Co-design framework with core tenets of power sharing and inclusion, prioritizing relationships, and capability building¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 7 claims (4 for, 3 mixed) · 5 studies (4 qualitative, 1 design), q1–q2 · 0 of 5 report an effect size · 7 claims rest on one study

Description¶

The report defines co-design as "a process in which different stakeholders come together to find a solution to a shared problem through inclusive research and development," bringing together school communities, edtech companies, and researchers so the people who will use the solution are involved in its design. Participants leverage three core tenets: ensure power sharing and inclusion (sharing power throughout research, ideation, design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation); prioritize relationships (co-designers must share a meaningful relationship based on trust and respect); and focus on capability building (everyone teaches and learns, increasing collaboration and fostering better stakeholder relationships).

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Requires trusting, respectful relationships among co-designers and structures that ensure all stakeholders' ideas and perspectives are considered across the full process.
• Relationship-building between districts, providers, and partners is foundational, not optional; rushed timelines undermine authentic collaboration

Constraints¶

• The report cautions that teacher voice is necessary but should not exclude other expertise; teachers may be less likely to envision fundamentally different or research-aligned approaches, so subject matter experts and researchers should be active participants, not just consulted afterward.
• Co-design does not progress in a straight line; deliverables may look incomplete at various stages, which the article calls normal and healthy

Target Learners¶

• K-12 educators, students, district leaders, edtech providers, and researchers participating in co-design
• District leaders
• Edtech solution providers
• Funders of co-design initiatives

Target Learning Objectives¶

• Developing student success solutions informed by direct educator and student input
• Developing responsive, human-centered student success solutions through multi-stakeholder collaboration

Claims¶

• Build Trust Early Quick Wins Tiered Rollout [+M]
• The article argues the durability of the WSS co-design approach depends on institutionalizing authentic engagement as core practice, not a one-time initiative [+W]
• Educators sustained the student voice and leadership tenet by incorporating student input and co-leadership into their ongoing roles [+W]
• District-community Core Team participants across four pilot districts perceived their co-designed solutions successfully met the team-defined intended outcomes [+W]
• Core Teams identified communication challenges, school and district leadership turnover, and teacher burnout as barriers that influenced solution success [~W]
• Teacher Initiated Tool High Adoption [+M]
• The co-designed AI-enabled SST meeting agenda tool saw mixed district-wide adoption despite enthusiasm in facilitated meetings [~W]
• Three factors influenced adoption of the SST agenda tool: lack of guided practice, inconsistent routines, and value not visible to teachers [~W]

Related Theories¶

• Inclusive Innovation: a co-research and co-design R&D framework enabling co-leadership among students, teachers, parents, community members, and district leaders
• Six core tenets of Collaborative Innovation, organized as Practice and Impact tenets
• The Learning Salon five-phase engagement model for district-provider equity collaboration
• Participant engagement as a continuum shaped by influencing factors and research stage

Examples¶

• Ensure communication and co-development with school leaders throughout edtech process rollout
• Supportive practices for inclusive youth co-design: reach beyond usual voices, respect time, ensure accessibility, and compensate fairly
• Inclusive Innovation Process
• Shared power: previously excluded students, families, and communities co-create and shape educational systems, policies, and practices
• Seven equity strategies for local leaders, including listening first, strengths-based approaches, and co-design
• Engage student voice through safe sharing spaces, assumption removal, active listening, co-creation, and co-designed action plans
• Co-design and validate context-aware AI through DBIR blended with user-centered design in privacy-preserving enclaves
• Strengthen implementation scaffolding for new edtech rollouts with routines, guided practice, and change management grounded in observed workflows
• CSUB Teacher Residency Consortium, a monthly professional learning community of residency coordinators
• Pair rapid evidence synthesis with community co-development to speed usable implementation plans

Key Sources¶

• Cocuzza, B., Noakes, S., Aso, C., Vollavanh, A., Goldschmidt, L., and Bennett, K. (2026, August). From Data Silos to Student Success: The CICS and Innovare Co-Design Approach to AI-Driven Intervention. Digital Promise. https://doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/304
• Cocuzza, B., Noakes, S., Aso, C., Goldschmidt, L., and Bennett, K. (2026). Designing student success systems intentionally: How Warwick Public Schools and Panorama bridge the gap with co-designed technical solutions. Digital Promise. https://doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/303