A new DESSA screener to be released for the Fall ‘25 school year–designed to be paired with a strength-based student self-report assessment–accurately predicted well-being levels in 70 percent of students, a study finds.
According to findings from Riverside Insights, creator of research-backed assessments, researchers found that even students with strong social-emotional skills often struggle with significant mental health concerns, challenging the assumption that resilience alone indicates student well-being. The study, which examined outcomes in 254 middle school students across the United States, suggests that combining risk and resilience screening can enable identification of students who would otherwise be missed by traditional approaches.
“This research validates what school mental health professionals have been telling us for years–that traditional screening approaches miss too many students,” said Dr. Evelyn Johnson, VP of Research & Development at Riverside Insights. “When educators and counselors can utilize a dual approach to identify risk factors, they can pinpoint concerns and engage earlier, in and in a targeted way, before concerns become major crises.”
The study, which offered evidence of, for example, social skills deficits among students with no identifiable or emotional behavioral concerns, provides the first empirical evidence that consideration of both risk and resilience can enhance the predictive benefits of screening, when compared to strengths-based screening alone.
In the years following COVID, many educators noted a feeling that something was “off” with students, despite DESSA assessments indicating that things were fine.
“We heard this feedback from lots of different customers, and it really got our team thinking–we’re clearly missing something, even though the assessment of social-emotional skills is critically important and there’s evidence to show the links to better academic outcomes and better emotional well-being outcomes,” Johnson said. “And yet, we’re not tapping something that needs to be tapped.”
For a long time, if a person displayed no outward or obvious mental health struggles, they were thought to be mentally healthy. In investigating the various theories and frameworks guiding mental health issues, Riverside Insight’s team dug into Dr. Shannon Suldo‘s work, which centers around the dual factor model.
“What the dual factor approach really suggests is that the absence of problems is not necessarily equivalent to good mental health–there really are these two factors, dual factors, we talk about them in terms of risk and resilience–that really give you a much more complete picture of how a student is doing,” Johnson said.
“The efficacy associated with this dual-factor approach is encouraging, and has big implications for practitioners struggling to identify risk with limited resources,” said Jim Bowler, general manager of the Classroom Division at Riverside Insights. “Schools told us they needed a way to identify students who might be struggling beneath the surface. The DESSA SEIR ensures no student falls through the cracks by providing the complete picture educators need for truly preventive mental health support.”
The launch comes as mental health concerns among students reach crisis levels. More than 1 in 5 students considered attempting suicide in 2023, while 60 percent of youth with major depression receive no mental health treatment. With school psychologist-to-student ratios at 1:1065 (recommended 1:500) and counselor ratios at 1:376 (recommended 1:250), schools need preventive solutions that work within existing resources.
The DESSA SEIR will be available for the 2025-2026 school year.
This press release originally appeared online.
eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.
An email pings into my inbox: peerreviewer comments on your submission #1234. I take a breath and click.
Three reviewers have left feedback on my beloved paper. The first reviewer is gentle, constructive, and points out areas where the work could be tightened up. One reviewer simply provides a list of typos and points out where the grammar is not technically correct. The third reviewer is vicious. I stop reading.
Later that afternoon, I sit in the annual student assessment board for my department. Over a painstaking two hours, we discuss, interrogate, and wrestle with how we, as educators, can improve our feedback practices when we mark student work. We examine the distribution of students marks closely, looking out for outliers, errors, or evidence of an ill-pitched assessment. We reflect upon how we can make our written feedback more useful. We suggest thoughtful and innovative ways to make our practice more consistent and clearer.
It then strikes me how these conversations happen in parallel – peer review sits in one corner of academia, and educational assessment and feedback sits in another. What would happen, I wonder, if we started approaching peer review as a pedagogical problem?
Peer review as pedagogy
Peer review is a high stakes context. We know that we need proper, expert scrutiny of the methodological, theoretical, and analytical claims of research to ensure the quality, credibility, and advancement of what we do and how we do it. However, we also know that there are problems with the current peer review system. As my experience attests to, issues including reviewer biases and conflicts, lack of transparency in editorial decision-making, inconsistencies in the length and depth of reviewer feedback all plague our experiences. Peer reviewers can be sharp, hostile, and unconstructive. They can focus on the wrong things, be unhelpful in their vagueness, or miss the point entirely. These problems threaten the foundations of research.
The good news is that we do not have to reinvent the wheel. For decades, people in educational research, or the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL), have been grappling both theoretically and empirically with the issue of giving and receiving feedback. Educational research has considered best practices in feedback presentation and content, learner and marker feedback literacies, management of socioemotional responses to feedback, and transparency of feedback expectations. The educational feedback literature is vast and innovative.
However – curiously – efforts to improve the integrity of peer review don’t typically frame this as a pedagogical problem, that can borrow insights from the educational literature. This is, I think, a woefully missed opportunity. There are at least four clear initiatives from the educational scholarship that could be a useful starting point in tightening up the rigour of peer review.
What is feedback for?
We would rarely mark student work without a clear assessment rubric and standardised assessment criteria. In other words, as educators we wouldn’t sit down to assess students work without at least first considering what we have asked them to do. What are the goalposts? What are the outcomes? What are we giving feedback for?
Rubrics and assessment criteria provide transparent guidelines on what is expected of learners, in an effort to demystify the hidden curriculum of assessment and reduce subjectivity in assessment practice. In contrast, peer reviewers are typically provided with scant information about what to assess manuscripts for, which can lead to inconsistencies between journal aims and scope, reviewer comments, and author expectations.
Imagine if we had structured journal-specific rubrics, based on specific, predefined criteria that aligned tightly with the journal’s mission and requirements. Imagine if these rubrics guided decision-making and clarified the function of feedback, rather than letting reviewers go rogue with their own understanding of what the feedback is for.
Transparent rubrics and criteria could also bolster the feedback literacy of reviewers and authors. Feedback literacy is an established educational concept, which refers to a student’s capacity to appreciate, make sense of, and act upon their written feedback. Imagine if we approached peer review as an opportunity to develop feedback literacy, and we borrowed from this literature.
Do we all agree?
Educational research clearly highlights the importance of moderation and calibration for educators to ensure consistent assessment practices. We would never allow grades to be returned to students without some kind of external scrutiny first.
Consensus calibration refers to the practice of multiple evaluators working together to ensure consistency in their feedback and to agree upon a shared understanding of relevant standards. There is a clear and robust steer from educational theory that this is a useful exercise to minimise bias and ensure consistency in feedback. This practice is not typically used in peer review.
Calibration exercises, where reviewers assess the same manuscript and have opportunity to openly discuss their evaluations, might be a valuable and evidence-based addition to the peer review process. This could be achieved in practice by more open peer review processes, where reviewers can see the comments of others and calibrate accordingly, or through a tighter steer from editors when recruiting new reviewers.
That is not to say, of course, that reviewers should all agree on the quality of a manuscript. But any effort to consolidate, triangulate, and calibrate feedback can only be useful to authors as they attempt to make sense of it.
Is this feedback timely?
Best practice in educational contexts also supports the adoption of opportunities to provide formative feedback. Formative feedback is feedback that helps learners improve as they are learning, as opposed to summative feedback whereby the merit of a final piece of work is evaluated. In educational contexts, this might look like anything from feedback on drafts through to informal check-in conversations with markers.
Applying the formative/summative distinction to peer review may be useful in helping authors improve their work in dialogue with reviewers and editors, rather than purely summative, which would merely judge whether the manuscript is fit for publication. In practice, adoption of this can be achieved through the formative feedback offered by registered reports, whereby authors receive peer review and editorial direction before data is collected or accessed, at a time where they can actually make use ot it.
Formative feedback through the adoption of registered reports can provide opportunity for specific and timely suggestions for improving the methodology or research design. By fostering a more developmental and formative approach to peer review, the process can become a tool for advancing knowledge, rather than simply a gatekeeping mechanism.
Is this feedback useful?
Finally, the educational concept of feedforward, which focuses on providing guidance for future actions rather than only critiquing past performance, needs to be applied to peer review too. By applying feedforward principles, reviewers can shift their feedback to be more forward-looking, offering tangible, discrete, and actionable suggestions that help the author improve their work in subsequent revisions.
In peer review, approaching comments with a feedforward framing may transform feedback into a constructive dialogue that motivates people to make their work better by taking actionable steps, rather than a hostile exchange built upon unclear standards and (often) mismatched expectations.
So the answers to improving some parts of the peer review process are there. We can, if we’re clever, really improve the fairness, consistency, and developmental value of reviewer comments. Structured assessment criteria, calibration, formative feedback mechanisms, and feedforward approaches are just a few strategies that can enhance the integrity of peer review. The answers are intuitive – but they are not yet standard practice in peer review because we typically don’t approach peer review as pedagogy.
There are some problems that this won’t fix. Peer review relies on the unpaid labour of time-poor academics in an increasingly precarious academia, which adds challenge to efforts to improve the integrity of the process.
However, there are steps we can take – we need to now think about how these can be achieved in practice. By clarifying the peer review practice, tightening up the rigour of feedback quality, and applying educational interventions to improve the process, this takes an important step in fixing peer review for the future of research.
Professor Paul Young and other researchers working on a rapid response vaccine in 2020. Picture: Liam Kidston
Breakthrough vaccine technology invented by the University of Queensland is at the centre of a landmark deal worth up to $1.6bn struck with global pharmaceutical giant Sanofi.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
The submission deadline for REF is autumn 2028. It is not very far away and there are still live debates on significant parts of the exercise without an obvious way forward in sight.
As the Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding guidance makes clear there are still significant areas where guidance is being awaited. The People, Culture and Environment (PCE) criteria and definitions will be published in autumn this year. Undoubtedly, this will kick off rounds of further debate on REF and its purposes. It feels like there is a lot left to do with not much time left to do it in.
Compromise
The four UK higher education funding bodies could take a view that the levels of disquiet in the sector about REF, and what I am hearing at the events I go to and from the people I speak to it does seem significant, will eventually dissipate as the business of REF gets underway.
This now seems unlikely. It is clear that there are increasingly entrenched views on the workability or not of the new portability measures, and there is still the ongoing debate on the extent to which research culture can be measured. Research England has sought to take the sector toward ends which have broad support, improving the diversity and conditions of research, but there is much less consensus on how to get there.
The consequences for continuing as is are unpredictable but they are potentially significant. At the most practical level the people working on REF only have so much resource and bandwidth. The debate about the future of REF will not go away as more guidance is released, in fact the debate is likely to intensify, and getting to submission where there is still significant disagreement will drain resources and time.
The debate also crowds out the other work that is going on in research. All the while that the future of REF is being debated it is time taken away from all of the funding which is not allocated through REF, all of the problems with research that do not stem from this quinquennial exercise, and the myriad of other research issues that sit beyond the sector’s big research audit. The REF looms large in the imagination of the sector but the current impasse is eclipsing much else.
If the government believes that REF does not have broad support from the sector it could intervene. It is faulty to assume that the REF is an inevitable part of the research landscape. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown attempted to axe its predecessor on the basis that it had become too burdensome. Former advisor to the Prime Minister Dominic Cummings also wished to bin the REF. UCU opposed REF 2014. Think Tank UK Day One also published a well shared paper on the argument for scrapping the current REF.
The REF has survived because of lack of better alternatives, its skilful management, and its broad if not sometimes qualified support. The moment the political pain of REF outweighs its perceived research benefits it will be ripe for scrapping by a government committed to reducing costs and reducing the research burden.
The future
The premise of the new REF is that research is a team sport and the efforts of the team that create the research should be measured and therefore rewarded. The corollary of identifying research as a product of a unit rather than an individual is that the players, in this case researchers and university staff, have had their skills unduly diminished, hidden, or otherwise not accounted for because of pervasive biases in the research landscape.
It is impossible to argue that by any reasonable measure there aren’t significant issues with equality in research. This impacts the lives and career prospects of researchers and the UK economy as whole. It would be an issue for any serious research funder to back away from work that seeks to improve the diversity of research.
It is in this light where perhaps the biggest risk of all lies for Research England. If it pushes on with the metrics and measures it currently has and the result of REF is seen as unfair or structurally unsound it will do irreversible harm to the wider culture agenda. The idea of measuring people, culture, and environment will be put into the “too hard to do” box.
This work is too important to be done quickly but the urgency of the challenge cannot be dropped. It is an unenviable position to be in.
REF 2030?
If a conclusion is reached that it is not feasible to carry the sector toward a new REF in time for 2029 there only seems to be one route forward which is to return to a system more like 2021. This is not because the system was perfect (albeit it was generally seen as a good exercise) but because it would be unfeasible to carry out further system changes at this stage. Pushing the exercise back to 2030 would mean allocating funding from an exercise completed almost a decade prior. It seems untenable to do so because of how much institutions will have changed in this period.
The work going on to measure PCE is not only helpful in the context of REF but alongside work coming out of the Metascience Unit and UKRI centrally, among others, part of the way in which the sector can be supported to measure and build a better research culture and environment. This work within the pilots is of such importance that it would make sense to stand these groups up over a long time period with a view to building to the next exercise, while improving practice within universities more generally on an ongoing basis.
As I wrote back in 2023 complexity in REF is worthwhile where it enhances university research. The complexity has now become the crux of the debate. If Research England reaches the conclusion that the cost and complexity of the desired future outstrips the capacity and knowledge of the present, the opportunity is to pause, pilot, learn, improve, and go again.
Tactical compromise for now – with the explicit intention of taking time to agree a strategic direction on research as more of a shared and less of an individual endeavour – is possible. To do so it will require making the political and practical case for a different future (as well as the moral one) ever more explicit, explaining the trade-offs it will involve, and crucially building a consensus on how that future will be funded and measured. Next year is a decade on from the Stern Review; perhaps it is time for another independent review of REF.
A better future for research is possible but only where the government, funders, institutions, and researchers are aligned.
Indianapolis, IN — Project POTUS, a national middle school history initiative from the Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site, has named winners for this year’s competition.
Since the founding of our nation, there have been nearly half a billion American citizens. Of those, over 12,000 of us have served in Congress. Just 115 have become Supreme Court Justices. Only 45 citizens have become President of the United States. There’s something exceptional about each POTUS — good, bad, or otherwise. Project POTUS? challenges students in middle school to research an American president and create a video, 60 seconds or less, representing the POTUS chosen in a way that is creative, supported by good history research, and fun. A Citizen Jury made up of nearly 100 people reviewed all qualifying submissions and selected this year’s winners.
Grand Jury’s Grand Prize and Spotlight Award Selections
Grand Prize Winner ($500 award)
6th grader Peter Gestwicki from Muncie, Indiana won grand prize for his video about Theodore Roosevelt. Watch his winning video here.
Spotlight Award Winners ($400 award winners)
8th grader Grace Whitworth from St. Richard’s Episcopal School in Indianapolis, Indiana won for her video about President Thomas Jefferson. Watch her winning video here.
8th grader Izzy Abraham from Sycamore School in Indianapolis, Indiana for her video about President Calvin Coolidge. Watch his winning video here.
8th grader Clara Haley from St. Richards Episcopal School in Indianapolis, Indiana for her video about President George W. Bush. Watch his winning video here.
8th graders Delaney Guy and Nora Steinhauser from Cooperative Middle School in Stratham, New Hampshire for their video about President James Polk. Watch their winning video here.
37 students throughout the country each won their Presidential Category and received $100 awards. Check out all of their videos here.
The 2026 Project POTUS competition begins Election Day, November 4, 2025 and all submissions must be entered by Presidents Day, February 16, 2026. Learn more here.
Project POTUS is made possible by the generous support from Russell & Penny Fortune.
About the Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site
The Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site is the former home of the 23rd U.S. President. Now celebrating its 150th anniversary, it is a stunningly restored National Historic Landmark that shares the legacy of Indiana’s only President and First Lady with tens of thousands of people annually through guided tours, educational programs, special events and cultural programs. Rated “Top 5 Stately Presidential Homes You Can Visit” by Architectural Digest, the Harrison’s 10,000 square foot Italianate residence in downtown Indianapolis houses nearly 11,000 curated artifacts spanning more than two centuries of American and presidential history. Recently expanded and restored through a $6 million campaign, the Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site is also consistently ranked a Top 5 Thing To Do in Indianapolis by TripAdvisor. Signature programs and initiatives include: Future Presidents of America; Project POTUS, Candlelight Theatre; Juneteenth Foodways Festival; Wicket World of Croquet; and Off the Record. Founded in 1966 as a private 501c(3) that receives no direct federal support, the Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site is dedicated to increasing public participation in the American system of self-government through the life stories, arts and culture of an American President. Find out more at PresidentBenjaminHarrison.org.
eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.
When a white teacher at Decatur High School used the n-word in class in 2022, students walked out and marched in protest. But Reyes Le wanted to do more.
Until he graduated from the Atlanta-area school this year, he co-led its equity team. He organized walking tours devoted to Decatur’s history as a thriving community of freed slaves after the Civil War. Stops included a statue of civil rights leader John Lewis, which replaced a Confederate monument, and a historical marker recognizing the site where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was jailed for driving with an out-of-state license.
Reyes Le, a Decatur High graduate, sits at the base of Celebration, a sculpture in the town’s central square that honors the city’s first Black commissioner and mayor. (Linda Jacobson/The 74)
But Le feared his efforts would collapse in the face of the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion. An existing state law against “divisive concepts” meant students already had to get parent permission to go on the tour. Then the district threw out two non-discrimination policies April 15.
“I felt that the work we were doing wouldn’t be approved going into the future,” Le said.
Decatur got snared by the U.S. Department of Education’s threat to pull millions of dollars in federal funding from states and districts that employed DEI policies. In response, several organizations sued the department, calling its guidance vague and in violation of constitutional provisions that favor local control. Within weeks, three federal judges, including one Trump appointee, blocked Education Secretary Linda McMahon from enforcing the directives, and Decatur promptly reinstated its policies.
The reversal offers a glimpse into the courts’ role in thwarting — or at least slowing down — the Trump education juggernaut. States, districts, unions, civil rights groups and parents sued McMahon, and multiple courts agreed the department skirted the law in slashing funding and staff. But some observers say the administration is playing a long game and may view such losses as temporary setbacks.
“The administration’s plan is to push on multiple fronts to test the boundaries of what they can get away with,” said Jeffrey Henig, a professor emeritus of political science and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. “Cut personnel, but if needed, add them back later. What’s gained? Possible intimidation of ‘deep state’ employees and a chance to hire people that will be ‘a better fit.’ ”
A recent example of boundary testing: The administration withheld nearly $7 billion for education the president already approved in March.
But the move is practically lifted from the pages of Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for Trump’s second term. In that document, Russ Vought, now Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, argues that presidents must “handcuff the bureaucracy” and that the Constitution never intended for the White House to spend everything Congress appropriated.
The administration blames Democrats for playing the courts. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller accused “radical rogue judges” of getting in the president’s way.
The end result is often administrative chaos, leaving many districts unable to make routine purchases and displaced staff unsure whether to move on with their lives.
While the outcome in the lower courts has been mixed, the Supreme Court — which has looked favorably on much of Trump’s agenda — is expected any day to weigh in on the president’s biggest prize: whether McMahon can permanently cut half the department’s staff.
In that case, 21 Democratic attorneys general and a Massachusetts school district sued to prevent the administration from taking a giant step toward eliminating the department.
“Everything about defunding and dismantling by the administration is in judicial limbo,” said Neal McCluskey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. As a supporter of eliminating the department, he lamented the slow pace of change. “If the Supreme Court allows mass layoffs, though, I would expect more energy to return to shrinking the department.”
The odds of that increased last week when the court ruled that mass firings at other agencies could remain in effect as the parties argue the case in the lower courts.
While the lawsuits over the Education Department are separate, Johnathan Smith, chief of staff and general counsel at the National Center for Youth Law, said the ruling is “clearly not a good sign.” His case, filed in May, focuses on cuts specifically to the department’s Office for Civil Rights, but the argument is essentially the same: The administration overstepped its authority when it gutted the department without congressional approval.
Solicitor General John Sauer, in his brief to the Supreme Court, said the states had no grounds to sue and called any fears the department couldn’t make do with a smaller staff merely “speculative.”
Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended her cuts to programs and staff before a House education committee June 4. (Sha Hanting/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)
Even if the Supreme Court rules in McMahon’s favor, its opinion won’t affect previous rulings and other lawsuits in progress against the department.
Here’s where some of those key legal battles stand:
COVID relief funds
McMahon stunned states in late March when she said they would no longer receive more than $2 billion in reimbursements for COVID-related expenses. States would have to make a fresh case for how their costs related to the pandemic, even though the department had already approved extensions for construction projects, summer learning and tutoring.
On June 3, a federal judge in Maryland blocked McMahon from pulling the funds.
Despite the judicial order, not all states have been paid.
The Maryland Department of Education still had more than $400 million to spend. Cherie Duvall-Jones, a spokeswoman, said the agency hasn’t received any reimbursements even though it provided the “necessary documentation and information” federal officials requested.
The cancellation forced Baltimore City schools to dip into a reserve account to avoid disrupting tutoring and summer school programs.
Madison Biedermann, a spokeswoman for the department, declined to comment on why it had yet to pay Maryland or how much the department has distributed to other states since June.
Mass firings
In the administration’s push to wind down the department, McMahon admits she still needs staff to complete what she calls her “final mission.” On May 21, she told a House appropriations subcommittee that she had rehired 74 people. Biedermann wouldn’t say whether that figure has grown, and referred a reporter to the hearing video.
“You hope that you’re just cutting fat,” McMahon testified. “Sometimes you cut a little in the muscle.”
The next day, a federal district court ordered her to also reinstate the more than 1,300 employees she fired in March, about half of the department’s workforce. Updating the court on progress, Chief of Staff Rachel Oglesby said in a July 8 filing that she’s still reviewing survey responses from laid off staffers and figuring out where they would work if they return.
Student protestors participate in the “Hands Off Our Schools” rally in front of the U.S. Department of Education on April 4 in Washington, D.C. (Getty Images)
But some call the department’s efforts to bring back employees lackluster, perhaps because it’s pinning its hopes on a victory before the Supreme Court.
“This is a court that’s been fairly aggressive in overturning lower court decisions,” said Smith, with the National Center for Youth Law.
His group’s lawsuit is one of two challenging cuts to the Office for Civil Rights, which lost nearly 250 staffers and seven regional offices. They argue the cuts have left the department unable to thoroughly investigate complaints. Of the 5,164 civil rights complaints since March, OCR has dismissed 3,625, Oglesby reported.
In a case brought by the Victim Rights Law Center, a Massachusetts-based advocacy organization, a federal district court judge ordered McMahon to reinstate OCR employees.
Even if the case is not reversed on appeal, there’s another potential problem: Not all former staffers are eager to return.
“I have applied for other jobs, but I’d prefer to have certainty about my employment with OCR before making a transition,” said Andy Artz, who was a supervising attorney in OCR’s New York City office until the layoffs. “I feel committed to the mission of the agency and I’d like to be part of maintaining it if reinstated.”
DEI
An aspect of that mission, nurtured under the Biden administration, was to discourage discipline policies that result in higher suspension and expulsion rates for minority students. A 2023 memo warned that discrimination in discipline could have “devastating long-term consequences on students and their future opportunities.”
But according to the department’s Feb. 14 guidance, efforts to reduce those gaps or raise achievement among Black and Hispanic students could fall under its definition of “impermissible” DEI practices. Officials demanded that states sign a form certifying compliance with their interpretation of the law. On April 24, three federal courts ruled that for now, the department can’t pull funding from states that didn’t sign. The department also had to temporarily shut down a website designed to gather public complaints about DEI practices.
The cases, which McMahon has asked the courts to dismiss, will continue through the summer. In court records, the administration’s lawyers say the groups’ arguments are weak and that districts like Decatur simply overreacted. In an example cited in a complaint brought by the NAACP, the Waterloo Community School District in Iowa responded to the federal guidance by pulling out of a statewide “read-In” for Black History Month. About 3,500 first graders were expected to participate in the virtual event featuring Black authors and illustrators.
The department said the move reflected a misunderstanding of the guidance. “Withdrawing all its students from the read-In event appears to have been a drastic overreaction by the school district and disconnected from a plain reading of the … documents,” the department said.
Desegregation
The administration’s DEI crackdown has left many schools confused about how to teach seminal issues of American history such as the Civil Rights era.
It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that established “desegregation centers” across the country to help districts implement court-ordered integration.
In 2022, the Biden administration awarded $33 million in grants to what are now called equity assistance centers. But Trump’s department views such work as inseparable from DEI. When it cancelled funding to the centers, it described them as “woke” and “divisive.”
Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a Clinton appointee, disagreed. He blocked McMahon from pulling roughly $4 million from the Southern Education Foundation, which houses Equity Assistance Center-South and helped finance Brown v. Board of Education over 70 years ago. His order referenced President Dwight Eisenhower and southern judges who took the ruling seriously.
“They could hardly have imagined that some future presidential administration would hinder efforts by organizations like SEF — based on some misguided understanding of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ — to fulfill Brown’s constitutional promise to students across the country to eradicate the practice of racial segregation.”
He said the center is likely to win its argument that canceling the grant was “arbitrary and capricious.”
Raymond Pierce, Southern Education Foundation president and CEO, said when he applied for the grant to run one of the centers, he emphasized its historical significance.
“My family is from Mississippi, so I remember seeing a ‘colored’ entrance sign on the back of the building as we pulled into my mother’s hometown for the holidays,” Pierce said.
Trump’s Justice Department aims to dismiss many of the remaining 130 desegregation orders across the South. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, has said the orders force districts to spend money on monitoring and data collection and that it’s time to “let people off the hook” for past discrimination.
But Eshé Collins, director of Equity Assistance Center-South, said the centers are vital because their services are free to districts.
“Some of these cases haven’t had any movement,” she said. “Districts are like ‘Well, we can’t afford to do this work.’ That’s why the equity assistance center is so key.”
Eshé Collins, director of Equity Assistance Center-South and a member of the Atlanta City Council, read to students during a visit to a local school. (Courtesy of Eshé Collins)
Her center, for example, works with the Fayette County schools in Tennessee to recruit more Black teachers and ensure minority students get an equal chance to enroll in advanced classes. The system is still under a desegregation order from 1965, but is on track to meet the terms set by the court next year, Collins said. A week after Friedman issued the injunction in the foundation’s case, Ruth Ryder, the department’s deputy assistant secretary for policy and programs, told Collins she could once again access funds and her work resumed.
Research
As they entered the Department of Education in early February, one of the first moves made by staffers of the Department of Government Efficiency was to terminate nearly $900 million in research contracts awarded through the Institute for Education Sciences. Three lawsuits say the cuts seriously hinder efforts to conduct high-quality research on schools and students.
Kevin Gee from the University of California, Davis, was among those hit. He was in the middle of producing a practice guide for the nation on chronic absenteeism, which continues to exceed pre-pandemic levels in all states. In a recent report, the American Enterprise Institute’s Nat Malkus said the pandemic “took this crisis to unprecedented levels” that “warrant urgent and sustained attention.” Last year’s rate stood at nearly 24% nationally — still well above the 15% before the pandemic.
Gee was eager to fully grasp the impact of the pandemic on K-3 students. Even though young children didn’t experience school closures, many missed out on preschool and have shown delays in social and academic skills.
Westat, the contractor for the project, employed 350 staffers to collect data from more than 860 schools and conduct interviews with children about their experiences. But DOGE halted the data collection midstream — after the department had already invested about $44 million of a $100 million contract.
Kevin Gee, an education researcher at the University of California, Davis, had to stop his research work when the Trump administration cancelled grants. (Courtesy of Kevin Gee)
“The data would’ve helped us understand, for the first time, the educational well-being of our nation’s earliest learners on a nationwide scale in the aftermath of the pandemic,” he said.
The department has no plans to resurrect the project, according to a June court filing. But there are other signs it is walking back some of DOGE’s original cuts. For example, it intends to reissue contracts for regional education labs, which work with districts and states on school improvement.
“It feels like the legal pressure has succeeded, in the sense that the Department of Education is starting up some of this stuff again,” said Cara Jackson, a past president of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, which filed one of the lawsuits. “I think … there’s somebody at the department who is going through the legislation and saying, ‘Oh, we actually do need to do this.’ ”
Mental health grants
Amid the legal machinations, even some Republicans are losing patience with McMahon’s moves to freeze spending Congress already appropriated.
In April, she terminated $1 billion in mental health grants approved as part of a 2022 law that followed the mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The department told grantees, without elaboration, that the funding no longer aligns with the administration’s policy of “prioritizing merit, fairness and excellence in education” and undermines “the students these programs are intended to help.”
The secretary told Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley in June that she would “rebid” the grants, but some schools don’t want to wait. Silver Consolidated Schools in New Mexico, which lost $6 million when the grant was discontinued, sued her on June 20th. Sixteen Democrat-led states filed a second suit later that month.
The funds, according to Silver Consolidated’s complaint, allowed it to hire seven mental health professionals and contract with two outside counseling organizations. With the extra resources, the district saw bullying reports decline by 30% and suspensions drop by a third, according to the district’s complaint. Almost 500 students used a mental health app funded by the grant.
A judge has yet to rule in either case, but Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and other members of a bipartisan task force are holding McMahon to her word that she’ll open a new competition for the funds.
“These funds were never intended to be a theoretical exercise — they were designed to confront an urgent crisis affecting millions of children,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement. “With youth mental health challenges at an all-time high, any disruption or diversion of resources threatens to reverse hard-won progress and leave communities without critical supports.”
A not-for-profit research centre that provided media training for academics and disseminated education research to the public will close after eight years of operation.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Nearly two-thirds of teachers utilized artificial intelligence this past school year, and weekly users saved almost six hours of work per week, according to a recently released Gallup survey. But 28% of teachers still oppose AI tools in the classroom.
The poll, published by the research firm and the Walton Family Foundation, includes perspectives from 2,232 U.S. public school teachers.
“[The results] reflect a keen understanding on the part of teachers that this is a technology that is here, and it’s here to stay,” said Zach Hrynowski, a Gallup research director. “It’s never going to mean that students are always going to be taught by artificial intelligence and teachers are going to take a backseat. But I do like that they’re testing the waters and seeing how they can start integrating it and augmenting their teaching activities rather than replacing them.”
At least once a month, 37% of educators take advantage of tools to prepare to teach, including creating worksheets, modifying materials to meet student needs, doing administrative work and making assessments, the survey found. Less common uses include grading, providing one-on-one instruction and analyzing student data.
A 2023 study from the RAND Corp. found the most common AI tools used by teachers include virtual learning platforms, like Google Classroom, and adaptive learning systems, like i-Ready or the Khan Academy. Educators also used chatbots, automated grading tools and lesson plan generators.
Most teachers who use AI tools say they help improve the quality of their work, according to the Gallup survey. About 61% said they receive better insights about student learning or achievement data, while 57% said the tools help improve their grading and student feedback.
Nearly 60% of teachers agreed that AI improves the accessibility of learning materials for students with disabilities. For example, some kids use text-to-speech devices or translators.
More teachers in the Gallup survey agreed on AI’s risks for students versus its opportunities. Roughly a third said students using AI tools weekly would increase their grades, motivation, preparation for jobs in the future and engagement in class. But 57% said it would decrease students’ independent thinking, and 52% said it would decrease critical thinking. Nearly half said it would decrease student persistence in solving problems, ability to build meaningful relationships and resilience for overcoming challenges.
In 2023, the U.S. Department of Education published a report recommending the creation of standards to govern the use of AI.
“Educators recognize that AI can automatically produce output that is inappropriate or wrong. They are well-aware of ‘teachable moments’ that a human teacher can address but are undetected or misunderstood by AI models,” the report said. “Everyone in education has a responsibility to harness the good to serve educational priorities while also protecting against the dangers that may arise as a result of AI being integrated in ed tech.”
Hrynowski said teachers are seeking guidance from their schools about how they can use AI. While many are getting used to setting boundaries for their students, they don’t know in what capacity they can use AI tools to improve their jobs.
The survey found that 19% of teachers are employed at schools with an AI policy. During the 2024-25 school year, 68% of those surveyed said they didn’t receive training on how to use AI tools. Roughly half of them taught themselves how to use it.
“There aren’t very many buildings or districts that are giving really clear instructions, and we kind of see that hindering the adoption and use among both students and teachers,” Hrynowski said. “We probably need to start looking at having a more systematic approach to laying down the ground rules and establishing where you can, can’t, should or should not, use AI In the classroom.”
Disclosure: Walton Family Foundation provides financial support to The 74.
As the sector begins to prepare for REF 2029, with a greater emphasis on people, culture and environment and the breadth of forms of research and inclusive production, one critical issue demands renewed attention: the composition of the REF panels themselves. While much of the focus rightly centres on shaping fairer metrics and redefining engagement and impact, we should not overlook who is sitting at the table making the judgments.
If the Research Excellence Framework is to command the trust of the full spectrum of UK higher education institutions, then its panels must reflect the diversity of that spectrum. That means ensuring meaningful representation from a wide range of universities, including Russell Group institutions, pre- and post-92s, specialist colleges, teaching-led universities, and those with strong regional or civic missions.
Without diverse panel representation, there is a real risk that excellence will be defined too narrowly, inadvertently privileging certain types of research and institutional profiles over others.
Broadening the lens
Research excellence looks different in different contexts. A university with a strong regional engagement strategy might produce research that is deeply embedded in local communities, with impacts that are tangible but not easily measured by traditional academic metrics, but with clear international excellence. A specialist arts institution may demonstrate world-leading innovation through creative practice that doesn’t align neatly with standard research output categories.
The RAND report looking at the impact of research through the lens of the REF 2021 impact cases rightly recognised the importance of “hyperlocality” – and we need to ensure that research and impact is equally recognised in the forthcoming REF exercise.
UK higher education institutions are incredibly diverse, with different institutions having distinct missions, research priorities, and challenges. REF panels that lack representation from the full spectrum of institutions risks bias toward certain types of research outputs or methodologies, particularly those dominant in elite institutions.
Dominance of one type of institution on the panels could lead to an underappreciation of applied, practice-based, or interdisciplinary research, which is often produced by newer or specialist institutions.
Fairness, credibility, and innovation
Fair assessment depends not only on the criteria applied but also on the perspectives and experiences of those applying them. Including assessors from a wide range of institutional backgrounds helps surface blind spots and reduce unconscious bias. It also allows the panels to better understand and account for contextual factors, such as variations in institutional resources, missions, and community roles, when evaluating submissions.
Diverse panels also enhance the credibility of the process. The REF is not just a technical exercise; it shapes funding, reputations, and careers. A panel that visibly includes internationally recognised experts from across the breadth of the sector helps ensure that all institutions – and their staff – feel seen, heard, and fairly treated, and that a rigorous assessment of UK’s research prowess is made across the diversity of research outputs whatever their form.
Academic prestige and structural advantages (such as funding, legacy reputations, or networks) can skew assessment outcomes if not checked. Diversity helps counter bias that may favour research norms associated with more research established institutions. Panel diversity encourages broader thinking about what constitutes excellence, helping to recognize high-quality work regardless of institutional setting.
Plus there is the question of innovation. Fresh thinking often comes from the edges. A wider variety of voices on REF panels can challenge groupthink and encourage more inclusive and creative understandings of impact, quality, and engagement.
A test of the sector’s commitment
This isn’t about ticking boxes. True diversity means valuing the insights and expertise of panel members from all corners of the sector and ensuring they have the opportunity to shape outcomes, not just observe them. It also means recognising that institutional diversity intersects with other forms of diversity, including protected characteristics, professions and career stage, which must also be addressed.
The REF is one of the most powerful instruments shaping UK research culture. Who gets to define excellence in the international context has a profound impact on what research is done, how it is valued, and who is supported to succeed. REF panels should reflect the diversity of UK HEIs to ensure fairness, credibility, and a comprehensive understanding of research excellence across all contexts.
If REF 2029 is to live up to the sector’s ambitions for equity, inclusion, and innovation, then we must start with its panels. Without diverse panels, the REF risks perpetuating inequality and undervaluing the full range of scholarly contributions made across the sector, even as it evaluates universities on their own people, culture, and environment. The composition of those panels will be a litmus test for how seriously we take those commitments.
It might not be news that the UK research sector is strikingly international, but the scale of our global collaboration is striking – and it’s growing.
Over 60 per cent of Russell Group academics’ publications involved an international co-author in 2023, 16 per cent higher than in 2019, and in 2022 this proportion was higher for UK academics than any of our global competitors. Pooling ideas and talent makes for better research and more innovation, so supporting them to do more matters deeply to researchers – as our universities are well aware, given their own longstanding global connections.
International collaboration matters for the UK at large too, helping us tackle shared challenges and forming a large part of our global contribution. In a more uncertain world, protecting and growing research collaborations is becoming more important – complementing the government’s efforts to deepen links with the EU, protect ties with the US, and build relationships in India.
These initiatives are bound up with both security and growth. This is no accident: a strong economy is the route to creating jobs and supporting public services. We have always argued that international university partnerships should be part of the wider offer to global investors and trade partners, but we need to find new ways to demonstrate their value.
To that end, Jisc has done new analysis for the Russell Group looking at the scale and value of international research partnerships. Jisc’s unique data-matching analysis of UK, US and EU patent data held by the European Patents Office covers over 30 years of international collaboration in patent applications. The data identifies partnerships that UK institutions hold with both international companies and universities.
It’s booming
So what did we learn? Jisc’s analysis shows the proportion of patents co-filed by UK universities and an international partner grew from 12 per cent in 2000 to 22 per cent in 2022. It also found a remarkably high share of collaborations with international businesses, not just fellow academics: 43 per cent of co-filings since 2018 were with an overseas company and 36 per cent with a university abroad.
Since 2018, the data shows UK universities filed over 100 EU, US and UK patents with international partners every year. The analysis also allows us to see individual patents, not just numbers, so we can understand how impactful this work is not just to academic excellence, but to society. For example:
the world’s first gene therapy for adults with severe haemophilia A, from pioneering research between University College London and St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in the US
a new type of gene therapy from Newcastle University and the University of Heidelberg in Germany, which can help to protect and strengthen muscles in people with muscular dystrophy
improvements to machine-learning models by the University of Edinburgh and University of Manchester with Toyota in Japan – refining the ability to interpret images, a step on the way to driverless cars.
These projects, and many more of their kind, demonstrate the cutting-edge R&D that can underpin the government’s growth mission, industrial strategy and NHS ambitions. Jisc’s analysis therefore suggests that to make the most of universities’ strengths, and secure a global advantage for the UK, support for both home-grown innovation and high-value overseas collaborations will be crucial.
Potential for even more
This includes additional support for the work universities do with and for businesses, in sectors like clean energy and advanced manufacturing. Academics and innovators can do much of this themselves, but government can help by working with us to deliver a stable platform to build on including reliable funding streams, improved incentives for SME-university collaboration and a long-term strategy for industrial renewal.
We also need a strategic focus on higher education’s financial sustainability, so universities can maximise the impact of the £86bn government is committing to R&D over the next few years and support plans for economic growth and public service improvement.
It also means maintaining a supportive, stable and cost-effective visa system for staff and students – further expanding the commitments already made on building global talent pathways – so UK universities can attract and educate our future academics, innovators and collaborators, as well as securing important cross-subsidies for research and teaching. A strategic approach to skills and infrastructure across the UK would complement this, ensuring all nations and regions can benefit.
Finally, building the right platform for international collaboration means backing stable, flexible routes for academics and innovators to work together. UKRI’s work to develop lead agency agreements with counterparts in other countries has been a positive and warmly-welcomed example. Above all, however, our relationship with the world’s largest international collaborative programme for R&D – Horizon Europe, and its successor Framework Programme 10 – will be vital.
We’re currently awaiting the European Commission’s official “first draft” for FP10. We know it will be a standalone programme with a research and innovation focus, which is very reassuring. At the moment, Horizon Europe is providing more collaborative research opportunities than any one country can alone, as well as helping UK universities attract top researchers. Universities are working hard to boost Horizon participation, taking the lead in European Research Council Advanced Grant wins in 2024, and nurturing the encouraging green shoots in the collaborative Pillar II. Keeping this going is vital for global collaborations which contribute so much to our, and our partners’, economic and societal progress.
Researchers need certainty so they can rely on a shared long-term framework when building collaborations. The more open FP10 is to like-minded countries, and the more positive the UK is about association early on, the more confidence academics can be in continuing – and indeed expanding – invaluable international partnerships.
