Listen to the article
4 min

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

Dive Brief:

• Trinity Christian College plans to close after the 2025-2026 academic year amid mounting financial issues, the private liberal arts institution said Tuesday. 
• “The board has worked faithfully and tirelessly to consider every possible option in the face of significant and rapidly evolving financial challenges,” Acting President Jeanine Mozie said in a video message. 
• In explaining why it was closing, Trinity, based near Chicago, cited persistent deficits, falling enrollment, shifts in charitable giving and financial challenges since the pandemic.

Dive Insight:

Trinity said it worked with advisers on possible solutions to its financial struggles, including “significant programmatic changes” and strategic partnerships with other institutions. 

“However, there is no sustainable path forward for our beloved institution,” Mozie said in the video message, in which she appeared with board chair Ken Dryfhout. 

Between fiscal years 2020 and 2024, the college’s total assets fell by nearly 14% to $72.3 million. Much of that decline came in its cash holdings, which fell by nearly $8 million during that period, to $5 million. Trinity also reported operating deficits every year during that time. 

In June, Trinity reported that it could fail to meet bond requirements for cash on hand and a metric measuring its ability to pay its debt obligations. The college said at the time that it was soliciting donors to help it meet the covenants. 

Many of Trinity’s financial woes stem from its shrinking student body and the pressures on small liberal arts institutions. Already small, the college’s fall enrollment dropped to 883 students in fall 2023, a nearly 22% decline from five years prior, according to the latest federal data. 

Enrollment declines hurt Trinity’s revenue. In fiscal 2024, net tuition and fee revenue stood at $12.1 million, roughly 14% less than 2020 levels. 

The revenue drop also came after a period of steep inflation in higher education and the broader economy. At Trinity, total expenses rose at nearly the same rate as revenue declined between fiscal 2020 and fiscal 2024, reaching $32.9 million.

Mozie was appointed acting president, replacing Aaron Kuecker, just two months before she announced the college’s closure. Prior to that, she was Trinity’s chief operating officer. 

Founded with a nondenominational Christian mission, Trinity elected its first board of trustees in 1959. It soon opened a two-year college with just five faculty members and roughly three dozen students on a former golf course, using a renovated clubhouse and pro shop. By 1971, the institution was issuing four-year degrees, and it added graduate programs in 2012.

Trinity plans to hold its last commencement next year for the class of 2026. It is allowing students to take above the max course load per semester to graduate as many as possible, with the rest offered teach-out and transfer options. 

The college has teach-out agreements in place for most undergraduate programs with regional neighbors Saint Xavier, Calvin and Olivet Nazarene universities. It is working on agreements for many of its remaining programs. 

Trinity said it plans to sell its property after closing to repay its debt. As of fiscal 2024, Trinity owned property and equipment valued at $44.2 million and owed $14.8 million in bonds.

In a world where AI can recite every date in history or solve any equation, typically human skills, like creativity, empathy, and ethical thinking, suddenly become the most valuable. It’s like returning to the roots of education, but with advanced technology as support.

With the rapid development of artificial intelligence, the worlds of education, work, and everyday life are changing in ways that seemed like science fiction just a decade ago. AI tools write essays, compose music, generate code, and even help diagnose diseases. In this increasingly automated world, it might seem that the human role is diminishing. But paradoxically, the more technology we use, the more we value everything that defines us as human.

Future-Proof Skills: Soft and (Ir)replaceable

Not so long ago, it was hard skills, like programming languages, data analysis, that practically guaranteed success. Today, as algorithms take over many technical tasks, much greater importance is being placed on skills that AI engines still lack:

• creative thinking,
• collaboration,
• emotional intelligence,
• and ethical awareness of the surrounding technological reality.

Why are soft skills irreplaceable? Because even the best algorithm cannot truly understand cultural context, emotions, or moral dilemmas. AI may offer suggestions, but only humans can judge what’s right, fair, and responsible. Take collaboration: it’s not just about dividing tasks, but about listening, managing conflict, and building trust… Processes that AI tools can support through shared lesson creation and peer feedback, but that only people truly bring to life. Emotional intelligence, likewise, goes beyond recognizing emotions – it enables learners to navigate relationships, reflect, and grow. Simulations built into AI applications can help, but real empathy comes from real interaction. And finally, ethical awareness is crucial in an AI-shaped world. Students must learn not only how to use tools like EdTool, but how to question their assumptions, spot potential biases, and reflect on their broader social impact. Together, these skills form the human core that no machine can replicate — and that future-ready education must place at its center.

Education Reimagined: Back to the Roots

Technology is often seen as a threat to the traditional model of education, replacing teachers, homogenizing teaching, and automating thinking. But the real challenge is not whether AI will take over certain educational tasks, but how to use it to return to the core purpose of education: developing the full potential of each learner.

In the past, schools were places where reasoning, values, reflection, and dialogue were taught. Over time, with the growing demands of the labor market and the need for objective progress assessment, greater emphasis was placed on measurable outcomes, standardization, and encyclopedic knowledge. Today, when machines can master facts and patterns faster than any of us, education has a chance to return to teaching that focuses on developing empathetic, creative, and conscious individuals, not just competent performers.

AI as a Partner, Not an Enemy

The goal isn’t to abandon technology. Quite the opposite! AI becomes a natural assistant for teachers and students, enriching the learning process in ways that were previously impossible. In many schools, teachers already use algorithms to personalize instruction, from apps that analyze student progress to chatbots that explain math concepts.

One example is EdTool, an AI-powered authoring and delivery platform designed to help educators create and share engaging content with minimal effort. Its intuitive drag-and-drop interface allows for instant creation of mobile-ready interactive lessons and tests (no coding skills required). What’s more, EdTool’s AI assistant can automatically generate structured and coherent lesson content from just a prompt or topic idea, helping educators save time while maintaining high-quality teaching materials. Educators also gain access to a vast, searchable library of over 50,000 interactive resources, aligned with a wide range of textbooks and curricula. This makes it a powerful tool not only for schools and universities but also for publishers and education ministries looking to scale quality content delivery.

With built-in real-time delivery and student progress monitoring, EdTool helps teachers respond quickly to learners’ needs. The platform’s multilingual interface and instant translation capabilities make it ideal for both global deployment and local adaptation, whether you’re teaching in Berlin, Bogotá, or Bangkok.

Importantly, by taking over repetitive or administrative work, platforms like EdTool give teachers more time to do what only humans can: lead meaningful discussions, build relationships, and mentor students on their educational journey.

Critical Thinking as the New Literacy

In the age of AI, information is no longer the problem, we have too much of it. The real challenge is the ability to filter, interpret, and evaluate information. That’s why critical thinking becomes one of the most vital skills: the ability to question sources, understand intent, and recognize manipulation and cognitive biases.

AI can be incredibly useful in data analysis, processing huge volumes of information, and identifying patterns that might escape human notice. But it is the human who must give meaning to that data, understand what it signifies in a specific context, and how to use it responsibly. Algorithms may show correlations, but interpreting their significance, especially in complex cultural, moral, or psychological contexts, remains the domain of human experience. What sets us apart is precisely the invaluable capacity for holistic thinking that considers not only data but also subtle social and ethical nuances.

Paralysis or Breakthrough?

This is the moment when the human role becomes more critical than ever. Teachers are no longer just transmitters of facts but have ecome inspirers of thought, mentors guiding the development of wisdom and character, and guardians of a critical approach to information. Students are no longer passive recipients of knowledge but active co-creators of education, question-askers, and conscious users of technology, shaping their skills for the future world of work. The great transformation we are experiencing requires the courage to redefine our roles and expectations. AI forces us to deeply reflect on what kind of people we want to be and what role we want to play in shaping the society of tomorrow. This can be a moment of uncertainty and paralysis or a breakthrough, if we find the courage to treat technology not as a threat to our identity, but as a catalyst for deepening the human dimension of education and work. After all, it is in the face of a technological revolution that what is most valuable in humans emerges – the ability to create meaning and make conscious, ethical decisions.

Conclusion: Human at the Center of the Digital World

The AI paradox lies in the fact that the more tasks machines take over, the more we begin to appreciate what only humans can do. Creativity, empathy, the ability to ask questions, and moral reasoning are skills that cannot be copied or automated. In a world full of algorithms, humanity itself becomes the ultimate competitive advantage. And perhaps – paradoxically – it is precisely the development of AI that will remind us that the goal of education is not to produce perfect executors, but wise, responsible human beings.

Ready to see how AI can support, not replace, the human side of teaching?

Discover EdTool, the AI-powered platform built for educators, and explore our Partner Program to bring it to your school, district, or region.

Listen to the article
6 min

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

In today’s higher education environment, colleges often must be part of a bigger enterprise to either survive or grow.  This calls for greater and more radical major institutional restructuring, such as mergers, acquisitions or even closures. 

Much rests on the college leaders who — willingly or not — undertake these initiatives. 

In a recent book I coauthored with other higher education experts, we interviewed some 50 or so leaders who had undertaken, successfully or not, major institutional restructuring. Most of those leaders, as well as others with whom my colleagues and I work, voice concerns about being able to lead in higher education again. 

Would anybody hire them after the initiative had succeeded or, worse, had failed? The answer to that question depends on the narrative that builds around the leader and the restructuring they undertook. 

Major changes at a college or university are always met with resistance. Whether the merger was successful or not —and that will take years to determine — many campus stakeholders will be angry and happy to turn to the media, often accusing leaders of selling out the college, not caring about its history or being poor negotiators.  Those comments will in turn color the perspective of any subsequent hiring committee, particularly scaring off its faculty members.

In speaking with college leaders and observing recent news, I have been struck by the ability of some of them to present a positive narrative of their experiences in leading major restructuring. For example, Joseph Chillo, who led the 2019 closure of Newbury College, and Marcheta Evans, who helped lead the merger of Bloomfield College with Montclair State University, have both been able to highlight the necessity of these difficult decisions in a thoughtful, humble and compassionate manner. 

However, it was also obvious that many leaders are less able to craft a positive narrative of the restructuring and their involvement. These examples summarize the various perspectives I’ve observed as leaders share their experiences: 

The victim: “I was pushed to do this despite the great risk to my career.”

The knowing but ignored leader: “I was pushed to do this despite the great risk to my career and the fact that I told them it was a bad idea.”

The resistance fighter: “I was pushed to do this, and I told them it was a bad idea, so I resisted in as many ways as I could, despite the great risk to my career.”

The good soldier: “Regardless of my views on the initiative, I diligently followed orders and undertook the initiative.”

The unwilling hero: “I was tasked with the initiative and undertook it diligently, despite the great risk to my career.”

The distant leader: “I was part of the initiative but was somewhat removed from or had a limited role in what was happening.” 

The (overly) enthusiastic leader: “I took on the initiative, as I saw only positives to its undertaking.”  

The servant leader: “I was part of the initiative, understood its importance and risks and undertook it, as was my responsibility.”

The growing leader: “I was part of the initiative, understood its importance and risks, and undertook it, as was my responsibility, and have learned much about what we did right and, more importantly, what we did wrong.”

In fact, leaders involved in restructuring should only embrace the last two narratives — and perhaps only the last one. Those perspectives present their role with a degree of humility, recognizing that they must assume the responsibility for making difficult decisions for their students and community but also acknowledging that they have continued to learn from the experience. 

Leaders are indelibly tied to any major restructuring they’ve overseen — these initiatives become part of their professional and life stories. A narrative will be crafted around an initiative that impacts heritage, history, community and the future as much as a major college restructuring does. Leaders can choose to actively and diligently manage that narrative — or others will craft it for them. 

How can college leaders build a positive narrative when undertaking major restructuring? Here is a six-step plan:

Be prepared: Have a clear narrative about the initiative and your role in it. Make it short, to the point and practiced. 

Be consistent: Ensure you present your narrative consistently, regardless of the audience.

Be positive: While some initiatives will succeed and others will fail, it is important to remain positive about why you needed to explore the initiative, as well as the continuing need for proactive and future-oriented action in today’s higher ed environment — for the sake of our students and our internal and external communities. 

Be humble: Be clear that you have learned much when undertaking the initiative and that you believe successful leadership is about continued growth and addressing any mistakes responsibly.

Cairo, Egypt: EdVentures, the corporate venture capital arm of Nahdet Misr Group and the region’s leading EdTech focused CVC, has announced a strategic investment in LRNOVA, a cutting-edge startup harnessing the power of artificial intelligence to transform how educational content is created.

This investment was made through the EdTech Venture Studio (EDVS) program, launched by EdVentures in partnership with the Challenge Fund for Youth Employment (CFYE). The program is designed to foster digital innovation, empower youth, and generate new employment opportunities within Egypt’s growing EdTech ecosystem.

LRNOVA’s platform enables organizations and individuals to transform traditional curricula and training materials into high-quality, interactive digital content—at a fraction of the usual time and cost by leveraging AI. The solution also supports the creation of complete training courses, offers a wide range of culturally tailored avatars, and is available in multiple languages, including Arabic. With its AI-powered virtual tutor, LRNOVA delivers personalized learning experiences adapted to each user’s needs.

The investment reflects EdVentures’ evolving strategy of backing AI-driven innovations that enhance both the quality and accessibility of education. This builds on the company’s long-standing mission of supporting pioneering Edtech solutions and reinforces its commitment to empowering startups driving digital transformation in the sector.

Dalia Ibrahim, Founder and CEO of EdVentures, commented: “We strongly believe in the transformative potential of AI in education. Our investment in LRNOVA is not simply financial support; it represents a clear step in our new strategic direction. We are excited about the platform’s ability to dramatically reduce the time and cost of producing high-quality educational content, enabling institutions and individuals to design more modern, engaging, and interactive learning experiences.”

Mohamed Amer, Founder and CEO of LRNOVA, added: “This investment from EdVentures is a major milestone for us. Beyond funding, it brings valuable strategic expertise and partnerships that will accelerate our regional expansion. With this support, we can pursue our vision of making content creation more accessible, diverse, and impactful across the Arab world.”

As part of its growth plan, LRNOVA is prioritizing the Saudi market, with further expansion into the Gulf on the horizon. Its business model combines subscriptions with enterprise packages designed for universities, schools, and corporate training departments.

About EdVentures: Established in 2017, EdVentures is the investment arm of Nahdet Misr Group and the leading EdTech specialized corporate venture capital firm in the MENA region. The company supports startups and young entrepreneurs operating in the education and EdTech sectors through its incubation, acceleration, and investment programs. Since its launch, EdVentures has supported over 95 startups and invested in 28 of them.

About LRNOVA: LRNOVA is an AI-powered platform that enables rapid, cost-efficient creation of interactive educational and training content. Its solutions include course digitization, avatar-based videos, and virtual tutoring in multiple languages, including Arabic.

About the Challenge Fund for Youth Employment (CFYE): Funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, CFYE supports inclusive and sustainable youth employment, with a focus on empowering women across MENA and beyond.

About the EdTech Venture Studio (EDVS): A joint initiative by EdVentures and CFYE, EDVS aims to transform the Edtech sector by promoting digital innovation, youth empowerment, and job creation across the region.

Listen to the article
2 min

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

The Class of 2025 faced a particularly tough job market, searching for jobs earlier, submitting more applications — averaging 10 applications to the Class of 2024’s six — and receiving fewer offers on average, a National Association of Colleges and Employers study said in a recent report, in partnership with Indeed.

Graduates were more likely to accept those offers, however, even amid uncertainty; 86.7% of those offered a job had accepted in 2025, compared to 81.2% of 2024 graduates.

“Compared to earlier classes, they were more likely to say they were unsure about their plans, and more were planning to enter the military, suggesting they were unsure about private-sector employment,” NACE said in an Oct. 30 announcement regarding the report.

Young workers have been particularly exposed to the changes brought by artificial intelligence tools, some research has indicated. A report from Stanford University noted that early-career workers in AI-exposed fields have seen a 13% relative decline in employment. Those fields included software engineering and customer service, among others.

Notably, less than a third of students surveyed by NACE said they used AI in their job search, and in a separate survey conducted by the organization, fewer than 22% of employers said they used it in their recruiting efforts.

Skills-based hiring also appears to still be largely unknown to graduates, NACE said; fewer than 40% of those surveyed said they were familiar with the term, though a little less than half said they were asked to perform a skills assessment as part of their job application.

Companies previously told Hirevue and Aptitude Research they don’t feel effective at skill validation, still relying largely on resumes and self-reported skills for assessments. The majority of graduates surveyed did participate in what NACE called experiential learning, however, including internships, indicating a cohort that may be interested in learning skills on the job.

Universities everywhere face a dual challenge: delivering engaging, high-quality learning while keeping budgets under control. Faculty workloads, technology investments, and rising student expectations make this balance harder every year.

Mexty, an AI-powered, no-code course authoring platform, gives higher-education institutions a practical way to meet these pressures. By dramatically reducing the time and expense of course development—and by enabling new program models—Mexty turns instructional design into a strategic advantage.

Slash Course Development Costs

Building a single online course traditionally takes 100+ hours of work across faculty, instructional designers, media specialists, and IT teams. Budgets of $8,000–$15,000 per course are common.

How Mexty changes the equation

• AI-assisted content generation produces a structured, interactive course draft from a simple outline. You can incorporate your own or legacy materials, follow an official program, or prototype a new course without heavy upfront investment.
• Built-in design templates remove most third-party costs and include free access to Mexty’s own LMS.
• No coding is required to build interactive lessons or release new apps, freeing IT staff for higher-priority projects.

A university producing 50 new courses annually can cut development time by 60–70%, saving an estimated $250K–$400K each year.

Extend the Life of Existing Content

Many institutions rebuild courses every few years just to stay current—an expensive cycle.

With Mexty:

• Faculty can update individual sections or activities in minutes.
• Fresh case studies, quizzes, and examples drop in without reworking the entire course.
• Updates flow automatically to SCORM packages and any LMS.

This quick-refresh model keeps content academically relevant while avoiding thousands in redevelopment costs.

Create New Revenue Streams with Short Courses & Micro-Credentials

Professional learners and industry partners are seeking concise, skills-based learning experiences.

Mexty makes it easy to:

• Produce 2–10-hour micro-courses or certificate bundles quickly.
• Offer multilingual versions to reach global audiences.
• Integrate seamlessly with e-commerce tools and LMS platforms.

For example, a 6-hour “Sustainable Business Practices” micro-course priced at €120 and enrolling 500 learners annually generates about $60,000. Ten such courses could exceed $500K in new revenue with minimal additional staff.

Optimize Faculty Time

Faculty time is both limited and valuable. Mexty’s AI tools let instructors:

• Draft lessons, activities, and assessments in minutes.
• Update or localize existing courses quickly.
• Collaborate in real time with instructional designers and administrators, cutting down endless email chains.

Even a modest five hours saved per month equals 12,000 faculty hours a year across 200 instructors—time that can be redirected to research, student mentoring, or new program creation.

Why It Matters

Mexty is more than a content-creation tool—it’s a strategic enabler for higher education:

• Financial impact: lower development costs and extended content life.
• Academic quality: faster updates keep courses fresh and engaging.
• Growth opportunities: rapid launch of micro-credentials and international programs.
• Faculty empowerment: more time for high-value teaching and research.

As universities rethink their digital strategies, AI-first authoring platforms like Mexty provide a clear path to do more with less—while opening entirely new avenues for revenue and impact.

Ready to see how AI-powered authoring can transform your programs? Explore Mexty and start creating for free at Mexty.ai.

Dive Brief:

• The average tuition and fees paid by students and their families after aid rose slightly for the 2025-26 academic year but remain well below historic peaks, according to the latest higher education pricing study from the College Board. 
• At public four-year colleges, net tuition and fees for first-time, full-time students increased just 1.3% to $2,300 from last year, when adjusted for inflation, according to the College Board’s estimates. That figure is down 48.3% from the peak in 2012-2013. 
• At private nonprofits, net tuition and fees for first-time, full-time students rose 3.7% annually to $16,910 in the 2025-26 year, when adjusted for inflation. By comparison, that’s down 14.6% from the peak for private colleges in 2006-07.

Dive Insight:

Despite widespread debate over the cost of college, in real terms those costs have largely decreased for students over the past two decades. Grants from both public and institutional sources can defray those costs and often significantly reduce college sticker prices. 

In 2024-25, grant aid rose an inflation-adjusted 5.4% to $173.7 billion, according to the College Board. Much of that increase comes from a 19% spike in Pell Grant aid, which went to nearly 1 million more students during the 2024-25 year. Enrollment in the program rebounded and eligibility expanded under the FAFSA Simplification Act. 

Last year’s 7.3 million Pell recipients still fell well below the program’s height of 9.3 million in 2010-11. Total government spending on Pell, at $38.6 billion in 2024-25, was down about one-fourth from its peak in 2010-11 after inflation. 

Institutional aid plays a significant role in reducing sticker prices as well, and increasingly so as colleges wrestle with enrollment pressures and competition. Grant aid from colleges made up 33% of the $205.2 billion in total student aid, which includes federal loans, for undergraduates in 2024-25. That’s compared to 23% a decade earlier, according to the College Board study. 

That has reduced the burden for students. Average student debt for bachelor’s degree recipients in 2023-24 was $29,560, about $6,000 less than it was 10 years prior, according to the report.

While sticker prices have been rising, adjusting for inflation tempers the price growth. Before inflation, tuition and fees for residents rose 2.9% at four-year public colleges in 2025-26, while sticker prices rose 4% at private nonprofits. After factoring in inflation, those sticker price increases were 1% and 1.4%, respectively. 

Still, the public often focuses on sticker price, and tuition discounting often muddies the college cost picture. Although tuition discounting often helps colleges recruit students, some experts say high sticker prices can scare off those not attuned to the complexities of college pricing and can distort the public conversation around cost. 

The College Board also found that college enrollment has rebounded from a pandemic-era dip. Fall enrollment hit 18.9 million students in 2023, up from 18.5 million in 2022 and 18.6 million in 2021. However, that figure is down 9.6% from peak enrollment in 2011. 

Enrollment pressures are likely to increase amid projected declines in high school graduates in the coming years.

Modern AI-powered writing assistants like Grammarly, Quillbot, and ChatGPT promise to fix your grammar instantly and make your English writing better. But do these tools actually help students learn English, or are they just digital crutches?

Let’s take a sober look at both sides of the story.

What AI Writing Assistants Do Well

1. Catching Obvious Mistakes

Missing articles, wrong verb tenses, or spelling errors—AI is great at spotting these. A student who writes “She go to market yesterday” will get an instant suggestion: “She went to the market yesterday.” That’s feedback in real time, faster than a teacher can mark homework.

2. Boosting Confidence

Students often feel embarrassed about their writing. With AI, they can test ideas privately before sharing with others. It’s like whispering your English to a friendly robot before speaking to the class.

3. Expanding Vocabulary

Some tools suggest alternative words or phrases. If you keep writing “good,” the assistant may nudge you towards “excellent,” “outstanding,” or “effective.” For learners stuck in the land of “nice” and “very,” this can be refreshing.

4. Saving Teachers’ Time

Let’s be honest: correcting piles of essays is exhausting. With AI handling the basic grammar issues, teachers can focus on deeper aspects—like argument structure, creativity, and critical thinking.

The Pitfalls Nobody Talks About Enough

1. Passive Learning

If a tool fixes every mistake for you, are you really learning? Students often just click “accept” without understanding why the correction is made. Imagine trying to learn to cook by watching someone else stir the soup, but never holding the spoon yourself.

2. Over-Polishing

AI tends to make student writing sound… well, a bit robotic. Everyone starts producing the same “perfect” sentences, stripped of personality. The joy of language is in its quirks and creativity, and AI doesn’t always respect that.

3. False Confidence

AI sometimes gives wrong suggestions—very confidently. I’ve seen tools insist on changing perfectly correct sentences into nonsense. A student who blindly trusts the machine may end up less accurate than before.

4. Dependence

Here’s the danger: once you rely on AI for every sentence, writing without it feels impossible. Just like calculators made some students forget their multiplication tables, AI might make you forget how to write a simple paragraph on your own.

How to Use AI Wisely in English Learning

So, should we embrace AI or run away from it? At the language tutoring company BestKru English, where I teach, we choose neither. We use it — but wisely. Here are some simple guidelines on AI we give to our teachers and students:

1. Use It as a Mirror, Not a Crutch

Treat AI feedback like looking in a mirror: it shows you what’s wrong, but you still have to fix your hair yourself. When AI corrects your grammar, don’t just accept it—write down why the change was made. This builds awareness.

2. Set Boundaries

Don’t let AI rewrite your entire essay. Use it for grammar checks, not for generating full paragraphs. If you let it do all the heavy lifting, your muscles (a.k.a. your writing skills) won’t grow.

3. Compare Versions

After AI makes suggestions, compare them with your original. Ask yourself: Which one do I like more? Which one sounds more like me? This keeps your voice alive.

4. Teachers Should Guide, Not Ban

Some teachers panic and ban AI altogether. I think that’s like banning calculators in a math class—unrealistic. Instead, teach students how to use AI critically. For example:

• First, write an essay without AI.
• Then, run it through AI and analyse the differences.
• Finally, reflect: What did I learn?

This process turns AI into a learning partner, not a lazy shortcut.

5. Focus on Output Beyond Writing

Remember: writing is not the final goal. Communication is. Students should still read books, join discussions, and speak in real contexts. No AI can replace that.

Final Thoughts

So, do AI-powered writing assistants really help students learn English?

• Yes, if they are used as guides, mirrors, and practice partners.
• No, if they are used as shortcuts, ghostwriters, or unquestioned authorities.

The choice is in our hands. Let’s not fear the machine, and let’s not worship it either. Instead, let’s teach students—and ourselves—how to stay human while using the smartest tools we’ve ever built.

And remember: your English doesn’t need to be perfect to be powerful. Even Shakespeare broke grammar rules. I doubt any AI would have let him get away with “To be or not to be” without suggesting a smoother sentence. But luckily, he didn’t listen.

Listen to the article
6 min

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

As the longest federal government shutdown in U.S. history drags on, student advocates are urging colleges to step up and support those affected by a loss of food benefits.

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the government’s largest anti-hunger program, supports about 1 in 8 Americans in an average month. And its funding has never before lapsed during a government shutdown.

However, the Trump administration refused to use emergency funds to sustain SNAP this time, with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in October claiming that “the well has run dry.”

Last week, two federal judges ordered the federal government to fund SNAP, at least in part, via emergency reserves during the shutdown. Then on Thursday, one of those judges issued another ruling requiring the administration to fully fund the program by Friday.

But when SNAP recipients will actually receive their benefits is unclear.

The Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, a resource and policy center at Temple University, estimated that 1.1 million college students are affected by the lapse in SNAP, citing 2024 data from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Colleges seeking to support affected students should expand their services and regularly communicate updates to their campuses, according to a toolkit published by the center.

Where colleges can make a difference

The Hope Center warned that the recent court rulings ordering the Trump administration to keep SNAP running with contingency funds will not immediately solve the hunger crisis for recipients, who receive their benefits once a month. 

“It may take weeks for November benefits to arrive in SNAP recipients’ accounts,” the center’s toolkit said.

The document, which the center is regularly updating, outlines some programmatic changes colleges can undertake to help mitigate the “damaging effects on student basic needs security during this delay and period of uncertainty.”

Colleges that have campus food pantries should extend those services’ hours and work to increase the food available, the center said. They should also host donation drives on campus and expand support for emergency aid programs.

To aid these efforts, the center recommended tapping into alumni networks and advancement campaigns.

Institutions can offer direct financial assistance to students, such as through grocery gift cards. And campus dining services can provide discounted or free meals for SNAP recipients, the toolkit said. They can also establish or expand programs that allow students to donate unused meal plan dollars.

At the administrative level, bursars can offer relief by pausing collections on institutional debts or offering waivers to affected students, The Hope Center said. 

College leaders can also partner with local businesses, asking that the establishments provide discounts or free meals to affected students and their children, the center said.

While the Trump administration has continued to fund WIC — a federal hunger program specifically for children under age five and women who are pregnant, breastfeeding and recently postpartum — college fathers and students parenting older children are not eligible. 

However, it may be difficult for colleges to partner with grocery stores to offer affected students a break on their bill.

The USDA last week warned grocery stores against offering discounts to SNAP recipients amid the lapse in benefits. Doing so without a waiver from the agency could result in the stores losing their ability to accept SNAP funds — a crucial source of income for small grocers and those in low-earning areas.

Communication confusion

Throughout the shutdown, the executive branch’s chaotic messaging about SNAP funds has added confusion for students and colleges.

On Tuesday, after the initial court orders, USDA told state and regional leaders overseeing SNAP said it would fund the program with recipients getting at most 50% of their benefits. The agency then said the following day that they would receive up to 65% of their benefits. Neither update gave a timeline for distribution.

But President Donald Trump broke from his administration’s message via social media.

Brooklyn Friends School addresses artificial intelligence as a tool for educational equity rather than a threat to traditional learning. Head of School Crissy Cáceres frames the technology debate within her institution’s broader commitment to providing resources that enhance student capabilities while maintaining values-based decision making.

“Everything that is in service to the students in a way that is values-aligned would be allowed,” Cáceres states regarding technology policies. “So the bigger answer that I will always give you is, in assessing any tool, so long as it is not in violation of the values that we hold as a school, is developmentally minded and guided, and is in service to the growth and development of their learning, then we merit to make way for that to be utilized.”

Brooklyn Friends School, which serves approximately 705 students from ages two through 12th grade, addresses AI integration through the lens of Quaker principles that emphasize integrity, community, and stewardship. Rather than blanket prohibitions or uncritical adoption, the institution develops policies that align with its educational mission and values structure.

Technology as Equalizing Force

Cáceres views artificial intelligence through the perspective of her background as a national debate champion, an experience that shapes her understanding of how tools can level competitive playing fields. “I believe that artificial intelligence used in its best form is about equalizing the playing field,” she explains.

Her perspective reflects Brooklyn Friends School’s commitment to diversity, equity, and belonging—one of the institution’s three foundational pillars. School leadership recognizes that AI tools can provide students with different learning needs and backgrounds access to resources that might otherwise require financial investment or specialized tutoring.

Equalizing potential of AI extends beyond individual student support to broader questions of educational access. Cáceres sees technology as potentially addressing systemic inequities in educational opportunity, consistent with Quaker testimonies of equality and social justice that guide institutional decision-making.

Director of Technology Ray Shay leads Brooklyn Friends School’s AI integration efforts. Shay brings relevant experience as a former national debate champion, sharing with Cáceres an understanding of how tools and resources can enhance rather than replace human capability and critical thinking.

Values-Based Implementation Guidelines

Brooklyn Friends School permits AI use in academic work with explicit requirements for transparency and educational purpose. Students may utilize artificial intelligence tools for research papers provided they document how they employed the technology in their work process.

“We do not bar students from utilizing AI in a research paper so long as they are crediting how they used AI,” Cáceres explains. School leadership distinguishes between appropriate applications—such as expanding thoughts or exploring ideas—and inappropriate uses like generating complete assignments without student intellectual contribution.

Requirements teach students to develop critical thinking about technology use rather than simply following prohibition rules. Brooklyn Friends School guides children to evaluate when AI serves their learning objectives and when it might undermine their educational development.

Transparency requirements reflect Quaker values of integrity that permeate all aspects of school life. Students learn to acknowledge their use of technological assistance just as they would cite human sources or collaborative contributions to their work.

Age-Appropriate Technology Integration

Brooklyn Friends School implements technology policies that respond to developmental considerations across its four divisions: Early Childhood, Lower School, Middle School, and Upper School. Cell phone use in middle school was discontinued nine years ago, well before broader public conversations about smartphone impacts on adolescent development.

Upper School students also face restrictions on cell phone access throughout the school day, though this policy implementation occurred more recently. Decisions reflect the school’s commitment to creating learning environments that prioritize human interaction and community building.

AI policies follow similar developmental structures. Younger students receive more structured guidance about technology use, while older students gradually assume greater responsibility for making values-aligned choices about digital tools.

Cáceres emphasizes that technology policies must serve children’s developmental needs rather than adult convenience or fear. “It is not about yes to this and no to that because there’s a fear-based level of engagement around that. This is not our journey, we had it. It’s theirs. Our job is to learn about how they’re meeting the world tomorrow, not how we met it.”

Student-Centered Technology Learning

Brooklyn Friends School recognizes that children often possess greater familiarity with emerging technologies than their educators. Rather than positioning this knowledge gap as problematic, the institution embraces opportunities for intergenerational learning.

“They know more than we do. So as long as our arrogance is out of the way, educators in particular have the stage on the stage, what is it called? Stereotype of wanting to be a sage on the stage,” Cáceres observes. Her perspective challenges traditional power dynamics between teachers and students regarding technology expertise.

Circular classroom arrangements support collaborative technology learning where students share knowledge with peers and educators. Models encourage lifelong learning practices while honoring the Quaker belief that each person possesses valuable insights and capabilities.

Cáceres actively seeks student guidance about contemporary digital platforms and tools. “I want no more as partners for TikTok than my middle schoolers. I’ve been begging. It is time that I do a TikTok dance,” she shares, illustrating her commitment to learning from student expertise rather than dismissing their technological fluency.

Critical Analysis of AI Systems

Brooklyn Friends School teaches students to examine the societal implications of artificial intelligence rather than simply focusing on individual use applications. Critical perspectives reflect the school’s commitment to global social impact and social justice education.

“Our greatest challenge is the way society is aiming to have AI influence the lives of young people and adults alike. It’s based on algorithms. It’s based on systems of social control. It’s based upon money. It is based upon capitalism. That is why AI exists,” Cáceres explains.

Analysis connects AI education to broader curriculum themes about power, equity, and social responsibility. Students learn to question who benefits from particular technological developments and how digital tools might perpetuate or challenge existing inequalities.

Brooklyn Friends School draws connections between AI and historical examples of how technological advancement can serve various social purposes. Cáceres wrote her college essay on “Education As a System of Social Control,” bringing this analytical perspective to contemporary technology discussions.

Brooklyn Friends School prepares students to engage thoughtfully with AI development throughout their lives rather than simply learning current applications. Educational goals reflect the institution’s commitment to educating children who will contribute to creating more just and equitable technological systems.

Ethical technology use serves as essential preparation for citizenship in an increasingly digital world. Students develop skills to evaluate new tools through values-based approaches that will serve them long after they graduate from Brooklyn Friends School.