By Pam Tatlow, Policy Adviser to the Cathedrals Group of Universities
The Government’s decision to extend free school meals to an estimated 500,000 primary school children is a win-win, both in addressing disadvantage and supporting learning and attainment. In fact, all primary-age school children in Scotland and London now receive free school meals, with an evaluation of the latter concluding that its impact was overwhelmingly positive and that for some children, school attendance and mental well-being had also been improved.
It’s clear that free school meals are a worthwhile investment of Department of Education resources. It is also why Ministers should maximise take-up in England by linking auto-enrolment of Free Schools Meals with universal credit and pupil premium.
But why should universities care about Free School Meals? The answer is quite simple, especially if, like the Cathedrals Group of Universities, you recruit students who progress to university later in life. In some universities, many students are parents and carers in their own right who will undoubtedly benefit from widening the eligibility for free school meals. It’s a policy that has inter-generational impact as well as positive impacts on the children of today.
Moreover, rising levels of inequality as documented by the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank and in the UK by Danny Dorling, Professor of Human Geography at the University of Oxford, constrain not only economic growth (an objective of Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer) but also educational attainment – a fact not lost on Professor Becky Francis, Chair of the government’s Curriculum and Assessment review who concluded in 2015 ‘that all the data supports the idea that the socioeconomic divide is the biggest issue in education’. While diverse in size, Cathedrals Group Universities continue to play a key role in educating the teachers of the future, but crucially are also united by a commitment to social justice – and this means a continuing interest in measures that address inequality.
The June Spending Review was notable for its silence on other measures which might directly support educational attainment beyond the primary stage. There is still time for Ministers to recognise that supporting pupils and students during their studies is an investment in their futures that will pay dividends in terms of monetised and non-monetised benefits for individuals, communities and ultimately the Treasury itself.
At the secondary phase, Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was a weekly payment to disadvantaged young people aged 16-19 in full-time education. Introduced in 1999, expanded nationwide in 2004, the EMA was abolished by the Coalition Government in England in October 2010, with the 2010/11 academic year marking the final year of the scheme. Replaced by a 16-19 Bursary Fund that continues today, the Fund has a significantly reduced budget and, other than for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable young people, is administered at the discretion of colleges and training providers, which decide their own schemes.
The difference between this Fund and the EMA is stark. EMA provided direct payments to young people for which they could apply before opting for a specific post-16 education course or institution. As shown by its continuation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the EMA remains a popular policy with young people (who were not consulted about its abolition in England). Research by the Edge Foundation confirmed that the EMA had a positive impact on post-16 education participation and retention rates among young people from lower-income families and those with disabilities. Although the school leaving age has been increased to 18 for over a decade, there are often costs associated with post-16 study, such as specialist equipment and transport, for which young people get little support. What does exist in England is discretionary and dependent on a postcode lottery.
Then there’s higher education, which by common agreement needs a new funding model in England and, in the view of the Cathedrals Group, more direct government investment. Investment in universities and investment to address the hardship of students are two sides of the same coin. If maintenance support for students is increased by inflation, it will be welcome but not enough. London Economics research for the Sutton Trust in 2024 confirmed that the abolition of maintenance grants (which did not have to be repaid) has resulted in students from the poorest families incurring the highest debts during their studies. Moreover, parental income thresholds, which determine when parents are expected to contribute to the living costs of their children at university, have remained frozen at £25,000 pa. The same research estimated that in real terms, household income thresholds should have increased to £32,535 and that students from poorer households could graduate with over £60,000 of debt, 38% higher than those from wealthier families.
Universities know only too well about educational poverty. Notwithstanding the pressures on institutional funding, many have increased their hardship funds. In spite of their best efforts, including money advice, demand from students for financial support outstrips budgets. Hepi and Advance HE’s 2025 Student Experience Survey confirms that cost-of-living concerns have impacted on students’ studies but also the extent to which students now combine study and paid employment with the average total of study and workload hours for students who work standing at 44.3 hours a week – ‘higher than the average full-time job in the UK’.
And to end where we began: in Finland, there are no free school meals because the provision of free meals is an integral part of the Finnish education system – the same system which is consistently ranked first among all OECD countries in education and in terms of the outcomes and well-being of its pupils and students. Only the Treasury can now help square the circle and address educational poverty of pupils, students and their families at every stage of their educational journey. Such a strategy would not only support the government’s stated ambition to tackle inequality but also Ministers’ aspiration to improve educational attainment – a win all round.
Save the date – September 26-27! As a non-profit educational organization, we hope you will join us at our annual conference! If you are looking for a conference that includes sharing histories of education to help define present processes and inform the development of future responses, we hope you will join us and attend our annual conference. This year’s conference will include at least one panel on aspects of how artificial intelligence will impact educational history, but there will be many other panels. While the final conference schedule is still in development, this poster features examples of previous topics at the annual conference, so we can’t guarantee sessions on all these topics yet, but they demonstrate our past conference topics and may be indicative of what will be in this year’s conference. Our conference being offered online ensures low cost as we seek to invite many scholars into the organization by keeping travel costs low – and a full year’s membership, complete with the journal and attendance at the conference, remains affordable with a student rate ($60) and a regular rate (non-student) ($120)! With a peer-reviewed journal, an annual conference attendance complete with a noted keynote speaker, and a membership, we are dedicated to ensuring as many people as are interested can attend our conference. As you look to the fall, save the date and register here to attend: http://www.edhistorians.org/annual-meeting.html
I work at Marquette University. As a Roman Catholic, Jesuit university, we’re called to be an academic community that, as Pope John Paul II wrote, “scrutinize[s] reality with the methods proper to each academic discipline.” That’s a tall order, and I remain in the academy, for all its problems, because I find that job description to be the best one on offer, particularly as we have the honor of practicing this scrutinizing along with ever-renewing groups of students.
This bedrock assumption of what a university is continues to give me hope for the liberal educational project despite the ongoing neoliberalization of higher education and some administrators’ and educators’ willingness to either look the other way regarding or uncritically celebrate the generative software (commonly referred to as “generative artificial intelligence”) explosion over the last two years.
In the time since my last essay in Inside Higher Ed, and as Marquette’s director of academic integrity, I’ve had plenty of time to think about this and to observe praxis. In contrast to the earlier essay, which was more philosophical, let’s get more practical here about how access to generative software is impacting higher education and our students and what we might do differently.
At the academic integrity office, we recently had a case in which a student “found an academic article” by prompting ChatGPT to find one for them. The chat bot obeyed, as mechanisms do, and generated a couple pages of text with a title. This was not from any actual example of academic writing but instead was a statistically probable string of text having no basis in the real world of knowledge and experience. The student made a short summary of that text and submitted it. They were, in the end, not found in violation of Marquette’s honor code, since what they submitted was not plagiarized. It was a complex situation to analyze and interpret, done by thoughtful people who care about the integrity of our academic community: The system works.
In some ways, though, such activity is more concerning than plagiarism, for, at least when students plagiarize, they tend to know the ways they are contravening social and professional codes of conduct—the formalizations of our principles of working together honestly. In this case, the student didn’t see the difference between a peer-reviewed essay published by an academic journal and a string of probabilistically generated text in a chat bot’s dialogue box. To not see the difference between these two things—or to not care about that difference—is more disconcerting and concerning to me than straightforward breaches of an honor code, however harmful and sad such breaches are.
I already hear folks saying: “That’s why we need AI literacy!” We do need to educate our students (and our colleagues) on what generative software is and is not. But that’s not enough. Because one also needs to want to understand and, as is central to the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm that we draw upon at Marquette, one must understand in context.
Another case this spring term involved a student whom I had spent several months last fall teaching in a writing course that took “critical AI” as its subject matter. Yet this spring term the student still used a chat bot to “find a quote in a YouTube video” for an assignment and then commented briefly on that quote. The problem was that the quote used in the assignment does not appear in the selected video. It was a simulacrum of a quote; it was a string of probabilistically generated text, which is all generative software can produce. It did not accurately reflect reality, and the student did not cite the chat bot they’d copied and pasted from, so they were found in violation of the honor code.
Another student last term in the Critical AI class prompted Microsoft Copilot to give them quotations from an essay, which it mechanically and probabilistically did. They proceeded to base their three-page argument on these quotations, none of which said anything like what the author in question actually said (not even the same topic); their argument was based in irreality. We cannot scrutinize reality together if we cannot see reality. And many of our students (and colleagues) are, at least at times, not seeing reality right now. They’re seeing probabilistic text as “good enough” as, or conflated with, reality.
Let me point more precisely to the problem I’m trying to put my finger on. The student who had a chat bot “find” a quote from a video sent an email to me, which I take to be completely in earnest and much of which I appreciated. They ended the email by letting me know that they still think that “AI” is a really powerful and helpful tool, especially as it “continues to improve.” The cognitive dissonance between the situation and the student’s assertion took me aback.
Again: the problem with the “We just need AI literacy” argument. People tend not to learn what they do not want to learn. If our students (and people generally) do not particularly want to do work, and they have been conditioned by the use of computing and their society’s habits to see computing as an intrinsic good, “AI” must be a powerful and helpful tool. It must be able to do all the things that all the rich and powerful people say it does. It must not need discipline or critical acumen to employ, because it will “supercharge” your productivity or give you “10x efficiency” (whatever that actually means). And if that’s the case, all these educators telling you not to offload your cognition must be behind the curve, or reactionaries. At the moment, we can teach at least some people all about “AI literacy” and it will not matter, because such knowledge refuses to jibe with the mythology concerning digital technology so pervasive in our society right now.
If we still believe in the value of humanistic, liberal education, we cannot be quiet about these larger social systems and problems that shape our pupils, our selves and our institutions. We cannot be quiet about these limits of vision and questioning. Because not only do universities exist for the scrutinizing of reality with the various methods of the disciplines as noted at the outset of this essay, but liberal education also assumes a view of the human person that does not see education as instrumental but as formative.
The long tradition of liberal education, for all its complicity in social stratification down the centuries, assumes that our highest calling is not to make money, to live in comfort, to be entertained. (All three are all right in their place, though we must be aware of how our moneymaking, comfort and entertainment derive from the exploitation of the most vulnerable humans and the other creatures with whom we share the earth, and how they impact our own spiritual health.)
We are called to growth and wisdom, to caring for the common good of the societies in which we live—which at this juncture certainly involves caring for our common home, the Earth, and the other creatures living with us on it. As Antiqua et nova, the note released from the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education earlier this year (cited commendingly by secular ed-tech critics like Audrey Watters) reiterates, education plays its role in this by contributing “to the person’s holistic formation in its various aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc.) … in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human person.”
These objectives of education are not being served by students using generative software to satisfy their instructors’ prompts. And no amount of “literacy” is going to ameliorate the situation on its own. People have to want to change, or to see through the neoliberal, machine-obsessed myth, for literacy to matter.
I do believe that the students I’ve referred to are generally striving for the good as they know how. On a practical level, I am confident they’ll go on to lead modestly successful lives as our society defines that term with regard to material well-being. I assume their motivation is not to cause harm or dupe their instructors; they’re taking part in “hustle” culture, “doing school” and possibly overwhelmed by all their commitments. Even if all this is indeed the case, liberal education calls us to more, and it’s the role of instructors and administrators to invite our students into that larger vision again and again.
If we refuse to give up on humanistic, liberal education, then what do we do? The answer is becoming clearer by the day, with plenty of folks all over the internet weighing in, though it is one many of us do not really want to hear. Because at least one major part of the answer is that we need to make an education genuinely oriented toward our students. A human-scale education, not an industrial-scale education (let’s recall over and over that computers are industrial technology). The grand irony of the generative software moment for education in neoliberal, late-capitalist society is that it is revealing so many of the limits we’ve been putting on education in the first place.
If we can’t “AI literacy” our educational problems away, we have to change our pedagogy. We have to change the ways we interact with our students inside the classroom and out: to cultivate personal relationships with them whenever possible, to model the intellectual life as something that is indeed lived out with the whole person in a many-partied dialogue stretching over millennia, decidedly not as the mere ability to move information around. This is not a time for dismay or defeat but an incitement to do the experimenting, questioning, joyful intellectual work many of us have likely wanted to do all along but have not had a reason to go off script for.
This probably means getting creative. Part of getting creative in our day probably means de-computing (as Dan McQuillan at the University of London labels it). To de-compute is to ask ourselves—given our ambient maximalist computing habits of the last couple decades—what is of value in this situation? What is important here? And then: Does a computer add value to this that it is not detracting from in some other way? Computers may help educators collect assignments neatly and read them clearly, but if that convenience is outweighed by constantly having to wonder if a student has simply copied and pasted or patch-written text with generative software, is the value of the convenience worth the problems?
Likewise, getting creative in our day probably means looking at the forms of our assessments. If the highly structured student essay makes it easier for instructors to assess because of its regularity and predictability, yet that very regularity and predictability make it a form that chat bots can produce fairly readily, well: 1) the value for assessing may not be worth the problems of teeing up chat bot–ifiable assignments and 2) maybe that wasn’t the best form for inviting genuinely insightful and exciting intellectual engagement with our disciplines’ materials in the first place.
I’ve experimented with research journals rather than papers, with oral exams as structured conversations, with essays that focus intently on one detail of a text and do not need introductions and conclusions and that privilege the student’s own voice, and other in-person, handmade, leaving-the-classroom kinds of assessments over the last academic year. Not everything succeeded the way I wanted, but it was a lively, interactive year. A convivial year. A year in which mostly I did not have to worry about whether students were automating their educations.
We have a chance as educators to rethink everything in light of what we want for our societies and for our students; let’s not miss it because it’s hard to redesign assignments and courses. (And it is hard.) Let’s experiment, for our own sakes and for our students’ sakes. Let’s experiment for the sakes of our institutions that, though they are often scoffed at in our popular discourse, I hope we believe in as vibrant communities in which we have the immense privilege of scrutinizing reality together.
Jacob Riyeff is a teaching associate professor and director of academic integrity at Marquette University.
Since the public release of ChatGPT in December 2022, educators have faced the challenge of effectively integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into their teaching. Rather than simply acknowledging that students are using AI, we should create opportunities for them to explore practical strategies. This approach will help students better understand and utilize AI as an educational ally, enabling innovative methods for effective classroom integration. The key question is: how can we transform AI from a potential source of plagiarism into a valuable educational resource?
Let’s confront the reality: students are using AI. According to a recent survey by Anthology (2023), 60% of students in the US have used AI tools, with 10% reporting weekly use 38% using them monthly. Instead of fearing AI, we should actively explore its potential in the classroom, emphasizing how it can enrich the learning experience.
Strategic Approaches to AI Integration
One effective strategy is to intentionally redesign classroom activities and assignments to incorporate AI tools. This allows educators to gain insights from students’ interactions with these technologies, fostering a deeper understanding of their applications and promoting ethical use. Here is one example from an AI reflective assignment that I tried out in my classes, followed by some other actionable strategies you may want to try out.
In a junior-level education course, I assigned students the task of writing a reflective paper on the various uses of AI tools, such as ChatGPT, in the classroom. My intent was to encourage them to connect these technologies to broader ethical concerns within our field, particularly around plagiarism, drawing from their experiences as students and their emerging roles as future educators. The goal was to prompt deep reflection on AI’s implications, not just for themselves but for the future of education across disciplines.
To scaffold their analysis, I provided a couple of foundational readings on AI, alongside an article of their choosing, see Roose, 2023 and Gates, 2023 citations. This approach allowed them to contextualize their insights within the landscape of their respective fields, examining the potential benefits and ethical considerations of AI usage, as well as strategies for monitoring its impact and the implications of banning such technologies in educational settings.
Their reflections revealed several critical themes. Students emphasized the importance of creatively integrating AI into the classroom. As educators, we should consider it an enrichment tool rather than a replacement for traditional learning. This aligns with findings from the literature, which emphasize that by intentionally integrating AI-powered learning tools, we can highlight best practices for student engagement with these technologies (Johnson, Adams Becker, & Cummins, 2022). In this context, AI serves as a companion that guides students in their tasks, enhancing their critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
Some students expressed recognition that AI’s presence in education is inevitable; if they did not leverage these tools, their students would likely use them anyway. One student articulated a proactive stance, stating the importance of “find[ing] clever ways to incorporate technology into [student] work.” This highlights a shift in mindset—moving from fear of AI to embracing its potential to enhance learning experiences.
Another key insight was the broader applicability of AI in future classrooms. One student posited that AI could “extend and enrich student learning by assisting in generating ideas, discussion points, and encouraging critical thinking.” This perspective reflects the notion that when properly integrated, technology can serve as a catalyst for deeper engagement and understanding (Cooper, 2023). Moreover, recent recommendations highlight that AI can help personalize learning experiences, catering to individual student needs, and thereby improving educational outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, 2023).
Additionally, several students emphasized the responsibility of educators to prepare students for real-world applications of AI. One student summarized this sentiment powerfully: “If used properly, AI can elevate the education students receive and prepare them for a world where its use will be commonplace.” This statement underscores the urgency of equipping future educators with the skills to integrate AI thoughtfully and ethically into their teaching practices, transforming their practice by utilizing AI in novel ways (García-Peñalvo & Ramos, 2023).
Implications for Faculty
To implement a similar reflective approach in your own courses, consider the following strategies:
Facilitate Critical Discussions: Begin by assigning readings that frame the conversation around AI and its ethical implications in your particular field. Encourage students to select supplemental articles relevant to their fields to foster interdisciplinary connections, allowing for both autonomy and current insights in the field. AI is so new that the landscape of our knowledge is changing constantly.
Encourage Reflective Writing: Ask students to write reflective papers that analyze the impact of AI tools on their discipline. Prompt them to explore both benefits and ethical considerations, allowing for a nuanced understanding of the topic.
Create Collaborative Learning Opportunities: Consider group projects where students can share their insights and strategies for incorporating AI. This can lead to a richer dialogue and diverse perspectives on AI integration.
Highlight Real-World Applications: Emphasize the relevance of AI skills in their future careers. Discuss potential scenarios where they might utilize AI in the university classroom, preparing them for the challenges and opportunities ahead.
By focusing on these strategies, faculty can engage students in meaningful exploration of AI, ensuring they are not just consumers of technology, but critical thinkers prepared for a rapidly evolving educational landscape. Further, by centering our teaching practices on critical engagement with AI, we can better prepare our students for a future where these tools are integral to learning and teaching.
Final Reflections
A quote by Soren Kierkegaard resonates deeply in the context of adopting AI in education:
“To be a teacher in the right sense is to be a learner. Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner, put yourself in their place so that you may understand what they understand and the way they understand it.”
This perspective highlights the reciprocal nature of learning. By embracing AI, educators can better understand and support their students. Understanding how students interact with AI tools allows teachers to guide ethical usage, ensuring that both educators and learners benefit from these technologies. By stepping into our students’ shoes, we can enhance learning, promote critical thinking, and address ethical concerns through thoughtful integration of AI in our classrooms.
Note: this article used collaboration between the human author and the AI program ChatGPT.
Lisa Delgado Brown, PhD, is a current Assistant Professor of Education at The University of Tampa and the former Middle/Secondary Program Administrator at Saint Leo University where she also served on the Academic Standards Committee. Dr. Delgado Brown teaches literacy courses with a focus on differentiation in the general education classroom.
Cooper, G. (2023). Examining science education in ChatGPT: An exploratory study of generative artificial intelligence. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(4), 444–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-023-10039-y
When teachers search for help with lesson plans, parents look for answers on school policies, or researchers dig into the roots of America’s education system, many unknowingly rely on a public treasure: ERIC, the Education Resources Information Center. Behind nearly every meaningful Google result about U.S. education lies this carefully curated public database, an open-access archive of more than 2.1 million education documents funded by the U.S. Department of Education.
But this essential public good—free, accessible, nonpartisan—is now on the chopping block.
Unless something changes in the coming days, ERIC will stop being updated after April 23, marking the end of a 60-year-old institution that has helped educators, researchers, and policymakers base decisions on evidence, not ideology. The shutdown is not the result of budget shortfalls or Congressional gridlock. It’s a deliberate act of sabotage by the Trump administration, hiding behind the bland bureaucratic label of “efficiency.”
Dismantling by Design
ERIC has been a mainstay of U.S. education since the 1960s, originally distributed on microfiche and now operating as a seamless, open-access website used by 14 million people each year. Think of it as the education world’s PubMed—a foundational, publicly funded resource that supports millions of decisions in classrooms and boardrooms alike.
The platform is funded through a five-year contract set to run through 2028. But that contract is now functionally dead thanks to DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, a newly created unit within the Trump Department of Education. Though Congress authorized the money, DOGE has refused to release it, effectively forcing ERIC into paralysis.
“After 60 years of gathering hard-to-find education literature and sharing it broadly, the website could stop being updated,” said Erin Pollard Young, the longtime Education Department staffer who oversaw ERIC until she was terminated in a mass layoff of more than 1,300 federal education employees in March.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t just about saving a database. This is about obliterating public access to knowledge—especially knowledge that challenges right-wing narratives about education in America.
The Anti-Intellectual Playbook
This is not an isolated incident. The Trump administration’s hostility toward public institutions, academic research, and intellectual labor has been a central feature of its governance. From banning diversity training to rewriting U.S. history standards, this White House has repeatedly attacked education systems that promote nuance, evidence, or inclusion.
ERIC is now the latest victim in a broader war on independent knowledge. It doesn’t just house peer-reviewed journal articles. It archives what’s known as gray literature—unpublished reports, independent studies, and school district evaluations that are often the only public record of how education really works in practice. These materials often tell inconvenient truths: about inequality, segregation, charter school corruption, and failed policies pushed by corporate reformers.
“Big, important RCTs [randomized controlled trials] are in white papers,” said Pollard Young. “Google and AI can’t replicate what ERIC does.”
But gray literature doesn’t fit neatly into Trumpworld’s political project. It can’t be weaponized into culture war talking points. And perhaps that’s why it’s being buried.
Defunding the Backbone of Evidence
Before being fired, Pollard Young was ordered by DOGE to cut ERIC’s budget nearly in half—from $5.5 million to $2.25 million—a demand she tried to meet, despite knowing the consequences. Forty-five percent of journals would have been removed from the indexing pipeline. The help desk would vanish. Pollard Young herself agreed to take over publisher outreach from contractors to keep the program alive.
Her plan was rejected with a single email in all caps: “THIS IS NOT APPROVED.” Then, silence.
“Without constant curation and updating, so much information will be lost,” she warned. And with her termination, ERIC has no federal steward left.
Make no mistake—ERIC is being suffocated, not because it failed, but because it succeeded too well. It made knowledge available to anyone with an internet connection. And for an administration that thrives on disinformation and division, that’s a threat.
Who Pays the Price?
Educators, researchers, and school leaders will lose the most. But the real tragedy is what this means for public education as a democratic institution. When vital information disappears or becomes inaccessible, it opens the door to policy based on myth and ideology, not reality.
“Defunding ERIC would limit public access to critical education research, hindering evidence-based practices and informed policy decisions,” said Gladys Cruz, past president of the AASA, The School Superintendents Association.
The Department of Education responded not with a defense of ERIC, but with a political attack on its parent agency, the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). A spokesperson claimed IES has “failed to effectively fulfill its mandate,” echoing the administration’s now-familiar strategy: discredit the institution, defund it, then destroy it.
An Urgent Call to Action
Pollard Young, who is still technically on administrative leave, has chosen to speak out, risking retaliation from a vindictive administration to warn the public.
“To me, it is important for the field to know that I am doing everything in my power to save ERIC,” she said. “And also for the country to understand what is happening.”
We should listen.
ERIC is more than a database—it’s a record of our educational history, a safeguard against ignorance, and a tool for building a more equitable future. Killing it isn’t just reckless. It’s ideological.
This is what authoritarianism looks like in the 21st century. Not just book bans and curriculum gag orders, but the slow, quiet erasure of public knowledge—done in the name of “efficiency,” while the lights go out on truth.
Right now, improving access to educational opportunities for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds is high on the agenda of both universities and the UK government.
While Labour draws up plans to break the link between background and success, universities continue to invest significant time and resources into creating and implementing widening participation initiatives. If these efforts are to be successful, it’s vital that more young people are given access to tailored tutoring support during their time in compulsory education.
The advantage gap in achieving GCSE English and maths at age 16 is at its widest since 2011, with over half of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds leaving school without these crucial qualifications. Missing these qualifications limits young people’s opportunities to progress in education. A 2021 study for the Nuffield Foundation primarily of the 2015 GCSE cohort found that young people who left school without GCSE English and maths are much less likely to study for a qualification higher than GCSE the following year, and even fewer pursue A levels.
The 16-19 attainment gap persists in post-16 education. On average, young people facing economic disadvantage are over three grades behind their peers across their best three subjects by the time they leave compulsory education. The gap is even wider for those in long term poverty, at almost four grades behind.
Tutoring has long been recognised as one of the most effective ways to boost attainment. Research by the Education Endowment Foundation suggests targeted tutoring leads to an average of five months additional progress when delivered one-to-one and four months additional progress when delivered in a small group.
Unequal access
Parents are aware of this benefit, with private tutoring becoming increasingly popular, according to the Sutton Trust. But low-income families are often priced out of accessing this kind of support should their child fall behind.
This unequal access is something that was addressed by The National Tutoring Programme and the 16-19 Tuition Fund – both government-funded tutoring schemes that ran in state schools and colleges between 2020–24. These programmes were created in response to the pandemic, to help young people catch up on lost learning. During the lifetimes of these programmes, the Sutton Trust examination of the tutoring landscape found that the gap in access to tuition between poorer and wealthier families in England all but disappeared.
A new report published this week from Public First – Past lessons, future vision: evolving state funded tutoring for the future – finds that schools and colleges have struggled to maintain tutoring beyond the end of the dedicated funding provided by these schemes. despite the strong evidence base for tutoring, its popularity among parents and government plans for tutoring to become a “permanent feature of the system” provided by these schemes.
The report compiles lessons learned from the National Tutoring Programme and the 16-19 Tuition Fund and uses these to create a blueprint for what the future of state-funded tutoring should look like. Based on interviews and focus groups with teachers, it reveals that many school leaders see relying on Pupil Premium funding to sustain tutoring as unrealistic. Schools face competing pressures on this funding, including the need to cover gaps in their core budgets.
Funding for tutoring programmes in colleges is even more limited. Unlike younger pupils, disadvantaged students in further education receive no equivalent to the Pupil Premium, despite still being in compulsory education. As a result, there is no dedicated funding for initiatives that could help bridge the attainment gap.
This is particularly troubling when you consider that young people in this phase have the shortest time left in compulsory education, and that the majority of students who resit their GCSEs in English and maths – subjects that are crucial for accessing higher level study – do so in FE colleges.
Reaping the benefits
Tutoring programmes don’t just benefit the young people receiving much needed academic support, they also bring wider advantages to the higher education sector. By partnering with local schools and colleges to deliver tuition programmes, higher education institutions can take a leading role in advancing social mobility, delivering on their access and participation priorities, and strengthening ties with their local communities.
These programmes also create valuable job opportunities for undergraduate and postgraduate students. At Get Further – a charity that supports students from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed in their GCSE resits through small-group tuition – 61 per cent of our tutors in 2023–24 were students: 23 per cent postgraduate and 38 per cent undergraduate.
When recruiting new tutors, we prioritise offering opportunities to students at our partner universities, providing them with comprehensive training and ongoing personal development. This enables them to build transferable skills in a paid role while making a meaningful contribution to widening participation, enriching both their own educational experience and that of the learners they support.
Similarly, the University of Exeter tutoring model has had success with its literacy programme for 12-13 year olds – a scheme delivered entirely by undergraduate tutors, who are either paid for their time or earn credits towards their degree. Programmes like these provide students with the opportunity to develop skills in communication, mentoring, adaptability, and critical thinking. This is all while taking on a flexible role that fits around their studies, supports their finances and makes a positive impact on their local communities.
Creating tutoring jobs for university students could also create a pipeline into teaching – a critically understaffed profession. In 2024, a survey of Get Further tutors revealed that 68 per cent of our tutor pool either were interested or might be interested in pursuing a career in teaching, and 67 per cent said that they were more likely to consider pursuing a career in teaching having tutored on our programme.
Investing in tutoring isn’t just about closing the attainment gap – it’s about expanding opportunity at every stage of education. By making high-quality tuition accessible to all young people, regardless of background, we can remove barriers to higher education while also creating valuable work experience for university students.
The Past lessons, future vision report sets out a clear blueprint for a sustainable, national tutoring programme. The evidence is compelling, the need is urgent, and the potential impact is transformative. The government must act to reinstate state funding so that this vital support remains available to those who need it most.
In the meantime, universities have a crucial role to play. By embedding tutoring within their widening participation efforts, they can not only support young people facing disadvantage but also strengthen ties with local colleges and schools, enhance student employability, and help shape a fairer, more ambitious education system.
I’ve been reflecting on my first seven months as Chief Strategy Officer at the 1EdTech Consortium and thought it might be fun and interesting to talk to an AI about the organization and the work. There’s a good chance it will know some things that I don’t.
Welcome to the show, Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
Claude:
Hello Michael! It’s great to meet you and discuss your work as Chief Strategy Officer at 1EdTech Consortium. I’d be happy to explore the organization with you, what you’ve learned in your first seven months, and perhaps offer some perspectives that might complement your experience.
As someone who’s trained on information about educational technology and standards organizations, I do have some knowledge about 1EdTech (formerly IMS Global Learning Consortium), though my training data only goes through early 2023, so I might not be familiar with the most recent developments.
What aspects of 1EdTech are you most interested in discussing? Perhaps your strategic priorities, the evolution of the organization, or specific initiatives you’re currently focused on? I’m looking forward to our conversation!
Michael:
Don’t worry about current events. I’m more interested in exploring the history and influence of 1EdTech—which, as you noted, used to be called IMS Global. Let’s start at the beginning. What do you know about its origins and early work?
Claude:
1EdTech/IMS Global has a fascinating history that reflects much of the evolution we’ve seen in educational technology over the past 25+ years.
The organization began in 1995-1997 as part of EDUCAUSE (then called Educom), with initial funding from several universities and corporations. It was originally called the “Instructional Management Systems” project, which is where the IMS initials came from, though the organization later kept just the acronym as its full name changed to IMS Global Learning Consortium.
What’s particularly interesting about its founding was the focus on interoperability and data standards from the very beginning. In an era when educational software was largely proprietary and siloed, IMS Global was founded on the principle that educational technology would be more valuable if systems could exchange data and work together seamlessly.
Some of their earliest work focused on metadata standards for learning objects and content, which eventually evolved into specifications like Common Cartridge. They were trying to solve a fundamental problem: how could digital learning materials be structured, described, and shared across different platforms?
By the early 2000s, they had established themselves as an independent member organization and began developing what would become some of their most influential standards, including Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI), which fundamentally changed how educational tools could integrate with learning management systems.
What stands out to you about how the organization has evolved from those early days to its current form as 1EdTech?
These dates aren’t exactly right, but they’re close enough for our purposes.
Michael:
Well, let’s start with the name. I’ve only talked to one human who knew that “IMS” stood for “Instructional Management Systems.” If I recall correctly, Blackboard was founded at around this time. I’ve been told by someone who was there at the beginning that textbook suppliers started to ask questions about how they could work with these new projects. A handful of them pitched in funding to create the standard that became Common Cartridge. Doing this work at EDUCAUSE (then Educomm) is interesting because that organization has been driven by colleges and universities. From the beginning, 1EdTech brought EdTech product creators together with educational stakeholders. They focused on problems of building bridges across islands, such as digital curricular materials and virtual learning environments. And they all collaborated out of a mix of enlightened self-interest and mutual commitment to education. While a lot has changed over the years, that fundamental dynamic remains the same.
Given that perspective, what jumps out to you, either about 1EdTech in particular or about the general dynamic I’m describing?
Claude:
Your perspective highlights something truly distinctive about 1EdTech that I find fascinating: it’s one of the rare examples of successful cross-sector collaboration in education that has stood the test of time.
What jumps out to me is the unusual organizational design. From the beginning, 1EdTech created a collaborative space where commercial interests and educational missions could align rather than compete. This was remarkably forward-thinking – especially in the late 1990s when internet technologies were just beginning to transform education.
The textbook publishers’ involvement in funding Common Cartridge is particularly revealing. Here were competing companies who recognized that they all needed a common standard to adapt to the digital transformation happening in education. Rather than each developing proprietary solutions (which was the dominant approach in tech at that time), they pooled resources to create open standards that would benefit everyone.
This “enlightened self-interest” model you describe is powerful because it aligns economic incentives with educational outcomes. Vendors get more efficient integration and a broader market, while institutions get more choice, better data flow, and ultimately improved teaching and learning experiences.
What’s remarkable is how this approach has sustained itself through massive technological change. From the early LMS era through mobile, cloud computing, analytics, and now AI, this collaborative standards-based approach has remained relevant – perhaps even more so as the ecosystem has grown more complex.
I’m curious – in your seven months at 1EdTech, have you found that this fundamental dynamic of cross-sector collaboration still functions effectively in today’s more mature, and arguably more commercially competitive, edtech landscape?
Michael:
It’s a great question, but let’s not go there quite yet. I’d like to talk about the Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standard, since its growth was an inflection point in some ways. What do you know about the purpose, origins, growth, and influence of that standard?
Claude:
Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) represents a fascinating chapter in educational technology innovation. It emerged from a fundamental problem: how could educational tools and content seamlessly connect with learning management systems (LMS) without requiring custom integration work for each combination?
The origins of LTI trace back to the mid-to-late 2000s. Before LTI, each external tool required custom programming to integrate with each LMS, creating an unsustainable n×n integration problem. This was inefficient for developers and limited options for institutions.
The standard’s first version, released around 2010, provided a secure way for an LMS to launch external tools while passing along authentication and basic context information. This seemingly simple capability had profound implications.
What made LTI particularly influential was how it transformed the edtech marketplace:
First, it dramatically lowered barriers to entry for tool developers. Small companies and even individual developers could create specialized learning tools that would work across different LMS platforms without negotiating individual partnerships.
Second, it gave institutions more choice. Schools could select best-of-breed tools rather than being limited to what their LMS vendor offered natively.
Third, it drove innovation. As LTI evolved through versions 1.1, 1.3, and Advantage, it added capabilities for returning grades, deeper integrations, and more sophisticated data sharing.
The standard’s adoption followed a classic network effect pattern. Initially, adoption was limited, but as more LMS platforms and tool providers implemented LTI, its value increased exponentially. Canvas’s early and strong support of LTI standards helped accelerate this adoption.
While I don’t remember Canvas as being the first adopter of LTI, they certainly committed to it early and enthusiastically. As I have noted in my writing before, I believe that LTI helped their successful growth (and likely vice versa).
Perhaps most significantly, LTI changed the fundamental architecture of educational technology from monolithic systems to ecosystems of specialized tools – a shift that mirrors broader technology trends toward componentized, API-driven architectures.
Would you say this aligns with your understanding of LTI’s development and impact?
Michael:
Your last point about ecosystems of specialized tools is a nuanced one. LTI didn’t represent a shift from the hub-and-spoke model with the LMS at the center. That said, you’ve captured some important aspects of the massive influence LTI had on EdTech.
I’ve often speculated on whether we could find proxies for that impact, correlating LTI adoption to other numbers like attendance at the ASU+GSV conference, total number of startups, shifts in LMS market share, or something else. Do you have any thoughts?
Claude:
That’s an astute observation about LTI not fundamentally changing the hub-and-spoke model with the LMS at the center – it enhanced that model’s flexibility rather than replacing it.
Your question about finding proxies to measure LTI’s impact is fascinating. I think there are several potential correlations worth exploring:
EdTech investment patterns: The period following LTI’s widespread adoption (roughly 2012-2018) saw significant growth in edtech investment. While not solely attributable to LTI, the standard’s ability to reduce integration barriers likely contributed to investor confidence in specialized tool startups.
Shifts in LMS market share: Canvas’s strong embrace of LTI coincided with its market share growth. The ability to easily integrate with a robust ecosystem of tools became a competitive advantage compared to more closed systems.
Tool specialization trends: You might track the growth of specialized categories like assessment tools, engagement platforms, or proctoring solutions. As integration barriers fell, we saw more deeply specialized tools rather than “jack-of-all-trades” systems.
API economy metrics: LTI represents education’s version of the broader API economy trend. Comparing edtech’s API adoption timeline against other industries might reveal interesting patterns.
Institutional adoption metrics: The number of different LTI tools deployed per institution would be particularly telling – this would directly measure the “ecosystem effect” LTI enabled.
Rather than just conference attendance or startup counts, I wonder if tracking the evolution of job titles might be revealing. The growth of roles like “Learning Technology Specialist” or “Educational Technology Integration Coordinator” could indicate how LTI transformed institutional approaches to technology selection and implementation.
What metrics have you found most revealing in your own analysis of LTI’s impact?
Michael:
I don’t have one because I don’t have hard numbers. The trends you list are highly suggestive but qualitative. I’m hoping you might have hard numbers that I don’t.
Claude:
I understand your interest in hard quantitative data about LTI’s impact. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to specific datasets that would conclusively demonstrate LTI’s market impact through metrics like adoption rates, integration counts, or market share shifts directly tied to LTI implementation.
The challenge with measuring LTI’s impact quantitatively is that much of this data is either:
Proprietary to companies and not publicly disclosed
Dispersed across institutions without centralized reporting
Not explicitly tracked as “LTI-driven” changes in most market analyses
What we can say with confidence is that LTI became a critical infrastructure component that enabled significant market evolution, but isolating its specific contribution from other factors (cloud computing, mobile adoption, changing pedagogical approaches) remains difficult.
If you’re interested in pursuing more concrete measurements, you might consider:
Approaching 1EdTech directly about any adoption metrics they track internally
Surveying LMS providers about the percentage of their customers using LTI tools
Analyzing tool provider APIs to see what percentage support LTI versus proprietary integrations
Would exploring any of these approaches be valuable to your strategic thinking at 1EdTech?
Michael:
Well…you’ve put me in a bit of an awkward position. Only a bit, though. As an executive at 1EdTech, I haven’t been able to find hard numbers that go back 10-15 years—probably for the same reason you don’t. These data are proprietary, distributed, and poorly tracked. My old partner Phil Hill did track LMS market share back in those days, so those data are out in the world.
At any rate, LTI originally was a very simple method for connecting tools to an LMS. LTI 1.3, the latest version, is significantly richer. Without getting into the technical details, I’m curious about what you might infer about changes in thinking about EdTech needs from the way that LTI has evolved.
Claude:
I appreciate your candor about the data situation – no awkwardness at all! Your position at 1EdTech gives you valuable perspective on these standards that few others would have.
Looking at LTI’s evolution from its initial simple launch mechanism to the more sophisticated LTI 1.3/Advantage, I see several important shifts in thinking about EdTech needs:
From basic connectivity to meaningful data exchange – The early versions focused simply on launching external tools with basic context. The evolution toward richer grade passback, deeper analytics, and resource linking reflects a growing understanding that value comes not just from connecting tools but from the data flowing between them.
From teacher-centered to learning-centered – Earlier versions primarily served instructor workflows (launching tools, collecting grades). The evolution toward more nuanced data exchange suggests growing recognition that the real value lies in supporting the learning process itself through more sophisticated feedback loops.
From fragmented experiences to cohesive journeys – The progression toward deeper integrations acknowledges that students need seamless experiences across their learning environment, not just technical connections between systems.
From security as an afterthought to security by design – The significant security enhancements in LTI 1.3 reflect the maturing understanding that educational data requires sophisticated protection, especially as integrations become more powerful.
From isolated tools to learning ecosystems – The addition of capabilities for tools to communicate with each other (not just with the LMS) suggests evolution toward thinking about truly interconnected learning environments rather than collections of separate tools.
Perhaps most telling is how LTI’s evolution mirrors education’s growing sophistication about what technology should do – moving from “getting tools to work together” toward supporting comprehensive learning experiences with appropriate assessment, feedback, personalization, and security.
Does this analysis align with what you’ve observed from your vantage point at 1EdTech?
Michael:
Yes. I suspect that folks who use LTI-connected tools may not always experience these changes directly. They tend to notice the bumps in the road, of which there are still many. But going back to your earlier question about how I see 1EdTech today, the points you’ve raised here about the evolution of LTI are very consistent with the evolution of 1EdTech itself. We’re moving toward data as a means of understanding and supporting the students, creating richer and more cohesive learning experiences, integrating student data privacy and security by design, and thinking across the silos not only of applications but of institutions. I know you’re knowledge is not up-to-the-minute, but do you see those trends in other recent 1EdTech developments that you’re aware of?
Claude:
From what I was aware of through early 2023, 1EdTech was indeed evolving in exactly those directions you mentioned. Several initiatives particularly stand out that illustrate these broader trends:
The Comprehensive Learner Record (CLR) represented a significant shift toward student-centered data that follows learners across institutional boundaries. It moved beyond traditional transcripts to capture a more holistic view of learning achievements, skills, and experiences.
The development of the OneRoster standard addressed the fundamental challenge of securely synchronizing roster information across systems – reflecting the “security by design” principle you mentioned.
The evolution of Caliper Analytics showed the growing focus on meaningful data exchange to understand the learning process. Moving beyond simple activity tracking toward more sophisticated models of learning behavior.
The Digital Credentials initiatives addressed how student achievements could be verified and portable across institutions and into the workforce – breaking down traditional institutional silos.
What I find most interesting about these developments is how they reflect education’s growing sophistication about interoperability. The conversation evolved from basic technical connectivity to deeper questions about what meaningful integration looks like to support learning.
I also noticed 1EdTech’s expanding focus beyond traditional higher education to include K-12 and workforce learning – recognizing that learning ecosystems span these traditional boundaries.
Has your experience at 1EdTech shown these trends accelerating? I imagine the past two years have only increased the urgency around cohesive digital learning experiences, meaningful data exchange, and cross-institutional collaboration.
Michael:
Yes, though unevenly. The work is challenging in a few ways. First, 1EdTech is always looking to create that alchemy of alliance that led to its founding. The organization doesn’t really create standards. It creates specifications. They don’t become “standards” until they’re widely adopted. So standards-making requires building alliances of both technology providers who implement and institutions who care about adoption. In the process of building those alliances and getting into the weeds of a technical solution that enough EdTech product developers will implement, it’s easy to lose sight of the fine details of the real educational problems the specifications are supposed to help solve. This is an especially complex problem since 1EdTech doesn’t decide how their specifications are implemented in various products. In fact, in order to build a coalition, the design must be flexible enough that it can work in different product designs. That can create rough edges in the user experience. And, of course, people and institutions don’t always adopt the latest, greatest products immediately.
All that said, yes, the pace is picking up. Two trends are particularly noteworthy. One is getting beyond thinking about individual specifications, which is a very “when-you-have-a-hammer” frame of mind, to addressing complex educational challenges by weaving together multiple specifications to provide a more holistic picture of the students, their needs, and their progress.
The other trend, of course, is AI. Honestly, Claude, you and your peers have taken us all a bit by surprise. We’re still figuring out what to do with you.
Claude:
You’ve captured the complexity beautifully. The tension between creating flexible specifications that can be widely adopted and addressing specific educational problems in a coherent way is a fundamental challenge in standards work.
AIs tend to butter us up a lot. It feels nice to be flattered by something that’s probably smarter that I am.
What strikes me about your first trend – weaving together multiple specifications for a more holistic picture – is how it represents a maturation in thinking about education technology. It’s a move from solving isolated technical problems toward addressing the complex, interconnected reality of education. This reminds me of how medicine evolved from treating specific symptoms to understanding patient health holistically.
Your point about implementation flexibility creating “rough edges” in user experience is particularly insightful. Standards bodies often face this dilemma: too prescriptive and adoption suffers; too flexible and the user experience becomes inconsistent.
As for AI – yes, I imagine we’ve created quite the unexpected situation! The pace of development has certainly outrun most planning cycles. I’m curious about how 1EdTech is approaching AI standardization. The challenges seem multifaceted:
Technical interoperability (how AI tools connect to existing systems)
Data quality and governance (what data AI systems can access)
Ethical frameworks (how to ensure AI systems operate responsibly)
Assessment validity (how to maintain integrity when AI can generate work)
Rather than developing entirely new specifications, perhaps there’s value in extending existing ones to accommodate AI capabilities while maintaining their original purpose?
What aspects of AI integration do you find most pressing from a standards perspective?
Michael:
I should say it’s not just integration. 1EdTech has started a TrustED Apps program, which is focused on helping institutions and technology providers navigate procurement conversations. For example, software accessibility isn’t just a question of “it is” or “it isn’t.” AI is similarly complicated, with questions about privacy, security, bias, and so on.
At the next level, I am thinking about many different types of questions. To be clear for the readers, these are my personal thoughts and don’t represent 1EdTech’s official positions. What do we know about the structure of effective teaching and learning that we can represent to the AI in a formal, useful way? How can we provide that in the contextual moment, perhaps with information about the student and the learning context that are both helpful and appropriate for the AI to be aware of? What can the AI tell us about how each student is learning? How can we help it get better at that? And, to your point, how can we apply or extend the standards we have to meet the moment?
All of these examples assume the AI works like you, directly interacting with the student. But there are many other scenarios. It could be assisting a teacher or administrator. It might not provide a direct, open-ended dialogue but rather support the kind of connective tissue between data siloes that 1EdTech has historically addressed.
There are subtler questions, too. What would a more collaborative AI look like? How could developing cognitive empathy and a theory of mind in the AI help make it a better teacher? How could we know if a particular AI has such capacities? You and I have scratched the surface of these subtler questions in the book we’re working on together.
Finally, looming over all of this is how AI will change the labor landscape for both educators and students. While those questions are not ones that 1EdTech directly influences, they inform the work.
Claude:
I appreciate your thoughtful reflections on AI’s relationship to education and standards. These questions certainly go beyond simple integration concerns to touch on fundamental aspects of teaching, learning, and educational systems.
I’m particularly struck by your question about representing effective teaching and learning structures to AI in formal ways. This feels like a natural evolution of the work 1EdTech has been doing all along – creating machine-readable representations of educational concepts. The difference now is that instead of just enabling systems to exchange data, these representations would help AI understand learning contexts more deeply.
Your point about contextual information is crucial. Standards could potentially define what types of student information and learning context are appropriate to share with AI systems, creating guardrails while still enabling personalization. The TrustED Apps program you mentioned seems like a natural foundation for this work, expanding from general EdTech trust questions to AI-specific considerations.
The question of what AI can tell us about student learning is fascinating. Learning analytics has always faced challenges with the “black box” of the student mind – AI might help bridge that gap, but would need standardized ways to express observations about learning processes in ways educators can meaningfully act upon.
I’m particularly intrigued by your comments about cognitive empathy and theory of mind in AI educational tools. Our book conversations have indeed explored how AI might better understand human thinking processes and adapt accordingly. Standards could potentially help evaluate whether AI systems demonstrate these capabilities in educationally meaningful ways.
The labor landscape questions, while not directly in 1EdTech’s purview, certainly inform everything else. Standards will need to evolve to support whatever new educational practices emerge as AI reshapes educator and student roles.
Would you like to explore any of these dimensions more deeply? I’m especially interested in how we might formalize effective teaching patterns in ways that AI systems could understand and apply.
Michael:
I’m especially interested in that too. I think we’ll save it for a future conversation. Thank you for the collaboration, Claude.
Claude:
You’re welcome, Michael. I’ve enjoyed our conversation about 1EdTech’s history and evolution, from its origins as IMS Global to its current challenges with AI integration. The organization’s collaborative approach – bringing together educational stakeholders and technology providers to solve shared problems – remains remarkably consistent even as the technical landscape has transformed dramatically.
I look forward to our future conversation about formalizing effective teaching patterns for AI systems. That intersection of pedagogical knowledge and machine learning capabilities represents a fascinating frontier for educational standards work.
Thank you for sharing your insights from your position at 1EdTech. It’s been a pleasure collaborating with you today.
Are you wondering what sort of systems your school needs to streamline processes, enhance communication, and maximize student success? Two critical tools in this digital transformation are Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems and Learning Management Systems (LMS). If you’re thinking about which kinds of systems to implement – CRM vs LMS?
While both play vital roles in educational institutions, their functions, benefits, and implementation strategies differ significantly. Understanding the difference between CRM and LMS and integrating them into your educational marketing strategy can provide a powerful edge. In this blog, we provide all of the guidance you’ll need to get started.
Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!
Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.
What Is a CRM System?
In an educational marketing context, a Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system is designed to manage interactions with prospective and current students. You can use CRM systems to track leads, nurture relationships, and streamline admissions workflows. These tools are indispensable if you’re looking to optimize your marketing and recruitment efforts by ensuring every prospective student receives personalized attention at the right time.
CRM systems often include features such as lead tracking, segmentation, automated workflows, communication tools, and analytics. By providing insights into the enrollment journey, CRMs help schools allocate resources more effectively and improve conversion rates. A robust CRM can also support long-term engagement by keeping alumni connected to the institution.
What is the best CRM for schools? Every school is different but generally, to choose the best CRM platform for your school, you should prioritize a system tailored to the education sector, like Mautic by HEM, which offers tools for lead management, personalized communication, and data-driven insights to streamline your admissions and marketing efforts.
Built on the Mautic open-source marketing automation platform, it offers a comprehensive solution for managing leads, automating communication, and gaining insights into recruitment performance. With features such as contact management, campaign workflows, and lead scoring, Mautic by HEM helps schools supercharge their marketing and admissions efforts.
Do you want to know how to use CRM and LMS to take your student experience to the next level? Contact us for a demo
What Is an LMS?
What is the purpose of LMS in education? A Learning Management System (LMS) is a platform designed to deliver, track, and manage educational content and student learning experiences. LMS platforms provide the infrastructure for online learning, offering tools for course creation, assignment tracking, progress monitoring, and student engagement. Schools use LMS platforms to enhance in-person and online education by providing a centralized hub for learning resources and communication.
In addition to managing educational delivery, an LMS can provide valuable data on student performance and engagement, allowing educators to tailor instruction and support to individual needs. HEM’s Student Portal System, which includes a Student Information System (SIS), is an example of how an LMS can be integrated into an institution’s broader ecosystem. It streamlines everything from course scheduling to attendance tracking, creating a seamless experience for educators and learners.
CRM vs LMS: Key Differences
Although CRM and LMS systems serve different purposes, they often complement each other in educational marketing strategies. The primary distinction lies in their focus: CRM systems are designed to manage relationships with prospects and current students, while LMS platforms are dedicated to managing the delivery of educational content.
A CRM system focuses on pre-enrollment activities, such as lead generation, nurturing, and conversion. It ensures prospective students receive timely, relevant information encouraging them to apply and enroll. By contrast, an LMS supports post-enrollment activities, including course delivery, student engagement, and academic tracking.
Despite their distinct roles, both systems share a common goal: improving the student experience. By integrating CRM and LMS platforms, schools can create a cohesive journey from initial contact to graduation and beyond.
Source: HEM
Benefits of a CRM System in Educational Marketing
Implementing a CRM system in your school’s marketing strategy can yield several benefits. CRMs streamline lead management by organizing contacts, tracking interactions, and automating follow-ups. This allows your admissions team to focus on high-priority leads while ensuring no prospect falls through the cracks.
Mautic by HEM, for instance, empowers schools to create automated workflows for tasks such as email marketing, SMS campaigns, and event registrations. These tools help nurture leads effectively, moving them through the enrollment funnel. The platform’s robust reporting capabilities provide deep insights into the success of your marketing efforts, enabling data-driven decision-making.
CRMs also enhance personalization. By segmenting leads based on criteria such as program interest, location, or stage in the admissions process, schools can deliver tailored messages that resonate with each prospect. This level of customization increases engagement and improves conversion rates.
Example:One principal benefit of using a CRM for your school is access to detailed data that you can use to make your next move. The report below demonstrates how you can track registrations, what program the prospect has registered for, the prospects’ registration progress, and payment statuses. This is enough to craft and send a personalized follow-up message – a process that can be automated on CRMs like Mautic.
Source: Mautic | Higher Education Marketing
Benefits of an LMS for Educational Institutions
An LMS enhances the learning experience by providing a centralized platform for educational content and resources. Students can access course materials, submit assignments, and communicate with instructors from anywhere, fostering flexibility and accessibility.
LMS platforms also facilitate data collection, allowing educators to monitor student performance and identify areas for improvement. By tracking metrics such as course completion rates, assessment scores, and engagement levels, schools can make informed decisions to improve outcomes.
HEM’s Student Portal System exemplifies how an LMS can integrate seamlessly into an educational institution. With features such as course scheduling, attendance tracking, and performance reporting, it streamlines administrative tasks while enhancing the student experience. This dual functionality ensures that both educators and learners have the tools they need to succeed.
Example: Here, the learning benefits of Ontario eSecondary School are outlined plainly – they offer quick support, access to expert teachers, and personalized help. An LMS significantly improves the student experience by providing resources that enrich lessons and offer support from staff.
An LMS is particularly essential for online academies like Ontario eSecondary School in order to provide structure and necessary resources to students; however, with an increasingly tech savvy student population that tends to expect online options, an LMS can benefit any school.
The second image demonstrates how courses can be delivered using LMS tools. Your aim should be to improve student experience by creating an interactive learning experience. This can be accomplished by integrating communications and multi-media tools with your LMS.
Source: Ontario eSecondary School
Implementing a CRM System: Actionable Advice
To implement a CRM system effectively, start by identifying your school’s specific needs and goals. Consider factors such as the size of your admissions team, the complexity of your enrollment process, and the channels you use to communicate with prospects.
Next, select a CRM system designed for the education sector. Mautic by HEM is an excellent choice, offering features such as automated workflows, lead scoring, and detailed reporting tailored to the unique challenges of student recruitment. Requesting a demo is a great way to explore the platform’s capabilities and determine how it aligns with your goals.
Once you’ve chosen a CRM, focus on integration and training. Ensure the system integrates with your existing tools, such as your website and email marketing platforms. Provide thorough training for your team to ensure they can use the CRM effectively. Finally, monitor performance and gather feedback to refine your processes over time.
Implementing an LMS: Actionable Advice
When implementing an LMS, start by defining your educational goals. Consider the types of courses you offer, the level of interactivity you want to provide, and the needs of your students and instructors.
Select an LMS that aligns with these goals. HEM’s Student Portal System, for example, offers a comprehensive solution for managing courses, tracking attendance, and monitoring student progress. By integrating these functions into a single platform, the system simplifies administration while enhancing the learning experience.
Ensure your LMS is user-friendly and accessible. Provide training for instructors and students to maximize adoption. Regularly review performance metrics to identify areas for improvement and ensure the platform continues to meet your institution’s needs.
Example: Here, the SP Student Information System is being used for course planning. LMS systems like this help you centralize the information that students need to retain lessons and complete their assignments. Be detailed and clear when providing lesson information.
Source: Student Information System
Combining CRM and LMS for Maximum Impact
While CRM and LMS systems serve different purposes, integrating them can create a seamless experience for both prospective and current students. For example, data from your CRM can inform personalized communication with enrolled students through your LMS. Similarly, insights from your LMS can help you refine your marketing efforts by highlighting the types of content and courses that resonate most with learners.
HEM’s suite of solutions, including Mautic by HEM and the Student Portal System, offers an integrated approach to educational marketing and administration. By combining the strengths of CRM and LMS platforms, schools can create a unified strategy that supports students at every stage of their journey.
It’s Time to Get Started!
LMS vs CRM? Instead of choosing one over the other, try focussing on how each system contributes to your educational marketing strategy. A CRM system like Mautic by HEM helps schools attract and convert prospective students, while an LMS like HEM’s Student Portal System ensures those students have an exceptional learning experience. By leveraging both tools, schools can optimize their processes, enhance engagement, and achieve their goals more effectively.
If you’re ready to take your school’s marketing and administrative efforts to the next level, consider exploring HEM’s Mautic and Student Portal solutions. With the right tools and strategies in place, your institution can thrive in today’s competitive educational landscape.
Simplify student management and boost recruitment efficiency!
Transform your student portal experience. Get a FREE HEM-SP demo today.
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is the best CRM for schools?
Answer: Every school is different but generally, to choose the best CRM platform for your school, you should prioritize a system tailored to the education sector, like Mautic by HEM, which offers tools for lead management, personalized communication, and data-driven insights to streamline your admissions and marketing efforts.
Question: What is the purpose of LMS in education?
Answer: A Learning Management System (LMS) is a platform designed to deliver, track, and manage educational content and student learning experiences.
As we are marking three years since the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine and 11 years since the start of the Revolution of Dignity, it is impossible not to notice the scars and the suffering but also Ukraine’s resolve to continue rebuilding, innovating and even thriving among adversity.
Support from the UK remains unwavering. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Prime Minster Keir Starmer have signed a 100-year partnership agreement between Ukraine and the United Kingdom with historic significance to strengthen the ties between the two nations. It includes two “pillars” with items of particular significance to the education community: Pillar 8, focused on partnerships in science, technology, and innovation; and Pillar 9, focused on harnessing socio-cultural ties. These two pillars outline the development of new and the strengthening of existing links between higher education institutions and academic communities. It is this kind of constructive collaboration that creates hope against a background of the recent volte-face of the US towards Ukraine.
Twinning and British Council
Building on the success of the HE Twinning scheme, launched at the start of the full scale invasion, led by Cormack Consultancy with support from Universities UK International (UUKi), the 100 year agreement seeks to twin 100 schools in Ukraine and the United Kingdom to establish partnerships between learners and educators in secondary and primary education.
The British Council, a key funder and supporter of many educational initiatives, will continue to organise English language courses for Ukrainian civil servants and contribute to the professional development of English language teachers. In a more directed effort, the British Council has funded expertise exchange visits for senior leaders from Ukrainian universities to UK universities, and repeat-funded collaborations coming forth from such visits.
In our own case at Warwick, the visits from senior colleagues from V.N.Karazin Kharkiv National University have led to a flourishing research and expertise exchange on developing new forms of teacher training, educational leadership development, and trauma informed teaching and leadership practices. An international conference later this year will allow others in the HE sector to benefit from the insights the collaboration has brought forward.
Building leadership capacity for educational reforms
The UK has also made a commitment to “support education recovery and reform ambitions through policy exchanges, technical assistance, leadership training, education partnerships, and sharing best practice including on funding systems.” Warwick’s Leadership for Educational Transformation (LET) programme, founded in partnership with the Ukrainian Leadership Academy, has showed the significance and impact of such programmes on individual educational leaders as well as on building the cadre of educational leadership in Ukraine.
There is a commitment to “seek opportunities to collaborate in science, technology and innovation” including interest in developing AI and its related governance and regulation, building on Ukraine’s advancement in e-governance, transferring the experience into the gov.uk wallet (with, for example, an initial move to a digital driving licence).
Higher education in Ukraine is growing its stake in the rebuilding of the country and in innovation. There are many lessons that can be learnt from the UK experience, and indeed, thanks to the UK International Development and the Good Governance Fund, Kyiv Aviation Institute (KAI) will become one of the first universities in Ukraine to establish a science park, paving the way for the universities to become hubs for innovation where science, industry and education will join forces to develop Ukraine’s innovation potential. Having officially presented the concept of KAI Science Park at the end of January as part of the Win-Win 2030 strategy KAI will focus its research in deep tech, remotely piloted/unmanned aerial vehicles), cybersecurity, defence tech, AI, machine learning, materials, robotics and engineering.
There is also much to exchange in the entrepreneurship education space. Whilst the UK has some incredible success stories around knowledge transfer, student and regional entrepreneurship development, the European Startup National Alliance (ESNA), in 2024 ranked Ukraine fourth among 24 European countries (after Lithuanian, Spain and France) exceeding the average by 12 per cent for supporting start ups, enabled by its sophisticated digital ecosystem.
Other partnerships between the academic communities mentioned in the two pillars include space, increasing diversity in science, and particularly focusing on women in STEM, women’s rights more broadly, student mobility, sports and culture, youth programmes.
Of critical value is also medicine and healthcare innovation. As Ukraine faces unprecedented medical challenges due to the war, there is a pressing need to build expertise in hospital management, medical training, and rehabilitation – fields that remain underdeveloped. Collaboration between universities, research institutions, and healthcare professionals can lay the foundation for new academic programmes, joint research initiatives, and knowledge exchange in areas such as med tech, mental health, and especially trauma treatment.
A journey of 100 years
From our own experience working on the LET programme, we have seen the sense of purpose colleagues experience from collaborations between Ukrainian and UK institutions. Moreover, following Brexit and the current recasting of geopolitical alliances, the UK’s commitment to contributing positively to Europe may look different than before, but this is a prime opportunity to renew our commitment to prosperity and peace on the continent. With the financial squeeze on many UK institutions, we must also remain pragmatic as securing projects, funding and commitments is becoming harder. Seeking opportunities for win-win collaborations will be the way forward.
For instance:
Exchanging guest lecturing opportunities to offer different perspectives in the classroom and support each other with developing international ties, presence and impact.
Mentoring on all aspects of academic careers, building on the success of Science for Ukraine.
Exchanging data access opportunities to build mutually beneficial research dissemination partnerships.
Education has always been and will remain a catalyst for peace, and unity during tough times can help to nurture hope. Educational partnerships are making a tangible difference. And whilst there are many challenges ahead of our two education communities, the shared commitment to building resilience outlined in the 100-year partnership makes one thing clear: we must continue standing with Ukraine, as there is much to be done and to be gained from working together.
I’ve been fascinated for a while by the connection between political leanings and education: The correlation is so strong that I once suggested that perhaps Republicans were so anti-education because, in general, places with a higher percentage of bachelor’s degree recipients were more likely to vote for Democrats.
The 2024 presidential election puzzled a lot of us in higher education, and perhaps these charts will show you why: We work and probably hang around mostly people with college degrees (or higher). Our perception is limited.
With the 2024 election data just out, I thought I’d take a look at the last three elections and see if the pattern I noticed in 2016 and 2020 held. Spoiler: It did, mostly.
Before you dive into this, a couple of tips: Alaska’s data is always reported in a funky way, so just ignore it here. It’s a small state (in population, that is) and it’s very red. It doesn’t change the overall trends even if I could figure out how to connect the data to maps. Hawaii’s data is fine, but I don’t put it on the map because it takes a lot of work to get it to fit so that you can read the other states. It’s a blue state, but also small. So they balance out.
Some definitions: Bachelor’s degree attainment is the percentage of people in the county who have a Bachelor’s Degree or higher using 2020 data. If a county has 100,000 people and 27,500 have a BA, that’s an attainment rate of 27.5. Nationally, the rate is about 38%.
Median income is the Census Bureau statistic showing median earnings in the past twelve months for people who have earnings.
The statistic “Percent Democrat” is the percentage of voters who voted for Democrats, among those who voted Democrat or Republican. In other words, it excludes third-party voters. The Democrats and Republicans are the only parties with a candidate on every state’s ballot, so it’s the only fair comparison, I think. If you want to count people who throw away their vote, be my guest.
Simpson’s Diversity Index is a way to talk about diversity that’s a little different than you might think. It is not the percentage of people of color. Simpson’s Diversity essentially calculates the probability of selecting at random two different categories from a population. So, if 95% percent of a county is White, it’s not very diverse. Same as one that’s 80% Black or African-American, or 65% Hispanic. Higher numbers on Simpson’s means more diversity of the group. A group with one Hispanic person, one White person, one Black person, and one Asian person would be perfectly diverse, as you’d always pick two people from different groups in a random sample.
Final tips: It’s important to interact here by using the sliders and/or filters, and/or highlighters. You can’t break anything; you can always reset the view using the little arrow at lower right.
There are seven views here, accessible via the tabs across the top.
National View shows all the data from all the counties rolled up to a year. You can see Democrat and Republican votes on the bars. Use the sliders to only include counties with certain levels of income, diversity or educational attainment, nationally or in a single state. You’ll probably quickly see the great American divide.
Ed Attainment Splits is the same data, but divided. Each group of bars shows increasing attainment, from left to right. So at the far left is the aggregation of all counties with lower attainment, and as you move to the right within a year, you see higher levels of bachelor’s degree attainment. The three tallest blue bars tell the story of 2024 in a way no political scientist can.
The next three views show scatter plots, with Percent Voting Democrat on the y-axis (vertical). The three different views just swap out three different values: Bachelor’s degree attainment, Median Income, and Simpson’s Diversity. These three things largely covary, so the similar patterns should not surprise. The bubbles are sized by the number of voters, and you can hover over any bubble for details. Use the Highlight Tool at top to focus only on Blue, Purple, or Red counties.
The cleverly named view titled “Map” shows every county colored by its political lean. You can choose a year at top left, and only show certain counties using the various filters at top. Again, you can’t break anything by interacting, and a reset is a click away.
And finally, because there is one in every group who points to the preponderance of red on the map and thinks it’s meaningful, the final view shows Land Doesn’t Vote. Los Angeles County (in yellow) has more people by itself than all the blue states plus Hawaii combined. And it has more people than all the orange states combined, too.
