United States
12,754 stories
Career and Technical Education Takes Its Next Big Step
Join this free virtual event to hear creative approaches to modernize CTE programs and navigate the shift away from a near-exclusive focus on "college preparedness."
23 Jul 2026
The Road to Opportunity: Making CTE Accessible for All
The most valuable CTE happens off campus. For too many students, transportation is the barrier that keeps opportunity out of reach.
23 Jun 2026
Getting Professional Development to Stick
Join this free virtual event to explore best practices, funding, format, and timing for teacher and principal PD.
18 Jun 2026
QS ranks MIT the world’s No. 1 university for 2026-27
MIT has again been named the world’s top university by the QS World University Rankings, which were announced today. This is the 15th year in a row MIT has received this distinction. The full 2027 edition of the rankings — published by Quacquarelli Symonds, an organization specializing in education and study abroad — can be found at TopUniversities.com . The QS rankings are based on factors including academic reputation, employer reputation, citations per faculty, student-to-faculty ratio, proportion of international faculty, and proportion of international students. MIT was also ranked the world’s top university in 12 of the subject areas ranked by QS , as announced in March of this year. The Institute received a No. 1 ranking in the following QS subject areas: Chemical Engineering; Civil and Structural Engineering; Computer Science and Information Systems; Data Science and Artificial Intelligence; Electrical and Electronic Engineering; Engineering and Technology; Linguistics; Materials Science; Mechanical, Aeronautical, and Manufacturing Engineering; Mathematics; Physics and Astronomy; and Statistics and Operational Research. MIT also placed second in seven subject areas: Architecture/Built Environment; History of Art; Biological Sciences; Economics and Econometrics; Marketing; Natural Sciences; and Statistics and Operational Research.
17 Jun 2026
Fending off summer melt
The Community College of Rhode Island (CCRI) has a warm-blooded approach to help stave off summer melt. Meet CeCe, an emotional support dog who is cared for by a campus police officer and visits all the college’s four campuses and attends special events – but also has become a recruitment tool. The loveable gold retriever is among the tools used to encourage students to enroll and attend classes this fall, helping to resolve a problem that likely causes a quarter of prospective community college students to simply not show up. The challenge is summer melt – that nettlesome problem of students who’ve shown interest or even enrolled but, for a variety of reasons, have decided not to attend as the first day of classes approaches. As one part of a campaign targeting those students who might “melt,” CeCe helps “to foster a welcoming campus environment, increasing engagement and broadening the college’s reach across platforms,” said Amy Kacerik, associate vice president for student affairs at CCRI. “ Our students are managing work schedules, caregiver responsibilities and other commitments, making it challenging to stay on top of enrollment tasks,” she said. “While CeCe was not initially brought to CCRI to drive recruitment or enrollment, she has quickly become an effective tool for student engagement and enrollment outreach. She serves as another touchpoint that helps students feel connected to CCRI before classes begin.” CCRI and other community colleges are making a connection between students and the campus with an array of supports and nudges, hoping to combat summer melt, which is gaining attention as pressure on higher education enrollment – and some of the reasons for students to have second thoughts – both increase. The summer melt problem Katherine Meyer, a fellow at Brookings who researches key higher education issues like summer melt and efforts by colleges to keep students on track, says recent data show that while the numbers are hard to track, colleges overall lose about 10% to 20% of their prospective students prior to the start of the year, and community colleges may lose 27% and in some cases as high as 40% percent . “Navigating the complexity of college admissions and enrollment can be a challenge for any prospective student, but it’s even harder for those planning to attend community college,” she says, noting that community college students are more likely to have less knowledge about the enrollment process and less time and support to navigate it. “The community college staff may not be able to offer as much outreach or orientation either, and the students don’t have a trusted adviser to turn to for specific help with paperwork or to offer encouragement,” Meyer says. Lisa Matye Edwards, vice president for student affairs for Arapahoe Community College (Colorado), says prospective students may have family or employment commitments that conflict with college office hours, juggle overlapping course schedules or simply don’t have time to manage the process. Other hurdles include overall cost, noncredit developmental programs (which can discourage students) and concerns in some cases about immigration enforcement activities, according to officials. “If classes conflict with work schedule or childcare becomes an issue, a person who perhaps doesn’t have a connection to a college is more likely to not enroll or stay enrolled – and community colleges in the past have not had mechanisms to monitor those issues like our four-year friends,” Matye Edwards says. She adds that open-access community colleges are typically very supportive once students enroll, but sometimes “almost allow too much freedom versus structured and clearly communicated pathways.” She believes that is changing. A variety of challenges Tara Zirkel, director of strategic research at EAB , has studied the issue from multiple perspectives and surveyed community college students about their enrollment experiences. She points out that at a time when college value is being questioned and the demographic cliff is looming, the issue becomes even more concerning. “For community colleges, summer is a critical window to keep new students engaged and ensure they complete their enrollment steps before fall,” she says. “Many students, especially first-generation or those juggling work and family commitments, struggle to navigate deadlines, financial aid requirements and course registration.” Her team’s survey of 1,000 community college students about enrollment concerns showed that: More than half of students seriously considered not attending. About a quarter said they were frustrated by the enrollment process and also by choosing a major. 73% said a personal interaction was extremely important and a similar number expected it to take place within 24 hours. However, only 21% received a response in that time frame, and 27% of respondents said it took more than a week. Seven percent never received a reply at all. Figuring out how to pay for college was significantly discouraging for another 19%. Family obligations were a serious concern for about a quarter of the students. About 18% doubted whether they even belonged in college. Her research concluded that students want a faster, more personalized interaction and that many are “one obstacle away from opting out entirely.” “If community college doesn’t have a solid communication plan, the student and their family may re-think the decision and feel like they are not college-ready,” Matye Edwards says. “They may not know what to do, so they miss out on critical activities like registering for class or filing the FAFSA.” What works Like staff at many community colleges, Kacerik and her team at CCRI try to keep prospective students engaged in a number of ways – beyond the use of CeCe. They have recently enlisted a customer relationship management platform that provides proactive, personalized, 24/7 support. “AI virtual agents respond to student questions at any time, helping students navigate enrollment, financial aid, registration and campus services at times that work for them,” she says. “Messaging is dynamically tailored to each student’s profile, needs and progress, enabling targeted outreach that enhances engagement, persistence and successful outcomes.” Meyer has written about the value of “nudges” and stresses that messages to students should be “timely, relevant and actionable.” Automated systems provide students accurate information faster and reduce the load on the college staff, while potentially gathering data about where prospects find gaps in the information the college is offering, according to Zirkel, who also has written about key ways AI can be used to reduce summer melt. “The student gets the information and can spend time with the college staff having a deeper conversation or covering other concerns,” she says. Matye Edwards says her team contacts prospects at specific points to ask if they need assistance and how best it can be delivered. For instance, if an admitted student has not done an orientation, registered for classes or handled school financing, they might get a reminder and be offered a virtual counseling session. CCRI also is proactive in contacting students with paid messages in a variety of platforms. Also, AI can make creating a two-year plan or class schedule easier by quickly generating several options for students and advisors to consider. “By combining 24/7 access to information, personalized communication, course planning assistance and structured enrollment guidance, AI can help students navigate the transition into college more smoothly,” Zirkel says . Closer ties with high schools College officials can also reduce that burden, Zirkel says, by partnering with school counselors so that high schools have good information for their students and are prompted to encourage them to attend, even despite the counselor’s large caseloads and traditional 10-month schedule. She says some community colleges hold special informational sessions for high school counselors that often feed into their college, ensuring they can both address some concerns and have a stronger connection to the college. In addition, Zirkel notes that community colleges, like CCRI with CeCe, are increasingly trying to create a stronger brand and attachment to their campus with students and high school counselors, which is typically more prevalent in four-year schools. The post Fending off summer melt first appeared on Community College Daily .
17 Jun 2026
A sweet thank you for UW employees
Photo gallery A sweet thank you for UW employees Campus leaders served up dessert — and their thanks — during the annual employee appreciation Ice Cream Social. June 17, 2026 Share this article A rainy forecast didn’t keep University of Wisconsin–Madison employees away from their fill of Babcock Dairy ice cream. Hundreds filtered into Birge Hall to claim their sweet treat, served by interim chancellor Eric Wilcots, provost John Zumbrunnen and other campus leaders. The annual event, which is typically hosted on Bascom Hill but moved inside due to rain, serves as a gesture of thanks for employees’ hard work and dedication during the most recent academic year. Members of the UW Marching Band, along with Bucky Badger, perform for the crowd in Birge Hall. The event moved indoors after a day of almost-summer rain. Photo: Bryce Richter / UW–Madison What’s the scoop? A chalkboard shows the assortment of flavors available to employees. Photo: Bryce Richter / UW–Madison Interim chancellor Eric Wilcots hands out individual cups of ice cream and chats with employees. Photo: Bryce Richter / UW–Madison Members of the UW Marching Band provide a side of music as employees gathered in the Birge Hall lobby. Photo: Bryce Richter / UW–Madison Provost John Zumbrunnen serves up the flavor ‘Babcock Birthday.’ Photo: Bryce Richter / UW–Madison Jason Whitney, assistant chief of UW police, joined the group of campus leaders dishing out dessert. Photo: Bryce Richter / UW–Madison Jordan Goff (left), customer service rep, and Logan Strander (right), parking enforcement officer, both with Transportation Services, sing Varsity with Bucky Badger. Photo: Bryce Richter / UW–Madison
17 Jun 2026
Northpoint Bible College ends degree programs after losing accreditation
The Massachusetts institution is going forward with a new name and three-year programs that its president said will transfer for credit to partner institutions.
17 Jun 2026
Northpoint Bible College ends degree programs after losing accreditation
The Massachusetts institution is going forward with a new name and three-year programs that its president said will transfer for credit to partner institutions.
17 Jun 2026
Northpoint Bible College ends degree programs after losing accreditation
Dive snapshot: Northpoint Bible College is moving away from degree programs after losing its accreditation earlier this year. Beginning in September, the Massachusetts Pentecostal institution will operate under the name Northpoint School of the Bible and offer three-year nondegree programs focused on ministerial preparation, President Tiff Shuttlesworth said late last week in a video message. According to Shuttlesworth, students will have a “seamless path forward” into several accredited, degree-granting religious colleges that will accept all of Northpoint’s credits if students choose to continue their education. Background: In April, Northpoint lost its appeal with the Association for Biblical Higher Education to maintain the college’s accreditation. ABHE cited numerous compliance violations related to institutional instability, insufficient financial resources and operational issues. The college’s accreditation ended in May, though ABHE extended it for a handful of students completing coursework until August. Higher ed context: Northpoint is one of several Christian and religious colleges to close in recent years as enrollment and financial pressures mount. Those include Anna Maria College, Lourdes University and Providence Christian College — all of which announced this year that they would shutter . By the numbers 122 Northpoint’s headcount in fall 2024, down nearly 65% from 347 students five years prior, according to federal data. $7,700 That will be Northpoint’s new yearly tuition once it transitions to its new model, according to Shuttlesworth. That figure is down from roughly $28,000 and is meant to help make the program affordable and accessible. $2.6 million Northpoint’s fiscal 2025 revenue, which declined by 17.1% from the previous year, ABHE noted. Meanwhile, the college’s cash holdings dropped by 68.5%, and it reported a net operating loss of $2.5 million. Quote: “We do have significant investment in making this happen. We need to slay a Goliath of somewhere between $2 million to $3 million to get us to a place of being sustainable.” - Tiff Shuttlesworth, president of Northpoint. What we’re watching: It remains to be seen whether students will buy into the institution's new model and whether it can lower costs sufficiently to support the lower tuition. And maintaining articulation agreements with degree-granting institutions over the long-term could be critical to maintaining student interest
17 Jun 2026
"The President is Legally Barred from Waiving Iranian Sanctions as Pledged in the Iran [Memorandum of Understanding]"
So argues Prof. Jack Goldsmith (Harvard) in his Executive Functions post. An excerpt: The United States in the MOU pledges "immediately" to "issue waivers for export of Iranian crude oil, petroleum products and derivatives, and all associated services, including banking transactions, insurances, transportation, etc." (Emphasis added here and throughout.) These waivers presumably include waivers of U.S. statutory sanctions against Iran. I don't think the president has the authority under domestic law to issue these waivers. The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act (INARA) of 2015 applies here and temporarily bars a president from waiving sanctions against Iran. The executive branch has counterarguments, to be sure. And it's doubtful that any institution will make the president comply with INARA in any event…. Read the post for much more. The post "The President is Legally Barred from Waiving Iranian Sanctions as Pledged in the Iran [Memorandum of Understanding]" appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
Disclosing One's HIV+ Status Isn't Criminal Harassment of Ex
From In re Gregorwicz v. Villa-Kennedy , decided today by Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Veronika Fabian, joined by Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig: [An] order of protection was based on the superior court's finding that Father's social media post, which disclosed his own HIV status and identified Mother as a former partner, was criminal harassment. Because Father's social media post was protected free speech, this Court vacates the order of protection…. Mother and Father were at one time in a relationship, which resulted in the birth of their child in 2024. In May 2025, Mother posted a message on social media from an account with the name "Shelby Starbuck" to a group of more than 600 members. The post included an image of an HIV negative patch and this text: Ordering a bunch of these lmao. Im sure you'd be surprised which of your friends cant wear it, but hey lets be transparent. Be safe out there! If anyone wants one lmk Days later, Father posted his own message, using his real name, to the same group, which read: It has come to my attention that there is someone in this group that has taken the liberty to share some deeply personal information with members that shouldn't have been. With that said…. I had a relationship with Shelby Starbuck. And prior to that relationship even becoming a relationship I disclosed with her that I live with HIV. She was informed and aware and made the decision to be in a relationship with me. We obviously had sexual relationship that led to the birth of our daughter. Neither Shelby nor our daughter contracted HIV. Nor has any sexual partners I have had. For Shelby to take it up on herself to use this deeply sensitive and personal information in some way to hurt me should be self evident of her character. Beyond that. I am now forced to put myself out there to combat any further rumors or misinformation being told. I post this here for two reasons. 1 being Mike runs free page and I know this post will not be taken down. 2 this is where most the rumors are being shared. I will be only address[ing] the topic of HIV as any further rumors about me or my relationship with Shelby and our daughter should be none of your concern. And frankly I believe my status should have remained none of your concern as well. But to advocate. HIV is no longer a death sentence. Millions of people live healthy normal lives with HIV. The current medication available makes it untransmittable. It has become a chronic illness now where it was a terminal illness before. I lead a healthy normal life. I made bad life choices and one of those will forever remind me of actions have consequences. But there are people out there who contract HIV of no fault of their own and the stigma is a real and scary thing. I write this now sitting in the bathroom at work fighting back tears so I can see clearly. I am terrified at the friends and respect I will lose but at the same time I can not idly stand by to be made look bad when it something out of my control and further I do everything to make sure I am healthy and the people I care about are safe. After Mother read the post, she texted Father and asked him to remove it. Father refused, explaining his post "was made in response to [Mother's] post," which "started rumors and talk," and to "help educate and … try and lessen the stigma." … The trial court issued a protective order, including a prohibition on gun possession by Father, finding that "[Father's] act in posting to an electronic forum to more than 600 people shows repeated acts of harassment which were meant to annoy, harass or intimidate [Mother]." The court of appeals reversed, reasoning: To issue an order of protection, a court must find reasonable cause to believe the defendant may commit an act of domestic violence or has committed an act of violence in the past year. Domestic violence means a criminal "offense prescribed in … § 13-2916 [or] 13-2921" in the context of various domestic relationships. In issuing the initial and continued orders of protection, the superior court found that Father's social media post constituted the offense of "harassment" under both A.R.S. §§ 13-2916 and 2921…. If speech or expressive conduct is constitutionally protected, then Arizona harassment statutes do not apply, and an order of protection based on that speech or conduct is improper. See A.R.S. § 13-2916(C) ("This section does not apply to … Constitutionally protected speech or activity ….")…. Because Father's social media post was pure speech, the government may not punish his words unless they are within "narrowly limited classes of speech." Such speech includes statements intended to incite imminent lawless action, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, fighting words, and true threats. Mother argues speech that harasses a protected party is one of the classes of speech not protected by the First Amendment. There is, however, no categorical "harassment exception" to the First Amendment. "Legislatures are free to punish nonspeech conduct, as well as narrow categories of constitutionally unprotected speech, such as true threats. But they cannot label speech that mentally distresses people 'stalking' [or 'harassment'] and then punish all such speech." … In issuing the initial order of protection, the superior court found that the First Amendment was not implicated because Father's post defamed Mother and defamation is not protected speech. To establish defamation, "a publication must be false and must bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or must impeach plaintiff's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation." … Father's post was neither false nor was it a statement of opinion implying a false assertion of fact. Instead, Father stated the truth—that he had HIV and that Mother and the parties' daughter did not. Sue A. Jones (Sloma Law Group) represents Father. The post Disclosing One's HIV+ Status Isn't Criminal Harassment of Ex appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
Digital Hall Passes Automate Hallway Oversight
Paper hall passes have been around forever. But they aren’t always the best tool for the job. “A conventional hall pass basically just says that this student has permission to leave the classroom. That’s where the information stops,” says Tyler Shaddix, co-founder and chief innovation officer at GoGuardian. Modernized tools can do a lot more. With digital hall passes, schools can support student safety, track trends around how spaces are used and automate permissions for who can be in the hall, when and where. Click the banner below to learn how CDW and GoGuardian support safer, more…
17 Jun 2026
New York City Has a History of Public Bathroom Failures. Will This New Plan Flush Away More Tax Dollars?
New York City mayors have attempted to solve the city's public bathroom problem for decades . Now, Mayor Zohran Mamdani is taking his turn. On Wednesday, the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC) announced that Throne Labs Inc. won the city's $4 million contract to install and maintain 17 new bathrooms across the city. Should the project stay on budget, that price tag is relatively low compared to New York City's past bathroom boondoggles. In 2019, The City Reporter noted that the average cost for a city Parks and Recreation Department bathroom had "nearly tripled to $3.6 million since 2011." One $4.7 million restroom facility in Ferry Point Park took 12 years to complete, according to the outlet. And parkgoers told the Reporter that the bathroom was "typically inaccessible in the winter." Former Parks Department commissioner Adrian Benepe told the Reporter at the time that comfort stations, a now apparently politically incorrect term for the city park bathrooms, were the "bane of [his] existence." "There's a built-in inefficiency at every level and too many reviews," he said. John Stossel visited a New York City park bathroom in 2017 that cost the city $2 million to build, a price Mitchell Silver, then the New York City Parks commissioner, said was "a good deal" because New York City is "the most expensive market in the world." The final product, however, was far from luxe. "There were no gold-plated fixtures. It's just a little building with four toilets and four sinks," Stossel wrote at the time. Stossel has juxtaposed the costly NYC Parks restroom with the crown jewel of Midtown Manhattan restrooms: the privately owned and managed Bryant Park bathroom. The bathroom, which often has a long line, is guarded by private security, cleaned regularly, and has flowers and artwork inside. The Throne units are not as glamorous as the Bryant Park restrooms, but they may prove to be cleaner and better maintained than other public restrooms. The units will be solar-powered, "odor-managed, and use 21 sensors and ratings from users to monitor real-time data on the restroom's status, cleanliness, and usage," according to NYCEDC. According to an Axios reporter who used Throne's toilets in downtown Detroit, the "facilities were spotless and easy to use." The most encouraging part of the Throne rollout is the design. Unlike past public bathroom rollouts, Throne units do not "need to be hooked up to sewers or other utilities," according to Gothamist . This way, the installation process will not be bogged down by as much red tape as previous projects. Mamdani is clearly no cost-cutting mayor , but he has said he wants New Yorkers to get more for their taxpayer dollars. Given the countless past failures of city bathroom rollouts, the bar for a successful public bathroom project is extremely low (in the toilet?), so hopefully this plan can provide New Yorkers some relief without flushing away too many public funds. Installation is expected to begin later this summer, and if all goes well, New Yorkers should be able to test the toilets by the fall. The post New York City Has a History of Public Bathroom Failures. Will This New Plan Flush Away More Tax Dollars? appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
Furman on Social Security: Attention must be paid
John Nacion/Sipa via AP Images Work & Economy Furman on Social Security: Attention must be paid ‘Interest in the problem has diminished over time, not grown.’ Meanwhile, day of reckoning is ahead of schedule. Christina Pazanese Harvard Staff Writer June 17, 2026 9 min read Consumer confidence in the U.S. economy recently hit an all-time low . New data on Social Security, inflation, and the national debt is unlikely to lift anyone’s spirits. Earlier this month, trustees of the Social Security Administration said that there will not be enough money to pay recipients their full benefits by 2032, earlier than expected, without more funding and/or cost cuts. The Consumer Price Index showed inflation hit a three-year high in May at 4.2 percent. And the U.S. now has a record-high $31 trillion in publicly held debt , equal to the country’s gross domestic product. In this edited conversation, Jason Furman , Aetna Professor of the Practice of Economic Policy jointly at Harvard Kennedy School and in the Department of Economics, discusses Social Security’s impending cash crunch, consumer pessimism, and why new data about the national debt is “definitely a problem.” Furman, who was an outspoken critic of “Bidenomics,” served in the Clinton administrations and was President Barack Obama’s chief economist. You recently wrote in The New York Times that Social Security’s solvency crisis is closer than anyone ever imagined. Why is this happening sooner than previously forecast? Social Security was last significantly retuned in 1983 and the goal was to make it last at least another 75 years. Within about a decade, it became clear that that expectation was too optimistic. Fertility rates, especially, were falling faster than expected, longevity rising a little bit more than expected, and other economic numbers, like interest rates, were lower than expected. Fertility is the biggest one — it fell further than what the actuaries were counting on. Since the 1990s, we have expected that the day of reckoning for Social Security would be coming probably in the 2030s. With the latest trustees’ report, they pulled it forward a little bit. Some of that was because of choices Congress made: A law that was passed in 2024 expanded benefits for some state employees, and a law that was passed in 2025, the One, Big, Beautiful Bill , effectively expanded benefits de facto for high-income households. So, some of it was the law, and some of it was just the annual technical revision process that goes into these estimates. How much is needed and what are some fixes that could shore up this gap before 2032? We need several trillion dollars. If you raised everyone’s payroll taxes by 2 percent, that would be enough. That’s a lot, but U.S. payroll taxes are much lower than most other rich countries. The 12.2 percent we pay is a lot less than most everyone else pays. I don’t mind raising the cap on taxable earnings , but the thing I worry about is with Social Security, it’s primarily been the people who benefit are the ones who pay. There’s a limit to how many different types of increases we can have on high-income people. So, it can be the answer to some of our fiscal questions; it can’t be the answer to every single fiscal question. “We need several trillion dollars. If you raised everyone’s payroll taxes by 2 percent, that would be enough.” Jason Furman. Harvard file photo Is this looming shortfall primarily a math problem, a political problem, or both? It’s an elementary math problem and a Ph.D.-level political problem. You could assign students the problem of how to solve this, and if it was in an economics class, it would be extremely easy to figure out what combination of benefit cuts and tax increases adds up to the magic number. But if it’s in a political class, I’m not even sure there’s an answer to the question. Given how strongly voters feel about the program, why has neither party done much to head off the funding challenges since this problem has been known about for decades? What’s interesting to me is that the interest in the problem has diminished over time, not grown. President Clinton really did put time, effort, and political capital into it, and some people think but for the Monica Lewinsky scandal this would have been addressed. George W. Bush put some effort into it. I didn’t like his plan, so I’m glad it didn’t happen, but I think it was actually a good-faith effort. Obama put a little bit of effort into it in the beginning of his term in 2010 and 2011 but probably lost interest in the issue after that, didn’t really see any pathway to dealing with it. I think in some ways, as the problem gets closer, the solutions get less attractive, and as a result, the bigger the problem, the less we talk about it. Last month, the Consumer Price Index showed inflation was up 4.2 percent over May 2025, but 2.9 percent with food and energy stripped away. Is this a good sign? What do those numbers tell you? It’s important to distinguish the price level from the inflation rate. The price level went up a lot in March. It went up a bunch again in April. It didn’t go up as much in May, but it went up. So, from the perspective of consumers, it was quite a bad report. If you’re the Federal Reserve trying to figure out whether there’s some new ongoing inflation where each and every year prices are going to keep rising by 3, 4 percent, I thought the report was somewhat reassuring on that score. The amount of inflation within May came down a lot. We’ve already seen gasoline prices starting to fall again. They’re higher than they were, but the direction is now down, not up. With the latest Iran deal, assuming it sticks, oil prices have fallen quite a lot, and that will work its way into gasoline prices over the next month or two. Is it bad news for consumers? The answer is yes. Is it a new era of ongoing sustained inflation that the Fed needs to raise interest rates to fight? Cautiously, I lean toward no — while being very nervous because it’s been many years of elevated inflation, so you don’t want to be too sure about anything. How is low confidence affecting consumer spending? So far, we’re seeing nothing in people’s actual behavior. This is the way they answer questions, but not the way they spend their money. You can do a statistical model based on all the different economic variables, how much would you predict people spend, and then add a variable in for how confident consumers are. Normally, that variable, how confident consumers are, is a small positive. Everything else being equal, if you’re more optimistic, you spend a bit more, and if you’re more pessimistic, you spend a bit less. If you do that same exact statistical analysis, but use data for the last five years, you get the wrong sign on confidence. The more negative people are, the more they spend, and the more positive they are, the less they spend. Now, I don’t believe the negative sign is true, but it suggests that in the data in the last five years that the positive sign is definitely not true. It has, to date, been detached from economic activity. But you raise a question we don’t know the answer to, which is, might it become self-fulfilling? The one place where there’s some evidence it could become self-fulfilling is not on the amount of money consumers spend, but on people increasing their expectations for inflation on a partisan basis and then that becoming self-fulfilling. If you’re a business, you raise prices more because you think there’s going to be more inflation; you’re a worker, you demand a bigger wage increase. There’s been some research which suggests that partisan irrationality on inflation — this was Republican irrationality under Biden — actually had a self-fulfilling increase in inflation. It looks like it’s still happening, although now it is partisan, irrational Democratic beliefs about inflation. There’s not enough data, it’s a year and a half of data, but they might be raising expectations of inflation and becoming self-fulfilling. Investors do not appear to reflect a similar lack of confidence in where the economy is headed. Why have the markets remained so buoyant? The market is extremely skewed right now, and its gains are very, very dependent on a small number of AI-related tech companies. They are betting that these companies are going to make huge profits in the future; most of them are losing money now and hemorrhaging money. So, the markets are not in any tension with all of these things, they’re just recording a totally different piece of the economy. Right now, both financially and also in terms of GDP growth, our economy is increasingly reliant on just one subpart of the overall economy. That’s a little bit of a cause for concern in terms of just how resilient things will be. In its annual report to Congress, the Government Accountability Office pegged the nation’s debt at $31.3 trillion, equal to the size of our economy, and predicted that will grow more than twice as fast as the U.S. economy over the next 10 years. How big of a problem is this? It is definitely a problem. The deficit, which is the amount you add to the debt in any given year, is larger relative to our economy than any other rich country, and it’s larger relative to our economy than any time in our history with the exceptions of World War II, the 2008-09 financial crisis, and COVID. So, we’re in an unprecedented place for a non-emergency situation, both for our own history and relative to the rest of the world. You can debate how bad and how risky it is, but you’d have a hard time arguing that this is the way we should try to do things. Part of why it’s up for such debate is that there is almost no historical experience to call on. Right now, there’s not really anything to confidently extrapolate or infer from, and to me, that says that we’d rather not find out the answer to this. And so, we should deal with it.
17 Jun 2026
The Education Dept now has 14 interagency agreements. Here are the changes.
The Education Department says the partnerships with six other federal agencies reduces federal bureaucracy. Critics claim it adds confusion and weakens K-12 coordination efforts.
17 Jun 2026
Federal Grant Cuts for English Learners Face Lawsuit
Last year, the federal agency ended 28 grants for training teachers working with English learners.
17 Jun 2026
Is It Time for Another National Reading Panel?
The panel's 2000 report on reading has influenced policy for years. Now, Congress is calling for an update.
17 Jun 2026
Samuels turns to local communities for advice on making NYC schools safe, rigorous, and integrated
Sign up for Chalkbeat New York’s free daily newsletter to get essential news about NYC’s public schools delivered to your inbox. Since taking office in January, schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has repeated a refrain that he wants the nation’s largest school system to be safe, academically rigorous, and integrated. But he has revealed little about his tangible policy goals in each of those areas. Now, he’s signaling that some of those ideas may come from local communities rather than top-down from the Education Department or City Hall. On Wednesday, education officials announced that five of the city’s 45 superintendents will convene working groups with parents, teachers, principals, and community organizations that will “address structural and instructional inequities in their district,” according to a press release. They are expected to meet monthly. The groups represent “local solutions for systemic problems,” Samuels said Wednesday morning during a discussion with author Heather McGhee who has written about how racism has broader effects beyond people of color. Officials said all districts will have similar groups within three years. Samuels suggested that the groups, which will be led by local superintendents, could begin to tackle some of the system’s biggest policy challenges. His conversation with McGhee touched on declining enrollment and the growing number of underenrolled schools ; a state mandate to lower class sizes ; and segregation of students by race, ability, socioeconomic status, and language. Officials did not share who was selected by superintendents to serve on each working group, or commit to release each group’s recommendations publicly. Previous administrations have also set up working groups to tackle thorny policy problems. Under pressure from parents and advocates to address deep racial segregation in the city’s schools, former Mayor Bill de Blasio created a working group to recommend solutions. Some advocates were frustrated that the city did not embrace some of the group’s most sweeping suggestions. Still, some local districts have taken action to integrate local schools absent a broader citywide mandate, though others have sputtered . (Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he would adopt some of the recommendations from de Blasio’s diversity advisory group that were not implemented, but he has yet to do so.) On the campaign trail, Mamdani committed to getting rid of mayoral control — which gives the mayor largely unfettered power to set the school system’s policy direction — in favor of a more democratic system. He reversed his position just before taking office and recently won a two-year extension for it from state lawmakers . But he has consistently vowed to give families and educators more of a say in policymaking and Samuels signaled the working groups were an effort to make good on that promise. “When people ask me … ‘You have mayoral control, and are you going to really listen to parents, and are you going to listen to communities?’” Samuels said, “this is one of our main initial first steps.” The first five districts that will participate are: Manhattan District 3 (Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, and parts of Harlem); Bronx District 7 (Mott Haven and Port Morris); Brooklyn District 13 (Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill); Brooklyn’s District 16 (much of Bedford-Stuyvesant); and Queens District 25 (College Point, Whitestone, Hillcrest). Samuels previously led District 3 and 13. The Wednesday morning event was livestreamed but the Education Department did not invite reporters to attend. Education Department spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said members of the working groups were invited and there wasn’t additional room due to the fire code. The five working groups are expected to share their recommendations with the Education Department by the end of next school year, Brownstein said. She indicated those reports could take multiple forms and officials plan to wait to release broader policy ideas until they review the recommendations. No funding has been earmarked for the working groups, officials said. “We have to figure out what is the thing that we are going to do on behalf of our most marginalized young people, oftentimes, but on behalf of every single child in your district,” Samuels said. Alex Zimmerman is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Samuels turns to local communities for advice on making NYC schools safe, rigorous, and integrated
Sign up for Chalkbeat New York’s free daily newsletter to get essential news about NYC’s public schools delivered to your inbox. Since taking office in January, schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has repeated a refrain that he wants the nation’s largest school system to be safe, academically rigorous, and integrated. But he has revealed little about his tangible policy goals in each of those areas. Now, he’s signaling that some of those ideas may come from local communities rather than top-down from the Education Department or City Hall. On Wednesday, education officials announced that five of the city’s 45 superintendents will convene working groups with parents, teachers, principals, and community organizations that will “address structural and instructional inequities in their district,” according to a press release. They are expected to meet monthly. The groups represent “local solutions for systemic problems,” Samuels said Wednesday morning during a discussion with author Heather McGhee who has written about how racism has broader effects beyond people of color. Officials said all districts will have similar groups within three years. Samuels suggested that the groups, which will be led by local superintendents, could begin to tackle some of the system’s biggest policy challenges. His conversation with McGhee touched on declining enrollment and the growing number of underenrolled schools ; a state mandate to lower class sizes ; and segregation of students by race, ability, socioeconomic status, and language. Officials did not share who was selected by superintendents to serve on each working group, or commit to release each group’s recommendations publicly. Previous administrations have also set up working groups to tackle thorny policy problems. Under pressure from parents and advocates to address deep racial segregation in the city’s schools, former Mayor Bill de Blasio created a working group to recommend solutions. Some advocates were frustrated that the city did not embrace some of the group’s most sweeping suggestions. Still, some local districts have taken action to integrate local schools absent a broader citywide mandate, though others have sputtered . (Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he would adopt some of the recommendations from de Blasio’s diversity advisory group that were not implemented, but he has yet to do so.) On the campaign trail, Mamdani committed to getting rid of mayoral control — which gives the mayor largely unfettered power to set the school system’s policy direction — in favor of a more democratic system. He reversed his position just before taking office and recently won a two-year extension for it from state lawmakers . But he has consistently vowed to give families and educators more of a say in policymaking and Samuels signaled the working groups were an effort to make good on that promise. “When people ask me … ‘You have mayoral control, and are you going to really listen to parents, and are you going to listen to communities?’” Samuels said, “this is one of our main initial first steps.” The first five districts that will participate are: Manhattan District 3 (Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, and parts of Harlem); Bronx District 7 (Mott Haven and Port Morris); Brooklyn District 13 (Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill); Brooklyn’s District 16 (much of Bedford-Stuyvesant); and Queens District 25 (College Point, Whitestone, Hillcrest). Samuels previously led District 3 and 13. The Wednesday morning event was livestreamed but the Education Department did not invite reporters to attend. Education Department spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said members of the working groups were invited and there wasn’t additional room due to the fire code. The five working groups are expected to share their recommendations with the Education Department by the end of next school year, Brownstein said. She indicated those reports could take multiple forms and officials plan to wait to release broader policy ideas until they review the recommendations. No funding has been earmarked for the working groups, officials said. “We have to figure out what is the thing that we are going to do on behalf of our most marginalized young people, oftentimes, but on behalf of every single child in your district,” Samuels said. Alex Zimmerman is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Samuels turns to local communities for advice on making NYC schools safe, rigorous, and integrated
Sign up for Chalkbeat New York’s free daily newsletter to get essential news about NYC’s public schools delivered to your inbox. Since taking office in January, schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has repeated a refrain that he wants the nation’s largest school system to be safe, academically rigorous, and integrated. But he has revealed little about his tangible policy goals in each of those areas. Now, he’s signaling that some of those ideas may come from local communities rather than top-down from the Education Department or City Hall. On Wednesday, education officials announced that five of the city’s 45 superintendents will convene working groups with parents, teachers, principals, and community organizations that will “address structural and instructional inequities in their district,” according to a press release. They are expected to meet monthly. The groups represent “local solutions for systemic problems,” Samuels said Wednesday morning during a discussion with author Heather McGhee who has written about how racism has broader effects beyond people of color. Officials said all districts will have similar groups within three years. Samuels suggested that the groups, which will be led by local superintendents, could begin to tackle some of the system’s biggest policy challenges. His conversation with McGhee touched on declining enrollment and the growing number of underenrolled schools ; a state mandate to lower class sizes ; and segregation of students by race, ability, socioeconomic status, and language. Officials did not share who was selected by superintendents to serve on each working group, or commit to release each group’s recommendations publicly. Previous administrations have also set up working groups to tackle thorny policy problems. Under pressure from parents and advocates to address deep racial segregation in the city’s schools, former Mayor Bill de Blasio created a working group to recommend solutions. Some advocates were frustrated that the city did not embrace some of the group’s most sweeping suggestions. Still, some local districts have taken action to integrate local schools absent a broader citywide mandate, though others have sputtered . (Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he would adopt some of the recommendations from de Blasio’s diversity advisory group that were not implemented, but he has yet to do so.) On the campaign trail, Mamdani committed to getting rid of mayoral control — which gives the mayor largely unfettered power to set the school system’s policy direction — in favor of a more democratic system. He reversed his position just before taking office and recently won a two-year extension for it from state lawmakers . But he has consistently vowed to give families and educators more of a say in policymaking and Samuels signaled the working groups were an effort to make good on that promise. “When people ask me … ‘You have mayoral control, and are you going to really listen to parents, and are you going to listen to communities?’” Samuels said, “this is one of our main initial first steps.” The first five districts that will participate are: Manhattan District 3 (Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, and parts of Harlem); Bronx District 7 (Mott Haven and Port Morris); Brooklyn District 13 (Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill); Brooklyn’s District 16 (much of Bedford-Stuyvesant); and Queens District 25 (College Point, Whitestone, Hillcrest). Samuels previously led District 3 and 13. The Wednesday morning event was livestreamed but the Education Department did not invite reporters to attend. Education Department spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said members of the working groups were invited and there wasn’t additional room due to the fire code. The five working groups are expected to share their recommendations with the Education Department by the end of next school year, Brownstein said. She indicated those reports could take multiple forms and officials plan to wait to release broader policy ideas until they review the recommendations. No funding has been earmarked for the working groups, officials said. “We have to figure out what is the thing that we are going to do on behalf of our most marginalized young people, oftentimes, but on behalf of every single child in your district,” Samuels said. Alex Zimmerman is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Samuels turns to local communities for advice on making NYC schools safe, rigorous, and integrated
Sign up for Chalkbeat New York’s free daily newsletter to get essential news about NYC’s public schools delivered to your inbox. Since taking office in January, schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has repeated a refrain that he wants the nation’s largest school system to be safe, academically rigorous, and integrated. But he has revealed little about his tangible policy goals in each of those areas. Now, he’s signaling that some of those ideas may come from local communities rather than top-down from the Education Department or City Hall. On Wednesday, education officials announced that five of the city’s 45 superintendents will convene working groups with parents, teachers, principals, and community organizations that will “address structural and instructional inequities in their district,” according to a press release. They are expected to meet monthly. The groups represent “local solutions for systemic problems,” Samuels said Wednesday morning during a discussion with author Heather McGhee who has written about how racism has broader effects beyond people of color. Officials said all districts will have similar groups within three years. Samuels suggested that the groups, which will be led by local superintendents, could begin to tackle some of the system’s biggest policy challenges. His conversation with McGhee touched on declining enrollment and the growing number of underenrolled schools ; a state mandate to lower class sizes ; and segregation of students by race, ability, socioeconomic status, and language. Officials did not share who was selected by superintendents to serve on each working group, or commit to release each group’s recommendations publicly. Previous administrations have also set up working groups to tackle thorny policy problems. Under pressure from parents and advocates to address deep racial segregation in the city’s schools, former Mayor Bill de Blasio created a working group to recommend solutions. Some advocates were frustrated that the city did not embrace some of the group’s most sweeping suggestions. Still, some local districts have taken action to integrate local schools absent a broader citywide mandate, though others have sputtered . (Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he would adopt some of the recommendations from de Blasio’s diversity advisory group that were not implemented, but he has yet to do so.) On the campaign trail, Mamdani committed to getting rid of mayoral control — which gives the mayor largely unfettered power to set the school system’s policy direction — in favor of a more democratic system. He reversed his position just before taking office and recently won a two-year extension for it from state lawmakers . But he has consistently vowed to give families and educators more of a say in policymaking and Samuels signaled the working groups were an effort to make good on that promise. “When people ask me … ‘You have mayoral control, and are you going to really listen to parents, and are you going to listen to communities?’” Samuels said, “this is one of our main initial first steps.” The first five districts that will participate are: Manhattan District 3 (Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, and parts of Harlem); Bronx District 7 (Mott Haven and Port Morris); Brooklyn District 13 (Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill); Brooklyn’s District 16 (much of Bedford-Stuyvesant); and Queens District 25 (College Point, Whitestone, Hillcrest). Samuels previously led District 3 and 13. The Wednesday morning event was livestreamed but the Education Department did not invite reporters to attend. Education Department spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said members of the working groups were invited and there wasn’t additional room due to the fire code. The five working groups are expected to share their recommendations with the Education Department by the end of next school year, Brownstein said. She indicated those reports could take multiple forms and officials plan to wait to release broader policy ideas until they review the recommendations. No funding has been earmarked for the working groups, officials said. “We have to figure out what is the thing that we are going to do on behalf of our most marginalized young people, oftentimes, but on behalf of every single child in your district,” Samuels said. Alex Zimmerman is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Samuels turns to local communities for advice on making NYC schools safe, rigorous, and integrated
Sign up for Chalkbeat New York’s free daily newsletter to get essential news about NYC’s public schools delivered to your inbox. Since taking office in January, schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has repeated a refrain that he wants the nation’s largest school system to be safe, academically rigorous, and integrated. But he has revealed little about his tangible policy goals in each of those areas. Now, he’s signaling that some of those ideas may come from local communities rather than top-down from the Education Department or City Hall. On Wednesday, education officials announced that five of the city’s 45 superintendents will convene working groups with parents, teachers, principals, and community organizations that will “address structural and instructional inequities in their district,” according to a press release. They are expected to meet monthly. The groups represent “local solutions for systemic problems,” Samuels said Wednesday morning during a discussion with author Heather McGhee who has written about how racism has broader effects beyond people of color. Officials said all districts will have similar groups within three years. Samuels suggested that the groups, which will be led by local superintendents, could begin to tackle some of the system’s biggest policy challenges. His conversation with McGhee touched on declining enrollment and the growing number of underenrolled schools ; a state mandate to lower class sizes ; and segregation of students by race, ability, socioeconomic status, and language. Officials did not share who was selected by superintendents to serve on each working group, or commit to release each group’s recommendations publicly. Previous administrations have also set up working groups to tackle thorny policy problems. Under pressure from parents and advocates to address deep racial segregation in the city’s schools, former Mayor Bill de Blasio created a working group to recommend solutions. Some advocates were frustrated that the city did not embrace some of the group’s most sweeping suggestions. Still, some local districts have taken action to integrate local schools absent a broader citywide mandate, though others have sputtered . (Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he would adopt some of the recommendations from de Blasio’s diversity advisory group that were not implemented, but he has yet to do so.) On the campaign trail, Mamdani committed to getting rid of mayoral control — which gives the mayor largely unfettered power to set the school system’s policy direction — in favor of a more democratic system. He reversed his position just before taking office and recently won a two-year extension for it from state lawmakers . But he has consistently vowed to give families and educators more of a say in policymaking and Samuels signaled the working groups were an effort to make good on that promise. “When people ask me … ‘You have mayoral control, and are you going to really listen to parents, and are you going to listen to communities?’” Samuels said, “this is one of our main initial first steps.” The first five districts that will participate are: Manhattan District 3 (Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, and parts of Harlem); Bronx District 7 (Mott Haven and Port Morris); Brooklyn District 13 (Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill); Brooklyn’s District 16 (much of Bedford-Stuyvesant); and Queens District 25 (College Point, Whitestone, Hillcrest). Samuels previously led District 3 and 13. The Wednesday morning event was livestreamed but the Education Department did not invite reporters to attend. Education Department spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said members of the working groups were invited and there wasn’t additional room due to the fire code. The five working groups are expected to share their recommendations with the Education Department by the end of next school year, Brownstein said. She indicated those reports could take multiple forms and officials plan to wait to release broader policy ideas until they review the recommendations. No funding has been earmarked for the working groups, officials said. “We have to figure out what is the thing that we are going to do on behalf of our most marginalized young people, oftentimes, but on behalf of every single child in your district,” Samuels said. Alex Zimmerman is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Samuels turns to local communities for advice on making NYC schools safe, rigorous, and integrated
Sign up for Chalkbeat New York’s free daily newsletter to get essential news about NYC’s public schools delivered to your inbox. Since taking office in January, schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has repeated a refrain that he wants the nation’s largest school system to be safe, academically rigorous, and integrated. But he has revealed little about his tangible policy goals in each of those areas. Now, he’s signaling that some of those ideas may come from local communities rather than top-down from the Education Department or City Hall. On Wednesday, education officials announced that five of the city’s 45 superintendents will convene working groups with parents, teachers, principals, and community organizations that will “address structural and instructional inequities in their district,” according to a press release. They are expected to meet monthly. The groups represent “local solutions for systemic problems,” Samuels said Wednesday morning during a discussion with author Heather McGhee who has written about how racism has broader effects beyond people of color. Officials said all districts will have similar groups within three years. Samuels suggested that the groups, which will be led by local superintendents, could begin to tackle some of the system’s biggest policy challenges. His conversation with McGhee touched on declining enrollment and the growing number of underenrolled schools ; a state mandate to lower class sizes ; and segregation of students by race, ability, socioeconomic status, and language. Officials did not share who was selected by superintendents to serve on each working group, or commit to release each group’s recommendations publicly. Previous administrations have also set up working groups to tackle thorny policy problems. Under pressure from parents and advocates to address deep racial segregation in the city’s schools, former Mayor Bill de Blasio created a working group to recommend solutions. Some advocates were frustrated that the city did not embrace some of the group’s most sweeping suggestions. Still, some local districts have taken action to integrate local schools absent a broader citywide mandate, though others have sputtered . (Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he would adopt some of the recommendations from de Blasio’s diversity advisory group that were not implemented, but he has yet to do so.) On the campaign trail, Mamdani committed to getting rid of mayoral control — which gives the mayor largely unfettered power to set the school system’s policy direction — in favor of a more democratic system. He reversed his position just before taking office and recently won a two-year extension for it from state lawmakers . But he has consistently vowed to give families and educators more of a say in policymaking and Samuels signaled the working groups were an effort to make good on that promise. “When people ask me … ‘You have mayoral control, and are you going to really listen to parents, and are you going to listen to communities?’” Samuels said, “this is one of our main initial first steps.” The first five districts that will participate are: Manhattan District 3 (Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, and parts of Harlem); Bronx District 7 (Mott Haven and Port Morris); Brooklyn District 13 (Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill); Brooklyn’s District 16 (much of Bedford-Stuyvesant); and Queens District 25 (College Point, Whitestone, Hillcrest). Samuels previously led District 3 and 13. The Wednesday morning event was livestreamed but the Education Department did not invite reporters to attend. Education Department spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said members of the working groups were invited and there wasn’t additional room due to the fire code. The five working groups are expected to share their recommendations with the Education Department by the end of next school year, Brownstein said. She indicated those reports could take multiple forms and officials plan to wait to release broader policy ideas until they review the recommendations. No funding has been earmarked for the working groups, officials said. “We have to figure out what is the thing that we are going to do on behalf of our most marginalized young people, oftentimes, but on behalf of every single child in your district,” Samuels said. Alex Zimmerman is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Samuels turns to local communities for advice on making NYC schools safe, rigorous, and integrated
Sign up for Chalkbeat New York’s free daily newsletter to get essential news about NYC’s public schools delivered to your inbox. Since taking office in January, schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has repeated a refrain that he wants the nation’s largest school system to be safe, academically rigorous, and integrated. But he has revealed little about his tangible policy goals in each of those areas. Now, he’s signaling that some of those ideas may come from local communities rather than top-down from the Education Department or City Hall. On Wednesday, education officials announced that five of the city’s 45 superintendents will convene working groups with parents, teachers, principals, and community organizations that will “address structural and instructional inequities in their district,” according to a press release. They are expected to meet monthly. The groups represent “local solutions for systemic problems,” Samuels said Wednesday morning during a discussion with author Heather McGhee who has written about how racism has broader effects beyond people of color. Officials said all districts will have similar groups within three years. Samuels suggested that the groups, which will be led by local superintendents, could begin to tackle some of the system’s biggest policy challenges. His conversation with McGhee touched on declining enrollment and the growing number of underenrolled schools ; a state mandate to lower class sizes ; and segregation of students by race, ability, socioeconomic status, and language. Officials did not share who was selected by superintendents to serve on each working group, or commit to release each group’s recommendations publicly. Previous administrations have also set up working groups to tackle thorny policy problems. Under pressure from parents and advocates to address deep racial segregation in the city’s schools, former Mayor Bill de Blasio created a working group to recommend solutions. Some advocates were frustrated that the city did not embrace some of the group’s most sweeping suggestions. Still, some local districts have taken action to integrate local schools absent a broader citywide mandate, though others have sputtered . (Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he would adopt some of the recommendations from de Blasio’s diversity advisory group that were not implemented, but he has yet to do so.) On the campaign trail, Mamdani committed to getting rid of mayoral control — which gives the mayor largely unfettered power to set the school system’s policy direction — in favor of a more democratic system. He reversed his position just before taking office and recently won a two-year extension for it from state lawmakers . But he has consistently vowed to give families and educators more of a say in policymaking and Samuels signaled the working groups were an effort to make good on that promise. “When people ask me … ‘You have mayoral control, and are you going to really listen to parents, and are you going to listen to communities?’” Samuels said, “this is one of our main initial first steps.” The first five districts that will participate are: Manhattan District 3 (Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, and parts of Harlem); Bronx District 7 (Mott Haven and Port Morris); Brooklyn District 13 (Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill); Brooklyn’s District 16 (much of Bedford-Stuyvesant); and Queens District 25 (College Point, Whitestone, Hillcrest). Samuels previously led District 3 and 13. The Wednesday morning event was livestreamed but the Education Department did not invite reporters to attend. Education Department spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said members of the working groups were invited and there wasn’t additional room due to the fire code. The five working groups are expected to share their recommendations with the Education Department by the end of next school year, Brownstein said. She indicated those reports could take multiple forms and officials plan to wait to release broader policy ideas until they review the recommendations. No funding has been earmarked for the working groups, officials said. “We have to figure out what is the thing that we are going to do on behalf of our most marginalized young people, oftentimes, but on behalf of every single child in your district,” Samuels said. Alex Zimmerman is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Samuels turns to local communities for advice on making NYC schools safe, rigorous, and integrated
Sign up for Chalkbeat New York’s free daily newsletter to get essential news about NYC’s public schools delivered to your inbox. Since taking office in January, schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has repeated a refrain that he wants the nation’s largest school system to be safe, academically rigorous, and integrated. But he has revealed little about his tangible policy goals in each of those areas. Now, he’s signaling that some of those ideas may come from local communities rather than top-down from the Education Department or City Hall. On Wednesday, education officials announced that five of the city’s 45 superintendents will convene working groups with parents, teachers, principals, and community organizations that will “address structural and instructional inequities in their district,” according to a press release. They are expected to meet monthly. The groups represent “local solutions for systemic problems,” Samuels said Wednesday morning during a discussion with author Heather McGhee who has written about how racism has broader effects beyond people of color. Officials said all districts will have similar groups within three years. Samuels suggested that the groups, which will be led by local superintendents, could begin to tackle some of the system’s biggest policy challenges. His conversation with McGhee touched on declining enrollment and the growing number of underenrolled schools ; a state mandate to lower class sizes ; and segregation of students by race, ability, socioeconomic status, and language. Officials did not share who was selected by superintendents to serve on each working group, or commit to release each group’s recommendations publicly. Previous administrations have also set up working groups to tackle thorny policy problems. Under pressure from parents and advocates to address deep racial segregation in the city’s schools, former Mayor Bill de Blasio created a working group to recommend solutions. Some advocates were frustrated that the city did not embrace some of the group’s most sweeping suggestions. Still, some local districts have taken action to integrate local schools absent a broader citywide mandate, though others have sputtered . (Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he would adopt some of the recommendations from de Blasio’s diversity advisory group that were not implemented, but he has yet to do so.) On the campaign trail, Mamdani committed to getting rid of mayoral control — which gives the mayor largely unfettered power to set the school system’s policy direction — in favor of a more democratic system. He reversed his position just before taking office and recently won a two-year extension for it from state lawmakers . But he has consistently vowed to give families and educators more of a say in policymaking and Samuels signaled the working groups were an effort to make good on that promise. “When people ask me … ‘You have mayoral control, and are you going to really listen to parents, and are you going to listen to communities?’” Samuels said, “this is one of our main initial first steps.” The first five districts that will participate are: Manhattan District 3 (Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, and parts of Harlem); Bronx District 7 (Mott Haven and Port Morris); Brooklyn District 13 (Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill); Brooklyn’s District 16 (much of Bedford-Stuyvesant); and Queens District 25 (College Point, Whitestone, Hillcrest). Samuels previously led District 3 and 13. The Wednesday morning event was livestreamed but the Education Department did not invite reporters to attend. Education Department spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said members of the working groups were invited and there wasn’t additional room due to the fire code. The five working groups are expected to share their recommendations with the Education Department by the end of next school year, Brownstein said. She indicated those reports could take multiple forms and officials plan to wait to release broader policy ideas until they review the recommendations. No funding has been earmarked for the working groups, officials said. “We have to figure out what is the thing that we are going to do on behalf of our most marginalized young people, oftentimes, but on behalf of every single child in your district,” Samuels said. Alex Zimmerman is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Samuels turns to local communities for advice on making NYC schools safe, rigorous, and integrated
Sign up for Chalkbeat New York’s free daily newsletter to get essential news about NYC’s public schools delivered to your inbox. Since taking office in January, schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels has repeated a refrain that he wants the nation’s largest school system to be safe, academically rigorous, and integrated. But he has revealed little about his tangible policy goals in each of those areas. Now, he’s signaling that some of those ideas may come from local communities rather than top-down from the Education Department or City Hall. On Wednesday, education officials announced that five of the city’s 45 superintendents will convene working groups with parents, teachers, principals, and community organizations that will “address structural and instructional inequities in their district,” according to a press release. They are expected to meet monthly. The groups represent “local solutions for systemic problems,” Samuels said Wednesday morning during a discussion with author Heather McGhee who has written about how racism has broader effects beyond people of color. Officials said all districts will have similar groups within three years. Samuels suggested that the groups, which will be led by local superintendents, could begin to tackle some of the system’s biggest policy challenges. His conversation with McGhee touched on declining enrollment and the growing number of underenrolled schools ; a state mandate to lower class sizes ; and segregation of students by race, ability, socioeconomic status, and language. Officials did not share who was selected by superintendents to serve on each working group, or commit to release each group’s recommendations publicly. Previous administrations have also set up working groups to tackle thorny policy problems. Under pressure from parents and advocates to address deep racial segregation in the city’s schools, former Mayor Bill de Blasio created a working group to recommend solutions. Some advocates were frustrated that the city did not embrace some of the group’s most sweeping suggestions. Still, some local districts have taken action to integrate local schools absent a broader citywide mandate, though others have sputtered . (Mayor Zohran Mamdani said that he would adopt some of the recommendations from de Blasio’s diversity advisory group that were not implemented, but he has yet to do so.) On the campaign trail, Mamdani committed to getting rid of mayoral control — which gives the mayor largely unfettered power to set the school system’s policy direction — in favor of a more democratic system. He reversed his position just before taking office and recently won a two-year extension for it from state lawmakers . But he has consistently vowed to give families and educators more of a say in policymaking and Samuels signaled the working groups were an effort to make good on that promise. “When people ask me … ‘You have mayoral control, and are you going to really listen to parents, and are you going to listen to communities?’” Samuels said, “this is one of our main initial first steps.” The first five districts that will participate are: Manhattan District 3 (Upper West Side, Morningside Heights, and parts of Harlem); Bronx District 7 (Mott Haven and Port Morris); Brooklyn District 13 (Brooklyn Heights, Fort Greene, Clinton Hill); Brooklyn’s District 16 (much of Bedford-Stuyvesant); and Queens District 25 (College Point, Whitestone, Hillcrest). Samuels previously led District 3 and 13. The Wednesday morning event was livestreamed but the Education Department did not invite reporters to attend. Education Department spokesperson Nicole Brownstein said members of the working groups were invited and there wasn’t additional room due to the fire code. The five working groups are expected to share their recommendations with the Education Department by the end of next school year, Brownstein said. She indicated those reports could take multiple forms and officials plan to wait to release broader policy ideas until they review the recommendations. No funding has been earmarked for the working groups, officials said. “We have to figure out what is the thing that we are going to do on behalf of our most marginalized young people, oftentimes, but on behalf of every single child in your district,” Samuels said. Alex Zimmerman is a senior reporter for Chalkbeat New York, covering NYC public schools. Contact Alex at azimmerman@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Over 100,000 Kids Have Died Due to Greenpeace Blocking Genetically Enhanced Rice, New Calculation Shows
Greenpeace and its activists allies have blocked for more than two decades the adoption of Golden Rice, which is genetically enhanced to produce the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene. The result, according to new calculations by DC Abundance founder and research director at the Golden Gate Institute for AI Abi Olvera , is that "delay has killed about 106,000 children and left another 210,000 to 425,000 blind." Her conservative calculations of the deaths and disabilities caused by Greenpeace's scientifically ridiculous opposition to Golden Rice are focused on 11 countries in which the consumption of rice makes up a significant proportion of their people's diets. As Olvera reports, the World Health Organization (WHO) has estimated that "250 000–500 000 children who are vitamin A-deficient become blind every year, and half of them die within 12 months of losing their sight." Vitamin A deficiency contributes to increased morbidity and mortality from common childhood infections. As the WHO notes, "Even mild, subclinical deficiency can be a problem, because it may increase children's risk for respiratory and diarrhoeal infections, decrease growth rates, slow bone development and decrease the likelihood of survival from serious illness." And it is the world's leading preventable cause of childhood blindness. I have been debunking Greenpeace's unscientific opposition to Golden Rice since 2000 when the activist group claimed : "Greenpeace opposes golden rice because it has all the risks of any [genetically modified] crop." In my 2013 article, "Scientists Call Out Greenpeace for Killing and Blinding Kids," I hailed the blistering editorial in Science that asserted , "If ever there was a clear-cut cause for outrage, it is the concerted campaign by Greenpeace and other nongovernmental organizations, as well as by individuals, against Golden Rice." In 2016, I reported the open letter by 100 Nobel Prize laureates calling on "Greenpeace to cease and desist in its campaign against Golden Rice specifically, and crops and foods improved through biotechnology in general." The laureates suggested that Greenpeace was committing a "crime against humanity." And as recently as 2024, I warned that Greenpeace's crusade against Golden Rice will continue to blind and kill children when reporting that the anti-technology activist group had persuaded a Philippine court to block local farmers from planting the grain. For over 25 years, Greenpeace and its anti-technology allies have blocked this lifesaving crop. Although it is way past time, Greenpeace's blockade may be coming to an end. As it has become more normal for poorer countries to engineer their own genetically enhanced crops, Olvera optimistically concludes, "the harder it gets to keep blocking the one that should have come first." The post Over 100,000 Kids Have Died Due to Greenpeace Blocking Genetically Enhanced Rice, New Calculation Shows appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
FBI probe of Ohio voting rights group expands to include an affiliated national advocacy network
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for our free weekly newsletter to get the latest. Federal officials have served a subpoena on one of the nation’s leading nonprofit voter outreach groups, which has financially supported the Ohio election advocacy group at the center of a deepening investigation by the Trump administration, according to a source familiar with the probe. The FBI served the subpoena on America Votes, a Washington-based organization founded by prominent Democratic leaders that works to turn out voters nationwide, the sources said. America Votes, which has given the Ohio Organizing Collaborative at least $500,000 in recent years, according to its tax filings, declined to comment Wednesday. The subpoena signals a broader FBI investigation into the Ohio Organizing Collaborative, a statewide nonprofit group founded in 2007 that works on voting rights efforts. The Ohio Organizing Collaborative’s sister organization, Ohio Organizing Campaign, said it registered nearly 160,000 Ohio voters in 2024, describing the effort as the largest independent voter registration program in the country. Prentiss Haney, an Ohio Organizing Collaborative board member and former director of the group, said the FBI appeared to be seeking information from America Votes and other voting rights groups that worked with his organization. “This is very far reaching,” he said. “They seem to be fishing for any- and everything related to civil rights and voting rights infrastructure.” The FBI and Justice Department did not respond to emails seeking comment. Last week, FBI special agents searched the Ohio Organizing Collaborative’s offices and questioned staff members and volunteers about potential voter registration fraud, according to Haney and others familiar with the investigation. Haney said he did not know the full extent of the FBI investigation. The FBI probe comes amid rising concerns ahead of the November midterm election about Trump administration efforts to question the legitimacy of voting in America. Trump has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that voter fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election. Most recently, he accused Democrats, again without evidence, of rigging results in the California primary earlier this month. FBI agents have seized ballots from the 2020 presidential election in Fulton County, Georgia, and secured election records in Maricopa County, Arizona. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican, has been at the forefront of efforts among elections officials to scrutinize potential voter fraud. Last year, LaRose referred more than 1,200 cases to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, largely related to alleged unlawful voter registration of voting activity. LaRose said he found more than 1,000 noncitizens who had registered to vote, including 167 noncitizens who appeared to have voted in federal elections between 2018 and 2024. But the figures represent allegations, not yet proven cases. Previous batches of LaRose voter-fraud referrals have produced few prosecutions: AP reported that of 621 criminal referrals sent to Ohio’s attorney general, prosecutors secured indictments against only nine people for voting as noncitizens over a decade. Voter fraud is exceedingly rare across the country and studies , audits , and court cases have found no evidence that it occurs at anything close to the scale needed to alter modern statewide or federal election outcomes except in very unusual cases . Dion Nissenbaum is Votebeat’s senior national reporter and is based in Houston. Contact Dion at dnissenbaum@votebeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Susan Solomon named 2026 Tang Prize laureate
Susan Solomon , the Lee and Geraldine Professor of Environmental Studies at MIT, has been named the 2026 Tang Prize Laureate in Sustainable Development for “groundbreaking advances and leadership in atmospheric and climate sciences that shaped global policy for Sustainable Development,” according to the Tang Prize Foundation. The Tang Prize is a biennial international award granted by judges convened by Academia Sinica, Taiwan’s top academic research institution, and recognizes four fields of research: sustainable development, biopharmaceutical science, sinology, and rule of law. “The Tang Prize is one of the most prestigious awards in environmental science, and it’s flooring to anyone to learn that they received it,” says Solomon, who holds joint appointments in the MIT departments of Chemistry and Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “It’s a tremendous, tremendous honor, and I’ll try to live up to it.” Solomon began her career at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In 1985, scientists discovered an unexpected “hole” in the ozone layer of the atmosphere above Antarctica. Ozone, a gas made of three oxygen atoms, helps filter out ultraviolet radiation from the sun that would otherwise damage living organisms, with impacts such as increasing rates of skin cancer and cataracts. The following year Solomon, then 30, published a paper proposing a novel chemical mechanism that might explain the mysterious hole. In the same year, she led a team of 16 scientists to take direct measurements of the degradation of the ozone layer, as the only woman in the expedition. Their findings were the first measurements to show that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), compounds used in common items such as aerosols and cooling systems, were indeed destroying ozone in the stratosphere. “Maybe it’s just being young and naive, or maybe it’s being open to new ideas, but at that stage in my life I was open to the idea that chemistry might be completely different from what we had thought. I came up with some ideas of how to explain it that turned out to be right, remarkably,” she says. The following year, a United Nations conference signed the Montreal Protocol, with all nations agreeing to phase out the use of CFCs and resulting in one of the most successful triumphs of international climate policy to date. “The ozone story is a fantastic one, because it teaches us that we can actually develop international agreements and get all different kinds of countries, developed and developing, to agree to them and to solve problems together,” she says. From 2002 to 2008, she co-led the production of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, synthesizing climate science knowledge and assessing effects and mitigation approaches to human-caused climate change. It was later recognized with a Nobel Peace Prize. Solomon then went on to study the impacts of human-made carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions on the Earth’s climate. Her groundbreaking research showed that human emissions of CO 2 were causing impacts on the climate that would be irreversible for 1,000 years, even after emissions stopped. In 2012 she joined the faculty of EAPS, where she has continued her work on studying the ozone layer. Recently, she has found the first quantitative proof that the ozone layer is on track to recover by around 2035. “Most of the awards I’ve gotten previously have been very focused on the science that I did, but this one embraces the fact that my work has benefit for the planet’s sustainability,” she says. “People recognize that my work did something valuable. That is an incredible, humbling, and remarkable feeling.” “Susan is a model of an engaged scientist,” says David McGee, the William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at MIT and EAPS department head. “From uncovering the mechanisms by which human activities affect the ozone layer to using that understanding to guide political action to, most recently, showing that our actions have produced measurable ozone recovery, her work and leadership have deeply impacted the field and the health of our society. Her mentoring and teaching have similarly impacted students and researchers across EAPS and MIT. This award is a wonderful celebration of her remarkable achievements.” “Susan is a pioneer of atmospheric chemistry,” says Class of 1942 Professor of Chemistry and Department Head Matthew D. Shoulders. “Her groundbreaking research at the intersection of chemistry and environmental science is critically important, and it is wonderful to see her dedication, creativity, and scientific leadership recognized in this way.” “I have been absolutely blessed by the students and colleagues that I’ve had over the years,” Solomon says, including collaborators Qiang Fu, Rolando Garcia, Douglas Kinnison, Ben Santer, and David Thompson, as well as MIT research scientists Kane Stone and Diane Ivy and former students, including Megan Lickley and Peidong Wang. Founded in 2012 by the late Samuel Yin, the Tang Prize Foundation is a nongovernmental, nonprofit educational foundation. Nomination and selection of laureates is conducted by the Academia Sinica. Each award cycle, the academy convenes four autonomous selection committees, each consisting of an assembly of international experts, until a consensus on the recipients is reached. Recipients are chosen on the basis of the originality of their work along with their contributions to society, irrespective of nationality, ethnicity, gender, and political affiliation. Recipients in each Tang Prize category receive a total of approximately $1.6 million and a grant of approximately $320,000. Solomon is the second MIT faculty member to receive the award after Feng Zhang , who won the award in Biopharmaceutical Science in 2016 for his role in developing the CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing system.
17 Jun 2026
Louisiana Cops Threatened To Arrest a Man for Handing Out Religious Leaflets. They Got Qualified Immunity.
Six years ago, Richard Hershey was distributing religious leaflets on a public sidewalk in a public park surrounding a public arena in Bossier City, Louisiana, when he was accosted by police officers who insisted that he stop. Hershey, who was promoting the views of the Christian Vegetarian Association outside a Christian rock concert at the Bossier City Arena, pointed out that he was exercising his constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech and freedom of religion. He also noted that the officers had not interfered with another leafleteer, who was advertising a local radio station. The cops were unmoved. If Hershey did not leave immediately, they said, he would be arrested, and he likewise would be carted off to jail if he ever dared return to the park. It would be hard to imagine a more blatant violation of First Amendment rights. But last October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that Hershey could not sue the officers responsible for it because they were protected by qualified immunity , a doctrine that bars federal civil rights claims unless they allege violations of "clearly established" law. Now Hershey is asking the Supreme Court to overrule that jaw-dropping conclusion, which illustrates how broad interpretations of qualified immunity prevent victims of outrageous police misconduct from vindicating their rights. "The right to evangelize in public, free of viewpoint-based government suppression, is as clearly established as any right in the firmament," Hershey's lawyers, who include former Solicitor General Paul Clement and litigators at the First Liberty Institute , note in a Supreme Court petition filed last Friday. "It is squarely protected by two separate but overlapping clauses of the First Amendment—the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses—and by decisions of this Court underscoring that viewpoint discrimination is verboten and that discrimination against religious speech is viewpoint discrimination (im)pure and simple. No government official should need an on-point circuit precedent to illustrate what the Constitution itself and this Court's cases make clear beyond cavil." Hershey filed his lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 , which authorizes people to sue state or local officials for violating statutory or constitutional rights under color of law. That provision, which dates back to the Civil Rights Act of 1871, says nothing about qualified immunity. The Supreme Court invented that doctrine in the 1982 case Harlow v. Fitzgerald on the theory that officials should be liable under Section 1983 only when they had fair notice that their conduct was illegal or unconstitutional. As interpreted by lower courts, qualified immunity evolved into a requirement that plaintiffs cite precedents involving nearly identical facts, which can be especially challenging when plaintiffs allege abuses so egregious that they are rarely committed, documented, or litigated. But beginning with Hope v. Pelzer in 2002, the Supreme Court made it clear that victims of "obvious" constitutional violations do not have to cite closely similar cases. The Court reiterated that point in the 2020 case Taylor v. Rojas . Although Hope and Taylor involved Eighth Amendment claims of "cruel and unusual" punishment, most federal appeals courts have understood the "obviousness" exception to qualified immunity as a general principle that also applies to alleged violations of other constitutional rights. But the 5th Circuit has declined to recognize that exception outside of the Eighth Amendment context. In particular, it has prevented plaintiffs from seeking damages for obvious First Amendment violations, such as arresting a reporter for asking questions , unless they can locate a 5th Circuit precedent that is directly on point. Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho has repeatedly expressed his dismay at that situation. He nevertheless concurred when a 5th Circuit panel blocked Hershey's lawsuit in October, saying he was bound by the appeals court's precedents. Hershey's claims " should have been amply sufficient to defeat qualified immunity at this preliminary stage of the proceedings" and "allow Hershey to proceed to trial," Ho wrote in his concurring opinion . "After all, the Supreme Court has repeatedly denied qualified immunity where it found the constitutional violation so 'obvious' that it didn't require the plaintiff to identify factually indistinguishable case law." Under Hope and Taylor , "it should be enough to defeat qualified immunity that the alleged constitutional violation is obvious," Ho wrote. "And this 'obviousness' principle should be intuitive to all who treasure our constitutional rights." Ho quoted an observation that Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch made as a 10th Circuit judge in 2015: "Some things are so obviously unlawful that they don't require detailed explanation." Gorsuch added that "sometimes the most obviously unlawful things happen so rarely that a case on point is itself an unusual thing." He thought "it would be remarkable if the most obviously unconstitutional conduct should be the most immune from liability only because it is so flagrantly unlawful that few dare its attempt." Ho said he "most certainly" agreed with Gorsuch. But in the 5th Circuit, he noted, " Hope and Taylor apply only to the Eighth Amendment claims of incarcerated criminals." Ho thought the court made that clear in 2024, when it rejected the First Amendment lawsuit that Laredo, Texas, journalist Priscilla Villarreal filed after she was charged with two felonies because she had asked a police officer to confirm information about a fatal car crash and a public suicide. In Villarreal v. City of Laredo , the majority noted that Hope and Taylor were "Eighth Amendment cases," which it said established only a "narrow" exception that Villarreal could not invoke. Ho joined six other judges in vigorously dissenting from that decision. But although the Supreme Court vacated the ruling against Villarreal later that year, Ho noted, "our court has now reinstated it." On remand in April 2025, the 5th Circuit again blocked Villarreal's lawsuit, saying its previous decision was "superseded" only to the extent that it addressed the requirements for proving a retaliatory arrest. Given Ho's objections to the 5th Circuit's take on the "obviousness" exception, it is a bit puzzling that he concurred when the court rejected Hershey's petition for an en banc rehearing of his case last December. "It should go without saying," Ho wrote , that "the freedom of speech secured by the First Amendment includes religious speech," and "the obviousness of that right should have been enough to defeat qualified immunity in this case, without the need for a factually identical case saying so." Ho nevertheless joined the majority in passing up a chance to reconsider the 5th Circuit's narrow understanding of the principle recognized in Hope and Taylor . Seven judges voted to rehear Hershey's case. In an opinion joined by the six other dissenters, Judge Andrew Oldham chided Ho for opposing a rehearing. "According to Judge Ho, our court's approach to qualified immunity in First Amendment cases is deeply flawed," Oldham wrote. "If our precedent is that bad, however, we should obviously go en banc to overturn it. It's surpassing strange to say, 'our precedent requires persecution of Christians,' and then say, 'we should not go en banc to fix it!'" It is now the Supreme Court's responsibility to "fix it," Hershey's lawyers argue. "The decision below got an exceptionally important issue exceptionally wrong," they write. "Compelled by erroneous precedent, a Fifth Circuit panel granted qualified immunity to police and security officers who violated First Amendment rights that have been clearly established for decades." Defenders of qualified immunity often argue that it is necessary to protect officers from liability for good-faith decisions made in challenging circumstances. But the cops who threatened Hershey "had no split-second, life-or-death decision to make," the petition notes. "All the officers had to do to avoid liability was to do nothing." Instead, the cops "needlessly committed an obvious constitutional violation, threatening to arrest petitioner, compelling him to leave, and banishing him indefinitely from a public park on pain of arrest, all while leaving the commercial leafleteer alone," Hershey's lawyers write. "Constitutional violations do not come any plainer than that, and [Section 1983] unambiguously promises a remedy." Americans "have a clear right to engage in peaceful leafletting, and the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination, especially disfavoring religious viewpoints, is pellucidly clear," the petition says. "Government officials do not need an on-point circuit precedent to tell them as much. Indeed, one would hope that there is no on-point circuit precedent precisely because the constitutional line is so clearly established that no one has previously crossed it. There is no reason to grant officers immunity simply because they have gone where no prior officer ever dared to tread." The post Louisiana Cops Threatened To Arrest a Man for Handing Out Religious Leaflets. They Got Qualified Immunity. appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
Why Title III Is Lacking in Today's Multilingual, Technology-Enhanced Classrooms
When Congress strengthened Title III in the early 2000s, the focus was helping students acquire English and access academic content. That goal remains important, but the classrooms of 2026 look very different from those of 2001.
17 Jun 2026
Watch: The economic pressures that are driving Californians to leave home
Evan White, the co-executive director of the California Policy Lab, details why thousands of residents have left the Golden State in recent years. The post Watch: The economic pressures that are driving Californians to leave home appeared first on Berkeley News .
17 Jun 2026
How Worried Should We Be About a Socialist Mayor in D.C.?
While votes are still being counted, it appears that D.C. Councilmember Janeese Lewis George has won a commanding victory in the city's Democratic mayoral primary. The initial count shows her earning 52 percent of the vote, while former D.C. Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie trails with just 36 percent support. A handful of minor candidates' vote totals are running in the low single digits. Barring either a dramatic pro-McDuffie shift in the votes yet to be counted, and nothing short of a miracle in the general election, the self-described socialist Lewis George will be the district's next mayor. She's not the only leftist to triumph on election day. Down-ballot, progressive candidates for D.C. Council and other open positions also maintain a commanding lead. Grading on the curve of big, blue city governance, D.C., under outgoing three-term Mayor Muriel Bowser, has generally been an island of moderation. No longer. Every indication is that the district's next government will be controlled by hardline progressives and socialists. How panicked should we be? This district resident is of two minds. On the pessimistic side, Lewis George ran on a left-wing platform of childcare for all, social housing, tax increases on businesses, a generally more activist City Hall, and a much more confrontational approach to the Trump administration. Voters rewarded her handsomely for it. A sizable portion of voting district residents are mad as hell about the Trump administration's various interventions in the city, from National Guard patrols to federalization of the city's police department to Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts that have had a depressive effect on the city's economy. Bowser spent the tail end of her mayoralty avoiding confrontation with Donald Trump in an effort to prevent additional federal meddling. It was a thankless task, and the voters just made clear they want someone who "fights." As Lewis George herself told a reporter on election night, "Residents said to me, 'If Trump doesn't like you, I love you.'" In an interview tonight, I asked Janeese Lewis George if she thinks Trump's threat to take federal control of D.C. if she won helped her campaign. "Yeah, I'll be honest about that…Yeah, I think so." Her full remarks @CityCast_DC : pic.twitter.com/HkbbKApbmE — Emma Uber (@EmmaUber7) June 17, 2026 The city is also in the middle of a bruising budget fight , where councilmembers are trying to figure out which programs they'll cut to close a budget gap. It's in that fiscal context that voters went hard for a mayor who ran on a platform of universal childcare, affordable housing spending, and an endless string of other tax credits and subsidies. All of that is to say that Lewis George faces few incentives from the electorate to moderate her left-wing impulses once she's in office. On the more optimistic side, Lewis George faces several binding constraints that might force moderation on her and save all of us from a truly omnipotent City Hall. Everyone, including Lewis George's campaign, is quick to compare her to another socialist upstart politician: New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani. There's a lot to that comparison, including the fact that Lewis George, like Mamdani, is entering office during a period of fiscal retrenchment . The district government has a persistent $570 million gap between recurring expenditures and recurring revenues, per the D.C. Policy Center's analysis. Because D.C. is required to balance its budget, that fiscal shortfall will need to be addressed by the next mayor and council too. Before Lewis George can go about creating new programs and entitlements, she'll have to figure out how to pay for the city's existing obligations. In New York, Mamdani wanted to close his city's budget gap and pay for his socialist spending priorities by raising taxes on the rich. The New York state government, which needs to sign off on most of the tax increases he wanted, largely prevented him from doing that. Here in D.C., any tax increases Lewis George might want can be vetoed by Congress, which, for the moment, is still in Republican hands. Indeed, because the D.C. local government is a creation of Congress, effectively any policy the district wants to pass can be blocked by the federal legislature. If it wanted, Congress could end home rule entirely and govern D.C. directly. One could hope that Congress could put some outer limits on any truly disastrous left-wing experimentation considered by D.C.'s next mayor and council. Of course, there's also a lot of danger in counting on the federal government as a backstop to bad local policy in D.C. Trump's shows of force with federal law enforcement and national guard deployments helped prime the D.C. electorate to vote for a socialist to begin with. If Lewis George continues to be a "fighter" once in office, something voters have clearly signaled they want, the response from the GOP-controlled federal government will likely be more than a congressional veto of a tax increase or two. "Maybe we'll take back Washington, run it on a federal basis," said Trump when asked by reporters in the Oval Office about Lewis George. "We won't put up with it. We're not going to lose our businesses." One can at least appreciate the irony of the district's current political dynamic. Trump's local interventions prime residents to vote for a socialist mayor, whose radicalism then begets more federal intervention. Some D.C.-based readers might think that maybe a Republican-led federal takeover of D.C. might not be such a bad thing, if the alternative is letting a bunch of socialists run wild at city hall. I'm unconvinced. For all its flaws, home rule does allow voters to impose some measure of accountability on the officials they elect. If Lewis George tanks D.C.'s economy with a bunch of socialist policies, voters will have the option of picking someone better next time. Meanwhile, literally the only voters no member of Congress has to care about are the ones who live in D.C. With Donald Trump in the White House, increased federal control over D.C. probably won't result in lower taxes, timely trash pickups, and the legalization of flavored nicotine products. It's more probable that it would produce a lot of showy MAGA interventions that do not benefit district residents or individual liberty more broadly. There are a lot of roadblocks to Lewis George implementing much of her left-wing agenda. The fear is that the roadblock that actually stops her is a Trumpian takeover of local government. The post How Worried Should We Be About a Socialist Mayor in D.C.? appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
Expanding and deepening climate reporting through local messengers
Since 2021, the MIT Environmental Solutions Journalism Fellowship has supported local and regional journalists in reporting high-impact news stories that connect climate change with local priorities. Now, the MIT Climate Project has published a report on the reach and impact of these fellowships, highlighting how the Institute’s scientific resources can help spark and deepen conversations about climate solutions in every corner of the country. “Our goal is to offer trusted, grounded knowledge about climate change to everyone who wants to learn, so communities can make informed decisions for themselves about how to respond,” says Aaron Krol, who leads the Climate Change Engagement Program within the Climate Project. “Often, the best way to do that is just to lend support and scientific guidance to the people, like the reporters at local papers and radio stations, who know their audiences’ needs and perspectives best.” Since the fellowship was founded, 20 journalists have completed the program, publishing 104 stories with a collective audience of nearly 3 million readers and listeners. Among the goals of the fellowship is to ensure that ambitious, long-form or serial climate reporting is not restricted to the large national outlets that can afford to maintain a climate desk. Americans consistently say they trust their local newsrooms more than national ones, and feel local news is an important institution in their cities and towns — making these news sources especially powerful media for introducing new ideas and perspectives on climate change and its solutions. MIT journalism fellows have covered the potential for offshore wind energy in Louisiana , flood preparedness in West Virginia , and the energy transition in Utah’s coal country , among many other topics with clear stakes for readers and their communities. “Local journalists want to engage on climate issues,” says Krol. “Every year, we’re amazed by the quality of the applications we receive. There are so many reporters out there who know this is important, who have been holding onto ideas for stories, and just need that extra support to step outside their usual beats or devote the time and resources to these issues.” The 20 outlets that have participated in the fellowship showcase the full variety of local news media in the United States today. Some are long-standing institutions in their cities and states, while others are recent startups trying out new, nonprofit models for local journalism in the 21st century. Some publish in print, some are online-only, and some report on the radio. Some have readerships in the hundreds of thousands, and others serve impactful niche audiences. The most recent cohort of fellows, from 2025, exemplifies this range. At the Chicago Tribune , Karina Atkins reached hundreds of thousands of readers with her series on state and federal policies that have hampered Illinois farmers from diversifying their crops in preparation for a warming climate . Meanwhile, at Lancaster Farming , Carolyn Beans gave dairy farmers in Pennsylvania an in-depth look at the market for climate-smart milk . “We don’t ask how big your audience is,” Krol says. “We ask who you’re going to reach, and how you’re going to connect climate change to their lives and livelihoods.” MIT provides the fellows with editorial, scientific, design, and financial support. Fellows get a crash course in climate science from MIT experts, and work hands-on with interactive climate models to get new perspectives on policy and technology solutions. They also get access to a science editor who can supplement the work of the host newsroom with a specialized background in reporting and writing science-focused stories. “The stories themselves are important, but I’m proudest of the difference our program has made for the careers of the journalists who have come through it,” says Krol. “We’ve had newsrooms dedicate more resources to following up on their climate stories, fellows pivot to energy and environment beats, outlets start using digital tools and data visualizations in new ways. We even had a fellow start her own newsroom to pursue more environmental and solutions reporting for Minnesota. Once these journalists get a chance to dig in on climate, they carry the knowledge and skills with them.” Read the 2026 Impact Report to learn more about the MIT Environmental Solutions Journalism Fellows, and the impacts they made on communities across the country. All 100-plus stories published through the fellowship can be found on the MIT Climate Portal .
17 Jun 2026
England Fans Warned Not To Chant 'Keir Starmer's a Wanker' at World Cup
The British are coming! England fans have descended on Dallas ahead of Wednesday's England World Cup opener against Croatia. Almost 15,000 England supporters are expected to have journeyed to the Lone Star State, with fans enjoying all they can of southern America—cattle drives, rodeos, Texas beer, and baseball—according to The Times . But while England fans are free to sample Texan hospitality, they are still subject to speech restrictions reminiscent of the United Kingdom. As The Times reports , FIFA, the global governing body that runs the World Cup and sets the stadium rules, has warned rowdy fans not to chant politically charged messages during World Cup games. Doing so would violate FIFA's World Cup Stadium Code of Conduct , which prohibits fans from bringing in or displaying banners, flags, fliers, apparel, and other paraphernalia that are of a "political, offensive and/or discriminatory nature." It also bans spectators from cursing or chanting "in a political, offensive and/or discriminatory manner," or using foul or abusive language. Failure to comply could result in removal from the stadium, the cancellation of tickets, or, in some cases, civil or criminal fines and penalties. The warning appears to be prompted by fans shouting "Keir Starmer is a wanker," at England's warm-up game against Costa Rica in Orlando last week. At least one flag with the same message has also been spotted in Dallas, according to Daily Mail . This is not the only colorful flag English fans have sported. The Football Association (F.A.), England's national football governing body, is also reportedly aware of an England flag bearing the message "Keir Starmer is a nonce," a British slang word meaning pedophile. But it's not just banners displaying bad words that are being targeted by FIFA rules. As Daily Mail reports , some fans were unable to secure written permission from FIFA officials to bring in flags that honor and bear the image of fallen British soldiers. The rifles on these flags, fans were told, were in breach of the event's flag regulations. While these fun-sponge rules make games less boisterous, FIFA and the stadium operators are well within their rights to set the rules inside their own venues. Still, FIFA's control only extends so far. The F.A.'s official allocation for England supporters was only 4,022 tickets, meaning most England fans who have travelled to Dallas will be watching from nearby bars, fan zones, or wherever they can find a screen. FIFA can confiscate a flag at the turnstiles, but it cannot stop thousands of Englishmen in Texas from taking advantage of America's speech laws—which are especially lenient compared to the U.K.'s —and saying what they think about the prime minister back home. In the land of the free, England fans will undoubtedly jump at every available opportunity to name-call their deeply unpopular leader, all while reveling in the glory of supporting a brilliant team. The post England Fans Warned Not To Chant 'Keir Starmer's a Wanker' at World Cup appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
Everything you need to know about how to vote in Arizona’s primary election
Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the U.S. Sign up for Votebeat Arizona’s free newsletter here. Get ready, Arizonans — it’s almost time to vote in the state primary election. It’s a midterm year, which means key congressional seats and top state positions are up for grabs. The primary is an important part of the election cycle, as it determines which candidates will proceed to the general election on Nov. 3. Arizona’s primary is scheduled for July 21, but voting starts on June 24. We compiled answers to some common questions about the election. Here’s everything you need to know to cast your ballot. What offices are on the ballot in Arizona’s primary election? At the federal level, voters will select nominees for seats in the House of Representatives. Neither of the state’s U.S. Senate seats is up for election this year. Voters will also choose nominees for all of the state’s top positions, including governor, secretary of state, and attorney general. Every seat in both chambers of the Arizona Legislature are also up for election this year. Finally, a number of local offices and ballot measures will appear on voters’ primary ballots — but in most cases, those races are nonpartisan, meaning voters won’t be nominating candidates to run under a party’s banner in the general election. Rather, they’ll typically decide the outcome of those seats and propositions outright. In some cases, local candidates may proceed to a runoff election, depending on the results of the vote and the municipality’s rules. Who can vote in the primary election? All registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, are eligible to participate in the state primary. If you are a member of one of Arizona’s five registered political parties, you will receive that party’s ballot. The state also allows voters not registered with a political party to pick which ballot they would like to use to vote — Democratic, Republican, or No Labels. The Libertarian and Green parties hold closed primaries, meaning only party members can participate. How can I check my voter registration status? You can check your registration status through My.Arizona.Vote . To use the site, you’ll need to provide one of the following: Your driver’s license number. Your tribal identification card number. The last four digits of your Social Security number. How can I register to vote or change my political party affiliation? You can register to vote online if you have an Arizona driver’s license or state ID. Otherwise, you’ll need to register with a paper voter registration form. You can return the form to your county recorder by mail or drop it off at their office. If you register with a paper form, you must provide proof of citizenship to be eligible to vote a full ballot. Remember to include a photocopy of one of these documents: Your Arizona driver’s license. Your Arizona non-operating identification card. Your birth certificate. The photo identification page of your U.S. passport or passport card. Your naturalization documents. Your alien registration number. Your U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs or tribal identification card. If you do not provide proof of citizenship, you may still be registered to vote, but will only be eligible to participate in federal races — not state or local contests. How can I tell if I’m eligible to vote? In Arizona, you are qualified to vote if you are a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old by the date of the election, and a resident of the state for at least 29 days before the election. You cannot register to vote if you are a convicted felon and your rights have not been restored, or if you have been adjudicated as an incapacitated person. When is the deadline to register to vote in the primary election? The voter registration deadline for the state primary is 11:59 p.m. on June 22. Be sure to check your registration status before the deadline if you wish to participate in the election. When is the voting period? Mail ballots go out starting on June 24. That’s also the first day of in-person voting. Election Day is on July 21, and is the last day to vote. How can I get a ballot in the mail? If you are registered with a political party and have signed up for the state’s Active Early Voting List, you will automatically receive a ballot in the mail. If you’re not on the list but want to vote by mail, or if you are not registered to vote with a political party, you must contact your county election officials to request a one-time mail ballot. The deadline to request a mail ballot is July 10. I’m out of town. Will my ballot be forwarded? No, your ballot will not be automatically sent to your temporary address, even if you’ve set up mail forwarding. State law does not allow the U.S. Postal Service to forward official election materials, such as ballots. If you need a ballot forwarded, you should contact your county recorder . When is the deadline to mail in a ballot for the primary election? Your primary ballot must be received by 7 p.m. on Election Day, July 21, or else it won’t be counted. To account for possible mail delays, you should put your ballot in the mail seven to 10 days before the election — by July 14 at the latest. Postage is prepaid, so your ballot does not require a stamp. Can I drop off my ballot in person instead? Yes. Counties typically offer freestanding drop boxes where voters can return their ballots. Check with your local election officials for locations. Voters can also return their mail ballots at polling sites during the early voting period or on Election Day. Those who do so can opt to show ID when dropping off their ballots to have them counted sooner. If you choose to show ID, you may have to wait in line at the voting location. Some counties may offer a separate line for voters who are dropping off their mail ballot with their ID. Others may require you to stand in the same line as in-person voters. If you choose to drop off your ballot without showing ID, you can skip the line at the polls. Your ballot will go through signature verification, a process that safeguards against fraud, before being counted. I want to vote in person. How can I do that? All Arizona voters can cast their ballot in person, regardless of whether they were mailed a ballot. You can vote early in person or on Election Day. If you received a mail ballot, election workers will void that ballot and give you a replacement ballot to vote. If you were not mailed a ballot, you will receive one when you arrive at the polling place. Some counties assign polling places to voters based on their voting precinct. Others use a vote center model in which voters can go to any polling place in the county to cast their ballot. Check with your county election officials for details. Polls are open on Election Day from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m. Early voting hours vary by location; contact your local election officials for details. Do I need to bring anything with me to the polls? ID is required if you vote in person. Acceptable forms of ID include: Your valid Arizona driver’s license. Your valid state identification card. Your tribal enrollment card. Other government-issued identification. Two items, such as a utility bill and a bank statement, that bear your name and address. Can I track my ballot? Yes. Maricopa County voters can track their ballot at BeBallotReady.Vote . Pima County voters can track their ballot on the county recorder’s website . Voters in other parts of Arizona can track their ballot via BallotTrax . I have more questions. How can I contact my local election officials? The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office provides contact information for election officials by county. All voters can contact the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office at 1-877-THE-VOTE or 602-542-8683. If you run into any problems, we want to hear about them! If you have any other questions or concerns about voting in Arizona, please let us know. We can be reached at az.tips@votebeat.org . Sasha Hupka is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Sasha at shupka@votebeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Adam Schiff Wants Federal Tax Credits for Movie and TV Production
While everybody struggled through the COVID-19 pandemic, Hollywood has yet to recover : Box office receipts and ticket sales remain below pre-pandemic levels. Eager to cut costs, studios increasingly shoot films and TV shows overseas. Unsurprisingly, one lawmaker thinks the government should help. "Los Angeles has been the world's entertainment capital for 100 years and still has an unmatched concentration of talent and infrastructure," Gene Maddaus writes at Variety . "But in an age of globalization, with easy international travel and communication, the city is losing its edge." While still synonymous with the entertainment industry, fewer and fewer projects are actually filmed in Hollywood. The problem primarily comes down to cost. "Everything costs more in L.A., starting with labor, due to the high cost of living and elaborate union agreements," Maddaus writes. "Other states and countries have developed crew bases of their own, are more solicitous of producers' needs and offer more generous incentives." It's that latter problem that lawmakers seem so keen on solving. "In order to save this industry in America, we need to be competitive with tax credits," Sen. Adam Schiff (D–Calif.) told Variety . Schiff wants a federal film production tax credit; he said in March he had "largely drafted" a bill but that he needed bipartisan support. Last year, when President Donald Trump pledged to impose a 100 percent tariff on films "produced in Foreign Lands," Schiff countered that, instead, " Congress should pass a bipartisan globally-competitive federal film incentive to bring back production and jobs ." But adding a new tax credit for U.S. film production would not solve the problem. In fact, it would create new problems of its own. More than half of all U.S. states and territories currently offer film and TV incentives. Georgia's program , which began in 2005, lets any studio that spent at least $500,000 filming in Georgia could claim a tax credit worth up to 30 percent of its total in-state production expenses. Since then, states have tried to keep up, in a race to the bottom to see who can offer the most generous incentives at taxpayer expense. That includes California: "[Gov. Gavin] Newsom doubled the state program to $750 million in 2025," Maddaus notes. "Everyone seems to agree it should be more—maybe a lot more—and that it should cover above-the-line salaries for actors, writers and producers." "Even Massachusetts has better tax credits than Hollywood," said reality star Spencer Pratt, who recently lost his race for Los Angeles mayor. In 2021, Massachusetts funded as much as 60 percent of the production budget for Don't Look Up , a satirical film about climate change that premiered on Netflix after a perfunctory limited theatrical release. As mayor, Pratt pledged to fight for "uncapped" production tax credits, which would mean the state can spend an unlimited amount on production incentives. But even that can't keep cameras rolling forever. Georgia's program is uncapped, but that didn't stop Marvel Studios from moving production of its new Spider-Man and Avengers films to the United Kingdom, which has lower labor and production costs. And Marvel is not alone. "Now, millions of square feet of production facilities sit empty," The Wall Street Journal reported in January about the current state of Georgia's film industry. "It turns out that bribing studios with taxpayer dollars isn't a strategy to create a healthy industry—it's a way to be out-bribed." Besides, studies repeatedly show that production incentives aren't worth the cost. "Film Tax Incentives Are a Giant Waste of Money, New Study Finds," according to the headline of a 2016 Variety piece also by Maddaus, the author of the article this week about lawmakers' attempts to spend even more money on them. That study found little or no film industry job growth in states that implemented production incentives. "Consistent with studies of other state film tax incentives programs, the State of Georgia loses money," according to a 2023 audit by Georgia State University. "We calculate a state fiscal [return on investment] of 0.19 for FY 2024, or a loss of 81 percent." Further, few credits actually benefited their intended recipients. Studios have very few state tax liabilities, but Georgia's law allows them to sell any unused credits to other state taxpayers, meaning studios pocket the proceeds of the sale and the state still loses out on revenue. "Approximately 97% of credits generated in tax year 2016 were transferred to another taxpayer (e.g., sold), while less than 1% of credits were used by the production companies against their own income tax liability or their employee income tax withholding," according to a 2022 report from the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts. A 2017 report found that Virginia's tax credit "has little effect on film location decisions, a negligible benefit to the Virginia economy, and provides a negligible return on the state's investment." Rather than job creators, the credits are subsidies to the wealthy. The 2023 audit found that Georgia's incentives cost the state "$160,009 for every net job" they ostensibly create. In 2015, Massachusetts determined that its credit costs taxpayers $118,000 per job. The simple fact is that Hollywood studios, like any other major company, will go wherever their dollar will stretch the farthest. Free money from the state is nice, but not enough to overcome cheaper costs overall. The best option would be a feat of mutual disarmament, in which states simply get rid of their production incentives altogether. In the absence of that, the least we could do is stop throwing good money after bad. The post Adam Schiff Wants Federal Tax Credits for Movie and TV Production appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
Momentum Builds to Expand Coding Education to Learning About AI 'Under the Hood'
CodeAI CEO talks about artificial intelligence and the future of computer science education.
17 Jun 2026
A clearer picture of drinking and disease
Health A clearer picture of drinking and disease New study attempts to reconcile conflicting findings on benefits vs. risks Samantha Laine Perfas Harvard Staff Writer June 17, 2026 7 min read Studies of alcohol’s effects on health have offered contradictory findings, with some suggesting a glass of red wine a day is beneficial and others saying even a drop of booze is too much. A new review attempting to clarify the risks finds more than 60 diseases , based on the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases, are 100 percent attributable to consuming alcohol. But the review also finds that some of the damage can be slowed or reversed by cutting down or quitting drinking. Sinclair Carr, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the first author on the study, worked with a team to review a range of studies on alcohol and challenge their potential assumptions and biases. In an interview edited for clarity and length, Carr and senior author Jürgen Rehm of the Institute for Mental Health Policy Research at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, discussed their findings. What was the purpose of this study? Rehm: This study is an update to a series of reviews that inform global assessments — such as the Global Burden of Disease Study and the WHO’s Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health — which aim to quantify how much risk factors like alcohol and tobacco contribute to the global burden of disease and injury. It became clear that there wasn’t enough evidence about the various risks of alcohol, so we began to look at two different dimensions of alcohol that are relevant for health: the average level of drinking (i.e., how many drinks per day, week, etc.) and the patterns of drinking (i.e., the different occasions during which one consumes alcohol). We’ve been doing updates of this review roughly every seven years, but the hope was that this update would reconcile some of the classic epidemiological practices with the newer approach of Mendelian randomization. “The problem with many chronic diseases is that some of the damage, like in the liver, is not reversible. However, reducing or stopping drinking can slow the disease’s progression.” Sinclair Carr Carr: This new wave of Mendelian randomization studies (which use information on people’s genes) has been important to the field. They have really changed the perspective on some of the potential health risks of alcohol, particularly for heart diseases and ischemic stroke. Many Mendelian randomization studies found no association between alcohol consumption and risk of these diseases, but conventional observational studies did show an association, one that suggests a little consumption might lower your risk. This is where that idea of “a glass of red wine a day is beneficial for your heart” came from. More recently, people have questioned whether this potential protective effect is actually true given the contradictory findings across study designs. We hoped this new review would provide clarity. Could you give an example of a bias? Carr: An association between alcohol and health that suggests a benefit of drinking in moderation might be explained by something other than alcohol consumption itself. Perhaps it wasn’t the alcohol causing the improvements in health, but rather other factors, like being a bit wealthier, having a better diet, etc. For example, take ischemic heart disease, the condition where the different study designs disagree most. We reviewed the Mendelian randomization studies on it and learned that many were not as free from bias as is often claimed. What were your main takeaways from the review? Rehm: There is no safe level for alcohol consumption with regard to cancer, period. Any amount of alcohol consumption increases your risk for several types of cancer. But on the other hand, the risk isn’t necessarily there for other diseases. Take breast cancer, which is the most studied cancer. Having one glass of wine every other day increases the risk of breast cancer but is also potentially protective for heart disease. We cannot say that there is risk-free drinking, but we also cannot say that low amounts are clearly harmful. Basically, the increased risk of one disease could be canceled out by the reduced risk of another. “There is no safe level for alcohol consumption with regard to cancer, period. Any amount of alcohol consumption increases your risk for several types of cancer.” Jürgen Rehm What we are doing as epidemiologists is creating a conceptual picture for a population. You, as an individual, have way more information. If you know your grandfather, father, grandmother, and mother all died of heart disease, what’s best for you may be different from someone else whose family members died of cancer. Did the type of alcohol matter? So, for example, a glass of red wine versus a shot of whiskey. Rehm: No. Alcohol is alcohol is alcohol. There is no scientific evidence that type matters. What did you find in terms of slowing or reversing the effects of alcohol and health? Carr: You can slow down or reverse the damage, depending on the type of disease or injury, although most of the evidence we have comes from people who were drinking heavily. The most obvious examples are some of the acute risks of drinking, like drunken driving accidents, which disappear once you stop. There is also evidence that you can reverse some physical damage. For example, we know from randomized trials that when you cut down your consumption, you can lower your blood pressure, which is a major risk factor for heart disease. For brain damage, you may reverse some of the shrinkage of the brain when you stop drinking. Cancer risk may also decrease after stopping drinking. The problem with many chronic diseases is that some of the damage, like in the liver, is not reversible. However, reducing or stopping drinking can slow the disease’s progression. What did this review reveal about what we still need to learn? Carr: There is a lot of room for improvement in research on alcohol and health. Ideally, we would have randomized trials, which are considered the gold standard to assess causal effects; it’s clearly unethical to make people drink, but trials could ask people to stop or reduce their alcohol consumption and study the effects. If a trial is not feasible, it is helpful to specify the trial we would like to run and use observational data to emulate it. This forces us to define the question precisely and helps avoid major biases that have plagued the literature. How do you hope these findings will empower individuals to have agency over their own health? Carr: We hope the main effect is better information. People make their own decisions about drinking, and they should, but those decisions should be informed by a clear understanding of the potential health effects of drinking. For example, many do not know that alcohol increases the risk of several cancers. Since some harms appear to partly reverse when people cut down or stop, reducing can be worthwhile even after years of heavy drinking. The aim is not to tell people what to do, but to give them an accurate picture of how drinking may affect their health, so they can decide for themselves. That said, this picture is still far from complete. Many important questions remain unanswered, and we clearly need better-designed studies, along with appropriate methods, to attempt to answer them.
17 Jun 2026
In game theory, generalists sometimes win out over specialists
Whether you’re playing poker against a single opponent or find yourself in a bidding war over a home purchase with another prospective buyer, you are operating under conditions of imperfect information. You know what cards you’re holding in the poker game, and you also know how much above the home’s asking price you can afford, but you don’t know your opponent’s hand in the card game or how high the other home buyer is willing to go. A paper co-authored by MIT researchers and presented in April at the International Conference on Learning Representations in Rio De Janeiro won’t tell you what to do in these situations, specifically. But it does offer new insights into so-called imperfect-information games that involve two contestants facing off in a “zero-sum” competition, where one player’s gain means the other player’s loss. MIT researchers on the project include Sobhan Mohammadpour, a PhD student in MIT’s Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS) and the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS); and Gabriele Farina, an assistant professor in EECS and a principal investigator at LIDS. Additional co-authors include Max Rudolph of the University of Texas at Austin (UT), Nathan Lichtlé of the University of California at Berkeley (UCB), Alexandre Bayen of UCB, J. Zico Kolter of Carnegie Mellon University (CMU), Amy X. Zhang ’11, MNG ’12 of UT; Eugene Vinitsky of New York University; and Samuel Sokota of CMU. The focus of the new work is on algorithms that could be used to train neural networks to participate in imperfect-information games. The assumption, long-held in the field, was that algorithms grounded in principles of game theory would, in this setting, clearly outcompete a general-purpose variety of algorithms called policy gradient methods, which came into use for decision-making in the 1990s. The term “policy” in this context basically means strategy, whereas “gradient” refers to a path that leads in the direction of greatest change — to the top (or bottom) of a hill, for example. Policy gradient methods are being used to train neural networks to make decisions that move — in small, sequential steps — toward a particular goal (like reaching a summit, metaphorically speaking), with continual adjustments and course corrections made along the way to bring the agent closer to the intended destination. Although strategic games were not on the original agenda when policy gradient methods were conceived in the early 1990s, the authors of the new paper still wondered how this class of algorithms might fare in two-player games. These methods become more complicated to analyze in multi-agent settings, according to Farina. “There is still a direction you can move in to improve your circumstances, but, because of the other player’s actions, that direction can constantly change over the course of the game. And those shifts can be rapid.” “It had been pretty much taken for granted that specialized game-theoretic algorithms were the right approach for this setting,” says Sokota. “Our study showed that policy gradient methods can work better than these specialized algorithms, and that the specialized algorithms may not work as well as people thought — which raises an interesting sociological question about why this went unnoticed for so long. Part of the answer is that the field hadn’t done the engineering work required to rigorously evaluate the algorithms, so it was hard to tell what worked and what didn’t.” Consequently, a major contribution of this work has been to provide an even-handed way of appraising different algorithms that can teach agents — i.e., neural networks — how to compete in imperfect-information games. “We’re taking a different approach,” notes Rudolph. “Unlike many of the papers published in this field, we’re not proposing a new algorithm that can beat out other algorithms. We’re proposing a benchmark that can assess these algorithms.” Simply put, a benchmark consists of software designed to rate the performance of algorithms. “What we’re offering is a testing grounds, or playing grounds, where people can take their algorithms, train them for a specific task, and see how well they do,” says Farina. The group calculates a player’s performance in terms of a concept called exploitability, which measures how well a player does against the “worst-case adversary,” Sokota explains. “In a game like poker, this opponent wouldn’t know what my hand is, but would know how I would behave for any given hand.” Achieving a zero on this scale implies perfect play, whereas a high exploitability score indicates far-from-optimal play. Five games were played in experiments carried out by the team: two versions of Phantom Tic-Tac-Toe, in which players can’t see what their opponent has done, along with two imperfect-information variants of a board game called Hex, and another game of deception called Liar’s Dice. The biggest challenge faced by the researchers was getting the exploitability measure to work on games of this size, which may include as many as 30 billion states. A “state” in this case is not just all the possible board positions, but also encompasses the entire history of the game, including every step and misstep along the way. “It’s like looking into a dark room that’s filled with objects you can’t see,” says Mohammadpour. “Somehow, you need to figure out where these objects are and exactly how they got there.” Previous researchers, Mohammadpour adds, have typically used exploitability for games that are 100,000 times smaller than the ones analyzed in their study. In the experiments carried out on these five games, neural networks trained with policy gradient algorithms got better (lower) exploitability scores than networks trained on game theory-based algorithms. In head-to-head competitions, which took place in the next round, the policy gradient-trained networks again beat their game theory-trained opponents. “Those results were reassuring,” Rudolph says, “because they give us more confidence in our benchmarking approach.” The team has made their benchmarking software freely available and convenient to use. “You don’t need a supercomputer,” Mohammadpour says. “You can run it on an ordinary laptop. And all you have to do is add a single line of code to a commonly used collection of benchmarking software called OpenSpiel.” Although their experiments involved some fairly obscure games, Farina would like to put this work into a broader context. “Keep in mind that the term 'game' really applies to any multi-agent strategic interaction,” he says. “So the lessons we learn from this research are by no means limited to recreational games.” Vinitsky agrees. “Hidden information is a very important property of the world,” he says. “It pervades a range of things — including military operations, trading scenarios, and negotiations — all of which are carried out under conditions of hidden information. The idea that we can improve on these games suggests that we can also do better in these other settings as well.” Ian Gemp — a computer scientist and game theory expert at Google DeepMind who was not involved in this study — finds these results encouraging. “This work serves as a compelling reminder,” he says, “that modernizing classical tools [like policy gradient methods] remains a highly productive path for solving complex strategic problems.”
17 Jun 2026
The nose knows: Electric schnoz can smell when your food’s gone bad
A new proof-of-concept device created by UC Berkeley researchers can sniff out gases emitted by harmful bacteria, allergens and other food safety hazards. The post The nose knows: Electric schnoz can smell when your food’s gone bad appeared first on Berkeley News .
17 Jun 2026
Pennsylvania S. Ct. Finds Pattern of "Lack of Candor" in Philadelphia D.A. Krasner's Filings Urging Reversal of Murder Convictions
From yesterday's decision in Commonwealth v. Brown , written by Justice Kevin Dougherty, joined by Justices Sallie Updyke Mundy, Kevin Brobson, and Daniel McCaffery; all the opinions put together come to 70K words, so all I include are short excerpts: The prosecutor does not decide whether a defendant is entitled to relief under the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA). This is the exclusive province of the PCRA court. Nonetheless, while not dispositive, a prosecutor's concession of relief is undoubtedly influential. Courts have long been instructed to give such concessions "great weight[.]" But when the prosecutor sides with a defendant, there generally is no adversarial testing of the defendant's entitlement to relief, and the court is left without the benefits of opposing advocacy, including the presentation of counterarguments and exposure of misrepresentations of fact and law. The PCRA court's review is limited to the record before it. If relevant evidence is withheld from the court, this pertinent information goes unconsidered. The court is not permitted to conduct its own independent investigation of extra-record materials, and it is not equipped to do so in any case. For these reasons, an unreliable prosecutorial concession substantially risks the erroneous grant of relief by the court. This is not to say a prosecutor should never concede relief. A prosecutor bears the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. Hence, a prosecutor is duty-bound to confess error, provided the facts and law call for it. But the proviso is critical. When relief is not dictated by the record and law but merely advocated for personal, political, ideological, policy, or other non-legal reasons, a prosecutor's concession does not minister justice; it facilitates injustice. Here, in this case reviewed under our King's Bench jurisdiction, the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office (DAO), on behalf of the Commonwealth, conceded that Lavar Brown (Brown), a convicted murderer sentenced to death for a separate murder, was entitled to a new trial based upon a facially untimely claim under the PCRA. Upon careful review, we conclude this concession was not reliable. More specifically, we find the DAO conceded relief although none was warranted based on the existing record, violated its duty of candor to the PCRA court, withheld material evidence from the court, opposed efforts by amici to gain access to this evidence, submitted a false stipulation of fact, misstated facts in its pleadings, failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, and opposed a required evidentiary hearing. The predictable result was the erroneous grant of a new trial. These circumstances, troubling as they are, would not warrant a remedy beyond reversal of the PCRA court's order in this particular case if they were confined to this one case. Unfortunately, they aren't. Since 2018, the DAO has conceded relief well over 100 times, mostly in murder cases like this one. There have been numerous instances of untrustworthy concessions, lack of candor, misrepresentations of fact, lack of adequate investigation, and avoidance of hearings. And the problems are poised to continue. There are apparently more than 1,000 cases yet to be reviewed by the DAO's Conviction Integrity Unit (CIU), and the DAO vigorously defends its checkered concession program as a necessary corrective to past misdeeds by prior administrations. The DAO's active, ongoing, and problematic concession program requires broader remedial action to promote just outcomes. {Under our state constitution, this Court has "the power to prescribe general rules governing practice, procedure and the conduct of all courts … if such rules are consistent with th[e c]onstitution and neither abridge, enlarge nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant[.]"} Accordingly, in addition to reversing the PCRA court's grant of a new trial here, we also hold that in any PCRA case in which the DAO concedes relief, the PCRA court shall grant the Office of Attorney General (OAG) notice and the right to intervene in the case before ruling on the concession. Regardless of the OAG's position on the concession if it chooses to intervene — it may well agree relief is warranted — its independent assessment and participation will enhance the reliability of the proceedings and the PCRA court's ultimate decision…. Our holding applies only in Philadelphia County, but that is because that is where the problem is…. A brief excerpt from Justice Brobson's concurrence , joined by Justice Mundy (both fully joined the majority opinion as well): [W]hat happens if the prosecutor acts in a way that calls into question the reliability of the PCRA proceeding itself? What happens if the prosecutor concedes error where none exists? Even worse, what happens if the prosecutor withholds record evidence that contradicts the prosecutor's concession, causing a PCRA court to upend a lawful verdict against the interest of the community? Following this cascade, the absence of any adverse party at the table means the PCRA court's erroneous action, based on misleading advocacy from the Commonwealth's representative, escapes appellate review…. [A] jury of Brown's peers convicted him in Philadelphia County and sentenced him to life in prison for his crimes. As we explained in Brown I , the community "has an interest in the verdict, which may … be disrupted only if a court finds legal error." To me, that is what this case is about and why we invoked our seldom used King's Bench authority here—to protect the community's interest in a verdict from prosecutor misfeasance or malfeasance in a subsequent PCRA proceeding…. [T]he Majority employs remedies properly aimed only at Philadelphia County. I am of the view, however, that PCRA courts throughout the Commonwealth will benefit from the lessons learned in this case when faced with similar circumstances…. Justice McCaffery also concurred ; an excerpt: I write separately to note my recognition of the problem and the need to remediate, but would order a different procedure to address these concerns. My proposed resolution [of having the OAG handle these cases -EV] would … not be limited to one county, one District Attorney and one limited class of cases but would apply statewide to any case where a PCRA petition alleges prosecutorial misconduct as the basis for a new trial, since I believe the law requires disqualification of any District Attorney's Office from investigating, evaluating, or litigating such a claim. Further, since the PCRA is civil in nature, the Commonwealth Attorneys Act and our Rules of Professional Conduct mandate that the Office of the Attorney General represent and defend the Commonwealth in all such proceedings…. Justice Christine Donohue, joined by Chief Justice Debra Todd, dissented (except for a concurrence on one particular matter, "the PCRA court's failure to hold an evidentiary hearing"); an excerpt: In my view, our decision in Commonwealth v. Brown (Pa. 2018) (" Brown I ") answers the question of what procedure must be followed and sets the guardrails for granting relief based upon concessions of error. We instructed PCRA courts that an independent review of the record is required when considering such a petition. That mandate presumes that the PCRA court will utilize its authority to conduct the proceedings in such a way that it is satisfied that the record supports relief. The Majority's fabrication of a third-party intervention rule only in Philadelphia County proceedings is unnecessary. Moreover, it undermines the authority of PCRA courts in Philadelphia County to control their own courtrooms and underestimates the ability of these courts to ensure the adequacy of the record presented by the parties. Most critically, the rule crafted by the Majority far exceeds this Court's authority under the Pennsylvania Constitution…. The Majority relies on cases handpicked by the Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") to demonstrate "unreliable concessions and erroneous grants of relief" by DAO. To the contrary, from my reading, these examples demonstrate that these courts effectively engaged in independent review in conducting concession of error proceedings. The tools at a court's disposal ensure the effective administration of justice. In each of the cases discussed by the Majority that involved factual concessions, the courts denied relief, demonstrating independent review of concessions of error. The courts, inter alia, determined whether there was a need for an evidentiary hearing based on any inadequacies in the record. In each of the cases discussed by the Majority, the courts utilized existing resources to resolve the petitions without reliance on a concession of error. We are continuing to see PCRA courts in Philadelphia County rely on these tools in concession of error proceedings throughout the pendency of this case…. Finally, this Court cannot invoke King's Bench powers to counteract policy choices of elected officials. By restructuring PCRA procedures in Philadelphia County where the elected District Attorney concedes error, the Majority abuses our King's Bench authority. Creating an intervention rule in these isolated concessions of error PCRA proceedings diminishes the District Attorney's authority and interferes with his obligation to rectify the injustice of a conviction improperly obtained…. And from Justice David Wecht's dissent : The Majority's edict will force common pleas judges in our most populous county to disregard the will of the people's duly elected prosecutor, to gratuitously involve Pennsylvania's Office of the Attorney General ("OAG"), and to encourage the OAG to intervene on behalf of the Commonwealth as a categorical matter in a class of PCRA cases. This novel procedure is neither mandated nor permitted by statute or rule…. The Majority claims that its remedy is necessary to "promote just outcomes." While all aspire to that worthy goal, the manner in which the Majority seeks to effectuate it far exceeds the power and role of the judiciary. If Philadelphians do not approve of the way in which their elected prosecutor is performing his duties, they can replace him. It is not our job to do so…. The Majority proclaims that it cannot "ignore the reality that the PCRA court's erroneous grant of relief in this case was abetted by the DAO's lack of candor and failure to conduct a reasonable investigation." The Majority identifies what it believes to be a litany of ethical violations committed by the DAO throughout the history of this case. The Majority does not explain how a discussion of those purported violations falls within the appropriate limits of our King's Bench power. It bears repeating that King's Bench cannot be invoked merely as an alternative to existing and available processes and procedures. All Pennsylvania lawyers must abide by our Rules of Professional Conduct. Any violations of those rules must be alleged first in a complaint to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. These are adjudicated before the Court's Disciplinary Board, and this Court thereafter renders a final decision. In the face of this, the Majority nonetheless bypasses established procedures and publicly declares the DAO guilty of various ethical violations sua sponte —without hearings, counsel, briefing, or any other procedural protections. This endeavor far exceeds the intentions and boundaries of our King's Bench power…. The post Pennsylvania S. Ct. Finds Pattern of "Lack of Candor" in Philadelphia D.A. Krasner's Filings Urging Reversal of Murder Convictions appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
America is finally realizing what community colleges have been doing all along
Employers continue to be concerned that recent college graduates are unprepared for today’s workplace. A recent survey conducted by Lumina Foundation and Gallup found that a little more than half of employers say American colleges and universities are producing students with the skills they’re seeking. Even more worrisome, nearly 70% of employers say recent college graduates need at least a moderate amount of additional training after they’re hired so they can succeed in their new job. Another recent survey from the National Association of College and Employers found that while employers put a premium on communication, critical thinking and professionalism, they believe about half of new college grads are lacking these crucial workplace skills. As companies voice growing frustration that traditional degree programs are failing to not produce enough job-ready talent, another type of institution has long delivered results from the margins: community colleges. Made to order Two-year colleges are uniquely positioned to help fill these talent gap. Their programs are built around in-demand skills, employer partnerships and alignment with industry needs — all in service of producing talent ready for real jobs. They stand ready to become the partner of choice in developing the next generation of skilled workers if employers and policymakers are willing to meet them halfway. Community colleges are accessible, affordable and hyper-focused on ensuring their graduates find employment. Today, these institutions enroll about 6.5 million students , or roughly 40% of the nation’s undergraduates. For these learners and their communities, two-year colleges already quietly serve as vital workforce engines. For example, the City Colleges of Chicago system, where I recently served as executive vice chancellor and chief student experience officer, focuses many of its campuses on specific industry sectors. These institutions design associate degree and career certificate programs, apprenticeships and employer partnerships that guide students into in-demand local jobs. At the Dawson Technical Institute at Kennedy-King College , students can complete an apprenticeship and certificate track in construction and utility trades. At Olive-Harvey College , a new building dedicated to transportation, distribution and logistics supports programs aimed at filling the region’s more than 100,000 open TDL jobs. Daley College ’s advanced manufacturing programs connect learners directly to well-paying jobs in a sector hungry for talent. Non-profit and employer partners Community colleges across the country have partnered with Education Design Lab to reimagine their missions to better serve the needs of present-day learners and employers. These efforts focus on creating stackable credentials, designing applied learning opportunities and strengthening student supports. All of this is happening even as many community colleges are grappling with lean staffing, limited budgets and few resources relative to the breadth of their mission. As academic programs become more closely aligned with industry needs, nonprofit organizations increasingly serve as intermediaries between community colleges and employers, helping translate education into workforce opportunity. Organizations like One Million Degrees (OMD), which I now lead, acts as a bridge by supporting career development and durable training that prepare students for work-based learning and employment. At City Colleges of Chicago, for instance, OMD supports a six-week pre-internship program that prepares and screens students for internship placements with a range of public- and private-sector employers. Employers can help by investing more directly in community college talent pipelines by co-designing curriculum, expanding paid work-based learning opportunities and hiring directly from two-year programs. The technology giant Siemens recently announced plans for a new national initiative to expand access into in-demand, high-paying electrical careers. Working with Wake Technical Community College and other partners in North Carolina, Careers Electric aims to prepare 25,000 people in 10 years for employment in energy, healthcare manufacturing and infrastructure sectors. Similarly, the Volkswagen Group of America has partnered with Chattanooga State Community College in Tennessee to create an academy that combines classroom work with paid hands-on training on-site at a local plant. Policymakers’ role To better align employer needs with student aspirations, policymakers should advance strategies that more effectively connect education and the workforce. This includes supporting community colleges as they expand high-wage, high-demand programs. It also includes encouraging the growth of paid internships and work-based learning opportunities through incentives for colleges and employer partners, particularly given strong evidence that such experiences predict career success, especially early on. Finally, policymakers should invest in intermediaries that help colleges and employers align hiring needs with student preparation. When community colleges are fully recognized and funded as a vital backbone of our talent ecosystem, the result is a win for the workforce and the entire economy. Embracing the rich potential of community college talent and institutions is an economic imperative. As the country seeks to build a stronger economy, a powerful workforce engine is already running. It’s time to fuel it. The post America is finally realizing what community colleges have been doing all along first appeared on Community College Daily .
17 Jun 2026
Flexible cryogenic cables solve a challenge in quantum system development
By harnessing the unique properties of quantum mechanics, scientists and engineers worldwide seek to enable systems with extraordinary capabilities. Many of them are working on the highly anticipated development of quantum computers capable of completing complex calculations at unprecedented speeds. These computers could meet the growing computational demands of both scientific research and data-intensive industries like finance, cybersecurity, and medicine. Necessary for quantum system development is an environment in which the fragile nature of quantum bits (qubits) is stabilized and the thermal noise (fluctuations in current/voltage) inherent in superconducting electronics is dampened. That environment requires cryogenic temperatures, those ranging from 5 to 10 millikelvins, colder than the extreme temperatures encountered in space. Dilution refrigerators create this needed cryogenic condition. Dilution refrigerators used for quantum R&D need a wiring system that can operate in cryogenic temperatures, maintain a power-efficient direct current, and support high-speed data transmission. Researchers at MIT Lincoln Laboratory prototyped flexible, ribbon-like, low-frequency (LF) cables that not only meet these demands, but also are compatible with commercial circuit-board manufacturing processes. Maybell Quantum , a Colorado-based company supplying hardware for developing quantum systems, licensed the design for these cables and is adapting them for use in their dilution refrigerators. "We’re planning to integrate Maybell LF CryoTrace, the ribbon wiring system transferred from MIT Lincoln Laboratory, across all thermal stages of our dilution refrigerators. Initially, the cables will be used for LF services, such as thermometry, heaters, and sensors, with feasibility studies planned for additional functions," says Lasse Nielsen, strategy and operations lead at Maybell Quantum. "After qualification testing, LF CryoTrace is planned for the next iteration of our internal wiring across the Maybell product family." Motivation for invention To support government initiatives in quantum computing, the Lincoln Laboratory research team investigated alternatives to conventional coaxial cables for use in hardware like dilution refrigerators. Coaxial cables can generate heavy heat loads for cryogenic hardware to address. And, as the number of qubits in quantum computers will increase, so will the number of coaxial cables in the infrastructure, making it difficult to fit stiff, bulky cable arrays into hardware supporting superconducting qubits. The team chose a stripline cable configuration with conductive layers positioned between flexible polymer layers that shield against electromagnetic interference (also known as crosstalk). Striplines offer consistency across different frequencies and minimal signal loss. The new cables were designed to accommodate large numbers of simultaneous signal transmissions; support direct-current operation without warming the cryogenic environment; and, importantly, provide easier integration into hardware than achievable with brittle coaxial cables. "The main innovation is that the laboratory's cables can be fabricated by a traditional printed-circuit-board manufacturer. They're cheaper to fabricate and easier to install than traditional coaxial cables," says John Cummings, a principal investigator in the flexible cables project of the Lincoln Laboratory Quantum-Enabled Computation Group . Citing ease of installation and durability as two factors making these cables attractive, Maybell Quantum says the ribbon format is mechanically robust, reducing handling-related breakages common with thin coaxials and improving repeatability in production. The supple flex cables allow assembly tasks that took days to complete to be done in a few hours. "Over time, we think ribbonized, quantum-specific internal wiring can reshape manufacturing norms: faster and more consistent builds, easier field service, and more modular upgrades," Nielsen says. Future outlook Maybell Quantum is looking toward supporting quantum computing's transition from a laboratory-based capability to an industrial, commercially viable one. The huge gap between the current highly specialized quantum-laboratory environment and the robust infrastructure required for future industrial quantum computing lies in the hardware promoting the development of functional chips. Maybell's mission is to develop reliable tools that commercial developers of quantum computers can use with ease and without the high costs and expert training associated with the equipment in today's quantum labs. The flex cables and Maybell's continued R&D into their capabilities and integration into various tools will foster a future infrastructure that could enable industry to scale manufacture of quantum computers to a level at which these powerful machines could cost-effectively find use in myriad enterprises. "If you want to scale to hundreds of chips, you need interconnects that can handle more signals more reliably. That’s why the Lincoln Laboratory cables are so exciting for us — they enable true scalability," says Kyle Thompson, founder and chief technology officer of Maybell Quantum. "We believe this technology will materially improve our systems and strengthen the broader U.S. quantum ecosystem by moving federally funded innovation into American manufacturing."
17 Jun 2026
Tulsi Gabbard's Not-So-Shocking Revelation of U.S.-Funded Veterinary Biolabs in Ukraine
Russian propagandists asserted in March 2022 that the U.S. was funding bioweapons laboratories in Ukraine as a justification for their armed forces' brutal invasion of that country. "During a special military operation, the facts of the Kiev regime's emergency cleanup of traces of a military biological program funded by the US Department of Defence implemented in Ukraine were revealed," asserted a Russian spokesperson on March 6, 2022. A Chinese spokesman joined in, declaring "This Russian military operation has uncovered the secret of the U.S. labs in Ukraine, and this is not something that can be dealt with in a perfunctory manner." Ironically, this outrageous allegation comes from a regime that refused to allow independent researchers to investigate the origins of the COVID-19 virus in Wuhan, China. That authoritarian regimes lie is not surprising. However, this Russian propaganda was also parroted by prominent American right-wing figures in the United States, including former Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson and podcaster Steve Bannon. Former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard quickly joined in, releasing a video on March 13, 2022 in which she stated: "Here are the undeniable facts: There are 25 to 30 U.S.-funded biolabs in Ukraine. According to the U.S. government, these biolabs are conducting research on dangerous pathogens." There are 25+ US-funded biolabs in Ukraine which if breached would release & spread deadly pathogens to US/world. We must take action now to prevent disaster. US/Russia/Ukraine/NATO/UN/EU must implement a ceasefire now around these labs until they're secured & pathogens destroyed pic.twitter.com/dhDTH5smIG — Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) March 13, 2022 Gabbard did not outright claim that the labs were researching bioweapons, although she hinted that they could be conducting "gain-of-function" experiments that could make the pathogens more dangerously infectious. Calling her " our friend ," Russian propagandists widely promoted her remarks as evidence for their claims about secret U.S. bioweapons labs in Ukraine. One Russian commentator even speculated, perhaps jokingly, that she was "some kind of Russian agent." In response, Sen. Mitt Romney (R–Utah) on March 13, 2022, tweeted : "Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives." Both American and international organizations thoroughly debunked the Russian disinformation campaign. Despite her conspiracy theory–adjacent shenanigans, President Donald Trump nominated Gabbard to head the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The ODNI integrates and coordinates the activities of the entire U.S. intelligence community, focusing on counterterrorism, counterintelligence and security, counterproliferation, cyberintegration, and counterinfluence. Gabbard became the director of national intelligence in February 2025. In May, Gabbard announced that she was resigning as DNI to support her husband as he undergoes treatment for a rare form of bone cancer. Fair enough. On her way out of the door, Gabbard issued a June 12 press release that purportedly "reveals evidence of U.S. taxpayer-funded global lab program." The release further claimed: Until now, evidence regarding the full existence and funding of these laboratories had been knowingly withheld from the American people. The information surrounding the existence, history, locations, and funding of these US funded biolabs has been intentionally covered up by powerful people falsely, claiming that they do not exist and accusing anyone who says otherwise to be foreign assets and traitors to America. Well, no. The Ukrainian biological research labs were not secret nor was information about them "knowingly withheld." The U.S. Department of Defense issued a fact sheet on March 11, 2022, noting : The United States, through BTRP [Biological Threat Reduction Program], has invested approximately $200 million in Ukraine since 2005, supporting 46 Ukrainian laboratories, health facilities, and diagnostic sites. BTRP has improved Ukraine's biological safety, security and surveillance for both human and animal health. Gabbard's defensive line about "foreign assets and traitors" suggests Romney's observation about her biolab innuendos struck a nerve. So what did Gabbard's "newly declassified evidence" actually show? The U.S. government has been funding a lot of veterinary research laboratories focused on wild animal and livestock infectious diseases. Below is a list from Gabbard's new revelations: ODNI Very suspicious, right? Not at all. The allegedly secret table of projects is evidently drawn from this openly published 2019 federal contractor report outlining Ukraine's country science plan for researching infectious diseases. So why study the pathogens listed in the above contracts? African swine fever is endemic in eastern Europe's wild boar population and affects pork production in those countries as well. Fortunately, the last outbreak of classical swine fever in Ukraine was in 2015. The disease was also eliminated from Europe in that year. However, the virus is endemic in Central and South America and many countries in Asia. Avian influenza still afflicts wild birds and poultry in Europe and Ukraine . Additionally, infectious disease researchers are concerned that avian flu could gain a foothold among humans . These are actually reasonable studies by U.S. and Ukrainian researchers aimed at monitoring these and other concerning infectious diseases. In the face of the Russian bombardment and invasion, the World Health Organization prudently advised in March 2022 that Ukrainian research laboratories destroy pathogens to prevent potential spills that might lead to disease outbreaks. No evidence of a nefarious bioweapons plot has emerged. The contracted studies cited by Gabbard have not been covered up nor knowingly withheld. Our director of national intelligence is once again peddling Russian propaganda. The question is, why? The post Tulsi Gabbard's Not-So-Shocking Revelation of U.S.-Funded Veterinary Biolabs in Ukraine appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
Research on AI tutoring ran into a problem: Most students wouldn’t use it
Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S. A group of Stanford University researchers started with one question: Could a human tutor providing motivation and support get students to spend more time working with an AI literacy tutor? The answer turned out be yes — but only between one and four minutes more per week. Many students never logged on at all. That left the researchers with a different set of questions. “A key finding that we weren’t even meaning to test is that having access to this AI tutor isn’t the same as using it,” said Carly Robinson, the lead author on the study released Wednesday and the director of research for the SCALE Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Robinson said this doesn’t necessarily mean AI tutoring doesn’t work. “We never really got close enough to the dosage needed to find out.” The study adds to a very limited research base for AI tools in education as many school districts are looking for ways to maintain or increase tutoring that costs less than hiring people to do the work. It also aligns with the experience of Khanmigo founder Sal Khan, who recently acknowledged that students didn’t engage much with the AI tutor he initially hoped would revolutionize education. Robinson and her colleagues worked with two school districts serving high-poverty populations using the same AI learning platform in different tutoring settings. Neither the districts nor the learning platform are named in the study. In one school district, elementary children were supposed to use the literacy tutor during homework time in an afterschool program. In the other, early elementary students were supposed to use the AI tutor during class time. The learning platform provider said that students would show improvement in their reading skills with at least 30 minutes of use a week. The goal was for students to complete two 30-minute sessions each week. Students were randomly assigned to either work independently with the AI tutor or with guidance from a specially trained person — afterschool program staff in one district and middle school students who were strong readers in the other — who could provide motivation and tech support. Other research has found that the relationship between tutors and students can be a key factor in tutoring effectiveness . Researchers wanted to know if having human support would increase engagement with the tool and raise test scores over the course of the school year. They also thought they might learn that students working independently made more progress because they spent more time on the platform and less time chatting. But it turned out both groups of students barely used the platform, and having a human tutor didn’t increase the likelihood that students would log on. Students who did use the platform spent about 13 minutes in a session in the afterschool setting and almost 26 minutes in a session when they used it in class, enough time to probably derive some benefit, Robinson said. But the low rate of participation meant students in the afterschool setting averaged only about two minutes a week on the platform when they worked independently and three minutes when working with a tutor. In the other district, younger students working independently in class averaged a little more than five minutes a week on the platform, which increased to almost 10 minutes a week when they worked with a tutor. There was no meaningful difference in the reading scores of the two groups. The bigger finding, Robinson said, was that many students didn’t log on most weeks. And those that did log on were more likely to already be higher performing and not identified for special education. Researchers don’t know why students didn’t use the platform. Perhaps some didn’t find it engaging, or perhaps teachers directed students to spend their time in other ways. Those other activities may have been beneficial, Robinson said. The study didn’t compare outcomes for students who used the platform and who didn’t use the platform. Robinson said she still sees enormous potential for digital tools to provide personalized instruction at scale. But before districts pay for a license, administrators need to look at more than whether there’s evidence a particular AI tool improves student learning. “The challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,” Robinson said. “It’s really getting students to use them, and that seems to take the same type of intentional design that we’ve learned matters with other ed tech interventions and tutoring.” Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Research on AI tutoring ran into a problem: Most students wouldn’t use it
Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S. A group of Stanford University researchers started with one question: Could a human tutor providing motivation and support get students to spend more time working with an AI literacy tutor? The answer turned out be yes — but only between one and four minutes more per week. Many students never logged on at all. That left the researchers with a different set of questions. “A key finding that we weren’t even meaning to test is that having access to this AI tutor isn’t the same as using it,” said Carly Robinson, the lead author on the study released Wednesday and the director of research for the SCALE Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Robinson said this doesn’t necessarily mean AI tutoring doesn’t work. “We never really got close enough to the dosage needed to find out.” The study adds to a very limited research base for AI tools in education as many school districts are looking for ways to maintain or increase tutoring that costs less than hiring people to do the work. It also aligns with the experience of Khanmigo founder Sal Khan, who recently acknowledged that students didn’t engage much with the AI tutor he initially hoped would revolutionize education. Robinson and her colleagues worked with two school districts serving high-poverty populations using the same AI learning platform in different tutoring settings. Neither the districts nor the learning platform are named in the study. In one school district, elementary children were supposed to use the literacy tutor during homework time in an afterschool program. In the other, early elementary students were supposed to use the AI tutor during class time. The learning platform provider said that students would show improvement in their reading skills with at least 30 minutes of use a week. The goal was for students to complete two 30-minute sessions each week. Students were randomly assigned to either work independently with the AI tutor or with guidance from a specially trained person — afterschool program staff in one district and middle school students who were strong readers in the other — who could provide motivation and tech support. Other research has found that the relationship between tutors and students can be a key factor in tutoring effectiveness . Researchers wanted to know if having human support would increase engagement with the tool and raise test scores over the course of the school year. They also thought they might learn that students working independently made more progress because they spent more time on the platform and less time chatting. But it turned out both groups of students barely used the platform, and having a human tutor didn’t increase the likelihood that students would log on. Students who did use the platform spent about 13 minutes in a session in the afterschool setting and almost 26 minutes in a session when they used it in class, enough time to probably derive some benefit, Robinson said. But the low rate of participation meant students in the afterschool setting averaged only about two minutes a week on the platform when they worked independently and three minutes when working with a tutor. In the other district, younger students working independently in class averaged a little more than five minutes a week on the platform, which increased to almost 10 minutes a week when they worked with a tutor. There was no meaningful difference in the reading scores of the two groups. The bigger finding, Robinson said, was that many students didn’t log on most weeks. And those that did log on were more likely to already be higher performing and not identified for special education. Researchers don’t know why students didn’t use the platform. Perhaps some didn’t find it engaging, or perhaps teachers directed students to spend their time in other ways. Those other activities may have been beneficial, Robinson said. The study didn’t compare outcomes for students who used the platform and who didn’t use the platform. Robinson said she still sees enormous potential for digital tools to provide personalized instruction at scale. But before districts pay for a license, administrators need to look at more than whether there’s evidence a particular AI tool improves student learning. “The challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,” Robinson said. “It’s really getting students to use them, and that seems to take the same type of intentional design that we’ve learned matters with other ed tech interventions and tutoring.” Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Research on AI tutoring ran into a problem: Most students wouldn’t use it
Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S. A group of Stanford University researchers started with one question: Could a human tutor providing motivation and support get students to spend more time working with an AI literacy tutor? The answer turned out be yes — but only between one and four minutes more per week. Many students never logged on at all. That left the researchers with a different set of questions. “A key finding that we weren’t even meaning to test is that having access to this AI tutor isn’t the same as using it,” said Carly Robinson, the lead author on the study released Wednesday and the director of research for the SCALE Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Robinson said this doesn’t necessarily mean AI tutoring doesn’t work. “We never really got close enough to the dosage needed to find out.” The study adds to a very limited research base for AI tools in education as many school districts are looking for ways to maintain or increase tutoring that costs less than hiring people to do the work. It also aligns with the experience of Khanmigo founder Sal Khan, who recently acknowledged that students didn’t engage much with the AI tutor he initially hoped would revolutionize education. Robinson and her colleagues worked with two school districts serving high-poverty populations using the same AI learning platform in different tutoring settings. Neither the districts nor the learning platform are named in the study. In one school district, elementary children were supposed to use the literacy tutor during homework time in an afterschool program. In the other, early elementary students were supposed to use the AI tutor during class time. The learning platform provider said that students would show improvement in their reading skills with at least 30 minutes of use a week. The goal was for students to complete two 30-minute sessions each week. Students were randomly assigned to either work independently with the AI tutor or with guidance from a specially trained person — afterschool program staff in one district and middle school students who were strong readers in the other — who could provide motivation and tech support. Other research has found that the relationship between tutors and students can be a key factor in tutoring effectiveness . Researchers wanted to know if having human support would increase engagement with the tool and raise test scores over the course of the school year. They also thought they might learn that students working independently made more progress because they spent more time on the platform and less time chatting. But it turned out both groups of students barely used the platform, and having a human tutor didn’t increase the likelihood that students would log on. Students who did use the platform spent about 13 minutes in a session in the afterschool setting and almost 26 minutes in a session when they used it in class, enough time to probably derive some benefit, Robinson said. But the low rate of participation meant students in the afterschool setting averaged only about two minutes a week on the platform when they worked independently and three minutes when working with a tutor. In the other district, younger students working independently in class averaged a little more than five minutes a week on the platform, which increased to almost 10 minutes a week when they worked with a tutor. There was no meaningful difference in the reading scores of the two groups. The bigger finding, Robinson said, was that many students didn’t log on most weeks. And those that did log on were more likely to already be higher performing and not identified for special education. Researchers don’t know why students didn’t use the platform. Perhaps some didn’t find it engaging, or perhaps teachers directed students to spend their time in other ways. Those other activities may have been beneficial, Robinson said. The study didn’t compare outcomes for students who used the platform and who didn’t use the platform. Robinson said she still sees enormous potential for digital tools to provide personalized instruction at scale. But before districts pay for a license, administrators need to look at more than whether there’s evidence a particular AI tool improves student learning. “The challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,” Robinson said. “It’s really getting students to use them, and that seems to take the same type of intentional design that we’ve learned matters with other ed tech interventions and tutoring.” Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Research on AI tutoring ran into a problem: Most students wouldn’t use it
Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S. A group of Stanford University researchers started with one question: Could a human tutor providing motivation and support get students to spend more time working with an AI literacy tutor? The answer turned out be yes — but only between one and four minutes more per week. Many students never logged on at all. That left the researchers with a different set of questions. “A key finding that we weren’t even meaning to test is that having access to this AI tutor isn’t the same as using it,” said Carly Robinson, the lead author on the study released Wednesday and the director of research for the SCALE Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Robinson said this doesn’t necessarily mean AI tutoring doesn’t work. “We never really got close enough to the dosage needed to find out.” The study adds to a very limited research base for AI tools in education as many school districts are looking for ways to maintain or increase tutoring that costs less than hiring people to do the work. It also aligns with the experience of Khanmigo founder Sal Khan, who recently acknowledged that students didn’t engage much with the AI tutor he initially hoped would revolutionize education. Robinson and her colleagues worked with two school districts serving high-poverty populations using the same AI learning platform in different tutoring settings. Neither the districts nor the learning platform are named in the study. In one school district, elementary children were supposed to use the literacy tutor during homework time in an afterschool program. In the other, early elementary students were supposed to use the AI tutor during class time. The learning platform provider said that students would show improvement in their reading skills with at least 30 minutes of use a week. The goal was for students to complete two 30-minute sessions each week. Students were randomly assigned to either work independently with the AI tutor or with guidance from a specially trained person — afterschool program staff in one district and middle school students who were strong readers in the other — who could provide motivation and tech support. Other research has found that the relationship between tutors and students can be a key factor in tutoring effectiveness . Researchers wanted to know if having human support would increase engagement with the tool and raise test scores over the course of the school year. They also thought they might learn that students working independently made more progress because they spent more time on the platform and less time chatting. But it turned out both groups of students barely used the platform, and having a human tutor didn’t increase the likelihood that students would log on. Students who did use the platform spent about 13 minutes in a session in the afterschool setting and almost 26 minutes in a session when they used it in class, enough time to probably derive some benefit, Robinson said. But the low rate of participation meant students in the afterschool setting averaged only about two minutes a week on the platform when they worked independently and three minutes when working with a tutor. In the other district, younger students working independently in class averaged a little more than five minutes a week on the platform, which increased to almost 10 minutes a week when they worked with a tutor. There was no meaningful difference in the reading scores of the two groups. The bigger finding, Robinson said, was that many students didn’t log on most weeks. And those that did log on were more likely to already be higher performing and not identified for special education. Researchers don’t know why students didn’t use the platform. Perhaps some didn’t find it engaging, or perhaps teachers directed students to spend their time in other ways. Those other activities may have been beneficial, Robinson said. The study didn’t compare outcomes for students who used the platform and who didn’t use the platform. Robinson said she still sees enormous potential for digital tools to provide personalized instruction at scale. But before districts pay for a license, administrators need to look at more than whether there’s evidence a particular AI tool improves student learning. “The challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,” Robinson said. “It’s really getting students to use them, and that seems to take the same type of intentional design that we’ve learned matters with other ed tech interventions and tutoring.” Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Research on AI tutoring ran into a problem: Most students wouldn’t use it
Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S. A group of Stanford University researchers started with one question: Could a human tutor providing motivation and support get students to spend more time working with an AI literacy tutor? The answer turned out be yes — but only between one and four minutes more per week. Many students never logged on at all. That left the researchers with a different set of questions. “A key finding that we weren’t even meaning to test is that having access to this AI tutor isn’t the same as using it,” said Carly Robinson, the lead author on the study released Wednesday and the director of research for the SCALE Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Robinson said this doesn’t necessarily mean AI tutoring doesn’t work. “We never really got close enough to the dosage needed to find out.” The study adds to a very limited research base for AI tools in education as many school districts are looking for ways to maintain or increase tutoring that costs less than hiring people to do the work. It also aligns with the experience of Khanmigo founder Sal Khan, who recently acknowledged that students didn’t engage much with the AI tutor he initially hoped would revolutionize education. Robinson and her colleagues worked with two school districts serving high-poverty populations using the same AI learning platform in different tutoring settings. Neither the districts nor the learning platform are named in the study. In one school district, elementary children were supposed to use the literacy tutor during homework time in an afterschool program. In the other, early elementary students were supposed to use the AI tutor during class time. The learning platform provider said that students would show improvement in their reading skills with at least 30 minutes of use a week. The goal was for students to complete two 30-minute sessions each week. Students were randomly assigned to either work independently with the AI tutor or with guidance from a specially trained person — afterschool program staff in one district and middle school students who were strong readers in the other — who could provide motivation and tech support. Other research has found that the relationship between tutors and students can be a key factor in tutoring effectiveness . Researchers wanted to know if having human support would increase engagement with the tool and raise test scores over the course of the school year. They also thought they might learn that students working independently made more progress because they spent more time on the platform and less time chatting. But it turned out both groups of students barely used the platform, and having a human tutor didn’t increase the likelihood that students would log on. Students who did use the platform spent about 13 minutes in a session in the afterschool setting and almost 26 minutes in a session when they used it in class, enough time to probably derive some benefit, Robinson said. But the low rate of participation meant students in the afterschool setting averaged only about two minutes a week on the platform when they worked independently and three minutes when working with a tutor. In the other district, younger students working independently in class averaged a little more than five minutes a week on the platform, which increased to almost 10 minutes a week when they worked with a tutor. There was no meaningful difference in the reading scores of the two groups. The bigger finding, Robinson said, was that many students didn’t log on most weeks. And those that did log on were more likely to already be higher performing and not identified for special education. Researchers don’t know why students didn’t use the platform. Perhaps some didn’t find it engaging, or perhaps teachers directed students to spend their time in other ways. Those other activities may have been beneficial, Robinson said. The study didn’t compare outcomes for students who used the platform and who didn’t use the platform. Robinson said she still sees enormous potential for digital tools to provide personalized instruction at scale. But before districts pay for a license, administrators need to look at more than whether there’s evidence a particular AI tool improves student learning. “The challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,” Robinson said. “It’s really getting students to use them, and that seems to take the same type of intentional design that we’ve learned matters with other ed tech interventions and tutoring.” Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Research on AI tutoring ran into a problem: Most students wouldn’t use it
Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S. A group of Stanford University researchers started with one question: Could a human tutor providing motivation and support get students to spend more time working with an AI literacy tutor? The answer turned out be yes — but only between one and four minutes more per week. Many students never logged on at all. That left the researchers with a different set of questions. “A key finding that we weren’t even meaning to test is that having access to this AI tutor isn’t the same as using it,” said Carly Robinson, the lead author on the study released Wednesday and the director of research for the SCALE Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Robinson said this doesn’t necessarily mean AI tutoring doesn’t work. “We never really got close enough to the dosage needed to find out.” The study adds to a very limited research base for AI tools in education as many school districts are looking for ways to maintain or increase tutoring that costs less than hiring people to do the work. It also aligns with the experience of Khanmigo founder Sal Khan, who recently acknowledged that students didn’t engage much with the AI tutor he initially hoped would revolutionize education. Robinson and her colleagues worked with two school districts serving high-poverty populations using the same AI learning platform in different tutoring settings. Neither the districts nor the learning platform are named in the study. In one school district, elementary children were supposed to use the literacy tutor during homework time in an afterschool program. In the other, early elementary students were supposed to use the AI tutor during class time. The learning platform provider said that students would show improvement in their reading skills with at least 30 minutes of use a week. The goal was for students to complete two 30-minute sessions each week. Students were randomly assigned to either work independently with the AI tutor or with guidance from a specially trained person — afterschool program staff in one district and middle school students who were strong readers in the other — who could provide motivation and tech support. Other research has found that the relationship between tutors and students can be a key factor in tutoring effectiveness . Researchers wanted to know if having human support would increase engagement with the tool and raise test scores over the course of the school year. They also thought they might learn that students working independently made more progress because they spent more time on the platform and less time chatting. But it turned out both groups of students barely used the platform, and having a human tutor didn’t increase the likelihood that students would log on. Students who did use the platform spent about 13 minutes in a session in the afterschool setting and almost 26 minutes in a session when they used it in class, enough time to probably derive some benefit, Robinson said. But the low rate of participation meant students in the afterschool setting averaged only about two minutes a week on the platform when they worked independently and three minutes when working with a tutor. In the other district, younger students working independently in class averaged a little more than five minutes a week on the platform, which increased to almost 10 minutes a week when they worked with a tutor. There was no meaningful difference in the reading scores of the two groups. The bigger finding, Robinson said, was that many students didn’t log on most weeks. And those that did log on were more likely to already be higher performing and not identified for special education. Researchers don’t know why students didn’t use the platform. Perhaps some didn’t find it engaging, or perhaps teachers directed students to spend their time in other ways. Those other activities may have been beneficial, Robinson said. The study didn’t compare outcomes for students who used the platform and who didn’t use the platform. Robinson said she still sees enormous potential for digital tools to provide personalized instruction at scale. But before districts pay for a license, administrators need to look at more than whether there’s evidence a particular AI tool improves student learning. “The challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,” Robinson said. “It’s really getting students to use them, and that seems to take the same type of intentional design that we’ve learned matters with other ed tech interventions and tutoring.” Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Research on AI tutoring ran into a problem: Most students wouldn’t use it
Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S. A group of Stanford University researchers started with one question: Could a human tutor providing motivation and support get students to spend more time working with an AI literacy tutor? The answer turned out be yes — but only between one and four minutes more per week. Many students never logged on at all. That left the researchers with a different set of questions. “A key finding that we weren’t even meaning to test is that having access to this AI tutor isn’t the same as using it,” said Carly Robinson, the lead author on the study released Wednesday and the director of research for the SCALE Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Robinson said this doesn’t necessarily mean AI tutoring doesn’t work. “We never really got close enough to the dosage needed to find out.” The study adds to a very limited research base for AI tools in education as many school districts are looking for ways to maintain or increase tutoring that costs less than hiring people to do the work. It also aligns with the experience of Khanmigo founder Sal Khan, who recently acknowledged that students didn’t engage much with the AI tutor he initially hoped would revolutionize education. Robinson and her colleagues worked with two school districts serving high-poverty populations using the same AI learning platform in different tutoring settings. Neither the districts nor the learning platform are named in the study. In one school district, elementary children were supposed to use the literacy tutor during homework time in an afterschool program. In the other, early elementary students were supposed to use the AI tutor during class time. The learning platform provider said that students would show improvement in their reading skills with at least 30 minutes of use a week. The goal was for students to complete two 30-minute sessions each week. Students were randomly assigned to either work independently with the AI tutor or with guidance from a specially trained person — afterschool program staff in one district and middle school students who were strong readers in the other — who could provide motivation and tech support. Other research has found that the relationship between tutors and students can be a key factor in tutoring effectiveness . Researchers wanted to know if having human support would increase engagement with the tool and raise test scores over the course of the school year. They also thought they might learn that students working independently made more progress because they spent more time on the platform and less time chatting. But it turned out both groups of students barely used the platform, and having a human tutor didn’t increase the likelihood that students would log on. Students who did use the platform spent about 13 minutes in a session in the afterschool setting and almost 26 minutes in a session when they used it in class, enough time to probably derive some benefit, Robinson said. But the low rate of participation meant students in the afterschool setting averaged only about two minutes a week on the platform when they worked independently and three minutes when working with a tutor. In the other district, younger students working independently in class averaged a little more than five minutes a week on the platform, which increased to almost 10 minutes a week when they worked with a tutor. There was no meaningful difference in the reading scores of the two groups. The bigger finding, Robinson said, was that many students didn’t log on most weeks. And those that did log on were more likely to already be higher performing and not identified for special education. Researchers don’t know why students didn’t use the platform. Perhaps some didn’t find it engaging, or perhaps teachers directed students to spend their time in other ways. Those other activities may have been beneficial, Robinson said. The study didn’t compare outcomes for students who used the platform and who didn’t use the platform. Robinson said she still sees enormous potential for digital tools to provide personalized instruction at scale. But before districts pay for a license, administrators need to look at more than whether there’s evidence a particular AI tool improves student learning. “The challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,” Robinson said. “It’s really getting students to use them, and that seems to take the same type of intentional design that we’ve learned matters with other ed tech interventions and tutoring.” Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Research on AI tutoring ran into a problem: Most students wouldn’t use it
Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S. A group of Stanford University researchers started with one question: Could a human tutor providing motivation and support get students to spend more time working with an AI literacy tutor? The answer turned out be yes — but only between one and four minutes more per week. Many students never logged on at all. That left the researchers with a different set of questions. “A key finding that we weren’t even meaning to test is that having access to this AI tutor isn’t the same as using it,” said Carly Robinson, the lead author on the study released Wednesday and the director of research for the SCALE Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Robinson said this doesn’t necessarily mean AI tutoring doesn’t work. “We never really got close enough to the dosage needed to find out.” The study adds to a very limited research base for AI tools in education as many school districts are looking for ways to maintain or increase tutoring that costs less than hiring people to do the work. It also aligns with the experience of Khanmigo founder Sal Khan, who recently acknowledged that students didn’t engage much with the AI tutor he initially hoped would revolutionize education. Robinson and her colleagues worked with two school districts serving high-poverty populations using the same AI learning platform in different tutoring settings. Neither the districts nor the learning platform are named in the study. In one school district, elementary children were supposed to use the literacy tutor during homework time in an afterschool program. In the other, early elementary students were supposed to use the AI tutor during class time. The learning platform provider said that students would show improvement in their reading skills with at least 30 minutes of use a week. The goal was for students to complete two 30-minute sessions each week. Students were randomly assigned to either work independently with the AI tutor or with guidance from a specially trained person — afterschool program staff in one district and middle school students who were strong readers in the other — who could provide motivation and tech support. Other research has found that the relationship between tutors and students can be a key factor in tutoring effectiveness . Researchers wanted to know if having human support would increase engagement with the tool and raise test scores over the course of the school year. They also thought they might learn that students working independently made more progress because they spent more time on the platform and less time chatting. But it turned out both groups of students barely used the platform, and having a human tutor didn’t increase the likelihood that students would log on. Students who did use the platform spent about 13 minutes in a session in the afterschool setting and almost 26 minutes in a session when they used it in class, enough time to probably derive some benefit, Robinson said. But the low rate of participation meant students in the afterschool setting averaged only about two minutes a week on the platform when they worked independently and three minutes when working with a tutor. In the other district, younger students working independently in class averaged a little more than five minutes a week on the platform, which increased to almost 10 minutes a week when they worked with a tutor. There was no meaningful difference in the reading scores of the two groups. The bigger finding, Robinson said, was that many students didn’t log on most weeks. And those that did log on were more likely to already be higher performing and not identified for special education. Researchers don’t know why students didn’t use the platform. Perhaps some didn’t find it engaging, or perhaps teachers directed students to spend their time in other ways. Those other activities may have been beneficial, Robinson said. The study didn’t compare outcomes for students who used the platform and who didn’t use the platform. Robinson said she still sees enormous potential for digital tools to provide personalized instruction at scale. But before districts pay for a license, administrators need to look at more than whether there’s evidence a particular AI tool improves student learning. “The challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,” Robinson said. “It’s really getting students to use them, and that seems to take the same type of intentional design that we’ve learned matters with other ed tech interventions and tutoring.” Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Research on AI tutoring ran into a problem: Most students wouldn’t use it
Sign up for Chalkbeat’s free weekly newsletter to keep up with how education is changing across the U.S. A group of Stanford University researchers started with one question: Could a human tutor providing motivation and support get students to spend more time working with an AI literacy tutor? The answer turned out be yes — but only between one and four minutes more per week. Many students never logged on at all. That left the researchers with a different set of questions. “A key finding that we weren’t even meaning to test is that having access to this AI tutor isn’t the same as using it,” said Carly Robinson, the lead author on the study released Wednesday and the director of research for the SCALE Initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. Robinson said this doesn’t necessarily mean AI tutoring doesn’t work. “We never really got close enough to the dosage needed to find out.” The study adds to a very limited research base for AI tools in education as many school districts are looking for ways to maintain or increase tutoring that costs less than hiring people to do the work. It also aligns with the experience of Khanmigo founder Sal Khan, who recently acknowledged that students didn’t engage much with the AI tutor he initially hoped would revolutionize education. Robinson and her colleagues worked with two school districts serving high-poverty populations using the same AI learning platform in different tutoring settings. Neither the districts nor the learning platform are named in the study. In one school district, elementary children were supposed to use the literacy tutor during homework time in an afterschool program. In the other, early elementary students were supposed to use the AI tutor during class time. The learning platform provider said that students would show improvement in their reading skills with at least 30 minutes of use a week. The goal was for students to complete two 30-minute sessions each week. Students were randomly assigned to either work independently with the AI tutor or with guidance from a specially trained person — afterschool program staff in one district and middle school students who were strong readers in the other — who could provide motivation and tech support. Other research has found that the relationship between tutors and students can be a key factor in tutoring effectiveness . Researchers wanted to know if having human support would increase engagement with the tool and raise test scores over the course of the school year. They also thought they might learn that students working independently made more progress because they spent more time on the platform and less time chatting. But it turned out both groups of students barely used the platform, and having a human tutor didn’t increase the likelihood that students would log on. Students who did use the platform spent about 13 minutes in a session in the afterschool setting and almost 26 minutes in a session when they used it in class, enough time to probably derive some benefit, Robinson said. But the low rate of participation meant students in the afterschool setting averaged only about two minutes a week on the platform when they worked independently and three minutes when working with a tutor. In the other district, younger students working independently in class averaged a little more than five minutes a week on the platform, which increased to almost 10 minutes a week when they worked with a tutor. There was no meaningful difference in the reading scores of the two groups. The bigger finding, Robinson said, was that many students didn’t log on most weeks. And those that did log on were more likely to already be higher performing and not identified for special education. Researchers don’t know why students didn’t use the platform. Perhaps some didn’t find it engaging, or perhaps teachers directed students to spend their time in other ways. Those other activities may have been beneficial, Robinson said. The study didn’t compare outcomes for students who used the platform and who didn’t use the platform. Robinson said she still sees enormous potential for digital tools to provide personalized instruction at scale. But before districts pay for a license, administrators need to look at more than whether there’s evidence a particular AI tool improves student learning. “The challenge isn’t just building good AI tools,” Robinson said. “It’s really getting students to use them, and that seems to take the same type of intentional design that we’ve learned matters with other ed tech interventions and tutoring.” Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org .
17 Jun 2026
Data Governance Is Just the Beginning: Why University IT Leaders Must Also Master These Data Disciplines
In addition to CIOs establishing themselves as leaders when it comes to a unified data strategy and university leadership understanding that data governance is the foundation of AI readiness, there is a growing understanding that data governance is a required discipline, essential to data-centric transformation on campuses. However, there are other data considerations to be mindful of, as well. Click the banner below to explore how to build a foundation for scalable AI at your higher ed institution.
17 Jun 2026
How the FDA Created a Peptide Black Market
People are excited about peptides. The internet is filled with claims: Peptides raise your energy, boost metabolism, clear your skin, slow down aging, build more muscle, repair injuries. I want some! But there's a problem: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bans most of them. Why? Anita Gupta, an anesthesiologist and pharmacist who was on the FDA committee that recommended the ban, explains, "There is a lot of hype. We all want to hack into our health, right? Get better really quickly. But we can't reboot our own bodies, can't undo an injection. There could be an immune response." "Could" be. But peptides are definitely useful. Insulin is a peptide. So are the new GLP-1 weight loss drugs. "People can lose up to a third of their body weight," says neuroscientist Andrew Huberman. Popular young influencers boast about other results. "I built more muscle and became much stronger overall," claims YouTuber Manuel Enrique. "My best secret weapon to heal!" writes Instagram influencer Nikki Martin. "They're not medical professionals," responds Gupta. She points out that no government agency checks the ingredients. "Are you actually getting what you think you're getting?…That's the problem." It's a problem made worse by the FDA. Because of its ban, most American peptides come from overseas labs, often from China. They skirt rules by claiming their peptides are "not for human use," but for "research purposes only." Since black market Chinese products dominate the market, how does the FDA's ban actually "protect" us? I confront Gupta in my new video : "Because the FDA makes peptides illegal, it's harder to check out the source. People sneak it in the country. If they just said, 'It's your choice,' there'd be American products. Why do you doctors get to be the gatekeepers? It's my body . Can't I make my own choice?" "We have to respect patient's autonomy," she replies, "but at the same time we have to provide informed consent." "I consent!" I say. "Consent to what? Do you know all the risks?" There are plenty of risks. Some people experience allergic reactions. Some go into anaphylactic shock. Others develop high blood pressure. But the FDA shutting down American suppliers doesn't prevent that. I'm glad the FDA has protected Americans from bad drugs. But that protection also costs lives by denying people good drugs. Beta blockers saved lives for years overseas before they were finally approved here. The FDA's delay may have cost 100,000 lives . The FDA is a creaky bureaucracy. It can take 10 to 15 years to approve a new drug. In the meantime, people die from black market drugs, and others miss out on products that might extend our lives. "We're still in the early stages of trying to figure out if peptides are truly an innovation," says Gupta. "Sure, there is a possibility that there is a great breakthrough that we're about to see, but the long-term study has not been done." Still, the FDA now at least says they may ease restrictions the Biden administration put on popular peptides. Maybe they'll do it because Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a "big fan" of peptides. My question: In a "free country," why do bureaucrats have the right to tell us what we may and may not put in our own bodies? Don't we own our bodies? It should be our choice. I got stronger after the internet told me to take daily creatine and protein powder. Protein breaks down into peptides. I'm old. Maybe I should take the new peptides? I'm scared to try. Still, it should be my choice. There should be 1,000 experiments instead of our one-size-must-fit-all FDA. COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC. The post How the FDA Created a Peptide Black Market appeared first on Reason.com .
17 Jun 2026
How These Schools Use Teams to Cut Teacher Workloads
California teachers in the co-teaching pilot are reporting higher morale.
17 Jun 2026
How These Schools Use Teams to Cut Teacher Workloads
California teachers in the co-teaching pilot are reporting higher morale.
17 Jun 2026
FSU education program ranks No. 25 globally in U.S. News & World Report rankings
Florida State University’s education and educational research program ranks No. 25 globally, No. 2 among public universities in the United States and No. 1 in Florida in the 2026-27 Best Global Universities rankings released by U.S. News & World Report. Florida State also ranked among the world’s top 100 institutions in psychiatry and psychology (No. 80), social sciences and public health (No. 89) and arts and humanities (No. 92). The rankings evaluate more than 2,250 universities in more than 100 countries based on academic research performance and global and regional research reputation. The methodology emphasizes factors such as publications, citations and international collaboration. “These rankings across crucial professions and disciplines reflect the quality of our faculty and the impact of their scholarship,” said Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Jim Clark. “The recognition earned by our education program, along with strong performances in psychology, the social sciences and the humanities, demonstrates the public value proposition of the academic excellence across Florida State University.” FSU’s performance reflects the university’s continued growth as a leading research institution. The university recorded a record $488 million in research expenditures, a 50 percent increase since 2021, and surpassed $1.2 billion in research funding proposals in 2025. U.S. News uses data from Clarivate’s Web of Science Core Collection and InCites Benchmarking & Analytics to evaluate universities. The Best Global Universities rankings focus primarily on institutions’ research performance and scholarly impact rather than undergraduate education. For more information and the complete rankings, visit the U.S. News & World Report Best Global Universities website . The post FSU education program ranks No. 25 globally in U.S. News & World Report rankings appeared first on Florida State University News .
17 Jun 2026
There may be several on your beach reads list. Ever wonder why?
Arts & Culture There may be several on your beach reads list. Ever wonder why? Mysteries blend puzzle-solving with kind of catharsis, according to scholars, writers Liz Mineo Harvard Staff Writer June 17, 2026 4 min read Illustration by Oscar Armelles/Ikon Images Mysteries have been around for about 175 years, are responsible for an estimated 30 percent of annual fiction sales in the nation — and tend to be mainstays of summer beach-read recommendations. What accounts for their enduringly popularity? Murder mystery writer David Freed says one main appeal is that they invite reader engagement. “A well-constructed murder mystery offers the pleasure of solving a puzzle,” said Freed, who has written seven thrillers and teaches a course on how to write them at Harvard Extension School . “It’s an intellectual exercise, and entertainment at a minimum.” But Freed, a former journalist, also thinks the tales appeal to readers on a deeper, almost primal level. “When you think about it, a murder represents the ultimate act of disorder. A well-structured mystery offers some restoration from that chaos. It also allows readers to confront dark subjects within boundaries,” he said. “There’s an emotional thrill without real danger.” Edgar Allan Poe is widely credited with pioneering the modern detective story with “The Murders in the Rue Morgue” in 1841. That tale centered on the brutal murder of a mother and daughter and the sleuthing of a brilliant outsider who, with a sidekick, solves the case through close observation and deductive reasoning. Since then, the field has expanded into subgenres ranging from classic detective stories to more hardboiled tales, psychological thrillers to cozy mysteries, among many others. And it has spawned legendary fictional practitioners such as Sherlock Holmes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s brainchild, and amateur sleuth Miss Marple and detective Hercule Poirot, both conceived by Agatha Christie, the best-selling crime writer of all time . “The real genius of Arthur Conan Doyle was figuring out a way to combine the suspense of a mystery with the satisfying pleasure of the puzzle solution and the compelling relationship between Holmes and Watson.” Anna Wilson Notable crime writers who followed in the steps of Doyle and Christie, including Raymond Chandler, Walter Mosley, Tana French, Louise Penny, Henning Mankell, and Keigo Higashino expanded the field in different directions. Crime and mystery novels often appear in best-seller lists and they tend to draw a passionate fan base, such as the one around Holmes. The Sherlock Holmes Society of London celebrates its 75th anniversary this year. Readers are drawn to Holmes because he is a 3D character and also because of his close relationship with Dr. John Watson, said Anna Wilson , assistant professor of English. Watson is Holmes’ loyal friend. “The real genius of Arthur Conan Doyle was figuring out a way to combine the suspense of a mystery with the satisfying pleasure of the puzzle solution and the compelling relationship between Holmes and Watson,” said Wilson, who teaches a sophomore tutorial on literary methods using Sherlock Holmes stories. “Holmes himself is a very interesting character, but he could be absolutely unbearable, except that we experience him through the gaze of somebody who really likes him.” Despite its popularity, or because of it, their formulaic plots and mass-market origins have often made crime and mystery fiction considered lowbrow entertainment. But some scholars view the works as cultural documents. Maura Henry, A.M. ’90, Ph.D. ’96, who teaches a course on Christie at the Extension School, considers both Christie and Conan Doyle chroniclers of their times, offering insights into British society. “The fact that they’re so popular is revealing of their literary value, their cultural value, and their historical value,” said Henry. “Agatha Christie is an astute observer of the time in which she lives. She’s offering us lenses into British society at the time, as one in which social class organized people’s lives, and where there is very little room for social mobility.” For Freed, the mystery author, a key component of the genre’s allure is a protagonist who possesses depth and complexity that can propel both action and readers through the story. Early in his class, students have to submit a detailed protagonist’s biography. Mystery readers seek an intricate plot and good prose, but they mostly want to experience the suspense of page turners, said Freed, and the satisfaction that good wins over evil. “In one way or another, ultimately all mysteries conform to essentially the same construct,” said Freed. “You got a good guy; you got a bad guy; and ultimately, justice is delivered. There is a lot to be said of the comfort level that a mystery affords.”
17 Jun 2026