Explore patterns, practices, and emerging lessons from communities redesigning learning around the needs and experiences of young people.

Question 1

What are the key components of K–12 learner-centered ecosystems and the function they serve?

Data & Insight

Building on these key learnings, the data and insight that follow illustrate how these findings take shape in practice—revealing how ecosystem components (e.g., resources, structures, practices, etc.) consistently function across sites to support participation, coordination, and meaningful learner experiences.

The data suggest that ecosystems function as coordinated systems rather than collections of programs, with the sites most commonly reporting the following functions:² 

Shaping learner experience and developmental trajectories

Connecting learners to opportunities across settings 

Making participation possible

Reducing barriers to access and inclusion

Supporting continuous improvement over time 

TABLE 1
Common Functions of Ecosystem Components in Practice 

Across sites, learner-centered ecosystems exhibited a common underlying structure, but not all components played the same role in how ecosystems function. Rather than operating as a flat set of elements, ecosystems are organized around learner-facing experiences, with other components shaping how this work is coordinated and sustained.

At the center are components that directly shape learners’ day-to-day experiences and developmental trajectories, including structures that support personalization, belonging, and real-world relevance. These elements translate the vision of learner-centered education into lived experience.

Partnerships emerge as the primary mechanism through which ecosystems are coordinated. Beyond enabling access to opportunities, they structure how organizations connect, communicate, and align their efforts, acting as the connective tissue that allows ecosystems to function as integrated systems rather than disconnected programs.

Additional components operate at a system level, shaping how ecosystems function over time. These include leadership structures, operational systems, access-oriented practices, and improvement routines that influence whether opportunities can be coordinated, accessed, and sustained.

The distribution of components across sites reinforces this pattern: structures that support coordination and operational feasibility are reported most consistently, while there is greater variation in how sites design and extend learner experiences.

Deeper Insight

Across sites, the functions described in the Data & Insight section are operationalized through a mix of widely shared and more variable components. The most consistently reported elements tend to support coordination and operational feasibility, while there is greater variation in how sites design and extend learner experiences and specialized practices. This pattern indicates that while communities differ in the specific approaches they use, there is a common set of structures used to support how ecosystems function.

TABLE 2
Variation in How Functions Are Operationalized Across Sites

Question 2

How do the functions vary across socio-cultural and geographic contexts? How do local conditions influence the emergence and sustainability of K–12 learner-centered ecosystems?

Data & Insight 

Learner-centered ecosystems share a common architecture of functions, but local conditions shape ecosystem growth differently.

We asked the cohort to rate on a scale of 0–2 the influence of local conditions across their  ecosystem functions, where  0 = no influence, 1 = moderate influence, and 2 = great influence. The influence ratings show distinct patterns: 

Policy environments and financial resources exert the strongest influence on:

• Shaping learners’ day-to-day experiences and developmental trajectories
• Coordinating and aligning system actors
• Making participation possible
• Supporting continuous improvement

Community organizational assets (CBOs, nonprofits) most strongly influence:

• Coordinate and align system actors
• Reducing barriers to access and inclusion
• Supporting continuous improvement

Local economic & demographic characteristics have the highest overall influence rating in the dataset (2.0) and most strongly shape:

• Reducing barriers to access and inclusion

Geographic characteristics most strongly influence:

• Coordinate and align system actors

FIGURE 1
Average Influence of Local Conditions
Across Ecosystem Functions

Note. This heatmap displays the average level of influence that different local conditions exert on each ecosystem dimension. The rows represent ecosystem functions and the columns represent local conditions. The color intensity corresponds to the magnitude of influence (i.e., lighter shades = lower influences and darker shades = stronger influence). 

Deeper Insight

As demonstrated in Data & Insights, local conditions do not influence all aspects of ecosystems equally; instead, different contextual forces shape distinct dimensions of the work.

TABLE 3
Local Conditions Shaping Ecosystem Functions: Summary of Findings and Illustrative Quotes

Local conditions shape how communities build and sustain learner-centered ecosystems by determining access to a wide range of partner types. Communities most often engage existing organizations—such as CBOs, K–12 schools, local businesses, school districts, out-of-school programs, higher education institutions, and cultural and recreation centers—and reimagine these relationships in ways that strengthen partnership depth and long-term sustainability.

FIGURE 2
Percentage of Ecosystems Engaging Each Partner Type

Interaction levels with partners vary widely across communities, from no interaction to deep collaboration. Notably, half of the communities report deep collaboration with CBOs and K–12 schools, while local businesses, out-of-school programs, and higher education institutions are often engaged at a coordination level, reflecting differing degrees of partnership maturity and integration.

FIGURE 3
Percentage of Interaction Levels
for Most Frequent Partner Types

Question 3

How do K–12 learner-centered ecosystems address the diverse needs of learners to ensure equitable access?

Data & Insight 

When surveyed, 60% of the ecosystem cohort identified physical infrastructure as a top priority, while 50% cited social and 50% cited digital infrastructure as top priorities. In terms of impact on capacity, 40% said social infrastructure challenges slightly limit their ability to serve additional learners, 60% said physical infrastructure challenges extremely limit capacity, and 50% said digital infrastructure challenges slightly limit capacity.

Resolving these barriers would most commonly unlock mid-scale growth (101–500 additional learners), especially when digital/technology challenges are addressed (reported by 4 sites), followed by physical (3 sites) and social barriers (2 sites). Only a few sites anticipate small (1–100) gains, and just one site per barrier type projected a very large (10k+) reach.

In terms of who would benefit, the data suggest the strongest lift for BIPOC and lower-SES learners (named by 5 sites under social barriers; 4 sites under physical and digital), with sizable potential for learners with differences (physical = 5 sites, social = 4 sites ). Gains for learners experiencing homelessness and in foster care are solid across social/physical (4 sites each) but somewhat lower for digital (3 sites). Rural communities show the smallest digital upside (1 site), suggesting that physical infrastructure (e.g., transportation, facilities) is the primary lever there (3 sites).

FIGURE 4
Potential Increase in Learners Served by Addressing Infrastructure Barriers, by Barrier Type 

Figure 5
Number of Sites Reporting Potential Increases in Learners Served, by Range

FIGURE 6
Number of Sites Identifying Additional Populations That Could Be Served, by Population Group

Social infrastructure is defined by the networks, services, and community-based systems that support the well-being, engagement, and learning of students, educators, and families. This may include relationships, support services, partnerships, and mechanisms to foster inclusion. The most commonly reported social infrastructure challenges were inadequate collaboration between public and private partners and resistance to change from state government.

FIGURE 7
Percentage of Social Infrastructure Challenges

Physical infrastructure challenges are defined by tangible, built environment and facilities that support the delivery of learning (e.g., transportation). The most commonly reported physical infrastructure challenge was insufficient local funding and financial resources.

FIGURE 8
Percentage of Physical Infrastructure Challenges

Digital and technical infrastructure challenges are defined by foundational technologies, systems, and services that support the digital operations (e.g., hardware, software, data management systems, cybersecurity, etc.). The most commonly reported digital infrastructure challenges were insufficient digital credentialing systems and insufficient technology tools or software for use in unconventional learning environments.

FIGURE 9
Percentage of Digital Infrastructure Challenges

Across sites, ecosystems are experimenting with a range of infrastructure solutions in response to their local challenges. A clear pattern emerges: some solutions are highly context-specific—shaped by geography, transportation, or facility constraints—while others appear consistently across communities regardless of local conditions. This mix of localized adaptations and broadly applicable strategies reflects the adaptive nature of ecosystem development.

TABLE 4
Infrastructure Solution Types, Example Strategies, and Context-Specificity Insights

Collectively, local conditions and infrastructure challenges inform the extent to which the identified themes are currently evident across sites. Although several are evident with maintenance, there is notable room for further advancement across a number that are in early development or not evident at all.

FIGURE 10
Distribution of Evident Levels by Functions

Communities are prioritizing equitable access for BIPOC and lower-income learners, but efforts for other underserved groups are still emerging. Seventy percent of participating sites reported that their ecosystems promote access to learner-centered opportunities for BIPOC and lower socioeconomic status learners to a large or moderate extent. In contrast, only 50% reported similar efforts for learners in foster care or experiencing homelessness, suggesting that targeted strategies for these populations are still developing.

Communities described a range of strategies for promoting equitable access to meet diverse learner needs, including flexible scheduling, virtual and mobile program delivery, partnerships with social service and foster care agencies, cost-free credentialing programs, and transportation support. 

FIGURE 11
Percentage of Sites Promoting Equitable Access for Each Learner Group

Question 4

How do K–12 learner-centered ecosystems shape learners’ holistic developmental outcomes, including social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development?

Data & Insight 

Most ecosystems are actively supporting and tracking social, emotional, and cognitive development, though physical development remains less consistently addressed or measured. While the majority of sites report tracking social, emotional, and cognitive outcomes to a moderate or large extent, 30% do not track physical outcomes at all, indicating a gap in addressing and evidencing holistic development.

FIGURE 12
Percentage of Sites Tracking Holistic Learner Outcomes

Deeper Insight

Across sites, emotional development, including self-efficacy, resilience in problem-solving,  adaptability, and empathy, emerges as the most significantly evident outcome across ecosystems. Eighty percent (80%) of sites report that emotional outcomes are significantly evident, often attributing gains in this area to equity-centered approaches, SEL curricula and training, advisory and mentorship structures, and relationship-rich,  asset-based learning environments that reduce competition and intentionally center belonging, confidence, and resilience. Following emotional development, 60% of sites report impact on social development, including relationship skills, community engagement levels, and SEL well-being, often pointing to developmental relationships with peers and adults, advisory and community-based learning structures, restorative and identity-centered practices, and collaborative, asset-based learning environments that build social capital and expand opportunities for connection and belonging. In addition, 40% of sites reported impact on cognitive development, including math, reading, and problem-solving, pointing to access to structured OST learning opportunities, competence-based and pathway-aligned frameworks, and inquiry-driven real-world learning experiences, such as innovation labs, industry-aligned curriculum, and research projects that build technical skills, critical thinking, and analytical capacity. Only 20% of sites reported an impact on physical development, including physical fitness and safety awareness; however, as noted in the previous section, 30% of sites do not track physical outcomes at all, indicating a gap in addressing holistic development. 

Question 5

What are the implications of K–12 learner-centered ecosystems on a community’s relationship to its educational system?

Data & Insight 

Learner-centered ecosystems are shifting education from a school-centered model to a shared community responsibility, strengthening collaboration across sectors. All participating communities reported that their ecosystems foster communal responsibility for education, with schools, families, businesses, and other local organizations increasingly co-owning the work of supporting learners through joint planning, programming, and engagement.

Ecosystems are beginning to influence local economic development by aligning learning opportunities with workforce needs and expanding access to career pathways. Around half of the communities reported ecosystem-related impact in economic development, pointing to strategies such as industry-recognized credentials, paid internships, and partnerships with local employers to support youth entry into high-demand fields like tech and IT.

Civic engagement is emerging as an area of growth, with some communities elevating youth voice and participation in governance, though efforts remain early-stage for many. About half of the communities are seeing early signs of increased civic engagement, including youth involvement in city planning, student-led service learning, and closer alignment with local government and advocacy groups, though several noted this as a future growth area.

Deeper Insight

Sites with more diverse and deeper levels of interactions with partnerships tend to report stronger community impact, particularly communal shared responsibility. The diversity index (i.e., number of distinctive partner types) shows a stronger relationship than the interaction depth index (i.e., average level of interaction across partner type), suggesting that having a wider range of partner types contributes slightly more to fostering a community culture of shared responsibility. However, the two likely work synergistically: diversity brings more voices to the table and depth ensures those voices are meaningfully engaged.

FIGURE 13
Variation in Partnership Network Diversity and Depth