ReportWire

Tag: reform

  • Shutdown nears as lawmakers brace for next round of ICE negotiations

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — A budget impasse in Congress is poised to halt large swaths of federal operations early Saturday as lawmakers in Capitol Hill turn to the next flashpoint in negotiations to reopen the government: whether to impose new limits on federal immigration authorities carrying out President Trump’s deportation campaign.

    Over the next two weeks, Democrats and Republicans will weigh competing demands on how the Department of Homeland Security should carry out arrests, detention and deportations after the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal immigration agents this month in Minnesota.

    Seeking to rein in the federal agency, Senate Democrats late on Thursday were able to strike a deal with the White House that would temporarily fund the Department of Homeland Security but fund the Pentagon, the State Department, as well as the health, education, labor and transportation agencies through Sept. 30.

    The agreement is intended to give lawmakers more time to address Democratic demands to curb ICE tactics while averting a partial government shutdown.

    The Senate finalized the deal Friday evening on a 71-29 vote, hours before a midnight deadline to avert a government shutdown. Passage of the deal was delayed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who objected to parts of the package.

    The House expected to take up the legislation as early as Monday. The partial government shutdown will occur until the measure clears the House and Trump signs it into law.

    The president supports the deal, which came after Senate Democrats said they would not vote to fund Homeland Security unless reforms for the agency were approved. Among the demands: banning federal agents from wearing masks, requiring use of body cameras and requiring use of judicial warrants prior to searching homes and making arrests.

    Democrats have also demanded that local and state law enforcement officials be given the ability to conduct independent investigations in cases where federal agents are accused of wrongdoing.

    The deal, however, does not include any of those reforms; it includes only the promise of more time to negotiate with no guarantee that the new restrictions will be agreed to.

    Both of California’s Democratic senators, Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, voted against the Senate deal. They both opposed giving more funding to Homeland Security without reforms in a vote Thursday.

    Schiff voted no because he said he promised to not “give another dime for ICE until we saw real reforms — and not just promised reforms but statutory requirements.”

    “I want to see those reforms before I am prepared to support any more funding for these agencies,” Schiff said in a video message posted on X, and added that he did not see the White House acting in “good faith. “I want it in writing and statute.”

    After voting against the measure, Padilla said in a statement: “I’ve been clear from the beginning: No more money for ICE and CBP without real oversight and accountability.”

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters Friday morning that Democrats will find out whether two weeks is enough time to reach a compromise.

    “We will evaluate whether that is sufficient time,” Jeffries said. “But there is urgency to dealing with this issue because ICE as we have seen is out of control.”

    Meanwhile, the absence of reforms in the Senate deal has already drawn concerns from some progressives, who argue the deal falls short of what is needed to rein in federal immigration enforcement.

    “First of all, I’m actually disappointed that Senate leadership is not right now demanding more,” Rep. Robert Garcia, a top-ranking House Democrat from Long Beach, told reporters Friday. “This idea that we’re somehow going to continue to fund this agency and somehow just extend the pain, I think is absolutely wrong.”

    Garcia said it was “outrageous” that the Senate deal would extend funding for Homeland Security for two weeks without any new requirements.

    “This idea that we’re somehow not demanding immediately the removal of masks and body cameras and all the other reforms while eliminating this agency that’s causing harm, I think, is outrageous,” Garcia said.

    Democratic Rep. Judy Chu of Pasadena said in a statement that she had not yet decided whether to support the Senate deal once it reaches the House floor.

    But, Chu added: “I cannot support legislation that increases funding to this agency while delivering no accountability measures.”

    Rep. Kevin Calvert (R-Corona) said in a statement that it is “critical” for lawmakers to pass the bipartisan spending package, in part because it included funding for the U.S. military.

    “As Chairman of the [House] Defense Appropriation Subcommittee, I’m especially concerned about the negative impacts of a shutdown at a time when we have a buildup of American military assets in the Middle East,” Calvert said.

    Calvert added that Homeland Security operations will continue even in the shutdown because lawmakers provided an influx of funding for the agency in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.” But he said he worried that any lapse in funding would affect other operations by the agency, including disaster funding and security assistance for major events, such as the upcoming World Cup.

    “We need to get these priorities funded,” he said.

    Other Republican lawmakers have already signaled the possible hurdles Democrats will face as they try to rein in ICE.

    Graham held up consideration of the Senate deal, in part because he wanted the Senate to vote to criminalize local and state officials in sanctuary cities — a term that has no strict definition but that generally describes local jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

    “You can convince me that ICE can be better, but I don’t think I will ever convince you to abandon sanctuary cities because you’re wedded to it on the Democratic side,” Graham said.

    Graham also delayed passage of the deal because it included a repeal of a law that would have allowed senators — including himself — to sue the government if federal investigators gained access to their phones without notifying them. The law required senators to be notified if that were to happen and sue for up to $50,000 in damages per incident.

    “We’ll fix the $500,000 — count me in — but you took the notification out,” Graham said. “I am demanding a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

    Other Senate Republicans also expressed concern with Democrats’ demands, even as Trump seemed to try appease them.

    Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said the demand for federal agents to remove their masks during operations was a “clear and obvious attempt to intimidate and put our federal agents in harm’s way.”

    “When enforcement becomes dangerous for enforcers, enforcement does not survive,” Schmitt said in a Senate floor speech. “What emerges is not reform, it is amnesty by default.”

    Despite the GOP opposition, most Senate Republicans were poised to join Democrats on Friday and vote for the deal. But there is no certainty that they will join the minority party when negotiations resume in the coming weeks.

    Recent history suggests that bipartisan support at the outset does not guarantee a lasting deal, particularly when unresolved policy disputes remain. The last government shutdown tied to a debate over healthcare exposed how quickly negotiations can collapse when no agreement is reached.

    In November, a small group of Democrats voted with Republicans to end the longest government shutdown in U.S. history with the promise of negotiating an extension to healthcare tax credits that were set to expire in the new year.

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Franciso), a former House speaker, reminded the public on Friday that Democrats were unable to get Republican support for extending the tax credits, resulting in increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans.

    “House Democrats passed a bipartisan fix, yet Senate Republicans continue to block this critical relief for millions of Americans,” Pelosi wrote in a post on X.

    Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Beyond the dashboard: Why K-12 educators need data literacy, not just data

    [ad_1]

    Key points:

    Walk into any data meeting at a K-12 school today, and you’ll likely see a familiar scene: educators huddled around printed reports, highlighters in hand, trying to make sense of student data spread across multiple dashboards. If you’ve ever left one of these meetings feeling mentally exhausted without clear next steps, you’re not alone. The problem isn’t that we lack data in education, but rather that most dashboards show us the past–not the path ahead. It’s like trying to drive while only looking in the rearview mirror.

    The education sector sits on massive amounts of student data, yet most schools lack data maturity. They’ve committed to using data and may even have systems that centralize records. But they haven’t embraced what’s possible when we move from having data to using it well; from describing what happened to predicting what’s likely to happen if nothing changes.

    We have dashboards–now what?

    Every district has dashboards. We can see attendance rates, assessment scores, and demographic breakdowns. These tools tell us what happened, which is useful–but increasingly insufficient for the challenges facing K-12 schools. By the time we’re reacting to chronic absenteeism or declining grades, we’re already behind. And, when does an educator have time to sit down, pull up multiple dashboards, and interpret what they say about each student?

    The power of any data dashboard isn’t in the dashboard itself. It’s in the conversations that happen around it. This is where data literacy becomes essential, and it goes far beyond simply reading a chart or calculating an average.

    Data literacy means asking better questions and approaching data with curiosity. It requires recognizing that the answers we get are entirely driven by the questions we ask. A teacher who asks, “Which students failed the last assessment?” will get very different insights than one who asks, “Which students showed growth but still haven’t reached proficiency, and what patterns exist among them?”

    We must also acknowledge the emotional dimension of data in schools. Some educators have been burned when data was used punitively instead of for improvement. That resistance is understandable, but not sustainable. The solution isn’t to check professional expertise at the door. It’s to approach data with both curiosity and courage, questioning it in healthy ways while embracing it as a tool for problem-solving.

    From descriptive to predictive: What’s possible

    Let’s distinguish between types of analytics. Descriptive analytics tell us what happened: Jorge was absent 15 days last semester. Diagnostic analytics tell us why: Jorge lives in a household without reliable transportation, and his absences cluster on Mondays and Fridays.

    Now we get to the game-changers: predictive and prescriptive analytics. Predictive analytics use historical patterns to forecast what’s likely to happen: Based on current trends, Jorge is at 80 percent risk of chronic absenteeism by year’s end. Prescriptive analytics go further by helping the educator understand what they should do to intervene. If we connect Jorge’s family with transportation support and assign a mentor for weekly check-ins, we can likely reduce his absence risk by 60 percent.

    The technology to do this already exists. Machine learning can identify patterns across thousands of student records that would take humans months to discern. AI can surface early warning signs before problems become crises. These tools amplify teacher judgment, serving up insights and allowing educators to focus their expertise where it matters most.

    The cultural shift required

    Before any school rushes to adopt the next analytics tool, it’s worth pausing to ask: What actually happens when someone uses data in their daily work?

    Data use is deeply human. It’s about noticing patterns, interpreting meaning, and deciding what to do next. That process looks different for every educator, and it’s shaped by the environment in which they work: how much time they have to meet with colleagues, how easily they can access the right data, and whether the culture encourages curiosity or compliance.

    Technology can surface patterns, but culture determines whether those patterns lead to action. The same dashboard can spark collaboration in one school and defensiveness in another. That’s why new tools require attention to governance, trust, and professional learning–not just software configuration.

    At the end of the day, the goal isn’t simply to use data more often, but to use it more effectively.

    Moving toward this future requires a fundamental shift in how we think about data: from a compliance exercise to a strategic asset. The most resilient schools in the coming years will have cultures where data is pervasive, shared transparently, and accessible in near real-time to the people who need it. Think of it as an instructional co-pilot rather than a monkey on the back.

    This means moving away from data locked in the central office, requiring a 10-step approval process to access. Instead, imagine a decentralized approach where a fifth-grade team can instantly generate insights about their students’ reading growth, or where a high school counselor can identify seniors at risk of not graduating with enough time to intervene.

    This kind of data democratization requires significant change management. It demands training, clear protocols, and trust. But the payoff is educators empowered to make daily decisions grounded in timely, relevant information.

    Turning data into wisdom

    Data has been part of education from the very beginning. Attendance records, report cards, and gradebooks have always informed teaching. What’s different now is the volume of data available and the sophistication of tools to analyze it. K-12 educators don’t need to become data scientists, but they do need to become data literate: curious, critical consumers of information who can ask powerful questions and interpret results within the rich context of their professional expertise.

    The schools that harness their data effectively will be able to identify struggling students earlier, personalize interventions more effectively, and use educator time more strategically. But this future requires us to move beyond the dashboard and invest in the human capacity to transform data into wisdom. That transformation starts with data literacy, and it starts now.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    [ad_2]

    Dr. Curt Merlau, Resultant

    Source link

  • ‘Abolish ICE’ messaging is back. Is it any more likely this time?

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — “Abolish ICE.”

    Democratic lawmakers and candidates for office around the country increasingly are returning to the phrase, popularized during the first Trump administration, as they react to this administration’s forceful immigration enforcement tactics.

    The fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent this month in Minneapolis sparked immediate outrage among Democratic officials, who proposed a variety of oversight demands — including abolishing the agency — to rein in tactics they view as hostile and sometimes illegal.

    Resurrecting the slogan is perhaps the riskiest approach. Republicans pounced on the opportunity to paint Democrats, especially those in vulnerable seats, as extremists.

    An anti-ICE activist in an inflatable costume stands next to a person with a sign during a protest near Legacy Emanuel Hospital on Jan. 10 in Portland, Ore. The demonstration follows the Jan. 7 fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis as well as the shooting of two individuals in Portland on Jan. 8 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

    (Mathieu Lewis-Rolland / Getty Images)

    “If their response is to dust off ‘defund ICE,’ we’re happy to take that fight any day of the week,” said Christian Martinez, a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee. The group has published dozens of press statements in recent weeks accusing Democrats of wanting to abolish ICE — even those who haven’t made direct statements using the phrase.

    Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) amplified that message Wednesday, writing on social media that “When Democrats say they want to abolish or defund ICE, what they are really saying is they want to go back to the open borders policies of the Biden administration. The American people soundly rejected that idea in the 2024 election.”

    The next day, Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced the “Abolish ICE Act,” stating that Good’s killing “proved that ICE is out of control and beyond reform.” The bill would rescind the agency’s “unobligated” funding and redirect other assets to its parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security.

    Many Democrats calling for an outright elimination of ICE come from the party’s progressive wing. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) said in a television interview the agency should be abolished because actions taken by its agents are “racist” and “rogue.” Jack Schlossberg, who is running for a House seat in New York, said that “if Trump’s ICE is shooting and kidnapping people, then abolish it.”

    Other prominent progressives have stopped short of saying the agency should be dismantled.

    A pair of protesters set up signs memorializing individuals

    A pair of protesters set up signs memorializing people who have been arrested by ICE, or have died in detention, at a rally in front of the Federal Building in Los Angeles on Friday.

    (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

    Sen. Alex Padilla, (D-Calif.) who last year was forcefully handcuffed and removed from a news conference hosted by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, joined a protest in Washington to demand justice for Good, saying “It’s time to get ICE and CBP out,” referring to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

    “This is a moment where all of us have to be forceful to ensure that we are pushing back on what is an agency right now that is out of control,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said on social media. “We have to be loud and clear that ICE is not welcome in our communities.”

    Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) at a podium.

    Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) said Democrats seeking to abolish ICE “want to go back to the open borders policies of the Biden administration.”

    (Jose Luis Magana / Associated Press)

    Others have eyed negotiations over the yearly Homeland Security budget as a leverage point to incorporate their demands, such as requiring federal agents to remove their masks and to turn on their body-worn cameras when on duty, as well as calling for agents who commit crimes on the job to be prosecuted. Seventy House Democrats, including at least 13 from California, backed a measure to impeach Noem.

    Rep. Mike Levin (D-San Diego), who serves on the House Committee on Appropriations, said his focus is not on eliminating the agency, which he believes has an “important responsibility” but has been led astray by Noem.

    He said Noem should be held to account for her actions through congressional oversight hearings, not impeachment — at least not while Republicans would be in control of the proceedings, since he believes House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) would make a “mockery” of them.

    “I am going to use the appropriations process,” Levin said, adding that he would “continue to focus on the guardrails, regardless of the rhetoric.”

    Chuck Rocha, a Democratic political strategist, said Republicans seized on the abolitionist rhetoric as a scare tactic to distract from the rising cost of living, which remains another top voter concern.

    “They hope to distract [voters] by saying, ‘Sure, we’re going to get better on the economy — but these Democrats are still crazy,’” he said.

    an inflatable doll of Trump in a Russian military outfit

    Dozens of Angelenos and D.C.-area organizers, along with local activists, rally in front of the Federal Building in downtown Los Angeles on Friday. Democrats have for years struggled to put forward a unified vision on immigration — one of the top issues that won President Trump a return to the White House.

    (Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

    Democrats have for years struggled to put forward a unified vision on immigration — one of the top issues that won President Trump a return to the White House. Any deal to increase guardrails on Homeland Security faces an uphill battle in the Republican-controlled Congress, leaving many proposals years away from the possibility of fruition. Even if Democrats manage to block the yearly funding bill, the agency still has tens of billions of dollars from Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    Still, the roving raids, violent clashes with protesters and detentions and deaths of U.S. citizens and immigrants alike increased the urgency many lawmakers feel to do something.

    Two centrist groups released memos last week written by former Homeland Security officials under the Biden administration urging Democrats to avoid the polarizing language and instead channel their outrage into specific reforms.

    “Every call to abolish ICE risks squandering one of the clearest opportunities in years to secure meaningful reform of immigration enforcement — while handing Republicans exactly the fight they want,” wrote the authors of one memo, from the Washington-based think tank Third Way.

    “Advocating for abolishing ICE is tantamount to advocating for stopping enforcement of all of our immigration laws in the interior of the United States — a policy position that is both wrong on the merits and at odds with the American public on the issue,” wrote Blas Nuñez-Neto, a senior policy fellow at the new think tank the Searchlight Institute who previously was assistant Homeland Security secretary.

    Roughly 46% of Americans said they support the idea of abolishing ICE, while 43% are opposed, according to a YouGov/Economist poll released last week.

    Sarah Pierce, a former policy analyst at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services who co-wrote the Third Way memo, said future polls might show less support for abolishing the agency, particularly if the question is framed as a choice among options including reforms such as banning agents from wearing masks or requiring use of body cameras.

    “There’s no doubt there will be further tragedies and with each, the effort to take an extreme position like abolishing ICE increases,” she said.

    Laura Hernandez, executive director of Freedom for Immigrants, a California-based organization that advocates for the closure of detention centers, said the increase in lawmakers calling to abolish ICE is long overdue.

    “We need lawmakers to use their power to stop militarized raids, to close detention centers and we need them to shut down ICE and CBP,” she said. “This violence that people are seeing on television is not new, it’s literally built into the DNA of DHS.”

    Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) smiles

    Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) introduced the “Abolish ICE Act.”

    (Paul Sancya / Associated Press)

    Cinthya Martinez, a UC Santa Cruz professor who has studied the movement to abolish ICE, noted that it stems from the movement to abolish prisons. The abolition part, she said, is watered down by mainstream politicians even as some liken immigration agents to modern-day slave patrols.

    Martinez said the goal is about more than simply getting rid of one agency or redirecting its duties to another. She pointed out that alongside ICE agents have been Border Patrol, FBI and ATF agents.

    “A lot of folks forget that prison abolition is to completely abolish carceral systems. It comes from a Black tradition that says prison is a continuation of slavery,” she said.

    But Peter Markowitz, a law professor and co-director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at the Cardozo School of Law, said the movement to abolish ICE around 2018 among mainstream politicians was always about having effective and humane immigration enforcement, not about having none.

    “But it fizzled because it didn’t have an answer to the policy question that follows: If not ICE, then what?” he said. “I hope we’re in a different position today.”

    [ad_2]

    Andrea Castillo, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Contributor: This time the U.S. isn’t hiding why it’s toppling a Latin American nation

    [ad_1]

    In the aftermath of the U.S. military strike that seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3, the Trump administration has emphasized its desire for unfettered access to Venezuela’s oil more than conventional foreign policy objectives, such as combating drug trafficking or bolstering democracy and regional stability.

    During his first news conference after the operation, President Trump claimed oil companies would play an important role and that the oil revenue would help fund any further intervention in Venezuela.

    Soon after, “Fox & Friends” hosts asked Trump about this prediction.

    “We have the greatest oil companies in the world,” Trump replied, “the biggest, the greatest, and we’re gonna be very much involved in it.”

    As a historian of U.S.-Latin American relations, I’m not surprised that oil or any other commodity is playing a role in U.S. policy toward the region. What has taken me aback, though, is the Trump administration’s openness about how much oil is driving its policies toward Venezuela.

    As I’ve detailed recently, U.S. military intervention in Latin America has largely been covert. And when the U.S. orchestrated the coup that ousted Guatemala’s democratically elected president in 1954, the U.S. covered up the role that economic considerations played in that operation.

    By the early 1950s, Guatemala had become a top source for the bananas Americans consumed, as it remains today.

    The United Fruit Company, based in Boston, owned more than 550,000 acres of Guatemalan land, largely thanks to its deals with previous dictatorships. These holdings required the intense labor of impoverished farmworkers who were often forced from their traditional lands. Their pay was rarely stable, and they faced periodic layoffs and wage cuts.

    The international corporation networked with dictators and local officials in Central America, many Caribbean islands and parts of South America to acquire immense estates for railroads and banana plantations.

    The locals called it the pulpo — “octopus” in Spanish — because the company seemingly had a hand in shaping the region’s politics, economies and everyday life. The Colombian government brutally crushed a 1928 strike by United Fruit workers, killing hundreds of people.

    The company’s seemingly unlimited clout in the countries where it operated gave rise to the stereotype of Central American nations as “banana republics.”

    In Guatemala, a country historically marked by extreme inequality, a broad coalition formed in 1944 to overthrow its repressive dictatorship in a popular uprising. Inspired by the anti-fascist ideals of World War II, the coalition sought to make the nation more democratic and its economy more fair.

    After decades of repression, the nation democratically elected Juan José Arévalo and then Jacobo Árbenz, under whom, in 1952, Guatemala implemented a land reform program that gave landless farmworkers their own undeveloped plots. Guatemala’s government asserted that these policies would build a more equitable society for Guatemala’s impoverished, Indigenous majority.

    United Fruit denounced Guatemala’s reforms as the result of a global conspiracy. It alleged that most of Guatemala’s unions were controlled by Mexican and Soviet communists and painted the land reform as a ploy to destroy capitalism.

    United Fruit sought to enlist the U.S. government in its fight against the elected government’s policies. While its executives did complain that Guatemala’s reforms hurt its financial investments and labor costs, they also cast any interference in its operations as part of a broader communist plot.

    It did this through an advertising campaign in the U.S. and by taking advantage of the anti-communist paranoia that prevailed at the time.

    United Fruit executives began to meet with officials in the Truman administration as early as 1945. Despite the support of sympathetic ambassadors, the U.S. government apparently wouldn’t intervene directly in Guatemala’s affairs.

    The company turned to Congress.

    It hired well connected lobbyists to portray Guatemala’s policies as part of a communist plot to destroy capitalism and the United States. In February 1949, multiple members of Congress denounced Guatemala’s labor reforms as communist.

    Sen. Claude Pepper called the labor code “obviously intentionally discriminatory against this American company” and “a machine gun aimed at the head of this American company.”

    Two days later, Rep. John McCormack echoed that statement, using the exact same words to denounce the reforms.

    Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Sen. Lister Hill and Rep. Mike Mansfield also went on the record, reciting the talking points outlined in United Fruit memos.

    No lawmaker said a word about bananas.

    Seventy-seven years later, we may see many echoes of past interventions, but now the U.S. government has dropped the veil: In his appearance after the strike that seized Maduro this month, Trump said “oil” 21 times.

    Aaron Coy Moulton is an associate professor of Latin American history at Stephen F. Austin State University in Texas and the author of “Caribbean Blood Pacts: Guatemala and the Cold War Struggle for Freedom.” This article was produced in collaboration with the Conversation.

    [ad_2]

    Aaron Coy Moulton

    Source link

  • Javier Milei wins Argentina’s midterm election, gaining more power to push reforms

    [ad_1]

    The results of Argentina’s midterm elections Sunday were not widely expected. Pre-election polls had predicted a tie nationwide. Instead there was a clear win for President Javier Milei’s coalition, La Libertad Avanza (Freedom Advances), which secured 41 percent of the national vote. The Peronist opposition followed with 32 percent, while regional parties divided the remainder. Voter turnout was 68 percent, below typical midterm participation levels.

    The vote consolidated Argentina’s increasingly polarized landscape, with centrist and third-party options virtually disappearing between Milei’s libertarian-leaning movement and the Peronist opposition. Beginning December 10, Freedom Advances will increase its congressional seats from 37 to 101 deputies and from 6 to 20 senators, surpassing the one-third threshold Milei had set as his minimum goal for victory. “We will have, without a doubt, the most reformist Congress in Argentine history,” Milei said after the results were announced.

    With a stronger representation in Congress, Milei can now block opposition bills that would undermine his veto power and threaten his fiscal austerity program. Although he did not win an outright majority, the results significantly enhance his bargaining power. Milei plans to pursue labor and tax reforms in the coming legislature and will need support from centrist lawmakers and regional blocs to pass them.

    The turnaround in Buenos Aires Province, which represents nearly 40 percent of Argentina’s electorate, was decisive. Milei’s coalition got a narrow victory in the region after suffering a 14-point defeat there in the provincial elections held last month, a vote that Peronist Gov. Axel Kicillof chose to schedule separately from the national contest to boost his own standing ahead of the 2027 presidential race. That early timing reshaped the incentive structure of his party’s local apparatus. Once many provincial officials had already secured their positions in September, the networks that typically drive voter mobilization had little motivation to replicate their efforts in October. The Peronists blame Kiciloff for the underperformance.

    The financial markets reacted favorably to Milei’s victory. Argentina’s country risk index and the dollar exchange rate both fell sharply, while the stocks of Argentine companies listed in New York rose. The outcome eased investor concerns about a possible Peronist resurgence. President Donald Trump, who earlier this month tied a $20 billion financial rescue package for Argentina to Milei’s success, congratulated him on Truth Social, praising Milei as a strong ally and celebrating what he called a “big win” for Argentina.

    But the outcome is not being read in Argentina as a full endorsement for Milei’s politics. The past month has been a political crisis for Milei, and some cabinet changes are already underway. Foreign Minister Gerardo Werthein and Justice Minister Mariano Cúneo Libarona submitted their resignations; Security Minister Patricia Bullrich and Defense Minister Luis Petri were both elected to Congress.

    The reshuffle reflects an internal struggle between Milei’s closest confidants: his behind-the-scenes adviser, Santiago Caputo, and his sister and presidential secretary, Karina Milei. Karina has acted as a bridge to the establishment figures within the administration, while Caputo represents the more radical wing of Milei’s libertarian base. A poor electoral result would have strengthened Caputo’s influence, given Milei’s weakened position in recent weeks. The president’s following appointments will likely settle this internal tension in light of the decisive victory he has just secured.

    Volatility is a constant in Argentina. The country’s direction now depends on whether Milei can push his central campaign promises, including dollarization, into policy before the 2027 election, when he will be eligible to seek another term.

    [ad_2]

    César Báez

    Source link

  • Milei scores historic win in Argentina midterms, tightens grip on Congress

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Argentine President Javier Milei secured a decisive victory Sunday in midterm elections, expanding his control of Congress and giving his government fresh momentum to push forward with deep spending cuts and sweeping free-market reforms.

    The result gives Milei’s libertarian movement a boost and marks another sharp turn for one of Latin America’s largest and most volatile economies.

    Milei’s party, La Libertad Avanza, won about 41.5% of the vote in Buenos Aires province, a historic upset in a region long dominated by the Peronist opposition. The rival coalition took 40.8%, according to figures cited by Reuters and The Associated Press.

    GREECE’S HARD LESSON FOR NYC: BEWARE LEADERS WHO PROMISE THE WORLD

    Argentina’s president Javier Milei gestures as he delivers a speech on stage. (AP Photo/Manu Fernandez, File)

    Nationwide, La Libertad Avanza increased its seats in the lower house from 37 to 64, positioning Milei to more easily defend his vetoes and executive decrees that have defined his economic agenda.

    “The result is better than even the most optimistic Milei supporters were hoping for,” Marcelo Garcia, Americas director at the risk-analysis firm Horizon Engage, said in comments reported by Reuters. “With this result, Milei will be able to easily defend his decrees and vetoes in Congress.”

    Political consultant Gustavo Cordoba told Reuters the outcome reflected a cautious optimism among voters who appear willing to give Milei’s economic policies more time.

    Argentina-Milei

    Argentina President Javier Milei speaks during a ceremony to commemorate Holocaust and Heroism Day, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Wednesday, May 8, 2024.  (AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko)

    “Many people were willing to give the government another chance,” Cordoba said. “The triumph is unobjectionable, unquestionable.”

    HOUSE DEM DECLARES SHE IS A ‘PROUD GUATEMALAN’ BEFORE AMERICAN AT PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

    Reuters reported that inflation has fallen from 12.8% before Milei’s inauguration to 2.1% last month. His government has also posted a fiscal surplus and pushed through broad deregulation measures — a dramatic reversal after years of economic turbulence.

    According to The Associated Press, the U.S. government under President Donald Trump offered Argentina a $40 billion aid package, including a $20 billion currency swap and a proposed $20 billion debt-investment facility, after tying future U.S. support to Milei’s performance in the midterms.

    Italian Prime Minister at President Donald Trump's Inauguration

    Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Argentina’s President Javier Milei share a joke as they arrive for the Presidential Inauguration of Donald Trump at the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 20, 2025.  (Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters)

    President Donald Trump congratulated Milei on Truth Social Sunday night, writing: “Congratulations to President Javier Milei on his Landslide Victory in Argentina. He is doing a wonderful job! Our confidence in him was justified by the People of Argentina.”

    CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

    Investors reacted positively to the results. Reuters reported that Argentine bonds and stocks are expected to rally as Milei’s stronger hand in Congress gives him the political capital to accelerate his reforms

    Milei called the election “a turning point for Argentina,” according to AFP via the Times of Israel.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Opinion | The Crisis in Paris Is That No One Recognizes the Real Crisis

    [ad_1]

    France’s welfare state is in desperate need of reform, but Macron is obsessing over Marine Le Pen.

    [ad_2]

    Joseph C. Sternberg

    Source link

  • Opinion | Argentina: Right Country, Wrong Rescue

    [ad_1]

    Javier Milei needs U.S. help, but his country really needs dollarization.

    [ad_2]

    The Editorial Board

    Source link

  • What you need to know about new Maryland laws in effect Oct. 1 – WTOP News

    [ad_1]

    There are hundreds of new laws that go into effect on Oct. 1 in Maryland. These include changes to driving, cannabis, criminal justice reform and prescription drug disposal.

    There are hundreds of new laws that go into effect on Oct. 1 in Maryland. These include changes to driving, cannabis, criminal justice reform and prescription drug disposal.

    Here’s a look at some of the new laws in effect Wednesday:

    Cannabis: 

    A new law allows those 21 years and older to “manufacture a personal use amount of cannabis products or concentrated cannabis for personal use or adult sharing at a private residence.” This is only legal as long as the process does not use a “volatile solvent.” Distributing large amounts is still a felony and the law also raises those felony thresholds for controlled substances and increases penalties for large-scale distribution.

    Criminal law: 

    Known as the “Organized Retail Crime law,” this law creates a “clear definition of organized retail crime, enables statewide data collection, and allows theft to be aggregated across jurisdictions, closing a critical loophole long exploited by criminals.” Law enforcement can now track repeat offenders and combine offenses across counties. 

    Another law decreases the amount of time that a person can file to have their criminal charges expunged. It allows the filing of a petition a certain amount of time after the completion of the sentence and adds to the list of misdemeanor convictions that a person may expunge. The law also does not allow Maryland Judiciary Case Search to show a charge of possession of cannabis if the conviction was later pardoned by the governor.

    The “Second Look Act,” requires the Maryland Parole Commission to consider the age of incarcerated individuals when deciding whether or not to grant parole.

    Driving: 

    Starting Oct. 1, automated cameras across the state will begin mailing out tiered tickets based on how much over the speed limit you’re driving. The new tier structure was passed by the Maryland General Assembly and signed by Gov. Wes Moore in May.

    Another new law will expand what counts towards reckless or aggressive driving. Speeding 30 mph over the speed limit or more will be reckless driving and add six points to the driver’s record as well as result in a fine of $1,000, a jail sentence or both. Two points will be added to the driver’s record for negligent driving and that fine has increased to $750.

    Eric’s ID Law goes into effect on Wednesday as well, which means drivers can choose  “non-apparent disability” to be added to their license. This opts drivers into the program that will place a butterfly emblem on their state ID or driver’s license. It will indicate to anyone looking at it that the holder of that license or ID has a disability that isn’t immediately obvious, which could include deafness, autism, developmental disabilities or a mental health issue.

    Drug disposal:

    A new law changes the “Prescription Drug Repository Program” to allow other states to participate and to include over-the-counter drugs to be donated. The law clarifies which patients are eligible to receive the donated drugs.

    Landlord/tenant: 

    Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.

    © 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

    [ad_2]

    Valerie Bonk

    Source link

  • Coalition for Patient Rights (CPR) Urges Immediate Medical Cannabis Law Reform in Nevada with Broad Support from Integrative Healthcare

    Coalition for Patient Rights (CPR) Urges Immediate Medical Cannabis Law Reform in Nevada with Broad Support from Integrative Healthcare

    [ad_1]


    LAS VEGAS, NV, September 25, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Compassion Center celebrates and champions the Coalition for Patient Rights (CPR) in leading the charge for urgent reforms in Nevada’s medical cannabis laws, advocating for reduced fees, patient cultivation rights, and an overhaul of outdated DUID laws. Join CPR in protecting patient access, promoting fair legislation, and ensuring the safe use of natural, organic cannabis for qualifying patients across the state. Get involved by attending monthly meetings or supporting CPR’s Washington D.C. delegation.

    The Compassion Center celebrates and champions the Coalition for Patient Rights (CPR) in urgently calling for reform of Nevada’s medical cannabis laws to protect patient access to safe and affordable medicine, and supports CPR’s Washington D.C. delegation in speaking up on behalf of patient rights. In light of growing concerns surrounding the current regulatory framework, the upcoming DEA rescheduling hearing, and the ongoing lack of understanding about medical cannabis, CPR is advocating for legislation that reduces fees and eliminates barriers to access. Our goal is to ensure that patients’ safety and rights are always protected, while providing law enforcement and regulators with clear, actionable guidelines.

    As medical cannabis continues to be recognized as a vital tool in managing a range of chronic conditions, qualifying patients in Nevada face unnecessary financial and procedural hurdles. CPR is urging lawmakers to take swift action to reduce registration fees, and even eliminate the fees altogether for disabled veterans and patients with permanent disabilities, while eliminating the current pre-application qualifications, streamlining patient access, and further eliminating the obstacles that disproportionately affect low-income and vulnerable populations.

    Central to this reform is the protection of a patient’s right to grow their own cannabis at home, free from exposure to harmful chemicals and pesticides, plant growth regulators (additives) and irradiation. CPR supports legislation that allows patients to cultivate natural, organic cannabis without the burden of taxation, ensuring they can safely manage their own treatment without any unnecessary interference, undue burdens on their privacy and liberty, without an excessive cost.

    Additionally, CPR advocates for a complete overhaul of Nevada’s pro se DUID laws, which are currently preventing medical cannabis patients from legally operating vehicles, boats, or aircraft while using cannabis to alleviate their conditions, making pharmaceuticals the only option for a professional or those supporting a family, which we all know can lead to harmful damage from side-effects. The current law is overly broad and does not account for varying levels of patient tolerance or experience, unfairly penalizing patients who rely on cannabis for chronic relief. CPR supports replacing these outdated laws with proven techniques to identify actual impairment, backed by police officer-worn body camera footage to ensure fairness and transparency.

    “With the DEA’s move to hold a hearing on rescheduling cannabis to a CSA schedule III, CPR believes the time has come for Nevada to modernize its approach to medical cannabis and the Driving Under the Influence of Drugs (DUID) laws regarding medical cannabis patients,” said Jeff Krajnak, CPR President and President of Pardon Me, Please. “Our laws should protect the patients who rely on this medicine, not punish them for seeking natural relief. Reforming access, protecting home cultivation, and replacing outdated DUI laws with science-backed measures will ensure that patients can live healthier, safer lives without fear of legal repercussions”, said Mr. Jason Greninger, CPR Director of Legislative Advocacy.”

    CPR is dedicated to collaborating with legislators, healthcare providers, and patient advocates to ensure that Nevada’s medical cannabis laws align with the needs and rights of its patients. We invite you to attend one of our monthly meetings, held on the last Wednesday of each month, or to consider donating to support a delegation that will testify at the upcoming DEA hearing in Washington D.C. on December 2nd, 2024.

    “While we acknowledge the consideration to reschedule cannabis to a Schedule III substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) will open up many doors for insurance billing and inpatient integration, we hope to see the plant restored to its original status in the updated U.S. Pharmacopeia as a plant-based medicine under the Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) designation” Said Nurse Julie Monteiro, RN, BSK, Senior Vice President of Patient Education. “Additionally, it is critical to prioritize patients, their rights, and the accessibility and affordability of cannabis as the DEA moves forward with rescheduling.” Said James B. Creel, PgM, Board Secretary-Treasurer of Compassion Center, and Patient Advocate representing Coalition For Patient Rights (CPR) as a Research Fellow of Compassion Center’s Center for Incubation & Findings Research (CIFR).

    For more information or to get involved by volunteering or donating to send our delegation to Washington, D.C., please visit CPR at: https://coalitionforpatientrights.org/donate/

    To attend a Monthly CPR Town Hall Meeting, speak on a particular subject or just vent about the high cost of healthcare, please visit: https://coalitionforpatientrights.org/nevada-rsvp/ and a link/ ticket will be sent directly to you so you can attend. It is vital for you to let your voice be heard. We hold both in-person and online meetings regularly to ensure the voice of the people is heard.

    To be part of the next meeting, please email Vicki Higgins, Executive Vice President of Legislative Action at: Vicki.Higgins@MyCPR.us to obtain a personal invitation and directions or a link to the meeting. While some meetings are held in person at any one or more NV libraries, community centers and offices, CPR often conducts online-only meetings to ensure that the entire community has unfiltered access and the ability to get involved in the conversation.

    Contact Information

    James Garvey
    CIFR Director of Collaborative Programs
    james.garvey@compassion-center.org
    844-842-COMPASSION Ext 1

    Vicki Higgins
    Executive Vice President: Legislative Action
    vicki.higgins@mycpr.us
    844-842-8687 Ext 1

    Related Files

    CPR Flyer VOX Populi

    Related Video

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLqqFFqolQY

    SOURCE: Coalition for Patient Rights

    Source: Compassion Center

    Related Media

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 95 Phonics Lesson Library Meets ESSA Standards of Evidence for Grades 4-5

    95 Phonics Lesson Library Meets ESSA Standards of Evidence for Grades 4-5

    [ad_1]

    Lincolnshire, IL – Today,  95 Percent Group LLC, the trusted source for comprehensive, proven literacy solutions, announced that its 95 Phonics Lesson Library™ is now listed on the Evidence for ESSA website for Tier 2, small-group instruction, for grades 4-5. The rating confirms the program’s research meets federal standards under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) for demonstrating evidence of efficacy. In 2022, 95 Phonics Core Program® by 95 Percent Group also earned ESSA listing for Tier 1 Instruction.

    Based at Johns Hopkins University’s Center for Research and Reform in Education, Evidence for ESSA was established following the 2015 Congressional approval of the federal act and provides independent, authoritative information on program research that meets the ESSA evidence standards. As a leading resource in the field, the website enables educators and communities to select effective instructional tools to improve student outcomes.

    “Our continued, strategic investment in research both provides us with the information we need to continue to grow and develop our product offerings and demonstrates to educators the power of our programs to accelerate literacy skill development for all students,” said Brad Lindaas, CEO, 95 Percent Group. “We are excited to expand our listings on the highly respected Evidence for ESSA to include supporting intervention for students in grades 4-5.”

    95 Phonics Lesson Library provides teachers with the tools to guide students to grade-level mastery. This evidence-based program for intervention offers three levels of instruction and easy-to-use, fully prepared lessons. As a precision tool, 95 Phonics Lesson Library gives students the targeted intervention they need to fill specific skill gaps.

    LXD Research founder Rachel Schechter, Ph.D., said, “Much of the current focus of science of reading has been on the earlier elementary grades. Our recent research demonstrates the ways that 95 Percent Group programs are effective instructional and intervention tools for students in grades 4-5.”

    In the study that earned 95 Phonics Lesson Library Evidence for ESSA approval, two schools in Ohio’s Youngstown City School District implemented the program with students in grades 4-5. At mid-year, LXD found that 7 percent more 4th graders and 13 percent more 5th graders were on or above benchmark compared to their peers in other district schools that were not using the program.

    “Educators making decisions about science of reading aligned materials for their students are faced with complex and time-consuming decisions. They need to ask questions, such as ‘Is this program evidence-based?’ and ‘Will it move the needle for our students?” 95 Percent Group has made a long-term investment in independent research they can trust, in order to put that information at their fingertips,” said Amy Boza, Ph.D., director of research at 95 Percent Group. “In addition, the work has been highlighted at both national and international academic conferences including IDA.”

    About 95 Percent Group

    95 Percent Group is an education company whose mission is to build on science to empower teachers—supplying the knowledge, resources, and support they need—to develop strong readers. Using an approach that is based in structured literacy, the company’s One95™ Literacy Ecosystem™ integrates professional learning and evidence-based literacy products into one cohesive system that supports consistent instructional routines across tiers and is proven and trusted to help students close skill gaps and read fluently. 95 Percent Group is also committed to advancing research, best practices, and thought leadership on the science of reading more broadly. For more information, visit www.95percentgroup.com. 

    About LXD Research

    LXD Research is an independent evaluation, research, and consulting division within Charles River Media Group focusing on educational programs. They design rigorous research studies, multifaceted data analytic reporting, and dynamic content to disseminate insights. Visit www.LXDResearch.com.

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

    [ad_2]

    ESchool News Staff

    Source link

  • Gascón faces off against 11 challengers in hotly contested L.A. D.A. race

    Gascón faces off against 11 challengers in hotly contested L.A. D.A. race

    [ad_1]

    Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón is expected to advance to a November runoff, but it’s too early to tell who his challenger will be.

    While polls show Gascón has grown deeply unpopular with a significant portion of L.A. County residents, polls and local political observers have suggested his strong progressive base will carry him out of a crowded primary field replete with challengers who spent more time attacking him than they did defining their own candidacies.

    Four years after taking office on a popular criminal justice reform platform in the wake of George Floyd’s murder in 2020, Gascón found himself facing a different political landscape in this primary cycle. Multiple polls showed the incumbent with a disapproval rating over 50%, and a mix of frustrations with his policies and his perceived vulnerability led 11 candidates to challenge him.

    While Gascón has undoubtedly had some successes in his term — including stepped up efforts to exonerate wrongfully convicted persons and an increased focus on prosecutions of police officers accused of misconduct and excessive force — his term has been rocked by public disputes with his own prosecutors and a litany of civil suits that have already cost the county roughly $7 million. Some of his reforms were deemed illegal by a judge in 2021 and critics have also blamed his policies directly for heinous crimes.

    Property and violent crime rose in L.A. County from 2019 to 2022, according to California Department of Justice data. But other counties with more traditional prosecutors saw violent crime surge at much higher rates in the same time frame, a data point Gascón often stresses. LAPD data also show homicides and robberies have declined over the past two years and criminologists argue its disingenuous to solely blame a district attorney’s policies for crime spikes or declines.

    The field chasing Gascón includes four prosecutors from within his own office, three judges and two former federal prosecutors. With resumes and messages that largely mirrored one another — 10 of the 11 challengers promised to roll back nearly all of the policies Gascón announced during his inaugaration speech — it became hard for a challenger to stand out from the pack.

    Nathan Hochman, a former federal prosecutor who unsuccessfully ran for state attorney general in 2022 as a Republican, raised the most money in the primary. Now running as an independent, Hochman promised to “get politics out” of an office he says was made increasingly partisan by Gascón and the broader progressive prosecutor movement nationwide.

    While he favors alternative sentencing outcomes for nonviolent defendants struggling with mental illness or drug addiction, Hochman also promised to seek the death penalty in some cases and make use of sentencing enhancements for gang and gun crimes, measures that can sometimes double the prison time for certain defendants. Critics have argued enhancements are disproportionately used against people of color.

    Running as a moderate who can balance reform with justice, ex-federal prosecutor Jeff Chemerinsky was one of lone candidates to embrace criminal justice reform while challenging Gascón. Chemerinsky disagrees with much of what Gascón has done, but also said he’d largely eschew trying juveniles as adults and had serious reservations about the use of gang enhancements. Such positions have led other challengers to describe him as “mini-Gascón.”

    Other top challengers include Deputy Dist. Attys. Jonathan Hatami and Eric Siddall, and Superior Court Judge Debra Archuleta.

    Hatami was one of the three biggest fundraisers in the field, and the pugnacious prosecutor’s long history of publicly criticizing Gascón and his involvement with attempts to recall the D.A. made him popular with victims’ rights advocates. He was the only candidate to break from the pack in a USC/Dornsife poll earlier this year, snaring 8% of the vote and finishing a clear second to Gascón. Along with Archuleta, he received the endorsement of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the largest law enforcement union in L.A. County.

    Siddall, a veteran prosecutor of cases involving gang crime and attacks on police officers, bagged the endorsement of the union representing rank-and-file prosecutors and has also frequently antagonized the district attorney through the union. Siddall was also running as a moderate, claiming to represent a “new generation of prosecutors” who want to balance reform and aggressive prosecution of violent criminals, but he and Chemerinsky often found themselves fighting for the same airspace.

    [ad_2]

    James Queally, Sonja Sharp

    Source link

  • Palestinian prime minister submits government’s resignation, a move that could open door to reforms

    Palestinian prime minister submits government’s resignation, a move that could open door to reforms

    [ad_1]

    Palestinian prime minister submits government’s resignation, a move that could open door to reforms

    Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh said Monday his government is resigning, in a move that could open the door to U.S.-backed reforms in the Palestinian Authority.Related video above: Netanyahu releases plan for after war in Gaza endsPresident Mahmoud Abbas must still decide whether he accepts Shtayyeh and his government’s resignation. But the move signals a willingness by the Western-backed Palestinian leadership to accept a shake-up that might usher in reforms seen as necessary to revitalize the Palestinian Authority.The U.S. wants a reformed Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza once the war is over. But many obstacles remain to making that vision a reality.”The next stage and its challenges require new governmental and political arrangements that take into account the new reality in the Gaza Strip,” Shtayyeh said at a Cabinet meeting.Abbas is expected to choose Mohammad Mustafa, chairman of the Palestine Investment Fund, as the next prime minister.

    JERUSALEM —

    Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh said Monday his government is resigning, in a move that could open the door to U.S.-backed reforms in the Palestinian Authority.

    Related video above: Netanyahu releases plan for after war in Gaza ends

    President Mahmoud Abbas must still decide whether he accepts Shtayyeh and his government’s resignation. But the move signals a willingness by the Western-backed Palestinian leadership to accept a shake-up that might usher in reforms seen as necessary to revitalize the Palestinian Authority.

    The U.S. wants a reformed Palestinian Authority to govern Gaza once the war is over. But many obstacles remain to making that vision a reality.

    “The next stage and its challenges require new governmental and political arrangements that take into account the new reality in the Gaza Strip,” Shtayyeh said at a Cabinet meeting.

    Abbas is expected to choose Mohammad Mustafa, chairman of the Palestine Investment Fund, as the next prime minister.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How the Gun-Reform Movement Can Finally “Break” the Grip of the Firearm Lobby

    How the Gun-Reform Movement Can Finally “Break” the Grip of the Firearm Lobby

    [ad_1]

    “I see it as an extension of the fight to save our country and our democracy from extremism,” Emma Brown told me over the phone recently. She had just taken over as executive director of Giffords, the key gun-reform organization founded by former representative Gabby Giffords a little more than a decade ago, and we were talking about what the next 10 years of the movement might look like.

    Brown was optimistic, especially after recent legislative wins, like 2022’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which would have seemed “impossible” just a handful of years ago. But Brown—a veteran of both Democratic senator Mark Kelly’s 2022 campaign and Joe Biden’s 2020 team in Arizona—was also clear-eyed about the challenges that lie ahead: “The stakes couldn’t be higher” for the November election, she said.

    In a conversation, which has been edited for clarity and length, Brown sounded off on the apparent weakening of the NRA, the next big priorities of the gun-reform movement, and the importance of broadening the push beyond Democrats: “We really believe that we have to expand our coalition.”

    Vanity Fair: You’re taking over Giffords at an interesting moment for the movement. Several years of uphill fighting have seemed to pay off with some real wins recently, at the federal level, with the Safer Communities Act, as well as with some action in the states. At the same time, we’ve seen some new challenges arise—I’m thinking of Bruen [the Supreme Court decision that did away with the legal requirement to show “proper cause” when applying for a concealed carry license in New York], for instance*.* If you had to take the temperature of the current state of the movement, where would you say we are right now compared with, say, 10 years ago?

    Emma Brown: It’s a good question. So first, a lot of people look at this issue and feel like we’re trying to push a boulder. But I think if you step back on it, it has been a tremendous amount of success in a short period of time. In the last 10 years, we have gotten from a place where guns were really on the third rail of politics to a place where it is a major component of the Biden-Harris reelection campaign. I have seen that evolution myself, up close in battleground states across the country over the last 10 years. So there’s really been a significant political development.

    Secondly, we’ve passed over 600 gun-safety laws during the time that Giffords has existed, really improving the strength of safety laws across the country. And then obviously, in 2022, we saw the major federal gun-safety law passed, the first one in 30 years, breaking a big logjam. So I think when you look at all of that, and the history of social movements in the United States, this one is relatively young—and the gun lobby had a century head start, but we are making legal and policy strides. And the cultural and political progress, which is part of what we’re really after, is not far behind. That’s obviously thanks to the groups that have been organizing for many decades—our law center being one of them, along with some of the more recent groups like March for Our Lives and Mothers of the Movement. I think we have supercharged in the last decade.

    The gun lobby was obviously once seen as a kind of Goliath figure on this issue, but it has seemed somewhat chastened recently. We’ve seen the resignation of Wayne LaPierre at the NRA, but we’ve also seen just kind of the culture shift around this issue. Is it right to see the gun lobby as being in retreat? Or is that wishful thinking a little bit? Is there danger of spiking the ball too early on that?

    No doubt, thanks to the work of the larger gun-violence-prevention movement and Giffords, the NRA and the lobby’s influence has significantly decreased. That is how we have been able to pass all those laws at the state level. It’s how we were able to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. I will say that I think it would be a mistake to assume that the lobby’s grip is not strong on state legislatures and Congress. A big part of where I think we are going as an organization, and as a movement, is looking to finally break that grip. I think if you step back, there is a big gulf in America, as you know, between public opinion and public policy on guns—and you ask yourself, If Americans believe that gun violence is a very big problem, and nearly all of Americans—90% of Republicans—support the same safety measures, how are these not law?

    [ad_2]

    Eric Lutz

    Source link

  • Gerrick Wilkins Announces Congressional Reform Plan

    Gerrick Wilkins Announces Congressional Reform Plan

    [ad_1]


    BIRMINGHAM, Ala., January 25, 2024 (Newswire.com)
    –
    Gerrick Wilkins, candidate for Congress in Alabama’s 6th District, today unveiled his plan to clean up Congress.

    “Congress’ job approval performance rating is at an all time low. We need to restore people’s faith in our system of government and it starts with cleaning the House,” said Wilkins who has just recently published a book on term limits, “Unshackling Democracy: Embracing Term Limits, Empowering Citizens.”

    Wilkins’ plan of action in cleaning up Congress:

    • Term limiting Congress. 
    • End insider trading on legislation by requiring Congressional members to put their personal finances in a blind trust.
    • Require Congressional members to join the same pension system as all other federal employees.
    • No more special exemptions from laws Congress passes, such as Obamacare.
    • Require a ten-year cooling off period for Congressional members from being able to lobby.
    • Prohibit immediate family members from being paid federal lobbyists and serving on foreign corporate boards.

    “We need term limits. Too many politicians have gotten rich in DC, because they put their personal wealth ahead of the people. It is time to restore our founding fathers’ vision of a citizens legislature,” said Wilkins.

    Wilkins is also concerned with insider trading. During the 2020 elections, 302 members of Congress accepted campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies totaling $14 million. Pfizer, who has developed one of the vaccines, has a PAC that donated to 228 members. Worse yet, 48 members invested in Pfizer.

    Wilkins further says, “It is time for more than endless discussion about policy, we need to take action to restore the people’s faith in our government. By requiring members to put their money in a blind trust, we can stop them from benefiting from legislation they support or oppose.  Members should be voting for the people not financial gain.”

    “When Congress enacts bad legislation such as Obamacare, Congress should not be exempt. They need to live by the legislation they pass,” said Wilkins.

    Wilkins is a person of action. This is the third major plan he has announced. Last month he unveiled his comprehensive “America First Border Security Plan” and earlier this month he announced his “America First Economic Overhaul Plan.” Wilkins further says, “It is time for more than just endless discussion about policy. We need to take action to restore the people’s faith in our government.”

    For more information on Gerrick Wilkins, please visit www.WilkinsforAL.com or reach out to:

    Lewis Pitchford, Campaign Manager
    lewis@wilkinsforal.com
    256-599-2905

    Source: Wilkins for Congress

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • IXL Math Meets Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Tier 1 Requirements in Randomized Control Trial Conducted by Johns Hopkins University

    IXL Math Meets Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Tier 1 Requirements in Randomized Control Trial Conducted by Johns Hopkins University

    [ad_1]

    BALTIMORE, Maryland — IXL Learning, developer of personalized learning products used by millions of people globally, has unveiled the findings of a Johns Hopkins University study that affirms  IXL Math’s effectiveness in boosting student achievement. The evaluation of IXL Math’s impact meets the required rigor of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) Tier 1 and What Works Clearinghouse standards for evidence-based interventions. 

    The  Center for Research and Reform in Education (CRRE) at Johns Hopkins University conducted an independent, randomized control trial in Spring 2023 at Holland Public Schools in Michigan. The goal of the study was to determine IXL Math’s efficacy on students in grades 3-5. Half of the classrooms were assigned to the treatment group and used IXL Math to supplement instruction, while the remaining students continued learning as usual. 

    The  research revealed the following key findings:

    • Students in IXL classrooms surpassed their control group peers: IXL Math students significantly outperformed the control group by an average of 10 points on the Star Math assessment.
    • Underserved students achieved larger gains: Improved math performance was particularly pronounced among Hispanic, Special Education, English Language Learner, and FARMS (Free and Reduced Meal Program) student populations, with gains ranging from 13 to 17 points.
    • A positive correlation between usage and achievement: IXL Math usage was significantly correlated with student performance on the Star Math and M-STEP assessments.
    • Teachers overwhelmingly praised their IXL implementation: Approximately 90% of teachers reported that their implementation of IXL was successful and had a meaningful impact on instruction. The initial professional development provided by IXL was particularly valuable, according to teachers.

    “We are proud that this expert-led study clearly confirms IXL’s positive impact on math achievement and places it within ESSA’s highest tier of efficacy,” said Bo Bashkov, Manager of Research at IXL Learning. “A compelling body of evidence from previous studies spanning 70,000 schools throughout the United States shows a remarkable pattern: Schools utilizing IXL consistently outperform those using other solutions. This new report corroborates existing findings and further underscores that IXL empowers students and teachers to achieve greater success.”

    Visit our  research page for more information about IXL’s studies.  

    How IXL helps students succeed in math

    IXL Math is an adaptive program that is proven to help students master essential skills. In fact, studies show that schools using IXL Math consistently outperform others, ranking as much as 15 percentile points higher on state assessments. In addition to helping schools and students succeed academically, IXL can uncover hidden obstacles to learning, increase teacher engagement, develop students’ intrinsic motivation to learn, and more. 

    Comprehensive curriculum for deeper learning

    With more than 4,900 standards-aligned skills, IXL Math’s K-12 curriculum promotes rigor by helping students develop a conceptual understanding of math, build procedural fluency, and tackle challenging problems that have real-world applications. Each skill is adaptive, adjusting in difficulty to ensure students are perfectly challenged. Based on students’ previous work, IXL generates personalized recommendations in real time that guide learners to skills that will help them make the most progress.  

    IXL now also provides a groundbreaking curriculum,  Takeoff by IXL Math™, to deliver core instruction and help teachers differentiate a full year of daily math learning without any prior planning. The Takeoff curriculum equips teachers with everything they need to provide tailored math instruction, including lesson plans, dynamic recommendations for support and enrichment, and ready-made unit assessments. Seamlessly integrated into IXL’s personalized learning platform, these resources give students the support they need and show teachers instant insights into their progress.

    Accurately assess knowledge in real time

    IXL’s  first-of-its-kind assessment suite, which includes the  Real-Time Diagnostic and  universal screener, works in concert with its math curriculum to give educators real-time insight into performance, pinpoint gaps in knowledge, and provide specific next steps to help each student grow. Additionally, IXL’s comprehensive diagnostic reports allow administrators to easily identify students across their district who are working below grade level and may need additional support.

    Support and empower students at every step

    Built-in instructional resources, including more than 2,700  video tutorials for Grade 2 through Precalculus skills, support students when they’re working independently and ensure they have the guidance to learn with confidence. 

    Provide teachers the insights that they need

    IXL Analytics provides teachers with  real-time insights that pinpoint trouble spots and monitor performance, allowing them to respond to student needs more quickly and facilitate meaningful growth. Administrators can use IXL  District Analytics and IXL School Analytics to track student progress and teacher engagement, enabling them to improve IXL’s impact on their school or district.

    About IXL

    Currently used by 15 million students and in 95 of the top 100 U.S. school districts, IXL is an all-inclusive educational platform that provides a comprehensive PK-12 curriculum and instructional resources, actionable analytics and a state-of-the-art assessment suite. IXL’s end-to-end teaching and learning solution supports personalized instruction in math, English language arts, science, social studies and Spanish. With more than 130 billion questions asked and answered around the world, IXL is helping schools and parents successfully boost student achievement. The IXL Learning  family of products also includes  Rosetta Stone,  TPT,  SpanishDictionary.com,  inglés.com,  Wyzant,  Vocabulary.com,  ABCya,  Education.com and  Emmersion. To learn more about IXL, visit  www.ixl.com,  facebook.com/IXL and  twitter.com/IXLLearning.

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

    [ad_2]

    ESchool News Staff

    Source link

  • ‘The Best of Reason’: How Florida fixed its vote-counting problem after the 2000 election

    ‘The Best of Reason’: How Florida fixed its vote-counting problem after the 2000 election

    [ad_1]

    The Best of Reason: How Florida Fixed Its Vote-Counting Problem After the 2000 Election

    This week’s featured article is “How Florida Fixed Its Vote-Counting Problem After the 2000 Election” by Ronald Bailey.

    This audio was generated using AI trained on the voice of Katherine Mangu-Ward.

    Music credits: “Deep in Thought” by CTRL and “Sunsettling” by Man with Roses

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • Young Americans turn against Boomers over Social Security

    Young Americans turn against Boomers over Social Security

    [ad_1]

    Younger generations in the U.S., including millennials and Gen Zers, are much more likely to believe that the Social Security system needs reforming than those in their 60s and 70s, according to a recent survey conducted by Redfield & Wilton Strategies on behalf of Newsweek.

    A majority of 63 percent of Americans “strongly agreed” (28 percent) or “agreed” (35 percent) that the Social Security system needs to be reformed, according to the Redfield & Wilton Strategies/Newsweek poll. Only 10 percent “strongly disagreed” (5 percent) or “disagreed” (another 5 percent).

    The poll was conducted on December 8 among a sample population of 1,500 eligible voters in the U.S.

    Some 40 percent of respondents said they believe that the Social Security program currently pays out more to retirees than it is receiving in Social Security tax payments, while 26 percent disagreed with this statement.

    Shoppers walk around Twelve Oaks Mall on November 24, 2023 in Novi, Michigan. A majority of millennials think that the Social Security program is making more payments than it receives taxes, according to an exclusive Newsweek poll.
    Emily Elconin/Getty Images

    Millennials (those aged between 27 and 42), Gen Zers (those aged between 18 and 26), and Gen Xers (those aged between 43 and 58) were more likely than boomers (those older than 59 years old) to think that Social Security should be reformed.

    According to the poll, 56 percent of Gen Zers, 76 percent of millennials and 69 percent of Gen Xers believed the system should be reformed, against 50 percent of boomers.

    There were also overwhelmingly more millennials (52 percent) thinking that the system isn’t getting as many tax payments as it was handing out benefits to retirees than any other generations, including Gen Z (39 percent), Gen X (25 percent) and boomers (39 percent).

    “In general, millennials and plurals—our name for Gen Z—are skeptical that Social Security benefits as robust as those retirees like me currently enjoy will be available to them when they retire,” Morley Winograd, author of three books on the millennial generation, told Newsweek.

    “They have been told by Republicans in Congress, seconded by deficit hawks in think tanks, that the money will run out before they can claim it,” he said. “None of that is true. But, luckily, the younger generation’s skepticism of experts and politicians will help prevent the kind of unnecessary tinkering with future, never present, Social Security payments that some older folks advocate.”

    While boomers are the richest generations on the planet, millennials remain burdened by the debt “many of them incurred by paying excessive and economically unjustified tuition prices when we decided to make them the first generation in American history to have the majority of the burden of paying for higher education fall on them and their parents,” Winograd said.

    The older generation has on average a net worth 12 times higher than millennials, who are worth an average of $100,000.

    What’s the State of the Social Security Program?

    Social Security is currently facing an uncertain future as it is expected to face a 23 percent across-the-board benefit cut in 2033, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, unless something changes until then. For an average newly retired couple, that means $17,400 less.

    Fixing the Social Security system is becoming an increasingly urgent issue, according to Richard Johnson, director of the Program on Retirement Policy at the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank, told Newsweek.

    “By law, Social Security payments cannot exceed the program’s resources. The program now pays out more in benefits than it collects in revenue,” the expert said.

    While the Social Security’s trust fund is currently making up the difference, this trust fund is widely expected to run out by 2034. “When that happens, Social Security will be able to pay less than 80 percent of promised benefits,” Johnson said, citing the conclusion reached by several experts.

    “Unless policymakers fix Social Security’s finances in the next 10 years, millions of retirees and people with disabilities would plunge into poverty.”

    For Johnson, the solution might involve cutting benefits or increasing taxes—a change that would be unpopular among retirees, but necessary. “Fixing Social Security sooner rather than later would share the pain of any benefit cuts or tax increases among more people, reducing the pain for later generations,” Johnson said.

    Winograd is a little more positive on the outlook of the program, saying that a resilient U.S. economy could keep Social Security afloat.

    “Whether or not Social Security is able to maintain its current levels of payments or not depends on what assumptions you make about the performance of the U.S. economy in the future—an impossible thing to predict with any degree of accuracy,” Winograd said.

    “But, for instance, if the economy were to grow at the 5.2 percent rate GDP grew in the third quarter of this year, there would be no problem with Social Security benefits in the foreseeable future,” he said.

    “Of course, this is a difficult rate to sustain, but with disruptors like AI now starting to change the productivity rates of the U.S. economy in ways as profound as the internet and personal computing did in the go-go 1990s, there is no reason to believe that the U.S. economy won’t continue to outperform the expectations of most economists, who are still waiting to see if the recession they forecasted for last year and the year before arrives,” he added.

    “And, besides, if the system does turn out to need more money, it can be quickly and equitably raised by simply removing the income cap on paying Social Security taxes, which is one of the more egregious regressive elements of our current tax laws and very unpopular with young voters now flooding the electorate.”