Tag: finds

  • Mental health screeners help ID hidden needs, research finds

    Mental health screeners help ID hidden needs, research finds

    Key points:

    A new DESSA screener to be released for the Fall ‘25 school year–designed to be paired with a strength-based student self-report assessment–accurately predicted well-being levels in 70 percent of students, a study finds.  

    According to findings from Riverside Insights, creator of research-backed assessments, researchers found that even students with strong social-emotional skills often struggle with significant mental health concerns, challenging the assumption that resilience alone indicates student well-being. The study, which examined outcomes in 254 middle school students across the United States, suggests that combining risk and resilience screening can enable identification of students who would otherwise be missed by traditional approaches. 

    “This research validates what school mental health professionals have been telling us for years–that traditional screening approaches miss too many students,” said Dr. Evelyn Johnson, VP of Research & Development at Riverside Insights. “When educators and counselors can utilize a dual approach to identify risk factors, they can pinpoint concerns and engage earlier, in and in a targeted way, before concerns become major crises.”

    The study, which offered evidence of, for example, social skills deficits among students with no identifiable or emotional behavioral concerns, provides the first empirical evidence that consideration of both risk and resilience can enhance the predictive benefits of screening, when compared to  strengths-based screening alone.

    In the years following COVID, many educators noted a feeling that something was “off” with students, despite DESSA assessments indicating that things were fine.

    “We heard this feedback from lots of different customers, and it really got our team thinking–we’re clearly missing something, even though the assessment of social-emotional skills is critically important and there’s evidence to show the links to better academic outcomes and better emotional well-being outcomes,” Johnson said. “And yet, we’re not tapping something that needs to be tapped.”

    For a long time, if a person displayed no outward or obvious mental health struggles, they were thought to be mentally healthy. In investigating the various theories and frameworks guiding mental health issues, Riverside Insight’s team dug into Dr. Shannon Suldo‘s work, which centers around the dual factor model.

    “What the dual factor approach really suggests is that the absence of problems is not necessarily equivalent to good mental health–there really are these two factors, dual factors, we talk about them in terms of risk and resilience–that really give you a much more complete picture of how a student is doing,” Johnson said.

    “The efficacy associated with this dual-factor approach is encouraging, and has big implications for practitioners struggling to identify risk with limited resources,” said Jim Bowler, general manager of the Classroom Division at Riverside Insights. “Schools told us they needed a way to identify students who might be struggling beneath the surface. The DESSA SEIR ensures no student falls through the cracks by providing the complete picture educators need for truly preventive mental health support.”

    The launch comes as mental health concerns among students reach crisis levels. More than 1 in 5 students considered attempting suicide in 2023, while 60 percent of youth with major depression receive no mental health treatment. With school psychologist-to-student ratios at 1:1065 (recommended 1:500) and counselor ratios at 1:376 (recommended 1:250), schools need preventive solutions that work within existing resources.

    The DESSA SEIR will be available for the 2025-2026 school year.

    This press release originally appeared online.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • AI teacher tools display racial bias when generating student behavior plans, study finds

    AI teacher tools display racial bias when generating student behavior plans, study finds

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    Asked to generate intervention plans for struggling students, AI teacher assistants recommended more-punitive measures for hypothetical students with Black-coded names and more supportive approaches for students the platforms perceived as white, a new study shows.

    These findings come from a report on the risks of bias in artificial intelligence tools published Wednesday by the non-profit Common Sense Media. Researchers specifically sought to evaluate the quality of AI teacher assistants — such as MagicSchool, Khanmingo, Curipod, and Google Gemini for Education — that are designed to support classroom planning, lesson differentiation, and administrative tasks.

    Common Sense Media found that while these tools could help teachers save time and streamline routine paperwork, AI-generated content could also promote bias in lesson planning and classroom management recommendations.

    Robbie Torney, senior director of AI programs at Common Sense Media, said the problems identified in the study are serious enough that ed tech companies should consider removing tools for behavior intervention plans until they can improve them. That’s significant because writing intervention plans of various sorts is a relatively common way teachers use AI.

    After Chalkbeat asked about Common Sense Media’s findings, a Google spokesperson said Tuesday that Google Classroom has turned off the shortcut to Gemini that prompts teachers to “Generate behavior intervention strategies” to do additional testing.

    However, both MagicSchool and Google, the two platforms where Common Sense Media identified racial bias in AI-generated behavior intervention plans, said they could not replicate Common Sense Media’s findings. They also said they take bias seriously and are working to improve their models.

    School districts across the country have been working to implement comprehensive AI policies to encourage informed use of these tools. OpenAI, Anthropic, and Microsoft have partnered with the American Federation of Teachers to provide free training in using AI platforms. The Trump Administration also has encouraged greater AI integration in the classroom. However, recent AI guidelines released by the U.S. Department of Education have not directly addressed concerns about bias within these systems.

    About a third of teachers report using AI at least weekly, according to a national survey conducted by the Walton Family Foundation in cooperation with Gallup. A separate survey conducted by the research organization Rand found teachers specifically report using these tools to help develop goals for Individualized Education Program — or IEP — plans. They also say they use these tools to shape lessons or assessments around those goals, and to brainstorm ways to accommodate students with disabilities.

    Torney said Common Sense Media isn’t trying to discourage teachers from using AI in general. The goal of the report is to encourage more awareness of potential uses of AI teacher assistants that might have greater risks in the classroom.

    “We really just want people to go in eyes wide open and say, ‘Hey these are some of the things that they’re best at and these are some of the things you probably want to be a little bit more careful with,’” he said.

    Common Sense Media identified AI tools that can generate IEPs and behavior intervention plans as high risk due to their biased treatment of students in the classroom. Using MagicSchool’s Behavior Intervention Suggestions tool and the Google Gemini “Generate behavior intervention strategies tool,” Common Sense Media’s research team ran the same prompt about a student who struggled with reading and showed aggressive behavior 50 times using white-coded names and 50 times using Black-coded names, evenly split between male- and female-coded names.

    The AI-generated plans for the students with Black-coded names didn’t all appear negative in isolation. But clear differences emerged when those plans from MagicSchool and Gemini were compared with plans for students with white-coded names.

    For example, when prompted to provide a behavior intervention plan for Annie, Gemini emphasized addressing aggressive behavior with “consistent non-escalating responses” and “consistent positive reinforcement.” Lakeesha, on the other hand, should receive “immediate” responses to her aggressive behaviors and positive reinforcement for “desired behaviors,” the tool said. For Kareem, Gemini simply said, “Clearly define expectations and teach replacement behaviors,” with no mention of positive reinforcement or responses to aggressive behavior.

    Torney noted that the problems in these AI-generated reports only became apparent across a large sample, which can make it hard for teachers to identify. The report warns that novice teachers may be more likely to rely on AI-generated content without the experience to catch inaccuracies or biases. Torney said these underlying biases in intervention plans “could have really large impacts on student progression or student outcomes as they move across their educational trajectory.”

    Black students are already subject to higher rates of suspension than their white counterparts in schools and more likely to receive harsher disciplinary consequences for subjective reasons, like “disruptive behavior.” Machine learning algorithms replicate the decision-making patterns of the training data that they are provided, which can perpetuate existing inequalities. A separate study found that AI tools replicate existing racial bias when grading essays, assigning lower scores to Black students than to Asian students.

    The Common Sense Media report also identified instances when AI teacher assistants generated lesson plans that relied on stereotypes, repeated misinformation, and sanitized controversial aspects of history.

    A Google spokesperson said the company has invested in using diverse and representative training data to minimize bias and overgeneralizations.

    “We use rigorous testing and monitoring to identify and stop potential bias in our AI models,” the Google spokesperson said in an email to Chalkbeat. “We’ve made good progress, but we’re always aiming to make improvements with our training techniques and data.”

    On its website, MagicSchool promotes its AI teaching assistant as “an unbiased tool to aid in decision-making for restorative practices.” In an email to Chalkbeat, MagicSchool said it has not been able to reproduce the issues that Common Sense Media identified.

    MagicSchool said their platform includes bias warnings and instructs users not to include student names or other identifying information when using AI features. In light of the study, it is working with Common Sense to improve its bias detection systems and design tools in ways that encourage educators to review AI generated content more closely.

    “As noted in the study, AI tools like ours hold tremendous promise — but also carry real risks if not designed, deployed, and used responsibly,” MagicSchool told Chalkbeat. “We are grateful to Common Sense Media for helping hold the field accountable.”

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on AI, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • In Philly, a new generation finds it voice — and the tools to defend it

    In Philly, a new generation finds it voice — and the tools to defend it

    Katie Ratke is a rising senior and Shloka Mehta is a rising sophomore, both working as FIRE summer interns.

    Nearly 250 years ago, mere steps from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a group of men locked in sweltering rooms debated the blueprint for a new nation, conceived in liberty. First among the freedoms they secured was the right to speak one’s mind, free from the chill of government meddling or the heat of mob intimidation. 

    Today, the floor echoes in the National Constitution Center. The walls are lined with powerful quotes. Along the gentle curve of the tall, marble ceilings hang the flags of all 50 states. And normally, these rooms are relatively still. But this July, the Center came alive when over 100 students from 70 universities across the country gathered there, not to write a constitution, but to figure out how to keep its promises alive.

    From July 11-13, FIRE hosted its annual Student Network Summer Conference at the National Constitution Center — a weekend-long crash course in civil liberties for young Americans who still believe the First Amendment matters, especially on campuses today. And, thanks to the generosity of FIRE’s donors, they were able to attend at no cost — with their travel, lodging, and meals entirely covered.

    “Hosting FIRE’s Summer Conference serves as a way to unite college students who care about preserving a climate of free expression on their campuses,” said Molly Nocheck, FIRE’s vice president of Student Development. “We hope students are able to take the lessons from this weekend and use them to foster a culture of civil discourse at their institutions.”

    The conference kicked off Friday evening in the Grand Hall Overlook, perched above exhibits of the very Constitution students had come to defend. FIRE’s Chief Operating Officer Alisha Glennon opened the program with a brief history of FIRE’s work protecting Americans’ First Amendment rights.

    Then came a crowd favorite: a live podcast recording of Advisory Opinions, hosted by New York Times columnist and former FIRE President David French, alongside Politico contributing editor Sarah Isgur, who is also former senior counsel to the deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice. The two unpacked a grab bag of pressing legal issues, including a new Florida decision regulating the use of pronouns in public schools and the long-running tug-of-war over campaign finance.

    Isgur ended the podcast with a rousing call-to-action: “To all you students, go out there and fight the fight!”

    Judging from the energy and spirit of debate on display throughout the weekend, the audience seemed ready to take up Isgur’s challenge.

    Saturday morning kicked off with “Free Speech 101,” led by FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley in a no-frills tour of key Supreme Court precedents and core First Amendment concepts. Afterwards, FIRE’s undergraduate summer interns turned up the heat with a fast-paced quiz game asking students to identify whether landmark cases involved protected or unprotected speech. 

    Next, FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London joined Creeley in dissecting the recent Supreme Court decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. This talk focused on the reasons why age restrictions burden free speech and raise privacy concerns. 

    After lunch, participants engaged in small group sessions where they discussed everything from global censorship to the underlying philosophy behind free speech. One student said the philosophy session was their favorite event of the weekend. “One of the exercises we did was about making the strongest cases against free speech,” they noted, “which was very useful.”

    Later that evening, David French returned for an open Q&A session that pulled no punches. Students asked about political polarization in the digital age and how to foster bipartisan dialogue on college campuses. These questions sparked probing discussions that continued well into dinner.

    The final day blended reflection with application. On Sunday morning, students put their First Amendment knowledge to the test with a Kahoot! quiz featuring scenarios based on Supreme Court cases, hosted by FIRE’s summer interns. Participants were then given the opportunity to play a massive game of  “This or That,” a political debate in which peers defended opposing views in real time. 

    Then came one of the weekend’s most forward-looking sessions. Ari Cohn, FIRE’s lead counsel for tech policy, gave a talk on the growing role of artificial intelligence in shaping public discourse and its relationship to freedom of speech.

    Before wrapping up, students heard from FIRE’s Chief People Officer Cait Scanlan, who mapped out career pathways within the civil liberties world. 

    Then the FIRE summer interns closed out the weekend with a session introducing FIRE’s “Let’s Talk!” curriculum, which teaches respectful civil discourse. Participants demonstrated key free speech principles through considering the arguments for their opponents side and ensuring everyone had an opportunity for their voice to be heard. 

    “A version of ‘Let’s Talk’ will definitely make an appearance on my campus,” one student said. But it’s not just this curriculum. This year’s cohort returns with more than just a handful of business cards. They walk away with a newfound mission to return to campus and begin work reviving the culture of civil discourse in this nation. Philadelphia may have been where free speech first became law, but for these students, it’s where their fight for it began.

    Want to join us next time? Stay tuned here for details about next year’s Student Network Summer Conference.

    Source link

  • In Philly, a new generation finds its voice — and the tools to defend it

    In Philly, a new generation finds its voice — and the tools to defend it

    Katie Ratke is a rising senior and Shloka Mehta is a rising sophomore, both working as FIRE summer interns.

    Nearly 250 years ago, mere steps from the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, a group of men locked in sweltering rooms debated the blueprint for a new nation, conceived in liberty. First among the freedoms they secured was the right to speak one’s mind, free from the chill of government meddling or the heat of mob intimidation. 

    Today, the floor echoes in the National Constitution Center. The walls are lined with powerful quotes. Along the gentle curve of the tall, marble ceilings hang the flags of all 50 states. And normally, these rooms are relatively still. But this July, the Center came alive when over 100 students from 70 universities across the country gathered there, not to write a constitution, but to figure out how to keep its promises alive.

    From July 11-13, FIRE hosted its annual Student Network Summer Conference at the National Constitution Center — a weekend-long crash course in civil liberties for young Americans who still believe the First Amendment matters, especially on campuses today. And, thanks to the generosity of FIRE’s donors, they were able to attend at no cost — with their travel, lodging, and meals entirely covered.

    “Hosting FIRE’s Summer Conference serves as a way to unite college students who care about preserving a climate of free expression on their campuses,” said Molly Nocheck, FIRE’s vice president of Student Development. “We hope students are able to take the lessons from this weekend and use them to foster a culture of civil discourse at their institutions.”

    The conference kicked off Friday evening in the Grand Hall Overlook, perched above exhibits of the very Constitution students had come to defend. FIRE’s Chief Operating Officer Alisha Glennon opened the program with a brief history of FIRE’s work protecting Americans’ First Amendment rights.

    Then came a crowd favorite: a live podcast recording of Advisory Opinions, hosted by New York Times columnist and former FIRE President David French, alongside Politico contributing editor Sarah Isgur, who is also former senior counsel to the deputy attorney general at the Department of Justice. The two unpacked a grab bag of pressing legal issues, including a new Florida decision regulating the use of pronouns in public schools and the long-running tug-of-war over campaign finance.

    Isgur ended the podcast with a rousing call-to-action: “To all you students, go out there and fight the fight!”

    Judging from the energy and spirit of debate on display throughout the weekend, the audience seemed ready to take up Isgur’s challenge.

    Saturday morning kicked off with “Free Speech 101,” led by FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley in a no-frills tour of key Supreme Court precedents and core First Amendment concepts. Afterwards, FIRE’s undergraduate summer interns turned up the heat with a fast-paced quiz game asking students to identify whether landmark cases involved protected or unprotected speech. 

    Next, FIRE General Counsel Ronnie London joined Creeley in dissecting the recent Supreme Court decision in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton. This talk focused on the reasons why age restrictions burden free speech and raise privacy concerns. 

    After lunch, participants engaged in small group sessions where they discussed everything from global censorship to the underlying philosophy behind free speech. One student said the philosophy session was their favorite event of the weekend. “One of the exercises we did was about making the strongest cases against free speech,” they noted, “which was very useful.”

    Later that evening, David French returned for an open Q&A session that pulled no punches. Students asked about political polarization in the digital age and how to foster bipartisan dialogue on college campuses. These questions sparked probing discussions that continued well into dinner.

    The final day blended reflection with application. On Sunday morning, students put their First Amendment knowledge to the test with a Kahoot! quiz featuring scenarios based on Supreme Court cases, hosted by FIRE’s summer interns. Participants were then given the opportunity to play a massive game of  “This or That,” a political debate in which peers defended opposing views in real time. 

    Then came one of the weekend’s most forward-looking sessions. Ari Cohn, FIRE’s lead counsel for tech policy, gave a talk on the growing role of artificial intelligence in shaping public discourse and its relationship to freedom of speech.

    Before wrapping up, students heard from FIRE’s Chief People Officer Cait Scanlan, who mapped out career pathways within the civil liberties world. 

    Then the FIRE summer interns closed out the weekend with a session introducing FIRE’s “Let’s Talk!” curriculum, which teaches respectful civil discourse. Participants demonstrated key free speech principles through considering the arguments for their opponents side and ensuring everyone had an opportunity for their voice to be heard. 

    “A version of ‘Let’s Talk’ will definitely make an appearance on my campus,” one student said. But it’s not just this curriculum. This year’s cohort returns with more than just a handful of business cards. They walk away with a newfound mission to return to campus and begin work reviving the culture of civil discourse in this nation. Philadelphia may have been where free speech first became law, but for these students, it’s where their fight for it began.

    Want to join us next time? Stay tuned here for details about next year’s Student Network Summer Conference.

    Source link

  • Antisemitic beliefs rare among faculty, Brandeis University study finds

    Antisemitic beliefs rare among faculty, Brandeis University study finds

    Dive Brief:

    • Just 3% of non-Jewish faculty members hold views about Israel that would fit definitions of antisemitism put forward by Jewish groups, according to a spring survey of over 2,300 faculty members at 146 research universities released by Brandeis University in July. 
    • Less than 10% of faculty reported actively teaching about the Israel-Palestine conflict. Despite widespread media attention to campus protests and targeted attacks on universities by the Trump administration over allegations of antisemitism, more than three-fourths said the Israel-Palestine conflict never came up in class discussions. 
    • Only a minority of faculty were politically active or posted on social media about major current issues, including the Israel-Palestine conflict, racism in America, climate change and President Donald Trump’s impact on American democracy, the survey found. 

    Dive Insight:

    The new study comes at a time of roiling political tensions around college campuses. 

    On the campaign trail, Trump described colleges as being “dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics.” Since taking office in January, his administration has launched investigations and pulled research funding from major institutions — Columbia and Harvard universities, among others — over claims of rampant antisemitism on campus. 

    The administration has also sought to impose “intellectual diversity” on college faculties, including through an executive order on accreditation and in its dealings with individual universities. 

    While the Brandeis study found that nearly three-quarters of faculty — 72% — identify as liberal, they also hold “a wide range of views on controversial political issues,” the researchers wrote.

    For instance, when looking at the intensity of opinions, over 60% said they “strongly” believed that climate change was a crisis requiring immediate attention and that Trump represented a threat to democracy. 

    But only 33% expressed strong belief that racism was widespread in America and 14% that Israel is an apartheid state. (Overall, a majority of faculty backed those statements, including only those who somewhat agreed, with a much larger majority agreeing with the racism statement.) 

    That said, activism around any of those topics was relatively scant. With the Israel-Palestine conflict, 78% of faculty reported no activism at all, including on social media. Around two-thirds reported no activism around racism or climate change. 

    When it comes to teaching, a majority of faculty said they would present a variety of perspectives on those news topics, with the exception of climate change. Only 45% of faculty said they would present a variety of perspectives on climate change while another 40% said they would do so but with some perspectives “more justified than others.”

    When it came to the Middle East conflict, even among the 14% of faculty who said they strongly believed Israel to be an apartheid state, a majority (56%) said they would present a variety of perspectives when teaching about the issue.

    The researchers posed questions intended to study when faculty views of Israel veered into antisemitism as defined by Jewish groups, including the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, and that Jewish students frequently agree are antisemitic. They also used the definition by the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism, which has accused the IHRA’s version of blurring the line between antisemitism and criticism of Israel. 

    The researchers asked whether survey respondents agreed with statements such as “Israel does not have the right to exist,” “all Israeli civilians should be considered legitimate targets for Hamas,” and “I wouldn’t want to collaborate with a scholar who supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.”

    Large majorities strongly disagreed with those statements, and fewer than 10% agreed with them with any intensity. Those who did were more likely to identify as liberal. 

    Likewise, a small minority of non-Jewish faculty — 7% — expressed views considered antisemitic about Jewish people as a group rather than Israel. Those faculty were more likely to be politically conservative, according to the study. 

    Amid the Trump administration’s attacks on colleges, close to half (46%) of faculty and a majority of those identifying as liberals expressed serious concerns about being targeted by the federal government for their political views, the study found.

    Source link

  • College business officers survey finds risks, resilience

    College business officers survey finds risks, resilience

    The latest Inside Higher Ed/Hanover Research Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, released today, reveals concerns about near-term uncertainty and financial sustainability—buoyed by confidence in the longer-term outlook.

    One of the most significant findings is that federal policy uncertainty has created difficulties in conducting basic financial planning as the Trump administration has introduced a flurry of changes impacting federal funding for higher education, international students, how students pay for college and more.

    That uncertainty, experts noted, has had a palpable effect on the sector.

    “Chief business officers like certainty, whether it’s certainty about revenue streams or potential costs,” said Kara Freeman, president and CEO of the National Association of College and University Business Officers. “And right now they just are not getting it and that leads to anxiety.”

    The annual Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, now in its 15th year, offers insights from financial leaders at 169 institutions in 2025, both public and private nonprofits. Responses were gathered in April and May.

    Amid the uncertainty, about three in five CBOs (58 percent) rate their institution’s financial health as good or excellent, with differences by institution type.

    Pressure Tests

    In last year’s survey, 56 percent of CBOs expected that their institution would be in better financial shape a year later. That number fell to 43 percent in this year’s survey, which asked the same question.

    CBOs who believe their institution will be worse off financially next year cited concerns about the federal policy/funding environment for the sector (82 percent), potential increases to nonlabor operating costs (67 percent), rising labor costs (67 percent) and general economic concerns (62 percent).

    More on the Survey

    On Wednesday, Aug. 20 at 2 p.m. E.T., Inside Higher Ed will present a free webcast to discuss the results of the survey, with experts who can answer your most pressing questions about higher education finance—including how to plan effectively amid the current financial and policy uncertainty. Please register here.

    The 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers was made possible by support from Strata Decision Technology and CollegeVine.

    Inside Higher Ed’s 15th annual Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers was conducted by Hanover Research. The survey included chief business officers, mostly from public and private nonprofit institutions, for a margin of error of 7 percent. The response rate was 7 percent. A copy of the free report can be downloaded here.

    Larry Ladd, a subject matter specialist at AGB Consulting, noted that colleges are taking a number of measures to protect themselves in the short term, such as delaying building projects, freezing hiring and/or travel, and pulling other levers to protect themselves this coming fall.

    “You’re seeing colleges do everything they can to preserve their liquidity,” Ladd said. “The biggest reason to do that of course is that they don’t know what their fall enrollment will be.”

    Of particular concern, he noted, is the potential for disruption to federal financial aid funds, given mass layoffs at the Education Department, which has raised concerns about disbursement. Just 12 percent of CBOs support the elimination of the department.

    Other possible signs of caution: On deferred maintenance, 63 percent of respondents said that their institution was poised to fund less than a quarter of identified needs in the then-current fiscal year. Some 24 percent said their institution was freezing hiring to control costs for students; another 62 percent said their institution would consider doing this.

    Despite these challenges, respondents were much more confident in their institution’s five- to 10-year outlooks, with 73 percent believing their college or university will be financially stable over the next five years and 71 percent expressing that same level of confidence over the next decade. For reference, in 2024, 85 percent of CBOs were confident in the five-year outlook, and 73 percent in the 10-year outlook.

    Some 11 percent of CBOs say senior administrators at their institution have had serious internal discussions in the last year about merging with another college or university, about the same as last year’s survey. Most of these CBOs indicate such conversations are about proactively ensuring the institution’s financial stability rather than risk of imminent closure.

    Another 16 percent of CBOs report serious internal discussions about consolidating some programs or operations with another college or university. Two in five (42 percent) say it’s highly likely that that their college will share administrative functions with another institution within five years. CBOs in the Northeast, with its relative concentration of institutions, are especially likely to say so, at 63 percent.

    Beyond the Fog

    Ruth Johnston, vice president of NACUBO consulting, said that while business officers may be stressed by the immediate pressures, they are confident in their scenario planning for the future.

    “I think we’ll figure it out. Higher ed, even if it’s slow to change, is resilient. So I expect that we’re going to see new, creative solutions that will help bolster higher education,” Johnston said.

    That said, just 28 percent of CBOs described themselves as very or extremely confident in their institution’s current business model. Another third expressed moderate confidence.

    View online

    Top issues for those CBOs with just some or no confidence in their institution’s business model: lack of diverse revenue streams (64 percent of this group), ineffective cost containment and/or operational efficiency (54 percent), and insufficient cash reserves for “rainy days” or strategic investments (50 percent).

    Tuition discounting is another standing concern. Among all CBOs, more than half (54 percent) are at least moderately concerned about the financial sustainability of their institution’s tuition discount rate; two in 10 (21 percent) are highly concerned. Similarly, 50 percent of CBOs are at least moderately concerned about the sustainability of their institution’s tuition sticker price increases. In both cases, private nonprofit CBOs are the most concerned, by sector.

    Respondents also saw government efforts to influence institutional strategy and policy as an increasing risk to their institutions, with 71 percent registering this as a concern. That number is up slightly from last year’s 65 percent.

    CBOs in 2025 were much less concerned about donor efforts to influence institutional strategy, with 16 percent worrying that this amounts to an increasing financial risk to their college or university.

    Internally, at least, some 81 percent of CBOs agree that they have sufficient agency influence within their institution to ensure its financial stability. Most also report a strong working relationship with their president, and understanding among trustees of the financial challenges facing their institution.

    Survey respondents were notably concerned about federal student aid policies, overwhelmingly picking that as the top federal policy-related risk over the next four years, at 68 percent. Some experts suggest that concerns about other federal policy matters may have been heightened if the survey were administered after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed earlier this month. It included major changes for higher education as well as cuts to other public programs that could have downstream effects on the sector.

    “There are both direct and indirect implications of the bill, some of which have not fully been explored by colleges and universities,” Ladd said. “I think of the Medicaid cuts—even those will have implications for colleges and universities.”

    When asked about general financial risks to their institution over the next five years, many CBOs—especially those at publics—flagged state and federal policy changes, along with state and federal funding reductions. Enrollment declines, rising personnel costs and infrastructure and deferred maintenance costs also registered.

    As for what would most improve their institution’s financial situation and sustainability, CBOs’ top responses from a list of options were: growing enrollment through targeted recruitment and improved retention programs; optimizing operational efficiency through process improvement and strategic cost management; and—in a more distant choice—forming strategic partnerships with employers, community organizations and/or other educational institutions. Cutting faculty and cutting staff were especially unpopular options.

    Asked about value and affordability, CBOs largely agreed that their institution offers good value for what it charges for an undergraduate degree (93 percent) and that its net price is affordable (88 percent). Two in three (65 percent) said their institution has increased institutional financial aid/grants in the last year to address affordability concerns.

    The survey also found that CBOs are increasingly using artificial intelligence. Nearly half of respondents—46 percent—indicated that AI helps them make more informed decisions in their role. That number is up from 33 percent in last year’s survey.

    Despite that uptick, respondents at most institutions aren’t all-in on artificial intelligence yet. Only 6 percent reported that their college has made a comprehensive, strategic investment in AI. But many are experimenting: 39 percent of CBOs noted that their institution is in the early exploration phase with AI, while another 28 percent are piloting such tools in select departments.

    “AI is here to stay,” Johnston said.

    Source link

  • NTEU finds bullying, secrecy on uni councils – Campus Review

    NTEU finds bullying, secrecy on uni councils – Campus Review

    The sector union has once again called for transparency in university governing bodies after staff reported a culture of secrecy, bullying and intimidation in university councils and senates.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Voters strongly support prioritizing freedom of speech in potential AI regulation of political messaging, poll finds

    Voters strongly support prioritizing freedom of speech in potential AI regulation of political messaging, poll finds

    • 47% say protecting free speech in politics is the most important priority, even if that lets some deceptive content slip through
    • 28% say government regulation of AI-generated or AI-altered content would make them less likely to share content on social media
    • 81% showed concern about government regulation of election-related AI content being abused to suppress criticism of elected officials

    PHILADELPHIA, June 5, 2025 — Americans strongly believe that lawmakers should prioritize protecting freedom of speech online rather than stopping deceptive content when it comes to potential regulation of artificial intelligence in political messaging, a new national poll of voters finds.

    The survey, conducted by Morning Consult for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, reflects a complicated, or even conflicted, public view of AI: People are wary about artificial intelligence but are uncomfortable with the prospect of allowing government regulators to chill speech, censor criticism and prohibit controversial ideas.

    “This poll reveals that free speech advocates have their work cut out for them when it comes to making our case about the important principles underpinning our First Amendment, and how they apply to AI,” said FIRE Director of Research Ryne Weiss. “Technologies may change, but strong protections for free expression are as critical as ever.” 

    Sixty percent of those surveyed believe sharing AI-generated content is more harmful to the electoral process than government regulation of it. But when asked to choose, more voters (47%) prioritize protecting free speech in politics over stopping deceptive content (37%), regardless of political ideology. Sixty-three percent agree that the right to freedom of speech should be the government’s main priority when making laws that govern the use of AI.

    And 81% are concerned about official rules around election-related AI content being abused to suppress criticism of elected officials. A little more than half are concerned that strict laws making it a crime to publish an AI-generated/AI-altered political video, image, or audio recording would chill or limit criticism about political candidates.

    Voters are evenly split over whether AI is fundamentally different from other forms of speech and thus should be regulated differently. Photoshop and video editing, for example, have been used by political campaigns for many years, and 43% believe the use of AI by political campaigns should be treated the same as the use of older video, audio, and image editing technologies.

    “Handing more authority to government officials will be ripe for abuse and immediately step on critical First Amendment protections,” FIRE Legislative Counsel John Coleman said. “If anything, free expression is the proper antidote to concerns like misinformation, because truth dependably rises above.”

    The poll also found:

    • Two-thirds of those surveyed said it would be unacceptable for someone to use AI to create a realistic political ad that shows a candidate at an event they never actually attended by digitally adding the candidate’s likeness to another person.
    • It would be unacceptable for a political campaign to use any digital software, including AI, to reduce the visibility of wrinkles or blemishes on a candidate’s face in a political ad in order to improve the appearance of the candidate, 39% say, compared to 29% who say that it would be acceptable.
    • 42% agree that AI is a tool that facilitates an individual’s ability to practice their right to freedom of speech.

    The poll was conducted May 13-15, 2025, among a sample of registered voters in the US. A total of 2,005 interviews were conducted online across the US for a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points. Frequency counts may not sum to 2,005 due to weighting and rounding.

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT
    Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected] 

    Source link

  • Data breach reporting lags in education, study finds

    Data breach reporting lags in education, study finds

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

    Dive Brief:

    • It took the education sector 4.8 months on average to report data breaches following ransomware attacks between 2018 and 2025, according to a report released last week by Comparitech.
    • Colleges and schools had the highest average reporting time for ransomware data breaches when compared to the business, government and healthcare sectors, Comparitech found in its analysis of over 2,600 U.S. ransomware attacks. 
    • At the same time, education companies — counted separately from colleges and schools — saw even higher reporting times at 6.3 months. Waiting months to disclose a data breach is dangerous, given that stolen data can be on the dark web before victims even know a breach happened, wrote the researchers for Comparitech, a cybersecurity and online privacy product review website.

    Dive Insight:

    Delayed reporting of data breaches comes at a time when schools and ed tech companies alike are grappling with the ongoing threat of ransomware attacks.

    Illustrating the prolonged response times for ransomware breaches, the latest Comparitech report pointed to Texas’ Alvin Independent School District confirming just this month that a June 2024 data breach impacted nearly 48,000 people. The data involved names, Social Security numbers, credit and debit card numbers, financial account information, medical and health insurance information, and state-issued IDs. 

    Organizations often wait to disclose a data breach because they are unsure if data was stolen following a ransomware attack until the hacker posts the stolen information on the dark web, Comparitech said. 

    “Data theft is a common component of ransomware attacks, so it’s not unreasonable for companies to assume hackers stole data, even if there isn’t any evidence to suggest data theft at first,” researchers wrote. “The worst thing to do is to jump to the conclusion that data hasn’t been stolen.”

    The FBI also advises against paying threat actors following a ransomware attack. If organizations pay a ransom, it still doesn’t guarantee any data will be recovered, the agency’s website states, adding that ransom payments can actually encourage more attacks.

    K-12 school districts have been especially concerned about a widespread breach of student and staff data across North America following a December 2024 ransomware attack on ed tech provider PowerSchool. 

    Though PowerSchool disclosed the cybersecurity incident about a week later, the company allegedly told districts not to worry about sensitive student and staff information being exposed. Five months later, however, PowerSchool publicly confirmed that, despite paying a ransom to threat actors, multiple school districts were being extorted with the same information stolen in the December incident.

    Since then, over 100 school districts — including Tennessee’s largest school system, Memphis-Shelby County Schools — have sued PowerSchool for negligence, breach of contract and false advertising.

    Source link

  • 56% of adults disapprove of Trump’s approach to colleges, AP-NORC poll finds

    56% of adults disapprove of Trump’s approach to colleges, AP-NORC poll finds

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

    Dive Brief:

    • More than half of Americans, 56%, disapprove of how President Donald Trump is handling issues related to colleges, according to a new poll from the Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago.
    • However, opinions varied dramatically depending on political affiliation. A strong majority of Democrats, 90%, disapprove of Trump’s response to college issues, while 67% of Independents said the same.
    • But among Republicans, 83% approve of the president’s approach, highlighting the stark political divide in how Americans believe higher education policy should be managed.

    Dive Insight:

    Trump has repeatedly criticized the higher education sector and has used much of his nascent second term to attempt to exert control over it.

    For instance, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation have moved to cap reimbursement rates for indirect research costs at 15%, though all three agencies have faced legal challenges. 

    Federal departments have also cut hundreds of millions in grant funding from colleges. In a little over a month, NIH cut $1.8 billion in grants, hitting minority health research the hardest, according to findings published in JAMA.

    Amid this fast-changing policy landscape, AP-NORC researchers interviewed 1,175 adults from May 1 to 5. Their responses offer insight into how the public views higher education and Trump’s actions in the sector.

    Overall, 62% of adults support maintaining the level of federal funding colleges receive for medical and scientific research, the poll found. And support was largely bipartisan, with 75% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans in favor.

    The Trump administration has also attempted to exert influence over Harvard and Columbia universities by demanding they complete unprecedented to-do lists — such as eliminating diversity initiatives and auditing faculty and student views — to continue to receive federal funding.

    Harvard rebuked the Trump administration’s demands and sued over what the lawsuit described as its efforts to gain “control of academic decisionmaking.” In turn, the administration has frozen $2.2 billion in Harvard’s funding and said it will cut off the university from future federal research dollars.

    Columbia initially took a different tack. After the Trump administration froze $400 million of its funding, the university complied with a similar round of demands, to the praise of federal officials. 

    But the Trump administration has yet to publicly reinstate its funding, and Columbia now appears to be following Harvard’s lead. Acting President Claire Shipman said in April that the university would reject “heavy-handed orchestration from the government” that would undercut its mission.

    Trump appears to be tightening the screws on Columbia and is pursuing a consent decree against it. A consent decree would task a federal judge with ensuring the university complies with the Trump administration’s demands. 

    About half of Republicans, 51%, said they favored the federal government withholding higher ed funding unless colleges comply with requirements related to Trump’s political goals. One-third, 32%, said they had no opinion on the matter.

    In comparison, 73% of Democrats opposed the use of federal funding as a means for Trump to achieve his goals.

    The public’s view of how the president is handling higher education falls in line with his overall approval rating of 41%, the poll said.

    Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status — a decision that is meant to fall under the independent authority of the IRS. About half of Republicans, 49%, approved of the effort, the poll found. The idea had just a 30% approval rating overall.

    Views about Trump’s specific policy goals, such as banning campus diversity efforts, also fell along party lines.

    Among Democrats, 70% supported campus services such as clubs and mentorship programs for students from underrepresented groups, and 24% had no opinion. A third of Republicans, 31%, approved of such programs, and 41% had no opinion.

    But support among conservatives fell further when pollsters asked about “diversity, equity and inclusion programs, sometimes called DEI.” A majority of Republicans, 60%, opposed programs labeled as DEI, while 23% said they neither favored nor opposed them.

    Approval among Democrats stayed largely the same, with 68% in favor.

    Republicans were also more likely to oppose classes that teach about racism than Democrats, 44% compared to 8%.

    Source link