A controversial conference at a prestigious American university where AI will author and review academic research papers has faced worldwide backlash as Australian academics join the debate about the event.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Organization recognized for excellence in high-impact tutoring design and student achievement gains
PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 25, 2025 – Catapult Learning, a division of FullBloom that provides academic intervention programs for students and professional development solutions for teachers in K-12 schools, today announced it earned the Tutoring Program Design Badge from the National Student Support Accelerator (NSSA) at Stanford University. The designation, valid for three years, recognizes tutoring providers that demonstrate high-quality, research-aligned program design.
The recognition comes at a time when the need for high-impact tutoring (HIT) has never been greater. As schools nationwide work to close learning gaps that widened during the COVID-19 pandemic and accelerate recovery, Catapult Learning stands out for its nearly 50-year legacy of delivering effective academic support to students who need it most.
“Catapult Learning is honored to receive this prestigious national recognition from the NSSA at Stanford University,” said Rob Klapper, president at Catapult Learning. “We are excited to be recognized for our high-impact tutoring program design and will continue to uphold the highest standards of excellence as we support learners across the country.”
Each year, Catapult Learning’s programs support more than 150,000+ students with nearly four million in-person tutoring sessions, in partnership with 2,100 schools and districts nationwide. Its tutors, many of whom hold four-year degrees, are highly trained professionals who are supported with ongoing coaching and professional development.
Recent data from Catapult Learning’s HIT programs show strong academic gains across both math and reading subject areas:
These results come from programs that have also earned a Tier 2 evidence designation under the Every Student Succeeds Act, affirming their alignment with rigorous research standards.
The Badge was awarded following a rigorous, evidence-based review conducted by an independent panel of education experts. The NSSA evaluated multiple components of Catapult Learning’s program – including instructional design, tutor training and support, and the use of data to inform instruction – against its Tutoring Quality Standards.
“This designation underscores the strength and intentionality behind our high-impact tutoring model,” said Devon Wible, vice president of teaching and learning at Catapult Learning. “This achievement reflects our deep commitment to providing high-quality, research-based tutoring that drives meaningful outcomes for learners.”
Tutoring is available in person, virtually, or in hybrid formats, and can be scheduled before, during, or after school, including weekends. Sessions are held a minimum of three times per week, with flexible options tailored to the needs of each school or district. Catapult Learning provides all necessary materials for both students and tutors.
To learn more about Catapult Learning’s high-impact tutoring offerings, visit: https://catapultlearning.com/high-impact-tutoring/.
About Catapult Learning
Catapult Learning, a division of FullBloom, provides academic intervention programs for students and professional development solutions for teachers in K-12 schools, executed by a team of experienced coaches. Our professional development services strengthen the capacity of teachers and leaders to raise and sustain student achievement. Our academic intervention programs support struggling learners with instruction tailored to the unique needs of each student. Across the country, Catapult Learning partners with 500+ school districts to produce positive outcomes that promote academic and professional growth. Catapult Learning is accredited by Cognia and has earned its 2022 System of Distinction honor.
Like many highly selective colleges that offer legacy and donor admissions, Stanford accepts a disproportionate share of its undergraduates from that population. In fall 2023, 13.6% of the university’s admitted undergraduate class had ties to alumni or donors, according to institutional data. Stanford’s overall acceptance rate that year was just under 4%.
Former California Assemblymember Phil Ting introduced the legislation banning legacy and donor admissions in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling striking down race-conscious admissions.
But several amendments to the bill significantly defanged it. Ting’s initial language would have cut colleges that violated the ban off from access to the Cal Grant, a program providing financial aid to students from low- and middle-income families.
Instead, the version that passed the state house lacked monetary penalties for such institutions, opting for a name-and-shame approach. To that end, the California Department of Justice would publicly list such colleges on its website.
While lawmakers framed the legislation as a ban, Stanford’s decision to continue using legacy and donor admissions demonstrates the limits of the law’s influence. By turning down state funding, the university can avoid the data reporting penalty and being listed on the state justice department’s website.
Stanford students who previously received state aid won’t see a difference in the amount of financial aid they receive, and no action by them is required, the university said in a July 29 press release.
Admitted students whose family income is below $100,000 don’t pay tuition, room or board at Stanford. For households making less than $150,000 annually, students do not pay tuition.
Beginning in March, the Trump administration began targeting international students studying at U.S. colleges, including but not limited those who had participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests or published commentary criticizing Israel. The wide-ranging campaign resulted in the federal government revoking at least 800 student visas by April 11.
Later that month, the Trump administration walked back hundreds of the visa revocations amid intense legal scrutiny. But it then published a policy expanding the authority of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to terminate educational visas.
Evidence of an international student’s failure to comply with the terms of their legal status — not proof or “clear and convincing evidence” — would be enough for ICE to revoke it, according to guidance from law firm Hunton. The new policy did not address the federal government’s practice of terminating students’ visas without notifying them — meaning they may still have their legal status pulled without them or their colleges being informed, the firm added.
Under the administration’s current policies, the plaintiffs face “an ongoing and credible threat” of student visa terminations and deportation proceedings, the lawsuit said.
The Trump administration has cited two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to justify these moves — one that allows Rubio to revoke student visas and another that allows him to determine a noncitizen is eligible for deportation if their statements or associations “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”
FIRE’s lawsuit alleges these provisions are unconstitutional when used to target free speech rights — which apply to all in the U.S., not just American citizens.
“Secretary Rubio and the Trump administration’s war against noncitizens’ freedom of speech is intended to send an unmistakable message: Watch what you say, or you could be next,” the lawsuit said.
The plaintiffs intend to seek permanent injunctive relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, the only court with the authority to “enjoin or restrain” aspects of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
At The Stanford Daily, student writers who are attending the university on a visa are turning down assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East over concerns their reporting would endanger their immigration status, the lawsuit alleges.
Other such reporters are requesting to have their published articles taken down or are quitting the newspaper altogether out of fear of deportation.
Beyond the newsroom, international students have also largely stopped talking to the Daily’s staff since March, the lawsuit said. When they do, they often refuse to speak on the record, “particularly when it comes to discussing topics like Israel and Palestine,” it said.
“There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” Greta Reich, editor-in-chief of the student newspaper, said in a statement. “The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.”
Both of the unnamed plaintiffs entered the U.S. on F-1 student visas, hold no criminal record, and have publicly voiced pro-Palestinian views. But both began self-censoring over “their rational concern about the ongoing danger of deportation for expression Secretary Rubio deems anti-American or anti-Israel,” the lawsuit alleges
One of the plaintiffs had been a member of her university’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and criticized America’s relationship with Israel online. Her work led to her inclusion on Canary Mission, an anonymous website that “publishes the personal information of students, professors and organizations it deems ‘anti-Israel,’” according to the lawsuit.
The website has repeatedly been accused of the doxxing of students and protesters, which free speech experts say can chill protected political speech and incite violence.
The lawsuit cited testimony from Peter Hatch, assistant director of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations department, in which he told lawmakers that “most” of the student protesters DHS asked ICE to investigate came from Canary Mission’s website.
Among its posts, the website had published information on Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Mohsen Mahdawi prior to the Trump administration detaining and attempting to deport them. All three current and former students have since been released on the orders of federal judges.
Aware of this environment, the plaintiff has “refrained from publishing and voicing her true opinions regarding Palestine and Israel” since March and deleted a social media account “to guard against retaliation for past expression.”
Likewise, the other unnamed plaintiff previously attended pro-Palestinian protests and published both pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel commentary. But he began self-censoring his work over fears of deportation, according to the lawsuit.
He also served as a teaching assistant at his college, and the course’s professor advised him to reconsider his advocacy related to Israel and Palestinians, as it might endanger his immigration status, the complaint said.
“No one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” the lawsuit said. But the Trump administration, and Rubio in particular, are working to make free speech “a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat,” it said.
“Ongoing economic uncertainty” has created serious challenges for the higher education sector, according to Elizabeth Zacharias, Stanford’s vice president for human resources.
“At Stanford, anticipated changes in federal policy — such as reductions in federal research funding and an increase in the excise tax on investment income — are expected to have significant budgetary consequences,” Zacharias said in a July 31 filing with the California Employment Development Department.
Like many research institutions, Stanford has suffered under the tidal wave of efforts by the Trump administration to slash federal spending on research and development — despite some of those moves being blocked in court for the time being.
Changes to the endowment tax could also hit Stanford hard.
In fiscal 2024, the university had the fourth-largest endowment among U.S. colleges, valued at $37.6 billion, according to research from the National Association of College and University Business Officers and asset management firm Commonfund.
Before 2017, colleges did not pay taxes on their endowment earnings. That year, a GOP-controlled Congress enacted a 1.4% tax on private nonprofit colleges with at least $500,000 in endowment assets per student.
But President Donald Trump’s signature spending bill introduced a tiered tax based on endowment assets per student that will more than quintuple the tax for the wealthiest institutions from 1.4% to 8%. Stanford, with roughly $2.1 million in endowment assets per full-time-equivalent student, will likely pay the top rate.
These shifts, combined with rising operational costs and changes to funding sources and programs, pushed Stanford to implement layoffs, Zacharias said.
Stanford employs 18,000 staff and faculty, according to its website.
The affected employees — about 2% of its workforce — worked in departments from across the university, ranging from student support services to libraries to donor and alumni relations, according to legal filings.
In addition to 60 days of legally mandated paid notice to impacted workers, eligible employees received severance packages and career transition services, a university spokesperson confirmed Wednesday.
Stanford is the latest university to announce layoffs in the wake of federal policy changes.
David Madison/Getty Images
Stanford University plans to cut 363 jobs this fall, starting at the end of September, due to financial challenges driven by federal policy changes, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
The university previously announced a hiring freeze in February.
Stanford president Jon Levin and provost Jenny Martinez noted in a letter to campus that the cuts were part of an effort announced last month to reduce $140 million in the general funds budget. They called the layoffs, reported Tuesday, “the product of a challenging fiscal environment shaped in large part by federal policy changes affecting higher education.”
University officials provided more information in a letter filed with the California Employment Development Department that accompanied the layoff notice. They cited “anticipated changes in federal policy—such as reductions in federal research funding and an increase in the excise tax on investment income” as significant factors driving the reduction of Stanford’s workforce.
Neither letter provided more specifics on who would be affected by the job cuts.
Stanford has been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration in recent months, with the Department of Justice launching an investigation into admissions practices at the private university, accusing it and several other institutions of skirting a ban on affirmative action.
Stanford is one of the wealthiest institutions in the U.S., with an endowment valued at $37.6 billion earlier this year; only two other institutions and a system had larger endowments.
Now Stanford joins other wealthy peers with multibillion-dollar endowments that have also enacted cuts recently. Last month, Duke University announced that 599 employees had accepted buyouts, and Northwestern University cut 425 jobs as it navigates a federal research funding freeze. While not as well resourced as Stanford, both are among the nation’s wealthiest universities.
The Department of Justice launched investigations into admissions practices at four California universities on Thursday night, accusing them of flouting the Supreme Court’s ruling banning affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The “compliance reviews,” as the department called them, will target Stanford University and three University of California campuses: Berkeley, Los Angeles and Irvine.
In a statement announcing the investigations, the Justice Department wrote that the investigations are “just the beginning” of their efforts to “eliminate DEI” in college admissions.
“President Trump and I are dedicated to ending illegal discrimination and restoring merit-based opportunity across the country,” U.S. attorney general Pam Bondi wrote in the statement.
It’s unclear what prompted the investigations or what evidence the department has to support its suspicions of illegal racial preferences in admissions at the targeted institutions. Some affirmative action opponents have suggested that institutions that enrolled higher numbers of minority students last fall, the first class admitted after the Supreme Court decision, may have done so illegally.
Berkeley, UCLA and Irvine all reported upticks in the number of Black and Hispanic students enrolled in the Class of 2028 last fall: 45 percent of students who enrolled at a UC system campus this fall were underrepresented students of color, a 1.2 percent increase from 2023 and a record for the system.
Just hours before the DOJ announced its probe, the Department of Health and Human Services launched its own investigation into admissions practices at UCLA’s medical school, accusing it of illegally considering applicants’ race.
The UC system has been banned from considering race in admissions since 1996, when the state passed a referendum making the practice illegal at public institutions. That hasn’t stopped anti–affirmative action watchdogs from accusing the system of doing so secretly.
Last month, the newly formed public interest group Students Against Racial Discrimination filed a lawsuit accusing the system of practicing affirmative action behind closed doors, citing increases in Black and Hispanic enrollment at its most selective campuses, namely UCLA and Berkeley, and labeling recent admissions policies—like the decision in 2020 not to consider standardized test scores—proxies for affirmative action.
“Since Proposition 209 banned California’s public institutions from considering race in admissions, UC has implemented admissions practices to comply with it,” a UC spokesperson wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “The UC undergraduate admissions application collects students’ race and ethnicity for statistical purposes only. This information is not shared with application reviewers and is not used for admissions.”
Stanford, unlike the UC schools, reported a marked decline in first-year underrepresented students last year, according to the university’s Common Data Set, released last month. Black enrollment at the university fell by nearly 50 percent, and Hispanic enrollment by 14.4 percent; meanwhile, white and Asian enrollment rose by 14.5 percent and 10 percent, respectively.
Luisa Rapport, Stanford’s director of media relations, said the university has not flouted the affirmative action ban, and that following the SFFA ruling, it “immediately engaged in a comprehensive and rigorous review to ensure compliance in our admissions processes.”
“We continue to be committed to fulfilling our obligations under the law, and we will respond to the department’s questions as it conducts this process,” she wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.
Angel Pérez, president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said he’s heard “extraordinary concern” from admissions officers and deans in recent weeks that investigations could spread to their institutions. They don’t know how to prepare because “we have no idea what these compliance reviews even entail.”
What they do know, he said, is that investigations could throw their offices into chaos during the height of admissions season.
“These kinds of reviews are extremely disruptive. They’re also extremely expensive,” Pérez said. “There are some institutions that, you know, may not survive a compliance review given the legal costs.”
In an interview with Inside Higher Ed last month, Edward Blum, president of SFFA and the architect of the nationwide affirmative action ban, said he expected schools that reported higher enrollment of racial minorities in the fall to invoke legal scrutiny, both from the courts and the Trump administration. He said he believed a number of institutions could be “cheating” the SFFA ruling, including some that were not included in this first round of investigations: Yale, Duke and Princeton.
“So many of us are befuddled and concerned that in the first admissions cycle post-SFFA, schools that said getting rid of affirmative action would cause their minority admissions to plummet didn’t see that happen,” he said.
Some colleges are withholding demographic information about their incoming classes altogether. On Thursday, hours after the Justice Department probes were launched, Harvard admitted its Class of 2029 but did not release any information—including demographics, acceptance and yield rates, and geographic data—for the first time in more than 70 years.
In response to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed about what the compliance reviews would entail or how the department plans to pursue its investigations into admissions offices, a Justice Department spokesperson referred to the initial statement announcing the investigations.
“No further comment,” he wrote via email.
There are some hints, though, as to what form a federal admissions investigation could take. In a December op-ed in The Washington Examiner outlining a plan that has reflected the Trump administration’s higher education agenda so far with uncanny accuracy, American Enterprise Institute fellow Max Eden suggested Bondi initiate “a never-ending compliance review” targeting Harvard University and others to enforce the SFFA ruling.
“She should assign Office of Civil Rights employees to the Harvard admissions office and direct the university to hold no admissions meeting without their physical presence,” Eden wrote. “The Office of Civil Rights should be copied on every email correspondence, and Harvard should be forced to provide a written rationale for every admissions decision to ensure nondiscrimination.”
For the four universities at the center of the investigations, this disruption could be especially pronounced right now, as colleges begin sending out acceptance letters and enter the busiest season for building their incoming classes.
“This could not come at a worse time. It is April; this is enrollment management season,” Pérez said. “For institutions to take the time, energy and resources to [respond to compliance reviews] means that they’re going to have a harder time enrolling their classes.”
The Department of Justice is alleging that in the year and a half since the SFFA ruling, colleges have skirted the law by continuing to consider race in the admissions process. Those grounds make its targets particularly confusing, given that the University of California system hasn’t used affirmative action in admissions for nearly three decades.
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, banning the practice at public colleges. In the application cycles immediately after, Black and Hispanic enrollment fell precipitously. Pérez said it took many years of experimenting with race-neutral admissions, financial aid and recruitment policies for UC campuses to bring Black and Hispanic enrollment back to their prior rates.
In the months following the SFFA decision, Pérez said college admissions professionals turned to California for lessons in how to maintain diversity without running afoul of the new law.
“Officials and admission professionals [at UC] have been helping other institutions across the United States comply with the Supreme Court decision,” he said. “They have actually served as leaders in this space. To accuse them of violating any law is absurd.”
Stanford University backed off a plan, almost four years in the making, to buy the Notre Dame de Namur University campus in nearby Belmont, Calif., the San Francisco Chronicle reported.
“The university arrived at this decision after evaluating many factors, some of which could not be anticipated when Stanford first entered into an option purchase agreement with NDNU almost four years ago,” Stanford officials wrote in a Tuesday statement announcing the decision.
Officials added that as the university was “exploring possible academic uses for a Stanford Belmont campus,” it became clear “that identifying and establishing those uses for a potential Belmont campus will take significantly longer than we initially planned.”
Administrators also seemed to hint at potential financial concerns, as President Donald Trump has sought—unsuccessfully, so far—to cap reimbursements for indirect research costs funded by the National Institutes of Health, which experts have warned will harm research universities.
“The landscape for research universities has changed considerably since Stanford entered into the option purchase agreement with NDNU,” Stanford officials wrote. “These changes are resulting in greater uncertainties and a different set of institutional and financial challenges for Stanford.”
In their own statement, NDNU officials noted the university would continue to seek a buyer and expressed disappointment that the sale had fallen through.
Notre Dame de Namur has sought to sell the Belmont campus near Palo Alto since it shrank its offerings and moved a number of its programs online in 2021 amid financial challenges that pushed it to the brink of closure. Now the private Roman Catholic institution is focused on graduate education and offers a mix of in-person, hybrid and online programs.
Officials had expected the sale of the Belmont campus to provide a financial boon.
“Our focus remains on finding a buyer who will preserve and honor the historical significance of this beautiful campus and continue to serve the community-oriented mission that has long been a cornerstone of Notre Dame de Namur University,” NDNU president Beth Martin wrote.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
South by Southwest Edu returns to Austin, Texas, running March 3-6. As always, it’ll offer a huge number of panels, discussions, film screenings, musical performances and workshops exploring education, innovation and the future of schooling.
Keynote speakers this year include neuroscientist Anne-Laure Le Cunff, founder of Ness Labs, an online educational platform for knowledge workers; astronaut, author and TV host Emily Calandrelli, and Shamil Idriss, CEO of Search for Common Ground, an international non-profit. Idriss will speak about what it means to be strong in the face of opposition — and how to turn conflict into cooperation. Also featured: indy musical artist Jill Sobule, singing selections from her musical F*ck 7th Grade.
As in 2024, artificial intelligence remains a major focus, with dozens of sessions exploring AI’s potential and pitfalls. But other topics are on tap as well, including sessions on playful learning, book bans and the benefits of prison journalism.
To help guide the way, we’ve scoured the schedule to highlight 25 of the most significant presenters, topics and panels:
11 a.m. — Ultimate Citizens Film Screening: A new independent film features a Seattle school counselor who builds a world-class Ultimate Frisbee team with a group of immigrant children at Hazel Wolf K-8 School.
11:30 a.m. — AI & the Skills-First Economy: Navigating Hype & Reality: Generative AI is accelerating the adoption of a skills-based economy, but many are skeptical about its value, impact and the pace of growth. Will AI spark meaningful change and a new economic order, or is it just another overhyped trend? Meena Naik of Jobs for the Future leads a discussion with Colorado Community College System Associate Vice Chancellor Michael Macklin, Nick Moore, an education advisor to Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, and Best Buy’s Ryan Hanson.
11:30 a.m. — Navigation & Guidance in the Age of AI: The Clayton Christensen Institute’s Julia Freeland Fisher headlines a panel that looks at how generative AI can help students access 24/7 help in navigating pathways to college. As new models take root, the panel will explore what entrepreneurs are learning about what students want from these systems. Will AI level the playing field or perpetuate inequality?
12:30 p.m. — Boosting Student Engagement Means Getting Serious About Play: New research shows students who are engaged in schoolwork not only do better in school but are happier and more confident in life. And educators say they’d be happier at work and less likely to leave the profession if students engaged more deeply. In this session, LEGO Education’s Bo Stjerne Thomsen will explore the science behind playful learning and how it can get students and teachers excited again.
1:30 p.m. — The AI Sandbox: Building Your Own Future of Learning: Mike Yates of The Reinvention Lab at Teach for America leads an interactive session offering participants the chance to build their own AI tools to solve real problems they face at work, school or home. The session is for AI novices as well as those simply curious about how the technology works. Participants will get free access to Playlab.AI.
2:30 p.m. — Journalism Training in Prison Teaches More Than Headlines: Join Charlotte West of Open Campus, Lawrence Bartley of The Marshall Project and Yukari Kane of the Prison Journalism Project to explore real-life stories from behind bars. Journalism training is transforming the lives of a few of the more than 1.9 million people incarcerated in the U.S., teaching skills from time management to communication and allowing inmates to feel connected to society while building job skills.
11:30 a.m. — Enough Talk! Let’s Play with AI: Amid the hand-wringing about what AI means for the future of education, there’s been little conversation about how a few smart educators are already employing it to shift possibilities for student engagement and classroom instruction. In this workshop, attendees will learn how to leverage promising practices emerging from research with real educators using AI in writing, creating their own chatbots and differentiating support plans.
12:30 p.m. — How Much is Too Much? Navigating AI Usage in the Classroom: AI-enabled tools can be helpful for students conducting research, outlining written work, or proofing and editing submissions. But there’s a fine line between using AI appropriately and taking advantage of it, leaving many students wondering, “How much AI is too much?” This session, led by Turnitin’s Annie Chechitelli, will discuss the rise of GenAI, its intersection with academia and academic integrity, and how to determine appropriate usage.
1 p.m. — AI & Edu: Sharing Real Classroom Successes & Challenges: Explore the real-world impact of AI in education during this interactive session hosted by Zhuo Chen, a text analysis instructor at the nonprofit education startup Constellate, and Dylan Ruediger of the research and consulting group Ithaka S+R. Chen and Ruediger will share successes and challenges in using AI to advance student learning, engagement and skills.
1 p.m. — Defending the Right to Read: Working Together: In 2025, authors face unprecedented challenges. This session, which features Scholastic editor and young adult novelist David Levithan, as well as Emily Kirkpatrick, executive director of the National Council of Teachers of English, will explore the battle for freedom of expression and the importance of defending reading in the face of censorship attempts and book bans.
1 p.m. — Million Dollar Advice: Navigating the Workplace with Amy Poehler’s Top Execs: Kate Arend and Kim Lessing, the co-presidents of Amy Poehler’s production company Paper Kite Productions, will be live to record their workplace and career advice podcast “Million Dollar Advice.” The pair will tackle topics such as setting and maintaining boundaries, learning from Gen Z, dealing with complicated work dynamics, and more. They will also take live audience questions.
4 p.m. — Community-Driven Approaches to Inclusive AI Education: With rising recognition of neurodivergent students, advocates say AI can revolutionize how schools support them by streamlining tasks, optimizing resources and enhancing personalized learning. In the process, schools can overcome challenges in mainstreaming students with learning differences. This panel features educators and advocates as well as Alex Kotran, co-founder and CEO of The AI Education Project.
4 p.m. — How AI Makes Assessment More Actionable in Instruction: Assessments are often disruptive, cumbersome or disconnected from classroom learning. But a few advocates and developers say AI-powered assessment tools offer an easier, more streamlined way for students to demonstrate learning — and for educators to adapt instruction to meet their needs. This session, moderated by The 74’s Greg Toppo, features Khan Academy’s Kristen DiCerbo, Curriculum Associates’ Kristen Huff and Akisha Osei Sarfo, director of research at the Council of the Great City Schools.
11 a.m. — Run, Hide, Fight: Growing Up Under the Gun Screening & Q&A: Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for American children and teens, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, yet coverage of gun violence’s impact on youth is usually reported by adults. Run, Hide, Fight: Growing Up Under the Gun is a 30-minute documentary by student journalists about how gun violence affects young Americans. Produced by PBS News Student Reporting Labs in collaboration with 14 student journalists in five cities, it centers the perspectives of young people who live their lives in the shadow of this threat.
11:30 a.m. — AI, Education & Real Classrooms: Educators are at the forefront of testing, using artificial intelligence and teaching their communities about it. In this interactive session, participants will hear from educators and ed tech specialists on the ground working to support the use of AI to improve learning. The session includes Stacie Johnson, director of professional learning at Khan Academy, and Dina Neyman, Khan Academy’s director of district success.
11:30 a.m. — The Future of Teaching in an Age of AI: As AI becomes increasingly present in the classroom, educators are understandably concerned about how it might disrupt their teaching. An expert panel featuring Jake Baskin, executive director of the Computer Science Teachers Association andKarim Meghji of Code.org, will look at how teaching will change in an age of AI, exploring frameworks for teaching AI skills and sharing best practices for integrating AI literacy across disciplines.
2:30 p.m. — AI in Education: Preparing Gen A as the Creators of Tomorrow: Generation Alpha is the first to experience generative artificial intelligence from the start of their educational journeys. To thrive in a world featuring AI requires educators helping them tap into their natural creativity, navigating unique opportunities and challenges. In this session, a cross-industry panel of experts discuss strategies to integrate AI into learning, allowing critical thinking and curiosity to flourish while enabling early learners to become architects of AI, not just users.
2:30 p.m. — The Ethical Use of AI in the Education of Black Children: Join a panel of educators, tech leaders and nonprofit officials as they discuss AI’s ethical complexities and its impact on the education of Black children. This panel will address historical disparities, biases in technology, and the critical need for ethical AI in education. It will also offer unique perspectives into the benefits and challenges of AI in Black children’s education, sharing best practices to promote the safe, ethical and legal use of AI in classrooms.
2:30 p.m. — Exploring Teacher Morale State by State: Is teacher morale shaped by where teachers work? Find out as Education Week releases its annual State of Teaching survey. States and school districts drive how teachers are prepared, paid and promoted, and the findings will raise new questions about what leaders and policymakers should consider as they work to support an essential profession. The session features Holly Kurtz, director of EdWeek Research Center, Stephen Sawchuk, EdWeek assistant managing editor, and assistant editor Sarah D. Sparks.
2:30 p.m. — From White Folks Who Teach in the Hood: Is This Conversation Against the Law Now? While most students in U.S. public schools are now young people of color, more than 80% of their teachers are white. How do white educators understand and address these dynamics? Join a live recording of a podcast that brings together white educators with Christopher Emdin and sam seidel, co-editors of From White Folks Who Teach in the Hood: Reflections on Race, Culture, and Identity (Beacon, 2024).
3:30 p.m. — How Youth Use GenAI: Time to Rethink Plagiarism: Schools are locked in a battle with students over fears they’re using generative artificial intelligence to plagiarize existing work. In this session, join Elliott Hedman, a “customer obsession engineer” with mPath, who with colleagues and students co-designed a GenAI writing tool to reframe AI use. Hedman will share three strategies that not only prevent plagiarism but also teach students how to use GenAI more productively.
10 a.m. — AI & the Future of Education: Join futurists Sinead Bovell and Natalie Monbiot for a fireside discussion about how we prepare kids for a future we cannot yet see but know will be radically transformed by technology. Bovell and Monbiot will discuss the impact of artificial intelligence on our world and the workforce, as well as its implications for education.
10 a.m. — Reimagining Everyday Places as Early Learning Hubs: Young children spend 80% of their time outside of school, but too many lack access to experiences that encourage learning through hands-on activities and play. While these opportunities exist in middle-class and upper-income neighborhoods, they’re often inaccessible to families in low-income communities. In this session, a panel of designers and educators featuring Sarah Lytle, who leads the Playful Learning Landscapes Action Network, will look at how communities are transforming overlooked spaces such as sidewalks, shelters and even jails into nurturing learning environments accessible to all kids.
11 a.m. — Build-a-Bot Workshop: Make Your Own AI to Make Sense of AI: In this session, participants will build an AI chatbot alongside designers and engineers from Stanford University and Stanford’s d.school, getting to the core of how AI works. Participants will conceptualize, outline and create conversation flows for their own AI assistant and explore methods that technical teams use to infuse warmth and adaptability into interactions and develop reliable chatbots.
11:30 a.m. — Responsible AI: Balancing Innovation, Impact, & Ethics: In this session, participants will learn how educators, technologists and policymakers work to develop AI responsibly. Panelists include Isabelle Hau of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, Amelia Kelly, chief technology officer of the Irish AI startup SoapBox Labs, and Latha Ramanan of the AI developer Merlyn Mind. They’ll talk about how policymakers and educators can work with developers to ensure transparency and accuracy of AI tools.
Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter