Tag: faces

  • Advanced Teaching Roles Program Shows Improved Test Scores, but Faces Funding Concerns – The 74

    Advanced Teaching Roles Program Shows Improved Test Scores, but Faces Funding Concerns – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    North Carolina’s Advanced Teaching Roles program, which allows highly effective teachers to receive salary supplements for teaching additional students or supporting other teachers, is having positive effects on math and science test scores, according to an evaluation presented by NC State University’s Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at the State Board of Education meeting last week.

    Since 2016, the ATR initiative has allowed districts to create new career pathways and provide salary supplements for highly effective teachers — or Advanced Teachers — who mentor and support other educators while still teaching part of the day. Their roles include Adult Leadership teachers, who lead small teams and receive at least $10,000 supplements, and Classroom Excellence teachers, who take on larger student loads and receive a minimum of $3,000 supplements. 

    Those in adult leadership roles teach for at least 30% of the day, lead a team of 3-8 classroom teachers, and share responsibility for the performance of all those teachers’ students. Classroom excellence teachers are responsible for at least 20% more students than before they enter the role.

    “Our ATR program was designed to allow highly effective classroom educators to reach more students and to support the professional growth of educators,” said Dr. Callie Edwards, the program’s lead evaluator, at the State Board of Education meeting last Wednesday. “ATR aims to improve the quality of classroom instruction, the recruitment and retention of teachers, as well as ultimately impact student academic achievement.”

    In the 2024-25 school year, 26 districts operated ATR programs across 400 schools — 56% of which were elementary schools — employing 1,494 Advanced Teachers who supported nearly 4,000 classroom teachers statewide, according to the evaluation. Edwards said that 88% of Adult Leadership teachers received at least $10,000, and 85% of Classroom Excellence teachers received $3,000 or more.

    Statistical analysis of the 2023-24 school year’s data found that students in ATR schools outperformed their peers in non-ATR schools in math and science, showing statistically significant learning gains. 

    “Across the various programs I’ve evaluated, these are positive results — especially in math and science — where the impact of ATR is equivalent to about a month of extra learning for students,” said Dr. Lam Pham, the leading quantitative evaluator. “The results in ELA are positive but not statistically significant, which has been consistent for the last three years,” Pham said, referring to English Language Arts.

    These effects on math and science grow over time, according to the evaluation. Math scores improved throughout schools’ first six years of ATR implementation — though they are no longer significant by the seventh year of implementation, according to the presentation. For science scores, statistically significant gains began in the fifth year after schools began implementing ATR.

    Additionally, math teachers in ATR schools reported higher EVAAS growth scores than their peers in comparable schools.

    Teachers in ATR schools also reported feeling like they have more time to do their work compared to teachers in non-ATR schools.

    This year’s report featured data on teachers supported by ATR teachers for the first time. The evaluation found no positive effects on test scores for students taught by supported teachers compared to students taught by teachers who are not in the program. The researchers also found no effect on turnover levels for teachers supported by Advanced Teachers. However, the report says additional years of data will be necessary to verify if those effects appear over time.  

    The evaluation recommended that principals in ATR schools should foster collaboration and communicate strategically about the program with staff, beginning during Advanced Teachers’ hiring and onboarding.

    “It’s important to integrate ATR into those processes,” Edwards told the Board. “That means introducing Advanced Teachers to new staff and making collaboration, especially mentoring and coaching, a structured part of the day.”

    Edwards said these practices have been adopted in some schools, but principals reported needing more time and support to build collaboration opportunities into the school schedule.

    The report also urges district administrators to coordinate with Beginning Teacher (BT) programs, advertise ATR in recruitment materials, and improve their data collection practices. It also calls on state leaders to standardize the program to ensure consistency across participating districts.

    “Districts need standardized messaging, professional learning opportunities, and technical assistance to support implementation,” Edwards said. “The state can also create more opportunities for districts to share what’s working with one another and expand the evaluation beyond test scores to capture things like classroom engagement, social, emotional development, and feedback from teachers and principals.”

    The evaluators also said “there’s more to do” to expand the program in western North Carolina after Board members raised concerns about uneven participation across the state’s regions.

    2026-27 participants

    After the Friday Institute’s presentation, Board members heard a presentation on proposals for the next round of districts to join the ATR program from Dr. Thomas R. Tomberlin, senior director of educator preparation, licensure, and performance.

    Tomberlin said DPI received 15 proposals representing 22 districts. These proposals have been evaluated by seven independent evaluators, Tomberlin said. The Board had to choose the program’s next participants by Oct. 15 to comply with a legislative requirement. 

    The state can only allocate $911,349 for new implementation grants in 2026-27 — less than one-sixth of the funding required to fund all applications. That level of funding is “very low” compared to previous years, Tomberlin said. In the 2023-25 state budget, the General Assembly appropriated $10.9 million in recurring funds for these supplements in each year of the biennium.

    Tomberlin recommended that the Board approve the three highest-scoring proposals for the 2026-27 fiscal year, and fund these districts at 85% of their request. If the Board approves this recommendation, the state would still have $37,981 in planning funds left over for districts approved during the 2026 proposal cycle.

    Tomberlin said districts are already struggling to pay for the program’s salary supplements. The Friday Institute’s report showed that, despite the high median supplements, some districts are offering supplements as little as $1,000.

    “Some districts are not able to pay the full $10,000 because they have more ATR teachers than the funding that we can give them in terms of those allotments,” Tomberlin said. “And we had requested the General Assembly, I think, an additional $14 million to cover those supplements, and we didn’t get any.”

    The Senate’s budget proposal this session included funds to expand the ATR program over the biennium, while the House proposal did not. The General Assembly has not yet passed a comprehensive state budget, and its mini-budget did not include ATR program funding.

    Tomberlin said DPI would be in touch with the three districts to verify if they can proceed with the program despite limited funding.

    This article first appeared on EdNC and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Broward County Public Schools faces enrollment drops, possible closures

    Broward County Public Schools faces enrollment drops, possible closures

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Broward County Public Schools announced plans to “address” 34 of its 239 schools for possible closures or consolidations during a Tuesday board meeting. 
    • The pending plans come at a time when the large Florida district is reporting an enrollment decrease of 10,360 students, a count taken 10 days into the 2025-26 school year compared to the year prior. The district’s total enrollment, excluding charter schools, was 188,002 on Aug. 22.
    • The district also reported in July that 58 of its schools were below 70% capacity, including 39 elementary schools, 16 middle schools and 3 high schools.

    Dive Insight:

    As the sixth largest school district in the U.S., BCPS is not immune to a national trend of districts facing enrollment drops amid declining birthrates and growing school choice options.

    In a May survey of current and former BCPS parents conducted by Hanover Research, the data found that about half of respondents — 53% — said they enrolled their children in a nontraditional schooling option because they wanted higher quality instruction. A third of families also cited smaller class sizes and another third indicated the availability of more programs. The district surveyed 8,983 parents who either had a child enrolled, formerly enrolled, or partially enrolled in a BCPS school.

    The top two reasons parents said they unenrolled their children from BCPS was because they were dissatisfied with the district’s education quality (26%) and they were concerned about school safety (24%).  

    Among those who previously had a child enrolled or partially enrolled at BCPS, 20% said improved teacher quality through professional development would have made them more likely to stay. Some 18% also separately said better support for students with disabilities, improvements on handling school bullying, or strengthened safety and security measures would have encouraged them to keep their child in the district.

    To retain families, the district is being advised based on the parent survey results to:

    • Track school climate and culture outcomes for improvements.
    • Offer more college and career readiness support.
    • Provide more support to teachers to improve the district’s education quality.
    • Tackle school safety issues and work to reduce bullying and harassment.

    An August analysis by Bellwether, an education nonprofit, warns that more school closures and consolidation could be on the horizon in the coming months and years due to declining enrollment — ultimately leading to strained school budgets. Bellwether estimated that the total loss in revenue from declining enrollment at the nation’s largest 100 districts could total up to $5.2 billion based on 2023-24 school enrollment. 

    Other large school districts recently weighing a number of school closures and consolidations as a result of declining enrollment include Atlanta Public Schools, Austin Independent School District in Texas and St. Louis Public Schools.

    Source link

  • Haverford College faces Education Department investigation into antisemitism

    Haverford College faces Education Department investigation into antisemitism

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

     Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education is investigating Haverford College in Pennsylvania over allegations the institution hasn’t done enough to respond to campus antisemitism.
    • The department cited unspecified “credible reporting” that senior leaders at the small liberal arts college told Jewish students who reported harassment that they should not expect to be safe, instead telling them to be brave.
    • Haverford is the latest college facing a federal investigation into antisemitism as the Trump administration seeks to exert increasing control over the higher education sector.

    Dive Insight:

    The Education Department’s investigation into Haverford focuses on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin at institutions that receive federal funds.

    “Like many other institutions of higher education, Haverford College is alleged to have ignored anti-Semitic harassment on its campus, contravening federal civil rights law and its own anti-discrimination policies,” Craig Trainor, the department’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, said in a Wednesday statement.

    A spokesperson for Haverford confirmed Thursday that the college had received a copy of the complaint and is reviewing it.

    In May, Republican lawmakers called the leaders from three colleges, including Haverford, before the House education committee to discuss how they’ve responded to allegations of antisemitism on their campuses. Committee Chair Tim Walberg said he called Haverford to testify because relatively small colleges were “seeing shocking rises in anti-Jewish incidents and rhetoric” and “antisemitism has taken root at Haverford College.“

    Haverford President Wendy Raymond told legislators that the roughly 1,500-student college hadn’t “always succeeded in living up to our ideals” but that she remained “committed to addressing antisemitism and all issues that harm our community members.”

    Haverford’s handling of campus tensions since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the ensuing Middle East conflict have received mixed responses from students.

    In 2024, a group of Jewish Haverford students, faculty, alumni and parents sued the college over allegations it failed to protect Jewish students and ensure students could participate in classes “without fear of harassment if they express beliefs about Israel that are anything less than eliminationist.” 

    Despite questions about the student lawsuit, Raymond declined to discuss individual reports of alleged antisemitism or disciplinary actions with lawmakers.

    The plaintiffs amended their lawsuit in January after U.S. District Judge Gerald McHugh dismissed the case, but he again granted Haverford’s request to dismiss the complaint in June. McHugh ruled that the students’ arguments failed to meet the threshold for a Title VI claim, including by failing to show that the college had “deliberate indifference” to antisemitism.

    “While Plaintiffs paint a picture of a stressful campus climate for Jewish students, many of the incidents pled fall within the protection of the First Amendment,” McHugh wrote in his decision. He also said the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a “concrete educational impact” resulting from the alleged incidents.

    Other Jewish students defended Haverford in an op-ed in the college’s independent student newspaper, saying the college teaches them “to engage critically with different viewpoints.” The op-ed, published prior to Raymond’s testimony, also criticized the House education committee, alleging it was weaponizing antisemitism and calling the scheduled hearing “unmistakably an excuse to target the most vulnerable people on our campus.” 

    Source link

  • Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

    Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

    Federal officials are accusing Duke University’s law journal and medical school of racial discrimination.

    Duke University file photo

    The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services are investigating Duke University and the Duke Law Journal for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race and national origin, the agencies announced Monday.

    The New York Times reported Tuesday night that the Trump administration froze $108 million in federal grants and contracts at Duke’s medical school and health system.

    On Monday, ED and HHS sent a letter detailing their concerns about potentially discriminatory practices at Duke Health and threatening the medical school’s federal funding.

    “These practices allegedly include illegal and wrongful racial preferences and discriminatory activity in recruitment, student admissions, scholarships and financial aid, mentoring and enrichment programs, hiring, promotion, and more,” the letter states, though officials didn’t offer specifics.

    The departments want Duke to “review all policies and practices at Duke Health for the illegal use of race preferences, take immediate action to reform all of those that unlawfully take account of race or ethnicity to bestow benefits or advantages, and provide clear and verifiable assurances to the government that Duke’s new policies will be implemented faithfully going forward—including by making all necessary organizational, leadership, and personnel changes to ensure the necessary reforms will be durable.”

    Additionally, the agencies want Duke to convene a “Merit and Civil Rights Committee” that can negotiate with the federal government on behalf of university leaders and “avoid invasive federal engagement,” according to the letter. This request appears to be a new ask for the Trump administration as officials work to expand their scrutiny of higher education, based on what’s publicly known about investigations at other colleges.

    “We hope this arrangement will enable the parties to move quickly toward a mutually agreeable resolution of outstanding concerns and complaints,” officials wrote in the letter. “If the alleged offending policies, practices, and programs are found to exist and remain unrectified after six months, or if at any time the Merit and Civil Rights Committee and federal government reach an impasse, the federal government will commence enforcement proceedings as appropriate.”

    Duke has 10 days to respond to the request to form the committee.

    Meanwhile, the Duke Law Journal investigation, led by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, centers on allegations that the journal uses factors such as race or national origin to select editors. The department opened a similar investigation into the Harvard Law Review. 

    The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, reported last month that the Duke Law Journal prepared a special application packet for affinity groups that noted applicants could get a three- to five-point bump if they have “meaningfully advanced the interests of communities with diverse perspectives and experiences either at school or in their community.” 

    Source link

  • Col. Larry Wilkerson: Defeated Once, Israel Faces a Collapse It May Not Survive (Dialogue Works)

    Col. Larry Wilkerson: Defeated Once, Israel Faces a Collapse It May Not Survive (Dialogue Works)

    Dedicated to dialogue and peace, “Dialogue Works” is hosted by Nima Rostami Alkhorshid.

    At Dialogue works, we believe there’s nothing more unstoppable than when people come together. This group’s mission is to create a global community of diverse individuals who will support, challenge, and inspire one another by providing a platform for Dialogue. We encourage you to share your knowledge, ask questions, participate in discussions, and become an integral part of this little community. Together we can become a better community and provide our members with a much better experience.

    Source link

  • Free speech still reigns, but faces setbacks online

    Free speech still reigns, but faces setbacks online

    This essay was originally published by The Dallas Express on July 21, 2025.

    Don’t want to publish an opinion on your blog you disagree with? Too bad, the government forces you to publish it. Criticize the mayor? Go to jail  — and good luck trying to sue the mayor for violating your First Amendment rights. Want to access online content legal for adults without jeopardizing your privacy and reputation? Think again, your state legislature demands you reveal your identity first.

    That’s not the America I know. Nor is it one a robust First Amendment would ever allow. But those constitutional threats came up before the Supreme Court during its past two terms, thanks to state legislatures and government officials who would prefer to play thought police instead of obey the First Amendment’s commands.

    For the most part, the Supreme Court did as it has for decades: It upheld the First Amendment as a mighty check on government intrusion into our thoughts, on public debate, and in the search for truth. Still, a couple of the Court’s decisions this year broke from that trend, causing First Amendment defenders everywhere to raise their collective eyebrows.

    Americans’ pilgrimage to the online world has placed free speech on the internet at the forefront of the Court’s recent First Amendment decisions. And that includes a case involving our Lone Star State. Last July, in Moody v. Netchoice, the Supreme Court considered Texas and Florida laws that tried to dictate how social media companies decide what political and ideological content to allow, and how to present it.

    Before the Supreme Court sent the cases back to the appeals courts for another look, it made one thing clear: The First Amendment bars the government from telling social media platforms what they can and can’t publish, just as it bars the government from telling newspaper editors what they can or can’t print. As Justice Kagan remarked, “on the spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.”

    In another pair of rulings, the Supreme Court considered two instances of local officials blocking citizens from commenting on the officials’ social media pages about the government’s performance. Although the Court didn’t rule in favor of either party, it confirmed the First Amendment limits officials’ power to block Americans from commenting on social media pages an official uses to conduct government business.

    With these social media decisions, the Court underscored that core First Amendment principles apply just as strongly in the digital age, helping to secure free speech online from government overreach.

    On the other hand, this most recent Supreme Court term found the Court twice deferring to governmental regulations of online expression. First, in TikTok v. Garland, the Court held the federal government’s effective ban on the popular social media app TikTok does not violate the First Amendment, even as half the United States uses the platform to speak and to receive information. The Court largely yielded to the government’s asserted concerns over national security, despite, as many pointed out, Congress’s failure to provide enough evidence showing TikTok poses a national security threat. In fact, the administration’s continued unwillingness to enforce the ban punctuates how suspect Congress’s national security concerns were.

    And in another decision, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, the Court upheld Texas’s law requiring adults to verify their age before accessing websites with sexually explicit material that is, while legal for adults, “obscene for minors.” Breaking from decades-old prior precedent that invalidated similar laws, the Court held the First Amendment doesn’t protect adults “accessing material obscene to minors” until they verify their age — even though that material enjoys full First Amendment protection.

    While the Court noted the accepted practice of ID checks for sexually explicit material in the physical world, it all but skirted the unique and serious privacy implications digital ID checks impose, in a time where Americans suffer harm from regular data breaches. Those privacy scares will chill many adults from seeking speech the First Amendment protects for their use.

    For all that, both the TikTok and Free Speech Coalition decisions are narrow ones. So on the whole, they should not undermine the broad protections for internet speech the Supreme Court has confirmed in prior terms. Still, any time the government censors speech on shaky evidence about national security concerns, or tries to burden adult access to protected speech in the name of childproofing the internet, it raises a First Amendment red flag that should concern us all.

    Outside of the digital world, the Supreme Court handed down several decisions over the last two terms vindicating the First Amendment as a vital check on overzealous government officials abusing their power to silence opinions they don’t like. For instance, in NRA v. Vullo, the Supreme Court held officials in New York violated the First Amendment when they coerced financial services and insurers and underwriters to sever ties with the National Rifle Association — all because the state disagreed with the NRA’s constitutionally protected advocacy. That’s hugely important for freedom of speech, affirming that the government can’t strong-arm third-parties into silencing Americans because of the views they express.

    Another decision centered on a San Antonio-area woman was a good step towards ensuring government critics have a robust remedy when officials wrongfully arrest them. In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the Supreme Court clarified that Sylvia Gonzalez, a long-time government critic, could sue the local officials who singled her out for arrest after she called for the city manager’s removal.

    And just this May, the Supreme Court halted the Maine Legislature’s denial of State Representative Laurel Libby’s right to vote just because the legislature’s political majority took offense to the lawmaker’s First Amendment-protected social media post about a transgender athlete participating in a high school event. Not only did the majority’s act infringe Rep. Libby’s First Amendment right to comment on public issues, it also deprived her constituents of the representation our republican form of government guarantees.

    At its core, the Court’s ruling in Libby v. Fecteau underscored a vital constitutional principle: Political majorities cannot censor and exclude others from the democratic process based on the views they express. That’s a first principle worth upholding, no matter where a speaker falls on the ideological spectrum.

    And we should all be glad the Supreme Court upheld that principle here, in a time where protecting the uniquely American freedoms to dissent and voice our opinions without fear of the government’s strong hand is as important as ever.

    Source link

  • George Mason University faces federal probe into hiring and promotion practices

    George Mason University faces federal probe into hiring and promotion practices

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

    The U.S. Department of Justice on Thursday opened an investigation into George Mason University to determine whether it discriminates against employees based on sex and race, including in promotion and tenure decisions.

    The news comes after the U.S. Department of Education opened two investigations into the public institution earlier this month over claims the university hasn’t done enough to respond to antisemitism and illegally uses race in employment decisions.

    The flurry of federal inquiries raises questions regarding the future of George Mason’s president, after pressure from the Justice Department pushed former University of Virginia President Jim Ryan to announce his abrupt resignation in June.

    3 probes in 3 weeks

    In a Thursday letter to George Mason, DOJ alleged that “race and sex have been motivating factors in faculty hiring decisions to achieve ‘diversity’ goals” under President Gregory Washington’s tenure. The agency cited Biden administration-era emails and statements from Washington in which he discussed a desire to support diversity and faculty of color and oppose racism on an institutional level.

    The DOJ’s letter opens an investigation into whether the university has violated Title VII, which bars employers from discriminating based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 

    “When employers screen out qualified candidates from the hiring process, they not only erode trust in our public institutions — they violate the law, and the Justice Department will investigate accordingly,” Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general of DOJ’s civil rights division, said in a statement.

    The agency said it has “not reached any conclusions” yet and called on the university to provide relevant information.

    George Mason did not immediately respond to a Friday request for comment on DOJ’s investigation.

    “Painted as discriminatory”

    On Wednesday, Washington strongly repudiated similar allegations from the Education Department. The agency is investigating the university’s faculty hiring practices over potential violations of Title VI, which bars federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.

    “Our diversity efforts are designed to expand opportunity and build inclusive excellence — not to exclude or advantage any group unlawfully,” he said in a statement July 16.

    The university’s faculty performance evaluations do not “use race or anti-racism measures as determinants of institutional success,” Washington said, and George Mason’s promotion and tenure policies do not give preferential treatment based on protected characteristics.

    The university president said that all inclusivity work done by a task force at George Mason aligned with the One Virginia Plan, a state-level initiative promoting diversity and inclusion in the state government’s workforce.

    The plan, established during former Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam’s administration, is set to conclude at the end of 2025 and is unlikely to be extended by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a vehement opponent of diversity and inclusion efforts.

    Washington, the first Black president to lead George Mason, also commented on “the “profound shift in how Title VI is being applied,” in what he called “a stark departure from the spirit in which civil rights law was written.”

    “Longstanding efforts to address inequality — such as mentoring programs, inclusive hiring practices, and support for historically underrepresented groups — are in many cases being reinterpreted as presumptively unlawful,” Washington said. “Broad terms like ‘illegal DEI’ are now used without definition, allowing virtually any initiative that touches on identity or inclusion to be painted as discriminatory.”

    The Education Department never publicly announced its first investigation into George Mason, which alleges that the university failed to respond “effectively to a pervasive hostile environment for Jewish students and faculty.” George Mason confirmed the investigation on July 3, though a conservative news outlet began publishing government documents about the case the day before.

    Washington predicted many of the obstacles George Mason has faced this month in an interview with ProPublica and The Chronicle of Higher Education. 

    Source link

  • George Mason Faces 2 Title VI Investigations

    George Mason Faces 2 Title VI Investigations

    George Mason University in Virginia is under investigation for alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Department of Education announced Thursday.

    Multiple university professors reportedly filed complaints that the institution “illegally uses race and other immutable characteristics in university policies, including hiring and promotion,” according to the news release. 

    The accusations come less than two weeks after the University of Virginia’s president was pressured to resign by the Department of Justice for similar DEI-related complaints. Thursday’s announcement sparked concerns among some higher education professionals that George Mason president Gregory Washington, who is Black, could face similar pressure. This is the second civil rights investigation that the Education Department has opened at George Mason this month. The other one is focused on allegations that university didn’t sufficiently respond to antisemitic incidents.

    “It looks like the Trump administration is trying to force out George Mason’s president,” Robert Kelchen, an education policy professor at the University of Tennessee, wrote on BlueSky.

    “When people ask why Higher Ed presidents aren’t being publicly vocal—here’s why,” responded Dan Collier, a higher education professor at the University of Memphis.

    Department officials said in the news release that the investigation is justified by the university’s “unlawful DEI policies.” The release cited policies aimed at ensuring a diverse applicant pool and that departments at George Mason embrace antiracism and inclusiveness. The department declared race-based programming and activities illegal in guidance earlier this year, but a federal judge blocked that directive.

    “This kind of pernicious and wide-spread discrimination—packaged as ‘anti-racism’—was allowed to flourish under the Biden Administration, but it will not be tolerated by this one,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor in the release.

    Source link

  • McDonald’s Faces National Boycott as Economic Justice Movement Builds Momentum

    McDonald’s Faces National Boycott as Economic Justice Movement Builds Momentum

    McDonald’s, the fast-food titan with global reach and billion-dollar profits, is the latest corporate target in an escalating campaign of economic resistance. Starting June 24, grassroots advocacy organization The People’s Union USA has called for a weeklong boycott of the chain, citing the need for “corporate accountability, real justice for the working class, and economic fairness.”

    Branded the Economic Blackout Tour, the campaign seeks to channel consumer power into political and structural change. According to The People’s Union USA, Americans are urged to avoid not only McDonald’s restaurants but also fast food in general during the June 24–30 protest window. Previous actions have focused on companies like Walmart, Amazon, and Target—corporate behemoths long criticized for their low wages, union-busting tactics, and monopolistic behavior.

    John Schwarz, founder of The People’s Union USA, has emerged as a vocal critic of corporate greed. In a recent video statement, Schwarz accused McDonald’s and its peers of dodging taxes and lobbying against wage increases. “Economic resistance is working,” he declared. “They’re feeling it. They’re talking about it.”

    The movement is tapping into deep and widespread frustration—fueled by stagnant wages, rising living costs, and mounting corporate profits. While many Americans struggle with student loan debt, inadequate healthcare, and job insecurity, companies like McDonald’s have been accused of shielding their profits offshore and benefiting from political influence in Washington.

    This is not the first time McDonald’s has come under fire. The company has faced criticism from labor rights groups for paying low wages, offering unpredictable schedules, and relying heavily on part-time or precarious employment. More recently, pro-Palestinian activists have also launched boycotts, citing alleged ties between McDonald’s franchises and Israeli military actions in Gaza.

    As part of the current boycott, The People’s Union USA is pushing for a broader shift in spending—away from multinational corporations and toward local businesses and cooperatives. In line with previous actions, the group is also encouraging Americans to cut back on streaming, online shopping, and all fast-food purchases during the boycott period.

    With Independence Day on the horizon, Schwarz and his allies are framing the protest as not just economic, but patriotic. “It’s time to demand fairness,” Schwarz said, “and to use our economic power as leverage to fight for real freedom—the kind that includes fair wages, democratic workplaces, and tax justice.”

    While McDonald’s has not released an official response to the boycott, a 2019 letter from company lobbyist Genna Gent suggested the chain would not actively oppose federal minimum wage increases. For Schwarz and his supporters, such declarations ring hollow without meaningful action.

    The July target for The People’s Union USA? Starbucks, Amazon, and Home Depot—three more corporate giants with long histories of labor disputes and political entanglements. The next wave of boycotts will extend throughout the entire month, further testing the staying power and impact of this new consumer-led resistance.

    At a time when higher education, particularly the for-profit and online sectors, often channels students into low-wage service jobs with crushing debt, these campaigns raise larger questions about the role of universities in perpetuating corporate power and economic inequality.

    The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to follow these developments, especially as they intersect with issues of labor, student debt, corporate influence, and the broader fight for economic justice in the United States.

    Source link

  • As Cuts to Department of Veterans Affairs Loom, Our Commitment to Veterans Education Faces a Critical Test

    As Cuts to Department of Veterans Affairs Loom, Our Commitment to Veterans Education Faces a Critical Test

    “VA support isn’t a gift, it’s a debt.”

    That was the message displayed on signs across the National Mall on June 6, where thousands of veterans rallied against sweeping federal job cuts. With the Dropkick Murphys on stage and lawmakers like Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) in the crowd, the “Unite for Veterans, Unite for America” rally marked a striking show of both unity and frustration.

    While many agencies are facing delays or court injunctions, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is moving forward with plans to eliminate approximately 83,000 positions, or about 15 percent of its workforce. Public attention has been understandably focused on the impact these cuts may have on veterans’ health care. But staffing losses could also disrupt access to veterans’ education benefits, just as even more veterans and service members may be turning to higher education and career training.

    Among the many education and training benefits administered by the VA, the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the cornerstone of financial aid for military learners, including veterans, service members, and their families. From 2009 to 2019, the federal government budgeted nearly $100 billion for the program, with 2.7 million enlisted veterans eligible to use those benefits over the next decade. And the return on investment is clear: Veterans who use their education benefits complete college at twice the rate of other independent students—those typically supporting themselves without parental aid—according to research by the American Institutes for Research.

    Despite the GI Bill’s importance, military learners often struggle to access the benefits they’ve earned. Eligibility rules can be confusing, and transferring benefits to spouses or dependents involves time-consuming red tape. Many students and the institutions that serve them rely on VA staff to interpret the rules, resolve disputes, and ensure benefits are processed on time. With fewer staff, that support system is at risk of breaking down.

    This strain comes amid a broader wave of federal downsizing that is hitting the veteran community especially hard. The federal government has long been the largest employer of veterans, and the current reduction in force across the federal government is disproportionately affecting them. In just one example, the Department of Defense is reportedly cutting 50,000 to 60,000 civilian jobs, many held by veterans.

    At the same time, the Army is considering reducing its active-duty force by as many as 90,000 troops, amid shrinking reenlistment options. Even senior military leadership have seen targeted cuts. The result is that more veterans and service members will be leaving military service and looking to build new careers. This in turn will increase the demand for VA education and training benefits, just as fewer staff may be available to help them access those benefits.

    For decades, support for military learners has united policymakers across party lines. In a time of significant change in Washington, we need to uphold our commitments to those who have dedicated their lives and careers to serving our nation. This includes a commitment to ensuring that the VA has the staffing and resources it needs to deliver on its promise—so every veteran can access the education benefits they’ve earned.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link