Report: Massachusetts early education has room to improve
The report, which was published Tuesday, said Massachusetts ranks slightly above average when it comes to its early education, according to 10 benchmarks set by the National Institute for Early Education Research, a research entity within Rutgers University.
The state met six out of the 10 benchmarks, according to the institute, which range from early learning and development standards to class size, to whether or not a teacher needs a bachelor's degree or more to teach young learners.
'Massachusetts is a leader in elementary and secondary education but it hasn't risen to be a leader in early education,' said Allison Friedman-Krauss, a research associate professor at the institute, in a phone interview.
The state has two early education programs: Chapter 70, which offers state aid to school districts that have students with disabilities, and Commonwealth Preschool Partnership Initiative (CPPI), she said. The state also has Head Start programs, which the Trump administraion has proposed cutting in a proposal to Congress.
Friedman-Krauss said the Head Start program helps about 8,000 children aged 3 and 4 from some of the poorest families in the state.
'It's a fragile ecosystem,' she said. 'Cutting funding will impact programs state and nationwide.'
The state's CPPI program does a great job already at providing comprehensive and culturally sensitive education to preschoolers, according to the report. It also ensures that class sizes don't exceed 20 students.
Still, there are some areas for improvement, Friedman-Krauss said.
'Massachusetts should try to stick with one program model,' she said.
Neighboring Vermont is a leader in early education, according to the report, which enrolled 76% of 4-year-olds and 58% of 3-year-olds.
'When states invest in quality education, they can see returns on their investments. When they don't, the children are impacted,' she said.
After Holyoke condemns office building, owner fights back in court
NY developers to build affordable housing at former Facemate building in Chicopee
Marking 48 Mass. workplace deaths in past year-plus, advocates fear the cost of deregulation
WMass Governor's Councilor solicits public feedback on 2 judicial nominees
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
We follow the money in politics, and the trail just keeps getting longer
According to the nature of our economy, it's typical that costs increase over time (hello, inflation). But what we're seeing in elections cannot be considered normal. The Pew Research Center recently asked Americans to list which issues are the biggest problems facing the economy right now. Seventy-two percent said the role of money in politics is a 'very big problem' — landing it the foremost spot above health care costs, inflation, the federal deficit, poverty and every other issue. This is significant. While candidates for Congress and the presidency quibble over who gets access to power, moneyed interests continue to creep into the system, making elections costlier than ever. Sometimes it starts to feel like a contest just for the contest's sake. Let's take a look at the numbers. Just three presidential cycles ago, in 2016, the total cost of all federal elections rang in at $6.5 billion, a (relatively) modest increase from 2012. But four years later, the total cost more than doubled to $15.1 billion and, in 2024, nearly matched that total ($14.8 billion). The U.S. vastly outspends all other nations on elections. The source of money has also changed. Twenty-five years ago, the vast majority of candidates who raised more than $200,000 for general election campaigns collected that money from within their districts from people they would ultimately represent if they won (79 percent of House candidates, 62 percent of Senate candidates). As my organization has reported, congressional elections truly have now become national campaigns, with just 17.6 percent local money in House races and only 27.5 percent in Senate races for 2024. So, while more money is pouring into the U.S. election system than ever before, the traditional relationship between elected officials and those they represent has fallen apart. Thanks to the research done by Unite America, we know that nearly all congressional elections are decided by less than 10 percent of voters. Put those low voter participation rates together with low local fundraising rates, and you end up with elected officials who no longer represent the people. And if our officials are not beholden to their constituents, but rather to partisan forces, we end up with a dysfunctional government. We shouldn't be surprised that the American people have had enough. Amid a more politicized landscape in which partisans are moving increasingly toward the extremes, money in politics is one of the few issues that both sides of the aisle can agree on — with 66 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats citing it as a very big problem. And yet, our leaders appear uninterested in changing a system that helps them stay in power. In every Congress, a handful of lawmakers have introduced legislation to reform the role of money in politics, but none of those bills have any chance at becoming law. In fact, a meaningful campaign finance law has not been enacted since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was signed in 2002 — nearly a quarter-century ago. Since then, the courts have eaten away at the restrictions created by the law, clearing the way for super PACs and the untraceable ' dark money ' funds that support them. And then there's the Federal Election Commission, which is tasked with regulating campaign fundraising and expenditures in line with current law, enforcing the rules and punishing those who break the law. But even in the best of times, the FEC rarely takes action. When fully staffed, it has three Republican and three Democratic commissioners, leading to partisan gridlock. But deadlocked votes would be a welcome change from what we are facing now. In order to take action, the FEC requires a quorum of four commissioners. Right now it only has three, so it cannot complete most of its core functions. That leaves the judiciary as the only branch of government considering changes to campaign finance laws. All eyes are on Maine, where voters overwhelmingly approved a 2024 ballot measure setting caps on contributions to super PACs. Opponents have sued to overturn the measure, and the case has been teed up for a federal district court's review. It is likely to end up before the Supreme Court in the next couple years, in what will likely be the most significant ruling on money in politics since Citizens United. Before that case makes it to the high court, the justices may consider another campaign finance case. Current law limits how much money party committees can spend in coordination with candidates' campaign committees. That law is being challenged and the case could be heard this fall. While all this is happening (or, at the FEC, not happening), political operatives are already gearing up for the next elections and strategizing how to raise as much money as possible. If nothing changes, the dollars will only get bigger, and voters will be even more dissatisfied. We deserve better.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House cryptocurrency adviser Bo Hines joins Tether
Tether, the world's largest stablecoin company, has appointed former White House cryptocurrency adviser Bo Hines, the company said Tuesday morning. Hines will be helping Tether establish a foothold in the US after stepping down from his role as executive director of the president's Council of Advisers on Digital Assets earlier this month. A former college football player who twice ran unsuccessfully for Congress in North Carolina, 29-year-old Hines was tasked with helping the president early in his second term deliver on the major campaign promise he has since reiterated many times to turn the US into the "crypto capital of the world." During Hines's roughly 28 weeks as a White House cryptocurrency adviser, the Trump administration organized the first White House crypto summit, spurred Congress to pass the first bill regulating dollar-pegged stablecoins, and published a policy-setting report on digital assets late last month. Hines was "instrumental in advancing initiatives to foster innovation in digital assets, develop clear guardrails for stablecoin issuers, and build collaborative relationships between government and the blockchain industry," Tether CEO Paolo Ardoino said in post on X. As a strategic adviser for Tether's digital assets and US strategy, Hines will "collaborate closely with Tether's leadership team to shape and execute the company's U.S. market entry, cultivating constructive relationships with policymakers and industry stakeholders," according to Tether's announcement. Tether is based in El Salvador. After facing regulatory restrictions from the New York state attorney general and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2021, the company has retreated from the US cryptocurrency market. Read more: Can you buy crypto with a credit card? See the pros and cons. Though foreign issuers aren't permitted to offer stablecoins in the US under new legislation, Ardoino has been sighted visiting the White House this year. He said last month in an interview with Bloomberg TV that Tether's US strategy is "well in progress." "During my time in public service, I witnessed firsthand the transformative potential of stablecoins to modernize payments and increase financial inclusion," Hines said in a statement attached to Tether's announcement release. "I'm thrilled to join Tether at such a pivotal moment," he added. With big support for the crypto world, President Trump has already pushed the once-niche area of finance into uncharted territory. Key federal regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Office of the Comptroller, and the Federal Reserve, have been lifting the barriers between cryptocurrency and the rest of the financial world. Earlier this month, Trump signed an executive order paving the way for bitcoin and other digital assets to be included in retirement accounts for millions of Americans. That's a huge reversal from the more hostile stance taken by these same agencies during the Biden era, which has helped the crypto world boom. It has gained a staggering $1.8 trillion in total market capitalization over the past year, according to CoinMarketCap data. Read more: Experts advise caution in adding private assets like crypto to 401(k)s But the crypto industry's biggest win so far from Trump 2.0 has come from the passage of dollar-pegged stablecoin legislation, which Trump signed into law in July. Known as the GENIUS Act, this piece of legislation outlines how US companies can issue and manage dollar-backed stablecoins for payments, giving those digital assets a massive stamp of approval that is expected to encourage wider adoption. One key beneficiary of the new legislation and longtime rival of Tether, Circle (CRCL), issuer of the world's second-largest stablecoin, USDC (USDC-USD), had a blockbuster IPO on June 5. Circle has applied for a national trust bank charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Along with fintech firm Stripe ( Circle recently announced plans to launch its own blockchain for stablecoin payments. By circulating market capitalization, Tether's USDT is the most widely used stablecoin, more than twice the size of Circle's USDC. Though Tether is far and away the most widely used stablecoin, its critics have alleged that in the past, the company hasn't offered as much transparency as other issuers. In October 2021, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission charged Tether and affiliate exchange Bitfinex with "making untrue or misleading statements and omissions of material fact" for how it backed USDT between 2016 and 2019. While neither admitting nor denying the wrongdoing, Tether paid $42 million to settle the claim. It has since said that the issues have been addressed. David Hollerith is a senior reporter for Yahoo Finance covering banking, crypto, and other areas in finance. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ex-congressman Tim Ryan eyes Ohio comeback with 2026 gubernatorial run
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — Former Ohio congressman Tim Ryan is eyeing a 2026 campaign for governor, now that fellow Democrat Sherrod Brown has opted out of the race to run for U.S. Senate. Brown, who lost his U.S. Senate seat last fall and who sources said was mulling a gubernatorial bid, has entered the 2026 race against Republican Sen. Jon Husted. Ryan's spokesperson said in a statement, 'Brown's decision to run for the U.S. Senate has renewed and heightened Tim Ryan's interest in running for governor to further serve the people of Ohio.' Watch a previous NBC4 report on Ryan's possible gubernatorial run in the video player above. Should Ryan enter the race, he will be vying for the Democratic nomination against former Ohio Department of Health Director Dr. Amy Acton, who announced her run in January and has since raised about $1.4 million. Acton boasts endorsements from state Senate Minority Leader Nickie Antonio, political action committee 314 Action, and Cincinnati Vice Mayor Jan-Michele Kearney. Jon Husted sitting on $2.6 million for 2026 U.S. Senate race In a previous interview with NBC4, state Sen. Bill DeMora (D-Columbus) said Brown or Ryan 'are the only two people that can win for governor next year.' DeMora claimed the Democratic party's candidates for other statewide offices, like attorney general and secretary of state, 'will come out of the woodwork' once Ryan declares his candidacy. 'We need to get a good candidate, and again, I've always said Sherrod Brown or Tim Ryan,' DeMora said. '[Democrats have] great candidates who right now are a little skittish about running because they don't think that the person at top of the ticket can win statewide right now. So, I'm hoping that one of those two decides to run.' A 2026 run for governor would act as a comeback for Ryan, who served in the U.S. Congress for Ohio's 13th and 17th districts from 2003 to 2023 until unsuccessfully running for the U.S. Senate in 2022 against now Vice President J.D. Vance. That Democratic primary saw Ryan beat former Obama consumer protection official Morgan Harper and Columbus activist Traci Johnson. Ryan teased a possible run for the governor's mansion in a May NBC4 interview, where he said Ohio Democrats need to rebrand. He argued a majority of the state's voters agree with the party's ideas, pointing to Democrat-led constitutional amendments that passed in 2023 legalizing recreational marijuana and protecting access to abortion. The Spectrum: Bipartisanship in Congress; job interview registry 'On many of the issues, the people of Ohio are aligned with Democrats,' Ryan said. 'But, then you put the 'D' by the name and say, 'Oh, this person is going to go work with Chuck Schumer,' then the whole dialogue changes at that point, so I think we need a complete rebrand.' The Democratic primary's winner will likely face Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire and 2024 presidential candidate who began his run in February and has raised $9.7 million, setting a record for the largest first-quarter fundraising total in Ohio history. He touts endorsements from Ohio's Republican Party, political action committee Ohio Corn & Wheat, and President Donald Trump. Republican Heather Hill, an entrepreneur from Appalachia, tossed her name in the race but has struggled to gain traction. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost announced his bid in January, then dropped out in May and has since supported Ramaswamy. Lt. Gov. Jim Tressel, who replaced Husted as the state's second in command, is also said to be considering a run. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
