Community contributions: Explain how your tool or data will advance learning science, such as sharing datasets or research insights.
The strongest proposals provide specific, evidence-based plans that improve the tool while supporting the broader learning community. See more on creating your learning engineering plan here.
Tip 3: Describe your tool—and make clear what’s new
The Tools Competition seeks to spur new tools and technologies. Be sure reviewers can clearly understand what your tool does, how it works, what sets it apart, and what new element of your work the prize funding will support. Use plain language and avoid jargon.
Your proposal should explain:
- What the tool is, how it works, and how users interact with it
- The technology behind it (e.g., data sources, models, systems)
- What specifically do you propose to build or enhance with the funding. Proposals for ‘business-as-usual’ or existing work are not competitive.
- What differentiates your tool from others
Tip 4: Provide a clear and rigorous methodology
Your proposal should describe how you will build, test, and refine your tool/new component. Reviewers want to understand your process for making key technical and product decisions, how you’ll evaluate progress, and how user or stakeholder feedback informs improvement.
Include details such as:
- Development and testing methods (e.g., prototyping, usability, reliability/validity, or efficacy studies)
- How often and by what means will you assess performance
- How findings will guide refinement
This section should make clear that your tool is being developed through a systematic, evidence-informed process.
Tip 5: Define clear outcomes, success metrics, and goals
Strong proposals clearly connect outcomes, metrics, and goals within a feasible project timeline.
- Outcomes: What change will your tool achieve?
- For example, improved reading fluency for multilingual learners.
- Metrics & Targets: How will success be measured and what do you hope to achieve?
- For example, average student score improvement on aligned assessments (e.g., +20%).
- Goals: What concrete, time-bound milestones will you hit?
- For example, By August 2026, complete MVP and run an 8-week pilot with 150 students across 3 schools to validate fluency gains.
Ensure your goals and timeline are realistic for your prize level and funding amount. Most successful projects plan for 1–2 years. Your timeline should demonstrate a logical, achievable path to your intended impact.
Tip 7: Center user needs and engagement
Demonstrate how user input shapes your tool. This could include interviews, focus groups, usability testing, or iterative design based on user insights.
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 Top Parent—have successfully engaged users in their work.
Tip 8: Follow guidelines and use available supports
We offer a range of resources to help you craft a compelling Phase II proposal. These include rubrics, examples in practice, info sessions on proposal requirements, and webinars with organizers, experts, and sponsors. Competitors who take advantage of these supports often produce clearer, stronger proposals that align closely with reviewer expectations.
Be sure:
- Your proposal follows the structure provided in the online submission form.
- No additional links or non-requested attachments are included in your proposal. Organizers will not review additional materials.
- Any images included in your proposal should supplement the written content; the proposal should stand on its own, independently of images.
The Tools Competition launches annually each Fall and seeks to accelerate breakthrough innovations in education, backing evidence-driven technologies that generate research insights and deliver real-world impact for learners worldwide.
