You are invited to try out the worlds first mobile, on-demand Adaptive Comparative Judgement experience. For those following closely this has been quite a journey and long term ambition. There is still more to learn and more to do, but reaching this release is a significant step.
Shared Standards connects assessment evidence across RM Compare. Studio creates comparative ranks, Hub securely governs mark-derived and ACJ evidence, and Live applies approved rulers to new work. Together, they support consistent standardisation, moderation and on-demand comparison - helping organisations make professional judgement transparent, reusable and reliable.
Moving beyond the transactional illusion of AI-era education. A student can now sit alone, prompt a machine and produce a polished essay, working code or a plausible solution to a complex problem in minutes. For education, that is more than an administrative headache. It challenges a familiar assumption: that a finished piece of work, submitted out of sight, is reliable evidence of what a student knows, understands or can do.
Most digital products in education, awarding, and professional development are hooked on the exact same commercial metric: Attention. Daily Active Users (DAU), session length, streaks, push notifications, and time-in-app sit at the absolute center of traditional EdTech strategy. What if that entire metric is fundamentally broken? What if the true measure of a product's success is that individual usage falls over time?
As artificial intelligence and Large Language Models (LLMs) become deeply embedded in global education, a central question looms over the industry: Can we truly trust AI to act as an autonomous judge of quality?
Recent research indicates that we can aim higher on reliability while asking judges to do less work. For RM Compare users, that is good news: it supports designing sessions that are both more efficient and more defensible.
If a single grade can change a student’s lifetime earnings, then we can’t afford a grading system that behaves like a lottery. Recent analysis shows that moving just one grade band at A‑level can translate into thousands of pounds more – or less – in annual income over a career.
Edgar Morin died in Paris on 29 May 2026 at the age of 104, bringing to a close one of the most wide-ranging intellectual lives of the last century. Across that long life he returned, again and again, to one central idea: reality is not made of isolated parts that can be fully understood by breaking them down, but of interwoven systems in which order, disorder, uncertainty, part and whole are inseparable.
As educational ministries and professional bodies globally modernise their frameworks, learning objectives have fundamentally shifted. Traditional education models assessed knowledge recall through closed, easily quantifiable test formats.
In a recent Observer article, Dennis Sherwood warns that “a single exam result can change a pupil’s life, but grading in England is a lottery.” The piece highlights a stark tension: exam grades carry life‑changing consequences, yet the system’s own regulator acknowledges that many GCSE, AS and A‑level grades are only reliable to within about one grade either way.
There's a familiar moment in teaching that almost every educator recognises. You hand out the rubric, explain the assignment, and watch thirty faces look back at you with the same expression — a kind of polite blankness that says I understand the words, but I don't yet understand what you mean. The criteria make sense in the abstract. What "good" looks like in practice is another matter entirely.
The annual Skills England report was issued yesterday. As always it made for interesting reading. Coming on the back of the Interim report from Alan Milburn about the parlous state of youth unemployment and education the stakes could not be higher or more urgent.
We are living through an anxious moment in education. AI is reshaping what matters, curriculum is shifting under our feet, and many of the old certainties no longer feel certain at all. In that kind of climate, assessment can easily become another source of pressure: another place where people are asked to act with confidence before they have had the chance to build it. It does not have to be like that.