Tag: rich

  • How higher education became a get rich quick scheme

    How higher education became a get rich quick scheme

    Sometimes, the problem with both media coverage and regulation is that critique of a part of the sector taints it all.

    When ministers or media outlets find sharp practice in recruitment or failings in student support, everything from OfS Insight Briefs to Sunday Times splashes can feel like the whole class being kept in for lunch when you weren’t making any noise.

    So has been the case for franchising. A specific group of universities has been subcontracting out to a specific group of private colleges in recent years – a group which has rightly picked up attention from the media, the National Audit Office (NAO), the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Office for Students (OfS), the Student Loans Company (SLC) and the Department for Education (DfE).

    Independent HE, for example, have argued elsewhere on the site that while they strongly support a tougher regime around franchising, the proposed approach of requiring only larger providers (300+ students) to register would be insufficient – missing many bad actors while creating administrative bottlenecks and failing to hold lead providers properly accountable for their partners. Instead, they advocate for universal basic registration for all teaching providers.

    Now, following last week’s long-awaited publication of data on subcontractual partnerships from OfS, we’re pretty confident that it’s possible to isolate and identify a specific subset of undergraduate providers in the English sector.

    Its defining characteristics are that its providers are privately owned, are (very much) for-profit, deliver non-specialist courses principally in Business and Management, and have been (very) rapidly expanding in recent years.

    Last year OfS said that in some cases there has been an “exponential growth” in student numbers in subcontractual partnerships over the last few years, with some lead providers now teaching more students through these arrangements than directly on their own campuses.

    It said that among other potential concerns, this raises questions about the direction of travel for the lead provider’s own strategic identity, aims and objectives.

    Our definition of a specific sub-sector is not perfect. There are a number of providers whose wholly-owned or directly-delivered satellite campus operations share some of those characteristics. Student numbers have not been formally published, and as ever there is lag in the data in general.

    In 2023-24, OfS’ student characteristics data dashboard shows that there were 101,950 students enrolled overall on subcontracted Business and Management courses – up from just 5,630 a decade ago.

    And if we derive from full-time, first degree continuation statistics, aggregate where companies are owned by the same parent, and attach those characteristics to partnerships where the entrant population was 100 or more in 2023-24, we can see 16 providers that enrolled over 40,000 FT FD entrants in 2022.

    Below threshold

    Aggregating both multiple providers in a group, and this sub set in general, is not an exact science. For each partnership between a university and private college, OfS has only published a denominator population rounded to 5 – which makes precision impossible. But we can estimate this sub group’s outcomes “performance” by implying a numerator from the percentages, and recompiling the numbers.

    The result is not stellar. In OfS’ press release to accompany the data, we learned that 77 per cent of FT FD subcontracted students continued courses into a second year, compared to 88 per cent in the sector as a whole. Against a regulatory minimum of 80 per cent, this group of providers averaged just 70 per cent.

    We learned that 74 per cent of subcontracted students completed their course, compared to 87 per cent for the sector as a whole and a regulatory minimum of 75 per cent. This subgroup scored just 70 per cent.

    The further out that a metric is from when students start, the longer it takes to pick up results – a real regulatory issue in a subsector that is expanding so rapidly. But when we look at progression to a graduate job or further study, it’s 71 per cent for the sector as a whole, 57 per cent of subcontracted students, and just 53 per cent of this subsector – against a regulatory minimum of 60 per cent.

    These providers are almost certainly inflating the sector’s performance on access – especially for those who are doing the franchising-to – access and participation stats are not (yet) split by partnership. But they are also dragging down the sector’s performance on outcomes, and giving subcontracting a bad name – all three of the key metrics would likely be above threshold if this group was removed.

    More importantly, if we follow OfS’ logic on outcomes and thresholds – that the figures are signals of whether students have the potential to succeed on the course, and receive good teaching and support through their studies – the group has been expanding yet failing.

    One area, though, where the group is not failing, is on financial performance.

    Healthy profits

    In 2023, the Russell Group estimated that in 2022/23, English universities on average supplemented the cost of educating each UK undergraduate student by £2,500 per year, with all subjects now making a loss on average.

    Not so much here in this sub sector. Because most of the 18 providers are not on the OfS register, the format (and even visibility) of annual accounts is uneven. Financial years and levels of disclosure differ, some are showing on Companies House as posting accounts late, and in many cases some of the income from fees moves up into a parent company in a way that prevents proper transparency.

    But on the basis that the bulk of their income is tuition fees after any franchising fee retained by the university passing on the SLC money that it gets, and assuming that “cost of sales” usually covers the provision of education rather than administrative expenses that are often dominated by acquisition costs, we can calculate a gross profit for the latest year that figures are available for.

    Below that line often huge dividends, director remuneration, domestic agent fees and the costs of renting space or borrowing from a parent co deflate the final profit figures. But in gross terms, notwithstanding that some of the group were micro-entities and exempt at last accounts publication, the group in scope posted gross profits of £504m on an income of £815m.

    Company Period end Turnover (£) Gross profit (£) Note
    Cecos Computing International Limited 31 Mar 2024 £ 20,269,818 £ 9,916,813
    Elizabeth School of London Limited 31 Aug 2024 £ 74,947,093 £ 46,856,529
    Fairfield School of Business Ltd 31 Aug 2024 £ 10,463,430 £ 7,254,024
    Global Banking School Limited 29 Feb 2024 £ 233,566,242 £ 128,068,724
    LCA (Education LTD + London LTD) 31 Dec 2024 £ 70,068,058 £ 36,388,054
    Ld Training Services Limited 31 Aug 2024 £ 10,185,134 £ 9,460,083
    London College of Contemporary Arts Ltd 31 May 2024 £ 25,360,932 £ 17,223,552
    London PT College Limited — — — Not disclosed in abridged filings
    London School of Commerce & IT Limited 31 Mar 2024 £ 6,385,138 £ 3,434,817
    London School of Science & Technology Limited 30 Jun 2024 (15months) £ 83,771,009 £ 62,903,105 Group figures as filed
    Mont Rose College of Management and Sciences Limited 31 Aug 2024 £ 9,904,941 £ 8,489,293
    Navitas UK Holdings Limited (group) 30 Jun 2024 £ 57,222,133 £ 27,004,304
    Oxford Business College UK Limited 31 Aug 2023 £ 49,734,100 £ 31,030,795
    QAHE (LM+NU+UR) Limited 31 May 2024 £ 60,800,000 £ 34,400,000
    St. Piran’s School (GB) Limited 31 Dec 2024 £ 72,470,964 £ 59,211,778
    UK College of Business and Computing Ltd 31 Jul 2024 £ 18,032,506 £ 14,196,396
    Waltham International College Limited 31 Jul 2024 £ 12,127,614 £ 8,118,100
    TOTAL £ 815,309,112 £ 503,956,367

    Figures like that should push any sensible policymaker into windfall tax territory – or at the very least taking some of that profit and using it to relieve students burdened by a lifetime of debt of some of the balance. But more broadly, perhaps policymakers should take a step back and ask whether what’s being facilitated here should be.

    Avoiding scandals

    Ever since I was sent a photo back in 2022 of a domestic agent’s pull-up banner in a London shopping centre inviting students to claim their £15,000 in maintenance support, we’ve been trying to get to the bottom of what’s been happening with franchising.

    There’s a compelling reason for that. Franchising scandals over the last decade caused huge reputational damage for the sector and created an enormous regulatory distraction. When HEFCE and the Department for Education were spending their time devising ways to crack down on sharp practice, they weren’t focusing on improving the sector. The opportunity costs of franchising scandals are significant.

    We could see what was coming – a repeat of the problem. The Office for Students, already stretched, would end up spending much of its time attempting to regulate the rapid expansion. There was real danger of further reputational damage for the sector.

    What we’ve found are highly litigious providers, and real difficulty in getting the data we needed. We wanted to see who these rapidly expanding private companies were – companies specialising in “widening access” students, and lead providers appearing in graphs showing students claiming maintenance loans without fee loans.

    And from a student perspective, one of the issues has long been that if they want to find out what the outcomes would be like, they can’t really tell.

    This matters because almost all higher education advertising says “here’s what this has been like in the past, and so here’s what might happen to you.” The big problem was that when they apply to those providers, they are often told about the franchising provider’s outcomes – not the franchisee provider’s. They hear about the university’s figures for business studies, but can’t see the actual provider’s numbers.

    Franchise partners change frequently, and course names change often. The historical data needed to support statistics on Discover Uni simply aren’t available. Given that providers often have franchising deals with multiple universities, it can’t be unreasonable to ask how well these colleges perform on continuation, completion and graduate employment – especially when so much advertising focuses on careers and improving life chances, while obscuring debt.

    In OfS’ words:

    This [data] will be useful for prospective students, lead providers responsible for registering the students, and institutions responsible for teaching students on these courses.

    Even if the regulation was tightened, the incentives for the latter two of the parties on that list may be too strong to ever aspire beyond minimums. And for students – who have characteristics that are least frequently associated with an “informed actors in a choice market” ideal, even OfS’ data doesn’t show each of the franchised-to providers in aggregate.

    Why?

    This leaves us with a simple question. If the problem is non-specialist franchised provision – which certainly appears to be the case – why is the Department for Education funding it?

    It’s not provision that’s otherwise unavailable. It’s not serving some niche that doesn’t already exist. Students with talent, drive and aspiration would still access traditional universities. Students unsuitable for full-time study would pursue other routes. Students who need more support would have more money spent on them if it wasn’t being delivered to the bottom line in profit.

    This is, lest we forget, a part of the sector where expectations on harassment and sexual misconduct, or free speech, or charter work on mental health or fair admissions, are established only in part and often only in theory – and where student protection in the event of course, campus or provider closure is even thinner than it is elsewhere. Why are these risks concentrated on some of the least advantaged students in the sector?

    There are now real risks in contraction. Already some of the providers on the list have closed campuses and shuttered courses. Have reportable events been made? Are students being compensated for any breach of contract? And what happens if any of these companies just collapse – when the lead provider is often hundreds of miles away? These are tasks the government needs to take on.

    There are risks to allowing franchising, risks to allowing private providers to access the loan book, and risks to having no student number caps. In the last decade, the view was that the potential rewards were greater than risks. But notwithstanding the need to contract with care, it simply cannot be true that the world would be worse if these providers didn’t exist.

    Many things could be done. We’ve made proposals over on the Post-18 Project on different ways to regulate and restrict what’s happening here that draw on valuable lessons from colleagues in FE. But at the simple core, it comes down to this – why does DfE think it’s worth the risk to keep open the student loan book to private providers through franchise agreements for non-specialist subject higher education?

    The faster the government changes course, the faster all of us can turn our attention to improving higher education’s contribution to society and economic growth – rather than chasing around owners of colleges who, collectively, are getting rich off outcomes which OfS says are unacceptably poor.

    Source link

  • Data, privacy, and cybersecurity in schools: A 2025 wake-up call

    Data, privacy, and cybersecurity in schools: A 2025 wake-up call

    Key points:

    In 2025, schools are sitting on more data than ever before. Student records, attendance, health information, behavioral logs, and digital footprints generated by edtech tools have turned K-12 institutions into data-rich environments. As artificial intelligence becomes a central part of the learning experience, these data streams are being processed in increasingly complex ways. But with this complexity comes a critical question: Are schools doing enough to protect that data?

    The answer, in many cases, is no.

    The rise of shadow AI

    According to CoSN’s May 2025 State of EdTech District Leadership report, a significant portion of districts, specifically 43 percent, lack formal policies or guidance for AI use. While 80 percent of districts have generative AI initiatives underway, this policy gap is a major concern. At the same time, Common Sense Media’s Teens, Trust and Technology in the Age of AI highlights that many teens have been misled by fake content and struggle to discern truth from misinformation, underscoring the broad adoption and potential risks of generative AI.

    This lack of visibility and control has led to the rise of what many experts call “shadow AI”: unapproved apps and browser extensions that process student inputs, store them indefinitely, or reuse them to train commercial models. These tools are often free, widely adopted, and nearly invisible to IT teams. Shadow AI expands the district’s digital footprint in ways that often escape policy enforcement, opening the door to data leakage and compliance violations. CoSN’s 2025 report specifically notes that “free tools that are downloaded in an ad hoc manner put district data at risk.”

    Data protection: The first pillar under pressure

    The U.S. Department of Education’s AI Toolkit for Schools urges districts to treat student data with the same care as medical or financial records. However, many AI tools used in classrooms today are not inherently FERPA-compliant and do not always disclose where or how student data is stored. Teachers experimenting with AI-generated lesson plans or feedback may unknowingly input student work into platforms that retain or share that data. In the absence of vendor transparency, there is no way to verify how long data is stored, whether it is shared with third parties, or how it might be reused. FERPA requires that if third-party vendors handle student data on behalf of the institution, they must comply with FERPA. This includes ensuring data is not used for unintended purposes or retained for AI training.

    Some tools, marketed as “free classroom assistants,” require login credentials tied to student emails or learning platforms. This creates additional risks if authentication mechanisms are not protected or monitored. Even widely-used generative tools may include language in their privacy policies allowing them to use uploaded content for system training or performance optimization.

     

    Data processing and the consent gap

    Generative AI models are trained on large datasets, and many free tools continue learning from user prompts. If a student pastes an essay or a teacher includes student identifiers in a prompt, that information could enter a commercial model’s training loop. This creates a scenario where data is being processed without explicit consent, potentially in violation of COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) and FERPA. While the FTC’s December 2023 update to the COPPA Rule did not codify school consent provisions, existing guidance still allows schools to consent to technology use on behalf of parents in educational contexts. However, the onus remains on schools to understand and manage these consent implications, especially with the rule’s new amendments becoming effective June 21, 2025, which strengthen protections and require separate parental consent for third-party disclosures for targeted advertising.

    Moreover, many educators and students are unaware of what constitutes “personally identifiable information” (PII) in these contexts. A name combined with a school ID number, disability status, or even a writing sample could easily identify a student, especially in small districts. Without proper training, well-intentioned AI use can cross legal lines unknowingly.

    Cybersecurity risks multiply

    AI tools have also increased the attack surface of K-12 networks. According to ThreatDown’s 2024 State of Ransomware in Education report, ransomware attacks on K-12 schools increased by 92 percent between 2022 and 2023, with 98 total attacks in 2023. This trend is projected to continue as cybercriminals use AI to create more targeted phishing campaigns and detect system vulnerabilities faster. AI-assisted attacks can mimic human language and tone, making them harder to detect. Some attackers now use large language models to craft personalized emails that appear to come from school administrators.

    Many schools lack endpoint protection for student devices, and third-party integrations often bypass internal firewalls. Free AI browser extensions may collect keystrokes or enable unauthorized access to browser sessions. The more tools that are introduced without IT oversight, the harder it becomes to isolate and contain incidents when they occur. CoSN’s 2025 report indicates that 60 percent of edtech leaders are “very concerned about AI-enabled cyberattacks,” yet 61 percent still rely on general funds for cybersecurity efforts, not dedicated funding.

    Building a responsible framework

    To mitigate these risks, school leaders need to:

    • Audit tool usage using platforms like Lightspeed Digital Insight to identify AI tools being accessed without approval. Districts should maintain a living inventory of all digital tools. Lightspeed Digital Insight, for example, is vetted by 1EdTech for data privacy.
    • Develop and publish AI use policies that clarify acceptable practices, define data handling expectations, and outline consequences for misuse. Policies should distinguish between tools approved for instructional use and those requiring further evaluation.
    • Train educators and students to understand how AI tools collect and process data, how to interpret AI outputs critically, and how to avoid inputting sensitive information. AI literacy should be embedded in digital citizenship curricula, with resources available from organizations like Common Sense Media and aiEDU.
    • Vet all third-party apps through standards like the 1EdTech TrustEd Apps program. Contracts should specify data deletion timelines and limit secondary data use. The TrustEd Apps program has vetted over 12,000 products, providing a valuable resource for districts.
    • Simulate phishing attacks and test breach response protocols regularly. Cybersecurity training should be required for staff, and recovery plans must be reviewed annually.

    Trust starts with transparency

    In the rush to embrace AI, schools must not lose sight of their responsibility to protect students’ data and privacy. Transparency with parents, clarity for educators, and secure digital infrastructure are not optional. They are the baseline for trust in the age of algorithmic learning.

    AI can support personalized learning, but only if we put safety and privacy first. The time to act is now. Districts that move early to build policies, offer training, and coordinate oversight will be better prepared to lead AI adoption with confidence and care.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Texas lawmakers shelve SLAPP bills that would have allowed the rich and powerful to sue critics into silence

    Texas lawmakers shelve SLAPP bills that would have allowed the rich and powerful to sue critics into silence

    Good news for Texans who like their speech free. Three bills that would have gutted speech protections under the Texas Citizens Participation Act are officially dead in the water.

    At the start of the 2025 legislative session, FIRE teamed up with the Protect Free Speech Coalition — a broad coalition of civil liberties groups, news outlets, and other organizations that support free speech in Texas — to fight these bills. 

    The TCPA protects free speech by deterring frivolous lawsuits, or SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation), intended to silence citizens with the threat of court costs. 

    SLAPPs are censorship disguised as lawsuits. And laws like the TCPA are a vital defense against them.

    The first bill, HB 2988, would have eroded the TCPA by cutting its provision of mandatory attorney fees for speakers who successfully get a SLAPP dismissed. 

    That provision ensures two very important things.

    First, it makes potential SLAPP filers think twice before suing. The prospect of having to pay attorney’s fees for suing over protected speech causes would-be SLAPP filers to back off.

    Second, when a SLAPP is filed, mandatory fees ensure the victim can afford to defend their First Amendment rights. They no longer face the impossible choice between self-censorship and blowing their life savings on legal fees. Instead, they can fight back, knowing that they can recover their legal fees when they successfully defend their constitutionally protected expression against a baseless lawsuit.

    Even though the Constitution — and not one’s finances — guarantees the freedom to speak out about issues affecting their community and government, making TCPA fee-shifting discretionary would have undermined that freedom for all but the most deep-pocketed Texans. 

    FIRE’s own JT Morris testified in opposition to HB 2988 when it received a hearing in the Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence committee.

    The other two bills — SB 336 and HB 2459 — would have made it easier for SLAPP filers to run up their victim’s legal bills before the case gets dismissed, thereby putting pressure on victims to settle and give up their rights. 

    Since last fall, FIRE has been working with the Protect Free Speech Coalition to oppose these bills. We’ve met with lawmakers, testified in committee, published commentary, and driven grassroots opposition.

    All three bills are now officially dead for the 2025 legislative session, which ends today. That means one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws in the country remains intact and Texans can continue speaking freely without fear of ruinous litigation.

    Make no mistake: SLAPPs are censorship disguised as lawsuits. And laws like the TCPA are a vital defense against them. That defense still stands. And the First Amendment still protects you and your speech on important public issues — no matter how much money’s in your wallet.

    Source link

  • For the rich, free speech — for others, a SLAPP in the face

    For the rich, free speech — for others, a SLAPP in the face

    This article was originally published in The Gilmer Mirror on April 21, 2025.

    Fourteen years ago, the legislature passed vital protections for freedom of speech in the Texas Citizens Participation Act. This week, they’re looking to gut it.

    The TCPA addresses the common problem of strategic lawsuits against public participation, or SLAPPs. These are frivolous lawsuits brought by the wealthy or powerful against private citizens to stop them from exercising their free speech rights.

    For example, say your loved one is in an assisted living facility, and you think the facility is neglecting their care. You file a complaint with state regulators and then post honest, negative reviews of the facility online so that other people can make an informed choice about sending their family members there.

    Then the facility sues you, claiming that you defamed them. Even though the case is frivolous, and your criticism is protected by the First Amendment, you have a tough choice: stop talking about the facility or hire an attorney to defend you. You don’t want to be silenced, but you don’t want to go through a lengthy, expensive, and exhausting legal battle.

    This was the choice facing Carol Hemphill when she was sued for criticizing the facility housing her brother, who needed daily care after a traumatic brain injury.

    Thankfully, the TCPA helps people like Hemphill. It allows SLAPP victims to get cases dismissed quickly, without racking up huge legal bills. It also helps the victims get lawyers to stand up to the bullies trying to silence them through the courts.

    First, the TCPA lets a victim immediately move to dismiss the case if they can show the claim is meritless and targets their speech on issues important to the community. Then, if the court denies the motion to dismiss, there’s another layer of protection. The law automatically pauses any further court proceedings while the victim appeals the ruling, so that the case doesn’t turn into a sprawling legal battle before the court of appeals gets the chance to toss it out.

    When a victim successfully gets the case dismissed, the TCPA also requires the other side to pay their legal bills. This helps ensure SLAPP victims can afford legal representation to fight the case, and it deters people from filing SLAPPs in the first place. Plus, it’s just basic fairness: if someone deliberately brings a frivolous SLAPP against you, they should reimburse you for the costs of getting it dismissed.

    These protections ensure that everyone, not just those with money, can afford to fight for their rights. They helped Hemphill get her case dismissed and her legal bills paid. They helped Ken Martin, an independent local journalist, who was sued by a politician for reporting factual information about him. And they helped Dante Flores-Demarchi, who was sued by a wealthy school board member for publicly raising concerns about corruption.

    In addition to protecting individual victims, the TCPA protects a culture of open political discourse. In 2023, John Seago, the president of Texas Right to Life, testified against amending the TCPA because of its importance to individuals and organizations that work on important political issues. He testified that he, his organization, and other Texans had been hit with 19 different lawsuits simply for speaking about abortion after passage of the Texas Heartbeat Act, which banned most abortions in the state. “We turned to the TCPA since we were being targeted simply for our activism,” he said last year.

    Despite this enormous success, the legislature is currently considering bills to tear chunks out of the TCPA.

    This week, a House committee is going to vote on HB 2988, from Rep. Mano DeAyala, R-Houston, which would end the requirement for people who file SLAPPs to pay the other side’s legal bills when the case is dismissed. This would make it harder for SLAPP victims to get lawyers to defend their free speech rights, and invite more suits aimed at silencing people — a fundamental encroachment of constitutional rights.

    In the coming weeks, we expect other committees to take up SB 336/HB 2459. The bills, authored by Sen. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola, and Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, would remove the TCPA’s automatic pause while a victim appeals their motion to dismiss the SLAPP.

    The only people who benefit from weakening these parts of the TCPA are those with deep pockets who want to abuse the courts to silence their opponents. For those people, these bills are a gift.

    For Texans like Hemphill, who just want to speak their mind without being hauled into court, they’re a slap in the face.

    Source link

  • Whitney Brothers® elevatED™ CollectionReceives Design Journal BEST of 2024 Award

    Whitney Brothers® elevatED™ CollectionReceives Design Journal BEST of 2024 Award

    Keene, NH – Acclaimed furniture brand Whitney Brothers® today announced its new elevatED™ Collection of furniture for young learners received a BEST of 2024 award from Design Journal, a leading global trade resource for interior designers, architects and facility managers.

    A Design Journal panel of 2,400 internationally renowned interior designers, architects and facility managers cited the elevatED™ Collection’s distinct contemporary style and its inventive adaptation across 46 individual pieces in the collection. Each piece is constructed in textured white oak and white melamine structural elements that form crisp, pleasing lines with refined contrasting color accents. Brushed nickel legs add design counterpoint and rich visual interest.

    The elevatED™ Collection comprises 46 individual and modular pieces for young learner activities including art, STEM / sensory, literacy development, play, tables, seating, lockers and storage. Each piece is flexible, mobile or modular to enable furnishing a dynamic learning environment for young learners completely within the elevated™ Collection.

    Technical attributes of the collection include FSC certified wood material and Eco-Certified Composite (ECC) certification, an exemplary commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship. The finish on each piece includes proven antimicrobial properties, an important attribute that contributes to the health and well-being of young children.

    “The Design Journal BEST of 2024 award recognizes how a fresh, modern expression of furniture can play a central role in creating a dynamic learning environment for our youngest learners,” said Mike Jablonski, president of Whitney Brothers®. “The elevatED™ Collection is another great example of our brand’s innovation and commitment to furnish learning environments that inspire and engage young children.”

    About Design Journal
    Design Journal is a leading international trade resource for interior designers, architects and facility managers since 1988. The Design Journal awards program is one of the most prominent design recognition platforms in the world for the fields of architecture and design. Each year, a global advisory board of 2,400 internationally renowned industry professionals preside over a rigorous evaluation process to select projects and products that represent the highest standards of design excellence.

    About Whitney Brothers®
    Founded in 1904, Whitney Brothers® is a 100% employee-owned producer of furniture for Early Learning and institutional childcare environments sold through educational distributors and dealers to schools, childcare centers, Head Start facilities, churches, libraries, museums and residential homes throughout North America and around the world. The brand’s rich 121-year history reflects old world craftsmanship blended with state of the art manufacturing technology to create products of uncompromising quality, design, innovation, safety, durability and value. Each product is UL GREENGUARD® Gold and antimicrobial certified, qualifies for LEED credits, meets or exceeds applicable CPSIA, ASTM and BIFMA requirements, supported by a Limited Lifetime Warranty and proudly made in America.

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

    Source link

  • Revolutionizing storytelling with AI: Empowering ELLs

    Revolutionizing storytelling with AI: Empowering ELLs

    Key points:

    Imagine this: You assign your students a writing prompt, and while some eagerly begin crafting their stories, others stare at the blank page, muttering, “I have nothing to write,” or “I can’t think of a story.” For English Language Learners (ELLs), this scenario is even more daunting due to limited vocabulary or fear of making mistakes. In fact, studies show that a lack of confidence and linguistic resources often prevents ELLs from fully engaging in creative writing, despite their rich cultural and personal experiences.

    As educators, we constantly seek ways to help students overcome these barriers. Enter artificial intelligence (AI)–a powerful tool that transforms storytelling into an accessible and engaging experience for every student. By integrating AI into storytelling, we can empower students to generate ideas, build confidence, and create compelling narratives, all while developing their language skills.

    Getting started: Using AI to spark creativity

    A simple and engaging way to introduce AI in storytelling is by using a writing prompt and generating an example story opening with ChatGPT. For instance, you might ask: “Write the opening to a mysterious story about an abandoned lighthouse.”

    ChatGPT could respond: “The wind howled through the cracks of the abandoned lighthouse, carrying whispers of secrets long forgotten. The light, extinguished for decades, seemed to flicker faintly as if trying to tell a story no one had yet heard.”

    Students can take this opening and continue the story in their own words, expanding the scene, introducing new characters, or creating a plot twist. This method not only sparks creativity but also provides ELLs with a scaffold, building their confidence to dive into storytelling.

    To bring their stories to life, students can use AI image generators like DALL-E or tools like Canva to create visuals matching their narratives. For example, they could create an eerie image of the abandoned lighthouse with flickering light and stormy skies. This connection between words and visuals reinforces comprehension and engages students in the storytelling process.

    The final step is sharing stories and visuals with the class. Presenting their work allows students to practice speaking, gain confidence, and showcase their creativity.

    How AI enhances storytelling

    AI tools offer unique opportunities to support ELLs in their storytelling journey. When
    students struggle to come up with ideas, tools like ChatGPT can provide engaging prompts and vivid descriptions to spark creativity. For example, a student might request a description of a magical forest and receive a response like: “A forest bathed in golden sunlight, where trees tower like ancient guardians and the air shimmers with tiny, glowing orbs.” Such detailed imagery can inspire students to dive into their stories with greater confidence.

    In addition to idea generation, AI tools help expand students’ vocabulary. ELLs can use AI to explore synonyms or alternative ways to describe scenes, enriching their language repertoire.

    For instance, if a student wants to avoid repeating the word “beautiful,” the AI might suggest options like “stunning,” “captivating,” or “breathtaking,” enabling more nuanced and expressive writing.

    Visual storytelling is another area where AI shines. Tools like DALL-E or Adobe Express allow students to create images that align with their narratives, making their stories come to life. For example, a student writing about a mysterious glowing orb could generate a corresponding image, blending creative thinking with visual artistry.

    Once students have drafted their stories, AI-based writing assistants like Grammarly can help refine their grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. This process encourages independence and self-correction, teaching students to identify and address their mistakes while improving the overall clarity and polish of their work.

    Interactive platforms like Twine take storytelling to a new level by enabling students to create “choose your own adventure” narratives. For example, students might create a mystery where readers decide whether to follow a shadowy figure or stay hidden, leading to different outcomes. This fosters critical thinking and collaboration as students craft branching storylines and engage in problem-solving to connect various plot points.

    Classroom example: AI in action

    In a Grade 8 ESL classroom, students were given the prompt: “Write about a strange object you find buried in your backyard.” After brainstorming ideas with ChatGPT, one student created a story about a glowing orb that transported them to another dimension. They used DALL-E to generate an image of the orb, and Twine to develop a branching narrative where the reader decides whether to touch the orb or call for help. The result was an immersive storytelling experience that combined creativity with critical thinking.

    By incorporating AI tools, students not only created more engaging stories but also developed their language skills in a meaningful and enjoyable way.

    Making storytelling accessible and engaging

    Using AI in storytelling doesn’t just overcome barriers; it transforms the experience for students. Visual elements and interactivity keep learners engaged, while tools for grammar and vocabulary improvement build confidence. For ELLs, AI provides scaffolding and encouragement to take creative risks and express themselves authentically.

    Guiding responsible AI use

    While AI opens doors to creativity, teaching students to use these tools responsibly is
    essential.

    Students need to understand the concept of AI “hallucinations,” where AI generates
    inaccurate or entirely fabricated information. For instance, an AI might describe a historical event inaccurately or create a fictional fact that seems plausible. Educators should teach students to verify AI-generated information with reliable sources.

    Equally important is teaching students how to craft clear and specific prompts. For example, instead of asking, “What happens in a story?” they might ask, “Can you suggest a story idea about a character who solves a mystery in a small town?”

    Modeling this process helps students see how precise wording yields better results.
    Encouraging critical thinking is also crucial. Teachers can create opportunities for students to analyze AI-generated content by asking: “Does this make sense? Is it accurate? Can I verify it elsewhere?” Such discussions help students see AI as a helpful tool, but not an infallible one.

    Students should also learn that AI is a partner in creativity, not a replacement for their
    original thinking. They must guide the AI, evaluate its outputs, and make creative decisions to ensure their work remains authentically theirs. Additionally, students should be encouraged to credit AI-generated content appropriately to foster ethical use.

    Conclusion

    Storytelling is a cornerstone of language learning, offering ELLs opportunities to build
    vocabulary, practice grammar, and express their ideas. With AI, the storytelling process becomes more accessible, engaging, and impactful. From generating prompts to creating visuals and refining drafts, AI supports students in overcoming challenges and discovering the joy of storytelling.

    By integrating AI tools responsibly, educators empower every student to find their voice and share their unique stories with confidence. In the intersection of creativity and technology, AI has the potential to revolutionize the way we teach and learn storytelling

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Franklin & Marshall College Names Dr. Andrew Rich as 17th President

    Franklin & Marshall College Names Dr. Andrew Rich as 17th President

    FDr. Andy Richranklin & Marshall College has appointed Dr. Andrew “Andy” Rich, current dean of the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership at City College of New York (CCNY), as its 17th president following a unanimous vote by the Board of Trustees. Rich will take office in July, succeeding outgoing president Dr. Barbara K. Altmann, who has led the institution since 2018.

    During his six-year tenure at the Colin Powell School, Rich demonstrated exceptional ability in institutional growth and fundraising, according to officials at the private school located in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He spearheaded a 40 percent enrollment increase, bringing the student body to 4,000, while simultaneously launching innovative student success initiatives. Under his leadership, the school established eight new fellowship programs and created an Office of Student Success offering comprehensive mentoring, professional development, and career services.

    One of Rich’s notable achievements at CCNY was the formation of a Public Service Career Hub, which more than doubled student placement in public service internships and jobs. The initiative’s success earned the 2023 Exemplary Model Award from the American Association of University Administrators. Rich also led a transformative fundraising campaign that generated over $85 million in new investments for scholarships, student services, faculty positions, and academic initiatives.

    “I am excited to become an F&M Diplomat,” said Rich. “For more than 235 years, Franklin & Marshall has been a beacon for excellence in liberal arts education. We prepare students for fulfilling lives, inspiring them to achievements that enrich every sector of society.”

    Prior to his role at CCNY, Rich served as CEO and executive secretary of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation from 2011 to 2019, where he oversaw the prestigious federal program supporting future public service leaders. His connection to F&M includes oversight of two recent Truman Scholars from the college: Makaila Ranges, a 2022 graduate and Akbar Hossain, who graduated in 2013. Rich also served as president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, a national think tank and leadership development organization, from 2009 to 2011.

    Eric Noll, chair of the College’s Board of Trustees, praised Rich’s appointment:

    “He will build on Barbara Altmann’s successful presidency with his sharp strategic sensibilities and deep appreciation for our excellent liberal arts college and its importance in our society’s future,” he said.

    Rich’s academic credentials include a bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of Richmond, where he was awarded a Truman Scholarship, and a doctorate in political science from Yale University. He has taught at both CCNY and Wake Forest University and is known for his scholarship on think tanks and foundations in American politics, having authored Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise.

    Source link