You are right, institutions dominate EdTech. The UK had a number of competitive and teacher-led EdTech AI startups delivering lesson planning, like briskteachi

You are right, institutions dominate EdTech. The UK had a number of competitive and teacher-led EdTech AI startups delivering lesson planning, like briskteaching.com & teachematic. They have some inroads with schools and colleges now. And probably would have disrupted up into the procedural level naturally. However the government decided to give £2m without any open procedure to a new company to build similar tech from scratch, and their PR acted as if this was groundbreaking, while the tech they promised, largely already existed and was in use by many teachers: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-support-for-teachers-powered-by-artificial-intelligence https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-support-for-teachers-... Who wants to invest in teachematic or brisk teaching, when your competition can get millions from the government without process and launch the same ideas over a time frame to starve you out? With the market overcrowded, prices are forced to lower, and many companies will now go bust because of this kind of unnecessary government intervention. Brisk Teaching has already had to make most things free. You cannot really be more cooperative with the system than that, but tough luck they still won't get the £2m despite proving out the idea before those funded. Shortly we will likely see the institutions in control of education like Ofsted mandate, approve or limit the tooling used, and most startups will die out. Rather than several low cost startups bringing high amounts of value, tax payers have spent millions on salaries for people with no AI background to create duplicate products, and the net value to education for actual students is therefore lowered as a result. So you can't disrupt this procedural level very effectively when the government intervenes early on.