Innovators funding needs for scaling up K12 education innovations
Leponiemi, Lasse (2018)
Tampereen ammattikorkeakoulu
2018
All rights reserved
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2018110616718
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:amk-2018110616718
Tiivistelmä
Objective. The purpose of this study was to collect information about funding needs for scaling up K12 education innovations. HundrED 2019 Global Collection innovators were asked about their current funding status, future funding needs and their experiences of the funding process in general.
Approach, methodology. The survey was carried out with an electronic inquiry on fall 2018. Out of 100 innovators 61 answered to the survey representing education innovators around the globe. The research was made as multi-method research by doing first in-depth theory analysis and then a quantitative study and content analysis. Results were analyzed by using quantitative methods like average values, dispersion of data and percentage values. Open questions were analyzed by using content analysis methods. The theoretical section explores education innovation and education innovation funding.
Key results. The majority of education innovations are made by not for profit organizations, followed by educator-led practices and for profit organizations, social enterprises and whole school models. None of the innovations is this research were made by government initiatives. The majority of innovations (62%) were not profitable at the time of the study. The respondents stated that their primary need for all external funding is to scale up their innovation. The results show that most of the education innovators combine donations and grants (51%), service or product related income (26%) and self financing (23%) to keep their innovation operational.
Conclusions. The findings indicate that combining quick user growth with increased resource needs is difficult for education innovations. Even though the majority of innovations were able to operate with the current monetary resources for over 12 months they were finding it difficult to keep a long term sustainability. Venture funding needs were usually explained through outcomes whereas actions were explained when looking for grants and donations. Innovators’ competencies to explain their funding need and the impact of the received funding differed. Majority of the education investors and grantgivers were expecting to have return of investment or impact measurements which are not always met by education innovations. In general, 39% of innovations were evaluated internally, 25% had an external evaluation. Further research is required to understand how funding needs and their impact requirements differ between different education innovator groups.
Approach, methodology. The survey was carried out with an electronic inquiry on fall 2018. Out of 100 innovators 61 answered to the survey representing education innovators around the globe. The research was made as multi-method research by doing first in-depth theory analysis and then a quantitative study and content analysis. Results were analyzed by using quantitative methods like average values, dispersion of data and percentage values. Open questions were analyzed by using content analysis methods. The theoretical section explores education innovation and education innovation funding.
Key results. The majority of education innovations are made by not for profit organizations, followed by educator-led practices and for profit organizations, social enterprises and whole school models. None of the innovations is this research were made by government initiatives. The majority of innovations (62%) were not profitable at the time of the study. The respondents stated that their primary need for all external funding is to scale up their innovation. The results show that most of the education innovators combine donations and grants (51%), service or product related income (26%) and self financing (23%) to keep their innovation operational.
Conclusions. The findings indicate that combining quick user growth with increased resource needs is difficult for education innovations. Even though the majority of innovations were able to operate with the current monetary resources for over 12 months they were finding it difficult to keep a long term sustainability. Venture funding needs were usually explained through outcomes whereas actions were explained when looking for grants and donations. Innovators’ competencies to explain their funding need and the impact of the received funding differed. Majority of the education investors and grantgivers were expecting to have return of investment or impact measurements which are not always met by education innovations. In general, 39% of innovations were evaluated internally, 25% had an external evaluation. Further research is required to understand how funding needs and their impact requirements differ between different education innovator groups.