Five-level framework

A nested model — Individual / Relationships / Unit / Networks / Ecosystem — for organizing measurement work across the layers that shape a learner's experience. Developed by LearnerStudio and The Study Group during the MMI project as a way to scan, classify, and surface gaps in the existing measurement landscape. The framework's most consequential use is diagnostic: applying it to the 2,000+ indicators the MMI scan surfaced showed that roughly 73% cluster at the Individual level, with Relationships, Unit, Network, and Ecosystem measurement comparatively underdeveloped. Source: MMI brief, December 2025.

The five levels

The brief's appendix lays out each level with a description, research insights, and example measures. Summarized:

Individual

The development, well-being, and performance of individual learners and the adults who facilitate their growth. Includes cognitive competencies (academic skills, critical thinking) and social-emotional capacities (self-regulation, empathy). Example measures: mastery of modernized content, agency, transferability, critical thinking, adaptability, self-knowledge, collaboration, civic values, career preparedness.

The brief's notes on this level: most developed of the levels; higher focus on durable skills for an AI-driven and rapidly changing future; redundant indicators with different definitions create an opportunity to build consensus; many measures embed cultural values and assumptions that may not be transferable across contexts.

Relationships

The nature, strength, and stability of connections among individuals and groups. Emphasis on relational trust, effective communication, collaborative problem-solving, supportive networks across learners, educators, families, and community members. Example measures: number of peers and adults a learner turns to for different supports; number of positive learner-adult relationships; degree of trust in relationships; economic connectedness.

The brief's notes: an underdeveloped level extending to family, peers, community, and learning environments; resource-intensive (especially social capital measurement); many indicators rely on subjective learner perceptions; opportunity to view relationships through a social-capital lens — as active networks of innovation and adaptive learning rather than purely as supportive resources; opportunity to consider digital / virtual relationships and human-AI interaction.

Unit (e.g., school, hub, program)

Functioning and outcomes of a single organization or formal entity within the education ecosystem. Includes schools, foundations, departments of education, clubs, microschools, pods, homes, and support organizations. Analysis considers governance, resources, mission alignment, organizational health. Example measures: learner voice and leadership; learner perception of their educator's level of challenge; visible interrogation of knowledge; learning pathway access and navigation.

The brief's notes: existing indicators tend to describe measures within traditional (H1/H2) learning units; opportunity to consider technology and infrastructure as enabling conditions; standing tension between standardized comparable measures and respect for local context.

Networks (of units)

Groups of interconnected organizations and how their collective efforts shape educational opportunities and outcomes. Examples: school districts, national nonprofits, charter management organizations (CMOs), homeschool networks. Focus on shared services, aligned goals, resource distribution, collaborative impact. Example measures: ability to adapt to external changes and new research; teacher professional development centered on human development; user trust in the network.

Ecosystem

System-level analysis of the broader conditions shaping education — policy, funding mechanisms, cultural mindsets, power dynamics, public sentiment, structural factors. Attention to how these conditions enable or impede the transition to a future-ready (H3) education system. Example measures: streamlined common applications and enrollment mechanisms; cross-system competency or skill standards; shared / interoperable data systems; 18-year-olds registered to vote.

The brief's notes: H3 transformation requires changes in infrastructure, the connections between components, context, and scale — plus assessing health and functionality at the system level; indicators here capture a more holistic view of what makes an education system effective; many current measures still assume traditional governance approaches rather than a radically different system.

What the framework does

Three things, each load-bearing for the rest of the KB:

  1. It gives every actor a place to sit. A microschool's work is mostly Individual and Relationships; a state advocacy organization's is Ecosystem; a CMO's is Network. When a new actor enters the KB, the framework is the first sorting question.
  2. It surfaces gaps. The 73% / Individual concentration is the central empirical finding of the MMI brief; without the framework, that finding can't be stated. The four "less developed" levels become the natural targets for R&D investment — directly seeding the brief's six investment areas (especially #2, Advance System-Level Research).
  3. It separates "system change" from "learner change." A common confusion in education-reform conversation is conflating individual outcomes with systems-level transformation. The framework forces those into separate columns.

How the framework is used in the field

So far, only one source — its origin source — describes the framework. Future ingests should track:

  • Whether other orgs adopt the same five-level taxonomy or substitute their own (Mathematica's E-W Indicator Framework, for example, is organized around the early-education-through-career temporal axis rather than the nested-levels spatial axis — see the E-W Framework source for the cross-walk).
  • Whether published measurement tools self-identify with a level — useful for sorting actors as they enter the corpus.
  • Whether the relative-development picture (73% Individual) holds up as other scans accumulate.

See Actors across the five-level framework for the level-by-level mapping of every actor surveyed in this KB to date — what level each addresses, where the field's existing work is concentrated, and where the gaps are wide enough that the MMI R&D agenda is calling for new infrastructure.

  • Third Horizon (H3) — the educational paradigm the framework is built to track.
  • Implementation gap — the brief's most-cited level-level gap is Individual measures existing but not being implemented; the framework is what reveals that the gap is itself unevenly distributed.

Follow-ups