Who asks the question about our school, and when?
A parent in October, a prospective student in February, and both long before the open evening. That timing is the point: by the time someone calls you, they have already picked up their picture elsewhere. A school that only tells its story at the open evening is correcting an image instead of forming one.
| Who | Who decides | What keeps them up at night |
|---|---|---|
| Primary or secondary school | The head, usually without a communications department | Minors' privacy, and accessibility that is legally required |
| College, university or training provider | Marketing together with the programme leads | Competition for students, and accreditations that must be stated correctly |
Why does an AI name the school down the road and not us?
Rarely because that school is better. Usually because its information reads better: a page per programme instead of a pdf holding the whole brochure, an enrolment date as text instead of inside an image, and a structure that says what it contains. That is exactly what the accessibility standard asks of you too.
| Driver | What ceeme measures underneath | What stays dark without a connection |
|---|---|---|
| Compliance / deontology risk | claims your sector does not allow you to make | Your professional body's rulepack is not fully formalised yet; what is there is strict, not complete. |
| Content usefulness | thin pages, missing expertise, stale text | Nothing. We measure this fully from your public pages. |
| Local trust | GBP, reviews and whether your details match everywhere | We read your Google profile. Changing anything in it needs a GBP connection. |
| Source authority | the standing of the sources that name you | Which sources name you and how much they weigh, we see. Writing to them is human work. |
| Query intent coverage | whether you are present from orientation through to buying | Nothing. The question mix per market decides this, and that is ours. |
| Regional relevance | whether you score the same in one region as in the next | For Belgium this is exact. For a region without its own registers it is an estimate, and it says so. |
Which sources does an AI pull our enrolment information from?
From your own pages, from education guides and from what is written about you regionally. The guides are where it goes wrong most often: they update yearly, and a programme dropped last year sometimes still sits there. That is not the engine's error but the source's.
| Source | Kind |
|---|---|
| GBP | public — we read it, you connect nothing |
| reviews and directories | public — we read it, you connect nothing |
| public — we read it, you connect nothing | |
| education guides | public — we read it, you connect nothing |
| public — we read it, you connect nothing | |
| YouTube | public — we read it, you connect nothing |
| education directories | public — we read it, you connect nothing |
| Wikidata | public — we read it, you connect nothing |
| reviews | public — we read it, you connect nothing |
| GA4 | connected — only after your approval, read-only unless agreed otherwise |
| GSC | connected — only after your approval, read-only unless agreed otherwise |
| CMS (read) | connected — only after your approval, read-only unless agreed otherwise |
| CRM | connected — only after your approval, read-only unless agreed otherwise |
| CMS | connected — only after your approval, read-only unless agreed otherwise |
Do you touch pupil data in any way?
Nowhere. There is no connection to your pupil administration, no import, and no setting that enables it. The measurement uses only what is public — exactly what a parent sees too.
| Rule | Kind |
|---|---|
| Accessibility is measured and weighted: it is legally required of you and it decides whether a crawler gets into the page. | hard rule — the build refuses output that crosses it |
| There is no connection to your pupil administration and no route by which data on minors comes in. | hard rule — the build refuses output that crosses it |
| Nothing goes out without the person authorised to sign off at your organisation having seen it — the flow sits in the code, not in an understanding. | hard rule — the build refuses output that crosses it |
| Pupils' names, results and enrolments appear nowhere in the measurement or the report. | forbidden — we do not do this, not even on request |
| The same standard, and it appears not as a recommendation in the report but as a condition in the score. | hard rule — the build refuses output that crosses it |
| The measurement uses only what is public — exactly what a parent or prospective student sees too. | hard rule — the build refuses output that crosses it |
| Accreditations and programme details are taken over as they stand in your own documents, or they are not taken over at all. | hard rule — the build refuses output that crosses it |
| An accreditation or a result that does not come from a signed document is not written. | forbidden — we do not do this, not even on request |
We have no communications department. Is this still workable?
Then this is simpler than it sounds, because most fixes are one-off and small: a programme moving from a pdf to a page, a date becoming text instead of an image, a guide you write to once. No editorial plan is needed and no weekly effort.
Frequently asked questions
We are a small school. Does anyone even look for us through AI?
Usually not by name, and that is exactly why it matters. The question is "which school in this area offers that programme", and one answer comes out. Whoever is small and easy to read wins that question more often than whoever is large with their information sitting in a brochure.
Our programmes are in a yearly brochure as a pdf. Is that enough?
For a parent, yes; for an engine, badly. A pdf holding thirty programmes is read as one document about thirty things, and then no single programme is the subject. One page per programme changes that, and it is also the cheapest accessibility win there is.
Are you allowed to say we get good results?
Only if it comes from a document you signed yourselves, and then word for word as it stands there. Inventing an outcome or an accreditation is forbidden in the code — not because it would not work, but because at the first check it costs your credibility and not ours.
Read on
Free, no account and no card.