Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Foundations
Featured Stories
VICTORY: Federal officials agree to end censorship of Facebook group and app reporting ICE activity
PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Nov. 13 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release:
* * *
VICTORY: Federal officials agree to end censorship of Facebook group and app reporting ICE activity
*
CHICAGO, Nov. 13, 2026 -- The U.S. government agreed Thursday to permanently end its censorship of platforms created by two Midwesterners reporting on public Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity.
"I'm glad the government agreed to stop targeting my speech, but it shouldn't take a lawsuit to get the government to respect our constitutional rights," said ... Show Full Article PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Nov. 13 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release: * * * VICTORY: Federal officials agree to end censorship of Facebook group and app reporting ICE activity * CHICAGO, Nov. 13, 2026 -- The U.S. government agreed Thursday to permanently end its censorship of platforms created by two Midwesterners reporting on public Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity. "I'm glad the government agreed to stop targeting my speech, but it shouldn't take a lawsuit to get the government to respect our constitutional rights," saidMark Hodges, creator of Eyes Up, an app for sharing videos of ICE operations that was targeted by government censorship. "People have a right to know what their government is doing. I hope that thanks to this lawsuit, others can share what they see and hear without facing this kind of censorship."
The court order that will prevent officials from further censoring Mark -- and Kae Rosado, creator of the "ICE Sightings - Chicagoland" Facebook group -- is the result of a February lawsuit by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. FIRE sued then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem on behalf of Kae and Mark, who created their online platforms to inform the public and hold government officials accountable.
"I created this group to inform and protect my community, not knowing that doing so would lead government officials to try to silence me," said Rosado. "But the Constitution protects more than just the voices in power. This fight was about everyone's right to speak freely without fear of government retaliation. I refused to remain silent about the harm facing my community, and I hope this victory reminds others that their voices matter and no government official stands above the Constitution."
As part of an agreement with FIRE to resolve the case, the government agreed to make permanent the preliminary injunction the court previously entered in Mark and Kae's favor. In two prior court opinions, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held there was "no dispute that Plaintiffs allege a First Amendment violation" and that evidence showed "Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Defendants violated their First Amendment rights through coercion of Facebook and Apple."
Mark runs Kreisau Group, which aims to preserve evidence of governmental abuses of power. On his Eyes Up app, users can upload videos, record new videos, or access uploaded videos, which Eyes Up arranges on a map of the United States after Mark and his moderators review and approve each video.
Kae, who has her own jewelry business, started a Facebook group in January 2025 after seeing fear in her community about the impact of ICE raids on daily life in Chicago. She and other small business owners noticed attendance dropping at community events where they'd set up shop. The aim of ICE Sightings - Chicagoland was for fellow small business owners, friends, and family to share information about ICE operations in Chicago. The group remained small until Sept. 2025, when ICE commenced and publicly touted an enforcement surge in Chicago dubbed "Operation Midway Blitz." Chicagoans increasingly feared being injured or arrested, and Kae's group grew to include nearly 100,000 members.
COURTESY PHOTOS OF MARK AND KAE
The First Amendment protects documenting and criticizing law enforcement, and it is unconstitutional for public officials to coerce private companies like Apple and Facebook into censoring content on the government's behalf. But that did not stop Bondi and Noem from pressuring Facebook to take down Kae's group and Apple to remove Mark's Eyes Up from its app store.
Those actions were blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects the right to discuss, record, and criticize what law enforcement does in public. According to the Supreme Court in Houston v. Hill, "to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."
The federal government has alleged efforts to track ICE agents puts law enforcement officers at risk. But courts have consistently held that the First Amendment protects speech concerning the public activities of law enforcement officers and other government employees -- whether it's warning fellow citizens of speed traps, publishing videos of law enforcement officers engaged in their duties, or similar efforts.
"The First Amendment protects our right to share truthful information about our government and its activities," said FIRE Senior Attorney Colin McDonell. "This is not a partisan issue, and FIRE is here to challenge any government actors who would seek to stifle our freedom of speech."
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought -- the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
***
Original text here: https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-federal-officials-agree-end-censorship-facebook-group-and-app-reporting-ice-activity
* * *
VICTORY: Federal officials agree to end censorship of Facebook group and app reporting ICE activity
*
CHICAGO, Nov. 13, 2026 -- The U.S. government agreed Thursday to permanently end its censorship of platforms created by two Midwesterners reporting on public Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity.
"I'm glad the government agreed to stop targeting my speech, but it shouldn't take a lawsuit to get the government to respect our constitutional rights," said ... Show Full Article PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania, Nov. 13 -- The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression posted the following news release: * * * VICTORY: Federal officials agree to end censorship of Facebook group and app reporting ICE activity * CHICAGO, Nov. 13, 2026 -- The U.S. government agreed Thursday to permanently end its censorship of platforms created by two Midwesterners reporting on public Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity. "I'm glad the government agreed to stop targeting my speech, but it shouldn't take a lawsuit to get the government to respect our constitutional rights," saidMark Hodges, creator of Eyes Up, an app for sharing videos of ICE operations that was targeted by government censorship. "People have a right to know what their government is doing. I hope that thanks to this lawsuit, others can share what they see and hear without facing this kind of censorship."
The court order that will prevent officials from further censoring Mark -- and Kae Rosado, creator of the "ICE Sightings - Chicagoland" Facebook group -- is the result of a February lawsuit by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. FIRE sued then-Attorney General Pam Bondi and then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem on behalf of Kae and Mark, who created their online platforms to inform the public and hold government officials accountable.
"I created this group to inform and protect my community, not knowing that doing so would lead government officials to try to silence me," said Rosado. "But the Constitution protects more than just the voices in power. This fight was about everyone's right to speak freely without fear of government retaliation. I refused to remain silent about the harm facing my community, and I hope this victory reminds others that their voices matter and no government official stands above the Constitution."
As part of an agreement with FIRE to resolve the case, the government agreed to make permanent the preliminary injunction the court previously entered in Mark and Kae's favor. In two prior court opinions, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held there was "no dispute that Plaintiffs allege a First Amendment violation" and that evidence showed "Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Defendants violated their First Amendment rights through coercion of Facebook and Apple."
Mark runs Kreisau Group, which aims to preserve evidence of governmental abuses of power. On his Eyes Up app, users can upload videos, record new videos, or access uploaded videos, which Eyes Up arranges on a map of the United States after Mark and his moderators review and approve each video.
Kae, who has her own jewelry business, started a Facebook group in January 2025 after seeing fear in her community about the impact of ICE raids on daily life in Chicago. She and other small business owners noticed attendance dropping at community events where they'd set up shop. The aim of ICE Sightings - Chicagoland was for fellow small business owners, friends, and family to share information about ICE operations in Chicago. The group remained small until Sept. 2025, when ICE commenced and publicly touted an enforcement surge in Chicago dubbed "Operation Midway Blitz." Chicagoans increasingly feared being injured or arrested, and Kae's group grew to include nearly 100,000 members.
COURTESY PHOTOS OF MARK AND KAE
The First Amendment protects documenting and criticizing law enforcement, and it is unconstitutional for public officials to coerce private companies like Apple and Facebook into censoring content on the government's behalf. But that did not stop Bondi and Noem from pressuring Facebook to take down Kae's group and Apple to remove Mark's Eyes Up from its app store.
Those actions were blatantly unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects the right to discuss, record, and criticize what law enforcement does in public. According to the Supreme Court in Houston v. Hill, "to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state."
The federal government has alleged efforts to track ICE agents puts law enforcement officers at risk. But courts have consistently held that the First Amendment protects speech concerning the public activities of law enforcement officers and other government employees -- whether it's warning fellow citizens of speed traps, publishing videos of law enforcement officers engaged in their duties, or similar efforts.
"The First Amendment protects our right to share truthful information about our government and its activities," said FIRE Senior Attorney Colin McDonell. "This is not a partisan issue, and FIRE is here to challenge any government actors who would seek to stifle our freedom of speech."
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought -- the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.
***
Original text here: https://www.thefire.org/news/victory-federal-officials-agree-end-censorship-facebook-group-and-app-reporting-ice-activity
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: States and Public School Funding Systems Must Adapt to Declining Student Enrollment
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 13 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
States and public school funding systems must adapt to declining student enrollment
Three best practices to guide policymakers in designing K-12 school finance systems with a sound approach to counting students.
Aaron Garth Smith
Managing Director
November 11, 2026
Public education is changing rapidly, and K-12 finance systems must adapt to a new era with fewer students and more competition. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, public schools have lost 1.4 million students and are projected ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 13 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * States and public school funding systems must adapt to declining student enrollment Three best practices to guide policymakers in designing K-12 school finance systems with a sound approach to counting students. Aaron Garth Smith Managing Director November 11, 2026 Public education is changing rapidly, and K-12 finance systems must adapt to a new era with fewer students and more competition. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, public schools have lost 1.4 million students and are projectedto lose another 2.7 million by the 2031-32 school year. And with the rise of school choice policies such as education savings accounts, charter schooling, and open enrollment, a family's education options are no longer determined solely by where they can afford to live.
States' school finance systems, many of which date back decades, must be modernized. Central to this is how they count students for funding calculations, a key policy detail that in many states, including those with school choice programs such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia, strains state budgets and provides the wrong incentives.
Three best practices can guide policymakers in designing a sound approach to counting students. The following analysis details these three best practices, offers models for policymakers to consider, and compares how 15 states count students.
Best Practice #1: Use Current-Year Enrollment Counts
The most important policy feature in funding calculations is the timeframe used to count students. The three approaches used by states, along with their tradeoffs, are described below.
* Current-Year Enrollment: States such as Arizona, Indiana, and Texas use current-year enrollment counts to calculate funding. This approach, which counts students attending public schools in the current year, is most responsive to enrollment changes but provides the least budget predictability for school district administrators because districts' actual funding isn't known before the school year.
* Prior-Year Enrollment: States such as Alabama, Iowa, and New Hampshire use prior-year enrollment counts to calculate funding. This approach, which gives school districts funding for the number of students they served the year prior, provides greater budget stability but is less responsive to enrollment changes than using current-year counts. Districts that lose students from one year to the next receive funding for "ghost" students (i.e., students who are no longer enrolled, but for whom districts still collect funding), while districts that gain students don't get funding for these additional students they're serving until the following year.
* Declining Enrollment: States such as Kansas, Missouri, and Montana use the highest enrollment counts of two or more school years, usually including the current school year. This hold-harmless approach gives school districts the longest off-ramp for adjusting budgets to enrollment changes, but it usually results in the most ghost students, making it more expensive than using current-year or prior-year enrollment counts.
Current-year enrollment counts are the best policy for modern K-12 education systems. Under this approach, funding is based on the students currently in classrooms, and dollars follow students without delay to school districts or charters with growing enrollment.
The rationale for using current-year enrollment is straightforward: state funding should reflect school districts' costs, which are driven by student enrollment. Funding "ghost students" diverts dollars from school districts with stable or growing student populations and diminishes the incentive for declining-enrollment districts to adjust budgets or respond to students' needs. And in an era defined by increasing school choice policies, current-year enrollment also avoids double-funding choice participants.
It's true that some school district costs are difficult to adjust in the short term. For example, a school district that loses 25 students mid-year across different schools and grade levels can't reduce its teaching staff to trim expenses. Using prior-year or multi-year enrollment counts helps smooth revenue fluctuations, giving administrators more time to adjust costs. But these policies are costly, and their benefits are overstated.
For example, a study published by Reason Foundation estimates that Missouri's declining-enrollment provision, which allows school districts to use the greatest of the current year, prior year, or second prior year student count, cost the state an additional $197 million in 2022, or 4.7% of the state's formula funding that year for students no longer there.
The returns on this investment are questionable. Many school districts, and every private school in the country, are funded based on students currently in classrooms and manage budgets without issue. And California, which has a generous declining-enrollment provision that cost an estimated $4 billion for ghost students in 2023, funds charter schools using current-year counts.
While some staffing costs are fixed in the short term, school districts can adapt to enrollment changes using tools such as forecasting, budget reserves, and, if necessary, trimming non-instructional expenses. At a time when more than half of all public school staff are non-teachers, public school costs aren't nearly as fixed in the short term as sometimes claimed.
Best Practice #2: Use Average Daily Membership to Count Students
Policymakers must also decide how to count students. The three approaches to counting students, along with their tradeoffs, are described below.
* Average Daily Membership: States such as Arizona, Minnesota, and Tennessee use average daily membership (ADM), which measures average student enrollment over a given period. ADM is calculated by aggregating the number of students enrolled each day and dividing that total by the number of instructional days during that period. ADM is by far the most accurate approach, tying education dollars directly to students and capturing daily enrollment. Its main drawback is that it's more complex to administer than using simple count dates.
* Average Daily Attendance: Average daily attendance (ADA), which is used by states such as Texas, Idaho, and Missouri, is like ADM but with one key difference: only students who attend school on a given day are counted, creating a direct link between funding and attendance. ADA incentivizes attendance, which research links to student outcomes. However, ADA is less transparent, can complicate school choice funding, and there's little research showing that ADA itself improves student outcomes. ADA also puts school districts and charter schools that serve low-income students at a fiscal disadvantage, since these students have worse attendance on average.
* Count Dates: States such as Indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia use one or more count dates to capture student enrollment. The count-dates approach is transparent and easy to administer, but it fails to capture enrollment changes that occur between count dates and after the final count date. For example, a school district that enrolls a student who switches from a charter school after the last count date would not receive funding for that student (and the charter school would not lose funding) until the following school year.
Average daily membership's primary benefit, accuracy, outweighs its administrative complexity, making it the best option for a modern funding system. While the simplicity of using count dates is appealing, and this approach is superior to average daily attendance, it is less sensitive to enrollment changes than ADM, a notable disadvantage in an era where students increasingly change schools.
Best Practice #3: Account for the Entire School Year
Finally, policymakers must consider the timeframe to count students within a school year. This feature varies most across states, even among those that count students in the same way.
For example, Texas and Idaho both use current-year average daily attendance, but Texas calculates enrollment over the entire school year, while Idaho uses only the highest 28 weeks. Similarly, Iowa and Montana both use count dates, but Iowa uses one snapshot (October) while Montana uses an average of two snapshots (October and February).
States should capture enrollment for the entire school year, not just a portion of it. This ensures that funding is responsive to all enrollment changes, making each day count and rewarding districts and charters that attract and retain students throughout the school year.
State Models for Policymakers to Consider
For state policymakers, the most critical policy feature is to adopt current-year enrollment counts, as Arizona and Indiana have done. These and other states show that school districts can adapt to enrollment changes in real time without hold-harmless funding, including declining-enrollment counts.
* Arizona uses current-year ADM to allocate K-12 funding. However, it considers only the first 100 school days, falling short of tracking students for the full school year. The Arizona Department of Education distributes aid monthly, using the latest available data and entitlement calculations. The first two payments (July and August) are based on prior-year ADM, and monthly payments are the difference between a rolling share of the annual aid and year-to-date payments. Arizona completes a final statewide calculation in July and adjusts the following school year's aid payments, as needed.
* Indiana uses current-year data with two enrollment count dates: an October count that determines funding for July to December, and a February count that determines funding for January to June. As such, enrollment changes after the February count don't affect funding levels. The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) distributes at least 12 payments annually, according to a payment schedule set each year by the State Budget Agency and the Governor's office. IDOE uses estimated membership data until actual figures are available, with periodic adjustments to reconcile any discrepancies. If calculated state aid distributions exceed appropriated K-12 funding, the state can transfer up to $25 million from a reserve account to cover the difference.
While many states already use ADM funding, most base funding on prior-year or declining-enrollment counts.
Table 1 compares 15 states with Reason Foundation's three best practices. Note that some policy nuances are excluded for clarity and, while some hold-harmless provisions are identified in this table, it is not intended to be a full account of all such policies across and within states.
* * *
Table 1: Comparing Approaches to Counting Students in 15 States
* * *
Conclusion
Public education is changing rapidly, and states must reform how they count students for funding purposes. Declining-enrollment policies, a form of hold-harmless, create ghost students, are unnecessary, and are a poor use of finite education dollars.
In a new era of K-12 finance focused on better serving students, adopting a policy that combines current-year enrollment counts, average daily membership, and full-year accounting will provide strong incentives, ensure compatibility with choice programs, and save states money.
* * *
Aaron Garth Smith is the managing director of education reform at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/states-public-school-funding-systems-must-adapt-declining-student-enrollment/
* * *
States and public school funding systems must adapt to declining student enrollment
Three best practices to guide policymakers in designing K-12 school finance systems with a sound approach to counting students.
Aaron Garth Smith
Managing Director
November 11, 2026
Public education is changing rapidly, and K-12 finance systems must adapt to a new era with fewer students and more competition. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, public schools have lost 1.4 million students and are projected ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 13 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * States and public school funding systems must adapt to declining student enrollment Three best practices to guide policymakers in designing K-12 school finance systems with a sound approach to counting students. Aaron Garth Smith Managing Director November 11, 2026 Public education is changing rapidly, and K-12 finance systems must adapt to a new era with fewer students and more competition. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, public schools have lost 1.4 million students and are projectedto lose another 2.7 million by the 2031-32 school year. And with the rise of school choice policies such as education savings accounts, charter schooling, and open enrollment, a family's education options are no longer determined solely by where they can afford to live.
States' school finance systems, many of which date back decades, must be modernized. Central to this is how they count students for funding calculations, a key policy detail that in many states, including those with school choice programs such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia, strains state budgets and provides the wrong incentives.
Three best practices can guide policymakers in designing a sound approach to counting students. The following analysis details these three best practices, offers models for policymakers to consider, and compares how 15 states count students.
Best Practice #1: Use Current-Year Enrollment Counts
The most important policy feature in funding calculations is the timeframe used to count students. The three approaches used by states, along with their tradeoffs, are described below.
* Current-Year Enrollment: States such as Arizona, Indiana, and Texas use current-year enrollment counts to calculate funding. This approach, which counts students attending public schools in the current year, is most responsive to enrollment changes but provides the least budget predictability for school district administrators because districts' actual funding isn't known before the school year.
* Prior-Year Enrollment: States such as Alabama, Iowa, and New Hampshire use prior-year enrollment counts to calculate funding. This approach, which gives school districts funding for the number of students they served the year prior, provides greater budget stability but is less responsive to enrollment changes than using current-year counts. Districts that lose students from one year to the next receive funding for "ghost" students (i.e., students who are no longer enrolled, but for whom districts still collect funding), while districts that gain students don't get funding for these additional students they're serving until the following year.
* Declining Enrollment: States such as Kansas, Missouri, and Montana use the highest enrollment counts of two or more school years, usually including the current school year. This hold-harmless approach gives school districts the longest off-ramp for adjusting budgets to enrollment changes, but it usually results in the most ghost students, making it more expensive than using current-year or prior-year enrollment counts.
Current-year enrollment counts are the best policy for modern K-12 education systems. Under this approach, funding is based on the students currently in classrooms, and dollars follow students without delay to school districts or charters with growing enrollment.
The rationale for using current-year enrollment is straightforward: state funding should reflect school districts' costs, which are driven by student enrollment. Funding "ghost students" diverts dollars from school districts with stable or growing student populations and diminishes the incentive for declining-enrollment districts to adjust budgets or respond to students' needs. And in an era defined by increasing school choice policies, current-year enrollment also avoids double-funding choice participants.
It's true that some school district costs are difficult to adjust in the short term. For example, a school district that loses 25 students mid-year across different schools and grade levels can't reduce its teaching staff to trim expenses. Using prior-year or multi-year enrollment counts helps smooth revenue fluctuations, giving administrators more time to adjust costs. But these policies are costly, and their benefits are overstated.
For example, a study published by Reason Foundation estimates that Missouri's declining-enrollment provision, which allows school districts to use the greatest of the current year, prior year, or second prior year student count, cost the state an additional $197 million in 2022, or 4.7% of the state's formula funding that year for students no longer there.
The returns on this investment are questionable. Many school districts, and every private school in the country, are funded based on students currently in classrooms and manage budgets without issue. And California, which has a generous declining-enrollment provision that cost an estimated $4 billion for ghost students in 2023, funds charter schools using current-year counts.
While some staffing costs are fixed in the short term, school districts can adapt to enrollment changes using tools such as forecasting, budget reserves, and, if necessary, trimming non-instructional expenses. At a time when more than half of all public school staff are non-teachers, public school costs aren't nearly as fixed in the short term as sometimes claimed.
Best Practice #2: Use Average Daily Membership to Count Students
Policymakers must also decide how to count students. The three approaches to counting students, along with their tradeoffs, are described below.
* Average Daily Membership: States such as Arizona, Minnesota, and Tennessee use average daily membership (ADM), which measures average student enrollment over a given period. ADM is calculated by aggregating the number of students enrolled each day and dividing that total by the number of instructional days during that period. ADM is by far the most accurate approach, tying education dollars directly to students and capturing daily enrollment. Its main drawback is that it's more complex to administer than using simple count dates.
* Average Daily Attendance: Average daily attendance (ADA), which is used by states such as Texas, Idaho, and Missouri, is like ADM but with one key difference: only students who attend school on a given day are counted, creating a direct link between funding and attendance. ADA incentivizes attendance, which research links to student outcomes. However, ADA is less transparent, can complicate school choice funding, and there's little research showing that ADA itself improves student outcomes. ADA also puts school districts and charter schools that serve low-income students at a fiscal disadvantage, since these students have worse attendance on average.
* Count Dates: States such as Indiana, Iowa, and West Virginia use one or more count dates to capture student enrollment. The count-dates approach is transparent and easy to administer, but it fails to capture enrollment changes that occur between count dates and after the final count date. For example, a school district that enrolls a student who switches from a charter school after the last count date would not receive funding for that student (and the charter school would not lose funding) until the following school year.
Average daily membership's primary benefit, accuracy, outweighs its administrative complexity, making it the best option for a modern funding system. While the simplicity of using count dates is appealing, and this approach is superior to average daily attendance, it is less sensitive to enrollment changes than ADM, a notable disadvantage in an era where students increasingly change schools.
Best Practice #3: Account for the Entire School Year
Finally, policymakers must consider the timeframe to count students within a school year. This feature varies most across states, even among those that count students in the same way.
For example, Texas and Idaho both use current-year average daily attendance, but Texas calculates enrollment over the entire school year, while Idaho uses only the highest 28 weeks. Similarly, Iowa and Montana both use count dates, but Iowa uses one snapshot (October) while Montana uses an average of two snapshots (October and February).
States should capture enrollment for the entire school year, not just a portion of it. This ensures that funding is responsive to all enrollment changes, making each day count and rewarding districts and charters that attract and retain students throughout the school year.
State Models for Policymakers to Consider
For state policymakers, the most critical policy feature is to adopt current-year enrollment counts, as Arizona and Indiana have done. These and other states show that school districts can adapt to enrollment changes in real time without hold-harmless funding, including declining-enrollment counts.
* Arizona uses current-year ADM to allocate K-12 funding. However, it considers only the first 100 school days, falling short of tracking students for the full school year. The Arizona Department of Education distributes aid monthly, using the latest available data and entitlement calculations. The first two payments (July and August) are based on prior-year ADM, and monthly payments are the difference between a rolling share of the annual aid and year-to-date payments. Arizona completes a final statewide calculation in July and adjusts the following school year's aid payments, as needed.
* Indiana uses current-year data with two enrollment count dates: an October count that determines funding for July to December, and a February count that determines funding for January to June. As such, enrollment changes after the February count don't affect funding levels. The Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) distributes at least 12 payments annually, according to a payment schedule set each year by the State Budget Agency and the Governor's office. IDOE uses estimated membership data until actual figures are available, with periodic adjustments to reconcile any discrepancies. If calculated state aid distributions exceed appropriated K-12 funding, the state can transfer up to $25 million from a reserve account to cover the difference.
While many states already use ADM funding, most base funding on prior-year or declining-enrollment counts.
Table 1 compares 15 states with Reason Foundation's three best practices. Note that some policy nuances are excluded for clarity and, while some hold-harmless provisions are identified in this table, it is not intended to be a full account of all such policies across and within states.
* * *
Table 1: Comparing Approaches to Counting Students in 15 States
* * *
Conclusion
Public education is changing rapidly, and states must reform how they count students for funding purposes. Declining-enrollment policies, a form of hold-harmless, create ghost students, are unnecessary, and are a poor use of finite education dollars.
In a new era of K-12 finance focused on better serving students, adopting a policy that combines current-year enrollment counts, average daily membership, and full-year accounting will provide strong incentives, ensure compatibility with choice programs, and save states money.
* * *
Aaron Garth Smith is the managing director of education reform at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/states-public-school-funding-systems-must-adapt-declining-student-enrollment/
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: First Step Act Implementation Tweaks Get Closer to the Law's Intent to Send More People Home Earlier
LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 13 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news:
* * *
First Step Act implementation tweaks get closer to the law's intent to send more people home earlier
While broader shortcomings in the First Step Act should be addressed through legislation, the Bureau of Prisons rule changes are a step in the right direction.
Colleen P. Eren, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz, Senior Fellow
November 11, 2026
President Donald Trump's signature federal prison reform legislation of 2018, the First Step Act (FSA), provided ways for people convicted of low-risk ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 13 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * First Step Act implementation tweaks get closer to the law's intent to send more people home earlier While broader shortcomings in the First Step Act should be addressed through legislation, the Bureau of Prisons rule changes are a step in the right direction. Colleen P. Eren, Ph.D., Senior Fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz, Senior Fellow November 11, 2026 President Donald Trump's signature federal prison reform legislation of 2018, the First Step Act (FSA), provided ways for people convicted of low-riskoffenses to reenter society early by earning time credits off their sentence through participation in various programs. However, until October, the law was interpreted in a way that severely limited when and where individuals could earn these credits.
On Sept. 30, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) made two amendments to its FSA regulations that expanded incarcerated people's ability to earn early release. The amendments were triggered by a series of executive orders issued by Trump and guided by recent legal trends.
The first amendment removes language that set the start of the period when people could be eligible to earn time as their arrival at the prison to serve their sentence, rather than allowing people to earn time in advance while they are held pretrial and/or before being transferred to the designated institution. BOP did not derive this determination from the FSA itself. While this regulation was in effect, many people were held in custody for months at another location (such as in local jails or detention centers) and could not use that period to take programs to earn release time. Now, according to the guidelines, ''[a]n eligible inmate begins earning FSA Time Credits after the inmate's term of imprisonment commences.''
According to the BOP, people convicted of federal crimes spend about two months outside their designated facility on average. Because they can now earn 10 to 15 days off their sentences for every 30 days of programming during that time, this revised rule would result in about 20 more days of time off their sentences. Because the new rule will affect an estimated 25,000 incarcerated people, the yearly savings to taxpayers of not having those individuals under correctional supervision will be in the range of $54 million, according to the BOP.
The second change to BOP regulations codifies the practice of allowing citizens who were convicted abroad and transferred to federal prisons in the U.S. to earn time credits toward early release. The impact of this change is small--only a few dozen Americans are transferred each year from countries with which transfer treaties exist, and the BOP says it had already been interpreting the law to allow these individuals to earn credit. Still, the rule change removes uncertainty and potential arbitrariness in BOP decision-making for this limited group. And, like the first change, this revision corrects the BOP's practice of creating its own eligibility restrictions without direct reference to the First Step Act itself.
The BOP pursued these rule changes now--eight years after the enactment of the FSA--in direct response to a string of court losses over its interpretations of the law and Executive Order (E.O.) 14219. In that order, "Ensuring lawful governance and implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency's Deregulatory Initiative (DOGE),'" Trump mandated that heads of federal agencies review regulations to ensure they are based only on "the best reading of the underlying statutory authority."
This phrase, invoking a "best reading" of statutes, echoes the recent Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024). This ruling ended the so-called Chevron deference, a previous Supreme Court precedent that compelled federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute Congress had delegated to the agency to administer. The end of Chevron deference could curb administrative overreach and authority creep. Courts no longer have to defer to agencies' views of what a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law might be when those agencies design their regulatory interpretations of that law, therefore making such regulations more easily the subject of legal challenges.
The BOP rule changes were also guided by standing Trump-era regulatory review executive orders intended to curtail excessive or inappropriate regulations, including E.O. 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation" (2025), and E.O. 14294, "Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations." It is also guided by previous executive orders from former President Barack Obama, namely E.O. 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," and from former President Bill Clinton, with E.O. 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review." Collectively, these executive orders emphasize agencies like the BOP operating through a cost/benefit framework, pushing them to choose the lowest-cost options to achieve a regulatory objective and to avoid criminalization through regulation.
It's a valuable impulse to attempt to limit administrative power to aggressively and inappropriately interpret the laws written by Congress. These interpretations often lead to more bureaucracy and less freedom, and they wrest power away from the legislature and thus further from voters' accountability. While "rule by executive order" should be approached with skepticism, E.O. 14219 was a legitimate way for the executive to nudge the BOP to bring its FSA regulations in line with Congress's goals, while remaining mindful of costs and benefits to taxpayers. The FSA, the most significant federal criminal justice reform legislation in decades, has resulted in tens of thousands of incarcerated people earning earlier releases, with lowered rates of recidivism among those released. While legislation should ideally address the shortcomings that prevented the FSA from benefiting the broadest number of people, these two BOP rule changes, combined with the launch of a dedicated First Step Act Office this month, are executive-level tweaks that are a step in the right direction.
* * *
Colleen P. Eren, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/first-step-act-implementation-tweaks-get-closer-to-the-laws-intent-to-send-more-people-home-earlier/
* * *
First Step Act implementation tweaks get closer to the law's intent to send more people home earlier
While broader shortcomings in the First Step Act should be addressed through legislation, the Bureau of Prisons rule changes are a step in the right direction.
Colleen P. Eren, Ph.D., Senior Fellow
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz, Senior Fellow
November 11, 2026
President Donald Trump's signature federal prison reform legislation of 2018, the First Step Act (FSA), provided ways for people convicted of low-risk ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Nov. 13 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following news: * * * First Step Act implementation tweaks get closer to the law's intent to send more people home earlier While broader shortcomings in the First Step Act should be addressed through legislation, the Bureau of Prisons rule changes are a step in the right direction. Colleen P. Eren, Ph.D., Senior Fellow Hanna Liebman Dershowitz, Senior Fellow November 11, 2026 President Donald Trump's signature federal prison reform legislation of 2018, the First Step Act (FSA), provided ways for people convicted of low-riskoffenses to reenter society early by earning time credits off their sentence through participation in various programs. However, until October, the law was interpreted in a way that severely limited when and where individuals could earn these credits.
On Sept. 30, the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) made two amendments to its FSA regulations that expanded incarcerated people's ability to earn early release. The amendments were triggered by a series of executive orders issued by Trump and guided by recent legal trends.
The first amendment removes language that set the start of the period when people could be eligible to earn time as their arrival at the prison to serve their sentence, rather than allowing people to earn time in advance while they are held pretrial and/or before being transferred to the designated institution. BOP did not derive this determination from the FSA itself. While this regulation was in effect, many people were held in custody for months at another location (such as in local jails or detention centers) and could not use that period to take programs to earn release time. Now, according to the guidelines, ''[a]n eligible inmate begins earning FSA Time Credits after the inmate's term of imprisonment commences.''
According to the BOP, people convicted of federal crimes spend about two months outside their designated facility on average. Because they can now earn 10 to 15 days off their sentences for every 30 days of programming during that time, this revised rule would result in about 20 more days of time off their sentences. Because the new rule will affect an estimated 25,000 incarcerated people, the yearly savings to taxpayers of not having those individuals under correctional supervision will be in the range of $54 million, according to the BOP.
The second change to BOP regulations codifies the practice of allowing citizens who were convicted abroad and transferred to federal prisons in the U.S. to earn time credits toward early release. The impact of this change is small--only a few dozen Americans are transferred each year from countries with which transfer treaties exist, and the BOP says it had already been interpreting the law to allow these individuals to earn credit. Still, the rule change removes uncertainty and potential arbitrariness in BOP decision-making for this limited group. And, like the first change, this revision corrects the BOP's practice of creating its own eligibility restrictions without direct reference to the First Step Act itself.
The BOP pursued these rule changes now--eight years after the enactment of the FSA--in direct response to a string of court losses over its interpretations of the law and Executive Order (E.O.) 14219. In that order, "Ensuring lawful governance and implementing the President's 'Department of Government Efficiency's Deregulatory Initiative (DOGE),'" Trump mandated that heads of federal agencies review regulations to ensure they are based only on "the best reading of the underlying statutory authority."
This phrase, invoking a "best reading" of statutes, echoes the recent Supreme Court ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024). This ruling ended the so-called Chevron deference, a previous Supreme Court precedent that compelled federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute Congress had delegated to the agency to administer. The end of Chevron deference could curb administrative overreach and authority creep. Courts no longer have to defer to agencies' views of what a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous law might be when those agencies design their regulatory interpretations of that law, therefore making such regulations more easily the subject of legal challenges.
The BOP rule changes were also guided by standing Trump-era regulatory review executive orders intended to curtail excessive or inappropriate regulations, including E.O. 14192, "Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation" (2025), and E.O. 14294, "Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations." It is also guided by previous executive orders from former President Barack Obama, namely E.O. 13563, "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review," and from former President Bill Clinton, with E.O. 12866, "Regulatory Planning and Review." Collectively, these executive orders emphasize agencies like the BOP operating through a cost/benefit framework, pushing them to choose the lowest-cost options to achieve a regulatory objective and to avoid criminalization through regulation.
It's a valuable impulse to attempt to limit administrative power to aggressively and inappropriately interpret the laws written by Congress. These interpretations often lead to more bureaucracy and less freedom, and they wrest power away from the legislature and thus further from voters' accountability. While "rule by executive order" should be approached with skepticism, E.O. 14219 was a legitimate way for the executive to nudge the BOP to bring its FSA regulations in line with Congress's goals, while remaining mindful of costs and benefits to taxpayers. The FSA, the most significant federal criminal justice reform legislation in decades, has resulted in tens of thousands of incarcerated people earning earlier releases, with lowered rates of recidivism among those released. While legislation should ideally address the shortcomings that prevented the FSA from benefiting the broadest number of people, these two BOP rule changes, combined with the launch of a dedicated First Step Act Office this month, are executive-level tweaks that are a step in the right direction.
* * *
Colleen P. Eren, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at Reason Foundation.
Hanna Liebman Dershowitz is a senior policy fellow at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/first-step-act-implementation-tweaks-get-closer-to-the-laws-intent-to-send-more-people-home-earlier/
Nobel Prize laureates gather in Stockholm to discuss artificial intelligence
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Nov. 13 -- The Nobel Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Nobel Prize laureates gather in Stockholm to discuss artificial intelligence
*
Artificial intelligence promises to transform science and society, but where will it take us? On 9 December, Nobel Prize laureates and leading thinkers will come together in Stockholm for the Nobel Week Dialogue 2026 to examine the opportunities, risks and choices that come with life in the age of AI.
Today we see AI tools rapidly becoming more powerful. Advocates highlight AI's potential to serve humanity and the promise ... Show Full Article STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Nov. 13 -- The Nobel Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Nobel Prize laureates gather in Stockholm to discuss artificial intelligence * Artificial intelligence promises to transform science and society, but where will it take us? On 9 December, Nobel Prize laureates and leading thinkers will come together in Stockholm for the Nobel Week Dialogue 2026 to examine the opportunities, risks and choices that come with life in the age of AI. Today we see AI tools rapidly becoming more powerful. Advocates highlight AI's potential to serve humanity and the promisethat it will contribute to major scientific advances. Some early promise has become reality, but many warn of risks to society, to the future of work, education and democracy.
Why are experts so divided on opportunities and risks? Given this uncertainty, how should we map our path to living with AI, and how can we ensure its benefits are shared to the fullest extent?
The Nobel Week Dialogue takes place on 9 December 2026, from 10:00 to 15:30 at House of People in Stockholm. Speakers include Nobel Prize laureates Philippe Aghion (economic sciences 2025), Steven Chu (physics 1997), John Jumper (chemistry 2024) and David MacMillan (chemistry 2021).
The event is fully booked but media can apply to participate by using this form: Registration press programme Nobel Week 2026
All interview must be booked in advance. Please contact: press@nobelprize.org
The Nobel Week Dialogue is held in Stockholm every other year and in Gothenburg (Goteborg) every other year. The Nobel Week Dialogue is organised by Nobel Prize Outreach in collaboration with Carl Bennet AB, the City of Gothenburg, Royalty Pharma and Volvo Group.
The Nobel Prize celebrates 125 years
This year marks the 125th anniversary of the Nobel Prize. In September, the Nobel Foundation announced that the Nobel Prize amount would increase to SEK 12 million per prize category, an increase of SEK 1 million compared with the previous year.
This year's Nobel Prize laureates were announced from 5-12 October: https://www.nobelprize.org/all-nobel-prizes-2026/
The press programme for Nobel Week is available here: https://www.nobelprize.org/press-programme-for-nobel-week-2026/
Nobel Week Dialogue
The Nobel Week Dialogue is an annual conference on 9 December in Nobel Week. The goal of the event is to bring together a select group of the world's leading scientists, policy-makers and thinkers for a series of thought-provoking sessions and working groups on a topical science-related theme. With this event we aim to deepen the dialogue between the scientific community and the rest of society on issues connected with the Nobel Prize and of importance for the world.
***
Original text here: https://www.nobelprize.org/press-release/nobel-prize-laureates-gather-in-stockholm-to-discuss-artificial-intelligence/
* * *
Nobel Prize laureates gather in Stockholm to discuss artificial intelligence
*
Artificial intelligence promises to transform science and society, but where will it take us? On 9 December, Nobel Prize laureates and leading thinkers will come together in Stockholm for the Nobel Week Dialogue 2026 to examine the opportunities, risks and choices that come with life in the age of AI.
Today we see AI tools rapidly becoming more powerful. Advocates highlight AI's potential to serve humanity and the promise ... Show Full Article STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Nov. 13 -- The Nobel Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Nobel Prize laureates gather in Stockholm to discuss artificial intelligence * Artificial intelligence promises to transform science and society, but where will it take us? On 9 December, Nobel Prize laureates and leading thinkers will come together in Stockholm for the Nobel Week Dialogue 2026 to examine the opportunities, risks and choices that come with life in the age of AI. Today we see AI tools rapidly becoming more powerful. Advocates highlight AI's potential to serve humanity and the promisethat it will contribute to major scientific advances. Some early promise has become reality, but many warn of risks to society, to the future of work, education and democracy.
Why are experts so divided on opportunities and risks? Given this uncertainty, how should we map our path to living with AI, and how can we ensure its benefits are shared to the fullest extent?
The Nobel Week Dialogue takes place on 9 December 2026, from 10:00 to 15:30 at House of People in Stockholm. Speakers include Nobel Prize laureates Philippe Aghion (economic sciences 2025), Steven Chu (physics 1997), John Jumper (chemistry 2024) and David MacMillan (chemistry 2021).
The event is fully booked but media can apply to participate by using this form: Registration press programme Nobel Week 2026
All interview must be booked in advance. Please contact: press@nobelprize.org
The Nobel Week Dialogue is held in Stockholm every other year and in Gothenburg (Goteborg) every other year. The Nobel Week Dialogue is organised by Nobel Prize Outreach in collaboration with Carl Bennet AB, the City of Gothenburg, Royalty Pharma and Volvo Group.
The Nobel Prize celebrates 125 years
This year marks the 125th anniversary of the Nobel Prize. In September, the Nobel Foundation announced that the Nobel Prize amount would increase to SEK 12 million per prize category, an increase of SEK 1 million compared with the previous year.
This year's Nobel Prize laureates were announced from 5-12 October: https://www.nobelprize.org/all-nobel-prizes-2026/
The press programme for Nobel Week is available here: https://www.nobelprize.org/press-programme-for-nobel-week-2026/
Nobel Week Dialogue
The Nobel Week Dialogue is an annual conference on 9 December in Nobel Week. The goal of the event is to bring together a select group of the world's leading scientists, policy-makers and thinkers for a series of thought-provoking sessions and working groups on a topical science-related theme. With this event we aim to deepen the dialogue between the scientific community and the rest of society on issues connected with the Nobel Prize and of importance for the world.
***
Original text here: https://www.nobelprize.org/press-release/nobel-prize-laureates-gather-in-stockholm-to-discuss-artificial-intelligence/
NVIDIA's Board Had the Power to Check Its CEO. At Dual-Class Companies, That Power Doesn't Exist.
OAKLAND, California, Nov. 13 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
NVIDIA's Board Had the Power to Check Its CEO. At Dual-Class Companies, That Power Doesn't Exist.
*
MEDIA CONTACT: Ryon Harms, rharms@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA -- November 12, 2026 -- NVIDIA's board of directors today announced that CEO Jensen Huang has resigned following an independent board investigation. Huang, who founded and has led the company since 1993, allegedly put the company at risk of espionage through a recent affair. Because the Board is not handcuffed by ... Show Full Article OAKLAND, California, Nov. 13 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release: * * * NVIDIA's Board Had the Power to Check Its CEO. At Dual-Class Companies, That Power Doesn't Exist. * MEDIA CONTACT: Ryon Harms, rharms@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407 EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA -- November 12, 2026 -- NVIDIA's board of directors today announced that CEO Jensen Huang has resigned following an independent board investigation. Huang, who founded and has led the company since 1993, allegedly put the company at risk of espionage through a recent affair. Because the Board is not handcuffed bydual class shares that insulate a reckless CEO, it has the power to weigh the situation and take action, a basic check on power that does not exist at Meta, SpaceX, and other companies including Anthropic and OpenAI that have planned IPOs built on dual class shares.
For As You Sow, the nation's leading shareholder representative, the outcome shows corporate governance working as designed. NVIDIA has a single class of common stock. Every share carries one vote, shareholders elect the board, and the board can hold the CEO accountable for their actions. This chain of accountability is too often broken at public companies with dual-class shares.
"Even a founder who built one of the most valuable companies in the world needs accountability," said Andrew Behar, CEO at As You Sow. "Leaders without guardrails can become reckless and put their company and shareholders at risk, we've seen this recently at Meta, a company facing potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of liability for actions that even company insiders called out as reckless, harmful, and addressable."
For example, at Meta, Mark Zuckerberg holds roughly 61% of the company's voting power, while owning only about 13% of the company, because each of his shares carries ten votes. SpaceX's public offering gives Elon Musk and a small group of insiders ten-vote shares, with Musk serving as CEO, CTO, and board chair. Anthropic's IPO filing shows its seven co-founders will control 50.1% of the vote, and OpenAI's governance gives a nonprofit foundation the power to appoint and replace every director. In each case, control rests in one unaccountable person, or a small body of unaccountable people -- somewhere other than with the shareholders who own the company.
"When a founder controls the vote, the board serves at the founder's pleasure, and its power to fire the CEO exists only on paper," said Danielle Fugere, President & Chief Counsel As You Sow. "This builds inherent risk into a public company."
In a September commentary in Fortune, As You Sow CEO Andrew Behar documented what that lack of oversight has cost at Meta: a settlement of up to $17.1 billion over claims that Facebook and Instagram were engineered to addict children, and another $25 billion settlement for lying about data privacy. As of December 2022, over 1,200 similar cases had been filed against Meta. In 2021, an As You Sowcontent governance resolution won 63.1% of Meta's independent shareholder vote. Once Zuckerberg's ten-to-one votes were counted, however, the reported result was only 19%. Many other shareholder proposals raising similar risks were filed at Meta.
An independent board with power to remove the CEO could not only assess this growing risk but taken action. "NVIDIA's board investigation that led to the resignation showed what true oversight looks like," said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow. "When a CEO takes imprudent action, there must be people in the boardroom with the authority to impose consequences. At NVIDIA, shareholders elect the board, and the board decides who runs the company. That's how a public company is supposed to work."
As You Sow has long advocated for one share, one vote at Meta and other dual-class companies, and will continue to press for governance structures that give shareholders a real voice and boards real authority.
***
Original text here: https://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2026/11/13/nvidias-board-had-the-power-to-check-its-ceo-at-dual-class-companies-that-power-doesnt-exist
* * *
NVIDIA's Board Had the Power to Check Its CEO. At Dual-Class Companies, That Power Doesn't Exist.
*
MEDIA CONTACT: Ryon Harms, rharms@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407
EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA -- November 12, 2026 -- NVIDIA's board of directors today announced that CEO Jensen Huang has resigned following an independent board investigation. Huang, who founded and has led the company since 1993, allegedly put the company at risk of espionage through a recent affair. Because the Board is not handcuffed by ... Show Full Article OAKLAND, California, Nov. 13 -- As You Sow Foundation posted the following news release: * * * NVIDIA's Board Had the Power to Check Its CEO. At Dual-Class Companies, That Power Doesn't Exist. * MEDIA CONTACT: Ryon Harms, rharms@asyousow.org, (310) 730-9407 EL CERRITO, CALIFORNIA -- November 12, 2026 -- NVIDIA's board of directors today announced that CEO Jensen Huang has resigned following an independent board investigation. Huang, who founded and has led the company since 1993, allegedly put the company at risk of espionage through a recent affair. Because the Board is not handcuffed bydual class shares that insulate a reckless CEO, it has the power to weigh the situation and take action, a basic check on power that does not exist at Meta, SpaceX, and other companies including Anthropic and OpenAI that have planned IPOs built on dual class shares.
For As You Sow, the nation's leading shareholder representative, the outcome shows corporate governance working as designed. NVIDIA has a single class of common stock. Every share carries one vote, shareholders elect the board, and the board can hold the CEO accountable for their actions. This chain of accountability is too often broken at public companies with dual-class shares.
"Even a founder who built one of the most valuable companies in the world needs accountability," said Andrew Behar, CEO at As You Sow. "Leaders without guardrails can become reckless and put their company and shareholders at risk, we've seen this recently at Meta, a company facing potentially hundreds of billions of dollars of liability for actions that even company insiders called out as reckless, harmful, and addressable."
For example, at Meta, Mark Zuckerberg holds roughly 61% of the company's voting power, while owning only about 13% of the company, because each of his shares carries ten votes. SpaceX's public offering gives Elon Musk and a small group of insiders ten-vote shares, with Musk serving as CEO, CTO, and board chair. Anthropic's IPO filing shows its seven co-founders will control 50.1% of the vote, and OpenAI's governance gives a nonprofit foundation the power to appoint and replace every director. In each case, control rests in one unaccountable person, or a small body of unaccountable people -- somewhere other than with the shareholders who own the company.
"When a founder controls the vote, the board serves at the founder's pleasure, and its power to fire the CEO exists only on paper," said Danielle Fugere, President & Chief Counsel As You Sow. "This builds inherent risk into a public company."
In a September commentary in Fortune, As You Sow CEO Andrew Behar documented what that lack of oversight has cost at Meta: a settlement of up to $17.1 billion over claims that Facebook and Instagram were engineered to addict children, and another $25 billion settlement for lying about data privacy. As of December 2022, over 1,200 similar cases had been filed against Meta. In 2021, an As You Sowcontent governance resolution won 63.1% of Meta's independent shareholder vote. Once Zuckerberg's ten-to-one votes were counted, however, the reported result was only 19%. Many other shareholder proposals raising similar risks were filed at Meta.
An independent board with power to remove the CEO could not only assess this growing risk but taken action. "NVIDIA's board investigation that led to the resignation showed what true oversight looks like," said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow. "When a CEO takes imprudent action, there must be people in the boardroom with the authority to impose consequences. At NVIDIA, shareholders elect the board, and the board decides who runs the company. That's how a public company is supposed to work."
As You Sow has long advocated for one share, one vote at Meta and other dual-class companies, and will continue to press for governance structures that give shareholders a real voice and boards real authority.
***
Original text here: https://www.asyousow.org/press-releases/2026/11/13/nvidias-board-had-the-power-to-check-its-ceo-at-dual-class-companies-that-power-doesnt-exist
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Depop Is Dangerous?
DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary:
* * *
November 12, 2026
Depop Is Dangerous?
Ryan Devine
The UK's online safety agenda keeps expanding.
-
Children and teens in the United Kingdom are caught in the crosshairs of governmental policies to reduce their access to the Internet. In June 2026, then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he would introduce an official ban on under-16s accessing social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, hoping to have it passed through Parliament by Christmas and put into ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * November 12, 2026 Depop Is Dangerous? Ryan Devine The UK's online safety agenda keeps expanding. - Children and teens in the United Kingdom are caught in the crosshairs of governmental policies to reduce their access to the Internet. In June 2026, then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he would introduce an official ban on under-16s accessing social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, hoping to have it passed through Parliament by Christmas and put intoeffect in early 2027.
This comes after a wave of activist campaigns raising concerns that social media has detrimental effects on children's mental health. Researchers and advocates argue that the addictive nature of these platforms causes children to spend too much time in front of screens, making them less socialized while exposing them to harmful content. The UK government isn't the first to institute a social media ban on under-16s. Australia, most infamously, implemented a ban last year, while several nations in Europe and some states in the US have introduced different forms of social media bans for teens.
With most of these bans requiring platforms to implement age-verification technology for users to access social media, free speech supporters fear that requiring citizens to upload their IDs poses serious privacy risks, while restricting teens' access to social media strips them of their autonomy and right to express themselves freely online.
But a bigger concern is that when the government is given the leverage to restrict the rights of a certain demographic, especially in the name of "safety," it is bound to go further until little freedom is left to take away. So when UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy recently said that, in addition to social media platforms, the government is also "looking seriously" at banning under-16s from clothing resale apps such as Depop, eBay, and Vinted, several red flags were raised.
You read that correctly. The UK government is now trying to prevent teens from... thrifting online.
Why, you may ask? It's not because the apps have addictive algorithms, or that they're isolating children from the outside world, or even that the content on the apps is harmful (though on several occasions I've seen some hideous pieces on Depop that gave me a fright). It's that message boards between buyers and sellers could expose children to online predators.
Given that the government is looking more broadly at banning any app with a messaging feature, clothing reseller apps aren't going to be the only targets in this crackdown. Video games like Roblox, music streaming platforms such as Spotify, and even the kid-friendly YouTube Kids allow users to chat with one another. Should they expect a knock on the door from the UK government, too? Just imagine the uproar from households when Roblox is taken away from the kids!
Though for resale apps, using the platform isn't simply a means for kids to pass time or acquire a rare find; it's also become a valuable opportunity to sell their belongings while learning how to run a business.
Surveys show that nearly 1 in 5 children ages 8-14 use platforms such as eBay or Vinted to buy or sell used clothing. A separate survey found that, among 15-year-olds in the UK, roughly the same proportion sell items online. With all of the minimum wage hikes in the UK pushing teens out of the job market, starting a small business on Vinted seems to be one of the few viable alternatives for making some extra cash. One 14-year-old reported earning around $150 a month selling his clothes. For teenagers, that kind of money can provide a significant amount of financial independence. Not for long.
Whether you're for or against the ban on Snapchat, TikTok, or Instagram for under-16s, given the many scientific data points showing social media's harm to kids, there's no denying that proponents of a ban have at least somewhat of a leg to stand on. With these newer proposals to ban under-16s from platforms like Vinted, it's difficult to picture how potential exposure to child predators through these message boards alone is sufficient reason to prohibit an entire population from using the platform. Though eBay is guilty of wasting kids' hard-earned cash on dropshipped junk, surely there's some harm in that. Fortunately, they'll still have access to Temu.
As some of the most vulnerable members of society, children deserve to be safe and free from those who wish to harm them. But at the same time, governments need to recognize when the line has been crossed between protecting and overprotecting children. They should also recognize that when it comes to things that children really want (like Roblox or a pair of vintage jeans from Depop), a ban isn't going to work. Teens are already finding loopholes to bypass these bans, like downloading a VPN to change their location, while others use a sibling's or parent's ID to log on.
So instead of feeling like they've done their due diligence by "banning" kids from these platforms, governments should collaborate with corporations and provide incentives to instill safety measures within their platforms. Instead of keeping kids off Vinted, educate them on when and how they should report suspicious online behavior.
If the answer continues to be to regulate away kids' favorite online hobbies over all the potential boogeymen lurking on the Internet, all that will be left is a generation of resentful kids with nothing but a calculator app on their phones. Though even then, mathematics presents its own safety risks. Should we consider banning that, too?
* * *
Ryan Devine is an Editorial Associate at FEE. He earned a BA in Psychology from Salisbury University and an MPA from Villanova University. At Salisbury, he received the Psychology Department Award, presented to a graduating senior in recognition of academic achievement and meaningful contributions to the department.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/depop-is-dangerous/
* * *
November 12, 2026
Depop Is Dangerous?
Ryan Devine
The UK's online safety agenda keeps expanding.
-
Children and teens in the United Kingdom are caught in the crosshairs of governmental policies to reduce their access to the Internet. In June 2026, then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he would introduce an official ban on under-16s accessing social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, hoping to have it passed through Parliament by Christmas and put into ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Nov. 13 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary: * * * November 12, 2026 Depop Is Dangerous? Ryan Devine The UK's online safety agenda keeps expanding. - Children and teens in the United Kingdom are caught in the crosshairs of governmental policies to reduce their access to the Internet. In June 2026, then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that he would introduce an official ban on under-16s accessing social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat, hoping to have it passed through Parliament by Christmas and put intoeffect in early 2027.
This comes after a wave of activist campaigns raising concerns that social media has detrimental effects on children's mental health. Researchers and advocates argue that the addictive nature of these platforms causes children to spend too much time in front of screens, making them less socialized while exposing them to harmful content. The UK government isn't the first to institute a social media ban on under-16s. Australia, most infamously, implemented a ban last year, while several nations in Europe and some states in the US have introduced different forms of social media bans for teens.
With most of these bans requiring platforms to implement age-verification technology for users to access social media, free speech supporters fear that requiring citizens to upload their IDs poses serious privacy risks, while restricting teens' access to social media strips them of their autonomy and right to express themselves freely online.
But a bigger concern is that when the government is given the leverage to restrict the rights of a certain demographic, especially in the name of "safety," it is bound to go further until little freedom is left to take away. So when UK Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy recently said that, in addition to social media platforms, the government is also "looking seriously" at banning under-16s from clothing resale apps such as Depop, eBay, and Vinted, several red flags were raised.
You read that correctly. The UK government is now trying to prevent teens from... thrifting online.
Why, you may ask? It's not because the apps have addictive algorithms, or that they're isolating children from the outside world, or even that the content on the apps is harmful (though on several occasions I've seen some hideous pieces on Depop that gave me a fright). It's that message boards between buyers and sellers could expose children to online predators.
Given that the government is looking more broadly at banning any app with a messaging feature, clothing reseller apps aren't going to be the only targets in this crackdown. Video games like Roblox, music streaming platforms such as Spotify, and even the kid-friendly YouTube Kids allow users to chat with one another. Should they expect a knock on the door from the UK government, too? Just imagine the uproar from households when Roblox is taken away from the kids!
Though for resale apps, using the platform isn't simply a means for kids to pass time or acquire a rare find; it's also become a valuable opportunity to sell their belongings while learning how to run a business.
Surveys show that nearly 1 in 5 children ages 8-14 use platforms such as eBay or Vinted to buy or sell used clothing. A separate survey found that, among 15-year-olds in the UK, roughly the same proportion sell items online. With all of the minimum wage hikes in the UK pushing teens out of the job market, starting a small business on Vinted seems to be one of the few viable alternatives for making some extra cash. One 14-year-old reported earning around $150 a month selling his clothes. For teenagers, that kind of money can provide a significant amount of financial independence. Not for long.
Whether you're for or against the ban on Snapchat, TikTok, or Instagram for under-16s, given the many scientific data points showing social media's harm to kids, there's no denying that proponents of a ban have at least somewhat of a leg to stand on. With these newer proposals to ban under-16s from platforms like Vinted, it's difficult to picture how potential exposure to child predators through these message boards alone is sufficient reason to prohibit an entire population from using the platform. Though eBay is guilty of wasting kids' hard-earned cash on dropshipped junk, surely there's some harm in that. Fortunately, they'll still have access to Temu.
As some of the most vulnerable members of society, children deserve to be safe and free from those who wish to harm them. But at the same time, governments need to recognize when the line has been crossed between protecting and overprotecting children. They should also recognize that when it comes to things that children really want (like Roblox or a pair of vintage jeans from Depop), a ban isn't going to work. Teens are already finding loopholes to bypass these bans, like downloading a VPN to change their location, while others use a sibling's or parent's ID to log on.
So instead of feeling like they've done their due diligence by "banning" kids from these platforms, governments should collaborate with corporations and provide incentives to instill safety measures within their platforms. Instead of keeping kids off Vinted, educate them on when and how they should report suspicious online behavior.
If the answer continues to be to regulate away kids' favorite online hobbies over all the potential boogeymen lurking on the Internet, all that will be left is a generation of resentful kids with nothing but a calculator app on their phones. Though even then, mathematics presents its own safety risks. Should we consider banning that, too?
* * *
Ryan Devine is an Editorial Associate at FEE. He earned a BA in Psychology from Salisbury University and an MPA from Villanova University. At Salisbury, he received the Psychology Department Award, presented to a graduating senior in recognition of academic achievement and meaningful contributions to the department.
* * *
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/depop-is-dangerous/
FDA Launches Rare Disease Framework Initiative
DANVERS, Massachusetts, Nov. 13 -- The National Scleroderma Foundation posted the following news:
* * *
FDA Launches Rare Disease Framework Initiative
*
On October 14, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched its Rare Disease Framework Initiative to rethink how drugs and biologics are developed for rare diseases through what the agency describes as a "fit-for-purpose" approach. Read the FDA announcement.
In developing the framework, the FDA will consider the nuances of individual diseases, patient needs, the type of treatment being studied and the evidence that can realistically ... Show Full Article DANVERS, Massachusetts, Nov. 13 -- The National Scleroderma Foundation posted the following news: * * * FDA Launches Rare Disease Framework Initiative * On October 14, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched its Rare Disease Framework Initiative to rethink how drugs and biologics are developed for rare diseases through what the agency describes as a "fit-for-purpose" approach. Read the FDA announcement. In developing the framework, the FDA will consider the nuances of individual diseases, patient needs, the type of treatment being studied and the evidence that can realisticallybe gathered in small patient populations. The agency also plans to incorporate patient perspectives early and at defined points in drug development and review.
The FDA's emphasis on bringing patient perspectives into drug development early aligns with the National Scleroderma Foundation's Patients as Partners approach. At the Foundation's inaugural Patient Advocacy Summit in Bethesda, Foundation staff shared insights from the program and early findings from the Patient Needs Assessment. They emphasized that patients are essential partners throughout clinical research and should help shape decisions early, including how trials are designed and what outcomes they measure. Read more about the Patient Advocaty Summit.
Mary Wheatley, IOM, CAE, CEO of the National Scleroderma Foundation, sees the initiative as an encouraging step. The FDA's emphasis on early patient input echoes conversations at the summit about how to study a disease that can affect two people with the same diagnosis very differently. People living with scleroderma can experience different symptoms, rates of progression and treatment needs.
Advancing treatment for a disease as complex as scleroderma requires listening to the people who live with it. Their perspectives can help researchers decide what outcomes matter to patients before a trial is designed.
Learn how to get involved in scleroderma advocacy through the Foundation's Advocacy page.
***
Original text here: https://scleroderma.org/fda-launches-rare-disease-framework-initiative/
* * *
FDA Launches Rare Disease Framework Initiative
*
On October 14, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched its Rare Disease Framework Initiative to rethink how drugs and biologics are developed for rare diseases through what the agency describes as a "fit-for-purpose" approach. Read the FDA announcement.
In developing the framework, the FDA will consider the nuances of individual diseases, patient needs, the type of treatment being studied and the evidence that can realistically ... Show Full Article DANVERS, Massachusetts, Nov. 13 -- The National Scleroderma Foundation posted the following news: * * * FDA Launches Rare Disease Framework Initiative * On October 14, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) launched its Rare Disease Framework Initiative to rethink how drugs and biologics are developed for rare diseases through what the agency describes as a "fit-for-purpose" approach. Read the FDA announcement. In developing the framework, the FDA will consider the nuances of individual diseases, patient needs, the type of treatment being studied and the evidence that can realisticallybe gathered in small patient populations. The agency also plans to incorporate patient perspectives early and at defined points in drug development and review.
The FDA's emphasis on bringing patient perspectives into drug development early aligns with the National Scleroderma Foundation's Patients as Partners approach. At the Foundation's inaugural Patient Advocacy Summit in Bethesda, Foundation staff shared insights from the program and early findings from the Patient Needs Assessment. They emphasized that patients are essential partners throughout clinical research and should help shape decisions early, including how trials are designed and what outcomes they measure. Read more about the Patient Advocaty Summit.
Mary Wheatley, IOM, CAE, CEO of the National Scleroderma Foundation, sees the initiative as an encouraging step. The FDA's emphasis on early patient input echoes conversations at the summit about how to study a disease that can affect two people with the same diagnosis very differently. People living with scleroderma can experience different symptoms, rates of progression and treatment needs.
Advancing treatment for a disease as complex as scleroderma requires listening to the people who live with it. Their perspectives can help researchers decide what outcomes matter to patients before a trial is designed.
Learn how to get involved in scleroderma advocacy through the Foundation's Advocacy page.
***
Original text here: https://scleroderma.org/fda-launches-rare-disease-framework-initiative/