The Department of Health and Human Services cited fake publications in a report on children’s health issues issued last week, The New York Times reported.
The Make America Healthy Again Commission claims its report—which blamed chronic disease in children on ultraprocessed foods, pesticides, lack of physical activity and excessive use of prescription drugs, including antidepressants—was produced with a “clear, evidence-based foundation.”
However, some of the researchers it cited said they didn’t write the papers the report attributed to them.
In one example, the report cited a paper on the link between mental health and substance use in adolescents by Katherine Keyes, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University. But Keyes told the Times that she didn’t write the paper. And no paper by the title cited—written by anyone—appears to exist at all.
The report cited another paper about psychiatric medications and advertising that was allegedly published in 2009 in The Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology by “Findling, R. L., et al.” But the Times confirmed that Robert L. Findling, who is a psychiatry professor at the University of Virginia, did not author the paper.
The newspaper also found numerous other instances of mischaracterized or inaccurate summaries of research papers.
After both the Times and NOTUS reported on the false citations Thursday, the White House promptly updated the report with corrections. In response to questions from reporters about whether generative artificial intelligence—which is notorious for “hallucinating” information and failing to provide accurate citations—was used to produce the errant report, Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for HHS, did not provide an answer.
Instead, she characterized the false citations as “minor citation and formatting errors,” according to the Times, and doubled down on the report’s “substance” as “a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic-disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children.”
American universities are dynamic engines of deep technological innovation (deep tech), responding to a growing demand for STEM research innovations that can reach the market quickly and at scale. In order to remain competitive in a fast-moving global scientific landscape and strengthen national research dominance, universities need to accelerate their innovation outputs by shortening the time it takes for research products from graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields to reach the market, while providing these early-career researchers with the necessary mentorship and resources needed to translate their academic research projects into high-impact startup companies. By targeting these highly qualified scientists at the juncture of innovative university research and entrepreneurial ambition, we can more effectively advance academic research discoveries from early-career STEM talent into commercially viable new companies (NewCos) at scale.
To fully capitalize on this immense potential, America must transcend the current national innovation paradigms. We argue that our nation’s global leadership in science and technology could be maintained through strategically scaled and nationally coordinated approaches to innovation, including cross-cutting and cross-sectoral approaches. Additionally, to retain American scientific and technological leadership on the global stage, we must confront the inherent risks of deep tech ventures head-on and decisively maximize our national “shots on goal,” which can lead to developing a truly robust and self-sustaining innovation ecosystem.
These programs have served as important launchpads for many academic entrepreneurs, including early-career scientists. However, early-phase SBIR/STTR grants typically range around $150,000 for durations of six months to one year. While this funding provides critical seed capital, it represents only a fraction of the substantial investment required for R&D, prototyping and market validation for deep tech ventures. Compounding this challenge, the acceptance rate for SBIR grants has declined sharply, from approximately 30 percent in 2001 to just 10 percent in 2024 in some sectors, further straining the pipeline necessary for deep tech innovation.
Current federally focused financial support systems are falling short. Start-up success rates remain low, and private venture capital is unlikely to close the funding gap, especially for university-based early-career scientists. As competition for SBIR funding intensifies and global venture capital investment drops by 30 percent, America’s scientific and technological competitiveness is at risk without stronger shared-risk models and expanded backing for academic innovation.
In today’s highly commercialized and globally competitive research landscape, the quality and quantity of start-ups emerging from academic labs are critical parameters for developing the next generation of entrepreneurs. A strong pipeline of NewCos enables more innovations to be tested in real-world markets, increasing the chances that transformative companies will succeed and attract external investment from industry. To meet this challenge, America needs a bold vision focused on maximizing national shots on goal through strategic scaling, proactive risk management and innovative risk-sharing models. This framework must not only rely on investment from the federal government but also from a strategically blended funding model that includes state and local governments, industry, philanthropy, venture capital, mission-driven investors, and other nontraditional funding sources.
A nationally coordinated cross-sector pooled NewCo fund, supported by federal agencies, universities, industry, philanthropy, private equity and venture capital, partnering together, is essential for rapidly advancing national innovation at scale.
This idea is not unique to us; it has been proposed in Europe and Australia and has been part of the science policy conversation for some time. However, the current historical moment in American science offers a unique opportunity to move from conversation to action.
Impacts of Research Funding Cuts
This year, significant reductions in federal funding for R&D at multiple federal agencies have posed substantial challenges to universities striving to remain global-leading STEM innovation hubs. Reductions in staff at the NSF have implications for SBIR programs, which rely on robust institutional support and agency capacity to guide early-stage innovation effectively. In addition, proposed reductions in indirect cost reimbursements for grantees at multiple agencies including NIH, DOD, NSF and the Department of Energy may also pose a challenge to research institutions and resulting start-ups in covering essential overhead expenses, impacting the transition of federally-funded research from labs to market-ready applications.
An Updated Framework
The national shots on goal framework is a potential remedy to the currently changing landscape imposed by federal science funding cuts. By emphasizing public-private-philanthropic partnerships, scaled seed investments and improved use of existing infrastructure within universities, this framework can help mitigate the impact of research funding cuts at federal agencies on early-career researchers.
This framework can be especially impactful for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields whose scientific projects, entrepreneurial endeavors and research careers require robust and sustained federal support from multiple funding sources over a longer period of time. It also allows universities to maintain and expand deep tech innovation without relying solely on federal agency funding.
For example, targeted one-year investments of $200,000 per NewCo can provide an essential and low-risk commercialization runway, similar in scale to the NIH R21 program. This fund would be sustained through contributions from a broad coalition of federal agencies, philanthropies, state governments, regional industries, universities and venture and private equity partners. By distributing risk across the ecosystem and focusing on returns from a growing pipeline of NewCos, this coordinated effort could partially counteract the losses sustained by the research enterprise as a result of federal agency funding cuts and accelerate university-driven scientific innovation nationwide.
To support the long-term sustainability of these start-up companies, a portion of national NewCo funds could be reinvested in traditional and emerging markets, including crypto. This would help grow the NewCo funds over time and de-risk a pipeline of start-ups led by early-career scientists pursuing high-risk research.
A Pilot Program
To validate the national shots on goal vision, we propose a targeted pilot program initially focused on graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields pursuing NewCo formation at select U.S. land-grant universities. Land-grant universities, which are vital hubs for STEM research innovation, workforce development and regional workforce growth, are uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Below, we suggest a few elements of effective pilot programs, bringing together ideas for outreach, partnerships, funding and relevant STEM expertise.
Dedicated, national risk-mitigating funding pool: To minimize capital risk, provide one-year seed grants of $200,000, along with subsidized or free access to core facilities. By the end of the year, each venture must secure external funding from the commercial sector, such as venture capital, or it will be discontinued, given that follow-on support cannot come from additional federal grants or the seed fund itself.
Targeted, risk-aware STEM outreach and recruitment: Implement a national outreach campaign explicitly targeting STEM graduate students and postdoctoral researchers at land-grant universities, highlighting risk-managed opportunities and participation pathways. Industry and philanthropic partners should be included in outreach and recruitment steps, and promote projects that meet high-priority industrial and/or philanthropic R&D strategic interests.
Specialized, STEM-oriented risk management–focused support network: Develop a tailored mentorship network leveraging STEM expertise within land-grant universities. The network should include alumni with entrepreneurial talent and economic development partners. It should also include training for academic scientists on risk modeling and corporate strategy, and actively incorporate industry experts and philanthropists.
Earmarked funding for STEM-based graduate and postdoctoral programs: In addition to the above, new funding streams should be specifically allocated to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields. This framework would grant them an intensive year of subsidized financial support and access to the university’s core facilities, along with support from business experts and technology transfer professionals to help them launch a company ready for external venture funding within one year. Critically, during this process, the university where academic research was conducted should take no equity or intellectual property stake in a newly formed company based on this research.
Rigorous, risk-adjusted evaluation and iteration framework: Establish a robust national evaluation framework to track venture progress, measure performance and iteratively refine the framework based on data-driven insights and feedback loops to optimize risk mitigation.
Leverage existing programs to maximize efficiency and avoid duplication: Entrepreneurial talent and research excellence are nationally distributed, but opportunity is not. Select federal programs and initiatives can help level the playing field and dramatically expand STEM opportunities nationwide. For example, the NSF I-Corps National Innovation Network provides a valuable collaborative framework for expanding lab-to-market opportunities nationwide through the power of industry engagement.
Prioritize rapid deep tech commercialization through de-risking models that attract early-stage venture and private equity: Transformative multisector funding models can unlock NewCo formation nationwide by combining public investment with private and philanthropic capital. The Deshpande Center at MIT demonstrates this approach, offering one-year seed grants of $100,000, with renewal opportunities based on progress. These early investments can help deep tech entrepreneurs tackle complex challenges, manage early risk and attract commercial funding. ARPA-E’s tech-to-market model similarly integrates commercialization support early on. Additionally, the mechanism of shared user facilities at DOE national labs reduces R&D costs by providing subsidized access to advanced infrastructure for academic researchers in universities, thereby supporting the formation of NewCos through strong public-private partnerships.
Bridge the academic-industry gap: Given the central role of universities in national innovation, building commercially viable deep tech ventures requires bridging the science-business gap through integrated, campus-based STEM ecosystems. This requires strengthening internal university connections by connecting science departments with business schools, embedding training in risk modeling and corporate strategy and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration. These efforts will support the creation of successful start-ups and equip the next generation of scientists with skills in disruptive and inclusive innovation.
Conclusion
As American scientific innovation continues to advance, this moment presents an opportunity to rethink how we can best support and scale deep tech ventures resulting in start-up companies emerging from university research labs. In the face of federal funding cuts and ongoing barriers to rapid commercialization at scale within universities, these institutions must adopt bold thinking, forge innovative partnerships and exhibit a greater willingness to experiment with new models of innovation.
By harnessing the strengths of land-grant universities, deploying innovative funding strategies and driving cross-disciplinary collaboration, we can build a more resilient and globally competitive national research and innovation ecosystem.
Adriana Bankston is an AAAS/ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow, currently working to support sustained federal research funding in the U.S. House of Representatives. She holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry, cell and developmental biology from Emory University and is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.
Michael W. Nestor is board director of the Government-University-Industry-Philanthropy Research Roundtable at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. He directed the Human Neural Stem Cell Research Lab at the Hussman Institute for Autism, where his work led to the founding of start-ups Synapstem and Autica Bio, and contributed to early-stage biotech commercialization at Johnson & Johnson Innovation–JLABS. He holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and completed postdoctoral training at the NIH and the New York Stem Cell Foundation.
The views expressed by the authors of this article do not represent the views of their organizations and are written in a personal capacity.
By Fiona Hnatow, Chief People Officer at the University of Portsmouth.
In an era of mounting financial pressures across the UK higher education sector, the University of Portsmouth has not been immune to these difficulties. However, through considered efficiency programmes and an innovative approach to pension reform, we are emerging from the initial financial pressures into a stronger and sustainable position. As one of the largest Post-92 institutions in the UK, the University plays a vital role in the local and national economy. With nearly 4,000 staff and 29,000 students, 6,000 of whom are international, the University is not only a major employer in the Solent region but also a hub of innovation, research and global engagement.
In 2024 alone, the University contributed an impressive £1.4 billion to the UK economy, including £658 million in the Solent region and £505 million in Portsmouth, supporting over 8,800 jobs locally. These figures underscore the University’s critical role in regional development and its broader impact on the national landscape.
By early 2023, it became increasingly clear that the UK higher education sector was heading towards a financial crisis. A combination of declining undergraduate and international student applications, rising utility and employment costs and inflexible pension obligations created a perfect storm, particularly for Post-92 universities.
One of the most significant financial burdens facing these institutions is the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS). Mandated by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, Post-92 universities are required to offer TPS to all academic staff, with no option to opt out. In contrast, non-Post-92 institutions can offer alternative schemes, such as the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), which carry significantly lower employer contribution rates.
As of April 2025, TPS employer contributions rose from 23.68% to 28.68%. This means that employing an academic on a £50,000 salary now costs Post-92 institutions nearly £9,000 more per year than their competitors. With further increases projected in 2026, the financial strain is only expected to intensify.
The Reset Programme: A Strategic Pivot
Recognising the urgency of the situation, the University of Portsmouth launched its ‘Reset’ programme in early 2023. This comprehensive initiative was designed to reduce both staff and non-staff costs, streamline operations and build a digitally enabled, efficient institution. The goal: to ensure both operational and financial sustainability in the face of unprecedented challenges.
The Reset programme introduced a series of targeted workstreams over an 18-month period, including:
Creation of a staffing subsidiary (UASL) to employ new staff under a more affordable pension scheme.
Voluntary Severance Scheme to reduce the need for compulsory redundancies.
Enhanced vacancy management, filling only business-critical roles.
Non-pay budget reductions, including cuts to travel, training, printing, and consumables.
Removal of budget contingencies during annual planning.
Policy changes to limit professional accreditation and subscription costs.
Professional services reviews to centralise functions and reduce staffing levels.
Academic restructuring, including faculty mergers and rebalancing student/staff ratios.
Contracted services reviews to improve value for money.
Student retention initiatives to reduce withdrawals and protect tuition income.
UASL: A Bold and Necessary Innovation
In August 2024, the University launched University of Portsmouth Academic Services Limited (UASL), a wholly owned subsidiary created to employ new academic and professional services staff. While maintaining existing terms and conditions, UASL introduced a new Defined Contribution (DC) pension scheme through Aviva, offering a 12% employer contribution for permanent staff and 6% for casual staff. Additionally, the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) scheme was introduced for casual workers, primarily students.
This move was not taken lightly as the University recognises how important pensions are to attract and retain staff. However, it was essential to avoid the unsustainable costs associated with TPS and the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). Importantly, all staff employed before August 2024 retained their existing pension arrangements, helping to maintain strong relationships with unions such as UCU and Unison.
The TPS, and its statutory imposition on Post-92 providers, is a throwback to when institutions like the University of Portsmouth, as former polytechnics, were administered by their local authority. At the time, it made sense. But in the thirty years since we achieved full University status, it has become impossible to justify the retention of this outdated system. It is clear that those bodies responsible for setting and monitoring higher education funding, who are admittedly not known for their responsiveness, have failed to adapt to the realities of the higher education landscape. When vast swathes of the sector are faced with a worsening financial position, many of those being post-92 institutions, it is baffling that this outdated system remains to hinder determined efforts to manage institutional finances.
The results have been significant. In 2024/25 alone, the University is on track to save over £1 million, with projected savings rising to £2.8 million in 2025/26 and £4.4 million in 2026/27. Moreover, the new pension schemes have proven attractive, particularly to early-career professionals, international staff, and those on lower salaries—groups that had previously opted out of TPS due to affordability concerns.
Balancing Innovation with Risk
While the creation of UASL has delivered substantial financial benefits, it has also introduced new challenges. Notably, Research England and UKRI have begun placing restrictions on the eligibility of subsidiary-employed academics for research funding and participation in the Research Excellence Framework (REF). This poses a significant risk to the University’s research ambitions and its ability to compete on a national and global scale.
Despite these concerns, the University had to weigh the risks of innovation against the very real threat of insolvency. Without decisive action, the financial outlook would have been dire. In 2023/24, the University had budgeted for an income of £321 million but achieved only £304 million, resulting in a £9.2 million deficit—despite achieving £19.7 million in Resetsavings. For 2024/25, the budgeted income is £290.5 million, with a projected deficit of £2.9 million, inclusive of £24 million in planned savings.
A Call for Sector-Wide Reform
The University of Portsmouth’s experience is not unique. Many Post-92 institutions across the UK are being forced to consider similar measures, simply to remain viable. In Scotland, the government has stepped in to support institutions facing equivalent pension cost increases, highlighting the uneven playing field across the UK.
The University is now calling on the Department for Education and the UK Treasury to reform elements of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 that tie Universities to an outdated, restrictive and overly costly pension scheme and advocates for greater flexibility in pension arrangements. Such reform would allow institutions to manage their finances more effectively, attract and retain top talent, and avoid widespread job losses and regional economic disruption. Our view is that it is wholly unfair that the Government have subsidised schools and further education colleges in England to compensate for the rising cost of TPS, yet Higher Education Institutions have not.
Conclusion: Leading Through Change
The University of Portsmouth has demonstrated that with strategic foresight, bold decision-making, and a commitment to collaboration, it is possible to navigate even the most challenging financial landscapes. However, we continue to advocate that reform is urgently needed for the good of the sector as a whole, to ensure long-term sustainability.
The kindergartners of South Dakota’s Hamlin County are, in fact, in space. To be specific, they are on planet Earth, near the geographic center of North America, sitting crisscross applesauce inside an 11-foot-high inflatable planetarium set up in their school gym.
The darkness is velvety. Childish whispers skitter around the dome like mice. The kids are returning from a short mission to Jupiter, piloted by Kristine Heinen, a young museum educator with a ponytail who knows how to make her voice BIG AND EXCITED and then inviting and quiet to hold little ones’ attention.
“Now we’re over China!” Heinen says.
“My friend went to China!” a girl calls out.
“The other side is nighttime and this side’s bright,” expounds a boy with a crew cut. “The sun shines here so it can’t shine over there.“
The school is in eastern South Dakota, 34 miles northeast of the settlement where Laura Ingalls Wilder grew up and attended a one-room schoolhouse. The sprawling Hamlin Education Center is a modern-day analogue, serving an entire district in one building, with just under 900 students, pre-K through 12. Notable graduates include U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, the former governor of South Dakota.
The center is roughly equidistant from four tiny towns, surrounded by open fields where cornstalks shine in the sun; 95 percent of students arrive by bus, from up to 20 miles away. Over a third of them qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, said Dustin Blaha, the elementary school’s principal.
Hamlin Elementary students line up for their turn visiting a traveling planetarium sponsored by the South Dakota Discovery Center. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
During the planetarium’s daylong visit to the small community of Hayti, S.D., an educator from the South Dakota Discovery Center wowed 500 elementary school students with a presentation about the planets and stars. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
Many Hamlin Elementary haven’t had a chance to visit the South Dakota Discovery Center in Pierre three hours away, so the museum brings traveling exhibits like a portable planetarium to them. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
Blaha said that most of these children have never been to the South Dakota Discovery Center, a hands-on science museum three hours west in the state capital. But thanks to a federal agency called the Institute of Museum and Library Services, a part of the museum can come to them.
The IMLS was established in 1996, combining previously separate programs. The small agency became the largest source of federal funding for museums and libraries, last year awarding $266.7 million in program grants, research and policy development across all 50 states. IMLS awarded the South Dakota Discovery Center about $45,000 in 2023 to upgrade this traveling planetarium.
But students around the state may be waiting a long time for the next upgrade.
Related: Young children have unique needs and providing the right care can be a challenge. Our free early childhood education newsletter tracks the issues.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order in mid-March calling for the agency to be “eliminated to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.” Mass firings followed.
On May 1, the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., issued a temporary restraining order to block the agency’s dismantling, followed on May 6 by a second federal judge finding the dismantling of this and two other agencies unconstitutional. On May 20, the American Library Association reported that employees are returning to work and some grants have been restored.
But the administration is continuing its legal battle to all but shutter the IMLS. The latest post on the agency’s Instagram account is captioned, “The era of using your taxpayer dollars to fund DEI grants is OVER,” holding up for criticism grants that were aimed at addressing systemic racism in museums, equitable library practices, and diverse staff development. The IMLS and the Department of Government Efficiency did not respond to requests for comment.
A veteran of the agency who asked to remain anonymous because of fear of reprisal said they first saw DOGE staffers meeting with leadership on March 28. “On the 31st, we were put on administrative leave. We had about two hours to turn in your key cards, your ID, get everything off your laptop you’re ever going to need. We were locked out of our computer systems by 3:30 and told to get out of the building.” A skeleton crew was hastily rehired the next day.
The ex-staffer points out that the Institute of Museum and Library Services spends, or spent, just 7 percent of its budget on its 70 staff, passing the rest along as grants. “We are not a bloated agency.” They have two kids at home, one with special needs and are married to another federal employee whose job is also at risk; but they are almost as worried about their grantees as themselves.
“After 20 years, I didn’t even get to put an out-of-office response up. Is someone emailing me right now and getting nothing, because all of a sudden their grant just ended? I hate that,” the former IMLS employee said.
Almost all grants awarded required a one-to-one cost share out of the local institution’s budget, the staffer said. Plus, typically the grantees pay for activities first and then apply to get reimbursed. “We’re leaving these often small rural museums and libraries on the hook.”
Anne Lewis, executive director of the South Dakota Discovery Center, said that organizations like hers would be “wobbly” without federal funding and would have to scale back on ambitious programs like the planetarium upgrade.
“The new system has much better interaction and control,” said Heinen, the museum educator. An earlier version had a static point of view, but upgraded visual effects means that “now we have spaceship mode,” she said. “We can travel to destinations including planets, and go in a full 360-degree mode around galaxies.”
With a flick of the touchscreen menu, she can also display the constellations of a dozen different cultures including Lakota, a significant benefit especially when she visits tribal schools.
The South Dakota Discovery Center, based in Pierre, has used federal support from the Institute for Museum and Library Services to pay for a traveling planetarium exhibit. Credit: Anya Kamenetz for The Hechinger Report
It’s a lean operation: Heinen drove solo nearly 200 miles from Pierre to Watertown the evening before and spent the night at an Econo Lodge. From there, it was another 20-some miles to Hayti, where she arrived at 7:30 in the morning, set up the dome herself, and ran 30-minute programs all day.
The whole elementary school, about 500 kids in total, saw the planetarium, with each show customized to the children’s interest and grade level; and she also conducted a parent engagement program in the afternoon. Heinen said she never tires of being a “Santa Claus” for science. ”As soon as they see me, they know something fun is going to happen.”
During this visit, the fan favorites were Jupiter, Mars and the sun. “It was cool when we went to Mars,” said Nash Christensen, 6. “And the volcano on that one moon, and the big hurricane on Jupiter. I think Jupiter is a dangerous place to live.”
Grant recipients of the Institute of Museum and Library Services say the support from the federal government has been critical to running their programs. For example, the Boston Children’s Museum, the second-oldest children’s museum in the country, has used federal grant money to improve school readiness. One of the outcomes was a new exhibit in the museum, “Countdown to Kindergarten,” that mimics a kindergarten classroom, complete with a school bus you can sit in out front.
“It’s helpful not only for the kids, but some of our caregivers who came from other countries and may not have gone to a school like this,” said Melissa Higgins, the museum’s vice president of programs and exhibits.
At the Madison Children’s Museum in Wisconsin, federal funds paid for a multistate partnership that provides climate education for young children and their families. In Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a grant covered five “STEMobiles,” which offer hands-on science activities for children ages 3-5 in low-income parts of Broward County. The Philadelphia School District won a two-year planning grant to try to improve its pipeline of school librarians; they were down to only a handful for a district of 200,000 students.
But the greatest impact may come in rural, often deep-red areas.
“Rural communities have particularly unique challenges,” said Lewis at the South Dakota Discovery Center. “There’s 800,000 people in the state, and they’re dispersed. We don’t have a concentration of funders and donors who can help support these enrichment activities.”
She said the teachers she serves are “passionate, committed and, like every other place in the world, underfunded.” If not for institutions like hers, students would probably go without this kind of hands-on science experience, she said.
Blaha, the elementary school principal, concurred. “The planetarium brings excitement and expertise that we don’t typically have in a community like this,” he said.
For now, the excitement is coming to an end. The class has “landed” on a green lawn, under a deep blue sky. Heinen announces “It’s time to leave.” She’s met with a chorus of, “Noo!”
“You guys, we were in here for a full 30 minutes.”
“It felt like 10!”
“It felt like a second!”
Tonight, many of them will be able to look up at the dark sky over the prairie and show their parents Jupiter, Ursa Major and Mars.
Contact the editor of this story, Christina Samuels, at 212-678-3635 via Signal at cas.37 or [email protected].
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
I read Susan Blum’s Ungrading as a first-year graduate student and was immediately smitten. At the same time, COVID-19 forced many seasoned instructors to grapple with assessing their students, making alternative assessment more mainstream. My first attempt at alternative assessment didn’t go very well. I failed to appreciate the value of clear expectations and the inescapable necessity that my students needed to walk out of my class with a grade. I struggled to make my system transparent, to emphasize growth over perfection, and to implement a good rubric. For the next four years, I used Kevin Gannon’s grading contract to implement more structure and Barbara Schapiro’s ‘third space’ to reflect on what worked for me and my students. My system improved. Now, as a fifth-year graduate student approaching completion of my degree, I use contract grading. Each assignment has 1-10 points, with a total of 100 points. Each point corresponds to a specific objective and is graded complete/incomplete. In my more recent students’ evaluations, students say they are less stressed, they are more motivated, and they understand assignment expectations at the beginning of the semester.
My Journey in Alternative Grading: From Curiosity to Clarity
The first time I stood in front of 20 bored freshmen, all alone, teaching a course I had designed, also all alone, I was teaching a general education writing and speaking course at the University of Iowa. After using traditional grading the first semester, I turned to alternative assessment in the second. In brief, my students received a complete/incomplete grade for any given assignment and then a cumulative midterm and final grade. I wanted to deemphasize grading entirely, but in retrospect the flaws were glaring. Halfway through the semester, in the middle of class, a student burst out in confusion and frustration, “Where did my grade even come from?” What a good question. My first system failed to appreciate the value of clear expectations and the inescapable necessity that at the end of the day my students needed to walk out of my class with a grade.
As a first-year graduate student, I had read Susan Blum’s Ungrading and was immediately smitten. Blum (2020) argues that grades provide minimal feedback, they deemphasize learning, and what they actually measure is inconsistent (10-14). I came to alternative assessment alongside many other instructors as COVID-19 forced seasoned instructors to grapple with assessment policies. In 2021, a Faculty Learning Community formed at the University of Iowa to address assessment practices and, spurred on by their work, in 2023 the University changed their grading policy page to include alternative assessment (“Grades: Undergraduate Policies”).
During the next four years, I implemented Barbara Schapiro’s (2009) ‘third space,’ which takes into account what benefits both me and my students (423-439). I took a more structured approach, first using Kevin Gannon’s contract and Asao Inoue’s labor-based grading model and eventually designing my own contract. I struggled to make contract grading transparent, to emphasize growth over perfection, and to implement a good rubric. But the system improved. Now, as a fifth-year graduate student approaching completion of my degree, I use a blend of labor-based, or specifications, grading, and contract grading. In specifications grading “the instructor designates bundles of assignments that map to different letter grades” and in contract grading “each student signs a contract indicating what grade they plan to work towards” (“Alternative Approaches to Assessment”). In evaluations, students say they are less stressed, they are more motivated, and they understand assignment expectations better.
Despite the flaws in my first grading system, it taught me that I functioned better in a classroom when I use alternative assessment, and I have maintained some semblance of the complete/incomplete system ever since. Traditional grading felt too subjective, based on a sliding scale of bad, average, or great. As a TA, I even received rubrics with that language. As much as it was my job to teach students to write, I also felt the grading system disadvantaged those students who came in with subpar high school educations and less writing experience. I wanted to design a system that addressed those problems.
Gannon’s Contract Grading: A Transparent Framework
Kevin Gannon’s (2022) grading contract (see Figure 1) heavily influenced my third semester of teaching. In Gannon’s model, students begin with a B- and achieving, or failing to achieve, specific requirements raise or lower their grade. His system was easy to explain and students responded positively. When I introduced Gannon’s system, I used the word ‘labor’ a lot. In Asao Inoue’s (2022) labor-based grading model, he defines labor as “the engine that runs all learning. You can’t learn without laboring” (76). But, on my own, I doubted whether I could evaluate a student’s labor when it mostly took place outside of the classroom. I aimed, therefore, to bring the writing process further into the classroom, including proposals, drafts, and revisions. I especially wanted students to understand that the ‘final’ assignment was anything but. Usually written in one to three weeks (if not one to three days), ‘final’ assignments are first thoughts, or, if we’re lucky, second thoughts. Drafts and revisions help students embrace what Gannon (2020) calls “not-yetness,” the recognition that they are still learning and the goal is not perfection (146).
Figure 1:Gannon’s Contact System
Grade
Number of Non-Participation Days
Number of Late Assignments
Number of Ignored Assignments
B-minus
0-4
0-4
0
C-minus
5-6
5
1
D-minus
more than 6
6 or more
more than 1
Despite the overall success of the system, I had problems. Students were still demotivated by a lack of clear expectations. Because everything was graded complete/incomplete, three-sentence reading responses held the same weight as thousand-word essays, making it unclear how much time I expected them to spend on a given assignment. My assignments also didn’t have detailed enough rubrics and some students felt quality didn’t matter.
My Grading Design and Process
At this point, I started teaching general education in literature, which had different grading expectations. Needing to change my system anyway, I created a contract with 100 points, each assignment assigned 1-10 points (See supplementary materials). I like this system. I’m still using it two years later.But my first go-around had only middling success. The system seemed straightforward to me, but my students were confused, as nearly all of them pointed out in their evaluations. Although students understood what the assignments were, my rubrics were sparse – perceptive readers might notice this as a reoccurring problem.
So, here’s how I fixed it: On the first day of class, I explain my system and give everyone a copy of the contract, which I ask them to fill out with their desired grade. Being in physical contact with the contract helps them understand it better and immediately establish a goal for the semester. I explain the larger purpose of the contract, but I also boiled the system down to some simple numbers: if a student successfully completes all the main assignments and three revisions, they get an A.
And, at long last, I have a functioning rubric. I still grade each point complete/incomplete. For simple assignments like reading responses, where I just want students to get their thoughts down, it’s a simple question of “Did you do the assignment?” For more complicated assignments, I assign each point an objective, and each objective introduces a new skill or concept. For example, in an eight-point paper, I assign four points to close reading (See Figure 2). The objectives build from including close reading consistently in the paper to synthesizing the new skill they’re learning (close reading) with the class content (monster theory). The objectives become more difficult and the final objective requires the most subjective grading. But overall, the system allows the students to see whether they’re meeting requirements even before I’ve given them a grade, and the system highlights what skills or content they are struggling with.
Figure 2: Analysis Rubric
1 point
Close reading throughout the paper that addresses specific, quoted moments from your song
1 point
Close reading that makes an argument about why those specific moments are there throughout the paper
1 point
The paper addresses monstrosity as we have discussed it in class (i.e. have you told us what the monster is a metaphor for?
1 point
Analysis heavily relies throughout on an argument about monstrosity that goes beyond ‘monster as metaphor.’
Conclusion
I find alternative assessment highly effective. Even though I recently received the comment, “Never do contract grading again,” student evaluations are overwhelmingly positive and more often sound like, “So helpful, literally my favorite thing ever.” Stress reduction and increased motivation appear frequently in evaluations. But more than that, alternative assessment taught me how to be a teacher. Improving my grading system required me to create clearer rubrics, state the purpose of my lessons, design assignments that gave my students more agency, and provide more concrete methods of measuring participation. This meant a lot of big changes at once, but alternative assessment can be implemented in much smaller steps, like using it for one assignment or rewriting one rubric. Now that I have a good system, I’m working on those smaller steps, like making assignments more time effective and integrating revisions more effectively. Implementing alternative assessment was really hard, but I hope as more teachers take it up, there will be more resources for those who want to take the plunge.
Sarah Barringer is a graduate student at the University of Iowa. Her dissertation, “Transmasculine Narratives in Medieval Literature,” argues that transmasculine characters in medieval literature allowed medieval audiences to imagine a gender that comprised both feminine and masculine elements. She teaches general education in literature courses at the University of Iowa on monstrosity and identity.
Inoue, Asoa. Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. University Press of Colorado, 2022.
Schapiro, Barbara. “Negotiating a Third Space in the Classroom.” Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 9, no. 3 (2009): 423-439.
We’re not going to lie, we had to think really hard about what we want this year’s Festival of Higher Education to be about.
If you’ve been to the event – returning to the University of London’s iconic Senate House this November – you’ll know by now to expect thoughtful analysis, discussion of the biggest issues facing higher education, and to hear from some key people who are leading and influencing the policy and political landscape. You can also expect to connect with people outside your professional area of work, find out about something new, drink buckets of coffee, and enjoy a jolly good party, if that’s your thing.
None of that’s changing, obviously. Our reflections have been much more about the journey the HE sector has been on in the last year, and the potentially tough road ahead. The Westminster government has promised a package of higher education reform, possibly pegged to an annual inflationary uplift in undergraduate tuition fees, but there will most likely be no major injection of public funds. The straws in the wind from the last few years suggest that the steady trend in recruitment towards growth in home and international students is ebbing.
When will there be good news?
That means that across the UK higher education institutions are having to think hard, perhaps harder than they ever have before, about their core purpose and mission, about securing quality and excellence in education, continuing cutting edge research and scholarship, and deepening their compacts with their communities and regions to make the value of that education and research real to people.
There is both potential and pain in that journey. If the HE sector was going to transform it would rather not be doing it under these circumstances. But with the right ideas and energy higher education should be able not just to cling on but to thrive – with a renewed sense of purpose and new ways of achieving the core mission for the generations to come.
We think that potential can better be achieved through connection – with external perspectives, with the articulation of shared challenges, and with people and ideas who might be able to help. And that’s what we will be focused on as we develop the agenda for this year’s Festival of Higher Education. We can guarantee that this year’s agenda will be packed full of fresh ideas, innovation and inspiration!
The Festival should offer the chance to hear from voices outside the sector who can speak to the wider public policy imperatives and global trends that UK higher education will need to think through. It should create space for deep reflection and new perspectives on the organisational challenges higher education is grappling with. And it should open up new thinking about the connections and relationships inside institutions and how to sustain and enhance academic community during times of change.
Thematic, systematic
Making that concrete, we think there are several really key policy themes that need to be unpacked.
Economic growth and regional/national development – the number one priority of not just the Westminster government but arguably of all governments. Higher education is one of the most important tools available in efforts to create flourishing economic ecosystems but we need a stronger articulation of the role of higher education in developing skilled graduates, how institutions connect up in their regions and nationally, and how the innovation grown in universities is seeded in the wider economy.
The regulatory environment and the relationship between the state and higher education institutions – with a new chair at the Office for Students, Medr implementing a new regulatory framework in Wales and reorganisation of FE/HE sector agencies in Scotland there are wide open questions about how best to find the balance between public accountability for quality, access and governance, and institutional freedom to innovate and offer something distinctive and sustainable – including deciding what not to do.
The future student learning experience – as labour market opportunities for graduates evolve in response to AI, costs of study put increasing pressure on the traditional HE route and on students’ wellbeing, and governments consider how to upskill and reskill to increase opportunity throughout individuals’ lives, higher education institutions will need to think about the kind of educational and personal development experiences future students will need to help them build the lives they want.
Organisational effectiveness of higher education institutions – it doesn’t sound that inspiring when you put it that way, but looking at challenges around effective governance and leadership for the current moment, the drive for efficiency and better use of data to inform decisions, and most importantly how higher education professionals experience their working environment, and are meaningfully engaged in change agendas, you realise just how important a theme this is. Evolution and adaptation might not be enough for many institutions – leadership teams and governing bodies will need to equip themselves to drive transformational change.
Higher education in an increasingly uncertain world – while the Trump administration attacks US universities the shockwaves are being felt in the UK and beyond. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine; the growing risk of conflict between China and Taiwan; conflict in Gaza and wider Middle East tensions all have an impact on campuses in the UK. How can UK universities chart a path through this global turmoil?
We’re certainly not claiming that a single event will answer all these challenges in their entirety. But we think these are the issues that are driving higher education change – and for that change to be experienced as renewal rather than decline, there’s still plenty of value in taking the time to talk and think about them outside your normal day to day.
We remain immensely hopeful about the future for UK higher education – and we promise to create an event that you can sign up to now, confident that we’ll be working to build two days of insight, inspiration and fun that will be a highlight of your year. Join us – you won’t be disappointed.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Picture: Alex Wroblewski
The future of Australians studying at American universities is in limbo after the Trump administration ordered a pause on new student visa approvals and is actively cancelling Chinese student visas.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Professor Brian Schmidt addresses the National Press Club. Picture: Martin Ollman
The former vice-chancellor of the Australian National University said he acted on every single instance of bullying, harassment, sexism and racism he knew about in the university’s medical college, but didn’t go far enough.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
I know this all too well. As a former military police officer who trained as a truck driver in 2016 under a VA-approved program, I was exposed to dangerous, poorly maintained equipment that ultimately caused me to lose the use of my right arm for over a year, a disability I will carry for life.
Despite repeated complaints to the program staff and the assigned State Approving Agency (SAA), the official body responsible for oversight, my concerns were dismissed, and no corrective action was taken until years later — and only after significant evidence surfaced.
Unsafe Equipment Ignored
During my class, veteran student Mike and I, and non-veteran students Dustin & Richard, discovered that the landing gear on the 1977 Stoughton trailer assigned for training was missing an axle and four wheels. I reported this to the staff, who admitted the equipment was faulty but took no timely corrective action. A veteran student later informed me that the school replaced the landing gear on a similar 1987 Great Dane trailer sometime after our class ended, contradicting official reports submitted to the VA and state approving agencies that claimed no issues existed.
To confirm these claims, I located the trailer used in program advertising and compared photos taken during and after our training. The landing gear had indeed been replaced—freshly painted and altered, as confirmed by Great Dane Trailers’ manufacturer.
The trucks used for training showed similar problems. According to Vehicle Identification Numbers, three trucks had modifications—such as frame cutting between tandem axles—that Daimler Trucks North America (the manufacturer) neither recommended nor approved. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration guidelines were not followed, creating additional safety concerns, per conversations with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
Systemic Oversight Failures
These issues highlight a broader problem: the State Approving Agencies, under contract with the VA, are failing to provide adequate oversight and ensure program quality. The VA Office of Inspector General’s 2018 report (OIG Report #16-00862-179) found that 86% of SAAs did not sufficiently oversee educational programs to ensure only eligible, high-quality programs were approved. The report estimated that without reforms, the VA could improperly pay out $2.3 billion over five years to subpar or fraudulent institutions.
Alarmingly, the VA Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is restricted in its ability to question or audit the reports submitted by SAAs. There is no mechanism for veterans to challenge or appeal SAA findings, effectively leaving veterans powerless within a system that is supposed to protect them.
Veteran Service Organizations’ Silence
I sought help from veteran service organizations but found little interest in addressing these critical problems. The American Legion initially responded to my outreach in 2017, engaging in conversations and phone calls. However, within months, communication ceased without explanation. Attempts to meet with American Legion leadership and their legislative contacts, including Dr. Joe Wescott—an influential consultant on veterans’ education—were unsuccessful. Dr. Wescott dismissed concerns about the integrity of the SAA’s targeted risk-based reviews, citing that schools typically fix problems before SAAs visit, and failed to investigate conflicts of interest between report authors and SAA officials.
At the 2024 American Legion convention, a planned meeting between a fellow veteran and Legion leadership was abruptly canceled. Meanwhile, other veteran groups such as Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and Veterans Education Success (VES) showed engagement, but the American Legion and Student Veterans of America remained unresponsive.
The American Legion’s own 2016 Resolution #304 warned of the exact issues I and countless other veterans have endured: deceptive practices by some education providers, poor accreditation standards, and underfunded and understaffed SAAs unable to enforce proper oversight.
A Cycle of Scandal
Congressional staff admitted privately that veterans’ education legislation rarely progresses without support from key players like Dr. Wescott and the National Association of State Approving Agencies (NASAA), whose leaders have repeatedly declined to meet with veterans raising concerns. These complex relationships between SAAs, VA officials, veteran groups, and legislators perpetuate a “cycle of scandal” that leaves veterans vulnerable and taxpayers footing the bill.
In 2023, a combat veteran attending the same program I did reported similar frustrations: only one of three trucks was roadworthy, severely limiting practical training time for a full class of students. Despite numerous documented complaints, the NASAA president refused to meet or discuss these issues.
The Human Cost
Beyond financial waste and bureaucratic failures, real human harm occurs. My injury, caused by training on unsafe equipment, robbed me of a year of mobility and continues to affect my life. Thousands of veterans have lost their G.I. Bill benefits, incurred debt for worthless or limited degrees, or been misled about their job prospects after completing programs approved by the very agencies meant to protect them.
The internet is rife with investigative reports exposing waste, fraud, and abuse in VA-approved programs. Headlines like “School Scammers Are Robbing Veterans and the Government Blind” and “For-Profit Colleges Exploit Veterans’ G.I. Bill Benefits” are far too common.
A Call for Reform
Despite these glaring failures, meaningful reform remains elusive. The VA OIG report and numerous investigations call for increased accountability, transparency, and cooperation between the VBA, SAAs, veteran service organizations, and Congress. Veterans deserve a system that genuinely safeguards their education and wellbeing.
My fellow former veteran students and I have organized online and turned to media outlets to break the silence. It’s time for the public and policymakers to hear our stories—not just slogans and “catchy” legislative titles that fail to restore lost benefits or improve program quality.
We veterans demand change—because we have earned more than empty promises and a broken system that leaves us behind.
Michael S. Hainline is a veteran and advocate living in Pensacola, Florida. He served in active duty and reserve military components and now works to expose the failures of oversight in VA-approved education and job training programs. He can be reached at [email protected].
