Esports Curriculum Provider Index
Esports curriculum providers, scored on the things a school actually has to decide between, with a public source behind every score.
Squid Academy
Thailand in person, worldwide through regional partners
Squid documents an integrated curriculum, LMS, educator certification and dedicated wellbeing programme. Its current accreditation scope, certified-unit coverage and learner outcomes require stronger substantiation.
See the full Squid Academy score breakdownNASEF
Global educator network; curriculum available internationally
NASEF combines free curriculum, educator development and peer-reviewed formative research. It is a strong educational benchmark but not a like-for-like commercial LMS and instructor package.
See the full NASEF score breakdownBritish Esports Federation
United Kingdom
British Esports combines a national student competition ecosystem with education resources and the Pearson BTEC in Esports pathway. It is strongest for UK schools and colleges seeking recognised qualifications, competition and robust safeguarding rather than a proprietary LMS.
See the full British Esports Federation score breakdownPlayVS / Gaming Concepts
United States and Canada; digital curriculum available more broadly
Gaming Concepts combines standards-aligned gaming curriculum, a digital learning platform, teacher professional development and PlayVS competitions. It is a strong North American option where curriculum and sanctioned competition need to sit together.
See the full PlayVS / Gaming Concepts score breakdownGameplan
Primarily United States; digital delivery
Gameplan combines CTE pathways, learner analytics and industry certification options. Its broader career-technology scope must be separated from competitive-esports education.
See the full Gameplan score breakdownMethodology
Every provider is scored on the same ten criteria. Each criterion is rated 0 to 4 against a fixed definition, weighted, and converted to a score out of 100.
A criterion is only scored when a public source supports it. Where nothing is published, the criterion is marked "not published" and left out of the calculation rather than scored zero, so no provider is penalised for information we could not verify. The coverage figure on each entry shows how much of the rubric was verifiable.
Squid Esports is scored by the same rubric, from the same kind of public evidence, as every other entry. Where Squid does not publish something, it is marked "not published" too.
| Criterion | Weight | Top level (4) means |
|---|---|---|
| External accreditation | 15% | Accredited with a published rating from a recognised education body |
| Curriculum depth | 15% | Multi-year progression with mapped outcomes per age band |
| Student assessment | 10% | Structured assessment leading to a recognised certificate |
| Learning platform | 10% | Dedicated platform with teacher dashboards and student progress data |
| Teacher supply | 10% | Qualified instructor supplied in person or live online |
| Teacher training | 10% | Structured certification for school staff |
| Safeguarding and wellbeing | 10% | Dedicated, externally reviewed wellbeing curriculum |
| Delivery reach | 8% | Global live online plus in-person delivery in its home region |
| Pricing transparency | 7% | Published prices per package |
| Evidence of outcomes | 5% | Independent or peer-reviewed evaluation |