Our Framework for Educational Impact

Efficacy evaluates whether a tool actually delivers the learning outcome it promises, under rigorous research conditions. It rests on two things: the research basis — the theory of change or logic model behind the product’s design — and the evidence, ranging from studies without control groups up to randomised controlled trials.
— ICEI 5E Standards & Definitions

This is the dimension that refuses to accept a testimonial as an answer. It asks us to state, in advance, what we expect a Class2Class project to change in a student — and then to show evidence at a standard an outside researcher would recognise.

It has two halves, and they fail differently. The reasoning half asks whether our model is coherent and grounded in literature. The evidence half asks what has actually been measured, on a ladder that runs from studies with no comparison group up to randomised trials.

Effectiveness evaluates whether the tool succeeds in the actual classroom — with real teachers, real students, real time limits and real budget constraints. It focuses on practical fit, usability and scalability.
— ICEI 5E Standards & Definitions

Efficacy tests a tool under research conditions. Effectiveness asks whether it survives Tuesday afternoon: forty-five minutes, a teacher who has not read the manual, uneven wifi, and a class of thirty.

Most educational technology fails here rather than at Efficacy. A pedagogically excellent tool still dies if setup takes forty minutes or if it quietly assumes every student has a device. This dimension is the one that predicts whether the thing is still in use in March.

Equity evaluates whether the product design benefits all students equally, or unintentionally widens existing gaps. It focuses on inclusive design, active bias mitigation, and equitable implementation.
— ICEI 5E Standards & Definitions

A platform can raise the average and still leave the classrooms that needed it most further behind. Equity is the dimension that checks for that, and it is unusually demanding: ICEI asks not just whether we avoid excluding people, but whether we actively promote participation from underserved groups.

It is also the dimension where international collaboration carries a specific, named risk. Pairing a well-connected classroom with an under-resourced one can produce an exchange where one side performs and the other watches.

Ethics evaluates the company’s responsibility in managing data and governing its systems, particularly where AI is involved: data privacy and security, secure interoperability, and transparent human oversight.
— ICEI 5E Standards & Definitions

Most of the people on Class2Class are minors. An AI system that reads children’s work and produces judgements about their learning is a category of system that needs governing before it needs optimising.

The question this dimension asks is not whether our AI is good. It is whether a human is genuinely in the loop — and, crucially, whether anyone could tell from the outside.

Environment evaluates the environmental impact of the technology itself — computing footprint, devices, digital infrastructure — and its contribution to environmental education.
— ICEI 5E Standards & Definitions

This dimension has two sides that are easy to confuse. One is what the platform teaches: whether students actually move from environmental awareness toward action. The other is what the platform costs to run.

We are strong on the first and silent on the second, deliberately. Edtech green claims are usually told one way — "we replaced travel" — and almost never measured. We have chosen to measure before we claim, which means for now we say nothing about our own footprint.