Foundations
Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Housing Lessons from Spain
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 24 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:* * *
Housing Lessons from Spain
How not to solve an "affordability" crisis.
By Mark Nayler
Spain's Socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez began 2026 by announcing new measures to combat the country's housing crisis. Speaking on January 12 at the launch of the Campamento project, which will see 10,700 state-owned homes built on a former military site west of Madrid, Sanchez vowed to "continue intervening in the housing market."
New York's new leftist mayor Zohran Mamdani, who took office ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 24 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary: * * * Housing Lessons from Spain How not to solve an "affordability" crisis. By Mark Nayler Spain's Socialist prime minister Pedro Sanchez began 2026 by announcing new measures to combat the country's housing crisis. Speaking on January 12 at the launch of the Campamento project, which will see 10,700 state-owned homes built on a former military site west of Madrid, Sanchez vowed to "continue intervening in the housing market." New York's new leftist mayor Zohran Mamdani, who took officeon January 1, is on a similar crusade, and has promised to "stand up for the residents of this city." In a congratulatory message to Mamdani, Sanchez said that his victory "was a sign of where the energy resides today-with those who offer hope, not fear." Both leaders are on mission to reduce the severity of their respective housing crises-but have they correctly identified the cause of the problem?
Sanchez claims that Spain's property market has become a playground for greedy profiteers, who are denying Spaniards their Constitutional right to housing by pricing them out of markets. The "urgent and decisive" measures that he will pass in the next few weeks include tighter sanctions on tourism rentals and incentives for landlords to rent to long-term tenants, such as a 100% rebate for those who renew leases without raising rates.
Sanchez will push them through via Royal Decree, which means he won't have to secure parliamentary approval-but even this is no guarantee they'll become reality. Twelve of Spain's seventeen autonomous regions-including the major tourist destinations of Andalucia, Madrid, and Valencia-are controlled by the conservative People's Party, which might deem them off-putting for tourists (although Andalusia's government has already given localities the power to limit tourism rentals).
This is not the first time Sanchez has tried to tackle the housing problem, but his previous efforts have missed the mark. Last year he terminated the Golden Visa scheme, which gave automatic Spanish (and EU) residency to foreign nationals purchasing real estate worth at least EUR500,000. But Golden Visa transactions accounted for less than 0.1% of property sales in Spain, so their absence will have hardly any impact.
Sanchez has also proposed a 100% tax on non-EU citizens buying property in Spain, a draconian measure that would discriminate in favor of the 14% of Spaniards who own second homes (the highest such figure in Europe), most of which are only occupied during the summer. Fortunately, this proposal looks unlikely to become law.
Last April, Sanchez also announced that EUR1.3 billion of the EU's Next Generation Covid recovery funds will be spent on building 15,000 new social housing units, cutting construction time by up to 60%. That sounds encouraging, especially as only 3% of Spain's housing stock is social, compared to the European average of 9%.
But the EU has repeatedly expressed concerns about the opacity and lack of efficiency with which Spain has deployed its Next Generation funds. Nor is it guaranteed that the next Spanish government, which could be in place as early as next year, would carry on financing this project. The other obvious solution-incentivizing the construction sector by reducing bureaucracy-has so far not been pursued by Sanchez.
Tourism might have exacerbated Spain's housing problem, but it's not the root cause. The gap between sluggish supply and explosive demand has resulted in a deficit of around 700,000 homes. As a result, rental rates have doubled and house prices risen by 44% since 2020. In its last Financial Stability Report, released in November, the Bank of Spain identified historically low construction levels as a key factor in the deficit.
Another report concluded that, "without the pressures caused by the accumulated housing deficit, house prices across Spain as a whole would have increased by 3.7% per year on average [between 2021 and 2024], rather than the 6% rate observed." Only about 120,000 new homes are being built in Spain every year, a sixth of the rate before the 2008 financial crisis and just over half the number required to satisfy demand, according to a 2024 report.
Still, it's easier to blame tourists. The residents of popular destinations such as Barcelona, Malaga, and the Balearic and Canary Islands have recently staged protests, in some cases firing water pistols at visitors and holding placards telling them to "go home." Regional governments are trying to curb tourism, in the hope that fewer visitors will make local housing more affordable.
Amongst the most stringent measures are Malaga's three-year freeze on tourist rental licenses, and the mayor of Barcelona's promise to eliminate all of the city's 10,000 holiday apartments by 2028 (even though, according to the Barcelona Association of Tourist Apartments, these account for less than 1% of the city's housing).
Wanting to control tourism is an understandable reaction to Spain's housing crisis-but it won't, by itself, solve the problem. Measures that could be perceived as hostile to international visitors are also risky in a country where tourism accounts for around 13% of both GDP and employment. Last year, Spain once again beat its own record, attracting 97 million international visitors and EUR135 billion in tourist spending.
An emerging trend might alleviate some of the strain on coastal hotspots and cities: between 2019 and 2025, visitors to sparsely-populated rural areas in northern and central Spain rose by 60%, compared to 45% in established destinations.
Like Sanchez, Mamdani has a fine line to walk-in his case between landlords and tenants, rather than tourists and residents. About 67% of New Yorkers are renters, over half of whom spend at least 30% of their income on rent every month. The city's landlords also face rising costs and, in many cases, diminished income.
On his first day in office, Mamdani signed three Executive Orders aimed at the city's housing problem: one to reinstate the Office to Protect Tenants, to be headed by Cea Weaver, an activist who in 2017 called home-ownership a "weapon of white supremacy" (a now-deleted tweet that she claims to regret); and two others creating task-forces to speed up construction projects.
Mamdani also wants to freeze rates on the city's one million rent-stabilized properties, home to an estimated 25% of New York's population, and build 200,000 more affordable (i.e., heavily subsidized) units over the next decade. Critics warn, however, that private investors will be deterred from constructing new rent-controlled housing by the prospect of low returns; while New York's public funds, ironically, might be eroded by Mamdani's proposed moratorium on stabilized rent hikes.
Weaver, who played a key role in creating New York's Housing Stability and Tenants Protection Act of 2019, is also divisive, even on the left: some see her as a fearless advocate of renters' rights, while others say she's too radical. According to her critics, the 2019 legislation didn't help tenants-instead, by making renovation unaffordable for landlords, it condemned renters to live in dilapidated and potentially dangerous buildings.
The proposed new housing measures from Sanchez and Mamdani may look promising to struggling renters, aspiring homeowners, and residents of tourist hubs. But the challenge for both leaders is to create more affordable housing without punishing tourists, landlords, or the private sector-because they're all needed as part of the solution.
* * *
Mark Nayler is a freelance journalist based in Malaga, Spain, and writes regularly for The Spectator and Foreign Policy on politics and culture.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/housing-lessons-from-spain/
Southeastern Legal Foundation Files Brief Urging Supreme Court to Stop California's Gender Transition Policies
ROSWELL, Georgia, Jan. 23 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release:* * *
Southeastern Legal Foundation files brief urging Supreme Court to stop California's gender transition policies
Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), recently filed a Supreme Court amicus brief with other organizations supporting families and teachers standing up to California's unconstitutional and outrageous gender transition policies. The state requires schools to hide children's gender transitions from their parents. In one instance, the concealment went so far that one family did not know ... Show Full Article ROSWELL, Georgia, Jan. 23 -- The Southeastern Legal Foundation issued the following news release: * * * Southeastern Legal Foundation files brief urging Supreme Court to stop California's gender transition policies Southeastern Legal Foundation (SLF), recently filed a Supreme Court amicus brief with other organizations supporting families and teachers standing up to California's unconstitutional and outrageous gender transition policies. The state requires schools to hide children's gender transitions from their parents. In one instance, the concealment went so far that one family did not knowtheir daughter was undergoing a gender transition until she attempted to commit suicide. Together with 64 organizations, SLF is supporting parents and teachers asking the Supreme Court for an emergency order stopping California from imposing its dangerous policies any longer.
The group of parents and teachers, represented by Thomas More Society, have asked California and their school districts for religious exemptions from being forced to comply with the state's gender policies. Some parents even expressly requested that their children' schools notify them about their children's requests to change genders. But their requests have gone ignored, forcing them to turn to the Supreme Court for help.
SLF argues in its brief that parents are in charge of their children's upbringing, not schools. And just this past year, the Supreme Court affirmed in Mahmoud v. Taylor that parents have the fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit. Yet schools across America continue to hide children's gender transitions from their parents, with courts divided on the issue.
SLF writes, "Time and again parents, teachers, and even school districts themselves have brought challenges to school gender transition policies. Now, the Supreme Court has a duty to grant certiorari and rule on the merits for parental rights."
SLF President Kimberly Hermann states, "Parents are sick and tired of states and school districts insisting that they know how to raise their children better than their own parents do. Too many families are being torn apart by radical and unconstitutional gender policies like California's, and it's time the Supreme Court intervene."
* * *
View brief here: https://slfliberty.org/case/mirabelli-v-bonta/
* * *
Original text here: https://slfliberty.org/southeastern-legal-foundation-files-brief-urging-supreme-court-to-stop-californias-gender-transition-policies/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Missouri can embrace open enrollment for students while addressing school funding concerns
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:* * *
Missouri can embrace open enrollment for students while addressing school funding concerns
A robust open enrollment program can benefit students, improve public schools, and help shore up school district budgets.
By Aaron Garth Smith, Director of Education Reform
K-12 open enrollment is on the rise, with 16 states now ensuring that families can enroll their students in public schools across school district boundaries when seats are available.
Research across diverse states, including Florida, ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * Missouri can embrace open enrollment for students while addressing school funding concerns A robust open enrollment program can benefit students, improve public schools, and help shore up school district budgets. By Aaron Garth Smith, Director of Education Reform K-12 open enrollment is on the rise, with 16 states now ensuring that families can enroll their students in public schools across school district boundaries when seats are available. Research across diverse states, including Florida,Colorado, Texas, California, and Wisconsin, shows that students who use open enrollment tend to transfer to higher-performing schools. They also use open enrollment for a variety of reasons, including to access different instructional models, specialized and advanced coursework not available at their residentially assigned school, or to escape bullying.
While Kansas, Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and others have adopted strong open-enrollment laws in recent years, Missouri lawmakers have not followed suit. One of the biggest obstacles seems to be financial concerns raised by school district officials about how to accommodate incoming transfer students and make up for the loss of outgoing students.
The following analysis addresses three frequent fiscal objections to public school open enrollment and explains why they shouldn't prevent the Show-Me State from embracing a strong policy that benefits public school students and school districts alike.
Objection #1: Local education dollars don't follow transfer students to their new school districts.
The most common financial concern is that receiving school districts wouldn't receive full per-student funding for enrolling transfer students.
"Many of the states that have this [open enrollment] are more reliant on state funding," claimed Otto Fajen, a lobbyist for the National Education Association.
While it's true that local education dollars don't follow open enrollment participants, this doesn't mean school districts aren't fully compensated for the costs of serving the incoming students. That's because state funding generated by a transfer student typically exceeds the student's marginal cost.
Open enrollment participants-just like students moving from another school district or state-would be added to the receiving school district's membership count, thereby increasing state funding for attendance. Except for hold-harmless districts (addressed below), all school districts would receive at least the State Adequacy Target (SAT) multiplied by the receiving school district's dollar value modifier. The SAT, which is subject to appropriation, is $7,145 per student in 2025-26.
Under Missouri's school finance formula, transfer students who are eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch, are classified as Limited English Proficiency, or have an Individual Education Plan, could generate additional state funding for receiving school districts, depending on the concentration of those students they already serve.
Importantly, school district costs don't increase or decrease in direct proportion to enrollment. For example, many schools have unused capacity and can enroll additional students without hiring more teachers, purchasing curricula, or constructing new facilities.
School district costs spike only when enrollment reaches a tipping point-such as when classes are full, or a building runs out of space. That's why every state's open enrollment policy considers school capacity, allowing districts to set transfer caps based on factors such as programs, buildings, class sizes, and grade-level capacity. As a result, school districts aren't required to accept transfer students if doing so would necessitate hiring new teachers, renovating buildings, or taking on other costly line items. This means that revenue from transfer students should more than offset marginal costs.
Objection #2: Some districts will lose funding from outgoing students faster than they can trim costs.
In the short term, school district costs can be difficult to trim in response to funding losses from enrollment declines.
For instance, public schools can't easily reduce teaching staff if enrollment losses are spread across several grade levels-they still need a teacher whether there are 25 students in a classroom or 20. But adjusting budgets to reflect declining enrollment is part and parcel of K-12 finance, with tools such as forecasting, revenue reserves, and leveraging staff attrition helping to smooth out changes. But there are other important factors to consider.
Research shows that open enrollment incentivizes school districts to improve, with many underenrolled districts seeing the opportunity to attract transfers to strengthen their budgets.
For example, a report by California's nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) found that school districts that lost students to open enrollment responded by engaging stakeholders and making programmatic changes that improved student retention and attracted transfer students. A separate LAO report found most of the districts opting into the state's voluntary program were rural, with the median district generating 22% of its enrollment from transfer students alone.
Studies from states such as Ohio, Colorado, and Texas had similar findings, showing open enrollment helps rural districts and drives overall improvements.
Another consideration is that Missouri's school finance system includes a generous declining-enrollment provision that helps mitigate the financial strain if a district experiences enrollment declines.
Rather than funding school districts based on a single year's enrollment count, as many states do, Missouri allows districts to use the higher of the current year's Average Daily Attendance or the first or second preceding school year's Average Daily Attendance. While this approach has drawbacks, its primary benefit is greater budget predictability, which helps school districts with declining enrollment.
Objection #3: Hold-harmless school districts won't be compensated for enrolling transfer students.
Missouri has two provisions that complicate how K-12 dollars are allocated to public schools: a large school hold harmless (LSHH) funding guarantee and a small school hold harmless (SSHH) funding guarantee. School districts with a prior-year Average Daily Attendance (ADA) greater than 350 are guaranteed at least their per-pupil state aid amount received in 2005-06 (LSHH), while those with a prior-year ADA of 350 or less are guaranteed at least their state aid amount in the higher of either 2004-05 or 2005-06 (SSHH).
Missouri's hold-harmless policies were originally adopted to facilitate the transition to a new funding formula, but decades later, they serve no purpose and would complicate funding for transfer students.
For Missouri's 167 hold-harmless school districts (about 30% of all districts), the LSHH and SSHH policies override the state's funding formula, resulting in more state aid than they would otherwise receive. While other school districts receive full state funding for each new student, hold-harmless districts' revenue is tied to what they got two decades ago.
This means that under an open enrollment program, LSHH and SSHH districts would receive partial or no state aid for transfer students, leaving them with additional costs without state funding to offset these expenses.
Nevertheless, because hold-harmless districts are at a fiscal advantage, it's reasonable to expect them to participate in open enrollment even with reduced or no additional per-student funding. After all, they already receive more state aid than what's provided under the state formula.
But if lawmakers want to address the concerns of the LSHH and SSHH districts, they could do so with a provision that guarantees full state formula aid for each enrolled transfer student. Importantly, only students who transfer between hold-harmless districts represent a new cost to the state, since students transferring from non-hold-harmless districts already generate state funding for their home school districts. This would be a prudent compromise if it meant more public school options for Missouri's students.
Conclusion
Funding concerns are a key barrier to adopting a statewide open enrollment program that would give students more public school options. But policymakers should rest assured that these objections are either unfounded or easily resolved. Research shows that adopting a robust open enrollment can benefit students, improve public schools, and help shore up school district budgets. Missouri can adopt a strong open enrollment policy that addresses districts' funding concerns and allows students to choose the best school for them.
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/missouri-open-enrollment-students-while-addressing-school-funding/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: How public schools measure capacity for K-12 open enrollment transfers
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:* * *
How public schools measure capacity for K-12 open enrollment transfers
Far too many public school districts are blocking transfer students they could easily accommodate.
By Jude Schwalbach, Senior Policy Analyst
With the vast majority of K-12 students attending public schools, it's crucial to continue expanding school choice in ways that benefit them. Since 2020, states have significantly expanded K-12 open enrollment laws, allowing students to attend public schools other than their assigned school. ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 23 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * How public schools measure capacity for K-12 open enrollment transfers Far too many public school districts are blocking transfer students they could easily accommodate. By Jude Schwalbach, Senior Policy Analyst With the vast majority of K-12 students attending public schools, it's crucial to continue expanding school choice in ways that benefit them. Since 2020, states have significantly expanded K-12 open enrollment laws, allowing students to attend public schools other than their assigned school.Eleven of the 17 states that strengthened their open enrollment programs in the past five years codified statewide programs so that all school districts must accept transfer applicants so long as seats are open in their grade level.
Strong open enrollment laws give students and their families agency in school selection, letting families choose other public schools when a student's assigned school isn't a good fit. Overall, these new open enrollment laws are a major victory for students, whose public school options are no longer limited by where they live.
However, a common weakness pervades these policies: States' laws generally don't include a standardized definition of "capacity." This gives significant discretion to districts, letting them set inconsistent definitions of capacity that can unnecessarily limit options for families
While it is understandable that school districts would be concerned about ensuring they have the funding and staff needed to serve incoming transfer students, far too many districts are blocking transfer students they could easily accommodate.
For instance, a 2022 analysis by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs found that definitions of capacity "appear haphazard or even arbitrary from district to district" across Oklahoma, despite its stellar open enrollment law. In Oklahoma, school districts that experienced declining enrollment had policies stating they were at capacity and couldn't accept transfer students, even though enrollment at those schools was lower than it had been. In one case, a student, after moving to a new district, tried to transfer back into his old district. Even though he had been enrolled in a school there for the previous two school years, the district claimed it was full and rejected his application. This highlights why consistent, well-designed capacity definitions are key to ensuring open enrollment implementation is fair and transparent.
Of the 23 states with statewide cross-district laws (allowing students to transfer to schools in other districts than their assigned district) and within-district (allowing transfers to schools in other attendance zones of their assigned district) open enrollment policies, most of them provide some factors that districts can take into account when determining their available capacity, such as staffing, student-teacher pupil ratios, class size, program size, grade, or building occupancy.
However, even when these parameters are outlined in state law, districts often have significant discretion in their implementation or may even choose to use other methodologies. That's because most laws often only highlight certain methods of calculating capacity that districts "may" use.
For example, laws in Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah require each school district to use one or more of the factors outlined in state law to determine its capacity. But most states have less rigorous requirements and encourage, rather than require, districts to use the listed factors in their capacity measurements.
Figure 1 below shows the factors school districts may use when defining capacity in states with statewide cross- or within-district open enrollment policies.
* * *
Figure 1: Factors that may be used to define capacity per state law in select states
* * *
While most states identify one or more factors in statute that districts must or may use to measure capacity, at least three-Georgia, New Hampshire, and Washington-don't provide any parameters for calculating capacity in state code, leaving definitions to the discretion of local or state education agencies.
Even when state law identifies specific capacity metrics, districts often get to decide how to implement them. For example, districts could use building capacity to measure space for their general education courses, but then use program size or staffing to determine the number of spots available in their special education programs. In other cases, some states allow districts to base their maximum capacity on state- or district-average class sizes. Accordingly, capacity measurements can easily become convoluted or even seemingly arbitrary.
As more states adopt robust open enrollment laws, policymakers should strengthen and standardize definitions of capacity, adding uniformity to the open enrollment process and maximizing students' transfer opportunities. This analysis reviews the strengths and weaknesses of the most common factors identified by states' laws as criteria for districts' capacity calculations, starting with examples of each.
Building capacity
In Wisconsin, some school districts base their capacity on the space in their school buildings, per the state's Department of Public Instruction. Using building design, the district calculates the number of spaces available in each building or classroom. Any seats that are unfilled by current students are open to transfer students. When calculating the available space for multiple school buildings, the number of extra seats must be aggregated by grade.
Class size
State law in Utah requires districts to evaluate how many seats are available based on their enrollment thresholds, which are 90% of their available space or their maximum capacity minus 40 students (whichever is greater). A district's maximum capacity is equal to the total number of students in a school building based on the average class size per grade or instructional station.
The enrollment threshold allows Utah districts to reserve 10% of their seats to accommodate students who may move into their boundaries during the school year. So long as projected enrollments are less than 90% of the building's available space, transfers are permitted.
Figure 2 shows how some of Utah's Provo City School District schools calculated their available capacity during the 2025-26 school year.
Figure 2: Capacity calculations in select Utah schools
School Building Maximum Capacity Open Enrollment Threshold is 90% of Max Capacity Enrollment Oct 1, 2025 2025-26 Requests Received 2025-26 Requests Approved
Edgemont Elementary 715 644 589 128 73
Westridge Elementary 660 594 544 44 18
Source: Provo School District, Open Enrollment Capacity Report, Nov. 18, 2025
Note: Transfer requests are made during the preceding school year, so the Oct. 1 enrollment count includes approved transfer requests.
Grade level
At least six states permit districts to determine their available space based on the number of students in a particular grade level.
For example, under Wisconsin's methodology, transfers are only approved if the projected number of students in a grade level is less than the maximum number of students. Available space equals capacity minus the projected enrollment. This becomes more complicated in high school when students take multiple courses and move between classrooms. In these situations, districts will measure their available capacity based on one or more core subjects often taken by students in a particular grade. According to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, using grade level to determine capacity was the most common methodology as of 2021.
Program capacity
Other states limit the number of transfers based on program capacity. For instance, in Delaware, districts must accept transfers to a particular program until it reaches 85% of its capacity. Districts can define program capacity based on several factors, such as physical space, physical resources, and class sizes, as permitted by state law.
In some cases, districts may use the same methodology to identify a program's capacity in the same way that building capacity is calculated. For example, in 2023, Wisconsin's Wauwatosa School District calculated the number of seats available for Underwood Elementary's USTEM program (a program focused on science, technology, engineering, and math) as it did the whole school's capacity: a student-to-teacher ratio tailored to maintain small class sizes school-wide.
In other cases, transfer applicants may be considered on a case-by-case basis, such as those applying to Iowa's Monticello Community School District's special education program. Admission is permitted if the district's director of special education determines that current special education programs meet an applicant's needs and that space is available in the class. Monticello calculates the maximum class size for special education programs based on teachers' caseloads, which are determined by 20 factors, including the number of students instructed, the hours of instruction provided to various students, students' behavior, and physical needs. Each factor is weighted and used to calculate a teacher's caseload, which is full at 55 points. Non-resident transfers are capped when a teacher's caseload reaches 50 points to ensure that seats are available to resident students.
Analysis
Of these methodologies, building capacity is the most straightforward measure of capacity, as it remains consistent over school years unless building plans change. It is also the starting point for all other measures of capacity, because a school building's size ultimately limits the number of students it can accommodate.
One challenge of this methodology is when dealing with older school facilities. Building designs from the mid-20th century or later may not correspond to modern or updated facilities, lacking labs or other specialized rooms. In some cases, these older buildings may even hold more students than they were originally designed to.
Additionally, buildings can be subject to fluctuations, such as temporary structures like trailers, which are sometimes used to accommodate unexpected enrollment surges.
Despite this shortcoming, basing a school district's maximum enrollment on its collective building capacity is better than other capacity measures because the number of seats is based on the real limitations of building design and structure.
Other capacity measures, such as class size, grade, or program, aren't necessarily based on concrete parameters, such as building space. Instead, these metrics let districts group students as they see fit, regardless of their available space. This lets districts artificially cap classroom sizes and block transfers, especially when based on averages and not the actual number of open seats, as in Utah's case. As a result, these methodologies are more susceptible to arbitrary capacity limits.
For example, Wisconsin students with disabilities are rejected at significantly higher rates than their non-disabled peers. During the 2023-24 school year, 44% of students with disabilities were denied transfers, while just 22% of non-disabled transfer applicants were rejected that year. This is likely because state law lets districts reject students with disabilities based on program size.
Consequently, a transfer applicant who is also a student with disabilities could be denied a transfer even if there is room available in their grade's general education classrooms. This means that students are barred from attending schools that are a better fit for them, even when districts have the space to accommodate them.
Recommendations for policymakers
Lawmakers and state officials should standardize capacity measures to maximize students' schooling options, thereby strengthening their open enrollment laws. Ideally, they should do this by basing capacity on maximum building occupancy. Maximum building occupancy would only include the school's various learning stations, excluding non-learning spaces, such as hallways, bathrooms, and facilities reserved for administration or teacher preps. Accordingly, each school building's maximum capacity would be the total number of students that each learning station's physical capacity can accommodate.
A component of the District of Columbia Public Schools' (DCPS) capacity calculation offers a good example of what this can look like. The district uniformly categorizes all school spaces, distinguishing between different learning spaces, such as classrooms, labs, administrative spaces, and gyms. DCPS then identifies the "ideal number of students that a room can accommodate, based on its designated and scheduled use," known as the raw capacity or loading capacity. By multiplying the room category by the raw capacity, DCPS calculates its overall capacity. Applying a similar methodology to districts across a state would standardize capacity metrics, establishing a more uniform system.
Alternatively, states could also permit districts to use their most recent enrollment peak between 2019 and 2025 to establish maximum capacity.
Nationwide, K-12 public school enrollment reached its peak in 2020 but has since declined by 2.5%, or about 1.3 million students. Accordingly, districts' most recent peak enrollment provides a reasonable estimate of their maximum capacity, as most districts are now serving fewer students.
Any district that has permanently closed schools since 2020 should be able to apply to the state education agency for a waiver to reduce its maximum capacity by the number of seats previously available in the closed school.
Another way policymakers could improve their open enrollment capacity is by standardizing a baseline for school-wide enrollment thresholds, such as in Utah and Delaware.
In these cases, districts must accept transfer students until they hit their enrollment thresholds-90% and 85% of capacity, respectively. But instead of relying on class size averages, as many Utah and Delaware districts do, enrollment thresholds should reflect actual physical building capacity.
Ideally, these thresholds would reserve no more than 10% of a building's maximum capacity or the most recent peak enrollment to account for enrollment fluctuations during the school year. Once transfers are admitted to a receiving district, they should be included in all future student counts and have the same status as resident students. Districts could raise their enrollment thresholds to admit more students if they saw fit, while keeping fewer seats in reserve. Yet, once an enrollment threshold is increased, districts shouldn't be able to reverse it. Otherwise, it would essentially operate as a cap that districts could raise and lower at will.
Overall, these adjustments require planning and forward thinking on the part of district administrators.
For example, Denver Public Schools (DPS) includes open enrollment transfers in its annual strategic analysis, which reviews enrollment drivers and projections, helping the district plan for enrollment fluctuations. DPS' report tracks the impact of students transferring into and out of it and tracks the effects of within-district transfers on its attendance zones.
One way to plan for open enrollment transfers is to reserve space for them in advance, just as many districts already do for students who might move into their district midyear. This will become easier as open enrollment programs become more established, because administrators will have a sense of how many students they will gain or lose through them.
Lastly, even in states with strong open enrollment laws, most school districts aren't transparent about how they determine capacity. More states should emulate Utah, which requires districts to post their capacity calculations on their websites annually. This data could also be incorporated into state education agencies' annual open enrollment reports.
Conclusion
As more states adopt stronger open enrollment laws, allowing more students to choose the public school that is best for them, policymakers should standardize capacity definitions and strengthen them to be based on school building occupancy or, at a minimum, recent peak enrollments.
This would be a big step in the right direction for many states, ensuring that public schools admit as many students as they can accommodate, maximizing students' chances of attending schools that are a good fit.
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/how-public-schools-measure-capacity-k12-open-enrollment/
Debunking myths about HPV in the Black community
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Jan. 23 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation posted the following news:* * *
Debunking myths about HPV in the Black community
*
This article was originally published on Successful Black Parenting as a partnership with the Prevent Cancer Foundation.
Parents hear a lot of mixed messages about the HPV vaccine. But the science is clear: this vaccine helps prevent several types of cancer. The Prevent Cancer Foundation (r) shares that increasing HPV vaccination rates can protect against at least six types of cancer, saving thousands of lives each year. Knowing the facts helps ... Show Full Article ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Jan. 23 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation posted the following news: * * * Debunking myths about HPV in the Black community * This article was originally published on Successful Black Parenting as a partnership with the Prevent Cancer Foundation. Parents hear a lot of mixed messages about the HPV vaccine. But the science is clear: this vaccine helps prevent several types of cancer. The Prevent Cancer Foundation (r) shares that increasing HPV vaccination rates can protect against at least six types of cancer, saving thousands of lives each year. Knowing the facts helpsparents make informed choices that protect our children today and in the future.
Below are the most common myths about HPV and the truths every parent needs to know.
Myth 1: "HPV affects only girls."
Reality: HPV can affect anyone. Boys can carry the virus and are also at risk for cancers linked to HPV, including throat and penile cancer. Protecting our sons is just as important as protecting our daughters. The vaccine isn't just for girls; it's for everyone's protection.
Myth 2: "The vaccine causes health problems."
Reality: That rumor simply isn't true. The HPV vaccine went through years of testing before it ever reached the public, and doctors continue to study its safety today. Millions of people worldwide receive it safely every year. People may feel soreness in the arm or be a little tired afterward. HPV is the real danger because it can cause several types of cancer if left untreated.
Myth 3: "My child is too young for this conversation."
Reality: The HPV vaccine works best before children are ever exposed to the virus. Doctors recommend giving it between the ages of nine and 12, when kids build the strongest protection. This isn't a sex talk, it's a safety talk. It's just like teaching a child to look both ways before crossing the street-it's about prevention and protecting them early.
"The vaccine is well studied, monitored, and continues to demonstrate both safety and efficacy with no links to increased risky behavior or fertility problems or health issues," said Dr. Hawa Forkpa, a board-certified pediatrician at the Mid-Atlantic Permanente Medical Group/Kaiser Permanente. "The HPV vaccine is most effective when given early; that's why we recommend starting at age nine and above for a strong immune response in just two doses."
Myth 4: "Vaccines aren't for us."
Reality: This idea harms our community. Black families face higher rates of HPV-related cancers, not because of biology, but because of lower vaccination rates and limited access to preventive care. Choosing vaccination changes that story. When parents take action, they help close health gaps and build stronger, healthier communities for the next generation.
Some parents still wonder whether the HPV vaccine is too new or if long-term effects exist. This vaccine has more than 18 years of safety data behind it and continues to show strong protection against cancer. Leading health organizations, including the Prevent Cancer Foundation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the World Health Organization, suggest it as a standard part of childhood preventive care.
If doubts remain, talk with your child's doctor. A good healthcare partnership includes asking questions and receiving clear, factual answers without pressure.
Building Confidence in Prevention
Every parent wants their child to grow up healthy and confident. Prevention is a key part of that journey. The HPV vaccine helps stop certain cancers before they ever start. Making informed choices means parents are not just protecting their own families; they are helping protect friends, classmates, and the wider community.
Taking this step sends the message that our children deserve every chance to live long, healthy lives. Prevention should not be fear-based; it should be future-based.
Trusted Messengers and Next Steps
Parents do not have to make these decisions alone. Talk to your pediatrician or family doctor about the HPV vaccine and the schedule that works best for your child. Visit trusted sources such as the Prevent Cancer Foundation's Guide to Children's Vaccinations and the CDC's HPV Resource Center for up-to-date information and answers to common questions.
Protecting our children's health is one of the best things we can do as parents. When we focus on prevention, share the truth, and look out for one another, we build a stronger, healthier community for the next generation.
Be sure to talk with your child's doctor about the HPV vaccine. Ask if your child is due for it and get the facts straight from a trusted source. Their future health starts with one honest conversation.
***
Original text here: https://preventcancer.org/article/debunking-myths-about-hpv-in-the-black-community/
San Diego Foundation Grants $350,000 to Help 1,000 San Diego County Students Access Financial Aid for College
SAN DIEGO, California, Jan. 22 -- The San Diego Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
San Diego Foundation Grants $350,000 to Help 1,000 San Diego County Students Access Financial Aid for College
*
January 22, 2026 - San Diego, CA -With many San Diego County students missing out on college financial aid each year due to incomplete FAFSA applications, San Diego Foundation (SDF) today announced a $350,000 investment to help 1,000 more students complete their applications with one-on-one help.
According to the California Student Aid Commission's Race to Submit Dashboard, more than ... Show Full Article SAN DIEGO, California, Jan. 22 -- The San Diego Foundation posted the following news release: * * * San Diego Foundation Grants $350,000 to Help 1,000 San Diego County Students Access Financial Aid for College * January 22, 2026 - San Diego, CA -With many San Diego County students missing out on college financial aid each year due to incomplete FAFSA applications, San Diego Foundation (SDF) today announced a $350,000 investment to help 1,000 more students complete their applications with one-on-one help. According to the California Student Aid Commission's Race to Submit Dashboard, more thanhalf of San Diego County high school seniors completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) in 2025. That means many students are still missing out on critical financial support, including first-generation students and those furthest from opportunity. For students who receive help completing their application, the impact can be life-changing.
"College used to feel like just a dream," said Jaely, a student at California State University San Marcos. "When I filled out my FAFSA and learned I could go, it felt like my eyes were opened to a whole new future."
This SDF investment focuses on building capacity where it's needed most: 48 high schools across San Diego County with the lowest FAFSA completion rates. Funding also supports 10 community organizations providing hands-on guidance to students and families, walking them through every step from initial submission to final processing.
An initial trial phase by SDF showed what's possible when students receive the support they need: FAFSA completions -applications that were fully processed and error-free -increased by 11%, and submissions -the number of forms sent -rose by 8%.
"When nearly half of our students aren't completing a FAFSA, we're not looking at a paperwork problem, we're looking at thousands of young people who can't access the financial aid that could change their life trajectory," said Mark Stuart, CEO and Executive Director of San Diego Foundation.
2026
* San Dieguito Union District: 100
* Project Next: $75,000
* UC San Diego TRiO: $75,000
* Cal-SOAP: $90,000
* Early Academic Outreach Program: $32,000
* BASIC: $10,000
* International Rescue Committee: $15,000
* SDCOE's Juvenile Court & Community Schools: $6,600
* Casa Amistad: $10,000
* Students without Limits: $15,000
As part of this effort, California Student Opportunity and Access Program (Cal-SOAP)'s Financial Aid Blitz -a countywide day of action on January 24 where students can visit 14 participating sites to receive free, in-person help with their FAFSA or California Dream Act applications.
Students seeking help completing their financial aid applications can visit a Financial Aid Blitz workshop on January 24, contact their school counseling center, or visit www.calsoapsandiego.org/workshops to find support.
About San Diego Foundation
San Diego Foundation believes in just, equitable and resilient communities where every San Diegan can prosper, thrive and feel like they belong. We partner with donors, nonprofits and regional leaders to co-create solutions that respond to community needs and strengthen San Diego. Since our founding in 1975, our community foundation has granted $1.8 billion to nonprofits to improve quality of life in San Diego County and beyond. Learn more at SDFoundation.org.
Contact
Nancy Ives Schroeder
nancy@intesacom.com
619-540-3751
***
Original text here: https://www.sdfoundation.org/news-events/sdf-news/san-diego-foundation-grants-350000-to-help-1000-san-diego-county-students-access-financial-aid-for-college/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Brussels vs. Washington
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 22 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:* * *
Brussels vs. Washington
Digital regulation's transatlantic divide.
By Claudia Ascensao Nunes
For years, Europe has tried to convince itself that it could regulate its way to technological greatness. Instead of becoming a technological powerhouse, it produced rules, many rules, with effects now extending far beyond its own borders. In 2026, those rules are colliding head on with an American president who refuses to accept that US innovation could be governed from Brussels.
Two regulations ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 22 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary: * * * Brussels vs. Washington Digital regulation's transatlantic divide. By Claudia Ascensao Nunes For years, Europe has tried to convince itself that it could regulate its way to technological greatness. Instead of becoming a technological powerhouse, it produced rules, many rules, with effects now extending far beyond its own borders. In 2026, those rules are colliding head on with an American president who refuses to accept that US innovation could be governed from Brussels. Two regulationssit at the center of this escalating tension. The Digital Markets Act, or DMA, applies to the world's largest digital platforms, the so-called gatekeepers, and forces them to open their ecosystems, share data, and abandon business practices that are central to their models. The Digital Services Act, or DSA, regulates platform content and algorithms, requiring the removal of information deemed illegal or harmful, with all the subjectivity this entails. This risks granting a supranational authority direct power over online speech by compelling platforms to remove content that fails to comply with regulatory guidelines.
These laws, which entered into force in 2022 for the DSA and 2024 for the DMA, appear designed with America's largest technology firms in mind. Five of the six companies designated as DMA gatekeepers are US-based, as are the overwhelming majority of platforms subject to the DSA.
This has placed companies such as Apple, Google, and Meta under constant supervision by Brussels, forcing them to modify products in order to operate in the European market, with consequences not only for firms themselves but also for consumers and innovation more broadly.
In 2025, under the DMA alone, Apple was fined 500 million euros and forced to open iOS to rival app stores and payment systems. Meta was fined 200 million euros and required to alter how it uses user data.
Under EU competition law, Google also received a historic 2.95 billion euro fine for alleged abuse of market dominance in the digital sector and was forced to redesign key aspects of its search engine and advertising business.
Upon taking office, Donald Trump identified this European interventionism as disguised tariffs that artificially raise costs for American firms and strip them of competitive advantages. He threatened to invoke Section 301 of US trade law, the same tool used against China, to retaliate, significantly intensifying tensions between Brussels and Washington.
In December 2025, that tension took on a face: X. The European Commission fined Elon Musk's platform 120 million euros under the DSA, accusing it of failing to manage so-called systemic risks linked to the circulation of political information. For Musk, this amounted to an assault on free speech. The episode appears to have triggered a broader transatlantic diplomatic and commercial escalation. Washington responded by imposing visa bans on five European officials and experts associated with the DSA and threatened tariffs and restrictions against European firms such as SAP, Capgemini, and Mistral AI should Brussels fail to retreat.
The conflict has now spread beyond the European Union. The United Kingdom and Australia have begun discussing restrictions on X, citing risks related to misinformation and online safety, reinforcing the perception that Brussels is asserting itself as a global digital regulator.
Despite pressure from the Trump administration, the European Union shows no signs of slowing down. In 2026, another regulation enters fully into force, the AI Act, which appears once again tailored to American firms. It subjects artificial intelligence systems deemed high-risk, including AI used in hiring, credit, healthcare, public security, content moderation, and high impact generative tools, to mandatory risk assessments, human oversight, and constraints that exist in no other major market. These requirements will delay product launches, raise costs, and force companies to design technologies according to political criteria defined outside the United States.
As a result, 2026 is shaping up to be a particularly challenging year. From a geopolitical perspective, the most immediate risk is the erosion of the transatlantic relationship in a strategic sector. Technology today is an instrument of power, and this escalation among allies is likely to generate incompatible regulatory blocs, fragmenting the digital economy, weakening the West, and opening space for alternative models, particularly China's state-controlled approach.
Consumers stand to lose most from this conflict, along two pillars central to any classical liberal order: first, the free market, as rising compliance costs will inevitably translate into higher prices; second, online free expression, increasingly constrained by incentives for excessive moderation and the preventive removal of lawful but controversial content.
At a moment when the world is rapidly advancing in artificial intelligence, automation, and the technologies that will define the next decade, the European Union is moving in the opposite direction, deepening an interventionism that exceeds the role a state should play.
The European Union must lower barriers, simplify rules, promote competition, and allow innovation to flourish without permanent political oversight.
In today's world, as always, market liberalization is not a threat to consumers. It is their strongest protection and the true engine of progress.
* * *
Claudia Ascensao Nunes is a Portuguese writer and political commentator. She is the President of Ladies of Liberty Alliance - Portugal and a columnist featured in both national and international publications. Claudia collaborates with Young Voices and focuses on economic freedom, European policy, and transatlantic cooperation. She has over 20,000 followers on X (formerly Twitter), where she shares insights on politics, liberalism, and cultural issues.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/brussels-vs-washington/