Start with a clear need. Make a relevant connection. Learn from the outcome—and bring that perspective to the next decision.
A useful connection starts with understanding what matters: the need, the context, and the outcome you are working towards.
DeclareThe need enters
MatchConnect with relevant help
VerifyReview the outcome
The loopCompoundsmatch by match
02 / Better education begins with listening
Small signals. A fuller picture.
Student, teacher and parent perspectives can help institutions see what needs attention—and where to go next.
Our proposed school feedback framework brings these voices together across five parameters. Published benchmarks depend on sufficient qualifying evidence.
Sample inputs and weights: student 45%, teacher 30%, parent 25%. This is not a measured institutional score or ranking.
03 / A little space to think
Big decisions. Meet a clearer head.
No crystal balls. Just practical tools that help you ask better questions and explore your options.
THINKMAP / FREE TO EXPLORE
An education investment. A little more perspective.
Weigh the cost of an education path against possible returns. Make your assumptions visible before you make your next move.
Try Education ROI Illustrative tools. Not forecasts, diagnoses or promises.
A DIFFERENT WAY TO LOOK AT ITSee the trade-offs.possibility, explored ↗
A thoughtful foundation
Progress with perspective.
01
People before data.
Privacy-aware feedback and aggregate reporting. Clear participation notices and care around identifying details.
02
Evidence before claims.
Proposed frameworks, clearly labelled examples, and published benchmarks only when qualifying evidence supports them.
For the next chapter
Good things start with a conversation.
A school with a question. A provider with an idea. A partner who sees the possibilities. Let’s find a useful way forward.
✳fresh eyes. new possibilities.
AI Solutions Partnership
Partner With Us to Build Smarter Schools
Schools that join the CatalystBox network unlock access to a growing suite of purpose-built AI tools — designed around real feedback data from real classrooms.
AI · 01📅
AI Attendance Predictor
Identify at-risk students early with AI models that detect absenteeism patterns before they become chronic dropout risks.
AI · 02📝
AI Lesson Plan Generator
Help teachers create curriculum-aligned, differentiated lesson plans in minutes — freeing time for what matters most: teaching.
AI · 03📚
AI Homework Helper
A safe, school-approved academic support tool that guides students through problems with hints and explanations, not just answers.
Detect early behavioural patterns flagged anonymously through CatalystBox feedback and recommend timely, evidence-based interventions.
PARTNER🤝
Build Together
Have a specific need? CatalystBox partners with schools and boards to co-develop custom AI solutions grounded in your own feedback data.
Partnership pricing, agreed around your needs.
We scope feedback, analytics and AI services with each institution before confirming availability, delivery dates and fees.
Board-wide licensing and sponsored pilots are proposals subject to written agreement.
A clear scope before a commitment
1
Agree the scope
Choose the institutions, participants, feedback cycle, languages, reporting and support needed.
2
Confirm the offer
Your written proposal sets out fees, taxes, included services, delivery dates and any pilot conditions. Examples elsewhere on this site do not guarantee feature availability.
3
Review the safeguards
Agree participant notices, consent requirements, access, retention and publication thresholds before collection begins.
Boards and sponsored access
A board agreement may support multiple institutions. Coverage, billing and collection arrangements require that board's approval. This website does not announce a CBSE, CISCE or government partnership.
Free or subsidised access depends on confirmed sponsorship or pilot terms. Samagra Shiksha, PM SHRI and CSR support are possible funding routes to explore, not committed sources of funding. CSR implementation depends on applicable eligibility and registration requirements; 12A/80G status alone is not sufficient.
CatalystBox is an education intelligence and improvement platform. Reportcard provides institution directories and privacy-protected aggregate feedback. Marketplace connects institutional needs with relevant providers. ThinkMap offers free practical decision tools. We also work with education institutions on analytics, AI consulting, custom AI solutions and research or board partnerships.
Explore our connected platforms: Reportcard for directories and aggregate feedback, Marketplace for institutional needs and providers, and ThinkMap for education, business, sport, exam and self-reflection decisions.
Mission
Make Student Voice Actionable
Across India's education system, critical issues go undetected. Bullying is underreported. Teaching quality is untracked. Mental health stress builds silently.
CatalystBox aims to complement existing evaluation systems with accessible feedback and practical tools for institutional improvement.
🔒
Trust Through Anonymity
Feedback is designed for aggregate reporting. We minimise identifying information and ask participants not to include names or identifying details in their answers.
📊
Data-Driven Reform
Turning individual voices into aggregate intelligence that informs policy decisions at district, state, and national level.
⚖️
Independent & Neutral
Designed to support evidence-based institutional improvement. Partnership and research arrangements are agreed for each deployment.
🌍
Designed for Scale
Built to operate across every type of school — government, aided, private — in every language, in every state.
The Organization
FEF
Fresh Eye Foundation
The team behind CatalystBox
Fresh Eye Foundation built CatalystBox with a clear-eyed conviction: the biggest problem in Indian education isn't the absence of solutions — it's the absence of structured, reliable data to understand what the actual problems are.
"CatalystBox is not merely a startup. It is public digital infrastructure. Like Nielsen for media, like Glassdoor for workplaces — CatalystBox becomes the trusted, independent voice of students across a nation."
We exist to build tools that give the education ecosystem a clearer, more honest view of itself — and the data to act on it.
The Platform
See CatalystBox in Action
Experience how student feedback seamlessly transforms into actionable intelligence for school leaders.
Bring it to your school
Experience CatalystBox at Your School
Whether you want to implement the comprehensive CatalystBox feedback infrastructure or deploy our custom AI solutions, we partner directly with schools, administrators, and boards.
✓Integrate purpose-built AI solutions for your operations.
CB
Example School
Illustrative school · No live institutional data
DEMO
Illustrative reporting cycle
CatalystBox Score
79.65
Illustrative percentile · Top 18%
Student Happiness
82
↑ +4 this month
Teaching Quality
76
↓ –2 this month
Academic Pressure
68
⚠ Monitor closely
Parent Engagement
71
→ Stable
Feedback Volume — Last 6 MonthsTREND
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Flagged CategoriesTHIS MONTH
Academic Pressure
24↑
Bullying Reports
7↓
Infrastructure
12→
Teaching Quality
5↓
vs. City Average
79.65
+6.2 ↑
vs. State Average
79.65
+9.1 ↑
vs. National Average
79.65
+11.4 ↑
SAMPLE DASHBOARD · DATA IS ILLUSTRATIVE ONLY
Support
Frequently Asked Questions
Everything schools, boards, and partners commonly ask about CatalystBox — answered honestly and clearly.
Categories
General Questions
CatalystBox is an education intelligence and improvement platform. Reportcard provides institution directories and privacy-protected aggregate feedback. Marketplace connects institutional needs with relevant providers. ThinkMap offers free practical decision tools. We also work with education institutions on analytics, AI consulting, custom AI solutions and research or board partnerships.
Think of it as the central nervous system of education feedback — making student voice measurable, visible, and actionable at every level.
CatalystBox serves the entire education ecosystem. Students, teachers, and parents are the primary voices. School administrators and education boards use the analytics dashboards. Policymakers, NGOs, researchers, and CSR foundations use the intelligence reports to make informed decisions.
Yes. CatalystBox directly supports NEP 2020 principles — including student voice, holistic education, mental health focus, and data-driven policy making. This is our interpretation of the policy's goals, not a government endorsement or certification.
✓ NEP 2020 Aligned
No special hardware is required. CatalystBox works through QR codes and mobile web — students simply scan a code and submit feedback on any smartphone. School administrators access dashboards through a standard web browser. No app downloads, no installations.
Privacy & Safety
Feedback is designed for aggregate reporting. Please omit identifying details from written answers. Free text, context and small groups can create identification risks; anonymity is not an absolute guarantee. Read the notice for the particular service before participating.
Feedback data can include the institution, respondent category, ratings, written answers and timestamps. Account and enquiry services may also process contact details. Hosting and form providers can process technical information. See the Privacy Policy for the distinctions.
Institutional reports are intended to show aggregate results with publication safeguards. Avoid names and identifying details. Small-group and contextual identification risks require review; no system can guarantee that misuse is impossible.
Service providers may process information needed to run feedback, hosting and account services. Research sharing requires appropriately aggregated information and agreed safeguards. Identifiable student feedback is not sold or used for advertising or individual targeting.
Feedback System
Each school receives a unique QR code. Students scan it with any smartphone — no app needed — and are taken to a simple, mobile-friendly form. They select a feedback category, answer a few questions, and submit anonymously. The time needed depends on the form. Review its participation notice before submitting.
📱 Any Smartphone · No App · Multilingual
CatalystBox covers bullying and harassment, teaching quality, mental health and academic pressure, infrastructure and facilities, general school environment, and parent engagement. Schools can also request additional categories specific to their context.
Yes. CatalystBox is designed for the entire school community. Parents have forms focused on communication and transparency. Teachers can share professional feedback about working conditions and resources. The same guidance on aggregate reporting and avoiding identifying details applies to every respondent group.
Validation and duplicate-response checks depend on the deployed service. They can reduce abuse but cannot prove that every answer is genuine. The applicable participation notice should explain verification and technical information processing.
Dashboard & Data
Dashboard examples illustrate possible aggregate scores, trends and issue summaries. Available reports depend on the service and sufficient qualifying evidence. A directory listing does not establish that a school has a published benchmark.
The CatalystBox Benchmark is a composite school performance score built structurally from three core indices: Student Experience (SEI), Teacher Experience (TEI), and Parent Trust (PTI). It allows schools to track core improvement dimensions internally and compare systematically.
Collection and reporting cadence are agreed for each deployment. Feedback collection, analysis and benchmark publication can follow different schedules; illustrative screens are not live data.
A board deployment can provide aggregate reporting for institutions within its authorised scope, subject to an agreement, access controls and publication safeguards. Board access is not automatic.
AI Solutions
CatalystBox offers a growing suite of AI tools purpose-built for schools: an AI Attendance Predictor, AI Lesson Plan Generator, AI Homework Helper, AI Timetable Optimiser, and an AI Discipline Monitor that uses feedback patterns to recommend early interventions.
Schools can also partner with us to co-develop custom AI tools based on their specific needs and their own data.
The AI tools are a separate layer that schools can opt into. The feedback and intelligence platform is the core of CatalystBox. AI tools are offered as an additional partnership for schools that want to go further — using CatalystBox insights to actively improve operations.
No. CatalystBox handles implementation, training, and ongoing support. School staff interact with simple, intuitive interfaces designed for educators — not engineers. Our team works closely with each school to ensure smooth onboarding.
✓ Full Implementation Support Included
Partnership
The simplest way is to reach out through our Contact page or fill in our Partner With Us form. We'll schedule a conversation to understand your context, walk you through what CatalystBox looks like for your institution, and outline next steps.
→ Start at our Contact page
Absolutely. CatalystBox is designed to serve all schools — government, aided, and private. Government schools, which often lack formal feedback mechanisms entirely, stand to benefit the most. CatalystBox can be deployed across an entire government board's school network through a single partnership agreement.
CatalystBox maintains an independent advisory board comprising educators, psychologists, child safety specialists, and policy experts. This board oversees data governance and ethical guidelines — ensuring CatalystBox remains a neutral, credible infrastructure, not a commercial surveillance tool.
Yes. NGOs, CSR foundations, and research institutions can partner with CatalystBox to access aggregated education intelligence reports, fund deployment in underserved school networks, or co-design impact measurement programs. Reach out to explore what a partnership might look like.
Still have questions?
Our team is happy to walk you through anything — whether you're a school principal, board official, NGO, or researcher.
Get In Touch
Let's Build Something That Matters
Whether you're a school principal, board official, NGO, or researcher — we'd love to hear from you. Every conversation starts with a simple hello.
Message us about education solutions, institutional partnerships, or general enquiries.
🏢
Organisation
Fresh Eye Foundation
CatalystBox is a product of Fresh Eye Foundation, an independent organisation focused on building transparent, data-driven tools for India's education ecosystem.
Who Should Reach Out
SCHOOL
School Principals & AdministratorsWant to bring CatalystBox to your school? Let's talk.
BOARD
Education Boards & OfficialsInterested in a board-wide partnership? We'll put together a tailored proposal.
NGO / CSR
NGOs, Foundations & CSR TeamsLooking to fund CatalystBox deployment or access education intelligence?
RESEARCH
Researchers & AcademicsInterested in anonymised education datasets? Reach out to discuss scope.
OTHER
Media, Press & OthersFor press enquiries or any other reason — use the form and we'll get back to you.
Looking to partner with CatalystBox?Fill in our dedicated Partner With Us form and our team will reach out with a tailored proposal for your school or board.
Send Us a Message
Fill in the form below — our team will get back to you within 48 hours on working days.
Have a quick question? Many common queries about how CatalystBox works, our privacy model, and partnership process are already answered in our FAQ section.
Privacy & Safety
Your voice. Handled with care.
Feedback, account details and enquiries have different privacy needs. This notice explains those differences and the limits of anonymous participation.
CatalystBox is an education intelligence and improvement platform from Fresh Eye Foundation. Contact hello@catalystbox.in for the contracting entity and registration documents applicable to a proposed engagement. This notice makes no claim of charitable status, tax exemption or independent certification.
This notice covers this website and its enquiry and linked feedback forms. Reportcard and Marketplace have their own notices and account requirements; review those on the relevant service before participating.
Feedback and anonymity
Feedback is intended for aggregate reporting. A form may collect institution, respondent category, ratings, optional written answers and submission time. Read its notice and fields before submitting. Account or verification requirements can differ between services and deployments.
Do not include names, contact details, roll numbers or details that could identify you or another person in written answers. Free text, small groups and contextual details can make a response identifiable even without a name. We cannot promise that re-identification is impossible.
Institutional reports should contain aggregate results with publication safeguards. Authorised processing of responses to operate a service is different from publishing individual answers. These forms are not an emergency or safeguarding reporting channel.
Accounts, enquiries and third parties
If you contact us, apply for a partnership or use an account, you may provide your name, email, phone number, institution and message. We use these details to respond, manage the requested service and protect access. Do not send sensitive student information through an enquiry form.
This site links to or embeds Google Forms and uses FormSubmit to deliver some enquiries. Those providers process submitted information under their own terms and privacy notices. Hosting, authentication and other service providers may process technical information such as IP addresses, cookies, session information and security logs. We cannot promise that infrastructure providers keep no logs.
We do not use Google Analytics, Meta Pixel or advertising trackers in this website's code. Site preferences may be saved in browser storage. External forms and linked services can have different cookie and storage practices.
Children and institutional deployments
Participation should be voluntary and age-appropriate. Before deploying feedback with children, the institution and CatalystBox must establish the applicable notices, permissions, parental or guardian consent where required, and safeguarding responsibilities. Removing name fields alone does not remove legal obligations.
A feedback service cannot replace a school's safeguarding procedures or professional support. Raise urgent concerns through the institution's designated channels.
Use, access and retention
Feedback supports institutional analysis and reporting; enquiry information supports the request you make. We do not use student feedback for advertising or individual targeting. Research access is limited to appropriately aggregated information under agreed safeguards. We do not sell identifiable student feedback.
Access and retention depend on the service, data category and deployment agreement. Contact us for the applicable schedule, processing providers and any deletion request. We do not promise a universal account expiry or automatic deletion interval that applies to every connected service.
We use access controls and secure transport to protect information. No service can guarantee that a breach or unintended personal disclosure is impossible. Security incidents require assessment and notification in accordance with applicable law and service obligations.
Your choices and privacy requests
You can choose not to submit a form. To request access, correction, deletion, withdrawal of consent or help with a privacy concern, write to hello@catalystbox.in. If a response cannot be linked to you, we may be unable to locate it safely. Please do not send more identifying information than needed to explain your request.
Applicable rights and requirements depend on the service, jurisdiction and commencement of relevant law. This notice is not a certification of compliance. India's DPDP framework includes the Act and notified Rules; consult the official framework for current provisions.
Material changes that reduce privacy protections or alter data use require at least 30 days' public notice. This update corrects descriptions and distinguishes services; it does not authorise new data collection or disclosure.
Our framework for institutional feedback prioritises limited collection, aggregate publication and human review.
Updated 16 October 2026
Before collection begins
Agree the purpose, participating institutions, respondent groups, applicable notices and consent, processing providers, data access and retention. Confirm the actual deployed service rather than assuming that every example feature on this website is available.
Aggregate publication
Institutional reports are intended to show aggregate results. Publication requires sufficient qualifying evidence and checks for small-group and contextual identification risks. A numerical threshold alone does not prove anonymity or statistical validity. Benchmarks need a defined comparison population and adequate coverage.
Authorised access
Institution and board access must be limited to the agreed scope and role. Research sharing requires appropriate aggregation, review and terms. Operational access to process responses is distinct from access to published reports. We do not sell identifiable student feedback or use it for advertising or individual targeting.
AI and human judgment
AI analysis can misinterpret language, miss serious concerns or generate incorrect recommendations. Its outputs require human review. Scores and automated summaries must not be used alone to diagnose, discipline or make consequential decisions about an individual.
Security, retention and incidents
Each deployment needs appropriate access controls, secure transport, retention and deletion arrangements, and an incident response process. Do not infer a specific encryption standard, audit certification, deletion job or response SLA from this general framework. Confirm these requirements in the service agreement.
Accountability and review
Contact hello@catalystbox.in for governance questions, evidence of organisational credentials, or the safeguards applicable to your institution. This page does not claim oversight by a constituted independent advisory board or blanket exemption from data protection law.
Changes reducing protections or altering data use require at least 30 days' public notice. See the Privacy Policy for participation and request details.
Cover
Abstract
Problem
Framework
Parameters
Methodology
Scoring
Privacy
Applications
Limitations
About
Methodology White Paper · Version 1.1
The CatalystBox
Global Education Benchmark
A framework for measuring school experience
across student wellbeing, teaching effectiveness,
learning environment, parent engagement, and future readiness.
Published byFresh Eye Foundation
PlatformCatalystBox
Version1.1 — October 2026
ClassificationPublic — Open Access
Proposed methodology · Subject to pilot validation
The CatalystBox Global Education Benchmark (CGEB) is a proposed methodology for combining student, teacher and parent experience into aggregate institutional insights. It complements academic assessments and existing school evaluation systems. This document describes the proposed measurement design; features, thresholds and reporting cadence must be confirmed for each deployment. It is not evidence of national adoption, independent validation or live benchmark coverage.
Education systems already use assessments, surveys and school evaluation frameworks. India's Shaala Siddhi supports school evaluation, while PISA includes student-experience measures. The opportunity for CatalystBox is to support accessible, repeated institutional feedback and practical follow-through.
PISA measures academic performance as well as school experiences including belonging, bullying and safety. CGEB aims to complement that work through institution-focused feedback; it is not a replacement for PISA or an official assessment.
"Schools are not just knowledge factories. They are environments in which children spend much of their time. The quality of that environment — as experienced by students, teachers, and parents — is invisible to the systems that govern it."
The consequences of this feedback void are measurable. Systemic problems — teacher disengagement, bullying cultures, inadequate infrastructure, academic pressure crises — persist undetected until they become crises. Policy reforms are designed without ground-level signal. Accessible feedback channels can complement existing institutional reporting processes.
CGEB aims to help institutions hear students, teachers and parents through repeated feedback, aggregate reporting and reviewed analysis.
The Framework
The CGEB Architecture
The CatalystBox Global Education Benchmark is a composite index — a single numerical score between 0 and 100 that summarizes the overall quality of a school's experience environment. It is calculated from five weighted parameters, each capturing a distinct dimension of school life.
The CGEB is distinct from academic performance indexes in three fundamental ways:
Three Defining Distinctions
Experience-first, not outcome-first. The CGEB measures how school feels to its participants, not what students can demonstrate on a test.
Three-stakeholder architecture. Student voice, teacher voice, and parent voice are weighted independently and combined — no single group's perspective dominates.
Real-time and continuous. The design supports repeated feedback through QR-based forms; the actual collection and publication cadence is agreed per deployment.
The framework is curriculum-agnostic by design. It makes no assumptions about pedagogical approach, subject matter, or assessment type. Cross-country comparisons require translation review, cultural validation, comparable sampling and adequate evidence. A shared score scale alone does not establish comparability.
The Three Index Streams
Before calculation of the composite CGEB score, responses are organized into three independent index streams reflecting each stakeholder group. These streams are valuable in their own right — a school may have a high SEI but a low TEI, signaling that students feel well-supported but teachers do not.
SEI
Student Experience Index · 45%
+
TEI
Teacher Experience Index · 30%
+
PTI
Parent Trust Index · 25%
=
CGEB
Composite Score 0 – 100
Student voice weighted highest (45%) · Scores normalized to 0–100 scale · Minimum response threshold required per stream
Five Measurement Parameters
The Five Parameters
The CGEB measures five dimensions of school experience, each weighted according to its contribution to holistic school quality. These parameters were derived from a synthesis of international education quality frameworks, including UNESCO's Education for All framework, the OECD's Education at a Glance indicators, the Sustainable Development Goal 4 targets, and empirical research on school climate and student wellbeing.
Student Wellbeing
25%
Teaching Effectiveness
20%
Learning Environment
20%
Future Readiness
20%
Parent Engagement
15%
01
Student Wellbeing
Measures the physical, emotional, and social wellbeing of students within the school environment. Covers safety from bullying and harassment, mental health support, sense of belonging, equitable treatment, and freedom to express concerns without fear. This parameter receives the highest weight (25%) because student wellbeing is foundational to all other educational outcomes.
SafetyMental HealthBelongingAnti-BullyingEquity
25%
02
Teaching Effectiveness
Captures the quality of instructional practice as experienced by students and observed by teachers themselves. Measures pedagogical quality, student engagement in lessons, feedback frequency, differentiation for diverse learners, and teacher-student relationships. Data is collected from both students (their experience of being taught) and teachers (their self-reported professional conditions).
PedagogyEngagementFeedbackRelationships
20%
03
Learning Environment
Assesses the physical and institutional conditions in which learning occurs. Covers classroom infrastructure, access to learning materials, cleanliness and safety of facilities, digital access, library resources, and the broader institutional culture (inclusion, discipline fairness, institutional responsiveness to concerns). Not limited to physical infrastructure — also captures whether the school's systems support effective learning.
InfrastructureDigital AccessInclusionResources
20%
04
Future Readiness
Measures the degree to which the school prepares students for life beyond the classroom — including career guidance, critical thinking development, digital literacy, vocational exposure, and preparation for higher education. This parameter specifically addresses whether students feel equipped for the transitions that follow school, and whether teachers feel supported in delivering future-relevant learning.
Career GuidanceCritical ThinkingDigital LiteracyTransitions
20%
05
Parent Engagement
Captures the quality of the school-family relationship. Measures communication frequency and clarity, responsiveness of school leadership to parental concerns, inclusion of parents in school decisions, and parents' sense of trust in the institution. Parent feedback is treated as an independent data stream (PTI) reflecting the family's experience of the school as an institution, distinct from the child's in-school experience.
CommunicationTrustResponsivenessInclusion
15%
Data Collection
The Methodology
The proposed collection design uses QR codes and mobile web forms, with privacy safeguards and accessible participation. Languages, verification, consent and deployment requirements must be confirmed for each institution and jurisdiction.
Collection Architecture
Stakeholder
Access Method
Form Type
Frequency
Students (Cls 10 & 12)
QR code on school notice board or classroom poster
Structured + open text. Covers wellbeing, teaching, environment, future readiness.
Ongoing; minimum quarterly analysis cycles
Teachers
QR code on staffroom notice board or via school admin
Structured + open text. Covers professional conditions, support, and pedagogy confidence.
Ongoing; minimum quarterly
Parents / Guardians
QR code on school communications, report cards, or notice board
Structured + open text. Covers communication, trust, and child experience at home.
Ongoing; minimum semi-annual
The Data Pipeline
1
Response Submission
Participant scans the school-specific QR code on a smartphone. No app download required. The form loads in the mobile browser. Participation and verification requirements depend on the service notice. School identity is encoded in the QR code itself — participants do not select a school manually.
2
Raw Data Collection
Responses are written to a secure database. Each response record includes: school identifier, stakeholder type, structured scale responses (Likert, multiple choice), open-text responses, and timestamp. Written answers may inadvertently contain identifying details. Infrastructure providers may process technical information; the deployed service notice must explain this.
3
ETL Processing
Raw responses are extracted, transformed, and loaded into the analytics pipeline. Structured responses are normalized to a 0–100 scale per item. Open-text responses are queued for AI sentiment analysis.
4
AI Sentiment Analysis
Open-text responses are processed by a large language model (LLM) to extract sentiment polarity, topic classification, and issue detection. The AI layer identifies signals such as bullying mentions, safety concerns, wellbeing deterioration, and positive practice patterns. No individual response is attributed to any person.
5
CGEB Score Calculation
Parameter scores are calculated from normalized structured responses. SEI, TEI, and PTI are computed from their respective stakeholder streams. The composite CGEB is calculated using the weighted formula. A minimum response threshold per stream is required before a score is published.
6
Dashboard Publication
Scores are published to the school dashboard, visible to authorized school administrators and principals. Benchmark comparisons (city, state, national, global) are displayed contextually. Individual response data is never displayed — only aggregated scores and trend lines.
The Scoring Engine
Score Calculation & Benchmarking
All CGEB scores are expressed on a normalized 0–100 scale where higher scores indicate a more positive experience environment. The scoring engine applies a hierarchical calculation: individual items → parameter scores → stream indexes → composite CGEB.
Normalization
Structured items use Likert scales (typically 1–5 or 1–4). Each item is normalized to 0–100. For a 5-point scale, the formula is: Normalized Score = (Raw Response − 1) / (5 − 1) × 100. This ensures all items contribute equally regardless of original scale range.
Minimum Response Thresholds
To prevent statistically unreliable scores from being published, each index stream requires a minimum number of valid responses before a score is reported. Scores below threshold are shown as "Insufficient Data" in dashboards and excluded from benchmark comparisons. The numbers below are proposed design thresholds, not proof of statistical reliability or the settings of every live service.
Stream
Minimum Responses
Rationale
SEI (Student)
15 valid responses
Proposed starting threshold; statistical reliability depends on coverage, response quality and validation
TEI (Teacher)
5 valid responses
Proposed starting threshold; small staff groups need additional privacy review
PTI (Parent)
10 valid responses
Balanced between reliability and the practical difficulty of parent engagement
CGEB (Composite)
All three streams must meet threshold
Composite score is only published when all streams are independently valid
Benchmarking Tiers
A CGEB score is most meaningful when contextualized. Each school's score is compared against four benchmark tiers, displayed on the school dashboard:
Benchmark Tiers
School Historical: The school's own score trend over time — is it improving or declining?
City/District Average: How does this school compare to peers in the same urban or district context?
National Average: How does this school compare nationally, by board and school type?
Global Average: Only after sufficient international data and cross-cultural validation, comparison by income band and school type.
Intelligence Layer
AI & Sentiment Processing
The CGEB includes an AI-powered intelligence layer that processes open-text responses to extract signals that structured questions alone cannot capture. This layer detects issue patterns, sentiment trends, and emerging concerns — surfacing them for school administrators without exposing individual responses.
What the AI Layer Does
Function
Description
Output
Sentiment Classification
Classifies each open-text response as positive, neutral, or negative; identifies emotional tone
Sentiment distribution per parameter per time period
Topic Extraction
Identifies the specific issues mentioned in responses (e.g., "homework pressure", "teacher favouritism", "dirty toilets")
Ranked list of most-mentioned issues per school
Issue Flagging
Detects high-severity signals including bullying mentions, safety concerns, mental health distress, and harassment language
Alert notifications to school dashboard (aggregated — never individual)
Trend Detection
Identifies statistically significant changes in sentiment or issue frequency over time
Trend alerts: "Mentions of academic pressure have increased 40% in the last 30 days"
"The AI layer does not replace human judgment. It amplifies weak signals that would otherwise be invisible in aggregated data — giving school leaders the chance to act before a pattern becomes a crisis."
What the AI Layer Does Not Do
Explicit Constraints
The AI never attempts to identify individual respondents from text content
Individual responses are never displayed in dashboards — only aggregated signals
The AI does not make decisions — it surfaces information for human review
Responses below the minimum threshold per school are excluded from AI processing
Responses flagged as potentially identifying (unusual detail that could narrow the respondent pool) are suppressed before output
Privacy & Governance
Privacy safeguards need ongoing care.
The framework aims to minimise identifying information and publish aggregate results. Free text, small groups and context can still identify people. Account details and infrastructure processing must be considered separately from published feedback.
Applicable obligations depend on the actual processing, jurisdiction, participant ages and service arrangement. Removing name fields does not establish exemption from DPDP, GDPR, FERPA, COPPA or other law. International deployments require a specific legal and operational assessment.
Before collection, confirm notices, consent, processing providers, access, retention and publication safeguards. This methodology does not certify compliance, charitable registration or independent board oversight.
The CGEB is designed to serve multiple stakeholder groups at different levels of the education system. The same underlying data serves different purposes depending on the level of aggregation at which it is viewed.
For Schools
Identify specific, actionable areas for improvement before issues escalate to crises
Benchmark against peer schools in the city, district, and nationally
Demonstrate accountability and improvement trajectory to parents and boards
Satisfy quality assurance requirements with continuous, independent data
For Education Boards & Ministries
Monitor school experience quality across thousands of schools simultaneously
Identify districts or school clusters showing systemic decline — and intervene early
Evaluate the impact of policy reforms using before-and-after CGEB tracking
Replace infrequent, expensive inspection cycles with continuous intelligence
For Development Finance & Research
Monitor and evaluate education program outcomes using an independent, standardized measure
Provide evidence-based impact data for reporting to donors and funding bodies
Generate nationally representative datasets for academic research
Track progress toward SDG 4 indicators at country level
For Policymakers & Think Tanks
Access the Annual Global School Experience Report for cross-country comparison
Commission custom analysis of anonymized datasets for policy research
Use CGEB trend data to justify and design education reform investments
Limitations
Limitations & Future Research
The CGEB is a first-generation instrument. Intellectual honesty requires frank acknowledgment of its current limitations. Each limitation identified below represents a research agenda for future versions of the framework.
Limitation
Nature
Mitigation / Research Agenda
Self-selection bias
Participants who choose to respond may not be representative of the full school population; students with stronger feelings (positive or negative) may be overrepresented
Response rate monitoring; comparison of respondent cohorts over time; future research on representativeness
Social desirability effects
Even with privacy safeguards, some participants may respond in ways they believe are expected, particularly in cultures with high power distance
Form design to minimize leading questions; cultural adaptation of question framing; longitudinal comparison to detect systematic bias
Cross-cultural comparability
The meaning of concepts like "teacher effectiveness" or "belonging" may vary significantly across cultures; current parameter weights were developed in an Indian context
Active research program with partner universities in each deployment region; planned parameter localization in future versions
Gaming and manipulation
Schools could theoretically encourage positive responses or suppress negative ones; organized response campaigns could distort scores
Statistical anomaly detection (sudden score changes, unusual submission timing, device clustering); minimum observation period before score changes are reflected
Causal inference limits
CGEB scores are correlational; a high score does not prove causal school quality, and a low score does not identify the cause of poor experience
CGEB is positioned as a signal, not a verdict; qualitative follow-up is recommended when scores trigger concern; research partnerships to establish causal links
"A measurement framework that acknowledges its own limits is more trustworthy than one that claims universal validity. The CGEB is a beginning, not an endpoint."
Planned Version 2.0 Developments
15-language form engineOffline-first response queuingCultural parameter calibrationPeer-reviewed methodology paperUniversity research partnershipsLongitudinal tracking cohortsSchool improvement recommendation engineSDG 4 indicator mapping
About
About CatalystBox
CatalystBox is an education intelligence and improvement platform from Fresh Eye Foundation. It is designed to make student voice measurable, visible, and actionable across schools, boards, districts, states, and the nation.
CatalystBox combines anonymous feedback collection, AI-driven sentiment analysis, the CatalystBox Global Education Benchmark (CGEB), and a school analytics dashboard to transform fragmented, informal feedback into structured education intelligence.
Cross-subsidised and sponsored access are possible partnership models. Free access requires confirmed funding and agreed scope; it is not guaranteed by a scheme or board affiliation.
Fresh Eye Foundation
Organisational and contracting details available on request
Multi-domain civic mission: education, public health, civic governance, workforce intelligence
CatalystBox (education) is Initiative 01 of the Foundation's work
Contact: hello@catalystbox.in
Cite this document:
Fresh Eye Foundation. (2026). The CatalystBox Global Education Benchmark: A Methodology White Paper. Version 1.1: Fresh Eye Foundation / CatalystBox. Available at: www.catalystbox.in/school
For partnership enquiries, research collaborations, government engagement, or pilot deployment discussions, please contact:
Platform
hello@catalystbox.in
catalystbox.in
Foundation
hello@catalystbox.in
Fresh Eye Foundation
Global Partnership Programme
Bring Student Voice to Your Country.
CatalystBox is expanding globally. We're looking for governments, education boards, schools, NGOs, and research institutions who want to make anonymous, AI-driven school experience intelligence part of their education system.
CatalystBox expands in five deliberate waves — sequenced by regulatory ease, digital infrastructure, and reform appetite. Each wave funds and validates the next.
Active · 2026
South Asia
India Bangladesh Nepal Sri Lanka
01
Deploying · 2027
Southeast Asia
Indonesia Vietnam Philippines Thailand
02
Opening · 2028
Middle East & Africa
UAE · Saudi Arabia Kenya · Nigeria Rwanda
03
Planned · 2029
Anglophone West
United Kingdom Australia Canada
04
Planned · 2030+
USA & Continental Europe
United States Germany · France Netherlands · Nordics
05
Who We Work With
Four Partnership Tracks.
CatalystBox has distinct partnership tracks for different institutions — each with a tailored deployment model, pricing, and support structure.
🏛️
Governments & Ministries
National or state education ministries looking to deploy CatalystBox as a country-wide school experience monitoring system. Includes a white-label government-branded version and a national ministry dashboard.
Ministry-branded deployment on your domain
National and district-level analytics dashboard
Policy-ready aggregated reports
Integration with existing school data systems
Country-specific data residency
Dedicated implementation support team
🏫
Schools & Education Boards
Individual private schools, school chains, or curriculum boards (CBSE, IB, Cambridge, national boards) looking to bring the CatalystBox Benchmark to their institution or network.
School-specific dashboard with your branding
CGEB score with city, national & global benchmarks
QR-based form deployment — no hardware required
AI-generated insights on sentiment and issues
Cross-subsidy model: premium schools fund free access for government schools
Annual CatalystBox Benchmark report, subject to qualifying evidence
🌍
NGOs & Development Finance
International development organizations, foundations, and financing bodies (World Bank, UNICEF, ADB, bilateral donors) running education programs that require independent monitoring, evaluation, and impact measurement.
Grant-funded free deployment in low-income schools
Independent M&E data using the CGEB framework
Donor-ready impact reports
Baseline and endline measurement for program evaluation
SDG 4 indicator alignment and reporting
Co-branding on impact publications
🔬
Research Institutions
Universities, think tanks, and policy research bodies looking to access anonymized school experience data for academic research, policy analysis, or global comparative studies.
Access to anonymized, aggregated CGEB datasets
Co-publication opportunities on the Annual Global School Experience Report
Custom data cuts by geography, school type, or parameter
Methodology collaboration and peer-review partnership
Academic licensing at research-friendly pricing
First-mover access to longitudinal data as the dataset grows
What CatalystBox Brings
The Infrastructure. You Bring the Schools.
CatalystBox handles the entire technical, analytical, and AI layer. Your country or institution brings school access and local knowledge. We build the rest together.
01 — Deployment
QR-Based, Zero Hardware
No screens, no devices, no installations. School-specific QR codes printed on posters activate the platform instantly. Works on any smartphone on any network.
02 — Intelligence
AI Sentiment Engine
Open-text responses are processed through a large language model to detect patterns, issues, and emerging signals — surfacing to dashboards without exposing individual responses.
03 — Benchmark
The CGEB Score
The proposed benchmark combines five parameters. Publication and peer comparisons depend on sufficient qualifying evidence and a defined comparison group.
04 — Privacy
Privacy-aware Reporting
The framework prioritises aggregate reports and limited identifying information. Free text and small groups require review. Legal obligations are assessed for each deployment.
05 — Localization
Multilingual Forms
Languages, curriculum context and local validation are agreed for each deployment. Contact us to confirm support for your institution.
06 — Reports
Policy-Ready Intelligence
Governments and donors receive aggregated, visualized reports ready for policy review and donor reporting — not raw data dumps that require further analysis.
"
Students deserve accessible ways to be heard. CatalystBox exists to change that — one school at a time, one country at a time, until the whole world is listening.
Yatesh Srivastava — Founder, CatalystBox & Fresh Eye Foundation
Common Questions
FAQ
No. CatalystBox uses QR codes printed on standard A4 or A3 posters placed on school notice boards, classrooms, or staffrooms. Any participant with a smartphone and basic internet access can scan and respond. No tablets, no screens, no infrastructure beyond a printed poster.
Feedback is designed for aggregate reporting with publication safeguards. Please omit identifying details. Free text and small groups can create identification risks, while account and infrastructure data have separate processing requirements. Review the applicable service notice.
Legal obligations depend on the jurisdiction, participants and actual processing. Anonymous reporting does not automatically exempt a service from data protection law. Data residency, provider contracts, consent and other requirements must be assessed and agreed for a particular deployment.
CatalystBox operates on a cross-subsidy model. Fees from private schools and government contracts in higher-income markets fund free access for government and rural schools in lower-income markets. We also work with development finance institutions (World Bank, ADB, UNICEF) who fund deployment as part of their education program monitoring and evaluation budgets.
Yes. For government ministry partnerships, CatalystBox offers a fully white-labelled version with the ministry's branding, deployed on a government subdomain. The analytics and AI layer remain CatalystBox infrastructure. Schools see the ministry brand; ministry administrators see all school data; principals see only their school's data.
For individual schools, deployment is same-week — QR codes are generated within 48 hours of onboarding. For government-level deployments, timeline depends on localization, data residency, and government procurement requirements. Typical government implementation is 4–12 weeks from contract to first data collection.
Get Started
Express Interest.
Tell us who you are and what you're looking to build. We'll respond within 48 hours with a tailored brief on how CatalystBox can work in your context.
⚡
48-hour response
We review every enquiry and respond personally — not with an automated sequence.
🔒
No commitment required
Expressing interest is the start of a conversation, not a contract.
🌐
Country-specific guidance
Every response includes context on regulatory fit and deployment model for your market.
📄
CGEB methodology included
All responses include a link to our full open-access methodology white paper.
Fill in your details and we'll be in touch.
✓
We've received your interest.
Expect a personal response within 48 hours at the email you provided.
01 — Jobs
Full-time roles
Join us in building an education intelligence and improvement platform. As CatalystBox onboards its first pilot schools and scales, we're expanding our core team.
1 OPEN
EngineeringRemote (India)Full-time
Founding Engineer (Full-Stack)
We are looking for a Founding Full-Stack Engineer to lead the technical development and scaling of CatalystBox. You will work directly with the founder to design, build, and ship key features across our dashboard, QR-based feedback pipeline, and AI-powered sentiment engine. If you love shipping clean production code quickly and want to shape the technical foundation of a national education intelligence platform, this is for you.
Three remote internships, all 8–12 weeks, with a real chance to shape something national in scale.
Letter of recommendation and stipend (where applicable) on completion. Apply via the form on each role.
3 OPEN
OutreachRemoteInternship
School Partnerships Intern
Help us onboard the first cohort of CBSE and CISCE schools. You'll research school networks, draft
outreach, manage a pipeline, and run early conversations with principals. Strong written English and
comfort with cold email essential.
Support the CGEB methodology and policy work. You'll synthesise NEP 2020 and UDISE+ data, draft sections
of public-facing research briefs, and help shape the 2026 Global School Experience Report. Best fit for
a student of public policy, education, or social sciences.
Ship features on the live platform. The stack is React + Vite + Supabase + Vercel with a Gemini API
sentiment pipeline. You'll work directly on the dashboard, the QR feedback flow, or the PWA conversion —
whatever moves fastest. Best fit if you've shipped at least one full-stack project.
You'll work on something national in scale, with a founder who ships, and a mission that genuinely matters. Honest about what we are: small, ambitious, and not for everyone.
Real ownership
You'll own a stream of work end-to-end. No make-work projects, no babysitting. Your output shapes the platform.
Mission, not theatre
Education infrastructure that's policy-aligned to NEP 2020. The work matters and is held to that standard.
Build in public
Your work goes into research papers, the dashboard, or the school pipeline. Tangible artefacts you can point to.
Founder access
Direct weekly working sessions with the founder. No layers, no politics. Honest feedback both ways.
The Next Layer of Education Intelligence.
CatalystBox is extending its anonymous, AI-powered feedback infrastructure beyond K–12 — to India's colleges and universities. Real voice from students, faculty, alumni, and recruiters, synthesised into the CatalystBox Higher Education Benchmark (CHEB).
The CatalystBox K–12 platform is live. Higher Education is in active design. Institutions joining the first cohort co-shape the framework and can discuss a sponsored inaugural cycle subject to agreed pilot terms.
National context, not CatalystBox adoption: AISHE 2021–22. The four voices describe the proposed framework. Cohort dates and rollout phases are plans subject to pilot readiness and agreement.
India's Higher Education System Runs on Self-Report.
Accreditation and ranking frameworks use multiple forms of institutional evidence, and existing systems can include stakeholder feedback. CHEB aims to complement them with repeated student, faculty, alumni and recruiter experience signals. It does not replace accreditation or imply recognition by NAAC or NIRF.
Self-Reported, Infrastructure-Heavy Rankings
Accreditation uses multiple forms of evidence. Repeated stakeholder feedback can provide additional context about learning and working conditions.
No Independent Student Voice Layer
Students need accessible, trusted channels for concerns about harassment, pressure and wellbeing, alongside the institution's existing grievance and safeguarding processes.
Outcome Claims Without Outcome Data
Placement brochures speak louder than placement reality. Average package figures are reported without comparable methodology, and alumni one or three years out — the most honest voice — are never systematically polled.
NEP 2020 Mandate, No Instrument
Institutions can combine stakeholder feedback with existing quality-assurance processes. CHEB is a proposed complementary instrument, not a mandated component of a national qualifications framework.
"Listening is only useful when institutions can turn feedback into practical improvements. CHEB aims to support that continuing conversation."
The Framework
Introducing the CHEB — CatalystBox Higher Education Benchmark.
CHEB proposes an adaptation of the CGEB framework for higher education. A directory listing is not evidence of a deployed or validated benchmark. Same architectural principles: anonymous QR-based capture, AI sentiment processing, composite scoring. Adapted for the realities of college and university life: alumni outcomes matter, recruiter voice is structured signal, parent voice fades, faculty voice gains weight.
SEI
Student Experience Index
50%
+
FEI
Faculty Experience Index
25%
+
AOI
Alumni Outcome Index
15%
=
CHEB
Composite Score
0 – 100
Recruiter Confidence Index (ECI) contributes a fourth signal at 10% weight, captured annually · Minimum response threshold required per stream · Score is suppressed if any stream is statistically thin
Measurement Dimensions
Six Dimensions. Calibrated for Higher Education.
Where CGEB measures student wellbeing, teaching effectiveness, learning environment, future readiness, and parent engagement — CHEB rebalances. Parent engagement fades; alumni outcomes and infrastructure inclusion emerge. Each dimension is computed independently and weighted into the composite.
01🎓
Student Experience
Wellbeing, mentorship access, campus life, mental health support, grievance redressal, sense of belonging.
WellbeingMentorshipBelonging
25%
02📚
Academic Quality
Teaching effectiveness, curriculum currency, research exposure, assessment fairness, intellectual rigour.
TeachingCurriculumAssessment
25%
03🚀
Outcomes & Readiness
Placement quality, internship pipelines, skill-job alignment, higher-study transitions, real career outcomes.
PlacementsInternshipsTransitions
20%
04👩🏫
Faculty Voice
Workload, autonomy, research support, administrative climate, retention signals — the voice rarely captured.
WorkloadAutonomyClimate
15%
05🌱
Alumni Signal
1-year and 3-year-out feedback on actual career outcomes versus institutional promises. The honesty test.
1-yr Out3-yr OutOutcome Truth
10%
06🏗️
Infrastructure & Inclusion
Accessibility, hostel safety, gender / caste / disability inclusion, library and lab access, digital readiness.
AccessibilitySafetyInclusion
5%
What Institutions Will See
One Dashboard. Every Layer of Voice.
A sample CHEB institutional dashboard — student, faculty, alumni, and recruiter signal synthesised into a composite score, benchmarked against city, state, and national averages, with department-level drill-down and AI-flagged signals.
ILLUSTRATIVE
XY
Sample Engineering University
Academic Year 2026–27 · Department of CSE
DEMO
82.4/100
CatalystBox Higher Education Benchmark
Top 14% nationally · Top 6% in state
Composite of 4,128 anonymous responses across student, faculty, alumni, and recruiter voice over the last cycle.
Student Experience
84
↑ +3 this cycle
Academic Quality
86
↑ +2 this cycle
Outcomes & Readiness
79
→ Stable
Faculty Voice
72
⚠ Monitor — workload signals
Alumni Signal
81
↑ +4 over 3yr cohort
Infrastructure & Inclusion
74
→ Stable
vs. City Average
82.4+4.8 ↑
vs. State Average
82.4+7.1 ↑
vs. National Average
82.4+9.3 ↑
Sample Dashboard · Data is Illustrative Only · CHEB scoring engine in active design
How It Works
From Campus to National Intelligence.
Same five-step pipeline that powers CGEB — adapted for the cadence and structure of higher education. Semester-end student cycles, annual faculty cycles, post-graduation alumni cycles, annual recruiter cycles.
01
Scan QR Code
Posters at department notice boards, hostel common areas, and alumni emails. No app, no login.
02
Select & Submit
Pick role — student, faculty, alumni, recruiter. Rate dimensions. Submit anonymously in any language.
Department-level CHEB score, dimension breakdown, benchmark against city / state / national peers.
05
Policy & Accreditation
Aggregated, anonymised intelligence available to UGC, NAAC, NIRF, and policy partners — as evidence layer for accreditation reform.
Who It's For
Four Partnership Tracks. One Methodology.
CHEB is designed to scale across India's full higher education spectrum — from premier institutions to tier-2 private colleges, from autonomous research universities to large state-board affiliated networks.
🏛️
Private Engineering & Management Colleges
Wedge 01 · 2027 Cohort
Tier-2 and tier-3 private institutions that fight for ranking position and want continuous, independent feedback to inform accreditation prep and parent-facing positioning.
Annual CHEB score with public publication option
NAAC / NIRF readiness mapping
Department-level drill-down dashboards
Inaugural cohort: zero cost for first full cycle
🎓
State Universities & Affiliated Colleges
Wedge 02 · 2027–28
State universities and their affiliated college networks — deployment funded through CSR partnerships, giving institutions and their colleges the full CHEB layer at no direct cost.
Multi-campus aggregate view
Affiliated college benchmarking
State-level intelligence report
CSR-funded deployment model
🔬
Autonomous & Deemed Universities
Wedge 03 · 2028
Institutions with sophisticated quality cultures — NAAC re-accredited, NIRF top-100 ambitions — that want continuous internal audit infrastructure rather than periodic external review.
Continuous accreditation evidence layer
Custom dimension weighting
Quarterly governance review
API access to anonymised aggregate data
🏆
Central Institutions · IITs · IIMs · IISERs
Wedge 04 · 2029+
India's flagship institutions. Approached only after CHEB has been validated across 50+ institutions and a published longitudinal report — not as a first move, but as a logical next layer.
National-level benchmark contribution
UGC-aligned methodology
Defer until methodology fully proven
Express interest now, deploy later
Roadmap
Five Phases. School Proof First, Then Higher Ed.
The sequence matters. CHEB inherits credibility from CGEB only after CGEB has produced real, validated school data. Reversing the order would weaken both.
Phase 00 · 2026
Prove the K–12 Layer
Onboard real CBSE / CISCE schools. Generate first non-synthetic CGEB dataset. Validate methodology. Publish first ground-truth report.
PRE-CONDITION
Phase 01 · Q1 2027
CHEB Framework Design
Recruit academic advisors. Publish CHEB methodology white paper. Prepare the institution onboarding and reporting process. Open expressions of interest.
METHODOLOGY
Phase 02 · 2027
Private College Wedge
First cohort of 10 private engineering & management colleges across UP, MP, Rajasthan, Karnataka. Full inaugural CHEB cycle.
WEDGE 01
Phase 03 · 2027–28
State University + CSR
One state university partnership funded by CSR partner. Multi-campus rollout across 20+ affiliated colleges. First cross-institutional dataset.
WEDGE 02
Phase 04 · 2028+
Premium & Policy
Autonomous & deemed universities at scale. UGC engagement. Annual India Higher Education Experience Report. National policy layer activated.
WEDGE 03 & 04
Why It Matters Now
Three Reasons This Is the Right Moment.
Institutions benefit from listening to students and staff alongside established evaluation processes. CHEB explores how repeated experience signals can inform practical improvements; it does not claim a regulatory mandate or accreditation endorsement.
CatalystBox already has the architecture, the methodology, the data pipeline, and the privacy model. CHEB is the natural next extension — not a separate product, but a calibrated layer of the same intelligence system.
01
Policy Tailwind
Student participation and institutional improvement motivate this framework. CHEB aims to complement existing channels.
02
Methodology Inherits Credibility
CHEB builds on the proposed CGEB design. Pilot evidence and independent validation are needed before claims of reliability, comparability or scale.
03
Anonymous Voice as a Generational Expectation
The students entering higher education in 2027 will expect the institutions they attend to listen — anonymously, structurally, at scale.
Express Interest
Join the First Cohort.
If you represent a college, university, or higher education board — register your interest now. Inaugural cohort institutions co-shape the CHEB framework, can discuss a sponsored first cycle subject to agreed terms, and become the founding contributors to the proposed CHEB framework.
48-hour response
We review every enquiry personally and respond within two business days.
No commitment required
Expressing interest is the start of a conversation, not a contract.
Free inaugural cycle
First-cohort institutions receive the first full CHEB cycle at no cost.
Methodology co-design
First-cohort institutions are credited contributors in the CHEB methodology paper.
✓
We've received your interest.
Expect a personal response within 48 hours at the email you provided.