The “Great Ideological and Political Education Course” is notably characterized by its diversity, decentralization, and flexibility, which set it apart from the professionalism, systematicness, and standardization of school-based ideological and political education courses. The two are complementary and mutually reinforcing. We should neither overlook the “Great Ideological and Political Education Course” because of its irreplaceability in school-based ideological and political education, nor weaken the latter on account of the former’s strong practicality and significant influence. Both the “Great Ideological and Political Education Course” and school-based ideological and political education courses encompass two forms: theoretical teaching and practical teaching. The former should not be simply equated with the practical teaching component of ideological and political education courses. The construction of the “Great Ideological and Political Education Course” serves as a prerequisite for its effective utilization, which requires converting potential historical and cultural resources, development achievements, and resources of heroes and role models into explicit ideological and political education resources. The construction requires adherence to three principles: adhering to the principle of clear orientation to highlight its political attribute and prioritise the question of “what to build”; upholding the student-centred principle to stress its educational essence and focus on the question of “for whom to build”; and following the principle of adapting to local conditions to emphasize its distinctive features and address the question of “how to build”. To effectively utilise the “Great Ideological and Political Education Course,” it is essential to promote in-depth dialogue and effective integration between it and school-based ideological and political education courses. Firstly, we should draw on its concepts to optimize the teaching models of school-based ideological and political education courses, advancing innovations in teaching content, teaching procedures, teaching forms, and teaching discourse. Secondly, by leveraging its teaching staff, we can overcome the teaching challenges in school-based ideological and political education courses, delivering them accurately, in depth, thoroughly, and vividly. Thirdly, we should utilize its resources to expand the teaching dimension of school-based ideological and political education courses, enhancing college students’ sense of identity and gain from these courses. Fourthly, by capitalizing on its unique features, we can shape distinctive teaching brands for school-based ideological and political education courses, thereby enhancing their reputation and influence.