Education
Why the Trump administration grounded these middle schoolers’ drones–and other STEM research
This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.
Give a girl a drone, and she might see her future as a scientist.
But if her teacher doesn’t have the training or resources to turn cool tech into lessons that stick, she’s likely to crash it, get frustrated, and move on.
Take Flight, a research project backed by $1.5 million from the U.S. National Science Foundation, aimed to solve that problem with a drone-focused curriculum for rural middle schools. The drones could fly in classrooms–no big outdoor space needed. The lessons were developed with teachers and easy for newbies to pick up. And the program placed a particular emphasis on girls, who often get frustrated by the handheld controller while their male classmates, who tend to have more video game experience, whiz by.
The lessons included real-world scenarios for using drones, like finding a lost child, that often appeal to young girls, and writing exercises to remind kids of what they’re good at before they try something hard.
At first, Laurie Prewandowski wrinkled her nose at Take Flight’s approach. It seemed “touchy feely” to the digital learning specialist who works in a rural New Hampshire middle school and is known as the “drone lady.” But then she saw kids enjoying the lessons and getting a STEM confidence boost.
“All those little things matter,” she said. “It’s really for any kid with a barrier.”
For decades, the federal government believed getting more students interested in science, math, and technology was a national security priority. But in April, the Trump administration cancelled funding for Take Flight and over 800 other STEM education projects funded by the National Science Foundation. The agency said it primarily terminated grants related to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as environmental justice and combatting disinformation.
It’s yet another way the Trump administration has sought to undermine efforts specifically meant to help women and girls and students of color. The administration has frequently claimed this work is, in fact, discriminatory, and has sought to withhold funding from schools that don’t comply with its civil rights vision, although that attempt is on hold for now.
Sixteen states sued to stop Trump’s NSF cuts, which represent a significant hit for STEM education research. NSF has long been a primary funder of this work, and one of the few institutions that helps researchers not only test new ideas in the classroom, but figure out what worked and why–which is key to replicating a successful program.
Researchers say these cancelled projects have broken trust, won’t be easy to revive, and left lots of data unanalyzed.
At the time Take Flight lost its National Science Foundation grant, its curriculum was being tested by 1,200 students and 30 rural middle school teachers across 10 states.
The research team had promising early data showing the program helped both boys and girls who weren’t interested in science or math before to envision working in a STEM field, said Amanda Bastoni, the lead researcher on the project.
That matters because rural students are less likely to go into STEM fields. They often attend under-funded schools and have less access to high-tech industries than their peers in urban schools. But now researchers won’t be able to follow up with kids to see if Take Flight altered their trajectory in high school.
“The government spent all this money but didn’t get the results,” said Bastoni, who is the director of career technical and adult education at the nonprofit CAST. Without funding, her team has to “turn in a final report that says: We have no idea if this really works or not.”
Why the government funds STEM education research
President Harry S. Truman signed the law that created the National Science Foundation in 1950, in part to recognize the key role scientific research played in World War II.
Congress has held that the agency’s support of STEM education and research are essential to the nation’s security, economy, and health. And, for decades, federal lawmakers have charged NSF with getting more people who are underrepresented in STEM into that pipeline to maintain a competitive workforce.
For example, a 1980 law calls for NSF to fund a “comprehensive and continuing program to increase substantially the contribution and advancement of women and minorities” in science and technology.
The law authorized NSF to create fellowships for women, minority recruitment programs, and K-12 programs to boost interest in STEM among girls.
The Trump administration’s approach runs counter to that. On April 18, the head of the NSF announced that any efforts by the agency to broaden participation in STEM “must aim to create opportunities for all Americans everywhere” and “should not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.”
Sixteen attorneys general, led by Letitia James of New York, are suing NSF to end that policy, arguing it does exactly the opposite of what Congress asked the agency to do. NSF has yet to file a response in court and a spokesperson for the agency declined to comment on the lawsuit.
It’s still unclear exactly how the Trump administration determined which grants to terminate.
In February, the Washington Post reported that NSF staff were told to comb through active research grants for keywords like “cultural relevance,” “diverse backgrounds” and “women” to see if they violated Trump’s executive orders. Some projects previously appeared on a list of “woke DEI grants at NSF” circulated by Sen. Ted Cruz, the Republican chair of the Senate science committee.
According to emails shared with Chalkbeat, Jamie French, a budget official with NSF, told researchers who lost their funding that their work no longer aligned with NSF priorities, but did not give more details. French told researchers the decision was final and they could not appeal.
In response to questions from Chalkbeat about why NSF cancelled Take Flight and other research projects, a spokesperson for NSF reiterated that rationale, and said the agency would still fund projects that “promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national defense.”
For Frances Harper, an assistant professor of mathematics education at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, the change was jarring.
She received a $700,000 grant from NSF in 2021 to work with 10 Black and Latina mothers with children in Knox County Schools. Together, they were studying how parents can advocate for improvements in their children’s math education and what teachers can learn from them.
Some of the Latina mothers in the study, for example, saw that English learners had a lot of anxiety about taking high-stakes tests, so they created a peer study group for them.
When Sethuraman Panchanathan, the NSF director selected during Trump’s first term who also served under President Joe Biden, visited her university in 2023, Harper said, “he asked me to convey to the mothers how much he valued families being involved in NSF projects.”
But after Harper’s research appeared on Cruz’s “woke” list, her university asked her to pause her work. She lost her funding the same day NSF announced changes to its priorities. And Panchanathan resigned a few days later.
NSF cuts felt from elementary school to college
Some researchers are applying for emergency funding from private foundations to salvage what they can. But much of their planned work will no longer be possible.
The Chicago Children’s Museum was working with Latino families from McAuliffe Elementary School in Chicago on a program known as Somos Ingenieros, or We Are Engineers, to get kids interested in engineering early on.
The team ran two after-school programs for around 20 families, but now won’t have funding to reach dozens more, or to reach the museum and wider school community.
Parents and children met after school for six weeks to learn about building with various materials, including everyday items like sticks, pine cones, and rocks. That helped kids see engineering in their daily lives and it invited immigrant parents who played with those materials as kids to share their own experiences.
Families also got to put their building skills to the test. One group chose to create puppets and had to figure out how to get the intricate pieces to move correctly. Another picked piñatas and had to strategize how to make them hold heavy candy and survive lots of whacks.
Already, the research team was seeing evidence that the program had boosted parents’ confidence to do engineering activities with their children, said Kim Koin, the director of art and tinkering studios at the Chicago Children’s Museum, who was also the lead researcher on the project.
For Ryan Belville, the principal of McAuliffe, the loss of the program means his students will have fewer opportunities to imagine a college or career pathway in STEM and the arts.
“It may be that moment that they made that puppet that makes them want to be an engineer or a scientist,” Belville said.
And for Karletta Chief, much of the harm is in the lost talent and broken trust caused by the abrupt NSF cancellation.
Chief, a professor of environmental science at the University of Arizona, was a lead researcher with the Native FEWS Alliance, which received $10 million from NSF to address food, energy, and water crises in Indigenous communities, and to develop pathways for Native Americans and other underrepresented students to pursue environmental careers.
The Alliance had built a vast network of research and mentorship opportunities over six years, Chief said. It was involved in dozens of projects across the U.S., from creating K-12 school curriculum to mentoring Native students as they transitioned from tribal colleges to four-year universities.
“Our partnerships are built on trust and long commitment,” Chief said. “These are relationships that we have built over years, and it was just really unfortunate that we had to say, ‘sorry!’”
Now Chief and others are scrambling to find funding to cover graduate student researchers’ outstanding tuition and health care bills.
She worries even if the cuts were somehow reversed, it would be difficult to put the project back together. Many of the students and staff they had to let go have already taken other jobs.
“There’s a lot of knowledge and expertise that will be lost,” she said. “We were stopped when we were going full force. … Now we just went to zero.”
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
For more news on STEM education and policy, visit eSN’s Educational Leadership hub.
Education
Blunkett urges ministers to use ‘incredible sensitivity’ in changing Send system in England | Special educational needs
Ministers must use “incredible sensitivity” in making changes to the special educational needs system, former education secretary David Blunkett has said, as the government is urged not to drop education, health and care plans (EHCPs).
Lord Blunkett, who went through the special needs system when attending a residential school for blind children, said ministers would have to tread carefully.
The former home secretary in Tony Blair’s government also urged the government to reassure parents that it was looking for “a meaningful replacement” for EHCPs, which guarantee more than 600,000 children and young people individual support in learning.
Blunkett said he sympathised with the challenge facing Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, saying: “It’s absolutely clear that the government will need to do this with incredible sensitivity and with a recognition it’s going to be a bumpy road.”
He said government proposals due in the autumn to reexamine Send provision in England were not the same as welfare changes, largely abandoned last week, which were aimed at reducing spending. “They put another billion in [to Send provision] and nobody noticed,” Blunkett said, adding: “We’ve got to reduce the fear of change.”
Earlier Helen Hayes, the Labour MP who chairs the cross-party Commons education select committee, called for Downing Street to commit to EHCPs, saying this was the only way to combat mistrust among many families with Send children.
“I think at this stage that would be the right thing to do,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “We have been looking, as the education select committee, at the Send system for the last several months. We have heard extensive evidence from parents, from organisations that represent parents, from professionals and from others who are deeply involved in the system, which is failing so many children and families at the moment.
“One of the consequences of that failure is that parents really have so little trust and confidence in the Send system at the moment. And the government should take that very seriously as it charts a way forward for reform.”
A letter to the Guardian on Monday, signed by dozens of special needs and disability charities and campaigners, warned against government changes to the Send system that would restrict or abolish EHCPs.
Labour MPs who spoke to the Guardian are worried ministers are unable to explain essential details of the special educational needs shake-up being considered in the schools white paper to be published in October.
Downing Street has refused to rule out ending EHCPs, while stressing that no decisions have yet been taken ahead of a white paper on Send provision to be published in October.
Keir Starmer’s deputy spokesperson said: “I’ll just go back to the broader point that the system is not working and is in desperate need of reform. That’s why we want to actively work with parents, families, parliamentarians to make sure we get this right.”
after newsletter promotion
Speaking later in the Commons, Phillipson said there was “no responsibility I take more seriously” than that to more vulnerable children. She said it was a “serious and complex area” that “we as a government are determined to get right”.
The education secretary said: “There will always be a legal right to the additional support children with Send need, and we will protect it. But alongside that, there will be a better system with strengthened support, improved access and more funding.”
Dr Will Shield, an educational psychologist from the University of Exeter, said rumoured proposals that limit EHCPs – potentially to pupils in special schools – were “deeply problematic”.
Shield said: “Mainstream schools frequently rely on EHCPs to access the funding and oversight needed to support children effectively. Without a clear, well-resourced alternative, families will fear their children are not able to access the support they need to achieve and thrive.”
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said: “Any reforms in this space will likely provoke strong reactions and it will be crucial that the government works closely with both parents and schools every step of the way.”
Education
The Guardian view on special needs reform: children’s needs must be the priority as the system is redesigned | Editorial
Children with special educational needs and disabilities (Send) must be supported through the education system to fulfil their potential as fully as possible. This is the bottom line for the families of the 1.6 million children with a recognised additional learning need in England, and all those who support them. It needs to be the government’s priority too.
There is no question that the rising number of children receiving extra help has placed pressure on schools and councils. There is wide agreement that the current trajectory is not sustainable. But if plans for reform are shaped around the aim of saving money by removing entitlements, rather than meeting the needs of children by improving schools, they should be expected to fail.
If ministers did not already know this, the Save Our Children’s Rights campaign launched this week ought to help. As it stands, there is no policy of restricting access to the education, health and care plans (EHCPs) that impose a legal duty on councils to provide specified support. But ministers’ criticisms of the adversarial aspects of the current system have led families to conclude that they should prepare for an attempt to remove their enforceable rights. Christine Lenehan, who advises the government, has indicated that the scope of EHCPs could be narrowed, while stressing a commitment to consultation. Tom Rees, who chairs the department for education’s specialist group, bluntly terms it “a bad system”.
Mr Rees’s panel has had its term extended until April. The education select committee will present the conclusions of its inquiry into the Send crisis in the autumn. Both should be listened to carefully. But the education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, and her team also need to show that they are capable of engaging beyond the circle of appointed experts and parliamentarians. Parents can make their views known through constituency MPs. Their voices and perspectives need to be heard in Whitehall too.
This is a hugely sensitive policy area. There is nothing parents care more about than the opportunities provided to their children, and this concern is intensified when those children have additional needs. Some positive steps have been taken during Labour’s first year. Increased capital spending on school buildings should make a difference to in-house provision, which relies on the availability of suitable spaces. Ministers are right, too, to focus on teacher training, while inclusion has been given greater prominence in the inspection framework. As with the NHS, there is a welcome emphasis on spreading best practice.
But big questions remain. Families are fearful that accountability mechanisms are going to be removed, and want to know how the new “inclusive mainstream” will be defined and judged. Councils are concerned about what happens to their £5bn in special needs budget deficits, when the so-called statutory override expires in 2028. The concerning role of private equity in special education – which mirrors changes in the children’s social care market – also needs addressing.
Schools need to adapt so that a greater range of pupils can be accommodated. The issue is how the government manages that process. The hope must be that the lesson ministers take from their failure on welfare is that consultation on highly sensitive changes, affecting millions of lives, must be thorough. In order to make change, they must build consensus.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
Education
How AI is Transforming Education in Africa
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping industries across the globe, and education in Africa is no exception. From personalized learning platforms to AI-driven teacher training, the continent is witnessing a surge in innovative solutions tackling longstanding challenges. In this Q&A Insights piece, we dive into how AI is revolutionizing education, addressing questions from our iAfrica community about its impact, opportunities, and hurdles.
What are the biggest challenges in African education that AI can address?
Africa’s education sector faces issues like limited access to quality resources, teacher shortages, and diverse linguistic needs. AI can bridge these gaps in practical ways. For instance, AI-powered platforms like Eneza Education provide mobile-based learning in local languages, reaching students in remote areas with affordable, interactive content. Adaptive learning systems analyze student performance to tailor lessons, ensuring kids in overcrowded classrooms get personalized attention. AI also supports teacher training through virtual simulations, helping educators refine skills without costly in-person workshops.
“AI can democratize education by making high-quality resources accessible to students in rural areas.” – Dr. Aisha Mwinyi, EdTech Researcher
How is AI being used to improve access to education?
Access is a critical issue, with millions of African children out of school due to distance, poverty, or conflict. AI is stepping in with scalable solutions. Chatbots and virtual tutors, like those developed by Ustad Mobile, deliver bite-sized lessons via SMS or WhatsApp, working on basic phones for low-income communities. In Nigeria, uLesson uses AI to stream offline-capable video lessons, bypassing unreliable internet. These tools ensure learning continues in areas with limited infrastructure, from refugee camps to rural villages.
Can AI help with language barriers in education?
Absolutely. Africa’s linguistic diversity—over 2,000 languages—creates unique challenges. AI-driven translation tools, such as those integrated into Kolibri by Learning Equality, adapt content into local languages like Swahili, Yoruba, or Amharic. Speech-to-text and text-to-speech systems also help non-literate learners engage with digital materials. These innovations make education inclusive, especially for marginalized groups who speak minority languages.
What are some standout African AI education startups?
The continent is buzzing with homegrown talent. M-Shule in Kenya uses AI to deliver personalized SMS-based learning, focusing on primary school students. Chalkboard Education, operating in Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire, offers offline e-learning platforms for universities, using AI to track progress. South Africa’s Siyavula combines AI with open-source textbooks to provide math and science practice, serving millions of learners. These startups show Africa isn’t just adopting AI—it’s innovating with it.
What concerns exist about AI in education?
While the potential is huge, concerns linger. Data privacy is a big one—students’ personal information must be protected, especially in regions with weak regulations. There’s also the risk of over-reliance on tech, which could sideline human teachers. Affordability is another hurdle; AI solutions must be low-cost to scale. Experts emphasize the need for ethical AI frameworks, like those being developed by AI4D Africa, to ensure tools are culturally relevant and equitable.
“We must balance AI’s efficiency with the human touch that makes education transformative.” – Prof. Kwame Osei, Education Policy Expert
How can policymakers support AI in education?
Policymakers play a pivotal role. Investing in digital infrastructure—think affordable internet and device subsidies—is crucial. Governments should also fund local AI research, as seen in Rwanda’s Digital Skills Program, which trains youth to build EdTech solutions. Public-private partnerships can scale pilots, while clear regulations on data use build trust. Our community suggests tax incentives for EdTech startups to spur innovation.
What’s next for AI in African education?
The future is bright but demands action. AI could power virtual reality classrooms, making immersive learning accessible in underfunded schools. Predictive analytics might identify at-risk students early, reducing dropout rates. But scaling these requires collaboration—between governments, startups, and communities. As iAfrica’s Q&A Forum shows, Africans are eager to shape this future, asking sharp questions and sharing bold ideas.
Got more questions about AI in education? Drop them in our Q&A Forum and join the conversation shaping Africa’s tech-driven future.
Got more questions about AI in education? Drop them in an email to ai@africa.com and join the conversation shaping Africa’s tech-driven future.
-
Funding & Business7 days ago
Kayak and Expedia race to build AI travel agents that turn social posts into itineraries
-
Jobs & Careers7 days ago
Mumbai-based Perplexity Alternative Has 60k+ Users Without Funding
-
Mergers & Acquisitions7 days ago
Donald Trump suggests US government review subsidies to Elon Musk’s companies
-
Funding & Business6 days ago
Rethinking Venture Capital’s Talent Pipeline
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Why Agentic AI Isn’t Pure Hype (And What Skeptics Aren’t Seeing Yet)
-
Funding & Business4 days ago
Sakana AI’s TreeQuest: Deploy multi-model teams that outperform individual LLMs by 30%
-
Jobs & Careers6 days ago
Astrophel Aerospace Raises ₹6.84 Crore to Build Reusable Launch Vehicle
-
Funding & Business7 days ago
From chatbots to collaborators: How AI agents are reshaping enterprise work
-
Jobs & Careers4 days ago
Ilya Sutskever Takes Over as CEO of Safe Superintelligence After Daniel Gross’s Exit
-
Tools & Platforms6 days ago
Winning with AI – A Playbook for Pest Control Business Leaders to Drive Growth