Choosing a design thinking vendor for a school is not simply a matter of comparing workshop outlines and quotations.

The right provider must understand what the school is trying to achieve, how students learn, how the programme fits into the school’s wider curriculum and how meaningful outcomes will be demonstrated.

This becomes especially important when the programme supports an Applied Learning Programme (ALP) or Values in Action (VIA) initiative.

Both ALP and VIA may involve real-world challenges, teamwork and student-led projects. However, they are not interchangeable. An ALP programme should connect knowledge and skills with authentic applications, while a VIA programme should nurture social responsibility, student ownership, meaningful community contribution and reflection.

A vendor may be highly experienced in running energetic workshops but still be unsuitable for a sustained ALP. Another may offer community service activities but lack a clear process for helping students understand needs, take ownership and reflect on their contribution.

This guide explains how school leaders, Heads of Department and teacher coordinators can evaluate a design thinking vendor for their school’s ALP or VIA programme more systematically.

Start by Clarifying Whether the Programme Is for ALP, VIA or Both

Before approaching vendors, schools should define the programme pathway.

This is important because the same design thinking process can serve different educational purposes depending on how the programme is structured.

What Should an ALP Design Thinking Programme Achieve?

The Ministry of Education describes the Applied Learning Programme as helping secondary school students connect academic knowledge and skills with the real world.

Within an ALP, design thinking may be used to help students:

• Investigate an authentic issue
• Apply subject knowledge in a practical context
• Understand the needs of users or stakeholders
• Generate and evaluate possible solutions
• Create and test prototypes
• Communicate the reasoning behind their decisions
• Strengthen critical, adaptive and inventive thinking

In a February 2026 parliamentary response, MOE identified design thinking as one of the approaches schools may use within ALP. It highlighted the role of authentic challenges in developing collaboration, empathy and Emerging 21st Century Competencies.

An ALP vendor should therefore offer more than a collection of creative activities. The provider should be able to show how each stage of the programme develops the school’s intended knowledge, skills and competencies.

Questions to ask for an ALP programme

• Which academic disciplines or school learning areas will the challenge connect with?
• What knowledge will students apply during the project?
• Which Emerging 21st Century Competencies will be developed?
• How will learning progress across the sessions?
• What evidence of student learning will be collected?
• How will teachers reinforce or extend the learning?
• Will students test and improve their ideas, or only present an initial concept?

What Should a VIA Design Thinking Programme Achieve?

MOE describes Values in Action as a Key Student Development Experience that nurtures socially responsible citizens through the application of values, knowledge and skills. VIA is intended to develop student ownership and initiative, with reflection forming an important part of the experience.

A design thinking approach can strengthen VIA by helping students move beyond deciding what they want to do for a community.

Students first learn to understand the community, listen to stakeholders and identify genuine needs. They then develop a response based on evidence rather than assumptions.

A VIA-focused design thinking programme might involve students:

• Learning about a community or social issue
• Interacting respectfully with relevant stakeholders
• Identifying strengths, needs and existing support systems
• Reflecting on their assumptions
• Co-developing ideas with the people involved
• Planning or piloting an initiative
• Evaluating the effect of their contribution
• Reflecting on the values practised throughout the experience

The programme should not reduce community engagement to an empathy exercise followed by a student presentation. Students should understand whom they are serving, why the issue matters and how their contribution can be responsible and sustainable.

Questions to ask for a VIA programme

• How will students learn about the community before suggesting solutions?
• What role will the community partner play?
• How will students exercise meaningful choice and ownership?
• Is there an opportunity to act on or pilot the idea?
• How will the programme avoid placing unnecessary demands on beneficiaries?
• How will reflection be facilitated?
• How will students connect the experience to values and social responsibility?
• What happens after the final presentation?

Can One Programme Support Both ALP and VIA?

Yes, provided the programme is intentionally designed to satisfy both sets of objectives.

For example, students might investigate food waste within their school or neighbourhood.

From an ALP perspective, they may apply knowledge related to sustainability, systems, data collection, communication or product development.

From a VIA perspective, they may engage stallholders, cleaners, community organisations and other stakeholders, consider how different groups are affected and take responsibility for implementing a practical response.

Design thinking can provide the common process:

1. Understand the context and stakeholders
2. Define a meaningful problem
3. Generate possible responses
4. Prototype an intervention
5. Test it with users
6. Improve and implement it
7. Reflect on the learning and contribution

However, the school should still specify which ALP and VIA outcomes are being prioritised. Calling a programme “ALP- and VIA-aligned” is not enough unless the provider can show the alignment within the actual learning design.

Write the School Brief Before Comparing Vendors

A clear brief makes it easier to compare proposals fairly.

Without one, each vendor may interpret the request differently. One may quote for a motivational half-day workshop, another for a six-session learning journey and another for a complete programme involving research, fieldwork, assessment and a showcase.

These proposals cannot be compared meaningfully based on price alone.

The brief should cover the following areas.

Student Profile

Specify:

• Student level
• Approximate cohort size
• Class or group configuration
• Previous exposure to design thinking
• Learning needs
• Language or literacy considerations
• Level of independence
• Any relevant behavioural or social dynamics

A programme for Secondary One students encountering design thinking for the first time should not be facilitated in the same way as a programme for upper-secondary student leaders.

Intended Outcomes

State what students should understand, practise and produce.

Instead of writing only “develop creativity and collaboration”, describe the intended behaviours.

For example:

By the end of the programme, students should be able to conduct a simple user interview, identify a meaningful need, frame a clear problem statement, generate multiple ideas, create a testable prototype and respond constructively to feedback.

For VIA, the outcomes might also include:

Students should demonstrate greater understanding of the community, explain how stakeholder perspectives influenced their project and reflect on the values they practised.

Programme Context

Clarify whether the programme is part of:

• The school’s ALP
• A VIA initiative
• Character and Citizenship Education
• Project Work
• A leadership programme
• A post-examination enrichment programme
• A sustainability initiative
• A learning-space improvement project
• A school-wide innovation challenge

The vendor should understand where the programme sits within the school experience rather than treating it as an isolated workshop.

Challenge Theme

Possible themes include:

• Sustainability
• Cyber wellness
• Community inclusion
• Student well-being
• Active ageing
• Accessibility
• Heritage and culture
• Artificial intelligence
• Future careers
• Learning-space improvement
• School belonging
• Public-space experiences

A good vendor can help narrow a broad theme into an age-appropriate challenge without deciding the students’ solutions in advance.

Operational Requirements

Include:

• Number and length of sessions
• Preferred dates
• Venue
• Available classrooms
• Group sizes
• Number of facilitators required
• Whether a learning journey is expected
• Materials and equipment available
• Presentation or showcase requirements
• Teacher involvement
• Assessment or reporting requirements
• Budget range, where appropriate

This allows vendors to plan for the actual scale of delivery rather than provide a generic per-workshop package.

12 Criteria for Choosing a Design Thinking Vendor

1. Alignment With the Purpose of the Programme

The vendor should first understand why the school is running the programme.

For ALP, the provider should be able to connect activities to applied knowledge, authentic contexts and intended competencies.

For VIA, the provider should be able to preserve student ownership, community relevance, meaningful action and reflection.

Ask the vendor to map its proposed activities against your intended outcomes. The response should be specific.

Weak alignment sounds like:

“Students will build creativity, communication and teamwork.”

Stronger alignment sounds like:

“During the empathy stage, students will conduct and synthesise interviews. This develops perspective-taking and information skills. During concept selection, they will compare ideas against user relevance, feasibility and potential impact, developing critical and adaptive thinking.”

MOE’s 21st Century Competencies framework places values at the centre and includes Critical, Adaptive and Inventive Thinking, Communication, Collaboration and Information Skills, and Civic, Global and Cross-Cultural Literacy. A provider should be able to explain where these competencies are practised rather than simply displaying the 21CC terminology in its proposal.

2. A Clear and Coherent Design Thinking Methodology

Ask the vendor which design thinking methodology it uses.

The precise name of the methodology is less important than whether it is:

• Clearly documented
• Age-appropriate
• Consistently facilitated
• Connected across sessions
• Focused on understanding people
• Iterative rather than linear
• Adaptable to the school’s context

Students should understand why they are completing each activity and how one stage leads to the next.

For example:

• Research should inform the empathy findings.
• Empathy findings should inform the problem statement.
• The problem statement should guide ideation.
• Selected ideas should respond to stated user needs.
• Prototypes should test important assumptions.
• Feedback should lead to revisions.

When activities do not connect, students may enjoy the experience without developing a transferable problem-solving process.

3. Appropriate Programme Depth

A half-day workshop and a multi-session programme can both be useful, but they achieve different outcomes.

A short programme can introduce the design thinking mindset and give students a rapid experience of ideation and prototyping.

A deeper ALP or VIA programme may require time for:

• Context building
• Stakeholder research
• A learning journey
• Problem definition
• Multiple rounds of ideation
• Prototype development
• User testing
• Implementation
• Reflection
• Final presentations

Schools should be wary of programmes that promise deep community understanding, complete design thinking mastery and measurable transformation within an unrealistically short schedule.

The vendor should explain what can and cannot be achieved within the available time.

4. Authentic User and Community Research

Design thinking is human-centred. Students should not design only from their own assumptions.

Depending on the programme, research may include:

• Observation
• Interviews
• Surveys
• Community visits
• Expert sharing
• Experience mapping
• Environmental audits
• Stakeholder conversations
• Review of existing initiatives

The vendor should explain how students will prepare for the research, record their findings and turn observations into insights.

For VIA programmes, stakeholder engagement should be respectful and mutually meaningful. Community members should not be treated merely as research subjects who appear briefly to validate a student project.

Ask how the provider will manage the relationship with community partners and how students will understand their responsibilities during the engagement.

5. Student Ownership

A design thinking programme should not be so tightly scripted that every team reaches a similar solution.

Students should have genuine decisions to make, including:

• Which aspect of the challenge to investigate
• Which stakeholders to focus on
• How to frame the problem
• Which ideas to develop
• How to test their assumptions
• How to respond to feedback
• How to communicate their final proposal

Facilitators should provide structure without taking control of the thinking.

This is particularly important for VIA, where ownership and initiative are central to the intended learning experience.

6. Facilitator Quality and Pedagogical Experience

The quality of a programme depends heavily on the people delivering it.

A polished company portfolio does not confirm who will actually facilitate the students.

Ask for:

• Names of proposed lead facilitators
• Relevant professional credentials
• School facilitation experience
• Experience with the relevant age group
• Design thinking or innovation practice
• Community-engagement experience, where relevant
• Training or adult-learning qualifications
• Proposed facilitator-to-student ratio
• Process for briefing assistant facilitators

Design expertise and teaching expertise are related but different.

A strong practitioner may have excellent industry knowledge but struggle to scaffold activities for younger learners. An energetic trainer may engage students well but lack the depth needed to guide research, synthesis and iteration.

The strongest team combines subject expertise, facilitation skill and pedagogical sensitivity.

7. Ability to Adapt to Different Learners

The vendor should not simply reduce the number of words on a worksheet and call it age adaptation.

Ask how the provider would adjust the programme for:

• Lower- and upper-secondary students
• Mixed-confidence groups
• Students with different literacy levels
• Quieter learners
• Highly vocal students
• Students who need more structure
• Students with additional learning needs
• Large whole-cohort programmes

Adaptation may involve:

• More visual instructions
• Modelled examples
• Sentence starters
• Structured team roles
• Smaller task steps
• Different prototype formats
• Alternative presentation methods
• Additional time for synthesis
• Facilitator checkpoints

The provider should be able to explain these adjustments before delivery rather than improvising only when difficulties arise.

8. Capacity to Deliver at the Required Scale

A programme that works for 30 students may not work automatically for 300.

For large cohorts, ask about:

• Number of facilitators
• Facilitator allocation by class or group
• Consistency across rooms
• Briefing and training of the delivery team
• Material distribution
• Timekeeping
• Movement between activities
• Technical requirements
• Student support
• Escalation procedures
• Quality assurance

The school should know whether the named lead trainer will facilitate directly, supervise other facilitators or only appear during selected sessions.

Ask how the vendor ensures that students in every classroom receive a comparable learning experience.

9. Safety, Instructor Registration and Risk Management

Safety should be discussed before the programme begins, particularly when activities involve learning journeys, tools, public interaction or movement outside the school.

Depending on the scope, schools should clarify:

• Instructor registration status
• Supervision responsibilities
• Emergency procedures
• Risk assessment
• Venue suitability
• Use of tools and materials
• Student movement
• Medical or accessibility considerations
• Transport arrangements
• Community interaction
• Contingency plans

MOE’s current registration guidance states that instructors conducting school-based CCA and enrichment activities lasting more than eight hours per contract must register, alongside instructors involved in specified activities such as local learning journeys. Schools should confirm which registration requirements apply to the proposed engagement and verify the status of the actual instructors assigned.

For outdoor activities, MOE has also highlighted risk assessment, personnel competence, participant readiness, environmental conditions and compliance with safety guidelines when schools engage external vendors.

The vendor should be prepared to provide the necessary information rather than treating safety planning as entirely the school’s responsibility.

10. Assessment and Evidence of Learning

Positive student feedback is useful, but enjoyment alone does not establish educational impact.

Ask the vendor how it will assess learning.

Possible evidence includes:

• Pre- and post-programme surveys
• Competency rubrics
• Facilitator observations
• Student reflections
• Research artefacts
• Empathy maps
• Problem statements
• Idea-generation records
• Prototype development
• Testing feedback
• Final presentations
• Teacher observations
• Community-partner feedback

The assessment method should match the intended outcomes.

For example, a programme claiming to build empathy should assess how students understand and use stakeholder perspectives—not simply whether they enjoyed interviewing someone.

A programme claiming to strengthen collaboration should examine team behaviours, contribution and decision-making—not only the appearance of the final group presentation.

Ask to see a sample rubric or report before appointing the vendor.

11. Teacher Partnership and Capability Transfer

External vendors should complement the role of teachers, not work around them.

Strong providers involve teachers through:

• Pre-programme planning
• Student-profile briefings
• Alignment discussions
• Teacher facilitation notes
• Clear session roles
• Progress updates
• Debrief sessions
• Post-programme resources
• Suggestions for continuation

Teachers understand their students, school culture and curriculum context. Vendors contribute methodology, facilitation and external perspectives.

When both work together, the programme is more likely to remain relevant and continue beyond the final workshop.

Schools seeking long-term impact can also ask whether the vendor offers teacher development, co-facilitation or train-the-trainer support.

12. Value for Money, Not Simply the Lowest Price

A lower quotation may exclude elements required for successful delivery.

Check whether the price includes:

• Curriculum customisation
• Planning meetings
• Lead-facilitator involvement
• Assistant facilitators
• Learning-journey coordination
• Community partners
• Student materials
• Prototype materials
• Equipment
• Transport
• Assessment
• Reporting
• Showcase support
• Photography
• Revisions
• Taxes and administrative charges

Singapore’s public-procurement guidance defines value for money as an appropriate balance of costs and benefits. It notes that quality, risk, timeliness and reliability may also be considered and that the lowest quotation does not automatically provide the best value.

Schools should therefore compare the total programme value and delivery risk, not only the headline workshop fee.

A Practical Vendor Evaluation Scorecard

Schools can adapt the following scorecard to compare shortlisted providers.

The weighting can be adjusted according to the programme.

For a VIA programme involving external community partners, the school may give greater weight to ethical community engagement and student ownership.

For a whole-cohort ALP, facilitator quality, curriculum alignment, delivery consistency and assessment may receive higher weight.

The scorecard should support professional judgement rather than replace it. A vendor that fails a critical safety or capability requirement should not be selected merely because it achieves a high average score elsewhere.

Questions to Ask During the Vendor Meeting

A proposal provides useful information, but a meeting often reveals how deeply the vendor understands the school’s needs.

Consider asking:

1. How would you adapt this programme to our students’ level and profile?
2. Which parts of the proposal are customised and which are standard?
3. How does each session support our ALP or VIA outcomes?
4. Who will lead the programme, and who will be in each classroom?
5. What experience do the proposed facilitators have with secondary students?
6. How will students conduct authentic research?
7. How will you ensure students retain ownership of their solutions?
8. How will community partners be involved?
9. What will students produce after each session?
10. How will prototypes be tested?
11. How will student learning be assessed?
12. Can we review a sample rubric or programme report?
13. How will teachers be involved before, during and after the programme?
14. How do you manage consistency across a large cohort?
15. What safety and contingency planning will you provide?
16. What is included and excluded from the quotation?
17. Can you share an example of a programme you changed after receiving student or teacher feedback?
18. What can realistically be achieved within our available timeframe?
19. How could the school continue the work after the final session?
20. What would you need from us for the programme to succeed?

Listen for specific answers.

A credible provider should be able to discuss both the strengths and limitations of its proposed approach. It should not promise every outcome regardless of programme duration, class size or budget.

Red Flags to Watch For

A Generic Proposal With the School’s Name Added

The challenge, examples, outcomes and schedule should reflect the school’s context.

A proposal that could be sent unchanged to any school suggests limited customisation.

Heavy Emphasis on Activities but Little Explanation of Learning

Games, cards, craft materials and competitions may make a workshop lively.

The vendor should still explain what students learn from each activity and how that learning contributes to the overall programme.

No Clear Link Between Research and Solutions

Students should not conduct interviews in one session and then create unrelated ideas in the next.

There should be visible continuity from user research to problem definition, ideation, prototyping and testing.

Predetermined Solutions

If students are expected to reach a solution selected by the vendor or school, the process offers limited ownership.

Constraints are appropriate, but the challenge should still allow multiple valid responses.

Vague Facilitator Information

Descriptions such as “our experienced training team” are not sufficient for a major school engagement.

The school should know who will be responsible for the delivery.

Evidence Based Only on Testimonials

Testimonials can demonstrate satisfaction, but they do not replace evidence of learning.

Ask what changed for students and how the change was assessed.

No Testing or Iteration

Making a model is not the same as prototyping.

Students should use the prototype to learn something, receive feedback and make improvements.

Community Engagement Without Reflection or Follow-Through

A visit to a community organisation does not automatically create a meaningful VIA experience.

Students should understand the context, reflect on values and consider what responsible contribution looks like.

An Unrealistically Low Facilitator Ratio

Insufficient facilitation can result in students becoming confused, disengaged or overly dependent on teachers to complete the vendor’s programme.

Ask how many groups each facilitator will manage and what teachers will be expected to do.

A Price That Omits Necessary Components

A low initial quote may later require additional fees for materials, facilitators, transport, customisation or reporting.

Request an itemised quotation and confirm assumptions.

What a Strong Vendor Proposal Should Include

By the time a school is ready to appoint a provider, the proposal should clearly state:

• Programme purpose
• ALP or VIA alignment
• Intended student outcomes
• Target cohort
• Challenge theme
• Design thinking methodology
• Session-by-session structure
• Student outputs
• Research or learning-journey plan
• Community-partner involvement
• Proposed facilitator team
• Facilitator-to-student ratio
• Teacher roles
• Assessment approach
• Safety responsibilities
• Required school resources
• Programme timeline
• Deliverables
• Itemised fees
• Assumptions and exclusions
• Continuation recommendations

A strong proposal should make it possible for the school to visualise what students and teachers will experience from the first briefing to the final reflection.

Choosing the Right Programme Format

Half-Day Introduction

A half-day session is suitable when the objective is exposure.

Students can learn the basic mindset, complete a short empathy exercise, generate ideas and create a rapid prototype.

It is generally not enough for deep community research, sustained VIA engagement or extensive iteration.

One-Day Design Sprint

A full-day programme allows students to experience an accelerated end-to-end process.

It can support a project launch, leadership programme or post-examination experience. The challenge should remain appropriately focused so that students have time to produce a meaningful result.

Multi-Session Programme

A multi-session structure is more suitable when the school wants students to:

• Conduct genuine research
• Participate in a learning journey
• Work with external stakeholders
• Develop deeper problem definitions
• Test and revise prototypes
• Plan implementation
• Build competencies over time

This format is usually more appropriate for sustained ALP or VIA outcomes.

Student Programme With Teacher Development

Schools that want the methodology to continue can combine student sessions with teacher development.

Teachers may learn how to:

• Frame design challenges
• Facilitate empathy work
• Guide divergent and convergent thinking
• Support team dynamics
• Review prototypes
• Conduct reflective discussions
• Adapt design thinking to their subjects

This reduces dependence on an external vendor for every future project.

How C-Academy Supports School ALP and VIA Programmes

C-Academy delivers practitioner-led design thinking programmes using the EDIT Design Thinking® methodology:

• Empathise: Understand people, behaviours and contexts
• Define: Turn research into a focused problem
• Ideate: Generate, develop and select possible solutions
• Test: Prototype, gather feedback and improve the concept

Programmes can be adapted for different secondary-school levels, cohort sizes, themes and schedules.

Depending on the school’s objectives, a programme may include:

• Design thinking workshops
• Learning journeys
• Community or industry partners
• User interviews
• Observation activities
• Ideation tools
• Physical or digital prototyping
• User testing
• Final presentations
• Student reflection
• Pre- and post-programme assessment
• Teacher facilitation support

C-Academy has supported school projects involving learning-space improvement, sustainability, community, conservation and student well-being.

At Methodist Girls’ School, students used design thinking to reimagine classrooms as more welcoming and student-centred spaces. Across four workshops, students developed more than 56 ideas and 41 physical prototypes. The proportion who believed they could solve difficult problems without clear answers increased from approximately 65% to 84%.

At Ngee Ann Secondary School, students and teachers explored how the school library could become a more inclusive, community-centred hub. Following a learning journey, empathy work, ideation and prototyping, student confidence in solving difficult problems increased from 33% to 73%.

At Pei Hwa Secondary School, students addressed practical sustainability challenges involving litter, food waste, recycling and shared spaces. Their understanding of design thinking increased from 48% to 78%, while collaborative and creative confidence improved by 24%.

These examples show why the selection process should focus not only on whether a vendor can conduct a workshop, but whether it can design, facilitate and assess a coherent learning journey.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between an ALP provider and a VIA vendor?

An ALP provider should help students connect knowledge and skills with practical, real-world applications.

A VIA vendor should help students understand community needs, exercise ownership, contribute responsibly and reflect on the values practised.

One provider can support both, but the programme must be intentionally aligned to the distinct outcomes of each pathway.

How many vendors should a school compare?

The number depends on the school’s procurement process and the size of the engagement.

Regardless of the number invited, all vendors should respond to the same core brief and evaluation criteria. This makes comparison more transparent and reduces the risk of selecting proposals based on different assumptions.

Should schools choose the vendor with the most experience?

Experience is important, but the relevance of the experience matters more than the total number of programmes delivered.

A school should examine whether the vendor has worked with:

• Similar student levels
• Comparable cohort sizes
• Relevant themes
• Multi-session programmes
• ALP or VIA contexts
• Community partners
• Outcome measurement

The proposed facilitator team should also have relevant experience.

How important are facilitator credentials?

Credentials can indicate relevant training and professional knowledge, but they should be considered together with actual facilitation experience.

The school should assess whether facilitators can engage students, manage group dynamics, scaffold complex thinking and adapt their delivery when students struggle.

Should a design thinking vendor provide measurable outcomes?

For a substantial ALP or VIA programme, the vendor should be able to provide evidence connected to the intended learning outcomes.

This may include quantitative and qualitative measures. The assessment should be proportionate to the programme and should not create unnecessary paperwork for students or teachers.

Is a half-day design thinking workshop suitable for ALP?

It can be suitable as an introduction, project launch or exposure activity.

A half-day workshop is unlikely to provide enough time for deep research, sustained prototyping, testing and competency development. Schools seeking deeper ALP outcomes should consider a multi-session format.

Can design thinking be used for VIA?

Yes.

Design thinking can help students understand community needs before deciding what form their contribution should take. It can also provide a process for developing, testing and improving student-led initiatives.

The programme should still include meaningful action, reflection and attention to values. Design thinking should support the VIA experience rather than replace its community and character-development purpose.

What should schools ask for after the programme?

Depending on the scope, the school may request:

• Student work
• Assessment findings
• Facilitator observations
• Teacher feedback
• Student reflections
• Photographs
• Prototype documentation
• Community-partner feedback
• Recommendations for continuation
• A summary report

These deliverables should be agreed upon before appointment.

Make the Decision Based on Fit, Not Presentation

A polished proposal can create a strong first impression, but the most suitable vendor is the one that understands the school’s educational purpose and can translate it into a realistic learning journey.

Look beyond the number of activities offered.

Examine whether the programme:

• Fits the intended ALP or VIA outcomes
• Responds to the actual student profile
• Develops learning progressively
• Creates authentic opportunities for inquiry
• Gives students genuine ownership
• Includes qualified and suitable facilitators
• Can be delivered safely at the required scale
• Produces credible evidence of learning
• Supports teachers
• Offers appropriate value for the available budget

The strongest design thinking vendor will not simply deliver a workshop to the school.

It will work with the school to create an experience in which students understand real needs, develop thoughtful ideas, test their assumptions and recognise their ability to contribute meaningfully.

C-Academy works with secondary schools in Singapore to develop customised design thinking programmes for ALP, VIA and school-based enrichment initiatives. Share your student profile, cohort size, programme theme and intended outcomes to request a tailored proposal.