Tag: Student

  • Post-pandemic, student academic recovery remains elusive

    Post-pandemic, student academic recovery remains elusive

    Key points:

    Five years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, academic recovery has stalled nationwide, and achievement gaps have widened, according to the State of Student Learning 2025 report from from Curriculum Associates.

    The report offers one of the most comprehensive looks at Grades K–8 student performance in reading and mathematics, based on data from close to 14 million students who took the i-Ready Diagnostic assessment in the 2024–2025 school year.

    The report shows that most students have not yet reached pre-pandemic achievement levels, and some are falling even further behind. The report does find some bright spots: Some historically underserved schools, especially majority-Black schools, are seeing modest, positive gains in both reading and mathematics. However, those gains have not yet translated into closing longstanding disparities.

    “This report shows that disrupted schooling due to the pandemic continues to impact student learning, particularly for students who are in early grades, are lower performing, or are from historically underserved communities,” said Kristen Huff, head of measurement at Curriculum Associates. “Academic recovery has never been one-size-fits-all, and these results reaffirm the importance of nuanced, data-informed approaches. Above all, they underscore the vital work educators are doing every day to meet students where they are and help them move forward.”

    Key findings

    • Academic progress has plateaued. Since spring 2023, national achievement has remained flat. While many students are growing at pre-pandemic rates, that growth isn’t closing the gap caused by pandemic disruptions.
    • The achievement gap has grown in many cases. Students who were already behind, particularly those scoring in the bottom 10th percentile, continue to fall behind, while top-performing students have often recovered or surpassed their pre-pandemic levels.
    • Younger students experienced greater learning losses. Even though they were not yet in school during the pandemic, elementary students, especially in Grades K and 1, saw the largest drops in achievement after the pandemic. 
    • Vulnerable populations are experiencing uneven recovery. The report shows widening gaps between the nation’s highest and lowest performers. Across most grades, the differences between higher and lower percentiles have increased over time.

    A data-driven, nationwide look

    The 2025 report examines data through the critical years pre- and post-pandemic, from spring 2019 to spring 2025. Using a nationally representative sample of more than 11.7 million reading and 13.4 million mathematics assessments, the research examines:

    • Grade-level placement: how many students are performing at or below grade level
    • Scale scores by percentile: how learning differs across performance groups
    • Annual growth: whether students are making enough academic progress during the school year to recover lost ground

    The findings reinforce that targeted support is needed to ensure every student can thrive academically, especially younger students, lower-performing students, and historically underserved communities.

    This press release originally appeared online.

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

    Source link

  • AI carries potential to transform both student and teacher

    AI carries potential to transform both student and teacher

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

    Ashley Kannan teaches 8th grade American History and African American Studies at Percy Julian Middle School in Oak Park, Ill. He is a 2025-26 Teach Plus Leading Edge Fellow.

    One of America’s largest teachers’ unions recently announced it’s starting an artificial intelligence training hub for educators with funding from Microsoft, OpenAI and Anthropic. This news signals that AI in schools is real — something Aadhira already knows.

    Aadhira is a rising 8th grader I will teach this fall. Toward the end of last year, I saw her sitting in the hallway, on her laptop. I asked her what she was doing. 

    “History homework. I’m using AI.”

    I asked if her teachers knew she used AI.

    “Mr. Kannan, teachers don’t know anything about this AI stuff.”

    This is a headshot of Ashley Kannan, an 8th grade American History and African American Studies teacher at Percy Julian Middle School in Oak Park, Ill.

    Ashley Kannan

    Permission granted by Ashley Kannan

     

    Aadhira is not wrong. As with most new technologies, most students know more about AI than most adults. But we’re early enough in the process that we have an opportunity: Teachers like me can design the AI experience alongside students like Aadhira and inform the development of projects like the AI training hub. Together, we can create a new and better school experience for our students. 

    In my 29-year career, I have seen education react late to technology over and over again. We were slow to the internet, smartphones, social media and remote learning. AI is already a part of Aadhira’s life, yet my school district is part of the 80% that lack AI guidance and policies.

    Amidst this uncertainty, AI is a pathway for teacher leadership. By embracing AI in my teaching and determining its specific purpose, I can control how it achieves my purpose: advancing my students’ journeys toward scholarship.

    I know my classroom and content, and I can speak to how AI tools fit in my teaching. My voice is needed, because I teach students like Aadhira who use AI every day. Since I see what is and is not working, I can successfully influence AI decision-making.

    While Aadhira is right that teachers like me “don’t know much about this AI stuff,” I can respond by not only crafting how AI will help me make her a scholar, but also use that expertise to guide how it should look for all of our district’s students. I can be an AI influencer in my classroom and beyond.

    AI literacy can be a journey of growth for my students and me. Aadhira will be my AI teacher. I plan on learning her hacks and shortcuts, peeking behind the curtain in drawing from her AI savvy, grasping what she uses AI for, and figuring out how AI can help her be a scholar.

    Aadhira can learn from me, too. 

    For instance, I can teach her how AI tools work with large datasets, how they recognize patterns, and how she can construct better AI prompts. As Aadhira learns the art of developing precise prompts to feed into AI, her language and processing skills will grow. Instead of “Do my homework on the American Revolution,” she can more specifically put in, “I need help on understanding the main causes of the American Revolution.” 

    As Aadhira shows more precision in her commands, she will learn to better control the AI tool she’s using — something she will need in an AI world. Using AI in this way helps her understand concepts, challenges her thinking, and supports her in creating authentic work. 

    I can teach Aadhira how to effectively consume AI content. For example, what if she generated artifacts from AI about the causes of the American Revolution and then graded them with a rubric she and I co-created? Aadhira would be examining AI products as opposed to digesting them as unquestioned fact, thinking critically as a scholar as she assesses AI work. 

    I can also learn through conversations with Aadhira about her AI user experience. These can guide my leadership work, adding teacher and student voice to initiatives such as the AI instructional hub. Aadhira teaches me while I teach her, reflecting our shared AI learning journeys.

    Aadhira and I can be pioneers in the birth of a collaborative school setting driven by student and teacher voice. If AI can enhance teacher leadership and develop transformative and worthwhile learning for students, it will permanently transform school into a space where teachers and learners have more voice, agency and, ultimately, power.

    Aadhira is coming my way in the fall. As I shape how I want AI to help her be a scholar, I will be ready.

    Source link

  • ASU Projects 18% Drop in International Student Enrollment

    ASU Projects 18% Drop in International Student Enrollment

    Arizona State University ranks fourth among four-year colleges and universities in terms of total international students enrolled.

    yongyuan/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Arizona State University typically welcomes over 17,900 international students to its four campuses each year, but this fall, due to a variety of complications, the university expects only 14,600 international students will attend this fall—an 18 percent drop.

    If the projection holds, international students will account for 7.5 percent of ASU’s 194,000 students this fall, according to an Aug. 11 news release. In comparison, during the 2023–24 academic year, ASU hosted 18,400 international students, with a total enrollment of 183,000, or more than 10 percent.

    The change is in part due a drop in master’s applications from international students, but primarily driven by challenges to visa appointments, according to a university spokesperson.

    ASU’s president, Michael Crow, told Bloomberg that as of early August, 1,000 of the university’s incoming international students (a third of the new cohort of 3,313 students) were still waiting on their visas. The university is providing several pathways for students unable to make it to campus, including online programs, study abroad, starting later in the semester or enrolling in a partner institution overseas, the spokesperson said.

    “We anticipate that our enrollment of international students will continue to grow throughout the year,” said Matt López, deputy vice president of academic enterprise enrollment, said in the university news release. “When students have their visa in hand, we will welcome them with open arms and the classes they need to continue their degree without delay.”

    ASU has the largest share of international students in Arizona, providing $545.1 million in revenue to the state and supporting 5,279 jobs, according to data from NAFSA, the association of international educators.

    ASU also ranks fourth among four-year colleges and universities in terms of total international students enrolled, according to 2023–24 OpenDoors data, behind New York University, Northeastern University and Columbia University.

    Nationally, international student enrollment is projected to decline by about 15 percent this fall due to federal changes to visa issuance and other actions against international students.

    Source link

  • Why Student Motivation Matters (opinion)

    Why Student Motivation Matters (opinion)

    In Jarek Janio’s Inside Higher Ed opinion column, “Beyond ‘Grit’ and ‘Growth Mindsets,’” Janio argues that, to promote better student learning, college instructors should ignore questions about student motivation and focus solely on changing student behavior. He focuses on two ideas from the motivation field—grit and growth mindset—as examples of “traits” that have weak associations with student learning. Instead of focusing on what goes on “inside the student’s head,” he argues we should instead focus on “what’s happening in the environment and change that instead.”

    As educational psychology researchers, we are also interested in how to get students to engage in effective learning behaviors. We fully agree with—and our research supports—the idea that it is important for instructors to structure learning environments to support student learning, such as by offering opportunities for students to revise their work and providing clear, well-defined feedback. However, it is a mistake to ignore what is going on inside students’ heads. In doing so, we miss a very crucial piece of the puzzle.

    Students Are Unique Individuals

    As anyone who has taught a college class knows, students are not robots. There are vast differences between them. Take the example of offering your students an opportunity to revise and resubmit their work, after receiving feedback, for a higher grade. Just because you provide this opportunity does not mean that all your students will take it. Some students will enthusiastically revisit their work, dig into the feedback provided, seek additional feedback and deepen their learning. Others will half-heartedly look over the feedback and make shallow attempts to revise. Still others will not glance at the feedback at all and will not turn in a revision.

    These differences are, in part, due to more stable traits that students may have, such as their conscientiousness, their perfectionism and—yes—their grit. However, these differences may also be a function of other individual differences that are less stable. Take growth mindset, for example. Those of us who study growth mindset tend to think about it as a belief rather than a trait. It is something that can change based on the context.

    Imagine a student who has been told by their statistics instructor that statistics is something that anyone can learn—you just need the right strategies. Their art professor, on the other hand, has told them that you need a special, innate talent to be good at art—you either have it or you don’t. These factors can shape students’ beliefs, and in turn, their behaviors. For example, this student may be much more likely to engage in revising and resubmitting their work in their statistics class (where they have stronger growth-mindset beliefs) than their art class (where they have stronger fixed-mindset beliefs). This pattern is also true for when students feel confident about their abilities or have a desire for learning. Such students seek out help more proactively, and they engage with feedback more constructively.

    Beyond Grit and Growth Mindset

    Although grit and growth mindset are perhaps the most well-known (and have some legitimate weaknesses), researchers in the educational psychology and motivation fields study many other factors that impact student engagement and learning. These include students’ interests, values, goals, needs, emotions, beliefs and perceptions of the instructor and their classroom—all things that are going on inside the student’s head but that are critically important to understanding their behavior.

    Theories of motivation articulate the processes through which students’ beliefs, values, needs and goals shape their engagement, behaviors and choices. Researchers have created and tested effective tools to observe, measure and assess these different factors. Decades of research have given us robust understandings of how these factors are both shaped by and interact with the environment to predict students’ behavior and learning. These aspects of the individual student matter.

    The Student and the Environment Are Both Important

    It is important to focus both on what is going on in students’ heads and what is going on in the environment. Instructors have the power to shape their classroom environment in different ways that can influence student behavior.

    We do not disagree with the strategies Janio proposed instructors should focus on. Instead, we want to emphasize that these strategies are effective because of how they are motivationally supportive. For instance, incorporating a revision process into course assignments is based on mastery goal structures, or the environments instructors can nurture so that students focus on their improvement and growth. Normalizing failure is a growth mindset–teaching practice that helps students see the effort they put into the learning process as being something of value. Providing feedback is an important way to inform a student’s self-confidence and show them how they can be more competent in the future.

    Motivation is the central mechanism through which these strategies can help students persist through learning challenges. By understanding student motivation, these teaching strategies and approaches can be fine-tuned and adapted to differently motivated students to maximize student learning. That is exactly what motivation scientists in education have been investigating for decades. Simply discarding learner motivation is dismantling the science that undergirds motivationally supportive teaching.

    Concluding Thoughts

    A return to behaviorism essentially disregards the last 50 years of psychological research emphasizing the important role students’ cognition, emotion and motivation plays in the classroom. It is critical to understand these psychological processes that have been rigorously tested across many studies. Students are also agentic and complex in their thinking and motivations, so a one-size-fits-all approach rarely works. By harnessing students’ motivation, instructors can better adapt their teaching approaches to match students’ interests and goals in addition to creating motivationally supportive environments that promote persistence and deeper learning. When instructors understand their students’ motivation, it can unlock the type of engagement and behaviors meaningful for learning.

    Katie Muenks is an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas at Austin. Carlton J. Fong is an associate professor of postsecondary student success at Texas State University.

    Source link

  • Speech is Protected, But Is It This Simple? LSE Research Delves Into Student Experiences of Free Speech

    Speech is Protected, But Is It This Simple? LSE Research Delves Into Student Experiences of Free Speech

    This blog was kindly authored by Lauren Amdor, who graduated from LSE with a BSc in History and International Relations and has recently finished her post as the Activities and Communities Sabbatical Officer at LSE’s Students’ Union.

    The 2023 Higher Education (HE) Freedom of Speech Act (the Act) has long been one to watch, especially after Labour paused its implementation last July. As an LSE Students’ Union (LSESU) Sabbatical Officer, the Act raised broader questions around how students’ education would be affected, which I explored in the research project Power to Speak and subsequent focus groups.

    With 592 responses across LSE Departments, modes of study and domiciles, students were asked nine quantitative questions in the Power to Speak survey measured on a Likert scale which found that:

    • One-in-four respondents did not feel comfortable speaking up in class.
    • 75% of respondents agreed that the teacher defines what speech is accepted in the classroom.
    • 45% of respondents felt ill-equipped to encounter/respond to ‘damaging speech’ protected by free speech laws.
    • Half of the respondents agreed that campus lacked opportunities for groups with opposing views to engage in dialogue.

    The tenth qualitative question asked students what they thought ‘promoting freedom of speech should look like’, given the upcoming duty on universities to promote this under the Act.

    Student responses were coded into five thematic categories:

    • A safe environment to express or not express views (26.8%)
    • Freedom to express views without retaliation or consequences (23.6%)
    • Promoting and welcoming free speech (22.2%)
    • Students’ rights to protest (15.3%)
    • A zero tolerance to hate speech and violence (12.1%)

    Two key points emerged, which universities and students’ unions should pay particular attention to:

    1. Why did students report feeling unable to express their views?
    2. Where do students think the line is with free (but offensive) speech, and why?

    Institutional ramifications, not strictly legal ones, recurred throughout responses. This included fearing academic repercussions for articulating a converging perspective to their teachers, visa revocation and the social consequences of adopting minority viewpoints including being ‘judged’, ‘ostracised’ or ‘persecuted’. The most cited fear, however, was disciplinary action against students by the University which was also central in the Right to Protest theme. Here, students specifically referenced disciplinaries against those protesting for Palestine across higher education institutions. These various fears contributed to what students considered as ‘a chilling effect on free speech’ despite the high legal threshold for unlawful speech.

    Inadequate tools and support systems to engage with conflicting perspectives was a significant issue. Students highlighted difficulties navigating emotionally charged topics, especially as university was the first time many had encountered diametrically opposing views. Shying away from these discussions was partly down to ‘the fear of the first time’ and accidentally causing offense, particularly appearing Islamophobic or Antisemitic. Limited experience in having these conversations exacerbated the individual burden felt and reported by students, as universities had seemingly not supported necessary skill development. Fluctuating stress across the academic year also elevated anxiety around difficult conversations or debates, further reducing the capacity to cope adequately. The demographic breakdown of Question 27 of the National Student Survey (NSS) suggested that minority-group students felt less free to express their views during their studies. A focus group discussing Faith in the Classroom further explored this trend, finding that practising students wanted to avoid dealing with possible arguments around personal beliefs. Departmental colleagues additionally identified how cultural norms regarding debate contributed to an uneven baseline from which students engage (discussed in the case of Chinese international students). Universities should be aware that certain student groups feel less equipped to navigate free speech and should therefore take a tailored approach to upholding it.

    Although academic freedom laws ensure academic staff can express their views as they choose, this was considered a barrier to students participating in debate. Students consistently maintained that teachers should not necessarily ‘engineer neutrality for the sake of it’ but should be trained to foster a culture of academic disagreement without discrimination and manage conflicting views constructively and skilfully. Building trust and a positive rapport between students and academics was significant in empowering students to contest presented arguments and approach academic staff to discuss related issues.

    Students expressed concern around speech which might harm and negatively impact minority student groups, and how a hostile campus environment impacted their overall education. How potentially harmful (but legal) views were presented was of equal concern, with most students accepting such speech if it was respectful and considerate to diverse and underrepresented experiences. This is effectively the debate around balancing free speech rights with the right to privacy and protection from discrimination under the European Commission of Human Rights. While institutions consult the OfS guidance on interpreting the Act and related questions, institutions also contend with the apparent lack of clarity amongst students, reiterated by consistent calls to draw a clear line and articulate ‘what free speech is not’.

    Recommendations Arising from the Research Findings

    • Clarify how free speech, rights against discrimination and to privacy are practically balanced, and what speech or action might result in institutional disciplinaries, in an understandable way for students.
    • Create a baseline level of soft skills for respectful disagreement and debate as part of a university education, regardless of a student’s course of study.
    • Facilitate dialogue spaces ‘across religious, ethnic and ideological boundaries’, to counter polarisation, model respectful discussion of ‘controversial issues’ and assist students with this responsibility.
    • Equip teachers to facilitate debate across challenging topics while upholding Academic Freedom.

    Where Do Students’ Unions Sit?

    Students’ Unions (SU) are uniquely positioned to support students and institutions with the realities of the Act. As a student-led organisation, there is a clear opportunity to create student-led dialogue spaces for interested students, as the LSESU Campus Relations Group has done. Working with individual student societies additionally offers a chance to carve out pockets of safety for those encountering especially difficult perspectives at university. As a key liaison between institutions and students, SUs have an explanatory role to ensure students understand their rights related to the Act and university policy. And finally, as an acknowledged student voice mechanism, SUs can lobby their institutions on issues pertaining to students’ free speech or work with larger organising bodies (e.g. the National Union of Students) to lead national policy change.

    Source link

  • Eliminating Testing Requirements Can Boost Student Diversity

    Eliminating Testing Requirements Can Boost Student Diversity

    Some colleges have changed their standardized test policies in recent years.

    The percentage of underrepresented minority students increased in some cases after universities stopped requiring applicants to submit standardized test scores, according to a study published Monday in the American Sociological Review. 

    The findings come in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which prompted many colleges and universities to rethink their testing policies; some went test-optional or test-blind while others doubled down. But starting long before the pandemic, critics have argued that consideration of standardized test scores often advantages white and wealthier applicants. 

    The study examined admissions patterns at 1,528 colleges between 2003 and 2019. During the 16-year time frame, 217 of those colleges (14.2 percent) eliminated standardized testing requirements. But researchers found that simply eliminating testing requirements didn’t guarantee a more diverse student body.  

    The institutions that eliminated the requirements but still gave significant weight to test scores during the application process didn’t increase their enrollment of underrepresented students in the three years after the change. However, colleges that reduced the weight of test scores showed a 2 percent increase in underrepresented student enrollment. 

    Additionally, researchers found that increases in minority student representation were less likely at test-optional colleges that were also dealing with financial or enrollment-related pressures. 

    Greta Hsu, co-author of the paper and a professor at the University of California, Davis, Graduate School of Management, said in a news release that “although test-optional admissions policies are often adopted with the assumption that they will broaden access to underrepresented minority groups,” their effectiveness depends “on existing admissions values and institutional priorities at the university.”

    Source link

  • Student veterans, advisers say VA cuts are derailing their educations

    Student veterans, advisers say VA cuts are derailing their educations

    As the spring semester got under way in January at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, a dozen military veterans waited for their GI Bill student benefit checks to show up.

    Then they waited, and waited some more, until the money finally arrived — in April.

    By that time, three had left.

    Getting GI Bill benefits from the Veterans Administration, which student veterans use to pay for their tuition, textbooks and housing, already took weeks. Since federal government staffing cuts since President Donald Trump took office, it’s been taking at least three times longer, said Jeff Deickman, assistant director for veteran and military affairs at the student veteran center on that campus.

    Deickman’s counterparts at other colleges say the VA’s paperwork often has errors, causing further delays. They say some student veterans are dropping out.

    “I can spend, on bad days, three hours on the phone with the VA,” said Deickman, himself a 20-year Army veteran and a doctoral student. “They’ll only answer questions about one student at a time, so I have to hang up and start over again.”

    Nearly 600,000 veterans received a total of about $10 billion worth of GI Bill benefits last year, according to the VA.

    The start of the new administration brought big personnel cuts to both the VA and the U.S. Department of Education, which manages some student aid for veterans. Now, advocacy groups and universities and colleges that enroll large numbers of veterans are bracing for the planned layoffs and departures of nearly 30,000 VA employees and additional cuts at the Department of Education.

    Many are also concerned about the potential for reduced scrutiny of the for-profit college sector, which critics contend has taken advantage of veterans’ tuition payments without providing the promised educational benefits.

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    Veterans who are just starting to feel the effects of federal cuts, and organizations that support them, worry things will only get worse, said Barmak Nassirian, vice president for higher education policy at the advocacy group Veterans Education Success. The nonprofit has been getting calls from students anxious about confusing information they’re receiving from federal agencies, he said, and it’s been hard to get answers from the government.

    “Part of the challenge of wrapping our arms around this is the opaqueness of the whole thing. We’re sort of feeling our way around the impact,” Nassirian said.

    “The whole process” has become a mess, said one 33-year-old Navy vet in Colorado, who used a more colorful term common in the military and asked that his name not be disclosed for fear of reprisal. “It’s making a lot of us anxious.”

    Social media lays bare that anxiety — and frustration. In posts, veterans complain about stalled benefits and mistakes.

    “I just wish I could speak to someone who could help but all of the reps seem to be unable to assist and simply tell me to reapply, which I have 4x, just for another denial,” wrote one on Reddit, about attempts to have a student loan forgiven.

    Related: How Trump is changing higher education: The view from 4 campuses

    “Complete nightmare,” another Reddit poster wrote about the same process. “Delays, errors, and employees that don’t know anything. No one knows anything right now.”

    Federal law guarantees that disabled vets’ student loans will be forgiven, for instance, but veterans with total permanent disabilities have reported that their applications for their loans to be discharged were denied. One said the Department of Education followed up with a letter saying the denial was a mistake, but the agency hasn’t explained how to correct it.

    The Education Department did not respond to an interview request. The VA declined to answer even general questions about benefit delays unless provided with the names of veterans and colleges that reported problems.

    A VA spokesman, Gary Kunich, said no one had been laid off from the agency, which in fact cut 1,000 probationary employees in January and another 1,400 workers in February, though some were temporarily reinstated by a judge. It has announced plans to lay off 30,000 more by the end of September.

    Such cuts threaten to “disrupt access to veterans’ education benefits, just as even more veterans and service members may be turning to higher education and career training,” top officials at the American Council on Education, or ACE — the nation’s largest association of colleges and universities — wrote in June.

    That’s on top of existing frustrations. Veterans already struggle to get the benefits they’ve earned, college administrators and students say.

    Related: Veterans are tangled in red tape trying to get their student loans canceled as promised

    Many colleges and even some prominent veterans’ advocacy groups didn’t want to talk about this. Student Veterans of America, one of the largest advocacy groups for veteran students, did not respond to repeated interview requests. Ten of the colleges and universities that boast large veteran enrollments — including San Diego State, Georgia State, Angelo State, Arizona State and Syracuse — also did not respond or declined to answer questions.

    Veterans and advocates are concerned that ongoing Education Department cuts will erode oversight of education institutions that take GI Bill benefits but leave veterans with little in return — primarily for-profit colleges that were found guilty of, and have been punished repeatedly for, defrauding students. In some cases, those colleges suddenly closed before students could finish their degrees, but kept their tuition while leaving them with useless credits or credentials.

    Veterans are already twice as likely as other students to attend for-profit colleges, according to the Postsecondary National Policy Institute.

    While it might take years until the effects of weakened scrutiny are fully visible, Nassirian said, it already appears that staffing cuts at the divisions within the Education Department that kept an eye on for-profit colleges have led those schools to start targeting veterans again.

    “Without a doubt it is now easier for schools that want to push the envelope to get away with it,” he said. “When you have fewer cops on the beat you’re going to see higher crime. And we’re still just a nanosecond into this new environment.”

    Veterans can lose their GI Bill benefits even when a college defrauds them.

    The risk is particularly high for low-income veterans and those from diverse backgrounds, said Lindsay Church, executive director of Minority Veterans of America. Those student veterans are less likely to have parents who have experience with higher education, Church said, making them more vulnerable to fraud.

    But the most immediate problems with staffing cuts are payment delays and paperwork errors, student veterans and their advisers said.

    At Pikes Peak State College, a community college in Colorado Springs, some veterans still hadn’t received their GI Bill benefits as the semester wound down in May, said Paul DeCecco, the college’s director of military and veteran programs. Because of trouble reaching counselors at the VA, others were never able to enroll in the first place, DeCecco said.

    “Counselors are just overwhelmed and not able to respond to students in a timely manner,” he said. “Students are missing semesters as a result.”

    Related: Behind the turmoil of federal attacks on colleges, some states are going after tenure

    In the military city of San Diego, where thousands of former and current service members go to college, student veterans at Miramar College this year waited months to hear about VA work-study contracts. Previously approved within days, those contracts allow students to get paid for veteran-related jobs while attending school, said LaChaune DuHart, the school’s director of veterans affairs and military education.

    Other veterans went weeks without textbooks because of delayed VA payments, DuHart said.

    “A lot of students can’t afford to lose those benefits,” she said, describing the “rage” many student veterans expressed over the long wait times this year. “A lot of times it’s that emotional reaction that causes these students not to come back to an institution,” she said.

    Colleges routinely see student veterans quit because of benefit delays, numerous experts and administrators said, something that has gotten worse this year. Several recounted stories of veterans without degrees choosing to look for work rather than continue their education because of frustration with the VA — even though studies show that graduating from college can dramatically increase future earnings.

    Those who stayed have faced the added stress of waiting for their benefits, or not being able to get their questions answered.

    “We always tell them to be prepared for delays,” said Phillip Morris, an associate professor of education research and leadership at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs who studies student veterans. “But if you can’t pay your rent because your benefits are not flowing the way you’re expecting them to, that’s increasing anxiety and stress that translates to the classroom.”

    Contact editor Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556 or [email protected].

    This story about student veterans was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Student Wellbeing in the AI Era: Stress, Confidence, and Connection – A Global Snapshot

    Student Wellbeing in the AI Era: Stress, Confidence, and Connection – A Global Snapshot

    • This HEPI blog was authored by Isabelle Bristow, Managing Director UK and Europe at Studiosity.

    Studiosity’s ninth annual Student Wellbeing Survey, conducted by YouGov in November 2024, gathered insights from university students on their experiences and concerns, and made recommendations to senior leaders. This global research included panels from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, the UAE, the UK and the US (see below for the country sample size breakdown).

    The report highlights key learning on AI’s rapid integration into higher education and its impact on student wellbeing. The following are the key takeaways, specifically examining country-specific differences in student experiences with AI, alongside broader issues of stress, connection, belonging, and employability.

    AI Adoption and Its Impact

    AI is now a pervasive tool in higher education, with a significant 79% of all students reporting using AI tools for their studies. While usage is high overall, the proportion of students saying they use AI ‘regularly’ to help with assignments shows interesting variations by country:

    • UK: 17%
    • USA: 27%
    • Singapore: 31%
    • UAE: 38%

    This greater scepticism towards AI among UK students also shows up elsewhere, with students in the UK least likely among the eight countries to expect their university to offer AI tools.

    However, the widespread adoption of AI tools is linked to considerable student stress. The survey found that 68% of students report experiencing personal stress as a result of using AI tools for their coursework. From free text comments, this might be for a number of reasons, including the fear they might be unintentionally breaking the rules; there are also concerns that universities are not moving fast enough to provide AI tools, leaving students to work out for themselves how best to use AI tools. This highlights that navigating the effective and appropriate use of AI is a significant challenge that requires support.

    Furthermore, the way AI is currently being used appears to be affecting students’ confidence in their own learning. Some 61% feel only ‘moderately’ or less confident that they are genuinely learning and improving their own skills when using generative AI.

    Perhaps as a result of this uncertainty, students often seek ‘confidence’ when using university-provided AI support, desiring guided tools that help them check their understanding and validate their genuine learning progress. This motivation was particularly strong in countries like:

    • New Zealand: 31%
    • Australia: 25%
    • UK: 25%

    This suggests a tension between unstructured AI use (linked to lower learning confidence) and the student desire for confidence-building support (which AI, when properly designed for learning, offers).

    Perceptions of how well universities are adapting to AI also vary globally, with 56% of students overall feeling their institutions are adapting quickly enough. However, scepticism is notably higher in certain regions:

    • UK: 53% feel institutions are not adapting fast enough
    • Canada: 52% feel institutions are not adapting fast enough

    Conversely, students in other countries feel their university is adapting fast enough to include AI support tools for study:

    • UAE: 72%
    • Singapore: 66%
    • Saudi Arabia: 65%
    • USA: 58%

    Study Stress: Beyond AI

    While AI contributes to stress, study stress is a broader, multi-faceted challenge for student wellbeing, with frequency and causes differing significantly across countries. Students reported experiencing stress most commonly on a weekly basis (29% overall), with more students than average in Australia and New Zealand (both 33%) experiencing stress on a weekly basis. However, the intensity increases elsewhere:

    • Saudi Arabia: 27% felt stressed daily
    • Canada: 24% felt stressed daily, and a notable 17% felt stressed constantly
    • USA: 16% felt stressed constantly

    The top reasons for general study stress also vary, pointing to the diverse pressures students face:

    • ‘Fear of failing’: significantly higher in the UK (61%) compared with the global average of 52%
    • ‘Not having enough time to balance other life commitments’: significantly higher in the UK (52%) and Australia (48%)
    • ‘Difficult course content’: Singapore (38%)
    • ‘Paying for degree’: Canada (35%) and the USA (31%)
    • ‘Sticking to the rules around integrity and plagiarism’: over-indexed in the UAE (23%) and Saudi Arabia (22%)

    Belonging and Connection

    A sense of belonging is a crucial component of student wellbeing, and the survey revealed variations across countries. Students in Australia (62%) and the UK (65%) reported lower overall belonging levels compared to the global average. What contributes to belonging also differs:

    • ‘Confidence to reach out to teachers’: significantly higher factor in the UK (64%)
    • ‘A flexible schedule to help balance work and study’: dominated as a top reason in Australia (63%) and Singapore (62%)
    • ‘Ease of connecting with a student mentor’: featured prominently in Saudi Arabia (47%), UAE (48%), and USA (43%)
    • ‘Access to mental health support’: over-indexed as a key reason for belonging in Saudi Arabia (47%) and Canada (44%)

    The study also explored direct connections, addressing concerns that AI might reduce human interaction. Students were largely neutral or unsure if generative AI impacted their interactions with peers and teachers (including 63% of students in the UK and 55% in New Zealand). In contrast, students in Saudi Arabia (64%) and the UAE (61%) were most likely to report more interaction due to AI use, followed by Singapore (42%) and the USA (41%).

    Beyond AI’s influence on connection, the survey found that four in ten students (42%) were not provided a mentor in their first year, although over half (55%) would have liked one. Difficulty asking questions of other students was also mentioned by one in ten (13%) students overall. This difficulty was reported more by:

    • Female students: 14% vs 10% for males
    • Older cohorts (50+ year olds): 18% vs 13% for 18-25 year olds
    • Students in the UK (17%), Australia (17%), and New Zealand (16%) compared to other regions.

    Employability Confidence

    Employability is another key area impacting student confidence and overall wellbeing as they look towards the future. The survey found that 59% of students are confident in securing a job within six months of graduation, an increase from 55% in 2024, though concerns remain higher in Canada and the UK. Overall, 74% agree their degree is developing necessary future job skills, although Canadian students were less confident here (68%). Specific concerns about the relevance of a job within six months were more pronounced among:

    • UK students: 20% disagree they will get a related job
    • Canadian students: 14% disagree

    Conclusion

    The YouGov-Studiosity survey provides valuable data highlighting the complex reality of student wellbeing in the current higher education landscape. Rapid AI adoption brings new sources of stress and impacts confidence in learning, adding to existing pressures from general study demands, financial concerns, belonging, connection, and employability anxieties. These challenges, and what supports students most effectively, vary significantly by country. Universities must respond to this complex picture by developing tailored support frameworks that guide students in navigating AI effectively, while also bolstering their sense of belonging, facilitating connections, addressing mental health needs, and supporting their confidence in future careers, in ways responsive to diverse national contexts.

    By country totals: Australia n= 1,234: Canada n= 1,042: New Zealand n= 528: Saudi Arabia n= 511: Singapore n= 1,027: United Arab Emirates n=554: United Kingdom n= 2,328: United States n= 3,000

    You can download further Global Student Wellbeing reports by country here.

    Studiosity is a HEPI Partner. Studiosity is AI-for-Learning, not corrections – to scale student success, empower educators, and improve retention with a proven 4.4x ROI, while ensuring integrity and reducing institutional risk.

    Source link

  • ICE apprehends parent during morning student drop-off hours

    ICE apprehends parent during morning student drop-off hours

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Immigration enforcement officers apprehended a parent during morning student drop-off hours in California’s Chula Vista Elementary School District on Wednesday — marking at least the third known time Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have arrested family members during school pick-up or drop-off time.
    • While the arrest was not on public school grounds, it took place near school property, outside of the district’s Enrique S. Camarena Elementary School. CVESD Superintendent Eduardo Reyes told families and staff in a community message after the incident that the district serves all students “regardless of citizenship or immigration status.” 
    • In addition, Reyes said the district has “strong protocols in place to prevent unauthorized access to our schools.” The superintendent said the protocols include limiting access for law enforcement, who aren’t allowed to interact with students “unless there is an immediate threat to school safety, such as an active emergency or a signed warrant by a judge.”  

    Dive Insight:

    “The district remains committed to reassuring families that CVESD remains a safe space for all students,” Giovanna Castro, communications director for the district, said in a statement after the ICE arrest, as reported by local Fox 5 News.

    Under a January policy change from the Trump administration, ICE can conduct raids on school grounds, among other sensitive locations, which were previously protected from immigration enforcement. Districts have said the new U.S. Department of Homeland Security policy is impacting student attendance and stoking anxieties among their immigrant families. 

    While DHS clarified to K-12 Dive in June that such immigration enforcement activity on school grounds would be “extremely rare,” there have been a handful of incidents on elementary school grounds and during school pick-up and drop-off hours in recent months. 

    The Aug. 6 incident outside of Camarena Elementary was related to a July 15, 2022, deportation order from a San Diego judge, according to ICE.

    “The arrest was part of ICE’s ongoing enforcement efforts and was resolved promptly, safely and not on the school grounds,” said Patrick Divver, field office director for ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations San Diego, in an emailed statement on Friday. 

    “The school was not involved in the incident, and there was no impact on students, staff or the school premises,” Divver said. “We remain steadfast in our commitment to ensuring the safety and security of our communities.”

    Chula Vista City Councilmember Michael Inzunza told a local news outlet, KPBS, that two children were in the car at the time of the arrest.

    Last month, a lawsuit challenging the administration’s ICE policy included an account of immigration enforcement apprehending a man dropping his granddaughter off at a church’s school in Downey, California, a predominantly Latino suburb of Los Angeles. 

    Earlier in May, ICE activity in Charlotte, North Carolina, disrupted a church’s preschool pickup time, according to a local report by WCNC.

    And in April, ICE agents attempted to enter two public elementary schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District, where school building administrators denied officers entry. That appeared to be one of the first confirmed attempts of immigration enforcement seeking to enter public schools since the change in federal policy.

    At the time, DHS said it was conducting “wellness checks on children who arrived unaccompanied at the border.”

    Source link

  • Stanford’s student newspaper sues President Trump

    Stanford’s student newspaper sues President Trump

    The Stanford Daily has filed a federal lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, marking a bold legal move from one of the country’s most prominent student newspapers. Editors at the Daily argue that Trump-era immigration policies targeting international students for political speech violated constitutional protections and created a climate of fear on campus.

    This legal action arrives during a moment of institutional turmoil at Stanford. Just days before the lawsuit was filed, university officials announced layoffs of more than 360 staff members, following $140 million in budget cuts. Administrators cited federal funding reductions and a steep endowment tax—legacies of Trump’s policies—as major factors behind the financial strain.

    Student journalists now find themselves confronting the same administration that reshaped higher education financing, gutted transparency, and targeted dissent. Their lawsuit challenges the chilling effect of visa threats against noncitizen students, particularly those who criticize U.S. or Israeli policy. Two international students joined the case anonymously, citing fear of deportation for expressing political views.

    Stanford holds one of the largest university endowments in the world, valued between $37 and $40 billion. Despite this immense wealth, hundreds of staff—including research support, technical workers, and student service roles—face termination. The disconnect between administrative austerity and executive influence speaks to a larger crisis in higher education governance.

    The Daily’s lawsuit cuts to the core of that crisis. Student reporters are asking not only for legal accountability, but also for transparency around how universities respond to political pressure—and who gets silenced in the process.

    HEI’s Commitment to Student-Led Accountability

    The Higher Education Inquirer is elevating this story as part of an ongoing effort to highlight courageous journalism from student-run newsrooms. Editorial boards like The Stanford Daily’s are producing investigative work that professional media often overlook. These journalists aren’t waiting for permission. They’re filing FOIA requests, confronting billion-dollar institutions, and—when necessary—taking their cases to court.

    HEI will continue amplifying these efforts. Student reporters are already reshaping the media conversation around academic freedom, labor justice, and the political economy of higher education. Their work deserves broader attention and support.

    Sources:

    Source link