Voters in Nebraska voted against using public funds to pay for private schools.

LINCOLN — Voters on Tuesday resoundingly rejected Nebraska’s new school voucher or scholarship program, steering public dollars spent to public schools.

Supporters of using state tax dollars to offset the costs of a private K-12 education have argued that families unhappy with their public schools need more options.

But rural and urban supporters of public schools, the Nebraska State Education Association and private foundations supporting public schools won the day.

Tim Royers, president of the Nebraska State Education Association, said he was proud to see right- and left-leaning counties agree that vouchers were the wrong choice.

“It confirms what we knew, the majority of Nebraskans don’t want public dollars going to private schools,” Royers said. “What really stood out to me is the consistency.”

Royers hopes state senators move on

Royers said he is hopeful that state senators will follow the will of the voters and move onto other more pressing issues in education that teachers and parents can work on together.

Support Our Schools argued that diverting even small amounts of public money toward private K-12 schools with a scholarship program or vouchers risked long-term support for public education.

They pointed to the experiences in other states with voucher programs, including neighboring Iowa, which has seen the national rankings of its public schools slide since that program began.

They argued that school choice programs typically end up largely benefiting the people already making the choice to send their children to private schools.

And they said such programs risked creating greater concentrations of poverty in some schools by draining them of students who often act as stabilizing force

Everyone knew it would be a close election. Few anticipated Trump’s sweeping victory over Kamala Harris. The New York Times editorial board endorsed Kamala Harris. This is their next-day reaction.

By 

American voters have made the choice to return Donald Trump to the White House, setting the nation on a precarious course that no one can fully foresee.

The founders of this country recognized the possibility that voters might someday elect an authoritarian leader and wrote safeguards into the Constitution, including powers granted to two other branches of government designed to be a check on a president who would bend and break laws to serve his own ends. And they enacted a set of rights — most crucially the First Amendment — for citizens to assemble, speak and protest against the words and actions of their leader.

Over the next four years, Americans must be cleareyed about the threat to the nation and its laws that will come from its 47th president and be prepared to exercise their rights in defense of the country and the people, laws, institutions and values that have kept it strong.

It can’t be ignored that millions of Americans voted for a candidate even some of his closest supporters acknowledge to be deeply flawed — convinced that he was more likely to change and fix what they regarded as the nation’s urgent problems: high prices, an infusion of immigrants, a porous southern border and economic policies that have flowed unequally through society. Some cast their votes out of a profound dissatisfaction with the status quo, politics or the state of American institutions more broadly.

Whatever drove this decision among these voters, however, all Americans should now be wary of an incoming Trump administration that is likely to put a top priority on amassing unchecked power and punishing its perceived enemies, both of which Mr. Trump has repeatedly vowed to do. All Americans, regardless of their party or politics, should insist that the fundamental pillars of the nation’s democracy — including constitutional checks and balances, fair-minded federal prosecutors and judges, an impartial election system and basic civil rights — be preserved against an assault that he has already begun and has said he would continue.

At this point, there can be no illusions about who Donald Trump is and how he intends to govern. He showed us in his first term and in the years after he left office that he has no respect for the law, let alone the values, norms and traditions of democracy. As he takes charge of the world’s most powerful state, he is transparently motivated only by the pursuit of power and the preservation of the cult of personality he has built around himself. These stark assessments are striking in part because they are held not just by his critics but also by those who served most closely with him.

We are a nation that has always emerged from a crucible with its ideals intact and often toughened and sharpened. The institutions of our government, hardened by nearly 250 years of disputation, turmoil, assassinations and wars, held firm when Mr. Trump assailed them four years ago. And Americans know how to counter Mr. Trump’s worst instincts — actions that were unjust, immoral or illegal — because they did so, over and over, during his first administration. Civil servants, members of Congress, members of his own party and people he appointed to high office often stood in the way of the former president’s plans, and other institutions of our society, including the free press and independent law enforcement agencies, held him accountable to the public.

Mr. Trump and his movement have all but taken over the Republican Party. Yet it is also important to remember that Mr. Trump can’t run for another term. From the day he enters the White House, he will be, in effect, a lame-duck president. The Constitution limits him to two terms. Congress has the power — and for some ambitious Republicans, perhaps the political incentive — to set a course away from Mr. Trump’s antidemocratic agenda, if it chooses to pursue it.

Governors and legislatures across the nation have spent months shoring up their state laws and Constitutions to protect civil rights and liberties, including access to reproductive and gender-affirming health care. Even states that voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump, including Kentucky, Ohio and Kansas, have rejected the most extreme positions on abortion. Other institutions of American civil society will play a crucial role in challenging the Trump administration in the courts, in our communities and in the protests that are sure to return.

The rest of the world, too, has no illusions about the leader who will soon again represent the United States on the world stage. The countries of the NATO alliance were shocked, during the first Trump administration, by his willingness to undermine that long and valuable partnership. But European nations, defying Mr. Trump’s predictions, not only came together with the United States in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but also expanded their ranks right up to Russia’s border.

For the Democratic Party, rear-guard action as the political opposition will not be enough. The party must also take a hard look at why it lost the election. It took too long to recognize that President Biden was not capable of running for a second term. It took too long to recognize that large swaths of their progressive agenda were alienating voters, including some of the most loyal supporters of their party. And Democrats have struggled for three elections now to settle on a persuasive message that resonates with Americans from both parties who have lost faith in the system — which pushed skeptical voters toward the more obviously disruptive figure, even though a large majority of Americans acknowledge his serious faults. If the Democrats are to effectively oppose Mr. Trump, it must be not just through resisting his worst impulses but also by offering a vision of what they would do to improve the lives of all Americans and respond to anxieties that people have about the direction of the country and how they would change it.

The test for members of this new Congress will begin soon after they take their oath. The president-elect has promised to surround himself in his second term with enablers prepared to pledge loyalty to him, who will be willing to do whatever he commands. But a president needs the Senate to approve many of those appointments. Senators can stop the most extreme or unqualified candidates from taking cabinet positions like defense secretary and attorney general, as well as seats on the Supreme Court and the federal bench. They can act to keep clearly unfit candidates from holding any powerful position. The Senate did that in 2020, when it blocked Mr. Trump’s attempts to seat unqualified people on the board of the Federal Reserve, and the chamber should not hesitate to do so again.

Perhaps the most important responsibility lies with all of those who will serve in a second Trump administration. Those he appoints as attorney general, as secretary of defense and to other top leadership roles should expect that he may ask them to carry out illegal acts or violate their oaths to the Constitution on his behalf, as he did in his first term. We urge them to recognize that whatever pledge of loyalty he may demand, their first loyalty is to their country. Standing up to Mr. Trump is possible, and it is the duty of every American public servant when appropriate.

But the final responsibility for ensuring the continuity of America’s enduring values lies with its voters. Those who supported Mr. Trump in this election should closely observe his conduct in office to see if it matches their hopes and expectations, and if it does not, they should make their disappointment known and cast votes in the 2026 midterms and in 2028 to put the country back on course. Those who opposed him should not hesitate to raise alarms when he abuses his power, and if he attempts to use government power to retaliate against critics, the world will be watching.

Benjamin Franklin famously admonished the American people that the nation was “a republic, if you can keep it.” Mr. Trump’s election poses a grave threat to that republic, but he will not determine the long-term fate of American democracy. That outcome remains in the hands of the American people. It is the work of the next four 

Voters in Houston turned down a much-needed $4.4 billion bond issue to renovate and upgrade schools. The vote was widely viewed as a rebuke of the state takeover, which ended democratic control of the schools, and of state-imposed Superintendent Mike Miles.

Houston ISD Superintendent Mike Miles called voters’ rejection of the district’s proposed $4.4 billion school bond — the largest school bond in Texas history —  “unfortunate and wrong” in a statement Tuesday.

Miles conceded the bond election after approximately 60% of the roughly 350,000 voters who cast early or mail-in ballots voted against both propositions of the proposal, according to preliminary early election returns from the Harris County Clerk’s Office. HISD has made history as Texas voters have never rejected a proposed school bond measure exceeding $1 billion…

The district’s bond proposal was split into two propositions. Proposition A would have allocated $3.96 billion for school building renovations and expansions, including safety and security infrastructure, while Proposition B would have spent $440 million for technology equipment, systems and infrastructure.

HISD aimed to spend $2.3 billion for rebuilding and renovating 43 schools and $1 billion for lead remediationsecurity upgrades and HVAC improvements. The district planned to spend $1.1 billion to expand pre-K, build three new career and technical education centers and make technology upgrades without raising taxes if the bond passed…

The rejection of the district’s first school bond campaign in 12 years follows a vocal, monthslong grassroots opposition effort, where bond opponents encouraged people to vote against the bond due to the state takeover and a lack of trust in Miles and the Board of Managers.

Lisa Lerer of The New York Times told readers what to expect after Trump’s victory.

Donald Trump told Americans exactly what he planned to do.

He would use military force against his political opponents. He would fire thousands of career public servants. He would deport millions of immigrants in military-style roundups. He would crush the independence of the Department of Justice, use government to push public health conspiracies and abandon America’s allies abroad. He would turn the government into a tool of his own grievances, a way to punish his critics and richly reward his supporters. He would be a “dictator” — if only on Day 1.

And, when asked to give him the power to do all of that, the voters said yes.

This was a conquering of the nation not by force but with a permission slip. Now, America stands on the precipice of an authoritarian style of governance never before seen in its 248-year history. 

After defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, who would have become the first female U.S. president, Mr. Trump will bring his own historic firsts into the White House: the only president convicted of dozens of crimes, accused of dozens more and twice impeached.

So Trump won. In state after state, Harris got fewer votes than Biden in 2020.

Once Trump won Pennsylvania, the race was over.

She brought joy and the promise of bipartisanship to the race. Voters rejected her optimism and chose the glowering, angry man.

I am frankly frightened for the future.

Trump’s victory may be the death knell for NATO. It certainly is the end of US support for Ukraine in its fight for freedom. It’s great news for Putin. It may mean high tariffs and more inflation. It may mean the repeal of Obamacare, leaving millions of people without health insurance. It may mean the roundup of 10-15 million immigrants–men, women, and children; the erection of thousands of detention camps to hold them; and mass deportations. It may mean the prosecution of Trump’s “enemies”: Joe Biden; Kamala Harris; Nancy Pelosi; Liz Cheney; and anyone else he chooses. It surely means a pardon for the J6 insurrectionists.

I didn’t expect that voters would choose a 78-year-old man who built his campaign around fear and hatred: racism, misogyny, homophobia, and xenophobia; a man who tried to overturn the 2020 election by inciting an insurrection; a man who lies incessantly.

One piece of great news in an otherwise nerve wracking evening: Voters in Kentucky voted 65% to 35% against vouchers. This victory for public schools follows a long line of similar successes in every other voucher referendum.

A possible bit of good news is that Mo Green was beating Michelle Morrow in the race for North Carolina Superintendent of Public Instruction. Of 5.5 million votes counted, Green was ahead by about 130,000 votes. Green is an experienced educator. Morrow is a home schooling mother and a rightwing extremist. She is noted for saying she wanted to see Barack Obama executed on pay-per-view TV. Frankly, given how little she knows about the schools and how far-out her views are, it’s shocking that she won almost half the votes.

In Massachusetts, voters overwhelmingly banned future use of the MCAS as a high school graduation requirement. The last number I saw was 87%.

If there is any good news in your neck of the woods, please let me know.

Catherine Martinez reports about Florida:

Voters in Florida rejected a constitutional amendment put on the ballot by the state legislature to change school board election from non-partisan to partisan.

Janice Strauss wrote:

Good news coming from NY’s 19th Congressional District (mostly the Southern Tier area of NYS): local hometown graduate, Josh Riley, beat MAGA Marc Molinaro for Congress. Josh accepted no PAC money, he is very pro-public schools, and included many of his former teachers in numerous campaign activities.

Wtiting on the MSNBC website, experienced journalist Molly Jong-Fast says that women can’t risk another Trump term. The issue that will be decisive, she believes, is reproductive rights. Women had them for 50 years, then Trump’s Supreme Court abolished them. Never before has the Supreme Court taken rights away.

She writes:

In 2016, in her presidential campaign against Donald TrumpHillary Clinton prophesied, “In a single term, the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement, and as someone who has worked on every single one of these issues for decades, I see this as a make-or-break moment.” Trump, of course, was elected and proceeded to appoint three justices to the Supreme Court, thus positioning a conservative-majority Supreme Court to rubber-stamp the most arrant conservative nonsense. And top of that Republican wish list was overturning the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade.

Now, in 2024, we’re seeing what happens when women’s bodily autonomy is threatened and stripped away. We’re seeing a striking gender gap when it comes to support for Vice President Kamala Harris and Trump, with early voting polls showing a 10-percentage-point gender gap. And when we look at the policies Trump has helped enact versus the promises Harris has pledged, it’s no mystery why.

Before Roe was struck down, and seemingly as a trial run, in 2021 Texas passed Senate Bill 8, which made abortion after six weeks illegal in Texas. The Supreme Court had a chance to stop the law on the shadow docket. The justices declined, a harbinger of things to come. A year later, the Supreme Court overturned the law that codified abortion.

A sea of trigger laws written for this eventuality followed; some red states banned abortion as quickly as they could. Republicans wrote bills that banned abortion broadly, with little or no cutout for the life of the woman. The idea was simple: make doctors afraid to treat. Texas courts have several times rejected requests to provide specificity about the health exception. 

In Louisiana not only can you not get an abortion; you may struggle just to get first-trimester pregnancy care. “We were stunned by just how much regular medical practice for pregnant people has been disrupted,” Michele Heisler, the medical director of Physicians for Human Rights, told NPR. Elsewhere in the country, things are looking similarly bleak. According to a 2023 report from The New York Times, “All told, more than a dozen labor and delivery doctors — including five of Idaho’s nine longtime maternal-fetal experts — will have either left or retired by the end of this year.” Medical care for women is under threat, and it extends far beyond what’s traditionally discussed as abortion, especially by Republicans who demonize an entire category of lifesaving health care. 

After Roe was overturned, a lot of us were sure this would mean women would die. We were told we were being hysterical. But “the SB 8 effect” was real.According to Nancy L. Cohen, president of the Gender Equity Policy Institute, “There’s only one explanation for this staggering difference in maternal mortality. All the research points to Texas’ abortion ban as the primary driver of this alarming increase.” And it wasn’t just pregnant women who died. Infant mortality also increased by about 13%, according to a study from Johns Hopkins, which also stated, “This suggests that SB 8 was driving this increase in infant mortality.” It’s now three years later. Women have died. 

In the one election since the fall of Roe, the 2022 midterm election, there was warning of a red wave, projecting that Republicans planned to compensate for Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. 

But Republicans underperformed, and Democrats kept the Senate and almost kept the House. Two years later, conservative pundits wishcasted that women have gotten over losing that constitutional right. But evidence supports the theory that if anything, women are more enraged than ever.

Brian Stelter was CNN’s media critic for many years. He had a regular show called “Reliable Sources.” CNN went through a period of reorganization, and he was fired. The reorganization was a failure, CNN leadership changed. Brian was rehired. He now again writes and reports for CNN.

He wrote today:

Quick – choose a memorable moment from this presidential election year. What did you pick? Maybe Jake Tapper and Dana Bash‘s CNN presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump? Maybe Kamala Harris‘s DNC convention speech, or Trump’s sit-down with Joe Rogan, or his garbage truck photo op? This campaign has been chock full of made-for-TV spectacles and surprises.

But if I had to pick just one moment, I’d choose the day in August when Trump claimed that the VP’s very real crowd was faked. “She ‘A.I.’d’ it, and showed a massive ‘crowd’ of so-called followers, BUT THEY DIDN’T EXIST!” Trump falsely shouted on Truth Social.

The episode encapsulated so much about this election. Trump’s use of social media to spread conspiracy theories; an insistence on creating his own reality; a disbelief that his Democratic rival could draw a big crowd at all; a disregard for the fact-checkers who debunked his post. 

Plus, I bet many of you have already forgotten about AI-crowd-size-gate. That’s been another trademark feature of this campaign: exhaustion! 

Reality itself has been contested during this election year. “The refusal to accept basic, verifiable facts has some observers concerned about a repeat of 2020 false claims of a stolen election if Trump loses,” NPR wrote while debunking Trump’s crowd size lie. It can be incredibly dispiriting for journalists. Imagine trying to convince a skeptic that the Harris rally you covered did, in fact, have a crowd. But it also reaffirms the importance of journalism to vet and verify information.

 >> One last point: Trump was scratching at something deep when he said the Harris crowd “didn’t exist.” On this Election Day, some Trump fans find it unfathomable that Harris could win. Frankly, it’s also true that some Harris fans find it hard to believe that Trump could regain power. But someone is about to win. This week, America’s TV networks and newswires are like mediators, helping the country accept whatever the result will be.

ProPublica tells the story of 18-year-old Nevaeh Crain. She was pregnant. She was holding a baby shower to celebrate the imminent birth of the baby. At her party, she collapsed in pain. Her mother took her to three different hospitals. The first two sent her away without treating her. The doctors and nurses in Texas hospitals are aware of the draconian abortion ban in Texas; it threatens to harshly punish any medical personnel who are involved in an abortion with loss of their license and as much as 99 years in prison.

Would anyone risk their own life to save the pregnant girl who was screaming in pain?

Nevaeh Crain died because of Texas’ extreme abortion ban. She was killed by politicians and religious zealots. She was killed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. She should be alive.

ProPublica reported:

Candace Fails screamed for someone in the Texas hospital to help her pregnant daughter. “Do something,” she pleaded, on the morning of Oct. 29, 2023.

Nevaeh Crain was crying in pain, too weak to walk, blood staining her thighs. Feverish and vomiting the day of her baby shower, the 18-year-old had gone to two different emergency rooms within 12 hours, returning home each time worse than before.

The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps. At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave.

Now on Crain’s third hospital visit, an obstetrician insisted on two ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise,” a nurse wrote, before moving her to intensive care. 

By then, more than two hours after her arrival, Crain’s blood pressure had plummeted and a nurse had noted that her lips were “blue and dusky.” Her organs began failing. 

Hours later, she was dead.

Fails, who would have seen her daughter turn 20 this Friday, still cannot understand why Crain’s emergency was not treated like an emergency. 

But that is what many pregnant women are now facing in states with strict abortion bans, doctors and lawyers have told ProPublica.

“Pregnant women have become essentially untouchables,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor emerita at George Washington University.

Texas’s abortion ban threatens prison time for interventions that end a fetal heartbeat, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. It includes exceptions for life-threatening conditions, but still, doctors told ProPublica that confusion and fear about the potential legal repercussions are changing the way their colleagues treat pregnant patients with complications.

Open the link to continue reading.

Alex Zimmerman of Chalkbeat reported this morning that New York State officials have decided to eliminate the Regents exams as a high school graduation requirement. Voters in Massachusetts today will decide whether to eliminate the MCAS as a graduation requirement.

New York students will no longer be required to pass Regents exams to earn a diploma beginning in the 2027-28 school year, according to a proposed timeline state officials unveiled Monday.

That means current ninth graders may not need to pass the exams to graduate — though students will continue to take them — a shift with significant implications for teaching and learning across New York.

State education officials have been rethinking what it should take to earn a high school diploma in recent years, sketching out a new “portrait of a graduate” that reflects seven areas over which students must show proficiency. Students are expected to have new ways to demonstrate command of those areas, including internships, capstone projects, and community service.

A major part of the overhaul is reducing the role of Regents exams — standardized tests in English, Math, science, and social studies — that high school students must typically pass to graduate. New York is one of a dwindling number of states that use such exams. Research suggests they do little to promote student achievement or raise their earning potential and can lead to higher dropout rates.

Many educators and advocates have cheered the state’s plans to reduce the influence of Regents exams, arguing that they do not adequately assess student’s skills or knowledge, force teachers to focus on memorization, and present unnecessary hurdles for students with disabilities and English learners.

Yet others worry making the exams optional raises the risk that some students, particularly those with greater needs, will be funneled into less rigorous pathways with lower expectations.

State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa acknowledged during Monday’s Board of Regents meeting that the shifts are likely to be contentious. 

“We’re going to have some cases where we agree to disagree respectfully,” she said. Still, “we are so excited about the fact that we are moving forward to ensure that our schools really prepare our students for the very, very best.”

Officials sketched out a timeline on Monday for overhauling graduation standards, a process they indicated will take at least five more years. Though the plans are subject to approval from the Board of Regents, here are some of the key dates that students, educators, and parents should keep in mind.

Later this school year: The ‘portrait of a graduate’ emerges

To graduate from high school under the new standards, New York students will have to demonstrate proficiency in seven key areas: critical thinking, effective communication, cultural and social-emotional competences, innovative problem solving, literacy across content areas, and status as a “global citizen.”

Officials are still in the process of defining each of those areas and translating them into explicit credit requirements students must meet. Those definitions are expected to be released sometime this school year, though full details of the new credit requirements won’t be unveiled until the 2025-26 school year.

The Network for Public Education is the largest organization of parents, activists, educators and students that works to preserve and improve public education. Now in its 11th year, NPE works with organizations in every state to oppose privatization of our public schools, to promote full funding of them, and to support the professionals whose work is crucial to their success.

NPE issued this statement about today’s election

Our endorsement was as much a rejection of Donald J. Trump as it was an embrace of the Harris/Walz pro-public education ticket. There can be no romanticization of the Trump years. His choice of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, a zealot for private school vouchers, damaged the public’s faith and allegiance to public schools. They sought to slash federal education funding in every budget proposal.  Ms. DeVos has made it clear she would be eager to return to the job to dismantle the Department of Education and public education itself.

Earlier this year, the Board of Directors of the Network for Public Education Action endorsed Kamala Harris for President and Tim Walz for Vice President of the United States. 

We respect that public school advocates may or may not agree with our endorsements, and we know those who support public schools disagree on other issues. 

This year, however, we must speak again, urging all, whether progressive, moderate, or conservative in political beliefs, to support the Harris/Walz ticket. The very well-being of our children is at stake.

We have all heard the vitriol directed at immigrants at rallies and even the Presidential debate. Regardless of varying positions on immigration policy, this campaign of hatred and contempt will accelerate and inevitably permeate our schools, which millions of children who come from immigrant households attend. The rhetoric of hate not only affects how children view themselves and their classmates, but it sends the message that hate speech is allowed.

We also know that Trump’s false claims that children are receiving gender transition surgery at school and that public school teachers are “grooming” students are part of a broader anti-public school campaign. But the consequences go beyond the politics of school choice. For some parents, these lies evoke anger and fear. They undermine parents’ trust in teachers and schools. They send a message to children that adults can repeatedly lie without personal consequence and that the liar can even be rewarded with the Presidency.

Some believe the lies, hate speech, and personal attacks are just a part of the campaign. We believe that the election of Donald Trump will not end hateful misinformation and personal attacks, but rather, they will become an integral part of American life. We cannot let that happen. We can return to civil discourse and disagreement.

The stakes are greater than program funding and support. Our children are watching. Our children are learning. They deserve to grow up in a country in which tolerance and respect are the norm, not the demonization of those who are culurally or racially different or who hold a differing point of view.  For the sake of their emotional well-being and the development of their character, Trumpism must end.  We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz on November 5.