Education
Korean tech companies eye growing AI public education market
Artificial intelligence (AI) is bringing a fresh wave of innovation to South Korea’s public education sector. big tech companies are actively developing AI-based solutions for public education and forming partnerships with schools alongside edtech startups.
According to the information technology (IT) industry on Sunday, Naver launched a digital public education support system called Whale UBT in April 2025 and integrated it into the Gwangju Metropolitan Office of Education’s teaching-learning platform, Gwangju AI-ON. Naver also plans to expand adoption to other regional education offices
Whale UBT allows for the unified management of various test items – including diagnostic and unit assessments – within a single platform. A database of about 400,000 questions provided by four educational publishers is available, enabling teachers to create customized tests based on students’ levels.
It also features automatic grading.
To date, AI education platforms were adopted more rapidly in private education, where entry requirements are comparatively less restrictive. The use of AI tools in public education was initially determined by individual teachers; however, their implementation has been rapidly increasing at both the school and district levels.
This trend is driven in part by the increasing sophistication of AI solutions. These tools now go beyond simply marking answers right or wrong – they can analyze step-by-step processes for descriptive questions, improving both convenience and educational outcomes.
A good example is edtech startup Turing Co.’s math learning platform, Math King. Turing signed a memorandum of understanding with the Korea Association of Future Education Study in February 2025 to promote adoption of Math King in Korean schools.
Math King can generate personalized problem sets for each student in just one second, and AI analyzes even the descriptive answers in homework assignments. The system automatically generates consultation reports that can be sent to parents and includes recommendations for future learning directions.
“We are using Math King for advanced classes, and it has eliminated the hassle of creating customized math problems,” Gyeonggu High School teacher Park Jun-hyung said. ‘I can now manage nearly twice as many students.”
AI solutions also help with administrative tasks, significantly reducing teachers’ workloads, particularly for writing student records.
While many teachers have already been using tools like ChatGPT informally for record writing, new, more convenient solutions are now being developed. These specialized AI tools offer stronger security than ChatGPT.
Edtech startup Elements launched inline AI in April, a solution specifically designed to assist with student record writing. It employs a local Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system, ensuring that data is not sent externally. The AI updates student records automatically based on data from teachers and students.
Given the rapid growth of the AI education market, adoption in public education is expected to accelerate even further. According to market research firm Straits Research, the global AI education market is projected to grow from $4.43 billion in 2024 to $72.45 billion in 2033.
By Ahn Sun-je and Lee Eun-joo
[ⓒ Pulse by Maeil Business News Korea & mk.co.kr, All rights reserved]
Education
It is this government’s moral mission to give every child in Britain the best start in life | Bridget Phillipson
Like many young mothers, Jenna was unsure where to start. But that’s where her local family support service came in. Offering breastfeeding advice, a space to come together with other parents and for her son Billy to play with other babies, it reassured Jenna that she was on the right track – and crucially, that Billy was set up to achieve when he got to school.
Jenna’s service was the first of Labour’s renowned Sure Start centres in Washington, my home town in north-east England. I knew it well: before becoming an MP I ran a refuge nearby for women fleeing domestic violence. I linked up the women who used our refuge with Sure Start. It was a lifeline for those women who, despite everything, were determined to give their children the very best start in life.
But, sadly, after 14 years of Conservative government, stories like Jenna’s, and those of the many women who were offered that lifeline, are much less common. Funding was stripped out of Sure Start centres and services scrapped in rebranded family hubs. Today, 65 councils, and the children and families who live under their authority, have missed out on recent funding. Many more are lacking the childcare places that so many families in our country need.
For every Jenna, there are a host of other young mothers, and families, who missed out on crucial pillars of support, whose children have fallen behind before they have even started school.
One in three five-year-olds enters year 1 without the basic skills – like holding a pencil and writing their own name – that they need to make the most of what education has to offer them. Some haven’t reached essential milestones such as putting on a coat or going to the toilet by themselves.
For the most vulnerable children, the situation is graver. Just over half of those eligible for free school meals reach a good level of development at age five. For children in social care, it’s just over one in three. And for children with special educational needs, it’s one in five.
The gap in achievement we see between our poorest and most affluent children at 16 is baked in before they even start school, creating a vicious cycle of lost life chances that’s all too visible in the shameful number of young people not earning or learning.
It’s this government’s moral mission to bridge that gap, but to do it we must build an education system where all children can achieve and thrive, starting from day one.
That is why reforming the early years education system is my number one priority. And it’s why, just 12 months after Labour entered government, I am so proud to be setting out our strategy to give every child the best start in life.
Backed by £1.5bn over the next three years, it brings together the best of Sure Start, health services, community groups and the early years sector, with the shared goal of setting up children to succeed when they get to school.
We will create 1,000 Best Start Family Hubs, at least one in every council area, invest a record £9bn in funded childcare and early years places – and hundreds of millions to improve quality in early years settings and reception classes.
These hubs will bring disjointed support systems into one place, allowing thousands of families to access help with anything from birth registration to breastfeeding, from housing support to children’s speech and language development.
The strategy takes inspiration from around the world. I’ve been really impressed by what happens in countries I’ve visited, such as Estonia, where early education and family support are bound tightly together with stellar results. Its disadvantage gap is negligible because children get to school ready to learn. Its children outperform those from much larger, wealthier countries in international rankings. The country punches above its weight economically as a result.
At the heart of our strategy is the recognition that for our country to succeed in a fast-changing world, it is not enough for only some children to do well in education: every child must have the opportunity and the tools not just to get by, but to get on in life.
Working people have always known that education is the best way to break the link between their background and what they go on to achieve, the route to prosperity not just for individuals, but for all of society. It’s a common thread that runs through every Labour government: that we must use education to spread the freedoms that today too few enjoy, so that tomorrow they are common to us all.
It’s the essence of our politics, the socialism of extending freedom to allow working people to choose their own path to fulfilment: to get better employment, to achieve a better quality of life or even to start a family.
This strategy is a watershed moment for our government, but more importantly for every single family who needs our support. To make it a reality, we will begin unprecedented collaboration between parents, councils, nurseries, childminders, schools and government, enmeshing family support, early education and childcare so deeply that no rightwing government can ever unpick it, as the Tories did with Sure Start over 14 long years.
Our plan for change will ensure Jenna’s experience – and Billy’s future success – is shared by every family and every child in our country.
Education
America’s future depends on more first-generation students from underestimated communities earning an affordable bachelor’s degree
I recently stood before hundreds of young people in California’s Central Valley; more than 60 percent were on that day becoming the first in their family to earn a bachelor’s degree.
Their very presence at University of California, Merced’s spring commencement ceremony disrupted a major narrative in our nation about who college is for — and the value of a degree.
Many of these young people arrived already balancing jobs, caregiving responsibilities and family obligations. Many were Pell Grant-eligible and came from communities that are constantly underestimated and where a higher education experience is a rarity.
These students graduated college at a critical moment in American history: a time when the value of a bachelor’s degree is being called into question, when public trust in higher education is vulnerable and when supports for first-generation college students are eroding. Yet an affordable bachelor’s degree remains the No. 1 lever for financial, professional and social mobility in this country.
Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
A recent Gallup poll showed that the number of Americans who have a great deal of confidence in higher education is dwindling, with a nearly equal amount responding that they have little to none. In 2015, when Gallup first asked this question, those expressing confidence outnumbered those without by nearly six to one.
There is no doubt that higher education must continue to evolve — to be more accessible, more relevant and more affordable — but the impact of a bachelor’s degree remains undeniable.
And the bigger truth is this: America’s long-term strength — its economic competitiveness, its innovation pipeline, its social fabric — depends on whether we invest in the education of the young people who reflect the future of this country.
There are many challenges for today’s workforce, from a shrinking talent pipeline to growing demands in STEM, healthcare and the public sector. These challenges can’t be solved unless we ensure that more first-generation students and those from underserved communities earn their degrees in affordable ways and leverage their strengths in ways they feel have purpose.
Those of us in education must create conditions in which students’ talent is met with opportunity and higher education institutions demonstrate that they believe in the potential of every student who comes to their campuses to learn.
UC Merced is a fantastic example of what this can look like. The youngest institution in the California University system, it was recently designated a top-tier “R1” research university. At the same time, it earned a spot on Carnegie’s list of “Opportunity Colleges and Universities,” a new classification that recognizes institutions based on the success of their students and alumni. It is one of only 21 institutions in the country to be nationally ranked for both elite research and student success and is proving that excellence and equity can — and must — go hand in hand.
In too many cases, students who make it to college campuses are asked to navigate an educational experience that wasn’t built with their lived experiences and dreams in mind. In fact, only 24 percent of first-generation college students earn a bachelor’s degree in six years, compared to nearly 59 percent of students who have a parent with a bachelor’s. This results in not just a missed opportunity for individual first-generation students — it’s a collective loss for our country.
Related: To better serve first-generation students, expand the definition
The graduates I spoke to in the Central Valley that day will become future engineers, climate scientists, public health leaders, artists and educators. Their bachelor’s degrees equip them with critical thinking skills, confidence and the emotional intelligence needed to lead in an increasingly complex world.
Their future success will be an equal reflection of their education and the qualities they already possess as first-generation college graduates: persistence, focus and unwavering drive. Because of this combination, they will be the greatest contributors to the future of work in our nation.
This is a reality I know well. As the Brooklyn-born daughter of Dominican immigrants, I never planned to go away from home to a four-year college. My father drove a taxi, and my mother worked in a factory. I was the first in my family to earn a bachelor’s degree. I attended college as part of an experimental program to get kids from neighborhoods like mine into “top” schools. When it was time for me to leave for college, my mother and I boarded a bus with five other students and their moms for a 26-hour ride to Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.
Like so many first-generation college students, I carried with me the dreams and sacrifices of my family and community. I had one suitcase, a box of belongings and no idea what to expect at a place I’d never been to before. That trip — and the bachelor’s degree I earned — changed the course of my life.
First-generation college students from underserved communities reflect the future of America. Their success is proof that the American Dream is not only alive but thriving. And right now, the stakes are national, and they are high.
That is why we must collectively remove the obstacles to first-generation students’ individual success and our collective success as a nation. That’s the narrative that we need to keep writing — together.
Shirley M. Collado is president emerita at Ithaca College and the president and CEO of College Track, a college completion program dedicated to democratizing potential among first-generation college students from underserved communities.
Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.
This story about first-generation students was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.
Education
After disability benefits, is Labour really about to target the educational rights of special needs children? | John Harris
What will Keir Starmer and his colleagues learn from the disaster of their attempt to cut benefits? Most speculation so far has been focused on the prime minister’s prospects, and other ministerial careers. But there are soon going to be more big decisions to make, which will have massive consequences for people’s lives.
One policy area in particular is about to return the political conversation to the subject that defined last week’s fiasco: disability. Once again, Labour MPs from all wings of the party are feeling anxious and restless. Campaign groups and charities – not to mention the huge numbers of people who will be directly affected – fear the worst. With the wounds from the welfare bill fiasco still raw, there is a grim sense of a possible reprisal of the same story.
And this is why. The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, wants to reform England’s system of provision for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, or Send. Long years of Conservative failure – not least, reforms introduced a decade ago that were lamentably underfunded, and an exodus of children from mainstream to specialist schools – have resulted in ballooning costs amid disappointing outcomes. The councils that administer everything are crying out for help. The Treasury, meanwhile, surveys the mess and demands action.
A new education white paper will be published in the autumn. Phillipson says the government needs to “think very differently”. She wants to reverse a trend that took root in the Tory years and prioritise the inclusion of Send kids in mainstream schools. There is talk of somehow “making sure that all teachers are teachers of special educational needs [sic]”. A new neurodivergence task and finish group that will “work alongside the department to drive inclusive education” has been created; £740m of capital funding is being spent on “adapting classrooms to be more accessible and for creating specialist facilities”.
On the face of it, these moves are very welcome. But self-evidently, it will take much more – and a lot of time – to meaningfully turn things around. One of the big teaching unions has already said that without a commensurate increase in day-to-day schools spending, the plans could put “extreme pressure” on teachers. And there is an even bigger tension at the heart of the government’s plans.
Since Labour won the election, rising noise has been coming from Whitehall and beyond about drastically restricting the legal rights to dedicated provision that underpin the education of hundreds of thousands of children and young people. Those rights are enforced by the official Send tribunal, and embodied in education, health and care plans (EHCPs), which set out children’s needs and the provision they entail in a legally binding document. Contrary to what you read in certain news outlets, they are not any kind of “golden ticket”: parents and carers used to unreturned phone calls and long waits still frequently have to fight their local councils for the help their plans set out. But – and as a special needs parent, I speak from experience – they usually allow stressed-out families to just about sleep at night.
For about 40 years, such rights have been a cornerstone of the Send system. But their future is now uncertain: councils, in particular, are frantically lobbying ministers to get parents and their pesky rights out of the way. Late last year, a government source quoted in the Financial Times held out the prospect of “thousands fewer pupils” having access to rights-based provision. Despite the fact that EHCPs are most sorely needed in mainstream schools, a senior adviser to the Department for Education recently said that a consideration of whether EHCPs should no longer apply to children in exactly those settings is “the conversation we’re in the middle of”. There are whispers about families who currently have EHCPs being allowed to keep them, while in the future, kids with similar needs would be waved away, something that threatens a stereotypical two-tier model, another element with worrying echoes of the benefits disaster.
As a result, parents and carers – and many teachers – are terrified. Whenever ministers are asked about what is going to happen next, they tend to come out with the response: “no decision has been made”. On Sunday, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg challenged Phillipson on whether she is about to “get rid” of EHCPs, which was met with vague words about improved support in schools, familiar claims that the current system is too “adversarial”, and no specific answer. This, needless to say, is not exactly allaying people’s fears.
Just under 483,000 children and young people in English schools now have an EHCP, up 11% on the previous year’s figure. Their numbers have risen partly because ad hoc, informal special needs provision in schools has become so unreliable that the only way of having any chance of securing what a child needs is to apply for one. Official data shows that the majority of applications for EHCPs are initiated by schools and colleges, often as a last-ditch move. In short, many children desperately need them. Without the support such plans are meant to guarantee, even more pupils would either exit mainstream into specialist provision that is often eye-wateringly expensive, or end up joining the increasing numbers of kids who are not in formal education at all.
For the foreseeable future, because even an optimist would have to agree that improvements promised by the government will take years to really kick in, all that will remain the case. So the safest and most humane option would be to leave children’s legal entitlements in place, and start to improve Send provision as Phillipson wants, on the basis that boosted ad hoc help will naturally bring down EHCP numbers and costs. Instead, her most vivid move could be an awful rights grab, which would surely heighten the impression that this Labour party has an ingrained problem with issues around disability.
A new campaign titled Save Our Children’s Rights was launched over the weekend with a letter in the Guardian signed by leading figures from charities and lobby groups, including Disability Rights UK, the National Autistic Society and Mencap – as well as such high-profile Send parents as the broadcasters Christine McGuinness and Carrie Grant, along with the TV naturalist and neurodiversity campaigner Chris Packham (full disclosure: I am helping out, and I was one of the signatories). For the second time in less than six months, are these really the kind of people ministers want to argue with on Good Morning Britain, 5 Live and BBC Breakfast?
As I watched the benefits fiasco unfolding, knowing that the special needs story would soon explode, it brought one big thought to mind. Labour needs to stop sowing fear and dread among people whose lives are already full of those things. Instead of picking on vulnerable parts of the population who already view the future with deep anxiety, they should maybe go after much more powerful interests, who might be compelled into helping the government with its financial woes. Instead, fear is swirling around parts of society that are already unable to cope. Labour governments are meant to make people feel less scared, not more. If there is going to be yet another “reset”, this is where it should be focused.
There is one point that may yet bring clarity to the government’s thinking. Governing politicians habitually pretend they will win future elections. But there is now every chance that Reform UK might end up in power, possibly in partnership with whatever remains of the Conservatives. Judging by his recent pronouncements, Nigel Farage has very questionable views about special needs and disabilities. There is strong evidence that the same is true of Kemi Badenoch. The current fashion on the political right for nonsense about savagely cutting back the state would have deep implications for Send families. If Labour takes away so many children’s basic educational rights, it may well end up leaving them at the mercy of politicians who will then vandalise their lives. “No decision has been made,” say ministers. It is time they took the only morally and politically right one, and fast.
-
Funding & Business6 days ago
Kayak and Expedia race to build AI travel agents that turn social posts into itineraries
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Mumbai-based Perplexity Alternative Has 60k+ Users Without Funding
-
Mergers & Acquisitions6 days ago
Donald Trump suggests US government review subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies
-
Funding & Business6 days ago
Rethinking Venture Capital’s Talent Pipeline
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Why Agentic AI Isn’t Pure Hype (And What Skeptics Aren’t Seeing Yet)
-
Funding & Business3 days ago
Sakana AI’s TreeQuest: Deploy multi-model teams that outperform individual LLMs by 30%
-
Funding & Business6 days ago
From chatbots to collaborators: How AI agents are reshaping enterprise work
-
Tools & Platforms6 days ago
Winning with AI – A Playbook for Pest Control Business Leaders to Drive Growth
-
Jobs & Careers4 days ago
Ilya Sutskever Takes Over as CEO of Safe Superintelligence After Daniel Gross’s Exit
-
Funding & Business4 days ago
Dust hits $6M ARR helping enterprises build AI agents that actually do stuff instead of just talking