State school officials preparing new proficiency exam
The state's top education official told lawmakers Monday that implementation of a new computerized exam could start next spring. (Courtesy of the New Jersey Governor's Office)
State education officials are working to launch a new computerized student proficiency exam that could be implemented as early as next year, Education Commissioner Kevin Dehmer told the Assembly Budget Committee Monday.
Dehmer told the budget panel he expects the department to begin implementing the new assessment in the spring of 2026, adding that its electronic nature will allow for speedier data analysis that could help educators address underperformance on specific topics and subjects.
'One of the big things is we're able to gain more information with less seat time, and because of the accessibility of data, we can translate that back so that teachers can focus on core areas for students so they understand where students might be struggling,' he said.
The electronic test, referred to only as 'next-gen' or the 'next generation assessment' Monday, could also be tailored to student performance, allowing more advanced students to tackle tougher questions.
Less advanced students could see simpler questions, Dehmer said, to better identify areas in need of improvement.
'Maybe it's with a certain teacher. It comes out they didn't emphasize something enough, they can go back and change how they're doing things to make sure students are picking that subject matter up a little bit better,' the commissioner said.
The changes would come as schools are fighting to overcome learning losses incurred during the pandemic.
Results from the New Jersey Student Learning Assessment released in December showed some improvement in math and English test scores, but proficiency continued to lag behind prepandemic levels in both subjects.
That year, 52% of tested students met or exceeded expectations on the English language arts exam, compared to 58% in 2019, while 40% met or exceeded expectations on the math assessment, compared to 45% five years earlier.
Some committee member raised concerns about proposed changes to the state's school funding formula that would allow and incentivize districts raising too little locally to seek higher property tax increases to meet their fair share — the portion of funding a school district is responsible for raising through property taxes.
'Our fear … is that we allow that to happen just for one year, which was last year, and then this kind of opens the gate to something else that we really don't have control of, of how much a district may be able to raise. It puts us in a precarious position,' said Assemblywoman Eliana Pintor Marin (D-Essex), the panel's chair.
As lawmakers move to finalize a new state budget by June 30, Gov. Phil Murphy has proposed a $20 million pool of funding to encourage districts taxing beneath their local fair share to seek tax increases above the state's 2% cap on property tax growth. Murphy also wants to limit decreases in state aid to 3% and increases to 6%.
Under budget language proposed by the administration, districts that raise taxes above the 2% cap would receive $1 million or 5% of the tax increase that fell above the cap, whichever is less.
In recent weeks, some school districts have proposed staggering property tax increases, but Dehmer, speaking generally, said such plans could overstate the level of tax increases a district would eventually seek.
'What they chose to do was say, 'We're going to pass a resolution for the maximum amount, and we're going to work through this from there,'' Dehmer said. 'I think there was some reporting on those resolutions saying, 'We're going to go up this high,' and that may not be the final version that comes to pass.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
3 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Satellite Images Show Giant Port Emerge at World's Biggest Construction Site
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Satellite imagery showed advances in construction of Oxagon, a floating industrial complex that is a key component of Saudi Arabia's Neom, currently the world's largest construction site. Newsweek has contacted Neom for comment. Why It Matters The new port city has a strategic location in one of the world's busiest maritime trade routes connecting Asia, Africa, and Europe. Neom is the flagship element of Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 aimed at diversifying its economy away from oil dependence. Oxagon, The Line and the Trojena Ski resort are among its most ambitious pieces. Neom has recently announced several progress reports, with a new CEO now in charge of resolving the project's budget overruns and delays amid multiple simultaneous, ambitious, and costly projects. What To Know Images captured by the Copernicus Sentinel-2 satellites showed rapid progress made on Oxagon city and port, set to become one of the world's most advanced port terminals, the facility lies on the Red Sea in northwestern Saudi Arabia. Drag slider compare photos The Port of NEOM has received Saudi Arabia's first fully automated, remote-controlled cranes, marking a key step in boosting Red Sea trade, automation, and tech-driven job creation, the company announced this week on LinkedIn. The Red Sea corridor is a major shipping route linking Asia via the Indian Ocean, to Europe and Africa via the Suez Canal. Oxagon's proximity to the canal, which facilitates almost 12% of global trade, provides it with a strategic edge, according to Blackridge Research & Consulting, an Indian-based specialized market research firm. The port is part of an envisioned cutting-edge industrial city which will fully rely on renewable energy and aims to host some 90,000 inhabitants by 2030, according to the government's vision. Update🚨: Recent images posted by Giles Pendleton (Chief Operating Officer THE LINE at NEOM | Chief Development Officer) of Oxagon, showing immense progress in infrastructure works + Oxagon village is about to have more construction work coming as the site being prepared. — Saud (@Saudfromabove) April 13, 2025 Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman had announced the establishment of Oxagon in 2021. "It will contribute to Saudi Arabia's regional trade and commerce, and support creating a new focal point for global trade flows," Al-Arabiya's English website quoted him as saying. Neom's Green Hydrogen Company (NGHC) is developing the world's largest green hydrogen facility—a $8.4 billion project— at Oxagon. What People Are Saying Melissa Blake, Port Director at Neom wrote on Linkedin: "Port of Neom is excited to receive the first batch of cranes and other cargo handling equipment as we come another step closer to delivering our vision." Saudi Arabia's Government Vision 2030's website: "Sitting at the crossroads of 3 continents, Oxagon is a place where people, nature and technology come together in harmony." Vishal Wanchoo, CEO of Oxagon said in May: "Industrial development cannot continue at the expense of people or the environment. We're offering a compact, mixed-use city where industry, nature, and community coexist." What Happens Next The port is planned to act as the main trade gateway to northwestern Saudi Arabia, with a smart logistics hub, connects Asia, Europe, and Africa.
Hamilton Spectator
4 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Global streamers fight CRTC's rule requiring them to fund Canadian content
OTTAWA - Some of the world's biggest streaming companies will argue in court on Monday that they shouldn't have to make CRTC-ordered financial contributions to Canadian content and news. The companies are fighting an order from the federal broadcast regulator that says they must pay five per cent of their annual Canadian revenues to funds devoted to producing Canadian content, including local TV news. The case, which consolidates several appeals by streamers, will be heard by the Federal Court of Appeal in Toronto. Apple, Amazon and Spotify are fighting the CRTC's 2024 order. Motion Picture Association-Canada, which represents such companies as Netflix and Paramount, is challenging a section of the CRTC's order requiring them to contribute to local news. In December, the court put a pause on the payments — estimated to be at least $1.25 million annually per company. Amazon, Apple and Spotify had argued that if they made the payments and then won the appeal and overturned the CRTC order, they wouldn't be able to recover the money. In court documents, the streamers put forward a long list of arguments on why they shouldn't have to pay, including technical points regarding the CRTC's powers under the Broadcasting Act. Spotify argued that the contribution requirement amounts to a tax, which the CRTC doesn't have the authority to impose. The music streamer also took issue with the CRTC requiring the payments without first deciding how it will define Canadian content. Amazon argued the federal cabinet specified the CRTC's requirements have to be 'equitable.' It said the contribution requirement is 'inequitable because it applies only to foreign online undertakings and only to such undertakings with more than $25 million in annual Canadian broadcasting revenues.' Apple also said the regulator 'acted prematurely' and argued the CRTC didn't consider whether the order was 'equitable.' It pointed out Apple is required to contribute five per cent, while radio stations must only pay 0.5 per cent — and streamers don't have the same access to the funds into which they pay. The CRTC imposes different rules on Canadian content contributions from traditional media players. It requires large English-language broadcasters to contribute 30 per cent of revenues to Canadian programming. Motion Picture Association—Canada is only challenging one aspect of the CRTC's order — the part requiring companies to contribute 1.5 per cent of revenues to a fund for local news on independent TV stations. It said in court documents that none of the streamers 'has any connection to news production' and argued the CRTC doesn't have the authority to require them to fund news. 'What the CRTC did, erroneously, is purport to justify the … contribution simply on the basis that local news is important and local news operations provided by independent television stations are short of money,' it said. 'That is a reason why news should be funded by someone, but is devoid of any analysis, legal or factual, as to why it is equitable for foreign online undertakings to fund Canadian news production.' In its response, the Canadian Association of Broadcasters said the CRTC has wide authority under the Broadcasting Act. It argued streamers have contributed to the funding crisis facing local news. 'While the industry was once dominated by traditional television and radio services, those services are now in decline, as Canadians increasingly turn to online streaming services,' the broadcasters said. 'For decades, traditional broadcasting undertakings have supported the production of Canadian content through a complex array of CRTC-directed measures … By contrast, online undertakings have not been required to provide any financial support to the Canadian broadcasting system, despite operating here for well over a decade.' A submission from the federal government in defence of the CRTC argued the regulator was within its rights to order the payments. 'The orders challenged in these proceedings … are a valid exercise of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission's regulatory powers. These orders seek to remedy the inequity that has resulted from the ascendance of online streaming giants like the Appellants,' the office of the attorney general said. 'Online undertakings have greatly profited from their access to Canadian audiences, without any corresponding obligation to make meaningful contributions supporting Canadian programming and creators — an obligation that has long been imposed on traditional domestic broadcasters.' The government said that if the streamers get their way, that would preserve 'an inequitable circumstance in which domestic broadcasters — operating in an industry under economic strain — shoulder a disproportionate regulatory burden.' 'This result would be plainly out of step with the policy aims of Parliament' and cabinet, it added. The court hearing comes as trade tensions between the U.S. and Canada have cast a shadow over the CRTC's attempts to regulate online streamers. The regulator launched a suite of proceedings and hearings as part of its implementation of the Online Streaming Act, legislation that in 2023 updated the Broadcasting Act to set up the CRTC to regulate streaming companies. In January, as U.S. President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term, groups representing U.S. businesses and big tech companies warned the CRTC that its efforts to modernize Canadian content rules could worsen trade relations and lead to retaliation. Then, as the CRTC launched its hearing on modernizing the definition of Canadian content in May, Netflix, Paramount and Apple cancelled their individual appearances. While the companies didn't provide a reason, the move came shortly after Trump threatened to impose a tariff of up to 100 per cent on movies made outside the United States. Foreign streamers have long pointed to their existing spending in Canada in response to calls to bring them into the regulated system. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 8, 2025.
