Everything a neurodivergent student needs to succeed in post-secondary education already exists. The psychoeducational assessments exist. The accommodations exist. The assistive technology exists. The funding exists.
What does not exist is a continuous support system from high school through to launching a career.
Throughline Learning is a two-person practice built to close that gap: a registered psychotherapist who guides families through the assessment, application, and accommodation processes, and an educational technologist who builds the technology setup the student needs and makes sure they keep using it.
We are seeking an investment of $50,000 to fund the creation of two digital assets that will allow the business scale beyond what a two-person team can do on hourly sessions alone.
Is that a business worth funding?
Start with the 60-second elevator pitch, then read the Venture Pitch to decide.
Overall, I thought this was a really strong pitch. It was easy to follow, and I liked that the problem, solution, and business model all connected clearly. The interactive unit economics were also a great addition because they made the financial side feel more concrete and gave a better sense of how the venture could actually work. I also liked that the pitch was realistic about starting as a two-person service instead of trying to make it sound more developed than it is.
The one area I was still a little unsure about was scalability. The self-serve library and institutional database give some idea of where the venture could go, but I was left wondering how it would grow without continuing to depend so heavily on the founders’ time and expertise. I think a little more detail on that longer-term growth path would have made the pitch even stronger.
Hi John,
Beautiful design work on the website! I appreciated the time, research, and heart you put into this project idea; I can tell while going through it that you have been inspired by the recent changes affecting colleges.
On a personal note: Your topic hit home for me as I’ve got a niece with dyslexia. Her parents paid a huge sum for her psychoeducational assessment in elementary school, which, as you had mentioned, had language that wasn’t easy to interpret. As she enters high school, her needs will likely change, and it would be great for her to get expert advice from two fronts on the supports she’ll need to succeed in school.
I think this business venture sounds quite viable and could really fill a few gaps leading to better use and appropriate matching with assistive technologies as well as continuous, expert support through those formative years.
Is this something you are considering / in the process of launching? 🙂
Edith
Hi John,
I thought your venture pitch was really interesting.
You did a great job of explaining the needs of neurodivergent students from grade 11 onward. I was shocked to read about how many of these support positions are being cut in post-secondary institutions, and how students are being negatively affected by it. There is definitely a big need here.
One concern I have is that your team is only able to analyze the ed-psych assessments, but not conduct them. Does this mean that the school is responsible for assessing the student? From my experience, only a small number of students are selected for ed-psych assessments each year in public high schools. What would happen if the student was not selected for an assessment? Would the family need to pay for one out of pocket? I imagine this could be another considerable cost.
I also wonder if the three year, $5000 plan is viable. In theory it makes sense to have a support plan from high school straight to post secondary, but in reality how many students actually end up where they thought they would be in grade 11? Before investing, I would like to see data showing how many families are actually willing to commit $5000 to something that hinges on a 16 year old making a long term decision and following through with it.
Bryce
Feedback
I found this to be a strong and engaging pitch overall. One of its biggest strengths is that it clearly identifies a meaningful problem for neurodivergent students. The pitch does a good job showing how support can become fragmented across different stages of a student’s journey, and I found the founders’ backgrounds especially compelling because they bring relevant experience and credibility to the problem they are trying to solve. Overall, I would be interested in seeing this venture move forward. The problem is important, the founders have strong relevant expertise, and there appears to be a real need for more connected support.
FEEDBACK:
Throughline Learning is a really good pitch that attempts to fill a gap in a much-needed area. The problem is clear and well framed. Neurodivergent students face fragmented support across eight distinct barriers from grade 11 through to career transition, and no one currently connects those pieces into a single, continuous service. I like how the pitch grounds this in real market conditions like shrinking capacity at Ontario colleges. The low overhead model is also smart. Two people, no building, and eight families a year covering fixed costs makes this financially realistic and sustainable. The three-tier pricing structure with the 20-hour package at $5,000 plus hourly options shows flexibility for different family budgets.
I would not invest in this venture at this time. I am curious about scalability. A two-person service business is naturally limited by how many clients each consultant can take on, and the pitch acknowledges this with the part-time to full-time growth path. But the free tier and self-serve library as an acquisition channel sound like it needs a significant upfront investment of time to build. I wonder how this can be done with 2 staff while growing. It would help to see some evidence of demand beyond the current five sessions per week, like a waitlist or inquiries from families who cannot currently be served. What does the competitive landscape look like in terms of independent educational consultants already serving this niche?
FEEDBACK
John,
Your pitch addresses the very real gap of post secondary support for neurodivergent learners. It is well researched and offers positive solutions. It offers good insight into seemingly positive funding for individualized support plans. However, I would be curious to see how scalable this product is. The limited hours, data management, and paywall may hinder its growth. However, overall it is well grounded and in an area of need with a good plan and framework for application.
REVIEW
Hi John, this is a very interesting venture pitch that highlights a major issue for many families. At this time, I would not fund the project until the business plan is revised. First, the venture pitch states that costs are close to zero and asks for only $50,000 for management. This is a very small number. The risks and constraints are large and concerning. Would it not be better to ask for more preliminary funding to secure promotional and networking opportunities and build clientele from the get-go? Hiring a third person for this area, part-time, might be worth considering. This venture is also built on a lot of trust. Parents/students purchasing the $5,000 subscription package would need to be absolutely convinced this option is a better fit than the $275 per-session option. What evidence would be visible to families to ensure success/progress is occurring?
Highlighting the differences between these two options from a learning perspective or success rate could make parents more inclined to purchase the package. Do parents have an exit strategy if they or the student backs out at any time during the 27-month program? Does this affect your funding strategy if you don’t meet the 8 client threshold? Lastly, since you currently have clients, it would be beneficial to have reviews, quotes, or case studies to share with investors so they can see the current progress of your work with neurodivergent students. I think some of these aspects will need to be detailed and considered before investing in this creative advisory edtech.
FEEDBACK:
Great pitch design and delivery connecting the problem of sourcing continuous support and case management for neurodivergent learners, high school through career, to your differentiated solution amid rising demand and shrinking capacity, backed by compelling market visuals.
I also found the $50K ask, structured as a revenue share repaid over 4 years at 12.5% ROI serviceable at your current ARR, an interesting offering. As an EVA, what would make this more investable to me is some form of ongoing return once the 1.5x repayment cap is reached, whether that’s a continued revenue share or a minority equity stake, since right now the upside is capped. Also on business sustainability, you cite the 29.3% assistive technology abandonment stat, and I’d want to see evidence of your own clients completing the 20-hour package and continuing on afterward as proof the mechanism works.
REVIEW
Hi John Rose,
I found Throughline Learning especially relevant as an educator because students often have access to tools, but access alone does not mean they know how to use them effectively or advocate for themselves.
I believe the strongest part of the venture is the two-person competency pairing. A registered psychotherapist with accessibility counselling experience and an educational technologist with instructional design and post-secondary experience creates a credible, differentiated service. I also appreciated the practical business model.
From an EVA perspective, my main concern is scalability – like what others have mentioned in the feedback above. The full engagement model depends heavily on two highly specialized individuals, which limits growth and creates small-team dependency. However, you are aware of this as you have already mentioned this in your “Risks and constraints” section.
Overall, I would invest in Throughline Learning. It has a clear need, credible founders, and a responsible funding structure. My investment recommendation would include the qualification that the team should prioritize validating the self-serve library as a scalable revenue stream.
REVIEW
Hi John,
What stood out to me most about this pitch is how clearly it identifies the gap in the current system. There are already plenty of assistive technologies and accommodations available, but families are often left to figure out how to put everything together themselves. Your focus on providing continuity and helping families work through all eight barriers gives the service a clear purpose. The 29.3% assistive technology abandonment statistic is especially useful here. Your point that students are more likely to stop using a tool when they were not involved in choosing it helps show why coaching can be just as important as the technology itself. “We are not reinventing the wheel. We are teaching students how to drive” is a strong way of summarizing that idea.
The founder-market fit is also very convincing. Having a psychotherapist who can interpret assessments and an educational technologist who can build the right setup directly addresses the problem you describe. Families currently have to coordinate clinical advice, institutional guidance, and technology support from different providers. Having those skills in one practice makes the service much more straightforward.
I also liked that the financial side of the pitch felt realistic. Showing that the practice is already profitable with eight client-facing hours a week makes the business feel more established. The $50,000 request is also tied to two specific digital assets, the library and institutional database, rather than simply funding the existing service. Revenue-based financing seems like a good fit for a small two-person practice as well.
My main hesitation is around the self-serve library and institutional database as growth opportunities. Both ideas make sense, but they are also the parts of the pitch that have the least evidence behind them. Twenty-two subscriptions a year is a reasonable and measurable goal, but I would have liked to see more about how those first subscribers will find the library, especially since it is also meant to bring people into the paid service. I would also want to know how the institutional database will stay up to date. You point out that this type of information can become outdated or be published incorrectly, so keeping it accurate could require a lot of ongoing work.
Overall, this is one of the more convincing pitches in terms of founder fit and financial planning. The main question for me is just whether the library and database can grow enough to justify the investment.
Feedback:
This is an interesting concept. As you rightly note, demand is increasing, whilst capacity is stretched. I do feel that your risk assessment is likely one of the stronger elements of your venture pitch. There are identifiable hurdles, not least institutional governance; each higher ed institution has its own policies and services. Moreover, as you mention, the $5,000 fee is paid out of pocket and, “the families least able to navigate the system unaided will likely also be least able to pay.” For this reason, I would be cautious investing in this product.