The Rant Podcast
A bi-weekly podcast focused on pulling back the curtain on the American higher education system and breaking down the people, the policies and the politics. The podcast host, Eloy Ortiz Oakley, is a known innovator and leader in higher education. The podcast will not pull any punches as it delves into tough questions about the culture, politics and policies of our higher education system.
The Rant Podcast
Navigating the Next Four Years with Phil Hill
What if the challenges plaguing the edtech sector are actually opportunities in disguise? Join us as we welcome Phil Hill, the publisher of the On EdTech newsletter, who offers a wealth of insights into the complexities of the education technology landscape. Together, we tackle the financial struggles of major players like 2U and Anthology while uncovering the potential for stabilization and growth. Phil also sheds light on the groundbreaking role of generative AI in education, discussing the lessons gleaned from the LA Unified School District's AI tutor initiative.
The discussion takes a turn into the nuanced realm of education policy, where intense polarization has shaped the U.S. Department of Education's decision-making processes. From the influence of organizations like the Heritage Foundation to the efforts of the Bipartisan Policy Center, we explore strategies for finding common ground. Phil highlights the importance of Congress in shaping policy and shares thoughts on how bipartisan cooperation can focus on shared goals like school accountability and economic mobility, paving the way for progress in a divided climate.
As Linda McMahon prepares to step into her role at the Department of Education, we examine the strategic signals that could define her tenure. From potential appointments to regulatory shifts, we explore how changes could impact everything from online education to vocational training. Phil offers astute advice for higher education leaders, emphasizing the need for institutions to evolve structurally to meet the demands of modern learners and overcome financial hurdles. Tune in for a thought-provoking conversation that unpacks the trends and challenges shaping the future of education.
https://onedtech.philhillaa.com/
https://www.4leggedmedia.com/episodes
eloy@eloyortizoakley.com
Hi, this is Eloy Ortiz-Oakley, and welcome back to the Rant Podcast, the podcast where we pull back the curtain and break down the people, the policies and the politics of our higher education system. In this episode, we dive into the changes in the edtech marketplace that we might see or expect as a result of the new administration. This episode is part of a series of interviews on navigating the Trump administration over the next few years. Joining me to talk about the edtech marketplace and some thoughts about the Biden and Trump administration is Phil Hill. Phil is the publisher of the On EdTech newsletter and he writes extensively on higher education policy. Phil is making his second appearance here on the Rant podcast and we're happy to have him back. So with that backdrop, please enjoy my conversation with Phil Hill. Phil, welcome back to the Rant Podcast.
Speaker 2:Well, thanks a lot. It's always good to be here with you, Eloy, and of course I'll be looking to see if we're going to tweak each other about Calbright College this time.
Speaker 1:Well, maybe we will get into Calbright, but no, there's a lot of other things going on and I appreciate you taking the time. I know it's been a crazy start to the year for all of us, so I know you've got a lot going on in your world. So thanks for taking the time to be back. You're now a two-time invitee of the Rant podcast, so it's great to have you back. So, phil, let's start with the edtech marketplace and just get your thoughts on where we're at today. As we begin this year, a lot of us are already turning our attention to getting ready for our annual pilgrimage to San Diego for the ASU GSV Summit, and I imagine I'll see you there as well. What stands out to you about the edtech marketplace today?
Speaker 2:anything jump out at you, anything that you're paying attention to these days well, I do look forward to seeing you in san diego as we listen to the words of wisdom from john mackinrow actually, I'm looking forward to that of being presented. What stands out to me about the edtech marketplace right now? Back in last year I had noticed that there's been several years two years roughly a very tough financial climate, particularly in terms of investment and company viability, and we've definitely seen a lot of that impact. And you know, I think about the 2u bankruptcy. I've recently written about Anthology not going bankrupt but restructuring debt. Coursera, you know, chegg has had a huge drop in valuations and at the same time, higher education is having difficult financial times. So it's been a really tough market to be in.
Speaker 2:One thing I noticed last year is there seemed to be I wouldn't say a revival of the ed tech market, but it's almost a plateauing like things are getting worse and there are actually signs here or there that the market might be improving, more money available for innovation. So I had already noticed that last year. This year you have to factor it in with the change in administration and there's a lot. We don't know about the new Trump administration and we'll talk about that later, but I think there's going to be a lot less innovation. So, all in all, the biggest thing I would say about the market is it seems like we're in a turning point and the market might feel a lot healthier in terms of companies serving their role not just serving universities and colleges, but also innovating and investing and making improvements. So I don't want to be Pollyanna, but I think things are looking better than they have been in the past.
Speaker 2:I guess the other one that you can't ignore is generative AI, and here we are over two years into the ramp up in interest since the release of ChatGPT 3.5. And I will say think about this. One year ago, what was one of the biggest news at the conference? It was the LA Unified School District and Eddie and their AI tutor for all. Well, that's just completely collapsed. The CEOs get in charge. The whole thing fell apart. So there was negative, negative side effect. But there's so much going on in generative AI that impacts the whole market and, I am sure, probably the majority of people attending this year. What they're going to be looking for is how is generative AI feeding into the market? Is this giving us new capabilities or what's happening? So I'd say those are the two biggest things that stand out to me financial and generative AI, and the things that I'll be looking for at the conference.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, I would agree. I'm sure there's going to be a lot of buzz, particularly on the backside of the drama around DeepSeek and the collapse of the notion about how much money needs to be poured in to train these large language models. So it'll be interesting to see if people think that that's just lowered the cost of developing their AI solutions. You know how are they going to rethink this. So it will definitely be, I'm sure, a topic of discussion in San Diego. Now you mentioned that you see things looking up and I would agree with you. I mean, we're still not in that place. We were five, six, seven years ago where, basically, money was free. So that was a lot of investment, crazy investment. Who are some of the players that you think are in some of the best position to lead some of the technology and innovation discussions in education technology?
Speaker 2:Well, right now, one thing I would notice if you compare this to the market five years ago, as you did back then, there was much more of a startup market.
Speaker 1:Right.
Speaker 2:The venture capital coming in, new ideas, new companies. Let's try this out. We mentioned the or at least I did the eddie ai tutor for all, a ccp, a unified school district sorry, right, this year. I'd say that things are looking up, but it's more established companies. So it basically, I would say, established ed tech companies that have healthy balance sheets, so a company who already has demonstrated value to the market. They have relationships with colleges and universities, but they also have a healthy balance sheet to be able to invest in new capabilities. Those are the ones that I would argue are best positioned to benefit from this.
Speaker 2:You know, I'll certainly be going to the AI show ahead of time and trying to test that thesis. Are there pure startups that we need to pay more attention to? It's just, I haven't seen it yet, but my expectation is whether it's teaching and learning, certainly the LMS vendors that we cover a lot, but even I mean and I keep mentioning higher ed, but even K-12, power school. They have a lot of money behind them, but they now have more debt with private equity buyout. They've had a pretty interesting approach on their AI usage to sort of democratize data usage. I would like to see do they have something behind that? Can they really demonstrate it on their AI usage to sort of democratize data usage? I'd like to see. Do they have something behind that? Can they really demonstrate it? They're positioned to do it, but are they going to?
Speaker 2:And my writing partner, partner in crime, Glenda Morgan she's been pushing lately the whole student success area that there is a demand that we increase the capabilities of student success and that's not the tools of the past, like there have been a lot of student success initiatives but we need to be honest that they haven't moved the needle. Now they need to move the needle. So there's a ripe area that gets much more into the counseling support, not just your academic coursework. I think those companies are positioned to do well, but it's established companies. To put it another way, I don't think it's startups. It's just not environment to do startup type of innovation in any meaningful way.
Speaker 1:I would agree with you. I would imagine I'll be hearing a lot less pitches from brand new startups when I'm in San Diego this time around, but we'll see. So let's turn our attention to the previous and the new administration. Let's wrap a bow on the last administration, since we're still feeling some of the effects from everything that was going on there, everything from student loan forgiveness to the rollout of the simplified FAFSA, to all the consternation over the Dear Colleague letter, and so, as we wrap up the Department of Ed under the Biden administration, I know you've talked a lot about the rulemaking process.
Speaker 1:You've been writing a lot about it. You've been writing about the changes you saw happening in the Biden term at the department in their rulemaking strategy, the way that they reach out, where they get who influences that process, and I'm sure we'll be talking about that a little in a different with the incoming secretary and her team. You know who is influencing the Department of Education. Tell us about some of the concerns you've raised about the influence over the rulemaking process and how do you think that should play out differently going forward?
Speaker 2:Well, my central thesis and, to be quite honest, the reason I even jumped into this area because I didn't used to cover this part of our higher education system until two and a half years ago was I saw the Biden administration just really change, put on steroids the political influence on the rulemaking, rulemaking.
Speaker 2:And once you dug under the covers you saw that it was really, you know, a network, what we call the Arnold Ventures Funded Coalition.
Speaker 2:Essentially, there's a group of nonprofits, foundations, who really coordinate, work together, reinforce each other, and they had become almost the de facto input on almost all Department of Education initiatives, as you've referenced. It's not like Biden administration is the only one with outside influence. It's just the way they did it. And so, in particular, the process, any bit of criticism or pushback during rulemaking, they interpreted it as oh, you're a bad actor or you just want to avoid regulation altogether. There was no attempt to treat feedback as hey, let's work together to get this right, make sure we meet joint objectives. That really has been my biggest criticism of the Biden administration is not listening to people, and one thing I wrote in December is I said, oh, my goodness, they dropped three rulemaking efforts that they said they were going to do. And not only did they drop them, they said the reason we did it is because public comments convinced us we were doing it the wrong way.
Speaker 2:That was mind-blowing to me, that just went 180 degrees from what I'd been watching them do for two and a half years. I felt like they set me up to be wrong, because I was absolutely wrong. I took the very generous interpretation of a road to Damascus They've seen the light and on their way out they wanted to acknowledge hey, this stuff, we're listening to you. I think now it was much more calculated that the department pulled back on those regulations simply so that they could push other things over the line that they wanted to do. So I appreciated the efforts in December to acknowledge where public comments really did have a valid argument, but I was wrong when I described why that is. So let's look at this as a transition. What am I looking for moving forward? Well, first of all, we're in the chaos period. I mean, you and I are recording this, the end of.
Speaker 2:January. It's going to get published a month later. Oh my goodness, what's going to happen in the intervening four weeks? We don't know. What I hope happens is that exact issue that I just described. It gets reversed.
Speaker 2:What I believe we need to do is get to a process where, when we do rulemaking, the community, the colleges and universities have to live with these regulations. We at least listen to them so they can say, hey, here's the impact of what you're proposing and here's what we think you know, here's an alternative idea. There's, of course, going to be some where people want to avoid regulation, but listen and figure out what to learn from them. So my biggest desire is that we have a more interactive rulemaking process. Two notes on that. One is the fact of I think it would be great if we went back to in-person rulemaking process. Two notes on that. One is the fact of I think it would be great if we went back to in-person rulemaking. Get rid of Zoom, because in the past it wasn't perfect, but when people did negotiated rulemaking they met in the hallway in between sessions. They talked to each other and came up with ideas. The virtual rulemaking, I think, makes the polarization a much bigger problem. So if I had a specific recommendation, I would say go to in-person rulemaking. I don't know that that'll happen. The other thing and I know this is a whole can of worms, but yes, it's the Trump administration. Yes, linda McMahon, if she gets confirmed, she's been in DC, she's been within the cabinet and so she's somewhat of a known entity and a fairly solid manager, et cetera, et cetera. However, we also haven't acknowledged the tone of the Trump administration.
Speaker 2:Trump 2.0 is very different from Trump 1.1., depending on your political persuasion. Well, it's really the same observation. In Trump 1.0, there was a lot of big talk, but then, when you looked at the actual running of the agencies, there was a lot of old school business as usual. Let's be cautious. Some know, some people would argue it was Trump getting captured by the old Republican, you know class. Other people would say, well, that was welcome. Whatever the case is, this time, at least in areas like immigration and you know other DEI he's coming out with guns. Blazing might not be the best term, but shock and awe in the regulatory approach. So what I'm calling out is, while we knew Linda McMahon in the 2010s and her role in DC, there's a possibility the Department of Ed is going to be a lot more aggressive moving forward. But then again, for the stuff that I write about teaching and learning ed tech, those things I don't know if it's on their radar, so I could easily see it actually being a pretty quiet period, at least for the first year or two.
Speaker 2:when it comes to online education, ed tech and stuff like that, it's guesswork, but I just wanted to call out we have to be careful about taking Trump 1.0 to predict Trump 2.0.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, I would agree with that assessment. I think there's going to be a lot more activity over the next hundred days or so. We'll see what sticks, we'll see how everybody reacts. The first 31 days have been sort of an indicator of how this is going to go. But let me just sort of circle back with some of the comments you made and I think there's certainly where we agree wholeheartedly.
Speaker 1:I agree with you is this notion about the rulemaking process needs to sort of go back to the in-person approach, the colleague approach. And having sort of witnessed this in my roles previous roles, working at the end with the Obama team onto the Trump team under Secretary DeVos, into the Biden team, and now as we transition, it has gotten more and more polarized. There is absolutely no doubt about that and I think we can point fingers at everybody involved. I do think, however, that the notion that there is one organization having much more influence than others, I think it's a little bit overstated, and I'm not saying that there's not that influence there, absolutely. I've also seen the influence in my past from AEI and we can certainly argue that the Heritage Foundation is influencing the current climate in the reshaping of the Department of Ed.
Speaker 2:And don't forget the new player, by the way the America First Initiative. The America First Initiative and several other Department of Ed nominees came out of. They're sort of the new player.
Speaker 1:That's right, and so I think my hope is that we can find a middle ground again, because I do think it's swung way too far. A middle ground again, because I do think it's swung way too far. Everything is seen through the lens of what are they trying to pull past me? What are they trying to do? Whose agenda is this? And that's not a healthy way to make policy going forward So-.
Speaker 2:Well, let me pull you on the spot. You've got more inside knowledge than I do. I had said let's make it in person. Is there anything else that might happen that could improve the polar or get away from polarization and actually debate effective policy from your?
Speaker 1:perspective. But people want to find a middle ground and that's difficult to do right now. It's a difficult environment to do that. I mean you've seen that already in the rhetoric that's coming out. I think the effort that Margaret Spellings has launched through the Bipartisan Policy Center to create this commission on the American workforce and obviously I'm biased, I'm on the American workforce and obviously I'm biased, I'm on the commission but the whole goal there is to bring people from both sides of these policy arguments together to come up with some recommendations for Congress. And at the end of the day, this is about what is going to be Congress's role, because I think what's gotten lost over the last couple of administrations is the role of Congress and the fact that they've been silent puts all the attention on the administration when the attention should be on Congress and their role in policymaking.
Speaker 2:Well, when you say, attention, that's sort of self-generated. Congress doesn't pass laws, so one argument is, the executive branch jumps in and says, well, we'll do it through regulations, I mean, I would argue I'd put it a little bit stronger Congress has been negligent and that's a huge part of the problem. Now, that's something I think beyond our scope to be able to fix, but I think that's a huge part of what problem? Now, that's something I think beyond our scope to be able to fix, but I think that's a huge part of what we're dealing with.
Speaker 1:It is a huge part of what we're dealing with, so we'll see. But yeah, to your point, I mean, I think the answer is people in leadership need to work hard to find that middle ground and try to present solutions to the administration, to Congress, that allow us to actually move forward. Because if the opposite happens, then, yes, all those organizations that we've talked about, from Arnold Ventures, new America, cap, aei, everybody in there, america First, it just is going to become the food fight that it's been for a while.
Speaker 2:And let me hopefully I don't feel like I'm hijacking here, but I'm going to jump onto this there are a couple areas that I don't necessarily see it as moving to the middle as there are. There are common goals.
Speaker 2:One of it is accountability, holding schools more accountable for the programs they run and their student outcomes, if you will and I see that both from conservative and liberal circles, which that gets to a whole other side there's more than two sides to this, but I think it's a common goal. So another way to say this is there is a real opportunity to make progress and valuable contributions on accountability moving forward, because clearly the New Americas and the people I've written about quite a bit they push on school accountability. That's where a lot of these regulations came down to, but so does AEI. Aei has been writing a lot about accountability.
Speaker 2:I've worked with several college presidents. It's almost like everybody not everybody the majority of people agree that we need to do more on accountability. So here's an area where you can say people share very similar goals and so that's where the chance is is to craft something that feels more bipartisan. So it's like choosing the areas where you already know you share common goals, as opposed to attacking the areas where you don't. Not suggesting that's going to happen, but if I were president, that's what it would be.
Speaker 1:I agree.
Speaker 1:I mean the issue, whether you consider that moving to the center or mean the issue, whether you consider that moving to the center or not.
Speaker 1:The issue is there is a lot of common ground Anything involving creating greater value for the learner, ensuring that they have an opportunity for economic mobility, giving confidence back to the public about the institutions that are supposed to be preparing them to succeed. I mean there is a lot of fear in the workforce about what's going to happen to them. You know, with AI, with the changing nature of the workforce, with the challenges of getting access to a good post-secondary experience, the cost of that post-secondary experience, post-secondary experience, the cost of that post-secondary experience all those I think are ripe for both sides of the aisle to look at and try to figure out a solution or at least build a system that puts those learners at the center. And I think that is certainly a place that I know Margaret Spelling is hoping that we tackle, hoping that the space that the administration is willing to hear out and think about ways that we can do that, because at the end of the day, this is a national security issue as well.
Speaker 1:We need an educated workforce. We need an opportunity to continue to improve the ability of our economy to thrive. So that's what I'm hoping for. At the end of the day, and somewhere in the food fight that's taking place, hopefully we can find that common ground and actually do something that matters to people. Otherwise, this thing, the pendulum, is just going to swing one more time in three years. This thing, the pendulum is going to swing one more time in three years because the American public is really tired, in my view, of the back and forth nature of politics these days and they're looking for something that actually helps them do well in this economy. Whether you're talking about the price of eggs, or you're talking about the price of education, price of living in states like mine, I mean, it's really handicapping. You know, I have four kids. They're all wondering how they're going to make it. That's something that we really need to change, and I think higher education has a role in that.
Speaker 2:Yep, no, I definitely agree. And I would also say college and university administrators. You know about those people, but I mean, think of the whiplash they go through, what they're reacting to and what they're trying to manage to the other side.
Speaker 2:So I realize, just because you and I want it doesn't mean it's going to happen. But I will tell you that's what I'm going to be watching for is will the regulatory stance of the new administration be open to move to the center? At the very least take input so that any regulations have some feedback from the community. That's one of the biggest things I'll be watching for this year.
Speaker 1:So we've talked about the incoming secretary a little bit. As you mentioned, she's no stranger to the DC environment. She was the administrator for SBA in the previous Trump administration. You know the Department of Education can be a bit unwielding. There is a lot going on there. There has been a lot of, as you said, pendulum swings from Obama to, or from Secretary King to Secretary DeVos, to Secretary Cardona and now to what we'll see after confirmation. If it's Secretary McMahon, what are you looking for to give you any signals in the first 100 days or so of the Department of Education, because there's been some folks already taking their seats over there, some names we know that were helped out in the previous transition, some names that have been around for a little while. What are you looking for to give you a signal of where we're going?
Speaker 2:Well, I guess three things I would say. One is what do they do with James Quall's position? Because and I might have the details wrong here, but in the previous Trump administration they didn't directly fill that same role focusing just on post-secondary education, which sent a signal of the focus wasn't on colleges and universities.
Speaker 2:So will they appoint somebody into that position this time? That's one of the signals I'm looking for Expansion into workforce on higher education, outside of the political hot potatoes of DEI, anti-semitism, immigration, which those get out. Those are very important, but it's outside of my scope. I'm saying, like, with actual ed tech, online education, enrollment, health of institutions, will they even appoint somebody? So that's one signal. The other one is we've already gone past the recording time 10 days of the shock and awe of the new Trump administration, but none of the things that you know, what everybody knows. Day one, I do this. We're not seeing any movement on the regulation and the efforts that get around the topics of expanding access through online education. You know those types of topics.
Speaker 2:So I think a lot of people had been wondering. Well, some of the Biden administration efforts just get struck down right away and we haven't seen it yet. But one of the things I'll be watching is if that happened by ASU GSV because of appointees getting confirmed with people in place, does it come out as sort of like a second level effort? And so I'll be watching that as a signal. And then this one might be a little bit soon. It's not just going in and executive orders or whatever to take down previous rules. What will they do with ongoing regulatory efforts in their own rulemaking? Well, there'll be. You know what would be the first effort that they put forward for new rulemaking from the Department of Ed, for new rulemaking from the Department of Ed. So I at least right now. Those are probably the three things signals that I'm going to be looking at. That I think within the first four or five months of the administration, will probably tell us what's going to happen.
Speaker 2:I guess I should take one other point. That's the obvious one. No-transcript, I might have been wrong. If I see actual efforts to put that in place, personally I'll be very disappointed, but that will tell me a lot. And the get rid of the Department of Education. It's not monolithic. The question is, are they going to come in and say let's take this role and move it to the Department of, you know, labor? Are they going to make realistic implementation to slowly reduce the size of the Department of Education, or will it remain in the political world of get rid of it? You know, which I consider bluster. So is it actually going to lead to real incremental modifications or is it going to remain in the political blustery world? So I guess I gave you five signals I'm going to be looking for.
Speaker 1:I think those are all good signals working backwards. I think you know you're right. This whole issue of the Department of Education, I think you know you're right this whole issue of the Department of Education.
Speaker 1:You know, in my last conversation with James Quall on the podcast, he pointed out something that will clearly come up, which is, in his experience, no chair of a committee in Congress is going to be willing to give up their chairmanship no-transcript. There is a lot of discussion about WIOA in Congress right now and if they're going to go down this road, then the department is going to have to engage in what is possible. I do think, as you said, there's going to be a serious conversation about what moves to labor. I think there's probably some things that should, or my brief time in the department to see how the department and labor straddle some of the issues regarding vocational education, occupational education, some of the WIOA issues. So I think some of that look with all the bluster, makes sense to look at getting rid of the Department of Education. I think one.
Speaker 1:I don't see it happening, but if it did, it would be a huge bunch of quicksand for the administration. They would quickly find themselves stuck in the mud on a lot of these issues that matter a lot to people. I mean, look, hell, matters to people. We owe matters to people on the ground in states and I don't see how they get around that. You spend a lot of time giving advice to higher education leaders, whether through the writings on EdTech Newsletter or through your own private practice. What advice do you have for higher education leaders who are trying to figure out how they lead over the next few years? What's your advice to them?
Speaker 2:Well, one thing I would say is we're in a set of existential issues. We're not in the same world. You could argue we were facing the same issues five years ago, but so many college leaders were playing around with whether there are real structural changes.
Speaker 2:What I see happening now is schools saying I can't pretend any longer and it's mostly due to financial and student outcomes those two issues and saying we've got to make real, fundamental structural changes. I will get pushback because you can't make these changes without it, but the biggest advice I would give to people is say no, you need to fully commit to structural change at 80, 90% of the colleges and universities to set yourself up for the future and for the new modern learner, which is not the same the system was designed for, and you need to commit to it. Take the slings and for the new modern learner, which is not the same the system was designed for, and you need to commit to it. Take the slings and arrows and stick with it. And so don't dabble in online, but also don't pretend like once you do online, you're going to make revenue two years later and it's just going to be a solution on financial.
Speaker 2:Make a long-term commitment. Use it as a way to reach new students. Understand they have different needs in their lifestyle and you've got to commit to it to make a five-year change effort around this. So I guess it's commit to real change and commit to the fact that we're talking three to five-year initiatives, not just let's make a couple of cuts here and there and then see if we hope that things improve. I would say there's a need for structural change and if it's not now, it's never it's. We're in that area. So that's not an easy advice to give to them, because you're really saying let's think about it. You're saying to a lot of presidents all right, you need to commit to a change that could cause you to lose your job because the board doesn't want to take the heat, but that's what's needed right now.
Speaker 2:So, for the good of the industry, you need to go for it and don't just make changes around the margin. At this point and I guess the second piece closer to home for what I deal with ed tech and online education so much is driven by increasing access to nontraditional students. Well, you need to fully do that. You've got to figure out what supports these working adults, these students with families, what they need, and rethink all of your support around online education. You can't just view it as a revenue source. It's an investment that you're getting into.
Speaker 1:I agree, and it'll be an interesting test for public systems, for the nonprofit sector, how they respond. And that's what leadership is. So, as I usually tell folks, if you want to be a college president, a system head, this is the moment in time when you actually have to do something, and so I think the future will favor those institutions, those leaders that actually move their institutions and position their institutions in ways that will allow them to thrive over the next couple of years. And it's going to have to involve how to increase your footprint, how to reach learners that you don't normally reach, and how do you change the way that you interact with those learners and relate to those learners and create value for those learners. So we'll see, we'll see how that goes. Let me ask you one last question as we begin to wrap up what's in store for the EdTech newsletter or any other things that are coming down the road for Phil Hill and associates as you look forward into the new year?
Speaker 2:I would say the main thing we're trying to do. We've been doing the premium newsletter and figuring out how to get more advice to the right people in a quicker way. So we're sort of expanding our influence because as a niche company there's only so many consulting clients you can directly advise. So it might be a little bit presumptuous to say I'm trying to scale the business, but I'm trying to scale our influence, and so the biggest thing I would say this year is, now that we've established the newsletter, the premium newsletter market analysis how can we take what we've learned over the past two years and make it better. So we're going to be revising sort of the pricing structure and how we give advice to schools that matches what they need to hear, Because, as we're both talking about, now's the time for change. So we're trying to figure out how to take advantage of the moment right now.
Speaker 1:All right, phil. Well, listen, I think you are certainly in an interesting position, given your background and your focus. There's going to be a lot going on over the next couple of years, so I look forward to continuing this conversation with you and appreciate you being on the rant again.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it was great being here, even if you and I ended up agreeing on so much.
Speaker 1:But I love the conversations with you.
Speaker 1:Well, I'm sure we'll have plenty to talk about going forward and I just really appreciate your insights and appreciate your role in the marketplace, I mean it's a good thing that we have people from all sorts of different perspectives pushing on these issues, because I think that kind of competition of ideas is what we need going forward. So thanks for doing that. All right, thank you, all right, everybody. Well, thanks for joining me here on the Rant podcast. You've been listening to my conversation with Phil Hill. I'll put information about where to access the On Ed Tech newsletter in the description of the podcast, and please leave me your comments. Let me know what you thought about the conversation, and we will be back to you again shortly. Please hit subscribe if you're watching us on this YouTube channel and continue to follow us on your favorite audio platforms. Thanks for joining me, everybody, and we'll see you again soon, thank you.
