Editorial
Research Report
Designing AI-First Systems for Customer Access
Agentic AI has become one of the most seductive phrases in higher-education technology. Vendors promise systems that do not merely respond, but act: agents that observe student behavior, adapt instruction, intervene automatically and optimize outcomes in real time. For institutional leaders under pressure to improve retention, completion and margins, the appeal is obvious.
The problem is not that agentic AI is ineffective. The problem is that agentic AI collides directly with the legal and governance framework of higher education,and often by design.
What is being sold as the next evolution of learning technology represents a quiet but consequential shift: from tools that assist education to systems that monitor, infer and decide. That shift introduces FERPA, accreditation and fiduciary risks that many institutions are not prepared to manage.
Table of Contents
- What 'Agentic' Actually Means in Practice
- When AI Stops Assisting and Starts Recording
- Why the School-Official Exception Breaks Down
- The Shadow Record Problem
- Why This Is Now a Leadership Issue
- The Safer Alternative: Constrained AI
- The Line Institutions Must Draw
What 'Agentic' Actually Means in Practice
In higher-education marketing, agentic AI is often described vaguely as autonomous, proactive, personalized. In practice, these systems share a common set of characteristics:
- Persistent memory across sessions
- Continuous observation of student behavior
- Inference about effort, mastery, confidence or risk
- Autonomous decision-making (what to show, when to intervene, who to alert)
- Cross-role exposure of analytics to faculty, advisors and administrators
These are not edge cases. They are the defining features of agentic systems — and they are precisely what create governance problems.
Related Article: AI in the Wild: Executive Orders Don’t Rewrite FERPA
When AI Stops Assisting and Starts Recording
FERPA does not regulate intelligence; it regulates records.
The moment an agentic system logs student interactions over time, infers mastery or struggle or flags patterns of behavior, it is creating education records. These records may not resemble grades or transcripts. They often appear as confidence scores, risk indicators, sentiment tags or mastery checkpoints. But if they are directly related to a student and maintained by the institution or a party acting on its behalf, they fall squarely within FERPA’s scope.
Crucially, agentic systems do this automatically. They do not wait for a faculty member to save a file or enter a grade. The record is created as a byproduct of observation.
This is the trap.
Empirical research (found here and here) on predictive analytics in higher education shows that these inferred records increasingly shape advising, intervention and progression decisions and often without clear transparency or student recourse.
Why the School-Official Exception Breaks Down
Institutions often rely on FERPA’s school-official exception to justify vendor access to student data. That exception is narrow and conditional. It requires direct institutional control, a legitimate educational interest and strict limits on redisclosure.
Agentic AI strains all three.
- First, control becomes illusory when vendors design, tune and operate autonomous decision logic. Institutions may configure interfaces, but they rarely control how inferences are generated or how models evolve.
- Second, legitimate educational interest becomes ambiguous when analytics are reused for optimization, benchmarking or product improvement — uses that frequently extend beyond the original instructional purpose.
- Third, redisclosure risks multiply when agentic outputs are surfaced across roles or systems without documented access authority.
Research (found here and here) on learning-analytics governance consistently shows that these conditions (e.g., analytics creep, secondary use, vendor-set retention) are the norm rather than the exception in higher education deployments.
When any of these occur, the school-official exception collapses.
The Shadow Record Problem
One of the least understood consequences of agentic AI is the creation of shadow education records: records that influence academic decisions without being formally acknowledged as part of the student record.
Examples include:
- AI-generated alerts about disengagement
- Automated remediation pathways triggered by inferred gaps
- Flags suggesting academic dishonesty or misuse of AI
- Recommendations surfaced to advisors about intervention
These records often live outside the learning management system (LMS) or student information system (SIS), stored in vendor dashboards or analytics layers. Yet they shape how students are taught, advised and evaluated.
When disputes arise like appeals, grievances or accreditation reviews, litigation around these records surface. At that moment, institutions discover they have been maintaining education records they never governed.
Why This Is Now a Leadership Issue
Agentic AI is not merely a pedagogical decision. It is an institutional risk decision.
Once autonomous systems influence assessment, progression or discipline, FERPA compliance becomes inseparable from academic governance. Boards and presidents can no longer delegate these risks entirely to IT or procurement. The design choices embedded in agentic systems determine whether institutions can meet their legal and ethical obligations to students.
This is why agentic AI now appears in conversations about accreditation, fiduciary duty and institutional accountability. The technology is doing exactly what it was designed to do. The open question is whether universities are prepared for the consequences.
The Safer Alternative: Constrained AI
None of this requires abandoning AI. It requires constraining it.
FERPA-aligned AI systems tend to share different characteristics:
- User-initiated rather than persistent
- Stateless or short-lived memory
- No behavioral inference beyond the immediate task
- Clear boundaries between assistance and evaluation
- Records written back only through controlled institutional systems
These systems may feel less “magical,” but they align with governance structures universities already understand and can defend.
Webinar
Feb
25
Content Strategy Leaders Live: Scaling for Speed, Complexity and AI in High Tech
A candid roundtable on how high-tech leaders are rethinking content at scale.
Register
Webinar
Feb
26
Do More with Less: Modernizing the Cloud Contact Center for 2026
Learn how to leverage cloud platforms without adding a single hire to personalize every customer interaction.
Register
Webinar
On demand
Cut the Noise: Deploying AI That Actually Moves the Needle
Learn how to turn AI experimentation into concrete revenue operations.
Watch Now
Webinar
On demand
Ditch the Desk Phones: How Modern Teams Drive AI-First Communications
Find out how one team finally pulled the plug on a legacy phone system. And built something smarter.
Watch Now
Webinar
On demand
Rebrand. Migrate. Optimize. How to Do It All (Without Slowing Down)
Cresta leveled up site speed, design flexibility and marketer sanity (in record time). Find out how.
Watch Now
Webinar
On demand
From Manual to Magical: How AI Transforms CX Teams
Learn how to replace manual support processes with automation that actually delivers.
Watch Now
Related Article: When AI Is FERPA-Compliant — and When It Is Not
The Line Institutions Must Draw
Agentic AI promises efficiency through autonomy. Higher education is governed through accountability.
The more an AI system observes, infers and decides on its own, the more it functions as a records engine rather than a learning tool. At that point, FERPA is not a hurdle to be managed later; it is a constraint that should have shaped the architecture from the beginning.
The agentic AI trap is not that the technology fails. It is that institutions adopt it without recognizing that autonomy and accountability are not interchangeable.
Universities that understand this will design AI systems that serve learning without undermining student rights. Those that do not may find that the most intelligent systems are also the least governable.
Learn how you can join our contributor community.