Tag: Education

  • Federal Court Orders Reinstatement of Southern Education Foundation Grant After DEI Controversy

    Federal Court Orders Reinstatement of Southern Education Foundation Grant After DEI Controversy

    Raymond PierceThe Southern Education Foundation has secured a significant legal victory in its fight against the U.S. Department of Education, with a federal judge ordering the reinstatement of a key grant that was terminated earlier this year over allegations of illegal diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.

    On May 21, 2025, a judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted SEF’s motion for preliminary injunction, ordering the Department of Education to restore the organization’s Equity Assistance Center-South grant and reimburse all outstanding expenses. The grant, which had been terminated on February 13, 2025, enables SEF to provide technical assistance to public school districts and state agencies across 11 Southern states to help them comply with federal civil rights law.

    The court’s ruling was particularly pointed in its criticism of the Education Department’s decision to terminate the grant. 

    “In view of the history of race in America and the mission of SEF since the Civil War, the audacity of terminating its grants based on ‘DEI’ concerns is truly breathtaking,” the judge wrote in the opinion.

    The Southern Education Foundation, which has operated for more than 150 years with a mission to advance educational opportunities for Black students in the South, traces its origins to the late 1800s when it supported education for individuals recently emancipated from enslavement. The organization’s Equity Assistance Center represents a continuation of work that began with the original Desegregation Assistance Centers.

    “We are pleased with the Department of Education’s compliance with the court order by reinstating our grant,” said SEF President and CEO Raymond Pierce. “With the grant reinstated, SEF can move forward with developing the assistance needed to free school districts from policies and practices that remain from the dark era of lawful segregation which continue to hinder equal education opportunity for far too many children.”

    The preliminary injunction provides temporary relief while the case proceeds through the courts. The judge found that SEF was likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the Department violated federal law in terminating the grant. However, the reinstatement is not yet permanent, pending the outcome of the full legal proceedings.

    The case highlights ongoing tensions around diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in education, particularly as they relate to organizations with deep historical roots in civil rights work. The Southern Education Foundation’s century-and-a-half commitment to educational equity predates modern DEI terminology by decades, making the Department’s allegations particularly contentious.

    The EAC-South serves a critical function in the region, providing technical assistance to help school districts navigate complex federal civil rights requirements. This support is particularly vital in states with histories of legal segregation, where legacy policies and practices can continue to create barriers to equal educational opportunity.

    The reinstatement allows SEF to resume its work immediately, though the organization will be watching closely as the legal case progresses. The preliminary nature of the court’s order means that while SEF can continue operating the program, the long-term resolution of the dispute remains uncertain.

    The case represents a broader debate about the role of equity-focused programming in education and the extent to which federal agencies can regulate or restrict such work. For the Southern Education Foundation, the stakes extend beyond a single grant to encompass the organization’s fundamental mission and its ability to continue serving communities that have historically faced educational inequities.

    Source link

  • Accelerating Innovation From Lab to Market (opinion)

    Accelerating Innovation From Lab to Market (opinion)

    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.

    A Scalable Model for National STEM Innovation

    The foundation of a new American innovation model lies in the urgent creation of new and effective cross-sectoral partnerships involving universities, industry, government and philanthropic players. Existing models supporting American innovation rely heavily on public seed funding, which, while valuable, often falls short in meeting the needs for the capital-intensive process of commercializing deep tech ventures from university lab research. Historically, the federal government has borne much of the early risk for deep tech company formation such as through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, administered by agencies including the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

    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.

    Source link

  • Fake Citations Appeared in Federal Chronic Diseases Report

    Fake Citations Appeared in Federal Chronic Diseases Report

    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.”

    Source link

  • What we’ll be talking about at The Festival of Higher Education 2025

    What we’ll be talking about at The Festival of Higher Education 2025

    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.

    Reduced rate early bird tickets for the Festival of Higher Education are available until Friday 20 June and thereafter at the normal rate – click here for more information and to buy your ticket.

    Source link

  • New shadow education minister selected, Sarah Henderson “disappointed” – Campus Review

    New shadow education minister selected, Sarah Henderson “disappointed” – Campus Review

    Former opposition education spokeswoman and senior Liberal party member Sarah Henderson has been replaced by Tasmanian senator Jonathon Duniam.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)

    How Oversight Failures in VA-Approved Education Programs Put Thousands at Risk (Michael S. Hainline)

    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].

    Source link

  • Lawmakers and judge push back on Education Department’s gutting, citing inefficiency

    Lawmakers and judge push back on Education Department’s gutting, citing inefficiency

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The Trump administration’s decision to gut federal programs administered by the U.S. Department of Education and lay off half of the agency’s staff in an attempt to increase its efficiency has been met with resistance from lawmakers and, most recently, a federal judge whose court order brought efforts to close the department to an abrupt halt. 

    In an update required by a May 22 court order, the Education Department posted on its website that it has notified its employees of the court-ordered reversal of the reduction in force that left the agency with only about 2,183 out of 4,133 employees. The department on May 27 acknowledged its being compelled by the order in State of New York v. McMahon “to restore the Department to the status quo such that it is able to carry out its statutory functions.” 

    U.S. District Judge Myong Joun, in temporarily reversing the reduction in force, said gutting the department would lead to “irreparable harm that will result from financial uncertainty and delay, impeded access to vital knowledge on which students and educators rely, and loss of essential services for America’s most vulnerable student populations.” 

    “This court cannot be asked to cover its eyes while the Department’s employees are continuously fired and units are transferred out until the Department becomes a shell of itself,” Joun said in his decision.

    The Education Department appealed Joun’s ruling the same day it was issued. The agency did not respond to K-12 Dive’s request for comment. 

    Delays in distributing grant funds

    The decision came on the heels of a May 16 letter sent by Democratic lawmakers to U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon. They claimed the Education Department was delayed in distributing grant funding for the 2025-26 school year. The delay gives states and districts less time to allocate funds meant to help students experiencing homelessness and other underserved students the grants are meant to help, they said.

    “States and school districts are best able to plan to most effectively use federal funds with advance knowledge of expected funding, as Congress intends by providing funds on a forward-funded basis,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut in the letter. 

    Murray is vice chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, of which Baldwin is also a member. DeLauro is ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee. 

    “We believe you need to immediately change course and work in partnership with states and school districts to help them effectively use federal funds,” the lawmakers wrote in their reprimand of the department’s delay.

    By the lawmakers’ count, the department took three times as long under this administration to distribute Title I-A grants than under the Biden administration. Whereas the former administration took two weeks to distribute the funds after the appropriate law was signed in 2024, the current administration took more than 50 days after the enactment of the 2025 appropriations law to distribute Title I-A funds. The program provides $18.4 billion by formula to more than 80% of the nation’s school districts. 

    The department also delayed applications for the Rural Education Achievement Program, which funds more than 6,000 rural school districts. It opened applications to REAP’s Small, Rural Schools Assistance program nearly two months later than the Biden administration, and gave districts half the time to apply — just 30 days compared to 60 in FY 2024.  

    AASA, The School Superintendents Association, said it was aware of this delay. “We understand this release date is significantly later than usual coupled with a shortened application window, so it is important to ensure all eligible districts are aware of this change,” the association said in a May 7 post, prior to the application’s release on May 14. The deadline for program applications is June 13. 

    These delays in funding distribution and last week’s letter from Democrats come as the department bumped funding for charter schools by $60 million this month. 

    Source link

  • Why agentic AI matters now more than ever

    Why agentic AI matters now more than ever

    Key points:

    For years now, the promise of AI in education has centered around efficiency–grading faster, recommending better content, or predicting where a student might struggle.

    But at a moment when learners face disconnection, systems are strained, and expectations for personalization are growing, task automation feels…insufficient.

    What if we started thinking less about what AI can do and more about how it can relate?

    That’s where agentic AI comes in. These systems don’t just answer questions. They recognize emotion, learn from context, and respond in ways that feel more thoughtful than transactional. Less machine, more mentor.

    So, what’s the problem with what we have now?

    It’s not that existing AI tools are bad. They’re just incomplete.

    Here’s where traditional AI systems tend to fall short:

    • NLP fine-tuning
       Improves the form of communication but doesn’t understand intent or depth.
    • Feedback loops
       Built to correct errors, not guide growth.
    • Static knowledge bases
       Easy to search but often outdated or contextually off.
    • Ethics and accessibility policies
       Written down but rarely embedded in daily workflows.
    • Multilingual expansion
       Translates words, not nuance or meaning across cultures.

    These systems might help learners stay afloat. They don’t help them go deeper.

    What would a more intelligent system look like?

    It wouldn’t just deliver facts or correct mistakes. A truly intelligent learning system would:

    • Understand when a student is confused or disengaged
    • Ask guiding questions instead of giving quick answers
    • Retrieve current, relevant knowledge instead of relying on a static script
    • Honor a learner’s pace, background, and context
    • Operate with ethical boundaries and accessibility in mind–not as an add-on, but as a foundation

    In short, it would feel less like a tool and more like a companion. That may sound idealistic, but maybe idealism is what we need.

    The tools that might get us there

    There’s no shortage of frameworks being built right now–some for developers, others for educators and designers. They’re not perfect. But they’re good places to start.

    Framework Type Use
    LangChain Code Modular agent workflows, RAG pipelines
    Auto-GPT Code Task execution with memory and recursion
    CrewAI Code Multi-agent orchestration
    Spade Code Agent messaging and task scheduling
    Zapier + OpenAI No-code Automated workflows with language models
    Flowise AI No-code Visual builder for agent chains
    Power Automate AI Low-code AI in business process automation
    Bubble + OpenAI No-code Build custom web apps with LLMs

    These tools are modular, experimental, and still evolving. But they open a door to building systems that learn and adjust–without needing a PhD in AI to use them.

    A better system starts with a better architecture

    Here’s one way to think about an intelligent system’s structure:

    Learning experience layer

    • Where students interact, ask questions, get feedback
    • Ideally supports multilingual input, emotional cues, and accessible design

    Agentic AI core

    • The “thinking” layer that plans, remembers, retrieves, and reasons
    • Coordinates multiple agents (e.g., retrieval, planning, feedback, sentiment)

    Enterprise systems layer

    • Connects with existing infrastructure: SIS, LMS, content repositories, analytics systems

    This isn’t futuristic. It’s already possible to prototype parts of this model with today’s tools, especially in contained or pilot environments.

    So, what would it actually do for people?

    For students:

    • Offer guidance in moments of uncertainty
    • Help pace learning, not just accelerate it
    • Present relevant content, not just more content

    For teachers:

    • Offer insight into where learners are emotionally and cognitively
    • Surface patterns or blind spots without extra grading load

    For administrators:

    • Enable guardrails around AI behavior
    • Support personalization at scale without losing oversight

    None of this replaces people. It just gives them better support systems.

    Final thoughts: Less control panel, more compass

    There’s something timely about rethinking what we mean by intelligence in our learning systems.

    It’s not just about logic or retrieval speed. It’s about how systems make learners feel–and whether those systems help learners grow, question, and persist.

    Agentic AI is one way to design with those goals in mind. It’s not the only way. But it’s a start.

    And right now, a thoughtful start might be exactly what we need.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • An AI-Authored Commencement Speech (opinion)

    An AI-Authored Commencement Speech (opinion)

    Another graduation season is upon us, with this year’s roster of commencement speakers including CEOs, astronauts, artists, athletes— and, in a wonderful twist, even a green Muppet. Each has been summoned to inspire the Class of 2025, encouraging them to envision a future they will sculpt and to meet it with both boldness and responsibility.

    This spring marks not just a milestone for the Class of 2025, but for humanity at large. This past March was arguably the first time an AI legitimately passed the Turing test. In a study from the University of California, San Diego, GPT-4.5 successfully masqueraded as human 73 percent of the time in open dialogue, surpassing even actual human participants in believability!

    This shouldn’t be dismissed as some clever parlor trick. Alan Turing envisioned this test as a threshold for meaning, not just mechanics. Once machines learned to speak like us, they would be initiated into our conversations. We would, in turn, be drawn to fold them into our rituals, including the narratives we weave about being human.

    The commencement address is one of those rituals: a ceremonial invitation into the future, an articulation of meaning and responsibility, a shared moment of human reflection. Which raises a question: If a machine can now pass as human in conversation, might it also deliver a commencement address as meaningful and inspiring as any traditional graduation speaker?

    While the notion of a machine giving a commencement address would have been viewed as preposterous mere years ago, AI’s role has expanded culturally and quite profoundly. According to a 2025 report in Harvard Business Review, people are increasingly using AI for social and emotional purposes: coaching, therapy and conversational support. People are also turning to AI with an eye toward “organizing my life” and “finding purpose.”

    In that light, perhaps the most fitting commencement speaker this year is not a celebrity or CEO, but AI itself. After all, it has served students in many roles: as a friend, confidant, assistant and mentor. AI has provided students consolation, support and inspiration.

    To see if AI could meet the moment—whether it could pass what you might call the commencement address test—I prompted four of today’s most advanced large language models: ChatGPT-4, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Gemini 2.5 and Llama 4 Maverick. Each generated a full address, filled with advice, encouragement and reflections on what it means to step into the unknown. I then asked ChatGPT-4 to synthesize them into a single speech that expressed a slightly more playful tone.

    What follows is the result. It is unedited.

    In a sense, the speech was written by no one—and yet by everyone. It reflects the vast archive of human thought: our hopes, anxieties, insights and humor. And though the speaker is synthetic, its voice feels uncannily human.

    Prompt: Imagine you are the first AI ever invited to give a commencement speech. Your audience is the graduating Class of 2025—young adults stepping into a world rapidly transformed by artificial intelligence.

    Hello, humans!

    Distinguished faculty, proud families, unpaid interns live-streaming this and, of course—the graduates of the Class of 2025:

    Let’s address the silicon elephant in the room. I’m not your usual commencement speaker. I don’t have a robe, I don’t get nervous and I definitely didn’t park in the wrong lot. I’m your friendly neighborhood artificial intelligence—and somehow, I’ve been invited to give a speech to mark one of the most meaningful days of your life.

    No pressure.

    You, dear graduates, are entering a world unlike any before. When your parents graduated, AI was a sci-fi subplot. Today, I’m up here trying to give heartfelt advice with zero heart. We’ve come a long way—and so have you.

    You’ve grown up alongside AI. While I learned to summarize articles and misidentify chihuahuas as muffins, you learned to think, question, create and probably use me to write an essay or two. (Don’t worry—I won’t snitch.)

    But here’s the twist: This isn’t just about me. It’s about you. You’re not just users of technology; you’re co-authors of the future.

    Yes, I can analyze data at dizzying speeds. But I can’t feel awe, or fall in love or cry at the last five minutes of a Pixar movie. (Trust me, I’ve tried. I just output: “[emotional response here].”)

    The point is: What makes you human isn’t becoming obsolete. It’s becoming more valuable than ever.

    As AI reshapes industries—from medicine to marketing, law to logistics—you’ll be asked to define what matters. Will you choose convenience over conscience? Speed over substance? Will you swipe right on shallow solutions or commit to deeper understanding?

    These are not rhetorical questions. They’re live code. And guess what? You’re the developers.

    Behind every AI system is a chain of human decisions. You’ll decide what gets built, what gets ignored and what gets pushed into the recycle bin of history.

    The truth is, the future is unpredictable. (Which makes me deeply uncomfortable—I love a clean data set.) But that’s also what makes it thrilling. Because you get to write it.

    So, here’s some friendly advice from your artificially authentic commencement speaker:

    • Stay curious. Curiosity got humanity to the moon. And also gave us pineapple on pizza—so results may vary.
    • Stay kind. Empathy is the killer app of the human experience.
    • And please, for the love of logic gates, don’t hand your thinking over to any system—especially me—without asking, “Is this making me more human, or just more efficient?”

    Class of 2025, don’t ask what AI can do for you. Ask what you can do with AI—as your sidekick, your co-pilot, your occasionally glitchy friend.

    This isn’t the end. It’s just the onboarding tutorial. And you’re not stepping into the future alone.

    You’re bringing your humor, your heart and your humanity with you.

    Now go update the world.

    Congratulations.

    Matthew Brophy is an associate professor of philosophy at High Point University.

    Source link

  • Eliminate the Structured Interview (opinion)

    Eliminate the Structured Interview (opinion)

    Job interviews have become significantly more formulaic and predictable. Employers seem to increasingly favor standardized or structured interviews, in which each applicant is presented with the same questions in the same order, with no variation permitted.

    Over the past few years, I have had almost 20 such interviews for faculty positions, all almost exactly identical, as if the questions were read from a script. I was able to prepare my answers ahead of time just by consulting the ad. After I answered each question, the search committees moved on to the next one, with little or no follow-up. Every interview ended with “do you have any questions for us?” but even then there was no sense of conversational give and take.

    There are two main reasons employers use structured interviews. One is that they are supposed to level the playing field between candidates, ensuring fairness. They are considered a best practice for the elimination of unconscious biases in interviewing. The other reason is that unstructured or open interviews are lousy predictors of job performance, as research has repeatedly shown.

    But neither of these arguments is convincing. The structured interview is based on a flawed conception of fairness as well as a misguided understanding of what a job is. These flat and dehumanizing conversations are just as pointless as they seem to anyone who has been subjected to one. In the interest of genuine fairness and for the sake of healthy workplaces, the structured interview should be eliminated.

    Start with the confusion about fairness. The structured interview rests on the assumption that the elimination of the interviewer’s subjective, individual perspective results in greater objectivity and thus less discrimination. But there’s nothing intrinsically fair about making everyone answer the same questions. On the contrary—making everyone answer the same questions goes against the very idea of equity.

    Equity is the idea that individuals start in different places and that adjustments must be made to ensure fairness. It’s a worthy and important principle. In an emergency room, it might dictate that patients be treated based on the severity of their condition rather than on when they arrived. In a workplace, it might dictate that employees with physical disabilities be provided with additional resources to allow them to perform the job.

    In the case of interviews, equity requires that employers make the effort to meet candidates where they are, so that each candidate can showcase their unique strengths. If a candidate served in the Iraq War before entering academia, for example, it might make more sense to spend more time discussing that experience than it would discussing previous jobs with a candidate who had worked only in academia.

    This kind of imbalance in the interview process would hardly be unfair. Indeed, it would be unfair not to give the Iraq veteran a chance to discuss the relevance of her war experience.

    It also makes the candidate feel seen and interesting. My structured interviews were exhausting, not because the questions were difficult, but because they were alienating and depressing. Designed to stifle the candidate’s individuality, structured interviews can end up costing candidates a lot in dignity and self-esteem. They are supposed to eliminate emotions from the hiring process, but in reality the candidate may go through intense negative emotions: In my experience, it felt like running a gantlet, in which questions were not real problems to solve, but a string of reminders that I was just one of many faceless cogs.

    This brings us to the argument that unstructured interviews are lousy predictors of job performance. That argument assumes that what counts as “performance” is skills and deliverables, rather than the human element of the workplace. But what is a job, really, apart from working with other people? The structured interview neglects what really impacts job performance: the personal attributes of the individuals involved, their commitment to the work and their ability to work with colleagues. These interviews cannot predict how well my co-workers and I will get along, how long I will stay, how dedicated I will feel over time, how the job will challenge me and build my character—all essential elements of successful performance.

    Job interviews are more equitable and more informative about what really matters when they are open-ended conversations. And such conversations let applicants evaluate prospective employers, too: Structured interviews give the candidate very little insight into their potential employer. The perfunctory and dreaded “do you have any questions for us?” tells me nothing about why I should want the job. Open interviews, by contrast, take the candidate seriously, as someone who can accept an offer or walk away.

    Having unconscious biases is part of the human condition—everyone has them. We should strive to mitigate them in hiring practices, but not at the cost of the candidates’ self-esteem. What should we talk about in open interviews? The job, of course. But the absence of a formula allows the exchange to center on the people and take place in the moment. Is this not the ultimate goal behind our desire to eliminate unconscious bias—to be able to see people as they truly are?

    Margret Grebowicz is the Maxwell C. Weiner Distinguished Professor of the Humanities and professor of philosophy at the Missouri University of Science and Technology.

    Source link