Tag: proposals

  • What research says about Mamdani and Cuomo’s education proposals

    What research says about Mamdani and Cuomo’s education proposals

    by Jill Barshay, The Hechinger Report
    November 3, 2025

    New York City, where I live, will elect a new mayor Tuesday, Nov. 4. The two front runners — state lawmaker Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, running as an independent — have largely ignored the city’s biggest single budget item: education. 

    One exception has been gifted education, which has generated a sharp debate between the two candidates. The controversy is over a tiny fraction of the student population. Only 18,000 students are in the city’s gifted and talented program out of more than 900,000 public school students. (Another 20,000 students attend the city’s elite exam-entrance high schools.) 

    But New Yorkers are understandably passionate about getting their kids into these “gated” classrooms, which have some of the best teachers in the city. Meanwhile, the racial composition of these separate (some say segregated) classes — disproportionately white and Asian — is shameful. Even many advocates of gifted education recognize that reform is needed. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    Mamdani wants to end gifted programs for kindergarteners and wait until third grade to identify advanced students. Cuomo wants to expand gifted education and open up more seats for more children. 

    The primary justification for gifted programs is that some children learn so quickly that they need separate classrooms to progress at an accelerated pace. 

    But studies have found that students in gifted classrooms are not learning faster than their general education peers. And analyses of curricula show that many gifted classes don’t actually teach more advanced material; they simply group mostly white and Asian students together without raising academic rigor.

    In my reporting, I have found that researchers question whether we can accurately spot giftedness in 4- or 5-year-olds. My colleague Sarah Carr recently wrote about the many methods that have been used to try to identify young children with high potential, and how the science underpinning them is shaky. In addition, true giftedness is often domain-specific — a child might be advanced in math but not in reading, or vice versa — yet New York City’s system labels or excludes children globally rather than by subject. 

    Because of New York City’s size — it’s the nation’s largest public school system, even larger than 30 states — what happens here matters.

    Policy implications

    • Delaying identification until later grades, when cognitive profiles are clearer, could improve accuracy in picking students. 
    • Reforming the curriculum to make sure that gifted classes are truly advanced would make it easier to justify having them. 
    • Educators could consider ways for children to accelerate in a single subject — perhaps by moving up a grade in math or English classes. 
    • How to desegregate these classrooms, and make their racial/ethnic composition less lopsided, remains elusive.

    I’ve covered these questions before. Read my columns on gifted education:

    Size isn’t everything

    Another important issue in this election is class size. Under a 2022 state law, New York City must reduce class sizes to no more than 20 students in grades K-3 by 2028. (The cap will be 23 students per class in grades 4-8 and 25 students per class in high school.) To meet that mandate, the city will need to hire an estimated 18,000 new teachers.

    During the campaign, Mamdani said he would subsidize teacher training, offering tuition aid in exchange for a three-year commitment to teach in the city’s public schools. The idea isn’t unreasonable, but it’s modest — only $12 million a year, expected to produce about 1,000 additional teachers annually. That’s a small fraction of what’s needed.

    The bigger problem may be the law itself: Schools lack both physical space and enough qualified teachers. What parents want — small classes led by excellent, experienced educators — isn’t something the city can scale quickly. Hiring thousands of novices may not improve learning much, and will make the job of school principal, who must make all these hires, even harder.

    For more on the research behind class-size reductions, see my earlier columns:

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about education issues in the New York City mayoral election was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-nyc-mayor-election-education/”>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=113202&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-nyc-mayor-election-education/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Policy Proposals Lack Clarity About How to Evaluate Graduates’ Additional Degrees

    Policy Proposals Lack Clarity About How to Evaluate Graduates’ Additional Degrees

    Title: Accounting for Additional Credentials in Postsecondary Earnings Data

    Authors: Jason Delisle, Jason Cohn, and Bryan Cook

    Source: The Urban Institute

    As policymakers across both parties consider how to evaluate postsecondary outcomes and earnings data, the authors of a new brief from the Urban Institute pose a major question: How should students who earn multiple credentials be included in data collection for the college that awarded their first degree?

    For example, should the earnings of a master’s degree recipient be included in the data for the institution where they earned their bachelor’s degree? Additionally, students who finish an associate degree at a community college are likely to earn higher wages when they complete a bachelor’s degree at another institution. Thus, multiple perspectives need to be considered to help both policymakers and institutions understand, interpret, and treat additional degrees earned.

    Additional key findings include:

    Earnings Data and Accountability Policies

    Many legislative proposals would expand the use of earnings data to provide further accountability and federal aid restrictions. For example, the House Republicans’ College Cost Reduction Act, proposed in 2024, would put institutions at risk of losing funding if they have low student loan repayment rates. The brief’s authors state that the bill does not indicate if students who earn additional credentials should be included in the cohort of students where they completed their first credential.

    The recently implemented gainful employment rule from the Biden administration is explicit in its inclusion of those who earn additional credentials. Under the rule, students who earn an additional degree are included in both calculations for their recent degree and the program that awarded their first credential.

    How Much Do Additional Credential Affect Earnings Data?

    Determining how much additional credentials affect wages and earnings for different programs is difficult. The first earnings measurement—the first year after students leave school—is usually too early to include additional income information from a second credential.

    Although the entire data picture is lacking, a contrast between first- and fifth-year earnings suggests that the number of students earning additional degrees may be very high for some programs. As an example, students who earn associate degrees in liberal arts and general studies often have some of their quickest increases in earnings during these first five years. A potential explanation is because students are then completing a bachelor’s degree program at a four-year institution.

    Policy Implications: How Should Earnings Data Approach Subsequent Credentials?

    In general, it seems that many policymakers have not focused on this complicated question of students who earn additional degrees. However, policy and data professionals may benefit from excluding students who earn additional credentials to more closely measure programs’ return on investment. This can be especially helpful when examining the costs of bachelor’s programs and their subsequent earnings benchmarks, by excluding additional earnings premiums generated from master’s programs.

    Additionally, excluding students who earn additional credentials may be particularly valuable to students in making consumer and financial aid decisions if the payoff from a degree is extremely different depending on whether students pursue an additional credential.

    However, some programs are intended to prepare students for an additional degree, and excluding data for students who earn another degree would mean excluding most graduates and paint a misleading picture.

    To read the full report from the Urban Institute, click here.

    —Austin Freeman

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

    Source link

  • FIRE statement on legislative proposals to regulate artificial intelligence

    FIRE statement on legislative proposals to regulate artificial intelligence

    As the 2025 legislative calendar begins, FIRE is preparing for lawmakers at both the state and federal levels to introduce a deluge of bills targeting artificial intelligence. 

    The First Amendment applies to artificial intelligence just as it does to other expressive technologies. Like the printing press, the camera, and the internet, AI can be used as an expressive tool — a technological advance that helps us communicate with one another and generate knowledge. As FIRE Executive Vice President Nico Perrino argued in The Los Angeles Times last month: “The Constitution shouldn’t be rewritten for every new communications technology.” 

    We again remind legislators that existing laws — cabined by the narrow, well-defined exceptions to the First Amendment’s broad protection — already address the vast majority of harms legislatures may seek to counter in the coming year. Laws prohibiting fraud, forgery, discrimination, and defamation, for example, apply regardless of how the unlawful activity is ultimately carried out. Liability for unlawful acts properly falls on the perpetrator of those acts, not the informational or communicative tools they use. 

    Some legislative initiatives seeking to govern the use of AI raise familiar First Amendment problems. For example, regulatory proposals that would require “watermarks” on artwork created by AI or mandate disclaimers on content generated by AI violate the First Amendment by compelling speech. FIRE has argued against these kinds of efforts to regulate the use of AI, and we will continue to do so — just as we have fought against government attempts to compel speech in school, on campus, or online. 

    Rather than compelling disclaimers or imposing content-based restrictions on AI-generated expression, legislators should remember the law already protects against defamation, fraud, and other illegal conduct. 

    Lawmakers have also sought to regulate or even criminalize the use of AI-generated content in election-related communications. But courts have been wary of legislative attempts to control AI’s output when political speech is implicated. Following a First Amendment challenge from a satirist who uses AI to generate parodies of political figures, for example, a federal district court recently enjoined a California statute aimed at “deepfakes” that regulated “materially deceptive” election-related content. 

    Content-based restrictions like California’s law require strict judicial scrutiny, no matter how the expression is created. As the federal court noted, the constitutional protections “safeguarding the people’s right to criticize government and government officials apply even in the new technological age when media may be digitally altered.” So while lawmakers might harbor “a well-founded fear of a digitally manipulated media landscape,” the court explained, “this fear does not give legislators unbridled license to bulldoze over the longstanding tradition of critique, parody, and satire protected by the First Amendment.” 

    Artificial intelligence, free speech, and the First Amendment

    Issue Pages

    FIRE offers an analysis of frequently asked questions about artificial intelligence and its possible implications for free speech and the First Amendment.


    Read More

    Other legislative proposals threaten the First Amendment by imposing burdens directly on the developers of AI models. In the coming months, for example, Texas lawmakers will consider the Texas Responsible Artificial Intelligence Governance Act, or TRAIGA, a sweeping bill that would impose liability on developers, distributors, and deployers of AI systems that may introduce a risk of “algorithmic discrimination,” including by private actors. The bill vests broad regulatory authority in a newly created state “Artificial Intelligence Council” and imposes steep compliance costs. TRAIGA compels developers to publish regular risk reports, a requirement that will raise First Amendment concerns when applied to an AI model’s expressive output or the use of AI as a tool to facilitate protected expression. Last year, a federal court held a similar reporting requirement imposed on social media platforms was likely unconstitutional.

    TRAIGA’s provisions incentivize AI developers to handicap their models to avoid any possibility of offering recommendations that some might deem discriminatory or simply offensive — even if doing so curtails the models’ usefulness or capabilities. Addressing unlawful discrimination is an important legislative aim, and lawmakers are obligated to ensure we all benefit from the equal protection of the law. At the same time, our decades of work defending student and faculty rights has left FIRE all too familiar with the chilling effect on speech that results from expansive or arbitrary interpretations of anti-discrimination law on campus. We will oppose poorly crafted legislative efforts that would functionally build the same chill into artificial intelligence systems.

    The sprawling reach of legislative proposals like TRAIGA run headlong into the expressive rights of the people building and using AI models. Rather than compelling disclaimers or imposing content-based restrictions on AI-generated expression, legislators should remember the law already protects against defamation, fraud, and other illegal conduct. And rather than preemptively saddling developers with broad liability for an AI model’s possible output, lawmakers must instead examine the recourse existing laws already provide victims of discrimination against those who would use AI — or any other communicative tool — to unlawful ends.

    FIRE will have more to say on the First Amendment threats presented by legislative proposals regarding AI in the weeks and months to come.

    Source link

  • Congress and Federal Agencies Consider Paid-Leave Proposals and Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Workers – CUPA-HR

    Congress and Federal Agencies Consider Paid-Leave Proposals and Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Workers – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 24, 2023

    Over the past year, lawmakers have taken an increased interest in establishing and expanding upon benefits and protections for paid leave and pregnant workers. As a result, Congress passed two bills granting workplace protections to pregnant and nursing mothers at the end of 2022, while  considering new federal proposals for paid family and medical leave. This post details some of the recent actions taken by lawmakers toward a federal paid-leave policy, as well as updates from federal agencies on the enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act.

    Bipartisan Working Group on Paid Leave

    In April, a group of bipartisan lawmakers in the House of Representatives established the Bipartisan Paid Family Leave Working Group, the goal of which “is to create a bipartisan paid family leave policy that supports American families and businesses.” The group consists of three Republicans — Reps. Stephanie Bice (R-OK), Julia Letlow (R-LA) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) — and three Democrats — Reps. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), Colin Allred (D-TX) and Haley Stevens (D-MI).

    In a letter establishing the working group, the lawmakers expressed their intention to explore both state and federal policies that already exist with the goal of creating an established paid-leave policy. The letter discusses both the successes and areas to improve of the Family and Medical Leave Act, and it states that there is a bipartisan consensus that paid leave is an issue that needs to become law.

    FAMILY Act

    On May 17, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) reintroduced the FAMILY Act, which would grant up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees at companies of all sizes through funds collected by payroll taxes paid by both employees and employers. The FAMILY Act was first introduced in 2013, but the most recent bill expands upon previous text by creating a progressive scale for wage replacement during the time off. Under the bill, the lowest paid workers would be eligible to receive up to 85 percent of their wages during their time off, while the average full-time worker would receive approximately two-thirds of their wages. Additionally, the bill extends coverage to include time off taken to address personal incidents with domestic violence, stalking and/or sexual assault.

    While most Democrats have championed the FAMILY Act as their preferred proposal for paid leave, the bill is unlikely to gain Republican support and will therefore not pass the House during this Congress. Republicans have previously opposed the bill, arguing against the proposed tax increases as well as potential burdens employers may face as a result of a paid-leave mandate. Instead, Republicans who have shown interest in advancing paid-leave policies have considered programs allowing individuals to borrow from their Social Security funds, incentivizing the creation of a private insurance system for leave pay, and providing tax credits to pay for time off.

    PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act

    On May 18, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) with enforcement information and public guidance for the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. The law went into effect on April 28, after being included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 year-end legislation to fund the federal government.

    As a reminder, the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act amends the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to expand access to breastfeeding accommodations in the workplace for lactating employees and builds on existing protections in the 2010 Break Time for Nursing Mothers Provision by broadening breastfeeding accommodations and workplace protections. Specifically, the bill ensures reasonable time and space for working individuals to pump in their workplaces as well as remedies for employer violations of the act.

    The FAB provides details on the requirements for reasonable space and break time, compensation, and employer posting of FLSA requirements as provided under the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act. Employers and field staff alike may use the FAB document as a resource to understand compliance with the act as enforced by WHD.

    Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    Alongside the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act, the PWFA was also signed into law under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023. The effective date of the PWFA is June 27, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was expected to issue proposed regulations on how best to govern and enforce the PWFA by then.

    As of May, however, the EEOC has yet to release any proposed regulations, and it seems likely that the agency will not be able to issue a proposed rule by the June 27 date. The commission currently has two Democratic and two Republican commissioners, and given the need for a majority of commissioners to vote to advance a rulemaking, the agency is unable to move proposed rules forward because commissioners are split along party lines. Through the legislation, Congress has allowed the EEOC through the end of 2023 to finalize a rulemaking on the PWFA, which may or may not be achieved,  depending on whether the Senate is able to confirm Kalpana Kotagal as the third Democratic appointee on the commission. In lieu of the proposed rulemaking, the EEOC has issued guidance on the law through an FAQ webpage addressing the protections granted under the law, which stakeholders may use as they wait for the official regulations.

    CUPA-HR continues to monitor any developments related to these proposals and laws and will keep members apprised of any policy updates related to paid leave and protections for pregnant and nursing workers.



    Source link