students

Homework can feel stressful when several subjects need attention at the same time. Students may have math problems, science tasks, writing assignments, and reading work all in one evening. Many learners need faster explanations, better organization, or extra practice after class ends. AI homework tools can help by saving time, explaining hard topics, and keeping tasks in order.

Still, the best results come when students use them with care instead of copying answers. A smart tool should support learning, not replace effort. If you are looking for the best AI homework helper, this guide can help.

The table below compares seven popular options by price, device support, and key strengths.

Every tool solves a different student problem. Next, we review the best AI for homework in detail.

Edubrain

Edubrain is the strongest all around homework option for students who want one place for many school tasks. It works as a free homework helper with support for math, science, writing, and more. Users can get step by step solutions, answer corrections, formula display, and help through image or PDF uploads. It also includes the Edubrain chemistry AI tool for science tasks that need formulas or reactions. A student can use it in one evening for algebra homework, then switch to a written assignment without changing apps.

The free plan covers core tools, while AI Plus adds more features and deeper support. This makes it a smart choice for busy students who want one dashboard for daily study. Many users may also see it as a top homework helper because it covers several needs in one place.

Pros

• Many useful features
• Free access available
• Supports image and PDF uploads
• Broad help across subjects
• Good for busy schedules

Cons

• Many options may feel crowded at first
• Weekly pricing may not suit everyone
• Full tools may require upgrade

Photomath

Socratic by Google

ChatGPT

Brainly

Quizlet

Chegg Study

Conclusion

Twelve elite British universities are accused of hiring a private security firm with military intelligence ties to track pro-Palestine student protests. Students were reportedly flagged through social media monitoring without their awareness, sparking debate over surveillance and free speech in UK higher education.

Learn more about the campus accountability mapping project.

In this episode: 

• Aaron Walawalkar (@AaronWala), Investigative Reporter, Liberty Investigations

Episode credits:

This episode was produced by Chloe K. Li and Sarí el-Khalili with Spencer Cline, Catherine Nouhan, Tuleen Barakat and our host, Malika Bilal. It was edited by Tamara Khandaker and Noor Wazwaz. 

Our sound designer is Alex Roldan. Rick Rush mixed this episode. Our video editors are Hisham Abu Salah and Mohannad al-Melhemm. Alexandra Locke is The Take’s executive producer. 

Connect with us:

@AJEPodcasts on X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube

Police in France have arrested students at Sorbonne University, Sciences Po and Paris-Saclay University during a sit-in against a controversial anti-Semitism bill that could outlaw criticism of Israel. Lawmakers are set to vote on the ‘Yadan law’, named after a pro-Israel French MP who sponsored the bill, on April 16.

WASHINGTON — The Education Department said Monday it has terminated agreements that previous administrations reached with five school districts and a college aimed at upholding rights and protections for transgender students.

The decision means the department will no longer play a role in enforcing those agreements, which called for schools to take steps to comply with federal civil rights law. The districts affected are Cape Henlopen School District in Delaware, Fife School District in Washington, Delaware Valley School District in Pennsylvania, and La Mesa-Spring Valley School District, Sacramento City Unified and Taft College in California.

Under the Biden and Obama administrations, the department interpreted Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in education, to include protections for transgender and gay students.

The Trump administration has penalized schools that have made efforts to accommodate students based on their gender identity. It has filed lawsuits in California and Minnesota over state policies permitting transgender students to participate in interscholastic sports, and opened civil rights investigations into schools and universities over their policies on transgender students.

But the announcement Monday appeared to involve the first known cases of the administration terminating civil rights settlements that had been negotiated with schools.

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said the action reflects the administration’s efforts to keep transgender students from participating in girls’ and women’s sports teams and accessing shared locker rooms.

“Today, the Trump Administration is removing the unnecessary and unlawful burdens that prior Administrations imposed on schools in its relentless pursuit of a radical transgender agenda,” she said in a written statement.

Ma writes for the Associated Press.

Minnesota public universities can continue to offer in-state tuition and scholarships to some immigrants in the country without legal status, a federal judge ruled Friday, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department last summer that attempted to halt the programs.

The decision follows a series of clashes between the federal government and Minnesota officials over immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez said in her decision that the federal government failed to prove that programs offering in-state tuition for immigrants without legal status discriminated against U.S. citizens.

The federal lawsuit named Democratic Gov. Tim Walz and Democratic state Atty. Gen. Keith Ellison as defendants, along with the state’s Office of Higher Education. It said Minnesota law discriminates against U.S. citizens because it provides in-state tuition and scholarships to students living in the U.S. illegally if they attended a Minnesota high school for three years, and U.S. citizens who attended schools outside of the state cannot receive the same benefits. States generally set higher tuition rates for out-of-state students.

The federal government said those state statutes “flagrantly” violate a federal law that prevents states from providing preferential benefits to immigrants in the U.S. illegally regardless of whether or not they meet residency requirements.

“No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement after the lawsuit was filed last year.

Menendez said the Justice Department misinterpreted the law, enacted during the Clinton administration, because anyone who attended a Minnesota high school for at least three years are granted the same public benefits, regardless of their U.S. residency or immigration status.

She also said the federal government didn’t have standing to sue the state attorney general or governor since neither has the power to change the state laws that determine tuition eligibility.

Ellison celebrated the decision in a statement Friday.

“Today, we defeated another one of Donald Trump’s efforts to misconstrue federal law to force Minnesota to abandon duly passed state laws and become a colder, less caring state,” he wrote.

The funding for immigrants without legal status represents an “investment for our state to do everything we can to encourage a more educated workforce,” Ellison wrote.

The U.S. Justice Department didn’t respond to an email request for comment Friday.

The department has filed similar lawsuits this month against policies in Kentucky and Texas. Last week, a federal judge in Texas blocked that state’s law giving a tuition break to students living in the U.S. illegally after the state’s Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, said he supported the legal challenge.

In discussing the Texas case last year, Bondi suggested more lawsuits might be coming.

Florida ended in-state tuition eligibility for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. At least 22 states and the District of Columbia have laws or policies granting the in-state benefit, according to the National Immigration Law Center. Those states include Democratic-led California and New York, but also Republican states including Kansas and Nebraska.

According to the center, at least 13 states in addition to Minnesota allow immigrant students without legal status to receive financial aid and scholarships on top of in-state tuition.

Riddle writes for the Associated Press.

March 20 (UPI) — The U.S. Justice Department sued Harvard University on Friday, accusing the Ivy League school of failing to protect Jewish students in the wake of the war in Israel and Gaza.

Filed in Boston, the lawsuit said Harvard allowed a “hostile education environment” for Jewish students who were physically assaulted and harassed. Protests sparked at Harvard and other U.S. college campuses after the start of the Oct. 7, 2023, war.

“The United States cannot and will not tolerate these failures and brings this action to compel Harvard to comply with Title VI, and to recover billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies to a discriminatory institution,” the lawsuit read, referencing a federal law banning discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs receiving federal funds.

Harvard denied the allegations laid out in the lawsuit, saying it has taken steps to embrace and respect Jewish and Israeli students on campus.

“Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of anti-Semitism and actively enforces anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules and policies on campus,” a statement from the school said.

“We also have enhanced training and education on anti-Semitism for students, faculty and staff, and launched programs to promote civil dialogue and respectful disagreement inside and outside the classroom.

“Harvard’s efforts demonstrate the very opposite of deliberate indifference.”

The administration has actively targeted Harvard since President Donald Trump took office in 2025. Trump’s official grievance against the university is that he claims the school failed to protect Jewish students during protests against Israel during the war that began in 2023.

In February, the Justice Department sued Harvard for failing to hand over admissions documents for an investigation about whether the admission process discriminates against white people. Earlier in February, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would end its academic partnership with Harvard over what he called a “woke” institution that is not welcoming to the U.S. military.

On Feb. 3, Trump said he was now seeking $1 billion in damages from Harvard but didn’t explain why.

“We are now seeking One Billion Dollars in damages, and want nothing further to do, into the future, with Harvard University,” Trump said on Truth Social.

On Dec. 19, the administration filed an appeal against a judge who blocked his order to cut funding by $2 billion.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court broke new ground this month when it ruled the Constitution forbids school policies in California that prevent parents from being told about their child’s gender transition at school.

But the reach of this new parental right remains unclear.

Does it mean all parents have a right to be informed if their child is using a new name and pronouns at school?

Or is the right limited to parents who inquire and object to being “shut out of participation in decisions involving their children’s mental health,” as the high court said in Mirabelli vs. Bonta.

Both sides in this legal battle accuse the other of creating confusion and uncertainty. And that dispute has not subsided.

UC Davis law professor Aaron Tang says understanding the Supreme Court’s order calls for a close reading of the statewide injunction handed down by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego.

That order prohibits school employees from “misleading” or “lying” to parents. It did not say school officials and teachers had a duty to contact parents whenever they saw that a student changed their appearance or used a new name, he said.

By clearing this order to take effect, the Supreme Court’s decision “means that schools must tell parents the truth about their child’s gender presentation at school if the parents request that information,” Tang said.

“But the initial burden is on the parents. This is not a rule that schools have an affirmative obligation to inform any and all parents if their child is presenting as a different gender,” he said.

The high court’s 6-3 order also indicated the reach of the judge’s injunction was limited.

It “does not provide relief for all the parents of California public school students, but only those parents who object to the challenged policies or seek religious injunctions.”

Religious conservatives who sued say they seek to end “secret transition” policies that encourage students to adopt a new gender identity without their parents knowing about the change.

The lawsuit challenging California’s “parental exclusion” policies was first filed by two teachers in Escondido.

Peter Breen, an attorney for the Thomas More Society, said many of the parents in Escondido “had no clue” their children were undergoing a gender transition at school.

“We need to activate parents,” he said.

Ruling for them, Benitez said the state’s “parental exclusion policies are designed to create a zone of secrecy around a school student who expresses gender incongruity.”

His injunction also said schools must notify their employees that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school child expresses gender incongruence.”

The Supreme Court’s order cited a dramatic example of nondisclosure.

Two parents who joined the suit had gone to parent-teacher meetings and learned only after their eighth-grade daughter attempted suicide that she had been presenting as a boy at school and suffered from gender dysphoria.

John Bursch, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, argues the Supreme Court’s opinion goes further to empower parents.

“Fairly read, the Mirabelli opinion creates an affirmative obligation on school officials to disclose,” he said. “It’s consistent with the way [the court] describes the parental right: ‘the right not to be shut out of participation in decisions regarding their children’s mental health.’ School officials’ silence (rather than lying) is not notice to and is shutting out parents.”

“All that said, the California attorney general is obviously not getting that message,” Bursch said.

He said the Supreme Court needs to go beyond an emergency order and fully decide a case that squarely presents the issue of parents rights.

“School officials should not be socially transitioning children without parental notice and consent. Period,” he said.

He filed an appeal petition with the Supreme Court in a case from Massachusetts that dissenting Justice Elena Kagan described as a “carbon copy” of the California dispute.

It takes only four votes to grant review of a case, but since November, the justices have repeatedly considered the case of Foote vs. Ludlow and taken no action.

The case is set to be considered again on Friday in the court’s private conference.

Meanwhile, California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta went back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seeking a clarification to limit the potential sweep of Benitez’s order.

He objected to the part of the judge’s order that said schools must post a notice that “parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.”

Bonta said that goes beyond what the Supreme Court approved.

This “could be understood to suggest that public school officials have an affirmative constitutional duty to inform parents whenever they observe a student’s expression of ‘gender incongruence,’ effectively imposing a mandatory ‘see something, say something’ obligation in all circumstances,” he said.

But the 9th Circuit said it would not act until he first presented this request to Benitez.

Meanwhile, transgender rights advocates say the voices and the views of students have been ignored.

“This case has been about states’ and parents’ rights but students have been left out of the conversation. Their voices have not been heard at all,” said Andrew Ortiz, an attorney for the Transgender Law Center. “School should be a place where young people can feel safe and confident they can confide in a teacher.”

“We’re hearing about fear and anxiety,” said Jorge Reyes Salinas, communications director for Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization.

“There are students who are unable to speak with their parents. Teachers can encourage them to have a conversation with their parents. But this will weaken the trust they have in their teachers,” he said.

In the past, the court had been wary of reaching into the public schools to decide on education policies and the curriculum, but it took a significant step in that direction last year.

In a Maryland case, the court said religious parents had a right to “opt out” their young children from classes that read “LGBTQ+-inclusive” storybooks.

The 1st Amendment protects the “free exercise of religion” and “government schools … may not place unconstitutional burdens on religious exercise,” wrote Justice Samuel A. Alito, the lone conservative who attended public schools.

The same 6-3 majority cited that precedent to block California school policies that protect the privacy of students and “conceal” information from inquiring parents if the student does not consent.

But the California case went beyond the religious-rights issue in the Maryland “opt out” case because it included a “subclass of parents” who objected without citing religion as the reason.

The justices ruled for them as a matter of parents’ rights.

“Parents — not the state — have primary authority with respect to the upbringing and education of children,” the court said.

That simple assertion touches on a sensitive issue for both the conservative and liberal wings of the court. It rests on the 14th Amendment’s clause that says no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

In the past, a liberal majority held that the protection for “liberty” included rights to contraceptives, abortion and same-sex marriages.

Conservatives fiercely objected to what was dubbed “substantive due process.”

In the California case, Kagan, speaking for the liberals in dissent, tweaked the conservatives for recognizing a new constitutional right without saying where it came from.

“Anyone remotely familiar with recent debates in constitutional law will understand why: Substantive due process has not been of late in the good graces of this Court — and especially of the Members of today’s majority,” she wrote.

She noted that when the court struck down the right to abortion in the Dobbs case, Justice Clarence Thomas said he would go further and strike down all the rights that rest on “substantive due process.”

In response to Kagan, Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a concurring opinion that staked out a moderate conservative position.

Since 1997, the court has said it would stand behind rights that were “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition,” she wrote. That includes “a parent’s right to raise her child … and the right to participate in significant decisions about her child’s mental health.”

She said California’s “non-disclosure policy” is unconstitutional and violates the rights of parent because it applies “even if parents expressly ask for information about their child’s gender identification,” she wrote.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh signed on to her opinion.

While Kagan dissented on procedural grounds, she did not disagree with bottom-line outcome.

“California’s policy, in depriving all parents of information critical to their children’s health and well-being, could have crossed the constitutional line,” she said. “And that would entitle the parents, at the end of the day, to relief.”

March 11 (Asia Today) — Nearly half of South Korean high school students are using artificial intelligence to help them study, a survey showed, as the government moves to expand AI education in public schools.

According to a survey conducted by education company Jinaksa of 3,525 high school students nationwide, 47.7% said they use AI for studying at least once a week.

The most common usage frequency was once or twice per week at 25.2%. Another 14.4% said they use AI three times or more each week, while 8.1% reported using it almost daily.

Meanwhile, 22.7% said they never use AI for studying, and 29.6% said they use it only once or twice a month.

Students most frequently used AI to ask for explanations of unfamiliar concepts, accounting for 49.7% of responses. Other common uses included help solving problems at 29.0%, summarizing notes or reading passages at 27.9% and requesting feedback on answers at 17.4%.

The findings suggest students are not using AI simply to find correct answers but increasingly treat it as a question-based learning tool that explains concepts and helps guide problem-solving.

Education officials are also expanding artificial intelligence education in public schools.

The Ministry of Education said it has designated 1,141 elementary, middle and high schools nationwide as “AI focus schools” in cooperation with 17 regional education offices.

These schools will integrate AI-related lessons across subjects and expand interdisciplinary programs that combine artificial intelligence with existing curricula. Schools will also strengthen ethics education to encourage responsible use of AI and provide activities such as AI clubs and hands-on learning programs.

The ministry plans to gradually expand the program to 1,500 schools by 2027 and 2,000 schools by 2028.

Woo Yeon-cheol, director of the admissions strategy research institute at Jinaksa, said students are increasingly using AI as a form of “digital tutoring.”

“Students are not simply using AI to complete assignments,” Woo said. “They are using it to ask questions about concepts they do not understand and to check the direction of problem solving.”

He added that the ability to ask questions anytime and receive immediate explanations is helping AI become a new learning support tool.

Woo also noted that even as the government moves to expand AI-based education in schools, students have already been adapting quickly to AI-driven learning environments outside the classroom.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260311010003167