Tag: News

  • Research Funding Starts to Flow Back to Columbia, Brown

    Research Funding Starts to Flow Back to Columbia, Brown

    Much of the money funds medical research, including time-sensitive clinical trials.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Wolterk/iStock/Getty Images | Alex Kent/Getty Images

    Days after reaching deals with the Trump administration, Columbia and Brown Universities say the government has already initiated the process of restoring hundreds of millions in federal research dollars it terminated earlier this year in retaliation for their alleged failures to address antisemitism on campus. 

    Many of those grants came from the National Institutes of Health, which is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, and funded medical research, including time-sensitive clinical trials.  

    “The agreement finalized this week restored all National Institutes of Health grants to Brown researchers that had been terminated,” Brian Clark, a Brown spokesperson, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed Thursday evening. “We started to see that formalized in award letters today and expect in the coming days and weeks to see this across all of these grants.” 

    In April, the administration blocked $510 million in federal grants and contracts for Brown. But under the terms of the agreement the government and university finalized Wednesday, Clark said, “Any payments should resume within 30 days,” which applies to both “the restoration of specific grants that had been terminated, and also to active (non-terminated) grants for which Brown had not been reimbursed.”

    If you had a grant frozen because of the Trump administration’s investigations, we want to hear about your experience and whether you’ve received your funding. Email [email protected] to share more.

    The Brown deal came about a week after Columbia agreed to pay the government $221 million in addition to changing its admissions policies, disciplinary processes and academic programs in order to restore about $400 million in federal funding the administration canceled in March.

    According to Columbia’s website, “Funding and reimbursement payments have already begun to flow.”

    “One week later, more than half of the terminated grants have been restored, and we expect the others to be reinstated promptly,” the website says. “Renewals and continuations that were frozen are also coming in on non-terminated grants.”

    The university wrote that it’s “reviewing all grants that were terminated or suspended over the last months to identify those that were specifically directed at Columbia” and expects “the fair treatment of Columbia grants and ability to compete to be honored by all federal agencies.”

    The university noted that the agreement only applies to HHS and NIH grants that the administration canceled as part of its targeted pressure campaign on Columbia. 

    Faculty who asked to remain anonymous told Inside Higher Ed that either the university or NIH has told them that some grants are being reinstated or renewed. But it was unclear to them whether actual dollars have resumed flowing, and how many.

    Since Trump took office in January, numerous federal agencies, including the NIH, the National Science Foundation and Education Department, have terminated thousands of other research grants at institutions across the country that don’t align with their ideological priorities. In particular, many grants that focused on transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, climate change and racial disparities have been canceled. 

    Columbia researchers whose grants were terminated as part of that sweep should not expect to see their funding restored as part of this deal, the university wrote on its website. 

    “Some of these grants were terminated or suspended across the board for all institutions, and have nothing specific to do with Columbia,” the webpage said. “To the extent that the federal government has made the decision not to fund certain types of projects at any institution, those grants will not be coming back to Columbia.”

    Columbia and Brown are just two of numerous Ivy League Institutions that the Trump administration has targeted by threatening federal funding. 

    The administration was also holding up $175 million at the University of Pennsylvania in retaliation for the university allowing a transgender athlete to compete on its swim team. Last month, the university reached a deal with the government, which has said it will restore the funding. 

    The administration is also blocking $2.2 billion at Harvard University,  $202 million at Princeton University and $1 billion at Cornell University. However, those institutions have yet to reach agreements with the government that could result in restoration of their federal funding.

    So far, the administration has frozen nearly $5.9 billion across eight universities, including Brown, Columbia and Penn. Most of the funding freezes started in March, but in the last week, the administration resumed blocking funds at institutions under investigation. First, it put about $108 million on hold at Duke University, and then officials suspended an unspecified number of grants at the University of California, Los Angeles.

    Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • GMU President Keeps Job Amid Tensions

    GMU President Keeps Job Amid Tensions

    Embattled George Mason University president Gregory Washington remains on the job despite concerns that GMU’s Board of Visitors would fire him amid multiple federal investigations into alleged racial discrimination, antisemitism and other matters, which he has publicly pushed back on.

    GMU’s Board of Visitors met Friday to review Washington’s performance and to consult with legal counsel on “actual or probable litigation,” according to the board agenda. While specific legal matters were not detailed in the agenda, GMU is facing investigations from both the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice over alleged discrimination in hiring practices and antisemitism. The DOJ also launched a highly unusual investigation into GMU’s Faculty Senate after it approved a resolution in support of Washington’s leadership.

    The Trump administration seized on remarks made by Washington following the 2020 murder of George Floyd. Washington, as noted in a letter from the DOJ to the university, expressed the need to hire diverse faculty members, promised to advance an antiracist agenda and threw his support behind GMU’s diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

    Washington denied engaging in what the Trump administration labeled “illegal DEI” efforts.

    On Friday, he defended both GMU and his own performance, noting he arrived on campus in 2020 when tensions were high and racial strife was still simmering over Floyd’s murder. Adding to the pressure, students, faculty members and others demanded he tear down a statue of university founder George Mason, who was a slave owner. 

    “Despite the commentary that you might hear, this institution is doing extraordinarily well,” Washington told board members on Friday in the open session portion of the meeting, during which he touted GMU’s rise in various university rankings as well as an increase in state funding.

    But many community members feared that Washington, GMU’s first Black president, would lose this job as a result of the investigations. They worried that the inquiries give the Board of Visitors—which is stocked with conservative political activists and former GOP officials—the pretext to remove him. Multiple speakers and attendees at a Friday rally held in support of Washington pointed to other campus leaders recently pushed out. That includes Jim Ryan at the University of Virginia, who resigned under pressure from the DOJ over DEI programs, and Cedric Wins, superintendent of Virginia Military Institute, whose contract was not renewed this spring amid alumni complaints about DEI. One rally organizer had referred to the Friday meeting as “high noon at the OK Corral.”

    Instead, after roughly three hours in closed session, the board emerged with one action item: approval of a 1.5 percent raise for Washington, which members unanimously signed off on. Board members did not discuss their review of his performance conducted behind closed doors.

    That means despite faculty concerns Washington will keep his job—at least for now.

    Support for Washington

    As faculty, students and local lawmakers gathered Friday, they had a clear message for the Board of Visitors: Support Washington and push back on federal investigations they deemed both illegitimate and a broadside against academic freedom at GMU. They also called on the board to protect DEI at GMU, which is Virginia’s most diverse university. However, the board defied that demand by passing a resolution Friday to end race-conscious hiring, scholarships, graduation ceremonies and other initiatives.

    While Washington’s fate was unknown during the rally, speakers urged attendees to push on.

    “We’ve got to keep fighting. No matter what happens today, this is still our university,” said Bethany Letiecq, chair of GMU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors. Letiecq also referenced personal safety concerns, arguing, “Faculty are being harassed and threatened.” (She previously told Inside Higher Ed she has been subject to two death threats.)

    Bethany Letiecq was one of several speakers to voice support for GMU president Gregory Washington at a Friday rally.

    Former Board of Visitors member Bob Witeck, who served on the search committee that hired Washington in 2020, said he “could not believe our luck” in selecting the president from a pool of nearly 200 candidates and praised his “character, intellect and honesty.” Witeck also warned about threats to both academic freedom and the inclusive nature of GMU, stating, “Discrimination cannot find a home here, nor should political interference or baseless investigations.”

    Another speaker was supportive of Washington while also critical.

    Ellie Fox, a GMU student and president of its Jewish Voices for Peace chapter, was critical of Washington for allegedly repressing “pro-Palestinian speech in the name of Jewish safety.” Fox added that he was “reluctant to resist Trump and conservatives and their attack” on GMU but urged Washington to defy calls to resign from his position and work “toward a better future.”

    Other rally speakers included Fairfax mayor Catherine Read and State Senator Saddam Salim, both GMU graduates and Democrats, who threw their support behind the university and Washington and expressed concerns about the investigations and other attacks on higher education.

    Board-Faculty Tensions

    Although the board did not make any public announcement about the items they discussed in closed session, beyond approving a raise for Washington, an exchange between one member and a GMU professor highlighted the tensions at play.

    Robert Pence, a former ambassador to Finland appointed during President Donald Trump’s first term, took issue with a faculty member’s protest sign when he encountered her in a hallway outside the board’s meeting room during a break. Tehama Lopez, a professor in the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, held a sign calling on the board to support Washington and uphold the First Amendment, academic freedom and due process.

    “You’re suggesting that Bob Pence—Robert Pence—does not support the First Amendment,” he told Lopez before shifting his attention to her call for board members to support Washington.

    Pence then asked Lopez, “If you got a lot of facts and you became convinced that he was engaged in conduct that is deleterious to the university, would you then fire [Washington]? If he meets the standard—whatever the standard is for discharge—would you be willing to fire him?”

    Lopez responded, “Who is being deleterious to the university?” Pence fired back, “You won’t answer the question” and “I’m not playing that game” before walking away from the exchange to return to the meeting.

    A photo of Robert Pence and Tehama Lopez in conversation. She has her back to the camera and an American flag wrapped around her shoulders.

    Board member Robert Pence clashed with a faculty member outside of Friday’s meeting.

    In a brief interview following that conversation, Lopez said that she wanted to see the board uphold its fiduciary duties as GMU faces multiple investigations, which she called “politically motivated.” Given the stakes, she wants to make sure the Board of Visitors protects the university rather than enacting a political agenda pushed by the Trump administration.

    But Lopez appeared uncertain of which path the board will take.

    “Their job on the Board of Visitors is to do the work of protecting the school and the school’s interest, and it’s very unclear whose bidding they’re doing,” Lopez said.

    Source link

  • Indiana Middle Schoolers’ English Scores Have Fallen. These Schools are Bucking the Trend. – The 74

    Indiana Middle Schoolers’ English Scores Have Fallen. These Schools are Bucking the Trend. – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Like their peers nationwide, students at Crawford County Middle School in southern Indiana struggled academically in the pandemic’s wake. Principal Tarra Carothers knew her students needed help to get back on track.

    So two years ago, she decided to double instructional time for math and English. Students now spend two periods per day in these critical subjects. Carothers believes the change has been a success, and a key trend backs her up: Crawford’s ILEARN scores in English language arts increased by over 8 percentage points from 2024 to 2025.

    But overall, Indiana middle schools are heading in the opposite direction when it comes to English. In fact, despite gains in math, middle schoolers are struggling more than students in other grade levels in English, state test scores show. Since 2021, ILEARN English proficiency rates in seventh and eighth grades have fallen, with the dip particularly pronounced for seventh graders. And while their scores are up slightly compared with four years ago, sixth graders’ performance fell over the past year.

    Indiana has made significant and much-publicized investments in early literacy, relying heavily on the science of reading, as many states have in the last few years. But that instructional transformation has come too late for current middle schoolers. Meanwhile, ILEARN English scores for third and fourth graders have risen by relatively small levels since the pandemic, although this improvement has been uneven.

    The Board of Education expressed specific concerns about middle schoolers’ performance at a July 16 meeting. “We’ve gotta pick it up and make sure all of our middle school kids are reading, provide those additional supports,” said Secretary of Education Katie Jenner.

    Some middle school leaders say strategies they’ve used can turn things around. In addition to increasing instructional time for key subjects, they point to participation in a pilot that allows students to take ILEARN at several points over the school year, instead of just once in the spring. Educators say relying on these checkpoints can provide data-driven reflection and remediation for students that shows up in better test scores.

    Middle school an ‘optimum time’ for students’ recovery

    Katie Powell, director for middle level programs at the Association for Middle Level Education, said she often asks teachers if middle schoolers seem different since the pandemic and “heads nod,” she said. These post-pandemic middle schoolers are harder to motivate and engage, self-report more stress, and are less likely to take risks academically, Powell said.

    When the pandemic hit, “they were young, at the age of school where they’re developing basic reading fluency and math fact fluency,” she said. Current eighth graders, for example, were in second grade when the pandemic shut down schools and many learned online for much of their third grade year. Third grade is when students are supposed to stop learning to read and start “reading to learn,” Powell said.

    Powell noted that middle schoolers are in the stage of rapid development with the most changes for the brain and body outside of infancy.

    “This is actually an optimum time to step in and step up for them,” she said. “It is not too late. But it’s critical that we pay attention to them now.”

    Crawford County Middle School has nine periods every day, and students spend two periods each in both math and English. While many schools have some version of block scheduling, many have a model in which students only go to each class every other day. But at Crawford, students attend every class every day. Their version of block scheduling results in double the amount of instructional time in math and English.

    To make this switch, sacrifices had to be made. Periods were shortened, resulting in less time for other subjects. Carothers worried that student scores in subjects like science and social studies would decrease. But the opposite occurred, she said. Sixth grade science scores increased, for example, even though students were spending less time in the science classroom, according to Carothers.

    “If they have better math skills and better reading skills, then they’re gonna perform better in social studies and science,” she said.

    Meanwhile, at Cannelton Jr. Sr. High School, on the state line with Kentucky, the first three periods of the day are 90 minutes, rather than the typical 45. Every student has English or math during these first three periods, allowing for double the normal class time.

    Cannelton’s sixth through eighth grade English language arts ILEARN scores increased by nearly nine percentage points last year.

    Schools use more data to track student performance

    Cannelton Principal Brian Garrett believes his school’s reliance on data, and its new approach to getting it, is also part of their secret.

    Students take benchmark assessments early, in the first two or three weeks of school, so that teachers can track their progress and find gaps in knowledge.

    This year, the state is adopting that strategy for schools statewide. Rather than taking ILEARN once near the end of the year, students will take versions of the test three separate times, with a shortened final assessment in the spring. The state ran a pilot for ILEARN checkpoints last school year, with over 70% of Indiana schools taking part.

    The Indiana Department of Education hopes checkpoints will make the data from the test more actionable and help families and teachers ensure a student is on track throughout the year.

    Kim Davis, principal of Indian Creek Middle School in rural Trafalgar, said she believes ILEARN checkpoints, paired with reflection and targeted remediation efforts by teachers, “helped us inform instruction throughout the year instead of waiting until the end of the year to see did they actually master it according to the state test.”

    The checkpoints identified what standards students were struggling with, allowing Indian Creek teachers to tailor their instruction. Students also benefitted from an added familiarity with the test; they could see how questions would be presented when it was time for the final assessment in the spring.

    “It felt very pressure-free, but very informative for the teachers,” Davis said.

    The type of data gathered matters too. In the past, Washington Township middle schools used an assessment called NWEA, taken multiple times throughout the year, to measure student learning, said Eastwood Middle School Principal James Tutin. While NWEA was a good metric for measuring growth, it didn’t align with Indiana state standards, so the scores didn’t necessarily match how a student would ultimately score on a test like ILEARN.

    Last year, the district adopted ILEARN checkpoints instead, and used a service called Otis to collect weekly data.

    It took approximately six minutes for students to answer a few questions during a class period with information that educators could then put into Otis. That data allowed teachers to target instruction during gaps between ILEARN checkpoints.

    “Not only were they getting the practice through the checkpoints, but they were getting really targeted feedback at the daily and weekly level, to make sure that we’re not waiting until the checkpoint to know how our students are likely going to do,” Tutin said.

    Both Davis and Tutin stressed that simply having students take the checkpoint ILEARN tests was not enough; it had to be paired with reflection and collaboration between teachers, pushing each other to ask the tough questions and evaluate their own teaching.

    “We still have a fire in us to grow further, we’re not content with where we are,” Davis said. “But we’re headed in the right direction and that’s very exciting.”

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters. 


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • A practical guide for sourcing edtech

    A practical guide for sourcing edtech

    Key points:

    Virtual reality field trips now enable students to explore the Great Wall of China, the International Space Station, and ancient Rome without leaving the classroom.  Gamified online learning platforms can turn lessons into interactive challenges that boost engagement and motivation. Generative AI tutors are providing real-time feedback on writing and math assignments, helping students sharpen their skills with personalized support in minutes.

    Education technology is accelerating at a rapid pace–and teachers are eager to bring these digital tools to the classroom. But with pandemic relief funds running out, districts are having to make tougher decisions around what edtech they can afford, which vendors will offer the greatest value, and, crucially, which tools come with robust cybersecurity protections.

    Although educators are excited to innovate, school leaders must weigh every new app or online platform against cybersecurity risks and the responsibility of protecting student data. Unfortunately, those risks remain very real: 6 in 10 K-12 schools were targeted by ransomware in 2024.

    Cybersecurity is harder for some districts than others

    The reality is that school districts widely vary when it comes to their internal resources, cybersecurity expertise, and digital maturity.

    A massive urban system may have a dedicated legal department, CISO, and rigid procurement processes. In a small rural district, the IT lead might also coach soccer or direct the school play.

    These discrepancies leave wide gaps that can be exploited by security threats. Districts are often improvising vetting processes that vary wildly in rigor, and even the best-prepared system struggles to know what “good enough” looks like as technology tools rapidly accelerate and threats evolve just as fast.

    Whether it’s apps for math enrichment, platforms for grading, or new generative AI tools that promise differentiated learning at scale, educators are using more technology than ever. And while these digital tools are bringing immense benefits to the classroom, they also bring more threat exposure. Every new tool is another addition to the attack surface, and most school districts are struggling to keep up.

    Districts are now facing these critical challenges with even fewer resources. With the U.S. Department of Education closing its Office of EdTech, schools have lost a vital guidepost for evaluating technology tools safely. That means less clarity and support, even as the influx of new tech tools is at an all-time high.

    But innovation and protection don’t have to be in conflict. Schools can move forward with digital tools while still making smart, secure choices. Their decision-making can be supported by some simple best practices to help guide the way.

    5 green flags for evaluating technology tools

    New School Safety Resources

    With so many tools entering classrooms, knowing how to assess their safety and reliability is essential. But what does safe and trustworthy edtech actually look like?

    You don’t need legal credentials or a cybersecurity certification to answer that question. You simply need to know what to look for–and what questions to ask. Here are five green flags that can guide your decisions and boost confidence in the tools you bring into your classrooms.

    1. Clear and transparent privacy policies

    A strong privacy policy should be more than a formality; it should serve as a clear window into how a tool handles data. The best ones lay out exactly what information is collected, why it’s needed, how it’s used, and who it’s shared with, in plain, straightforward language.

    You shouldn’t need legal training to make sense of it. Look for policies that avoid vague, catch-all phrases and instead offer specific details, like a list of subprocessors, third-party services involved, or direct contact information for the vendor’s privacy officer. If you can’t quickly understand how student data is being handled, or if the vendor seems evasive when you ask, that’s cause for concern.

    1. Separation between student and adult data

    Student data is highly personal, extremely sensitive, and must be treated with extra care. Strong vendors explicitly separate student data from educator, administrator, and parent data in their systems, policies, and user experiences.

    Ask how student data is accessed internally and what safeguards are in place. Does the vendor have different privacy policies for students versus adults? If they’ve engineered that distinction into their platform, it’s a sign they’ve thought deeply about your responsibilities under FERPA and COPPA.

    1. Third-party audits and certifications

    Trust, but verify. Look for tools that have been independently evaluated through certifications like the Common Sense Privacy Seal, iKeepSafe, or the 1EdTech Trusted App program. These external audits validate that privacy claims and company practices are tested against meaningful standards and backed up by third-party validation.

    Alignment with broader security frameworks like NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), ISO 27001, or SOC 2 can add another layer of assurance, especially in states where district policies lean heavily on these benchmarks. These technical frameworks should complement radical transparency. The most trustworthy vendors combine certification with transparency: They’ll show you exactly what they collect, how they store it, and how they protect it. That openness–and a willingness to be held accountable–is the real marker of a privacy-first partner.

    1. Long-term commitment to security and privacy

    Cybersecurity shouldn’t be a one-and-done checklist. It’s a continual practice. Ask vendors how they approach ongoing risks: Do they conduct regular penetration testing? Is a formal incident response plan in place? How are teams trained on phishing threats and secure coding?

    If they follow a framework like the NIST CSF, that’s great. But also dig into how they apply it: What’s their track record for patching vulnerabilities or communicating breaches? A real commitment shows up in action, not just alignment.

    1. Data minimization and purpose limitations

    Trustworthy technology tools collect only what’s essential–and vendors can explain why they need it. If you ask, “Why do you collect this data point?” they should have a direct answer that ties back to functionality, not future marketing.

    Look for platforms that commit to never repurposing student data for behavioral ad targeting. Also, ask about deletion protocols: Can data be purged quickly and completely if requested? If not, it’s time to ask why.

    Laying the groundwork for a safer school year

    Cybersecurity doesn’t require a 10-person IT team or a massive budget. Every district, no matter the size, can take meaningful, manageable steps to reduce risk, establish guardrails, and build trust.

    Simple, actionable steps go a long way: Choose tools that are transparent about data use, use trusted frameworks and certifications as guideposts, and make cybersecurity training a regular part of staff development. Even small efforts , like a five-minute refresher on phishing during back-to-school sessions, can have an outsized impact on your district’s overall security posture.

    For schools operating without deep resources or internal expertise, this work is especially urgent–and entirely possible. It just requires knowing where to start.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Test yourself on the past week’s K-12 news

    Test yourself on the past week’s K-12 news

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

    How well did you keep up with this week’s developments in K-12 education? To find out, take our five-question quiz below. Then, share your score by tagging us on social media with #K12DivePopQuiz.

     

    Source link

  • Universities Meet Just a Fraction of Demand for AI Training

    Universities Meet Just a Fraction of Demand for AI Training

    Interest in artificial intelligence training is soaring, but only a fraction of the demand is being met by higher education, according to a new report.

    Nearly 57 million people in the U.S. are interested in learning AI-based skills—with about 8.7 million currently learning, the higher education marketing and research firm Validated Insights estimates.

    Two-thirds of them are doing so independently through videos, online reading and other learning resources, and a third are doing so via a structured and supervised learning program. However, just 7,000 (0.2 percent) are learning AI via a credit-bearing program from a higher education institution.

    This is despite enrollment in AI courses growing quickly in recent years. According to the report, the first bachelor’s degree in the subject was launched by Carnegie Mellon University in 2018.

    Over the next five years, enrollment in AI programs at colleges and universities grew 45 percent annually. The report found that approximately 1 percent of institutions now offer a master’s degree in AI, 2.5 percent a bachelor’s degree and 3 to 5 percent offer a nondegree program.

    SUNY’s University at Buffalo saw enrollment in its master’s degree in AI grow over 20 times from 2020 to 2024, from five to 103 students.

    “Based on the data, there was sizable existing interest and demand for professional and workplace education and training in AI and AI-related areas, but we probably haven’t seen anything yet,” said Brady Colby, head of market research at Validated Insights.

    “According to survey data and hiring trends, this market, the AI education and training market, is positioned for incredible, maybe explosive, growth.”

    Validated Insights said ed-tech companies have seized the opportunity and are serving more than 99 percent of those looking to upskill in AI. Just 14 months after the launch of ChatGPT, enrollment in generative AI courses on platforms like Coursera and Udemy had grown to 3.5 million.

    “Given the expected very high demand for learning AI, that so few existing learners are in credit programs is an important thing to know,” said Colby.

    “It’s not necessarily a warning for colleges and universities as it may be a blast of opportunity. If for-credit, degree-granting institutions can sync their programs and reach this massive pool of interested students, the rewards could be excessive—for the students and schools alike.”

    Estimates published by Statista suggest that the aggregate market for AI in the U.S. in 2025 is worth $74 billion.

    Source link

  • Faculty Are Latest Targets of Higher Ed’s AI-ification

    Faculty Are Latest Targets of Higher Ed’s AI-ification

    LLM-enabled assignments will allow faculty to evaluate student interactions with a custom chat bot, Instructure says.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Dougall_Photography and gazanfer/iStock/Getty Images

    Last week, Instructure, which owns the widely used learning management system Canvas, announced a partnership with OpenAI to integrate into the platform native AI tools and agents, including those that help with grading, scheduling, generating rubrics and summarizing discussion posts.

    The two companies, which have not disclosed the value of the deal, are also working together to embed large language models into Canvas through a feature called IgniteAI. It will work with an institution’s existing enterprise subscription to LLMs such as Anthropic’s Claude or OpenAI’s ChatGPT, allowing instructors to create custom LLM-enabled assignments. They’ll be able to tell the model how to interact with students—and even evaluate those interactions—and what it should look for to assess student learning. According to Instructure, any student information submitted through Canvas will remain private and won’t be shared with OpenAI.

    Steve Daly, CEO of Instructure, touted Canvas’s AI push as “a significant step forward for the education community as we continuously amplify the learning experience and improve student outcomes.” But many faculty aren’t convinced that integrating AI into every facet of teaching and learning is the answer to improving the function and value of higher education.

    “Our first job is to help faculty understand how students are using AI and how it’s changing the nature of thinking and work. The tools will be secondary,” said José Antonio Bowen, senior fellow at the American Association of Colleges and Universities and co-author of the book Teaching With AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning. “The LMS might make it easier, but giving people a couple of extra buttons isn’t going to substitute for training faculty to build AI into their assignments in the right way—where students use AI but are still learning.”

    The AI-ification of Canvas is just one of the latest examples of the technology’s infiltration of higher education amid predictions that the technology will reshape and shrink the job market for new college graduates.

    Earlier this year, the California State University system announced a partnership with a slate of tech companies—including Microsoft, OpenAI and Google—to give all students and faculty access to AI-powered tools, in part to equip students with the AI skills employers say they want. In April, Anthropic unveiled Claude for Education, which it designed specifically for college students. One day later, OpenAI gave college students free access to ChatGPT Plus through finals. Soon after, Ohio State University launched an initiative aimed at making every graduate AI “fluent” by 2029. And this week, OpenAI released Study Mode, a version of ChatGPT designed for college students that acts as a tutor rather than an answer generator.

    Faculty Unsurprised, Skeptical

    Few faculty were surprised by the Canvas-OpenAI partnership announcement, though many are reserving judgment until they see how the first year of using it works in practice.

    “It was only a matter of time before something like this happened with one of the major learning management systems,” said Derek Bruff, associate director of the Center for Teaching Excellence at the University of Virginia. “Some of the use cases they’ve talked about make sense to me and others make less sense.”

    Having Canvas provide a summary of students’ discussion posts could be a helpful time saver, especially for a larger class, though it doesn’t seem like “a game-changer,” he said. But he’s less sure that using the chat bot to evaluate student interactions, as Instructure suggests, could provide faculty with useful learning metrics.

    “If students know that their interactions with the chat bot are going to be evaluated by the chat bot and then perhaps scored and graded by the instructor, now you’re in a testing environment and student behavior is going to change,” Bruff said. “You’re not going to get the same kind of insight into student questions or perspective, because they’re going to self-censor.”

    Faculty, including the thousands who work for the more than 40 percent of higher ed institutions across North America that use Canvas, will have the option to use some or all of these new tools, which Instructure says it won’t charge extra for.

    Those who choose to use it run the risk of “digital reification,” or “locking faculty and students into particular tools and systems that may not be the best fit for their educational goals,” Kathryn Conrad, an English professor at the University of Kansas who researches culture and technology, said in an email. “What works best for student learning is challenge, care and attention from human teachers. Drivers from outside of education are pushing yet another technological solution. We need investment in people.”

    But as higher education budgets keep shrinking, faculty workloads are growing—and so is the temptation to use AI to help alleviate it.

    “I worry about the people who are living out of their car, teaching at three institutions, trying to make ends meet. Why wouldn’t they take advantage of a system like Canvas to help with their grading?” said Lew Ludwig, a math professor and former director of the Center for Learning and Teaching at Denison University. “All of a sudden AI is going to be grading the work if we’re not careful.”

    But that realization could push students to rely more and more on generative AI to complete their coursework without fully grasping the material—and give cash-strapped administrators another justification to increase faculty workloads. Such scenarios run the risk of further devaluing a higher education system that’s already facing scrutiny from lawmakers and consumers.

    “Students are starting to graduate into a new economy, where just having a piece of paper hanging on their wall isn’t going to mean as much anymore, especially if they leaned heavily on AI to achieve that piece of paper,” Ludwig said. “We have to make sure our assignments are impactful and meaningful and that our students understand why in some instances we may not want them to use AI.”

    Despite Instructure’s claims that this new version of Canvas will enhance the learning process in the age of AI, a recent survey by the American Association of University Professors shows that most faculty don’t believe AI tools are making their jobs easier; 69 percent said it hurts student success.

    Britt Paris, co-author of the report and associate professor of library and information science at Rutgers University, said she doesn’t expect that to change with the introduction of an AI-powered LMS.

    “In the history of educational technology there has never been an instance of large-scale … data-intensive corporate learning infrastructure that has met the needs of learners,” she said. “This is because people are nuanced in how they learn. The goal with these technologies is to make money, not [to] support people’s unique learning, teaching and working styles.”

    Source link

  • Video Allegedly Showing U of Iowa Promoting DEI Sparks Probe

    Video Allegedly Showing U of Iowa Promoting DEI Sparks Probe

    dosecreative/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty Images

    Following a complaint by Iowa governor Kim Reynolds, the state attorney general’s office is investigating a video that allegedly shows a University of Iowa administrator saying the institution is still promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, despite the state’s ban.

    Fox News Digital published a story earlier this week based on what it called an “undercover video,” which shows a woman identified as Drea Tinoco, assistant director for leadership and student organization development at the university, saying, “On behalf of my office, we’re still going to talk about DEI, we’re still going to do all the DEI things.”

    The story doesn’t specify who recorded the video or whether they were working for Fox or another entity. The conservative group Accuracy in Media has released similar videos allegedly revealing employees skirting DEI prohibitions in other states, but AIM president Adam Guillette said the video isn’t from his organization.

    In the video, dated July 2, the woman also says, “DEI and student organizations and all of that, it is real, it still exists, we’re still doing DEI work.” Though it’s not in the clip, Fox also reported that Tinoco called Reynolds, a Republican, “cuckoo bananas.”

    Tinoco didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment Thursday. In an email, a university spokesperson didn’t confirm or deny whether the video is real or whether Tinoco is the person shown in it, saying, “Personnel matters are considered confidential.”

    Last year, Reynolds signed legislation banning DEI at public universities. In a statement Tuesday, Reynolds said, “I’m appalled by the remarks made in this video by a University of Iowa employee who blatantly admits to defying DEI restrictions I signed into law on May 9, 2024.”

    She filed a complaint with Attorney General Brenna Bird, another Republican, who announced her office is investigating. University president Barbara Wilson additionally told the Iowa Board of Regents Wednesday that her institution has “launched an immediate and comprehensive investigation.”

    Source link

  • HHS Accuses Harvard of Thwarting Investigations

    HHS Accuses Harvard of Thwarting Investigations

    The Trump administration has accused Harvard University officials of failing to comply with an ongoing civil rights investigation into alleged campus antisemitism, The Boston Globe reported.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a letter to Harvard president Alan Garber that it was referring the civil rights investigation to the U.S. Department of Justice, which it is permitted to do in cases where “compliance under Title VI cannot be obtained voluntarily.” 

    The letter, written by Paula Stannard, director of the HHS Office for Civil Rights, also referenced legal actions taken by Harvard, which has fought back against frozen federal research funding and other matters.

    “Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the Federal government,” Stannard wrote. “The parties’ several months’ engagement has been fruitless.”

    Harvard did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The letter comes as Harvard is reportedly considering a $500 million settlement with the Trump administration to close current investigations and unfreeze $2 billion in federal research funding. Harvard is reportedly mulling a settlement even though a judge appears to view its case favorably.

    If Harvard settles, it will add to the list of wealthy and highly visible institutions that have yielded to the Trump administration’s demands in recent weeks. Columbia University agreed to far-reaching changes and a $221 million settlement to restore federal funding and close investigations into antisemitism on campus that stemmed from pro-Palestinian protests in 2024. Brown University also struck a deal with the Trump administration to restore $510 million in research funding, agreeing to various concessions but no payout to the federal government.

    As a potential settlement with the Trump administration looms, some Harvard faculty members sent a letter to the president and board, urging Garber to push back on what they called “the Trump administration’s assault on the vibrancy and inclusiveness of U.S. higher education.”

    Signed by multiple well-known scholars, the letter exhorted Garber not to “compromise core university and academic-freedom values that generations before us have worked to define and sustain,” and to resist ceding power to the federal government over hiring and admissions.

    Source link

  • Mass. Governor Proposes $400M in State Funding for Research

    Mass. Governor Proposes $400M in State Funding for Research

    Massachusetts governor Maura Healey introduced legislation Thursday that would provide $400 million in state funding for research and development, including projects conducted by colleges and universities, The Boston Globe reported. The move appears to be an attempt to alleviate some of the pain caused by the Trump administration’s drastic federal funding cuts to higher ed institutions.

    Introducing the legislation at the State House yesterday, Healey cited Massachusetts’ prowess as a research leader, noting that it has the highest percentage of STEM graduates and hosts 10 percent of all research and development jobs in the country. It is also home to Harvard University, which has had roughly $2.6 billion in funding frozen by the Trump administration.

    “In the face of uncertainty from the federal government, this is about protecting one of the things that makes Massachusetts so special—our global leadership in health care and helping families across the world,” Healey said in a statement.

    The plan calls for $200 million to be appropriated for research at hospitals, universities and independent research groups; the other $200 million will support the state’s public colleges and universities in covering the direct and indirect costs of research and partnerships, as well as hiring personnel. The funds must be approved by the Legislature.

    Higher ed leaders applauded the move.

    “University research fosters the creation of new knowledge, drives regional economies, and is vital to prepare the next generation of innovators,” said Northeastern University president Joseph Aoun in a statement. “I commend Governor Healey and her team for their commitment to ensuring Massachusetts remains a global leader in cutting-edge research.”

    “In moments of uncertainty, it is essential that we protect the integrity of Massachusetts’ renowned biomedical research ecosystem, which contributes immensely to our nation’s research enterprise,” said Michael Collins, chancellor of the UMass Chan Medical School. “We are profoundly grateful to Governor Healey and her administration for their leadership in recognizing the urgent need to support research and innovation in the commonwealth, and we look forward to working with the Legislature to assure passage of this timely initiative.”  

    Source link