One Map, Every Framework: The Shared Architecture Behind School Transformation

The field of school transformation is rich with thoughtful, purpose-specific design frameworks. Organizations and school systems across the country have spent years building powerful approaches to redesigning schools, and partners are right to value the specific models they have chosen and invested in.

In practice, this often shows up less as disagreement than as translation. Leaders spend valuable time helping partners realize they are often describing similar ideas with a different language.  However, when working across diverse partners, networks, and communities, a fundamental question emerges: Do these different frameworks share a common underlying structure?

The short answer is yes. 

What surprised us was not how different these frameworks were, but how consistently they returned to the same underlying questions.

Across the country, varied framework terminology and visuals conceal a shared architecture. Inspired by Sangeet Paul Choudary’s writing on coordination in his book Reshuffle (see podcast here), we hypothesize that if school transformation frameworks share core components, a unified language can help the entire sector move faster. This isn’t about replacing existing frameworks; it’s about building a shared vocabulary to accelerate school transformation together.

Our work with larger networks of districts across the country (as opposed to single districts) supports our hypothesis. Each district may be using a different framework, but the map remains the same.

The Architecture: Seven Questions at the Core

We call the following elements a Learning Innovation Wayfinder. Originally, we used the word “framework”, but because it provides a map, not a direction, wayfinder provides a better description. The Wayfinder organizes school transformation into seven core elements, each expressed as a guiding question. 

Communities rarely ask these questions in a perfectly linear order, but over time nearly every transformation effort circles back to them. Often, a specific framework will provide linearity and direction, which is very helpful. The elements in the Wayfinder language are less a sequence than a set of conversations that become increasingly connected. The goal isn’t alignment for alignment’s sake. It’s coherence in the service of learners.

What the Transformation Landscape Shows Us

We analyzed 16 leading school-design frameworks alongside 7 widely used change and improvement models to better understand a common language for transformation. We used accessible materials found online within each organization or framework for the analysis.

Figure 1. A crosswalk of 16 leading school-design frameworks and 7 change & improvement models

Prepared by Getting Smart  ·  2026

Across all 16 school-design frameworks, every element is represented, and no framework has language that falls outside them.

That doesn’t mean every framework should look the same. In fact, their differences are often what make them valuable. What becomes visible is not competition between frameworks, but complementary strengths to help improve translation and efficacy.

Key takeaways across the ecosystem include:

• The Learning Model is Universal: Every single school-design framework reviewed (16 out of 16) speaks to how students reach proficiency.
• Vision, Strategy, and Signals are Centered: Strategy is addressed by 15 frameworks, while Community Vision and Signals are included in 14, reflecting how much of the field centers on vision-setting, implementation, and communicating learning.
• The Learning Ecosystem is the Thinnest: Only 10 of the 16 frameworks explicitly name where learning happens, including facilities, technology, staffing, transportation, partnerships, and networks. 
• Process Meets Content: Tested against 7 change and improvement models. These process models land in just three elements: Community Vision, Strategy, and Impact & Scaling. 

The wayfinding language holds both the content of transformation and the process of getting there.

Why a Shared Architecture Matters

The goal of a shared architecture is not to replace or supersede the frameworks that organizations have invested in and trust. Rather, it provides a common map that lets them coexist and collaborate. Shared architecture doesn’t ask communities to abandon the compass that has guided their work. It offers a way to see how different paths often lead toward the same destination and where new connections can strengthen coherence across the system. A school or district can keep its chosen framework while gaining a way to locate it, compare it with others, and identify where it might grow.

Three Concrete Benefits for School Systems & Partners. For district leaders, this becomes practical very quickly.

1. A Shared Vocabulary: Teams using different frameworks can describe the same work to one another without first negotiating terms.
2. Visible White Space: Placing a framework on the map shows at a glance which elements it does not yet explicitly address—turning gaps into intentional next steps.
3. Coherence Across Partners: Because the architecture represents the union of the field, it coordinates work across organizations without flattening what makes each distinct.

Moving Forward Together

Examined element by element, our field already agrees far more than its many frameworks suggest. Perhaps that is the most encouraging finding. The field may not be as fragmented as it sometimes feels. Much of the work ahead is not creating new ideas, but helping people recognize the connections that already exist. By making that underlying agreement legible through a common language, we can help leaders, educators, and communities navigate school transformation with greater clarity, coherence, and impact. When communities spend less energy translating between frameworks, they can spend more energy improving learning. In the end, that may be the greatest value of increased coherence in language across the education transformation sector.

Analysis

We analyzed the following frameworks for this project. We recognize other examples exist beyond those included, but we feel this set is representative. 

• Learner-Centered Collaborative 
• Transcend
• Education Elements (now with engage2learn (e2L)
• KnowledgeWorks
• reDesign
• Marzano Resources
• Learner-Studio 
• Great Schools Partnership
• 2Revolutions 
• Springpoint
• Future Ready Schools (All4Ed)
• XQ Institute
• The Learning Accelerator (TLA) 
• Christensen Institute
• Mastery Transcript Consortium 

Change & Improvement Models

• Kurt Lewin — Lewin’s Change Model
• John Kotter — Kotter’s 8 Steps
• Prosci — ADKAR Model
• McKinsey — McKinsey 7S Model
• Deming — PDSA Cycle
• Thaler & Sunstein — Nudge Theory
• High Tech High GSE — The Improvement Journey