Capability score58/100
Partial90% of rubric verified
Scored from 9 of 10 criteria with a public source. Last verified 2026-09-10.
Best suited to
Schools wanting ready-to-teach gaming-adjacent CTE pathways with assessment, analytics and LMS integration.
Score breakdown
| Criterion | Weight | Level | What the evidence shows |
|---|---|---|---|
| External accreditationHas an independent body reviewed and rated the curriculum? | 15% | 1/4 | Scored: documented evidence. Fact: Curriculum states alignment with CTE, CASEL and ISTE standards. Interpretation: Self-declared standards alignment meets 1; no separate curriculum accreditation/rating verified. Confidence: Medium. Source |
| Curriculum depthIs there a full scheme of work, or a set of loose activities? | 15% | 3/4 | Scored: documented evidence. Fact: Middle-school exploration feeds high-school pathways with sequenced foundational and applied courses. Interpretation: Structured progression, but complete multi-year age/outcome map not available in reviewed public pages. Confidence: Medium. Source |
| Student assessmentCan a teacher evidence what a student actually learned? | 10% | 3/4 | Scored: documented evidence. Fact: Gameplan describes an Unreal Engine industry credential, exam structure, retakes and validity. Interpretation: Structured assessment established; claimed external recognition not independently corroborated. Hold 4, as for Squid AQA. Scope is game development only. Confidence: Low. Source |
| Learning platformIs the content delivered through a real platform teachers can run? | 10% | 4/4 | Scored: documented evidence. Fact: Platform documents teacher grading, lesson management, analytics and learner progress. Interpretation: Dedicated teacher tools with progress data meet 4; no live usability test performed. Confidence: Medium. Source |
| Teacher supplyWho stands in front of the class? | 10% | Not published | No public source found. This criterion is excluded from the score rather than marked as zero. |
| Teacher trainingIs the school teacher trained to run the program independently? | 10% | 3/4 | Scored: documented evidence. Fact: Defined half/full-day professional development covers curriculum, pedagogy and implementation, online/on-site/hybrid. Interpretation: Structured training programme meets 3; assessed teacher certification not verified. Confidence: Medium. Source |
| Safeguarding and wellbeingIs student wellbeing built into the program, or bolted on? | 10% | 1/4 | Scored: documented evidence. Fact: Public curriculum states SEL alignment and support for at-risk learners. Interpretation: General wellbeing intent only in reviewed material; no specific dedicated wellbeing syllabus verified. Confidence: Low. Source |
| Delivery reachCan they actually deliver where the school is? | 8% | 2/4 | Scored: documented evidence. Fact: Digital school implementation and remote/on-site professional development are documented. Interpretation: Scalable school delivery documented; international live student delivery is not. Training geography is not classroom-teaching reach. Confidence: Medium. Source |
| Pricing transparencyCan a school budget without a sales call? | 7% | 2/4 | Scored: documented evidence. Fact: Individual exam voucher is $50; bulk licences and core curriculum require quotation. Interpretation: Price of one component only; does not price a classroom curriculum package. Confidence: High. Source |
| Evidence of outcomesIs there published evidence the program works? | 5% | 2/4 | Scored: documented evidence. Fact: Named Madison educators report engagement/attendance benefits after Gameplan implementation. Interpretation: Attributable provider case study, no independent causal evaluation. Separate district esports study cannot be credited to Gameplan without linkage. Confidence: Medium. Source |
Something wrong or out of date?
Entries change when the evidence changes. If a criterion is published somewhere we missed, send us the link and we will rescore it with a dated note.