South Korea pulls plug on AI textbooks, leaving schools, companies without funding for them
AI-powered textbooks are now not official South Korean textbooks, removing the legal and financial grounds for using them in schools.
SEOUL – South Korea's National Assembly passed a Bill on Aug 4 stripping artificial intelligence-powered digital textbooks of their legal status as official teaching materials, dealing a heavy blow to the previous Yoon Suk Yeol administration's flagship education reform project.
The amendment narrows the legal definition of textbooks to printed books and e-books, excluding 'learning support software using intelligent information technology'.
This reclassifies AI-powered textbooks as just another type of educational material, not official textbooks.
The new classification takes effect immediately upon promulgation, effectively removing the legal and financial foundations for using AI digital textbooks in schools.
The amendment, drafted and passed unilaterally by the ruling Democratic Party of Korea, is an updated version of the same legislation passed by the Assembly i n 2024 , which was ultimately scrapped after it was vetoed by then deputy prime minister Choi Sang-mok, who was the country's acting president at the time.
Initially launched as a flagship initiative of the Yoon administration, AI textbooks aimed to provide personalised learning experiences for students using advanced AI algorithms.
At least 533.3 billion won (S$496 million) was allocated to the project in 2024 alone.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Singapore Govt forms 5 new committees to look at longer-term economic strategies; report due in mid-2026
Singapore Ong Beng Seng to be sentenced on Aug 15, prosecution does not object to fine due to his poor health
Singapore All recruits at BMTC will be trained to fly drones and counter them: Chan Chun Sing
Singapore Pritam Singh had hoped WP would 'tip one or two more constituencies' at GE2025
Singapore SIA flight bound for Seoul returns to Singapore due to technical issues
Singapore Eu Yan Sang warns of counterfeits of its health supplements being sold online
Singapore Electric car-sharing firm BlueSG to wind down current operations on Aug 8
Singapore Woman, 26, hit by car after dashing across street near Orchard Road
The textbooks were piloted in the first semester of 2025 for English and mathematics classes in Grade 3 and Grade 4 of elementary school, and for English, mathematics and computer science classes in middle and high schools.
Despite the ambitious roll-out, the initiative faced widespread backlash from educators and parents, many of whom criticised the South Korean government for pushing the policy through without sufficient groundwork.
In response, the South Korean Ministry of Education shifted to a school-by-school voluntary adoption model, after initially planning a nationwide mandate.
Currently, the adoption rate of AI textbooks across schools hovers at around 30 per cent.
The Bill's passage now leaves these schools without financial support for AI textbook subscriptions. A high school computer science teacher told The Korea Herald that although some schools secured subscription budgets for the second semester, future use is uncertain.
'Unless the textbooks retain their legal status, we won't be able to receive the necessary funding. It's now almost impossible to use them in class,' the teacher said.
The publishing industry is also facing a looming crisis.
Companies that invested heavily in AI textbook development, expecting the government to mandate their use, now say they are on the verge of collapse.
Several companies filed an administrative lawsuit against the South Korean Education Ministry in April, citing losses due to low adoption rates and policy flip-flopping.
Industry representatives warn that without the legal textbook designation, usage rates could drop further, jeopardising the estimated 800 billion won in total investments made into AI textbooks. Layoffs and restructuring are now expected across the sector.
A worker in her 30s from a major textbook publisher said her department may soon disappear.
'Many companies hired researchers and engineers to develop AI textbooks. Now, with education policy changing depending on who holds political power, we risk not only losing our jobs but also degrading the quality of education itself,' she said.
Publishers have been staging a last-ditch push to reverse public sentiment and policy.
Fourteen publishing companies have taken turns holding solo protests outside the National Assembly, while others have visited the Democratic Party of Korea's headquarters demanding reconsideration of the Bill.
The South Korean Education Ministry has yet to present a concrete road map for winding down the AI textbook programme.
A spokesperson said the ministry would suspend the current textbook review process, prepare guidance for schools to prevent disruption in the autumn semester, and consult with regional education offices to minimise confusion. THE KOREA HERALD/ASIA NEWS NETWORK
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
40 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
The 20-somethings are swarming San Francisco's AI boom
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox The entrepreneurs are part of a fast-growing cohort of chief executives in their 20s who have flocked to San Francisco's AI boom. SAN FRANCISCO – Mr Brendan Foody had just finished his sophomore year at Georgetown University in 2023 when he dropped out to jump into the artificial intelligence fray in San Francisco. Mr Karun Kaushik dropped out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that year to move to California after constructing an AI tool in his dorm room. And Mr Jaspar Carmichael-Jack, who was traveling the world after high school, had the same idea in 2022. Now Mr Foody, 22, Mr Kaushik, 21, and Mr Carmichael-Jack, 23, are each running AI startups within a 30-minute walk of one another in San Francisco. They have raised millions of dollars for their businesses and are supervising dozens of employees. They all have a dream that their companies will make it big. 'When ChatGPT came out, it was so clear to me that this is obviously going to be a paradigm shift,' said Mr Carmichael-Jack, the chief executive of Artisan, which makes an AI sales assistant and has raised more than US$35 million (S$45 million) in funding. 'I knew I wanted to be involved in that.' The entrepreneurs are part of a fast-growing cohort of chief executives in their 20s who have flocked to San Francisco's AI boom. Among others, there are also Mr Scott Wu, 28, of Cognition AI, which makes a software coding assistant; Mr Michael Truell, 24, of Cursor, which sells an AI code editor; and Mr Roy Lee, 21, of Cluely, an AI software startup. Perhaps the most prominent is Mr Alexandr Wang, 28, who led the startup Scale AI before Meta tapped him in June to run its new superintelligence lab. Their growing ranks have injected a dose of youthful elan to the AI frenzy, which has been dominated by longtime tech giants like Google and Nvidia and decade-old startups like OpenAI. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Asia What's it like to deal with brutal US tariffs? Ask Malaysia Singapore Singapore launches review of economic strategy to stay ahead of global shifts Singapore A look at the five committees reviewing Singapore's economic strategy Opinion Keeping it alive: How Chinese opera in Singapore is adapting to the age of TikTok Life Glamping in Mandai: Is a luxury stay at Colugo Camp worth the $550 price tag? Sport World Aquatics C'ships in S'pore deemed a success by athletes, fans and officials Singapore Strong S'pore-Australia ties underpinned by bonds that are continually renewed: President Tharman Many of the entrepreneurs know one another from college or startup incubators like Y Combinator. Work is often at the centre of their lives – founders have to grind, after all – but they also host ping-pong nights, play poker together and meet up at networking events in the city. Venture capitalists are adding to the new blood with intensive startup programs geared to high school and college students. It's part of a well-worn pattern in which droves of young hopefuls are drawn to the nation's tech capital by a promising technology, much as 19-year-old Mark Zuckerberg and his friends did in the mid-2000s when they showed up in Silicon Valley with Facebook. Mr Zuckerberg, now 41, dropped out of Harvard. 'When you have these big technology waves, the whole chessboard changes and everything is up for grabs,' said Mr Saam Motamedi, an investor at the venture capital firm Greylock Partners. Greylock's San Francisco office recently hosted four 19-year-olds who are working on a 'stealth' artificial intelligence startup, he said, though the teenagers have since moved into their own space. Mr Pete Koomen, a general partner at Y Combinator, said the median age of the San Francisco incubator's most recent cohort of participants this year was 24, down from 30 in 2022. 'This is a group of largely young founders that have picked up everything and moved and gone all in on a crazy dream,' he said. 'They're all in close proximity with each other. They're helping each other out. They're competing with each other. It just creates this incredible energy.' Mr Foody runs Mercor, which provides automatic screening of resumes and AI job interviews. He established the company with two high school friends from San Jose, California, Mr Surya Midha and Adarsh Hiremath. Mr Midha, 22, is Mercor's chief operating officer and Mr Hiremath, 22, the chief technology officer. In February, they raised US$100 million, bringing Mercor's total funding to more than US$132 million and valuing the startup at US$2 billion. Investors include the venture capital firms General Catalyst and Benchmark. As Mercor flourished, it hired 150 employees in San Francisco and India. The startup is outgrowing its current space, which has a ping-pong table and dog cages dedicated to office pets, and is preparing to move into a bigger office nearby. Mr Midha said there was a sense of 'extreme urgency' and 'existential dread' among his peers who felt that now was the time to start an AI company. It 'just felt crazy not to go all in' on Mercor, he added. Mercor has already spawned other young chief executives. Ms Rithika Kacham, 22, who dropped out of Stanford during her senior year in 2024 to join Mercor as Foody's executive assistant, started her own company, Verita AI, in May. Her company hires professionals in various fields to help train AI models to recognise images more accurately, such as an intellectual property expert to help AI determine whether a Mickey Mouse cartoon is real. 'It's kind of this AI inflection point where it felt like almost everyone I knew at Stanford was dropping out to cofound a company,' said Ms Kacham, who was majoring in computer science and product design and is trying to raise money for Verita. To cut through the crowd, some of the young leaders have tried to go viral. In November, Mr Carmichael-Jack's Artisan plastered ads across bus stops in San Francisco with the outrage-inducing directive to 'stop hiring humans' and instead 'hire' the startup's AI sales agent, Ava. People were 'shocked' by the marketing campaign because it tapped into fears that AI would replace humans, Mr Carmichael-Jack said, but it also 'made them intrigued about what we were doing'. Mr Kaushik, the chief executive of Delve, a startup that automates the compliance busywork for businesses dealing with sensitive data, founded the company with his MIT classmate Selin Kocalar, 21. 'I don't think about age,' Ms Kocalar said. 'In today's day and age, the barrier to entry is so low with the help of AI.' Soon they may be mingling with an even younger crowd. A billboard in San Francisco on April 28, 2025, announcing Artisan's fund-raising this year. PHOTO: CAROLYN FONG/NYTIMES On a recent Friday in Fort Mason, a converted military hub in the city, the venture capital firm Founders Inc held a summer programme for high schoolers and college students to nurture their startup ideas. Long tables were covered in wires and open boxes of crackers, with some teenagers clustered together tweaking robots while others took a break to play videos games. Among the attendees was Mr Mizan Rupan-Tompkins, 18, a rising sophomore at San Jose State University who is studying computer science but pausing school in 2026 to build an AI-powered device to help unmanned air traffic control towers land airplanes safely. His company, Stratus AI, just got an investment from Founders Inc, which he declined to detail. Founders Inc, which also declined to share the investment amount, typically writes checks of US$100,000 to US$250,000 for startups. 'Stuff moves so quickly' that he could not wait until he'd graduate in 2028 to build a company, Mr Rupan-Tompkins said. 'It's better to be earlier than later, just in case I missed some type of wave,' he said. NYTIMES
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Badly bruised elite US universities are rushing to cut deals with Trump
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – As a growing number of the wealthiest US colleges capitulate in their battles with the Trump administration, the strain from lost and frozen federal funding is putting pressure on the remaining holdouts to cut a deal. Universities targeted by Mr Donald Trump's crackdown on diversity programmes and other policies he says show a liberal bias are essentially bleeding at the negotiating table after taking on debt, laying off hundreds of staff and slashing spending. As the fall semester approaches, they may be increasingly eager to ink accords that will stanch the flow. Cornell and Northwestern, both of which announced steps to address major budget shortfalls this year after the federal government suspended research funds, are now close to agreements with the White House, Bloomberg News has reported. Brown, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania reached accords over July. But amid those settlements, new universities are being targeted. Most recently, the University of California at Los Angeles and Duke joined Harvard, Northwestern, Princeton and others in losing access to federal grants that are the financial lifeblood of large research institutions. It all adds up to an unprecedented pressure campaign that's roiling the world of higher education, reverberating through faculty, student and alumni groups and clouding the outlook for the type of medical and scientific research that takes place at the colleges. The multitrillion-dollar tax law signed in July also hikes the tax on income from endowments for some of the wealthiest private schools . As the Trump administration gains leverage, colleges' bruised budgets could drive them toward making agreements quicker. 'It seems like they want to get deals done now,' said Professor Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who focuses on the political economy of higher education. 'It's almost like a dam is broken. I would not be at all surprised if we saw a cascading set of agreements.' Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Asia What's it like to deal with brutal US tariffs? Ask Malaysia Singapore Singapore launches review of economic strategy to stay ahead of global shifts Singapore A look at the five committees reviewing Singapore's economic strategy Opinion Keeping it alive: How Chinese opera in Singapore is adapting to the age of TikTok Life Glamping in Mandai: Is a luxury stay at Colugo Camp worth the $550 price tag? Sport World Aquatics C'ships in S'pore deemed a success by athletes, fans and officials Singapore Strong S'pore-Australia ties underpinned by bonds that are continually renewed: President Tharman Federal funding has been used as a cudgel by the Trump administration, which has criticized what it says is a failure by academic institutions to crack down on antisemitism during campus protests over Israel's war in Gaza. The moves also come amid a broader campaign against diversity efforts and accusations of political bias. The fallout has already started. Northwestern said it would cut more than 400 jobs to save 5 per cent on labour costs, with university officials calling the past few months some of the most difficult in its 174-year history. The Trump administration in April paused US$790 million (S$1 billion) in research funding for the Evanston, Illinois-based school because of potential civil rights violations. At Cornell, leaders in June warned that drastic financial austerity measures were on the table after hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research contracts were terminated or frozen. 'The spring semester was unlike anything ever seen in higher education,' they wrote in a letter to students and staff. 'We have been using institutional resources to try to plug these funding holes in the short term, but these interim measures are not sustainable.' Late in July, the government froze US$108 million in research funding to Duke University, or about 20 per cent of its federal revenue, three Trump administration officials told Bloomberg. Duke is in talks with government officials on a settlement, according to an administration official. Duke's press office didn't provide a comment on the funding loss or the status of government talks. A Duke official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, said the school is reconsidering its budget amid the funding loss, but that it hopes an end to the freeze will come soon. Cornell and Northwestern have declined to comment on any settlement talks. Trump agreements On July 23, Columbia University agreed to pay US$221 million in a deal that was promptly criticised for infringing on academic freedom at the school. Brown announced a deal on July 30, agreeing to give US$50 million over 10 years to workforce development organisations in its home state of Rhode Island in exchange for the reimbursement of at least US$50 million in unpaid federal grants. Shortly before reaching the deal, Brown took out a US$500 million loan – a sign of how strained the school's finances had become. Brown, the least wealthy of the Ivy League schools with an endowment of US$7.2 billion, had previously warned in June of 'significant' cost-cutting measures to offset the federal funding. The Trump administration's higher-education crackdown has exposed just how dependent some of the elite, research-focused universities are on the government. They're essentially 'major federal contractors' and stopping the stream would be catastrophic for many of them, according to Prof Cantwell. 'Think about Booz Allen or Raytheon,' Prof Cantwell said. 'If they said, 'All your federal funding will be frozen for 9 months,' you can imagine how those firms might react.' The Trump administration has dealt a harsher financial blow to Harvard than any other university in its crosshairs, freezing billions of multiyear research grants and contracts. The school estimates that the moves by the administration, as well as the endowment tax increase, will cost about US$1 billion annually. Harvard's Kennedy School already cut staff. 'The unprecedented challenges we face have led to disruptive changes, painful layoffs, and ongoing uncertainty about the future,' Harvard President Alan M. Garber said in a letter to the campus. Dr Garber has told faculty that a settlement with the government is not imminent and the university is considering resolving its dispute through the courts, the Harvard Crimson reported on Aug 4. Mr Larry Ladd, who served as Harvard's budget director and now advises schools at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, said he cannot criticise any college for coming to a deal with the Trump administration given what is at stake for their campuses. 'Schools are likely facing pressure to use endowment and tuition revenue, which are typically used to support students, to support some of their research enterprise instead,' Mr Ladd said. 'They don't want to do that because they want to continue to support students. There's that pressure as well.' Ms Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said campus leaders are being put in an 'untenable position' and worries that federal funds will continue to be weaponized by the Trump administration, even if schools make deals. 'The concern is the more we capitulate through making these agreements, the more the administration will be empowered to continue along these lines,' she said. BLOOMBERG
