Category: EdTech

  • PhysicsWallah becomes first Indian edtech unicorn to go public

    PhysicsWallah becomes first Indian edtech unicorn to go public

    Run by founders Alakh Pandey and Prateek Maheshwari, PhysicsWallah, which became a unicorn after surpassing a USD$1bn valuation, opened its public offering for subscription on November 11, with the bidding closing on November 13.

    The IPO, comprising a Rs 3,100 crore (USD$350m) fresh issue and a Rs 380 crore (USD$42.9m) offer-for-sale (OFS) by Pandey and Maheshwari, raised Rs 1,563 crore (USD$176.4m) from anchor investors at Rs 109 per share, a day before the issue opened.

    PhysicsWallah, known for its digital courses, physical centres, and hybrid programs, with a strong focus on India’s national-level engineering and medical exams as well as government exam prep, views the IPO as a key milestone.

    We plan to open at least 70 centres annually over the next three years, with around Rs 400 crore allocated for this
    Alakh Pandey, PhysicsWallah

    The stock market listing makes PhysicsWallah India’s first pure-play edtech company to go public. Pandey said the IPO proceeds would be largely used to expand offline centres and boost branding.

    “The first major expense after the IPO will be setting up new offline centres. This is our primary focus, as we plan to open at least 70 centres annually over the next three years, with around Rs 400 crore allocated for this,” stated Pandey, during a media briefing with reporters.

    “Another Rs 400 crore will be spent on our existing centres, covering lease and rental expenses. Around Rs 700 crore will go toward branding and event marketing over the next three years, with at least Rs 250 crore each year. Additionally, Rs 200 crore will be allocated for technology upgrade and server costs, and the remaining funds will be used for general expenses.”

    Backed by venture capital firms WestBridge Capital, Hornbill, and GSV Ventures, the company, strong in India’s tier-2 and tier-3 cities, sees the IPO as paving the way for further expansion in Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Odisha, and Northeast India.

    “Physics Wallah is an impactful organisation – from Tier 3 towns to villages, students everywhere are learning through our platform,” said Pandey.

    PhysicsWallah hitting Dalal Street, India’s equivalent of Wall Street and home to the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), comes at a time when some of the country’s biggest edtech competitors are seeing their businesses shrink.

    While Byju’s, once the world’s “most valued” edtech startup, is facing takeover bids amid bankruptcy proceedings and lawsuits over “alleged harm to its reputation”, Unacademy has seen a year-on-year decline in total revenue over the past two years, with Upgrad reportedly considering acquiring the company at roughly a tenth of its last valuation of USD$3.44bn.

    Though PhysicsWallah reported a 33% revenue jump to Rs 847 crore (USD$95.5m) in Q1FY26, its net losses widened to Rs 127 crore (USD$14.3m) due to a 39% rise in expenses.

    The company, however, has maintained that its revenue has grown 90% over the past two years and that it maintains a strong cash balance.

    “I want this company to be run with discipline, to grow responsibly, and to make it public in a way that benefits everyone. We are in a hyper-growth phase, and as we expand, we don’t want to slow down or fail to deliver. The IPO will also help us gain more trust and traction with parents.

    “Online education will continue to be our biggest focus – whether it’s a student in Grade 6 or a college or UPSC aspirant. We currently reach 42 lakh (over 4 million) students, mostly in test prep, but we are expanding into school education and board exams. Our aim is to make affordable education accessible across regions,” Pandey added.

    Despite initial optimism, reflected in domestic mutual funds taking up more than half of the allocation – indicating early institutional confidence – the demand in the public issue has remained lukewarm.

    The IPO got off to a slow start, with Day 1 subscription at just 7% and Day 2 improving slightly to 12%, falling well short of market expectations.

    By Day 3, the IPO reached 1.11x overall subscription, with the retail portion at 85%, non-institutional investors (NII) at 25%, qualified institutional buyers (QIBs) at 1.61x, and the employee portion subscribed 2.58x.

    The basis of allotment, which determines how many shares each investor will actually receive, is expected on November 14, with listing likely on November 18.

    Experts suggest that PhysicsWallah’s IPO, which saw muted subscription initially, signals broader caution for India’s edtech sector, which is facing declining market demand and revenue losses, with over 2,000 startups having shut down in the past five years.

    But it’s not just PhysicsWallah. More edtech companies are eyeing the IPO route, including Imarticus Learning, Upgrad, Eruditus, and other education-related firms like Simplilearn and Leverage Edu.

    Just recently, B2B education platform Crizac debuted on the Indian stock market, raising £74m in its IPO, with the listing expected to support the company’s expansion into new markets and services.

    With funding in the edtech space rising five-fold in H1 2025, as per reports, industry insiders expect the next 12-24 months to bring a handful of IPOs.

    “Edtech has gone through its ups and downs and has never been a very predictable sector. There are very few companies that can actually go public successfully,” Nikhil Barshikar, CEO and co-founder of Imarticus Learning, told The Entrepreneur in a recent interview.

    “But now, more companies are focusing on cutting unprofitable or unpredictable business segments. My gut feeling is that in the next 24 months, we will see at least five to 10 listings from the edtech vertical.”

    Source link

  • Ambow Education Pushes AI Agenda Abroad While Raising Red Flags in the U.S.

    Ambow Education Pushes AI Agenda Abroad While Raising Red Flags in the U.S.

    Ambow Education, once linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is aggressively exporting its AI-driven education platform, HybriU™, to global markets—even as its footprint in the United States remains small and opaque. The company’s international ambitions raise questions about transparency, governance, and potential political influence.

    Ambow’s recent partnership with Bamboo System Technology aims to scale HybriU’s AI-education ecosystem across Southeast Asia, touting a deeper technology stack and expanded distribution. Yet outside China, Ambow’s record is spotty, and critics warn that the firm’s rapid expansion may outpace oversight or educational rigor.

    In the U.S., Ambow reportedly explored a partnership with Colorado State University (CSU), though details remain murky. Engagements like these, combined with its involvement with specialized institutions such as the NewSchool of Architecture and Design, suggest a strategy of targeting schools where oversight may be limited and innovation promises can be oversold.

    Despite these global ambitions, Ambow’s American presence is modest: a small office tucked in Cupertino, California, suggesting that the company may be testing the waters in the U.S. market rather than committing to a major operational footprint.

    For U.S. institutions, Ambow’s history—including prior CCP ties—and its small domestic footprint present a cautionary tale: a company that combines ambitious AI promises with a murky past and minimal transparency. Ambow’s expansion illustrates a growing challenge in higher education: navigating partnerships with foreign edtech firms while safeguarding institutional integrity, regulatory compliance, and academic quality.

    Sources: Ambow Education press releases, Bamboo System Technology announcements, Higher Education Inquirer reporting, corporate filings.

    Source link

  • Can AI Keep Students Motivated, Or Does it Do the Opposite? – The 74

    Can AI Keep Students Motivated, Or Does it Do the Opposite? – The 74

    Imagine a student using a writing assistant powered by a generative AI chatbot. As the bot serves up practical suggestions and encouragement, insights come more easily, drafts polish up quickly and feedback loops feel immediate. It can be energizing. But when that AI support is removed, some students report feeling less confident or less willing to engage.

    These outcomes raise the question: Can AI tools genuinely boost student motivation? And what conditions can make or break that boost?

    As AI tools become more common in classroom settings, the answers to these questions matter a lot. While tools for general use such as ChatPGT or Claude remain popular, more and more students are encountering AI tools that are purpose-built to support learning, such as Khan Academy’s Khanmigo, which personalizes lessons. Others, such as ALEKS, provide adaptive feedback. Both tools adjust to a learner’s level and highlight progress over time, which helps students feel capable and see improvement. But there are still many unknowns about the long-term effects of these tools on learners’ progress, an issue I continue to study as an educational psychologist.

    What the evidence shows so far

    Recent studies indicate that AI can boost motivation, at least for certain groups, when deployed under the right conditions. A 2025 experiment with university students showed that when AI tools delivered a high-quality performance and allowed meaningful interaction, students’ motivation and their confidence in being able to complete a task – known as self-efficacy – increased.

    For foreign language learners, a 2025 study found that university students using AI-driven personalized systems took more pleasure in learning and had less anxiety and more self-efficacy compared with those using traditional methods. A recent cross-cultural analysis with participants from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Spain and Poland who were studying diverse majors suggested that positive motivational effects are strongest when tools prioritize autonomy, self-direction and critical thinking. These individual findings align with a broader, systematic review of generative AI tools that found positive effects on student motivation and engagement across cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions.

    A forthcoming meta-analysis from my team at the University of Alabama, which synthesized 71 studies, echoed these patterns. We found that generative AI tools on average produce moderate positive effects on motivation and engagement. The impact is larger when tools are used consistently over time rather than in one-off trials. Positive effects were also seen when teachers provide scaffolding, when students maintain agency in how they use the tool, and when the output quality is reliable.

    But there are caveats. More than 50 of the studies we reviewed did not draw on a clear theoretical framework of motivation, and some used methods that we found were weak or inappropriate. This raises concerns about the quality of the evidence and underscores how much more careful research is needed before one can say with confidence that AI nurtures students’ intrinsic motivation rather than just making tasks easier in the moment.

    When AI backfires

    There is also research that paints a more sobering picture. A large study of more than 3,500 participants found that while human–AI collaboration improved task performance, it reduced intrinsic motivation once the AI was removed. Students reported more boredom and less satisfaction, suggesting that overreliance on AI can erode confidence in their own abilities.

    Another study suggested that while learning achievement often rises with the use of AI tools, increases in motivation are smaller, inconsistent or short-lived. Quality matters as much as quantity. When AI delivers inaccurate results, or when students feel they have little control over how it is used, motivation quickly erodes. Confidence drops, engagement fades and students can begin to see the tool as a crutch rather than a support. And because there are not many long-term studies in this field, we still do not know whether AI can truly sustain motivation over time, or whether its benefits fade once the novelty wears off.

    Not all AI tools work the same way

    The impact of AI on student motivation is not one-size-fits-all. Our team’s meta-analysis shows that, on average, AI tools do have a positive effect, but the size of that effect depends on how and where they are used. When students work with AI regularly over time, when teachers guide them in using it thoughtfully, and when students feel in control of the process, the motivational benefits are much stronger.

    We also saw differences across settings. College students seemed to gain more than younger learners, STEM and writing courses tended to benefit more than other subjects, and tools designed to give feedback or tutoring support outperformed those that simply generated content.

    There is also evidence that general-use tools like ChatGPT or Claude do not reliably promote intrinsic motivation or deeper engagement with content, compared to learning-specific platforms such as ALEKS and Khanmigo, which are more effective at supporting persistence and self-efficacy. However, these tools often come with subscription or licensing costs. This raises questions of equity, since the students who could benefit most from motivational support may also be the least likely to afford it.

    These and other recent findings should be seen as only a starting point. Because AI is so new and is changing so quickly, what we know today may not hold true tomorrow. In a paper titled The Death and Rebirth of Research in Education in the Age of AI, the authors argue that the speed of technological change makes traditional studies outdated before they are even published. At the same time, AI opens the door to new ways of studying learning that are more participatory, flexible and imaginative. Taken together, the data and the critiques point to the same lesson: Context, quality and agency matter just as much as the technology itself.

    Why it matters for all of us

    The lessons from this growing body of research are straightforward. The presence of AI does not guarantee higher motivation, but it can make a difference if tools are designed and used with care and understanding of students’ needs. When it is used thoughtfully, in ways that strengthen students’ sense of competence, autonomy and connection to others, it can be a powerful ally in learning.

    But without those safeguards, the short-term boost in performance could come at a steep cost. Over time, there is the risk of weakening the very qualities that matter most – motivation, persistence, critical thinking and the uniquely human capacities that no machine can replace.

    For teachers, this means that while AI may prove a useful partner in learning, it should never serve as a stand-in for genuine instruction. For parents, it means paying attention to how children use AI at home, noticing whether they are exploring, practicing and building skills or simply leaning on it to finish tasks. For policymakers and technology developers, it means creating systems that support student agency, provide reliable feedback and avoid encouraging overreliance. And for students themselves, it is a reminder that AI can be a tool for growth, but only when paired with their own effort and curiosity.

    Regardless of technology, students need to feel capable, autonomous and connected. Without these basic psychological needs in place, their sense of motivation will falter – with or without AI.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Source link

  • Funding technology initiatives in uncertain times

    Funding technology initiatives in uncertain times

    Key points:

    Recent policy shifts have caused significant uncertainty in K-12 education funding, especially for technology initiatives. It’s no longer business as usual. Schools can’t rely on the same federal operating funds they’ve traditionally used to purchase technology or support innovation. This unpredictability has pushed school districts to explore creative, nontraditional ways to fund technology initiatives. To succeed, it’s important to understand how to approach these funding opportunities strategically.

    How to find funding

    Despite the challenges, there are still many grants available to support education initiatives and technology projects. Start with an online search using key terms related to your project–for example, “virtual reality,” “virtual field trips,” or “career and technical education.”

    Explore national organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or Project Tomorrow and consider potential local funding sources. Local organizations such as Rotary or Kiwanis clubs can be powerful allies in helping to fund projects. The local library and city or county government may also offer grants or partnership opportunities. Schools should also reach out to locally-headquartered businesses, many of which have community outreach or corporate social responsibility goals that align with supporting local education.

    Colleges and universities are another valuable resource. They may be conducting research that aligns with your school’s technology project. Building relationships with these institutions and organizations can put your school “in the right place at the right time” when new funding opportunities arise.

    Strategies to win the grant

    Once potential funding sources are identified, the next step is crafting a compelling proposal. Consider the following strategies to strengthen your application.

    1. Focus on the “how and why,” not just the “what.” If your school is seeking funds to buy hardware, don’t simply say, “Here’s what we want to buy.” Instead, frame it as, “Here’s how this project will improve student learning and why it matters.” Funders want to see the impact their support will have on outcomes. The more clearly a proposal connects technology to learning gains, the stronger it will be.

    2. Highlight the research. Use evidence to validate your project’s value. For example, if a school plans to purchase virtual reality headsets, cite studies showing that VR improves knowledge retention, engagement, and comprehension compared to traditional instruction. Demonstrating that the technology is research-backed helps funders feel confident in their investment.

    3. Paint a picture. Bring the project to life. Describe what students will experience and how they’ll benefit. For example: “When students put on the headset, they aren’t just reading about ancient civilizations, they’re walking through them.” Vivid descriptions help reviewers visualize the impact and believe in your vision.

    Eight questions to consider when applying for a grant

    Use these guiding questions to sharpen your proposal and ensure a strong foundation for implementation and long-term success.

    1. What is the goal? Clearly define what students will be able to do as a result of the project. Use action-orientated language: “Students will be able to…”
    2. Is the technology effective? Support your proposal with evidence such as whitepapers, case studies, or research that can demonstrate proven impact.
    3. How will the technology impact these specific students? Emphasize what makes your school or district unique, whether it’s serving a rural, urban, or high-poverty community and how this technology addresses those specific needs.
    4. What is the scope of the application? Specify whether the project involves elementary school, secondary school, or a specific subject or program like a STEM lab.
    5. How will success be measured? Too often schools reach the end of a project without a plan to track results. Plan your evaluation from the start. Track key metrics such as attendance, disciplinary data, academic performance, or engagement surveys, both before and after implementation to demonstrate results.
    6. What are your budgetary needs? Include all associated costs, including professional development and substitute coverage for teacher training.
    7. What happens after the grant is over? If you plan to use the technology for multiple years, apply for a multi-year grant rather than assuming future funding will appear. Sustainability is key.
    8. How will success be celebrated and communicated to stakeholders? Share results with the community and stakeholders. Host events recognizing teachers, students, and partners. Invite local media and highlight your funding partners–they’re not just donors, but partners in student success.

    Moving forward with confidence

    Education funding will likely remain uncertain in the years ahead. However, by being intentional about where to look for funds, how to frame proposals, and how to measure and share impact, schools can continue to implement innovative technology initiatives that elevate teaching and learning.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Do screens help or hurt K-8 learning? Lessons from the UK’s OPAL program

    Do screens help or hurt K-8 learning? Lessons from the UK’s OPAL program

    Key points:

    When our leadership team at Firthmoor Primary met with an OPAL (Outdoor Play and Learning) representative, one message came through clearly: “Play isn’t a break from learning, it is learning.”

    As she flipped through slides, we saw examples from other schools where playgrounds were transformed into hubs of creativity. There were “play stations” where children could build, imagine, and collaborate. One that stood out for me was the simple addition of a music station, where children could dance to songs during break time, turning recess into an outlet for joy, self-expression, and community.

    The OPAL program is not about giving children “more time off.” It’s about making play purposeful, inclusive, and developmental. At Firthmoor, our head teacher has made OPAL part of the long-term school plan, ensuring that playtime builds creativity, resilience, and social skills just as much as lessons in the classroom.

    After seeing these OPAL examples, I couldn’t help but think about how different this vision is from what dominates the conversation in so many schools: technology. While OPAL emphasizes unstructured play, movement, and creativity, most education systems, both in the UK and abroad, are under pressure to adopt more edtech. The argument is that early access to screens helps children personalize their learning, build digital fluency, and prepare for a future where tech skills are essential.

    But what happens when those two philosophies collide?

    On one side, programs like OPAL remind us that children need hands-on experiences, imagination, and social connection–skills that can’t be replaced by a tablet. On the other, schools around the world are racing to keep pace with the digital age.

    Even in Silicon Valley, where tech innovation is born, schools like the Waldorf School of the Peninsula have chosen to go screen-free in early years. Their reasoning echoes OPAL’s ethos: Creativity and deep human interaction lay stronger cognitive and emotional foundations than any app can provide.

    Research supports this caution. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health advises parents and schools to carefully balance screen use with physical activity, sleep, and family interaction. And in 2023, UNESCO warned that “not all edtech improves learning outcomes, and some displace play and social interaction.” Similarly, the OECD’s 2021 report found that heavy screen use among 10-year-olds correlated with lower well-being scores, highlighting the risks of relying too heavily on devices in the early years.

    As a governor, I see both sides: the enthusiasm for digital tools that promise engagement and efficiency, and the concern for children’s well-being and readiness for lifelong learning. OPAL has made me think about what kind of foundations we want to lay before layering on technology.

    So where does this leave us? For me, the OPAL initiative at Firthmoor is a powerful reminder that education doesn’t have to be an either/or choice between tech and tradition. The real challenge is balance.

    This raises important questions for all of us in education:

    • When is the right time to introduce technology?
    • How do we balance digital fluency with the need for deep, human-centered learning?
    • Where do we draw the line between screens and play, and who gets to decide?

    This is a conversation not just for educators, but for parents, policymakers, and communities. How do we want the next generation to learn, play, and thrive?

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • K-12 districts are fighting ransomware, but IT teams pay the price

    K-12 districts are fighting ransomware, but IT teams pay the price

    Key points:

    The education sector is making measurable progress in defending against ransomware, with fewer ransom payments, dramatically reduced costs, and faster recovery rates, according to the fifth annual Sophos State of Ransomware in Education report from Sophos.

    Still, these gains are accompanied by mounting pressures on IT teams, who report widespread stress, burnout, and career disruptions following attacks–nearly 40 percent of the 441 IT and cybersecurity leaders surveyed reported dealing with anxiety.

    Over the past five years, ransomware has emerged as one of the most pressing threats to education–with attacks becoming a daily occurrence. Primary and secondary institutions are seen by cybercriminals as “soft targets”–often underfunded, understaffed, and holding highly sensitive data. The consequences are severe: disrupted learning, strained budgets, and growing fears over student and staff privacy. Without stronger defenses, schools risk not only losing vital resources but also the trust of the communities they serve.

    Indicators of success against ransomware

    The new study demonstrates that the education sector is getting better at reacting and responding to ransomware, forcing cybercriminals to evolve their approach. Trending data from the study reveals an increase in attacks where adversaries attempt to extort money without encrypting data. Unfortunately, paying the ransom remains part of the solution for about half of all victims. However, the payment values are dropping significantly, and for those who have experienced data encryption in ransomware attacks, 97 percent were able to recover data in some way. The study found several key indicators of success against ransomware in education:

    • Stopping more attacks: When it comes to blocking attacks before files can be encrypted, both K-12 and higher education institutions reported their highest success rate in four years (67 percent and 38 percent of attacks, respectively).
    • Following the money: In the last year, ransom demands fell 73 percent (an average drop of $2.83M), while average payments dropped from $6M to $800K in lower education and from $4M to $463K in higher education.
    • Plummeting cost of recovery: Outside of ransom payments, average recovery costs dropped 77 percent in higher education and 39 percent in K-12 education. Despite this success, K-12 education reported the highest recovery bill across all industries surveyed.

    Gaps still need to be addressed

    While the education sector has made progress in limiting the impact of ransomware, serious gaps remain. In the Sophos study, 64 percent of victims reported missing or ineffective protection solutions; 66 percent cited a lack of people (either expertise or capacity) to stop attacks; and 67 percent admitted to having security gaps. These risks highlight the critical need for schools to focus on prevention, as cybercriminals develop new techniques, including AI-powered attacks.

    Highlights from the study that shed light on the gaps that still need to be addressed include:

    • AI-powered threats: K-12 education institutions reported that 22 percent of ransomware attacks had origins in phishing. With AI enabling more convincing emails, voice scams, and even deepfakes, schools risk becoming test grounds for emerging tactics.
    • High-value data: Higher education institutions, custodians of AI research and large language model datasets, remain a prime target, with exploited vulnerabilities (35 percent) and security gaps the provider was not aware of (45 percent) as leading weaknesses that were exploited by adversaries.
    • Human toll: Every institution with encrypted data reported impacts on IT staff. Over one in four staff members took leave after an attack, nearly 40 percent reported heightened stress, and more than one-third felt guilt they could not prevent the breach.

    “Ransomware attacks in education don’t just disrupt classrooms, they disrupt communities of students, families, and educators,” said Alexandra Rose, director of CTU Threat Research at Sophos. “While it’s encouraging to see schools strengthening their ability to respond, the real priority must be preventing these attacks in the first place. That requires strong planning and close collaboration with trusted partners, especially as adversaries adopt new tactics, including AI-driven threats.”

    Holding on to the gains

    Based on its work protecting thousands of educational institutions, Sophos experts recommend several steps to maintain momentum and prepare for evolving threats:

    • Focus on prevention: The dramatic success of lower education in stopping ransomware attacks before encryption offers a blueprint for broader public sector organizations. Organizations need to couple their detection and response efforts with preventing attacks before they compromise the organization.
    • Secure funding: Explore new avenues such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s E-Rate subsidies to strengthen networks and firewalls, and the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre initiatives, including its free cyber defense service for schools, to boost overall protection. These resources help schools both prevent and withstand attacks.
    • Unify strategies: Educational institutions should adopt coordinated approaches across sprawling IT estates to close visibility gaps and reduce risks before adversaries can exploit them.
    • Relieve staff burden: Ransomware takes a heavy toll on IT teams. Schools can reduce pressure and extend their capabilities by partnering with trusted providers for managed detection and response (MDR) and other around-the-clock expertise.
    • Strengthen response: Even with stronger prevention, schools must be prepared to respond when incidents occur. They can recover more quickly by building robust incident response plans, running simulations to prepare for real-world scenarios, and enhancing readiness with 24/7/365 services like MDR.

    Data for the State of Ransomware in Education 2025 report comes from a vendor-agnostic survey of 441 IT and cybersecurity leaders – 243 from K-12 education and 198 from higher education institutions hit by ransomware in the past year. The organizations surveyed ranged from 100-5,000 employees and across 17 countries. The survey was conducted between January and March 2025, and respondents were asked about their experience of ransomware over the previous 12 months.

    This press release originally appeared online.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • What educators need to know

    What educators need to know

    Key points:

    Literacy has always been the foundation of learning, but for middle school students, the stakes are especially high. These years mark the critical shift from learning to read to reading to learn.

    When students enter sixth, seventh, or eighth grade still struggling with foundational skills, every subject becomes harder–science labs, social studies texts, even math word problems require reading proficiency. For educators, the challenge is not just addressing gaps but also building the confidence that helps adolescents believe they can succeed.

    The confidence gap

    By middle school, many students are keenly aware when they’re behind their peers in reading. Interventions that feel too elementary can undermine motivation. As Dr. Michelle D. Barrett, Senior Vice President of Research, Policy, and Impact at Edmentum, explained:

    “If you have a student who’s in the middle grades and still has gaps in foundational reading skills, they need to be provided with age-appropriate curriculum and instruction. You can’t give them something that feels babyish–that only discourages them.”

    Designing for engagement

    Research shows that engagement is just as important as instruction, particularly for adolescents. “If students aren’t engaged, if they’re not showing up to school, then you have a real problem,” Barrett said. “It’s about making sure that even if students have gaps, they’re still being supported with curriculum that feels relevant and engaging.”

    To meet that need, digital programs like Edmentum’s Exact Path tailor both design and content to the learner’s age. “A middle schooler doesn’t want the cartoony things our first graders get,” Barrett noted. “That kind of thing really does matter–not just for engagement, but also for their confidence and willingness to keep going.”

    Measuring what works

    Educators also need strong data to target interventions. “It’s all about how you’re differentiating for those students,” Barrett said. “You’ve got to have great assessments, engaging content that’s evidence-based, and a way for students to feel and understand success.”

    Exact Path begins with universal screening, then builds personalized learning paths grounded in research-based reading progressions. More than 60 studies in the past two years have shown consistent results. “When students complete eight skills per semester, we see significant growth across grade levels–whether measured by NWEA MAP, STAR, or state assessments,” Barrett added.

    That growth extends across diverse groups. “In one large urban district, we found the effect sizes for students receiving special education services were twice that of their peers,” Barrett said. “That tells us the program can be a really effective literacy intervention for students most at risk.”

    Layering supports for greater impact

    Barrett emphasized that literacy progress is strongest when multiple supports are combined. “With digital curriculum, students do better. But with a teacher on top of that digital curriculum, they do even better. Add intensive tutoring, and outcomes improve again,” she said.

    Progress monitoring and recognition also help build confidence. “Students are going to persist when they can experience success,” Barrett added. “Celebrating growth, even in small increments, matters for motivation.”

    A shared mission

    While tools like Exact Path provide research-backed support, Barrett stressed that literacy improvement is ultimately a shared responsibility. “District leaders should be asking: How is this program serving students across different backgrounds? Is it working for multilingual learners, students with IEPs, students who are at risk?” she said.

    The broader goal, she emphasized, is preparing students for lifelong learning. “Middle school is such an important time. If we can help students build literacy and confidence there, we’re not just improving test scores–we’re giving them the skills to succeed in every subject, and in life.”

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • ICEF launches new AI-powered compliance platform

    ICEF launches new AI-powered compliance platform

    The platform has been designed to:

    • provide five layers of compliance checks; regulatory, financial social media monitoring, physical verifications and liveness detection
    • monitor selected agent activity 24 hours a day using AI scanning software set to provide real-time risk alerts
    • enable institutions to perform due diligence on agent partners – and vice versa, as agents research private institutions they may seek to represent in market.

    ICEF has launched a new platform called Due Diligent, a system that it describes as “the first AI-powered tool designed to ensure ethical, transparent and compliant educator-agency partnerships”.

    It aims to improve the transparent monitoring of agent finances, representatives, social media and in-country marketing.

    The company already accredits over 2,300 agents and has trained more than 140,000 counsellors, enabling them to become certified through the ICEF Academy.

    The new platform promises to provide both educators and agents with real-time information about one another in a reciprocal way, including financial and regulatory checks as well as social media listening.

    Scaled by using the latest wave of artificial intelligence technology, the ICEF software constantly scans agent activity based on an institution’s own approved list, creating regular reports of social media messaging happening in each market to ensure it is on brand and compliant.

    Unapproved use of branding or incorrect information can also be flagged, allowing institutions better visibility of the long tail of subagent networks.

    Due Diligent has also been designed to search for information on the individuals who operate and own agencies, including financial checks and media coverage. The aim is to identify bad actors who may reappear again in another agency.

    Speaking to The PIE News, ICEF’s chief visionary officer, Tony Lee, said: “Most importantly, the new platform is looking at the individuals behind an agency. It’s about that transparency of knowing who those agencies are, so it’s not just a random company name in a random country – it’s knowing who’s behind that company as an individual.

    “We’ve also been able to use the next generation of social media listening software and crawling software so that we can hear and see what those individuals are saying in the public spaces,” continued Lee.

    Most importantly, the new platform is looking at the individuals behind an agency
    Tony Lee, ICEF

    The launch of ICEF Due Diligent is part of ICEF’s wider ‘Together for Transparency’ campaign, which is championing professional standards and greater trust between educators, recruitment agencies and students worldwide.

    “ICEF has been working in the agent space for 30 years,” continued Lee. “But we’re not judge or jury. We’re giving the framework for the entire sector to be effectively the ones that judge what is good or bad practice, we’re simply turning the lights on [to help make a considered decision].

    The platform was developed in consultation with over 400 industry stakeholders. One of the main frustrations expressed by the sector has been the burden of annually auditing large agent networks.

    It is hoped that the use of a continual AI-powered monitoring tool can relieve that burden and free up more time for strategic training, counselling and recruitment support.

    Markus Badde, CEO of ICEF, explained: “In today’s competitive and increasingly regulated environment, trust is everything. ICEF Due Diligent gives educators, agencies and stakeholders the confidence that their partners meet the highest professional and ethical standards, continuously.”

    Source link

  • The Right-Wing Roots of EdTech

    The Right-Wing Roots of EdTech

    The modern EdTech industry is often portrayed as a neutral, innovative force, but its origins are deeply political. Its growth has been fueled by a fusion of neoliberal economics, right-wing techno-utopianism, patriarchy, and classism, reinforced by racialized inequality. One of the key intellectual architects of this vision was George Gilder, a conservative supply-side evangelist whose work glorified technology and markets as liberating forces. His influence helped pave the way for the “Gilder Effect”: a reshaping of education into a market where technology, finance, and ideology collide, often at the expense of marginalized students and workers.

    The for-profit college boom provides the clearest demonstration of how the Gilder Effect operates. John Sperling’s University of Phoenix, later run by executives like Todd Nelson, was engineered as a credential factory, funded by federal student aid and Wall Street. Its model was then exported across the sector, including Risepoint (formerly Academic Partnerships), a company that sold universities on revenue-sharing deals for online programs. These ventures disproportionately targeted working-class women, single mothers, military veterans, and Black and Latino students. The model was not accidental—it was designed to exploit populations with the least generational wealth and the most limited alternatives. Here, patriarchy, classism, and racism intersected: students from marginalized backgrounds were marketed promises of upward mobility but instead left with debt, unstable credentials, and limited job prospects.

    Clayton Christensen and Michael Horn of Harvard Business School popularized the concept of “disruption,” providing a respectable academic justification for dismantling public higher education. Their theory of disruptive innovation framed traditional universities as outdated and made way for venture-capital-backed intermediaries. Yet this rhetoric concealed a brutal truth: disruption worked not by empowering the disadvantaged but by extracting value from them, often reinforcing existing inequalities of race, gender, and class.

    The rise and collapse of 2U shows how this ideology plays out. Founded in 2008, 2U promised to bring elite universities online, selling the dream of access to graduate degrees for working professionals. Its “flywheel effect” growth strategy relied on massive enrollment expansion and unsustainable spending. Despite raising billions, the company never turned a profit. Its high-profile acquisition of edX from Harvard and MIT only deepened its financial instability. When 2U filed for bankruptcy, it was not simply a corporate failure—it was a symptom of an entire system built on hype and dispossession.

    2U also became notorious for its workplace practices. In 2015, it faced a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit after firing an enrollment director who disclosed her pregnancy. Women workers, especially mothers, were treated as expendable, a reflection of patriarchal corporate norms. Meanwhile, many front-line employees—disproportionately women and people of color—faced surveillance, low wages, and impossible sales quotas. Here the intersections of race, gender, and class were not incidental but central to the business model. The company extracted labor from marginalized workers while selling an educational dream to marginalized students, creating a cycle of exploitation at both ends of the pipeline.

    Financialization extended these dynamics. Lenders like Sallie Mae and Navient, and servicers like Maximus, turned students into streams of revenue, with Student Loan Asset-Backed Securities (SLABS) trading debt obligations on Wall Street. Universities, including Purdue Global and University of Arizona Global, rebranded failing for-profits as “public” ventures, but their revenue-driven practices remained intact. These arrangements consistently offloaded risk onto working-class students, especially women and students of color, while enriching executives and investors.

    The Gilder Effect, then, is not just about technology or efficiency. It is about reshaping higher education into a site of extraction, where the burdens of debt and labor fall hardest on those already disadvantaged by patriarchy, classism, and racism. Intersectionality reveals what the industry’s boosters obscure: EdTech has not democratized education but has deepened inequality. The failure of 2U and the persistence of predatory for-profit models are not accidents—they are the logical outcome of an ideological project rooted in conservative economics and systemic oppression.

    Sources

    Source link

  • Jin Huang, Higher Education’s Harry Houdini

    Jin Huang, Higher Education’s Harry Houdini

    Ambow CEO Has Repeatedly Slipped Through the Fingers of Shareholders and Regulators

    In the opaque world of for-profit higher education, few figures have evoked the mixture of fascination and alarm generated by Jin Huang, CEO—and at times interim CFO and Board Chair—of Ambow Education Holding Ltd. Huang has repeatedly navigated financial crises, regulatory scrutiny, and institutional collapse with a Houdini-like flair. Yet the institutions under her control—most notably Bay State College and NewSchool of Architecture & Design—tell a far more troubling story.

    Ambow’s Financial Labyrinth

    Ambow, headquartered in the Cayman Islands with historic ties to Beijing (former address: No. 11 Xinyuanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China), has endured years of financial instability. As early as 2010, the company pursued ambitious acquisitions in the U.S. education market, including NewSchool and eventually Bay State College, often relying on opaque financing and cross-border investments.

    By 2013, allegations of sham transactions and kickbacks forced Ambow into liquidation and reorganization. Yet the company repeatedly avoided delisting and collapse. Financial reports reveal a recurring pattern: near-catastrophe followed by minimal recovery. In 2023, net revenue fell 37.8% to $9.2 million with a $4.3 million operating loss. By 2024, Ambow reported a modest $0.3 million net income, narrowly avoiding another financial crisis. 

    Early Years: 2010–2015

    From 2010 to 2015, Ambow aggressively pursued U.S. acquisitions and technology projects while expanding its presence in China. The company leveraged offshore corporate structures and relied heavily on PRC-linked investors. Huang’s leadership style during this period prioritized expansion and publicity over sustainable governance, leaving institutions financially vulnerable.

    Despite claims of educational innovation, Ambow’s track record in these years included multiple warnings from U.S. regulators and questionable accounting practices that would later contribute to shareholder lawsuits and delisting from the NYSE in 2014.

    Bay State College: Closed Doors, Open Wounds

    Acquired in 2017, Bay State College in Boston once enrolled over 1,200 students. By 2021, enrollment had collapsed, despite millions in federal COVID-era relief. In 2022, the Massachusetts Attorney General secured a $1.1 million settlement over misleading marketing, telemarketing violations, and inflated job-placement claims.

    Accreditation probation followed, culminating in NECHE’s withdrawal of accreditation in January 2023. Eviction proceedings for over $720,000 in unpaid rent preceded the college’s permanent closure in August 2023. Bay State’s demise exemplifies the consequences of Ambow’s pattern: the CEO escapes, the institution collapses, and students and faculty are left in the lurch.

    NewSchool of Architecture & Design: Stabilization in San Diego

    NewSchool, Ambow’s other U.S. acquisition, has faced persistent challenges. Enrollment has dropped below 300 students, and the school remains on the U.S. Department of Education’s Heightened Cash Monitoring list. Leadership instability has been chronic: five presidents since 2020, with resignations reportedly tied to unpaid salaries and operational dysfunction.

    As of 2025, lawsuits with Art Block Investors, LLC have been settled, and NewSchool is now housed in three floors of the WeWork building in downtown San Diego. Despite receiving a Notice of Concern from regional accreditor WSCUC, the college remains operational but financially precarious.

    Questionable Credentials and Leadership Transparency

    Huang has claimed to hold a PhD from the University of California, but investigation reveals no record of degree completion. This raises further concerns about leadership credibility and transparency. Ambow’s consolidated executive structure—Huang serving simultaneously as CEO, CFO, and Board Chair—exacerbates governance risks.

    While headquartered in Cupertino, California, Ambow continues to operate with ties to Chinese interests. SEC filings from the PRC era acknowledged that the Chinese government exerted significant influence on the company’s business operations. Ambow has also expressed interest in projects in Morocco and Tunisia involving Chinese-affiliated partners.

    HybriU and the EdTech Hype

    In 2024, Ambow launched HybriU, a hybrid learning platform promoted at CES and the ASU+GSV conference. Marketing materials claim a 5-in-1 AI-integrated solution for teaching, learning, connectivity, recording, and management, including immersive 3D classroom projections.

    Yet there is no verifiable evidence of HybriU’s use in actual classrooms. A $1.3 million licensing deal with a recently formed Singapore company, Inspiring Futures, is the only reported commercial transaction. Photos on the platform’s website have been traced to stock images, and the “OOOK” (One-on-One Knowledge) technology introduced in China in 2021 has not demonstrated measurable results in U.S. education settings.

    Reports suggest that Ambow may be in preliminary talks with Colorado State University (CSU) to implement HybriU. HEI has not confirmed any formal partnership, and CSU has not publicly acknowledged engagement with the platform. Any potential relationship remains unverified, raising questions about the legitimacy and scope of Ambow’s outreach to U.S. universities.

    Ambow’s 2025 press release promotes HybriU as a transformative global learning network, but HEI’s review finds no verified partnerships with accredited U.S. universities, no independent validation, and continued opacity regarding student outcomes or data security.

    Financial Oversight and Auditor Concerns

    Ambow commissioned a favorable report from Argus Research, but its research and development spending remains minimal—$100,000 per quarter. Prouden CPA, the current auditor based in China, is new to the company’s books and has limited experience auditing U.S. education operations. This raises questions about the reliability of Ambow’s financial reporting and governance practices.

    Conclusion: The Illusion of Rescue

    Jin Huang’s repeated escapes from regulatory and financial peril have earned her a reputation akin to Harry Houdini. But the cost of each act is borne not by the CEO, but by institutions, faculty, and students. Bay State College is closed. NewSchool remains operational in a WeWork facility but teeters on financial fragility. HybriU promises innovation but offers no proof.

    Ambow’s trajectory demonstrates that a company can survive on hype, foreign influence, and minimal governance, while leaving the real consequences behind. Any unconfirmed talks with CSU highlight the ongoing risks for U.S. institutions considering engagement with Ambow. For regulators, students, and higher education stakeholders, Huang’s Houdini act is less a marvel than a warning.

    Sources

    • Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education Facing NYSE Delisting.” May 2022.

    • Higher Education Inquirer. “Ambow Education and NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” October 2023.

    • Higher Education Inquirer. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design Lawsuits.” March 2025.

    • Boston Globe. “Bay State College Faces Uncertain Future.” January 3, 2023.

    • Inside Higher Ed. “Two Colleges Flounder Under Opaque For-Profit Owners.” October 18, 2022.

    • Inside Higher Ed. “Bay State College Loses Accreditation Appeal.” March 21, 2023.

    • GlobeNewswire. “Ambow Education Announces Full-Year 2024 Results.” March 28, 2025.

    • Ambow Education Press Releases and SEC Filings

    • Wikipedia. “Bay State College.” Accessed August 2025.

    • Wikipedia. “NewSchool of Architecture and Design.” Accessed August 2025.

    Source link