Tag: people

  • The time to prepare young people for a future shaped by computer science is during middle school

    The time to prepare young people for a future shaped by computer science is during middle school

    by Jim Ryan, The Hechinger Report
    January 19, 2026

    The future of work will demand fluency in both science and technology. From addressing climate change to designing ethical AI systems, tomorrow’s challenges will require interdisciplinary thinkers who can navigate complex systems and harness the power of computation. 

    And that is why we can’t wait until high school or college to integrate computer science into general science. 

    The time to begin is during middle school, that formative period when students begin to shape their identities, interests and aspirations. If schools want to prepare young people for a future shaped by technology, they must act now to ensure that computer science is not a privilege for a few but a foundation for all. 

    The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts more than 300,000 computer science job openings every year through 2034 — a rate of growth that far outpaces most other sectors. Yet despite this demand, in 2024, only about 37 percent of public middle schools reported offering computer science coursework. 

    This gap is more than a statistic — it’s a warning sign that the U.S. technology sector will be starved for the workforce it needs to thrive.  

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education. 

    One innovative way to close this gap is by integrating computer science into the general science curriculum at every middle school. This approach doesn’t require additional class periods or separate electives. Instead — by using computational thinking and digital tools to develop student understanding of real-world scientific phenomena — it reimagines how we teach science. 

    Science and computer science are already deeply interconnected in the real world. Scientists use computational models to simulate climate systems, analyze genetic data and design experiments. And computer scientists often draw inspiration from biology, physics and chemistry to develop algorithms and solve complex problems, such as by modeling neural networks after the brain’s architecture and simulating quantum systems for cryptography. 

    Teaching these disciplines together helps students see how both science and computer science are applicable and relevant to their lives and society.  

    Integrating computer science into middle school science instruction also addresses long-standing equity issues. When computer science is offered only as a separate elective, access often depends on prior exposure, school funding and parental advocacy. This creates barriers for students from underrepresented backgrounds, who may never get the chance to discover their interests or talents in computing.  

    Embedding computer science into core science classes helps to ensure that every student — regardless of zip code, race or gender — can build foundational skills in computing and see themselves as empowered problem-solvers. 

    Teachers must be provided the tools and support to make this a reality. Namely, schools should have access to middle school science curriculums that have computer science concepts directly embedded in the instruction. Such units don’t teach coding in isolation — they invite students to customize the sensors that collect data, simulate systems and design coded solutions to real-world problems. 

    For example, students can use computer science to investigate the question: “Why does contact between objects sometimes but not always cause damage, and how can we protect against damage?”  

    Students can also use sensors and programming to develop solutions to measure the forces of severe weather. In doing so, they’re not just learning science and computer science — they’re learning how to think like scientists and engineers. 

    Related: The path to a career could start in middle school 

    Integrating general science with computer science doesn’t require more instructional time. It simply requires us to consider how we can use computer science to efficiently investigate the science all students already study. 

    Rather than treating computer science as an add-on, we can weave it into the fabric of how students investigate, analyze and design.  

    This approach will not only deepen their understanding of scientific concepts but also build transferable skills in logic, creativity and collaboration. 

    Students need to start learning computer science earlier in their education, and we need to start in the science classroom by teaching these skills in middle school. To ensure that today’s students grow into tomorrow’s innovators and problem-solvers, we must treat computer science as foundational, not optional. 

    Jim Ryan is the executive director of OpenSciEd. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about computer science in middle school was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/high-school-college-computer-science-lessons/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114382&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/high-school-college-computer-science-lessons/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • What happens when people lose access to birth control?

    What happens when people lose access to birth control?

    Abandonment of U.S. financial support for contraception around the world has disrupted the ecosystem that fostered birth control, family planning and sexual and reproductive health for decades.

    Back in February, the United Nations Population Fund announced that the United States had canceled some $377 million in funding for maternal health programs around the world, which includes contraception programs.

    Contraception reduces mortality and can improve the lives of women and families. The United Nations estimates that the number of women using a modern contraception method doubled from 1990 to 2021, which coincided with a 34% reduction in maternal mortality over the same period.

    Now, tens of millions of people could lose access to modern contraceptives in the next year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a family planning research and lobby group. This, it reported, could result in more than 17 million unintended pregnancies and 34,000 preventable pregnancy-related deaths.

    Sexual and reproductive health and rights programs improve women’s choices and protection including violence and rape prevention and treatment.

    Who will fill the gap?

    European donor governments have pledged to increase contributions to UNFPA and other global health funds to partially fill the gap. The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, for example, have pledged emergency funds to UNFPA Supplies, the world’s largest provider of contraceptives to low-income countries.

    The EU has also redirected part of its humanitarian budget to cover contraceptive procurement in sub-Saharan Africa. Canada announced an additional CAD $100 million over three years for sexual and reproductive health programs, explicitly citing the U.S. withdrawal.

    Despite its own aid budget pressures, the UK has committed to maintaining its £200 million annual contribution to family planning programs, with a focus on East Africa.

    The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation expanded its Family Planning 2030 commitments, pledging tens of millions in stopgap funding to keep supply chains moving. The World Bank Global Financing Facility offers bridge loans and grants to governments facing sudden gaps in reproductive health budgets and calls for governments to co-finance. However these initiatives will not immediately replace the scale of previous U.S. government investments.

    The loss of U.S. support has left many women with no access to family planning, especially in rural and conflict-affected areas. Clinics are reporting a surge in unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions.

    Health clinics closing

    In Zambia, Cooper Rose Zambia, a local NGO reported laying off 60% of its staff after receiving a stop-work order from USAID. Clinics have been rationing contraceptives with some methods already out of stock.

    In Kenya, clinics in Nairobi and rural counties are turning women away, with some supplies stuck in warehouses and at risk of expiring. In Tanzania, medical stores confirmed they were completely out of stock of certain contraceptive implants by July 2025.

    Mali will be denied 1.2 million oral contraceptives and 95,800 implants, nearly a quarter of its annual need. In Burkina Faso, another country under terrorist insurgency internally, many displaced women have no access to modern contraceptives.

    The consequences of the stock depletions will be particularly catastrophic in fragile and conflict settings such as refugee camps.

    Struggling to adapt to the reality has led organizations to cut programs and redirect their remaining resources. Many are trying desperately to raise new funds. But there are some voices that cheer the cuts, describing them as a wake up call.

    A wake up call for Africa?

    Rama Yade, director of the Africa Center of the Atlantic Council, a non-partisan organization that studies and facilitates U.S. international relations, argues that the aid cuts could be a wake-up call for African nations to reduce dependency and pursue economic sovereignty.

    For pan-African voices who have long criticized foreign aid as a tool of neocolonialism, the U.S. government cuts are a chance to build local capacity, strengthen intra-African trade and reduce reliance on Western donors. Trump’s dismantling of USAID offers a new beginning for Africa.

    In an essay in the publication New Humanitarian, Themrit Khan, an independent researcher in the aid sectors wrote that recipient nations have been made to believe they are unable to function without external support.

    Khan proposes several actions to mitigate the foreign funding cuts: relying more on local donors; developing trade and bilateral relations instead of depending on international cooperation programs through the United Nations and other international organizations; re-evaluating military spending and reducing debt.

    Colette Hilaire Ouedraogo, a senior midwife and sexual and reproductive health practitioner, told me that up to 60% of activities were from external funding partners. She recalled the alerts sent by the health department to increase funding from national sources as early as 2022.

    She predicts that the cuts affecting the availability and access to contraceptives and the overall quality of services will slow down progress towards universal health coverage targets and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. There is a risk of reduced attendance at reproductive health and family planning centers. Consequently, unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions could increase leading an higher maternal mortality.


    Questions to consider:

    1. How can contraceptives result in lower deaths for women?

    2. Why do some people argue that the cut off of funds from the United States might ultimately benefit nations in Africa?

    3. Why are contraceptives controversial?

     

     

    Source link

  • REF 2029 talks about people again but early career labour is still hard to see

    REF 2029 talks about people again but early career labour is still hard to see

    REF 2029 guidance now confirms that the previously proposed people, culture and environment (PCE) element has been renamed strategy, people and research environment (SPRE). Its weighting has been set at 20 per cent, while the main contributions to knowledge and understanding element will make up 55 per cent of the overall profile. Compared with REF 2021, outputs no longer carry the 60 per cent weighting they once did, and the environment component has increased from 15 to 20 per cent.

    Supporters of the change, including Wellcome’s John-Arne Røttingen, have been clear that this is not intended as a downgrading of research culture, instead describing the move as a rebrand designed to prevent “culture” becoming politicised, and as a way of preserving the momentum of efforts to improve research environments.

    For early-career academics at the most insecure end of the system, however, research labour still sits outside what is easiest to count. What resists straightforward counting is also what is least likely to be protected.

    Hidden research expectations

    I am one year out of my PhD, in which I explored the “care-full” and “careless” dimensions of academic work. I graduated expecting that the next few years would involve short-term teaching, fractional contracts or, if things went well, fixed-term research roles. I also entered this stage of my working life knowing that, whatever job I took, I would need to keep publishing to stand any real chance of staying in higher education.

    I write this with short-term teaching arrangements in mind. Within these roles, there is an unspoken contradiction. Many teaching contracts formally exclude research. At the same time, research remains a condition of future employability. It appears in shortlisting criteria, promotion thresholds and hiring decisions. The result is that research becomes an informal obligation. It is returned to between classes and tutorials, and carried into evenings, weekends and term breaks.

    This is where the reframing of “culture” now matters.

    Sustainability without supported labour

    In REF 2021, the environment element required institutions to demonstrate the “vitality and sustainability” of their research environments. Guidance defined this in terms of research strategy, doctoral pipelines, research income, mentoring structures for early-career researchers and the capacity to continue producing high-scoring outputs. In arts, humanities and social sciences units in particular, panels praised institutions that could demonstrate early-career development pathways, including reduced teaching loads, research leave and internal funding.

    SPRE retains the same two criteria of vitality and sustainability. In REF 2029, these will now be assessed through both an institution-level statement, weighted at 60 per cent of the SPRE score, and a unit-level statement at 40 per cent. The institution-level statement places explicit emphasis on strategy as the main way in which research environments and cultures are now explained.

    This version of sustainability rests on the assumption that research labour is formally recognised and resourced. It does not capture the volume of research produced under contracts where research does not appear in workload models or time allocation at all. In practice, sustainability comes to mean whether outputs keep appearing, rather than whether the people producing them can realistically go on working like this when their next job may depend on it.

    The limits of research expectation

    It is true that REF 2029 introduces a substantive-link rule and allows outputs from staff on part-time or non-standard contracts, so long as they meet the 0.2 FTE, 12-month employment and research-expectation threshold. This complicates any straightforward claim that REF excludes precarious researchers. It also places the power of recognition firmly at institutional level.

    REF 2029 requires that a contract include a “research expectation,” while the guidance does not require institutions to prove that time, funding or workload adjustment were provided to support the research. The term “research expectation” itself remains vague, and in practice it may amount to little more than a nominal clause. That ambiguity allows outputs to be counted even when the labour behind them was carried out under precarious, unsustainable conditions.

    Culture was never going to be a perfect remedy. As Lizzie Gadd has already argued in her “my culture is better than yours” critique of competitive approaches to research culture, the sector’s engagement with culture has been uneven and often reflects the priorities of research-intensive, or more accurately funding-intensive, institutions and STEM disciplines. Even so, culture was the one part of the framework with the reach to ask how research expectations attach themselves to people, workloads and contracts. Political? Maybe. But what about precarity isn’t political.

    What still counts

    All of this is unfolding in the context of a wider financial crisis across higher education. Falling international recruitment, rising costs and long-term funding pressure have placed many providers under severe strain, with arts, humanities and social science provision often among the most exposed. In this environment, universities trade on the career aspirations of early-career academics to manage costs, relying on their, our, my hopes of progression to sustain teaching at lower pay and with fewer protections.

    We now have a sector full of strategies, including ever more detailed strategies for people and research environments, and very little shared vision of what a sustainable early-career academic life should look like. With REF 2029 restoring the dominance of outputs and re-casting culture as a subsidiary part of institutional strategy, a clear message is taking shape. Outputs still count. The conditions under which those outputs are produced count for far less.

    Source link

  • When will we listen to what young people say?

    When will we listen to what young people say?

    Imagine adding your thoughts to a conversation, only to have them dismissed by the group — and not because of what you said, but because they thought you were too young to know what you are talking about or understand the topic at hand.

    That’s what teens around the world face when they try to participate in “adult” conversations.

    On Tuesday 2 December, we gathered seven people from six countries in a live virtual roundtable to discuss whether and how young people are able to speak out and be heard. Five teens from News Decoder partners schools in India, South Africa and the United States were joined by News Decoder correspondent Alfonso Silva-Santisteban from Peru and Marouane El Bahraoui, a research intern at the Carter Center in the United States and African Leadership Academy alum originally from Morocco.

    When we asked each of the teens whether they felt they were listened to, they all agreed on one thing: When talking to their peers they felt understood and respected. But when trying to get their opinions across in a room of adults, they were often dismissed and felt disrected.

    “If I’m talking about a certain topic to my peers and they already have that knowledge already, they already know what I’m talking about, then it’s much easier for them to actually hear me and understand me,” said Ramona-Blessing Mkunna, a Tanzanian student studying at the African Leadership Academy in South Africa.

    Some voices are valued more.

    Sophie De Lavandeyra, a student at The Hewitt School in New York City said that she feels that even when she speaks to teachers or family members, she is heard and listened to but not equally valued. “And ultimately, there’s this sense of ‘I’m a student, I’m a child’, so therefore my opinions must be not as valued as other adults in my community,” she said.

    Sydney also attends Hewitt and said that the problem of being heard is more pronounced for girls. “I think people can undermine our opinions or statements and beliefs that we have,” she said.

    Mahee Mantri, a student at VIBGYOR High in India said that she feels that people look at age and not experience, and that while her experiences might be different, they should still be considered valid. It seems, she said, that the age difference gives some people an excuse to not listen.

    That young people feel they aren’t heard may be the one unifying aspect of what we call the “Gen Z” generation — the first generation to be born in a fully-digital world.

    El Bahraoui said that if there is a Gen Z movement, it is one that doesn’t have a leader and it doesn’t have a specific set of demands, but the demands they do have seem to cross borders: lowering unemployment, ending nepotism and corruption, slowing down climate change.

    “Young people are afraid of the uncertain future or the uncertainty of the future. That’s why there is all this anger and people going out to the street and protesting because people want some stability some certainty,” he said.

    From anger to action

    In many places, like Kenya, to get heard youth are taking to the streets in protests and when they do, it has produced results, El Bahraoui said. “Some protests led to the dissolution of the house of representatives,” he said. “Some protests led to the ousting of the president or the head of state. Other protests led only to the government removing a financial bill, such as the case in Kenya. There was a tax bill and then Gen Z protests went to the streets and the government just removed that bill, instead of removing the whole government or the whole parliament.”

    Silva-Santisteban said some of the frustrations young people have is that even when protests produce change, often those changes aren’t long-lasting or significant.

    “There’s an outburst of outrage and young people are called to be responsible of the change. Like they’re the spearheads of the protest. And at some point they become responsible of the change, but then the conditions are the same, especially in a country [like] Peru where you have a political crisis, a lot of conditions for unemployment.”

    Meanwhile, the young people that took to the streets face violence and are stigmatized, he said.

    The young people in the roundtable seemed to agree that shouting demands might not be the most effective way to get heard. Instead it comes down to an ongoing process of talking to people you might not agree with, and more important listening respectfully to what they have to say.

    Dialogue is needed.

    Anna Bamugye, a Ugandan student at the African Leadership Academy, said that you can’t force your opinions on people. “It’s about understanding each other and where you’re coming from,” she said. “And most of the time, we find comfort in talking to those who understand what we’re trying to convey, what the message we’re trying to say.”

    But in order to get a message to people, you must talk to people who may not understand you. “You have to talk to people who have different views,” she said. “To hear where other people are coming from allows you to understand, and maybe just help understand how you can shift that person’s perspective and understand where both parties are coming from.”

    In this way too, she said, you could learn something from them that you had never thought of.

    Mkunna said that If the goal is to raise awareness, you have to consider the most effective way of doing that. She has cousins who were born with autism and has found that in Tanzania people are largely ignorant about autism. As a result, autistic people face discrimination. She decided to launch a social media campaign to educate people about autism. “I think it really helped,” she said. “Because we got a chance to go on national TV and we went on radio and we talked about autism.”

    In New York, Del Cid and De Lavandeyra found themselves angry about the immigration raids taking place in New York and all over the country. Del Cid channeled her anger into photography. “So I personally use my art and the images that I take to kind of convey a story and a narrative,” she said.

    De Lavandeyra wrote an AI program using a large language model, that lets people who speak little English get questions answered. The program allows them “to be able to chat in whatever language is their home language, and be able to ask questions and get their legal answers based off [U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] data,” she said. “But written in a way where they could understand, and it was not just a bunch of legal jargon that felt unintelligible for them and something they weren’t being able to process.”

    Mantri said that it is important to both listen and speak up. “I feel there is a generation gap which I experienced in my parents or their generation, and in my generation we question why — why is it things are like that?” she said. “I always like to question why is it like this and they probably just hear it and consider it as back answering or disrespect.”


     Questions to consider:

    1. What is the difference between being heard and having someone listen to what you say?

    2. Why is the ability to listen to what people say important if you want to get your opinions across?

    3. In what ways do you try to get your voice heard?


     

    Source link

  • Trump’s new housing policies could push another 170,000 people into homelessness (National Low Income Housing Coalition)

    Trump’s new housing policies could push another 170,000 people into homelessness (National Low Income Housing Coalition)

    Why NLIHC is taking action:

    The Continuum of Care Program exists to house people experiencing homelessness using proven, evidence-based solutions and strong local leadership. Yet, this NOFO introduces structural restrictions that contradict its stated purpose — capping permanent housing resources, weakening local decision-making, and threatening the stability of community response systems nationwide.

    As many as 170,000 more people could be pushed into homelessness if these changes stand — not as an abstract number, but as real individuals, families, veterans, seniors, youth, and neighbors in every state who depend on CoC-funded housing and services to remain stably housed.

    What this lawsuit means for our field and partners:

    We are fighting to:

    • Prevent hundreds of thousands of people from losing their homes

    • Protect proven permanent housing interventions within CoC funding

    • Defend the ability of local communities to lead response strategies using data and evidence

    • Stand with municipalities and providers working to keep people housed, stabilized, and supported

    Source link

  • Power, Proxy, and the People Caught in Between

    Power, Proxy, and the People Caught in Between

    The Western Hemisphere is entering a new and dangerous phase of global rivalry—one shaped by old imperial habits, new economic pressures, and resurgent great-power maneuvering. From Washington to Beijing to Caracas, political leaders are escalating tensions over Venezuela’s future, reviving a familiar script in which Latin America becomes the proving ground for foreign powers and a pressure cooker for working-class people who have no say in the geopolitical games unfolding above them.

    What looks like a confrontation over oil, governance, or regional security is better understood as a collision of neoliberal extraction, colonial legacies, and competing empires, each claiming moral authority while pursuing strategic advantage. In this moment, it is essential to remember what history shows again and again: ordinary people—soldiers, students, workers—pay the highest price for elite ambitions.


    A Long Shadow: U.S. Intervention in Latin America Since the 1890s

    The U.S. role in Latin America cannot be separated from its imperial foundations. Over more than a century, Washington has repeatedly intervened—militarily, covertly, and financially—to shape political outcomes in the region:

    • 1898–1934: The “Banana Wars.” U.S. Marines were deployed throughout the Caribbean and Central America to secure plantations, protect U.S. investors, and maintain favorable governments in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Honduras.

    • 1954: Guatemala. The CIA overthrew democratically elected President Jacobo Árbenz after he challenged United Fruit Company landholdings.

    • 1961: Bay of Pigs Invasion. A failed U.S.-backed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro.

    • 1973: Chile. U.S. support for the coup against Salvador Allende ushered in the Pinochet dictatorship and a laboratory for neoliberal economics.

    • 1980s: Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala. Funding death squads, supporting Contra rebels, and fueling civil wars that killed hundreds of thousands.

    • 1989: Panama. A full-scale U.S. invasion to remove Manuel Noriega, with civilian casualties in the thousands.

    • 2002: Venezuela. U.S. officials supported the brief coup against Hugo Chávez.

    • 2020s: Economic warfare continues. Sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and support for factions opposing Nicolás Maduro all sustain a long-running pressure campaign.

    This is not ancient history. It is the operating system of U.S. hemispheric influence.


    China’s Expanding Soft Power and Strategic Positioning

    While the U.S. escalates military signaling toward Venezuela, China is expanding soft power, economic influence, and political relationships throughout Latin America—including with Venezuela. Beijing’s strategy is centered not on direct military confrontation but on long-term infrastructure, trade, and diplomatic partnerships designed to reduce U.S. dominance.

    Recent statements from Beijing underscore this shift. Chinese President Xi Jinping publicly backed Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, describing China and Venezuela as “intimate friends” as the U.S. intensifies military pressure in the region. China’s role extends beyond rhetoric: loans, technology transfers, energy investments, and political support form a web of influence that counters U.S. objectives.

    This is the new terrain: the U.S. leaning on sanctions and military posture, China leveraging soft power and strategic alliances.


    Russia as a Third Power in the Hemisphere

    Any honest assessment of the current geopolitical climate must include Russia, which has expanded its presence in Latin America as part of its broader campaign to counter U.S. power globally. Moscow has supplied Venezuela with military equipment, intelligence support, cybersecurity assistance, and diplomatic cover at the United Nations. It has strengthened ties with Nicaragua, Cuba, and other governments willing to challenge U.S. regional dominance.

    Russia’s involvement is not ideological; it is strategic. It seeks to weaken Washington’s influence, create leverage in distant theaters, and embed itself in the Western Hemisphere without deploying large-scale military forces. Where China builds infrastructure and invests billions, Russia plays the spoiler: complicating U.S. policy, reinforcing embattled leaders when convenient, and offering an alternative to nations seeking to escape U.S. hegemony.

    The result is a crowded geopolitical arena in which Venezuela becomes not just a domestic crisis but a theater for multipolar contention, shaped by three major powers with very different tools and interests.


    Neoliberalism, Colonialism, and the Repeating Pattern

    Viewed in historical context, today’s crisis is simply the newest iteration of a long-standing pattern:

    1. Colonial logics justify intervention. The idea that Washington must “manage” or “stabilize” Latin America recycles the paternalism of earlier eras.

    2. Neoliberal extraction drives policy. Control over energy resources, access to markets, and geopolitical leverage matter more than democracy or human well-being.

    3. Foreign powers treat the region as a chessboard. The U.S., China, and Russia approach Latin America not as sovereign equals but as terrain for influence.

    4. People—not governments—bear the cost. Sanctions devastate civilians. Military escalations breed proxy conflicts. Migration pressures rise. And working-class youth are recruited to fight battles that are not theirs.

    This is why today’s developments must be understood as part of a wider global system that treats nations in the Global South as resources to exploit and battlegrounds to dominate.


    A Warning for Those Considering Enlistment or ROTC

    In moments like this, the pressure on young people—especially working-class youth—to join the military increases. Recruiters frame conflict as opportunity: tuition money, job training, patriotism, adventure, or stability. But the truth is starker and more political.

    Muhammad Ali’s stance during the Vietnam War remains profoundly relevant today. He refused the draft, famously stating that the Vietnamese “never called me [a slur]” and declaring that he would not fight a war of conquest against people who had done him no harm.

    The same logic applies to today’s geopolitical brinkmanship. Young Americans are asked to risk their lives in conflicts that protect corporate interests, reinforce imperial ambitions, and escalate global tensions. Venezuelan workers, Chinese workers, Russian workers, and U.S. workers are not enemies. They are casualties-in-waiting of decisions made by governments and corporations insulated from the consequences of their actions.

    Before enlisting—or joining ROTC—young people deserve to understand the historical cycle they may be pulled into. Wars in Latin America, proxy or direct, have never served the interests of everyday people. They serve empires.


    Sources

    • Firstpost. “Xi Backs Maduro, Calls China and Venezuela ‘Intimate Friends’ as Trump Steps Up Military Pressure.”

    • Greg Grandin, Empire’s Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism

    • Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine

    • Stephen Kinzer, Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change

    • U.S. Congressional Research Service reports on U.S. policy in Venezuela and China-Latin America relations

    • UN Human Rights Council documentation on sanctions and civilian impact

    Source link

  • When young people ask big questions and seek answers

    When young people ask big questions and seek answers

    Cliffrene Haffner attended the African Leadership Academy (ALA) in South Africa during the Covid-19 pandemic. Her university applications were stalling and she felt stressed and anxious.

    “Life felt unstable, as if I were hanging by a thin thread,” Haffner said. But it was at ALA that she discovered News Decoder.

    “Joining News Decoder helped me rebuild my voice,” she wrote. “It created a place to write honestly and with purpose whilst supporting others in telling their stories. At a time when the world felt numb and disconnected, we used storytelling to bring back hope on campus by sharing our fears, thoughts and expectations.”

    At News Decoder, students work with professional editors and news correspondents to explore complicated, global topics. They have the opportunity to report and write news stories, research and present findings in global webinars with students from other countries, produce podcasts and sit in on live video roundtables with experts and their peers across the globe.

    Many get their articles published on News Decoder’s global news site.

    A different way of seeing the world

    Out of these experiential learning activities, they take away important skills valuable in their later careers, whatever those careers might be: How to communicate clearly, how to recognize multiple perspectives, how to cut through jargon and propaganda and separate facts from opinion and speculation.

    One milestone for many of these is our Pitch, Report, Draft and Revise process, which we call PRDR. In it, students pitch a story topic to News Decoder with a plan on how to research and report it. We ask them to identify different perspectives on problems they want to explore and experts they can reach out to for information and context.

    Then we guide them through a process of introspection, if the story is a personal reflection on their own experience, or a process of reporting and interviewing. News Decoder doesn’t promise students that their stories will get published at the end of the process. They have to work for that — revising their drafts until the finished story is clear and relevant to a global audience.

    One student who went through the process was Joshua Glazer, now a student at Emory University in the United States. Glazer came to News Decoder in high school as an exchange student in Spain with School Year Abroad.

    “I think the skills that I got out of that went on to really change the course of my education and how I view the world,” Glazer said. “Because when you step into the world of journalism you learn a different way of seeing the world.”

    Recognizing our biases

    Glazer learned that for journalism, he had to be less opinionated. “You have to really approach things kind of as they are in the world,” Glazer said. “And that is hard to do. That is not an easy skill that we can do as humans because we inherently have biases.”

    He said it challenged him to look inwards and recognize his biases and counter them with evidence.

    “So I think those skills have really changed the course of how I view having an argument with somebody because all of a sudden, you know, when you have an argument with someone, it’s all opinion,” he said.

    For Haffner, who is now a business administration student at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Japan, News Decoder reshaped how she and her peers understood storytelling.

    “It taught us to let go of rigid biases and to make authenticity the centre of our work,” Haffner said. “Students from different backgrounds found a space where their voices were heard, respected and valued. Our stories formed a shared map, each one opening a new room to explore, each voice strengthening the collective journey we were on. In that chaotic period, we created something meaningful together. Something bigger than us.”

    Working through the complexity of a topic

    Marouane El Bahraoui, a research intern at The Carter Center in the U.S. state of Georgia, also discovered News Decoder at the African Leadership Academy. At the time, he was interested in writing about the effectiveness of the Arab Maghreb Union — an economic bloc of five North African countries. He grew up in Morocco but didn’t want to approach the topic from a purely Moroccan perspective.

    “It was like a very raw idea,” he said.

    He pitched the story and worked with both News Decoder Founder Nelson Graves and correspondent Tom Heneghan to refine the idea. They guided him in the reporting and writing process.

    “One aspect that I liked a lot from my research was the people that I had the chance to talk to,” he said. “It was during Covid and I was just at home and I’m talking to, you know, professors in U.S. universities, I’m talking to UN officials, experts working in think tanks in D.C. and I was thinking oh those people are just so far, you can’t even reach them. And then you have a conversation with them and they’re just normal people.”

    He also found writing the story daunting. “It was a little bit overwhelming for me at the time,” he said. “You know, you’re not writing like an academic essay.”

    Graves encouraged him to write in a straightforward manner. In school, he had been taught to write in a beautiful way to impress.

    “From News Decoder, something I learned is to always keep the audience in mind who you are speaking to, who are you writing to,” he said.

    He took away the importance of letting readers make their own conclusions. “You’re not writing to tell the reader what to think,” he said. “You are writing to give them ideas and arguments, facts and leave the thinking for them.”

    Source link

  • Why People Under 35 Are Not Afraid of Democratic Socialism

    Why People Under 35 Are Not Afraid of Democratic Socialism

    For Americans under 35, the term “democratic socialism” triggers neither fear nor Cold War reflexes. It represents something far simpler: a demand for a functioning society. Younger generations have grown up in a world where basic pillars of American life—higher education, medicine, economic mobility, and even life expectancy—have deteriorated while inequality has soared. Democratic socialism, in their view, is not a fringe ideology but a practical response to systems that have ceased to serve the common good.

    Nowhere is this clearer than in higher education. Millennials and Gen Z entered adulthood as universities became corporate enterprises, expanding administrative layers, pushing adjunct labor to the brink, and relying on debt-financed tuition increases to keep the machine running. Public investment collapsed, predatory for-profit chains proliferated, and nonprofit universities acted like hedge funds with classrooms attached. Students saw institutions with billion-dollar endowments operate as landlords and asset managers, all while passing costs onto working families. When Bernie Sanders called for tuition-free public college, young people did not hear utopianism—they heard a plan grounded in global reality, a model that exists in Germany, Sweden, Finland, and other social democracies that treat education as a public good rather than a revenue stream.

    Healthcare tells an even harsher story. Americans under 35 watched their parents and grandparents navigate a system more focused on billing codes than care, one where an ambulance ride costs a week’s wages and a bout of illness can mean bankruptcy. They experienced the rise of corporatized university medical centers, private equity–owned emergency rooms, and insurance bureaucracies that ration access more cruelly than any state. They saw life-saving drugs priced like luxury goods and mental health services pushed out of reach. Compare this to nations with universal healthcare: longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality, and far less medical debt. Again, Sanders’ Medicare for All resonated not because of ideology but because young people recognized it as a plausible path toward the kind of humane medical system described by scholars like Harriet Washington, Elisabeth Rosenthal, and Mahmud Mamdani, who all critique the structural violence embedded in systems of unequal care.

    Life expectancy itself has become a generational indictment. For the first time in modern U.S. history, it has fallen, driven by overdose deaths, suicide, preventable illness, and worsening inequities. Younger Americans know that friends and peers have died far earlier than their counterparts abroad. They see that countries with strong public services—childcare, unemployment insurance, housing supports, universal healthcare—live longer, healthier lives. They also see how austerity and privatization have hollowed out public health infrastructure in the United States, leaving communities vulnerable to crises large and small. The message is clear: societies that invest in people live longer; societies that treat health as a commodity do not.

    Quality of Life (QOL) ties all of this together. People under 35 face rent burdens unimaginable to previous generations, debts that prevent them from forming families, stagnant wages, and a labor market defined by precarity. They face the erosion of public space, public transit, libraries, and social supports—what Mamdani would describe as the slow unraveling of the civic realm under neoliberalism. When they look abroad, they see countries with social democratic frameworks offering guaranteed parental leave, subsidized childcare, free or nearly free college, universal healthcare, and robust worker protections. These are not distant fantasies; they are functioning models that produce higher happiness levels, stronger social trust, and more stable democracies.

    Older generations often accuse young people of radicalism, but the reality is the reverse. Millennials and Gen Z are pragmatic. They have lived through the failures of unfettered capitalism: historic inequality, monopolistic industries, soaring costs of living, and a political class unresponsive to their material conditions. They have read Sanders’ critiques of oligarchy and Mamdani’s analyses of state power and structural violence, and they see themselves reflected in those diagnoses. Democratic socialism appeals because it is rooted in material improvements to daily life rather than in abstract political theory. It promises a society where income does not determine survival, where education does not require lifelong debt, where parents can afford to raise children, and where basic health is not a luxury good.

    People under 35 are not afraid of democratic socialism because they have already seen what the absence of a social democratic framework produces. They are not seeking revolution for its own sake. They are seeking a livable future. And increasingly, they view democratic socialism not as a radical break but as the only realistic path toward rebuilding public institutions, revitalizing democracy, and ensuring that future generations inherit a country worth living in.

    Sources

    Sanders, Bernie. Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In.

    Sanders, Bernie. Where We Go from Here: Two Years in the Resistance.

    Mamdani, Mahmood. Define and Rule: Native as Political Identity.

    Mamdani, Mahmood. Neither Settler nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities.

    Washington, Harriet. Medical Apartheid.

    Rosenthal, Elisabeth. An American Sickness.

    Skloot, Rebecca. The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.

    Baldwin, Davarian. In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower.

    Bousquet, Marc. How the University Works.

    Source link

  • Why do people worry about inflation?

    Why do people worry about inflation?

    That’s why central banks have gone to extraordinary lengths in the past decade to banish the specter of deflation. They’ve succeeded. Indeed, stock markets have been rattled by evidence that inflation is stirring in the United States, which might prompt the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates more rapidly than previously thought.

    (On Wednesday, the U.S. government reported that consumer prices rose by 0.5 percent in January, more than expected. “Core” prices excluding volatile food and energy costs marked the biggest monthly gain in a year.)

    But the chances of inflation getting out of control are small.

    First, companies operate globally, so if manufacturing costs rise too high in the United States, they will shift production to cheaper locations overseas.

    Second, there is still slack in the U.S. jobs market because many people who gave up looking for work after the crisis could be lured back into employment, capping wages.

    Third, there is no reason to believe the Fed — or financial markets for that matter — would allow the money supply to spiral out of control.

    The United States is no Venezuela.

    Prices rise and fall all the time in response to factors such as changing consumer tastes and technological innovation. Medical care costs a lot more than in the past, computers a lot less. But a generalized rise in prices across the economy — which is the definition of inflation — is possible only if a country’s central bank prints too much money.

    That’s what’s happened in Venezuela, where the money supply has increased by 4,000 percent in the past two years. The result is hyperinflation, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to reach 13,000 percent this year. Goldilocks’s oatmeal is nearly doubling in price every month. Poverty is rife because wages lag price rises. The economy is on its knees.

    The United States is no Venezuela. Evidence of a pick-up in wages is good news in fact, considering that workers have been taking home less and less of the economic pie in recent years, while the suppliers of capital have benefited handsomely.

    It’s possible that the recently enacted package of U.S. tax cuts and spending increases will cause the economy to run a bit too hot, pushing up prices a bit. But of the many problems facing the U.S. economy, runaway inflation is not one of them.

    In 1981, then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker had to raise short-term U.S. interest rates to 20 percent to crush inflation. History will not need to repeat itself.


    Questions to consider:

    1. What “ripple effect” could a rise in consumer prices cause?

    2. How can inflation be good?

    3. When prices go up significantly, what might you or your family not buy?


    Source link

  • Why education leaders must highlight their people

    Why education leaders must highlight their people

    Key points:

    When I asked my executive assistant to proof my first superintendent’s report for the public board packet, she came back and said that she was surprised that I gave so much credit to others for the work being completed by the district. A simple leadership lesson I learned from David Fridlington, my favorite battalion commander in the military, was to use your position to take care of your people and support them. He told everyone that when he presided over a promotion ceremony, he said: “Use this rank to take care of your soldiers.”

    One basic concept is that when things go well, give credit to those who did the work, even if you provided the direction. Your board or other supervisors should understand that success requires leadership. The opposite is true as well. When things do not go well, the leader needs to step in and accept the blame. Even if a subordinate was negligent and their performance needs to be addressed, there is never justification for doing it in a public forum.

    The traditional leadership trap

    For decades, educational leadership has often mirrored the corporate world’s focus on individual achievement and personal branding. Superintendents, principals, and department heads have felt pressure to position themselves as the architects of every success, the faces of every initiative, and the voices behind every innovation. This approach, while understandable given the accountability pressures facing education leaders, creates a dangerous dynamic that undermines both team morale and long-term organizational success.

    When leaders consistently claim credit for achievements, they inadvertently signal to their teams that individual contributions are less valuable than executive oversight. Faculty members, administrators, and support staff begin to feel invisible, their efforts overshadowed by leadership’s need for recognition. This dynamic is particularly damaging in educational environments, where collaboration and shared ownership of student success are essential.

    Smart educational leaders understand that their primary role is not as the star of the show, but to direct in such a way that every cast member shines. When a high school’s test scores improve dramatically, the effective principal doesn’t schedule interviews to discuss their leadership philosophy. Instead, they organize a celebration highlighting the innovative teaching strategies developed by their faculty, the dedication of support staff, and the hard work of the students.

    This approach accomplishes several critical objectives simultaneously. First, it builds tremendous goodwill and loyalty among team members who feel genuinely appreciated and recognized. Teachers who see their principal celebrating their classroom innovations in district newsletters or community presentations develop a deeper commitment to the school’s mission. They feel valued as both implementers of directives and as creative professionals whose expertise helps drive student success.

    Building trust through recognition

    Education leaders who consistently spotlight their teams create an atmosphere of trust that permeates the entire organization. When a superintendent highlights individual schools’ achievements without inserting themselves into the narrative, principals and teachers recognize that their leader is secure enough in their own position to share credit freely. This security translates into psychological safety throughout the organization, encouraging innovation and risk-taking that leads to better educational outcomes.

    Consider the university department chair who, when presenting research achievements to the dean, leads with faculty accomplishments rather than departmental management strategies. Graduate students and professors in that department understand that their work will be recognized and celebrated, not appropriated by administrative oversight. This recognition culture attracts top talent and retains valuable team members who might otherwise seek environments where their contributions receive proper acknowledgment.

    The ripple effect of recognition

    When leaders consistently elevate their teams, they create a cascade of positive behaviors throughout the organization. Teachers who feel appreciated by their principals are more likely to recognize and celebrate their students’ achievements. Support staff who see their contributions highlighted become more invested in finding innovative solutions to operational challenges. The entire educational community benefits when recognition flows freely rather than accumulating at the top of the organizational chart.

    This dynamic is particularly powerful in educational settings because it models the same growth mindset we want to instill in students. When young people see adults in their schools celebrating each other’s successes and sharing credit generously, they learn valuable lessons about collaboration, humility, and community building that extend far beyond academic subjects.

    Strategic communication for team-focused leaders

    Educational leaders might worry that stepping back from the spotlight will make them appear weak or uninvolved. The reality is quite the opposite. Stakeholders, from school board members to parents to community partners, are sophisticated enough to recognize that strong leaders create environments where others can excel. A principal who consistently highlights teacher innovations demonstrates their ability to recruit, develop, and retain talent. A superintendent who celebrates individual school achievements shows their skill at creating systems that enable success across diverse environments.

    The key is strategic communication that makes the leader’s supporting role visible without overshadowing team members. When presenting achievements, effective leaders briefly acknowledge their role in creating conditions for success before diving deep into team member accomplishments. They might say, “We’ve worked hard to create an environment where innovation can flourish, and I’m excited to share what our incredible faculty has accomplished.”

    Practical implementation strategies

    Educational leaders can begin implementing this philosophy immediately through simple but powerful changes in communication habits. Instead of using “I” language when discussing successes, they can shift to “we” and “they” language that emphasizes team contributions. Rather than accepting speaking engagements about leadership strategies, they can recommend team members as presenters on innovative practices.

    Internal communications offer rich opportunities for team recognition. Weekly newsletters, staff meetings, and board presentations become venues for celebrating individual and group achievements. Social media platforms allow leaders to amplify team member successes to broader audiences, creating positive publicity for both individuals and the organization. Two of the deans I currently work with are excellent examples of such active supporters of their faculty. Informal leaders can participate as well by highlighting their colleagues’ accomplishments via posting congratulatory notes on LinkedIn or other social media sites.

    The long-term leadership legacy

    Education leaders who consistently spotlight their teams create lasting legacies that extend far beyond their tenure. They build cultures of recognition and collaboration that persist even when leadership changes. More importantly, they develop future leaders among their team members who understand that true leadership means elevating others.

    In an era when educational institutions face unprecedented challenges, from funding constraints to political pressures to rapidly changing technology, leaders who can inspire and retain talented teams have a significant competitive advantage. These leaders understand that their success is measured not by their personal recognition, but by their ability to create environments where others can achieve their highest potential.

    The most effective leaders recognize that the spotlight is not a zero-sum game. When they illuminate their teams’ achievements, they don’t diminish their own leadership; they demonstrate it in its most powerful form. In education, where the ultimate goal is developing human potential, leaders who model this philosophy create ripple effects that benefit students, staff, and communities for years to come.

    Steven M. Baule, Ed.D., Ph.D.
    Latest posts by Steven M. Baule, Ed.D., Ph.D. (see all)

    Source link