Think Tanks
Here's a look at documents from think tanks
Featured Stories
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Minnesota's Taxpayers Should Not Be Forced to Fund the Media
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 8 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Minnesota's taxpayers should not be forced to fund the media
Last month, the Star Tribune's mascot Stribby the Gray Duck was at the Capitol "lobbying in support of local news." I have not seen Stribby on the register of lobbyists, but it's been a while since I've looked.
[View image in the link at bottom.]
Stribby was lobbying in favor of HF 4072 and SF 4183, bills
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 8 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 7, 2026, by economist John Phelan:
* * *
Minnesota's taxpayers should not be forced to fund the media
Last month, the Star Tribune's mascot Stribby the Gray Duck was at the Capitol "lobbying in support of local news." I have not seen Stribby on the register of lobbyists, but it's been a while since I've looked.
[View image in the link at bottom.]
Stribby was lobbying in favor of HF 4072 and SF 4183, billswhich would give $500,000 of Minnesotan taxpayer's money to the Minnesota News Media Institute (MNMI), a nonprofit arm of the Minnesota Newspaper Association (MNA), which is "the voluntary trade association of all general-interest newspapers in the State of Minnesota, acting on behalf of the newspaper press of the state."
News isn't a "public good"
This is one of several measures, along with "media literacy incentives" and tax credits for newsroom staff, being pushed by the True North News Alliance, a newly formed group of news and civic organizations. Advocates argue that news is a "public good" which should be financed by taxation. "Healthy communities require healthy local news," they argue. "Not as a luxury, not as a legacy product, but as essential civil infrastructure, and infrastructure just as critical as roads, schools, public safety and public health."
Even if we leave aside, for the moment, the fact that schools and roads exist which are not taxpayer funded, newspapers or news websites do not fit the definition of a public good. "In the jargon," as I've explained previously:
"...these are goods or services which have the characteristics of being both non-rivalrous (my consumption of it does not leave less for you to consume) and non-excludable (if I pay for it, it still benefits you whether you pay or not)."
A newspaper might be "non-rivalrous" in that if I buy it, you can't, but a news website clearly isn't; if I'm looking at the Minn Post site there isn't less of if it for you to look at. But both are clearly excludable; you have to pay for the newspaper or to access the website and cannot read either if you do not. There is no "free rider" problem, it is simply the case that fewer people are willing to pay for the product. Even in basic terms, then, "news" is not a public good, and this argument cannot be used to justify taxpayer support.
News and opinion
There is a deeper argument against taxpayer financing of news reporting. The Lafayette Bridge takes you from one side of the Mississippi to the other. There is no chance of you ever entering the bridge heading south and exiting it in Ouagadougou.
The news isn't like that. An event can be covered in a number of ways, some valid, some not, all, possibly, even containing a degree of validity; think of Rashomon. The validity might be in the eye of the beholder, and, in that case, it isn't clear why he or she ought to be forced to fund something they view as invalid.
MPR, for example, touted its impartiality in defense of its taxpayer funding. Nobody seriously believed this, but those who thought it was all nonsense had to pay for it anyway. The Star Tribune is now published by a former member of the governor's cabinet and has been found collaborating with that government and publishing bogus information to aid that government. If the Strib wants to produce yet another DFL press release masquerading as journalism, they have a First Amendment right to do so, but there is no duty for the average Minnesota taxpayer to finance it, nor should there be.
The market for news
Since 2018, 97 local news outlets have closed across Minnesota, but does this mean that Minnesotans have less information than they did eight years ago?
An increasing number of Minnesotans hear about school board meetings, planning applications, local elections, or upcoming roadworks through Facebook groups or Nextdoor. Social media has, to a large extent, replaced old media. This is a trend often bewailed on the grounds that, now, you or I or the guy in the bar can spread information on the same basis as someone who spent four years getting a degree in Journalism, but during the 2020 riots, for example, the real time reporting on Twitter was much more useful than the TV bulletin every few hours, or the newspaper once a day.
Having seen the output of some of those with such degrees, I'd hesitate to take them more seriously than Dale from the bar. There is a market for both, and government -- and taxpayers' money -- shouldn't be in it.
* * *
John Phelan is an Economist at the Center of the American Experiment.
john.phelan@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/minnesotas-taxpayers-should-not-be-forced-to-fund-the-media/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for Economic & Policy Research: Report on Honduras's 2025 Elections Finds That Partisan Gridlock, U.S. Interference, Procedural Irregularities, and Technical Deficiencies Undermined Their Legitimacy
WASHINGTON, May 8 (TNSrep) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release on May 7, 2026:
* * *
New Report on Honduras's 2025 Elections Finds that Partisan Gridlock, US Interference, Procedural Irregularities, and Technical Deficiencies Undermined Their Legitimacy
A new report (https://cepr.net/publications/an-assessment-of-the-honduras-2025-elections) from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) takes an in-depth look at Honduras's 2025 elections and finds that several aspects of the electoral process - including the partisan structure of institutions,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 8 (TNSrep) -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release on May 7, 2026:
* * *
New Report on Honduras's 2025 Elections Finds that Partisan Gridlock, US Interference, Procedural Irregularities, and Technical Deficiencies Undermined Their Legitimacy
A new report (https://cepr.net/publications/an-assessment-of-the-honduras-2025-elections) from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) takes an in-depth look at Honduras's 2025 elections and finds that several aspects of the electoral process - including the partisan structure of institutions,procedural irregularities, and severe technical issues - contributed to delays in tabulating and announcing official results, and to distrust in the process from across the political spectrum. The report also notes that "overt foreign interference" - especially from US President Trump and other US political actors - may have significantly influenced voters. Taken together, these issues weakened the legitimacy of the electoral process.
"Honduras's 2025 elections were hampered by various institutional and technical factors that led to confusion and distrust," said CEPR Senior International Policy Associate and report coauthor Francesca Emanuele, who observed the elections as part of CEPR's electoral observation mission. "There is also no doubt that heavy interference from the Trump administration and some of its allies in the US Congress put enormous pressure on voters and may have had a decisive effect on the outcome of the vote."
The report (https://cepr.net/publications/an-assessment-of-the-honduras-2025-elections) examines Honduras's electoral institutions, operational and technical aspects of the electoral process, and important developments related to the preelection and postelection periods as well as to election day itself. It also looks at US interference, media bias, political violence, and civil society concerns related to the elections and the new Nasry Asfura government.
CEPR's electoral observation mission also conducted a statistical analysis of electoral data made available to it "and did not find evidence supporting claims of fraud in the presidential election. However, the mission was unable to assess the potential impact of reported electoral data irregularities on the final results." An agreed-upon special scrutiny recount of tally sheets flagged for potential irregularities, which was expected to bring much-needed clarity to the results, was never completed.
The report (https://cepr.net/publications/an-assessment-of-the-honduras-2025-elections) finds that the current "partisan structure of Honduras's electoral institutions improves upon the institutional framework that existed before 2021," but that "it contributed to gridlock in key decision-making processes, leading to delays in procurement and the establishment of procedural, logistical, and regulatory aspects of the vote."
"Technical deficiencies further undermined the election's integrity," the report adds. "The preliminary results transmission system suffered from repeated outages and poor optical character recognition accuracy, yielding a considerable volume of irregular data. Data inconsistencies (combined with infighting within the electoral institutions) fueled fraud narratives across the political spectrum."
Steps that the electoral authority attempted to take to verify the results and ensure trust in the system were undermined by political disagreements, the report notes; "a particularly contentious special scrutiny recount process . . . was not completed, further eroding confidence in the results."
The report also looks at some of the concerns raised by civil society organizations regarding Honduras's new elected authorities, including what appears to be the politically motivated purging of key opposition-linked electoral and judicial officials and fears of an increase in violence targeting human rights defenders and in the forced displacement of small farming communities, as occurred under the National Party governments of Pepe Lobo (2010-2014) and Juan Orlando Hernandez (2014-2022).
The report concludes with a series of recommendations to the Honduran Congress, including the amendment of the 2021 Elections Law; to Honduran electoral authorities, including measures to adequately sanction politicians from violating the electoral silence period ahead of election day; and to the US Congress, including the investigation of electoral interference by President Trump and others "whose public statements and actions . . . exerted undue pressure on the electorate and may have influenced voter behavior."
"We hope this report can help inform efforts by the Honduran government to fix problems and improve the electoral process," report coauthor Pedro Labayan Herrera, who also observed the elections, said. "Perhaps just as important would be for the US government and US policymakers to refrain from threats and other interference and allow Hondurans to freely choose their own leaders and policymakers without being subjected to threats of economic retribution and other forms of outside pressure."
* *
Original text here: https://cepr.net/newsroom/new-report-on-hondurass-2025-elections-finds-that-partisan-gridlock-us-interference-procedural-irregularities-and-technical-deficiencies-undermined-their-legitimacy/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Manhattan Institute Issues Commentary to Wall Street Journal: Good Riddance to Racial Gerrymandering
NEW YORK, May 7 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 5, 2026, by senior fellow Jason L. Riley to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
Good Riddance to Racial Gerrymandering
If there was any doubt, Barack Obama proved that white voters are willing to support black candidates.
*
The fainting spells on the left after last week's Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais were probably to be expected.
Democrats these days reject colorblind public policies that they championed in a previous era and scoff at clear evidence of America's racial progress.
A
... Show Full Article
NEW YORK, May 7 -- The Manhattan Institute issued the following excerpts of a commentary on May 5, 2026, by senior fellow Jason L. Riley to the Wall Street Journal:
* * *
Good Riddance to Racial Gerrymandering
If there was any doubt, Barack Obama proved that white voters are willing to support black candidates.
*
The fainting spells on the left after last week's Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais were probably to be expected.
Democrats these days reject colorblind public policies that they championed in a previous era and scoff at clear evidence of America's racial progress.
Acourt decision that reins in racially gerrymandered voting districts checked both boxes, so it is no wonder that Democratic elites from Barack Obama on down are outraged.
"Today's Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities," Mr. Obama wrote in response to the decision.
"And it serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current Court seems intent on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach."
Continue reading the entire piece here at the Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/good-riddance-to-racial-gerrymandering-085c2d84)
* * *
Jason L. Riley is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, and a Fox News commentator. Follow him on Twitter here.
* * *
Original text here: https://manhattan.institute/article/good-riddance-to-racial-gerrymandering
[Category: ThinkTank]
Jamestown Foundation Issues Commentary: Ukrainian Drone Strikes Deep in Russia Grow Public Alarm
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on May 6, 2026, by analyst Kassie Corelli in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Ukrainian Drone Strikes Deep in Russia Grow Public Alarm
Executive Summary:
* On April 25, a Ukrainian drone struck Yekaterinburg--a city far from the front and the capital of the Urals--for the first time, damaging a high-rise apartment building. This event convinced even some staunch supporters of the war that no "rear area" remains in Russia.
* Sociological studies show growing anxiety in Russian society and lower regard for the authorities.
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The Jamestown Foundation issued the following commentary on May 6, 2026, by analyst Kassie Corelli in its Eurasia Daily Monitor:
* * *
Ukrainian Drone Strikes Deep in Russia Grow Public Alarm
Executive Summary:
* On April 25, a Ukrainian drone struck Yekaterinburg--a city far from the front and the capital of the Urals--for the first time, damaging a high-rise apartment building. This event convinced even some staunch supporters of the war that no "rear area" remains in Russia.
* Sociological studies show growing anxiety in Russian society and lower regard for the authorities.Even the Kremlin-aligned All-Russian Public Opinion Research center (VTsIOM) found that 25 percent of Russians felt alarmed in April, a 2 percent increase from January.
* Russia's inability to achieve its military objectives, economic problems, and the threat of Ukrainian drones have led Russian support for peace negotiations to grow from 35 percent in February 2025 to 59 percent this February. Analysis of chats in Russian border towns shows blame shifting away from Ukrainians and toward Russian officials.
Ukrainian drones attacked Yekaterinburg, a city located deep inside Russia, for the first time on April 25. The attack damaged a high-rise apartment building (DW Russkaya Sluzhba, April 25). From the start of Russian President Vladimir Putin's full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the Kremlin framed the war as a "special operation," a geographically limited endeavor that the majority of Russians could ignore while continuing normal life (Kommersant, May 26, 2023). Now, however, it is virtually impossible for the average person to distance themselves from Putin's war against Ukraine as armed conflict increasingly spills onto Russian territory.
Even stalwart supporters of Russia's war against Ukraine admit that "there is no longer a rear area," the "Special Military Operation" did not achieve its goals, and huge numbers of Russians have died (YouTube/@Borovskih, April 28). At the end of March, loyalist military expert Rustem Klupov said that the number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) striking Russia increased 250 percent since the beginning of the year (Biznes Online, March 28).
Independent journalists analyzed regional Telegram channels for the first 3.5 months of this year and found about 2,000 reports of UAV overflights during this period. The highest volume of reports regarding the threat of drone attacks came from channels in the Tula, Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh oblasts. Moscow-based channels regularly reported drones flying toward the capital. According to official reports, Moscow and more than twenty regions from southern Russia to the Urals suffered UAV attacks in 2026 (Novaya Gazeta, April 27). The Bryansk oblast's Telegram channel--which boasts over 40,000 subscribers--shows an average of ten missile and bomb attack reports per day (Telegram/@lpr1_Bryansk_alarm, accessed May 6).
More drone attacks inside Russia during the first months of 2026 correlate with increased Russian anxiety levels. Even the All-Russian Public Opinion Research center (VTsIOM), an organization loyal to the authorities, is tracking this trend, finding that 25 percent of Russians felt anxiety/alarm in April, a 2 percent increase from January (VTsIOM Novosti, April 28). Alcoholism and alcoholic psychosis, a sign of worsening social problems and potentially an indirect indicator of anxiety, increased by 30 percent in 2025 compared to 2024 (Vazhnie Istorii, April 16). As in Ukrainian regions near the front lines, inhabitants of Russian border regions experience constant stress and sometimes go months without heat and hot water (Nfront, February 17).
Russia's inability to achieve its military objectives, economic problems, and the threat of Ukrainian drones has led Russian support for peace negotiations to grow from 35 percent in February 2025 to 59 percent this February (Re: Russia, April 20). Nevertheless, it is hard to guess where popular dissatisfaction will be most directed. It could focus on Ukraine as the immediate source of danger, the Kremlin as the initiator of the war, or regional officials and security forces incapable of ensuring Russians' security. The target of public blame is difficult to discern from sociological surveys because of respondents' fear of repression.
Political scientist Abbas Gallyamov suggests that attacks on Russian cities will lead to more anti-war sentiment. According to Gallyamov, Russian society is rapidly distancing itself from the government, unwilling to be associated with its failures. After the end of the war, however, the Kremlin may channel this dissatisfaction against big business, furthering the nationalization of Russia's economy and the suppression of those who favor the market path to national development (Dialog.ua, April 23). Attempts to find internal enemies in the financial-economic sector have gone on throughout the war (YouTube March 20). The Kremlin is energetically trying to convince Russians that problems in the economy and at the front are exclusively the fault of Ukraine, the "collective West," and certain "traitors in power," but never Putin. In some ways, this tactic is successful, partly due to propaganda and partly due to the natural psychological reactions of people in an extreme situation. Without the ability to influence the actions of the Kremlin, Russians under fire channel their anger toward the immediate threat--Ukraine, or regional officials.
As early as 2014, a similar "Stockholm Syndrome" occurred among Donbas residents in reaction to Russian aggression. Ukrainian expert Igor Todorov noted at the time that the population of the occupied territories, lacking the ability to leave, accommodated themselves to the new reality (Den', October 29, 2014). Journalists also noted that a "logic of war" is at work in Donbas, where residents resolve to avenge the fallen, and no longer give a thought to the true causes of the conflict (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, January 27, 2015). In Russia, uncritically blaming Ukraine for drone strikes is common because residents have accepted the war as a natural phenomenon and learned not to think about the reason for it (Re-Russia.net, March 13, 2023). According to independent journalists, however, the basic reaction of Russians in border regions is not even hatred for Ukrainians, but rather banal. Journalists from "Novaya Gazeta" cite statements from residents of Novorossiysk and small towns in the Leningrad oblast, who claim to watch them with interest from their balconies (Novaya Gazeta, April 27).
Even so, Russian dissatisfaction with the actions of the authorities is growing. Rhetoric is shifting in border towns' Telegram chats, including in Rylsk, Sudzha, and Lgov. While in 2024-2025, chat participants actively re-posted anti-Ukrainian reports, using the derogatory term "khokhly" for Ukrainians, this term is not used in 2026 (Telegram/@rylskchat, November 8, 2025). Instead, users' anger is directed at the Ministry of Defense, which utilizes civilian aircraft for military purposes, thereby turning passengers into "human shields" (Telegram/@rylskchat, April 26). For now, participants in such chat groups do not yet dare to criticize the Kremlin directly. The trend, however, is moving precisely in that direction.
* * *
Kassie Corelli is an analyst with The Jamestown Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://jamestown.org/ukrainian-drone-strikes-deep-in-russia-grow-public-alarm/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss.
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 7 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 6, 2026, by policy fellow Bill Glahn:
* * *
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Shireen Gandhi is still in charge of the state Dept. of Human Services (DHS). Ignore the cynical games being played with job titles, the situation is unchanged.
MPR News reports,
"New Human Services commissioner out on medical leave with timing of pick under scrutiny"
You read that correctly: the "new" boss, "temporary"
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 7 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 6, 2026, by policy fellow Bill Glahn:
* * *
Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Shireen Gandhi is still in charge of the state Dept. of Human Services (DHS). Ignore the cynical games being played with job titles, the situation is unchanged.
MPR News reports,
"New Human Services commissioner out on medical leave with timing of pick under scrutiny"
You read that correctly: the "new" boss, "temporary"Commissioner John Connolly, is out on medical leave, so the old boss, Shireen Gandhi (now titled as Deputy Commissioner) is still the boss.
Mr. Connolly is being treated for early-stage colon cancer, we wish him a swift and full recovery.
MPR reports,
"On Monday, Gov. Tim Walz appointed John Connolly as temporary commissioner. He replaced Shireen Gandhi, who was shifted back to a deputy commissioner assignment just before she was to take part in a Senate confirmation hearing."
As a result of the last-second switcheroo, the Senate hearing was cancelled. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reports,
"Some Democrats had concerns about Walz's pick for Human Services leader before she was demoted"
Now they tell us. Apparently, Gandhi did not have enough votes in the Democratic-controlled state senate to be confirmed as "permanent" commissioner. So Walz demoted her to a position on the org chart that does not require senate confirmation, but left her in charge of the agency.
The cynicism on display here is breathtaking, even for politics. The Star Tribune reports,
"While Gandhi is no longer up for the top job, she'll remain in charge of the department until at least early June as Connolly takes medical leave."
"At least." MPR reports,
""Our members have had tough questions for DHS leadership about fighting fraud and protecting the people who need services, and that will continue," Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, said in a statement Monday."
"Continue"? When? Democrats cancelled the committee hearing and there are only ten days or so left in the 2026 legislative session. The clock has run out.
Fraud wins.
You will be fooled again.
* * *
Bill Glahn is a Policy Fellow with Center of the American Experiment.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/meet-the-new-boss-same-as-the-old-boss/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center of the American Experiment Issues Commentary: Growing Divide in How Teachers View Student Learning Progress
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 7 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 6, 2026, by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
A growing divide in how teachers view student learning progress
National Teacher Appreciation Week is a time to recognize the commitment and impact of educators across the country. But beyond the celebratory headlines (guilty!), new survey data points to a more complicated picture inside America's classrooms. Teachers in public schools and private schools
... Show Full Article
MINNETONKA, Minnesota, May 7 -- The Center of the American Experiment, a civic and educational organization that says it creates and advocates policies, issued the following commentary on May 6, 2026, by policy fellow Catrin Wigfall:
* * *
A growing divide in how teachers view student learning progress
National Teacher Appreciation Week is a time to recognize the commitment and impact of educators across the country. But beyond the celebratory headlines (guilty!), new survey data points to a more complicated picture inside America's classrooms. Teachers in public schools and private schoolsare reporting very different levels of confidence in whether their students are making meaningful academic progress. This should prompt a deeper conversation about how our public education system is structured and whether current policies are supporting both teachers and students.
Conducted by Morning Consult on behalf of EdChoice, the April poll surveyed more than 1,000 teachers across traditional public, charter, and private schools. Among private school teachers, 51 percent said their students are progressing "very well" academically this year, compared to just 29 percent of district school teachers.
The gap is not only large but growing. When the same question was asked in September 2025, 35 percent of private school teachers and 26 percent of district school teachers reported strong confidence in student progress (which is understandable given the survey was administered at the beginning of the school year). Since then, district teacher sentiment has only improved slightly -- from 26 percent to 29 percent -- while private school teachers' confidence has jumped more sharply.
How teachers feel their students are progressing, April 2026 vs. September 2025
[View charts in the link at bottom.]
The scale of the perception gap raises questions about what is impacting teachers' viewpoints of student learning. Private schools often provide teachers with greater autonomy over curriculum and discipline, and are typically more directly accountable to families (not just bureaucracies). These factors can influence both the classroom environment and how teachers perceive student progress.
There is also a governance difference. Public school systems are layered with a lot of administrative layers before classroom-level decisions are made. In addition, there are multiple levels of bureaucracy involved with the Minnesota Department of Education and state mandates.
Several policy reforms already in place in other states are worth policymakers exploring to better support teachers:
Consider strengthening school-level autonomy within public schools through waiver-based governance models.
Some states already allow districts to bypass certain regulatory requirements in exchange for performance accountability. For example, states participating in the federal Ed-Flex program, including Iowa, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, and Colorado, can waive certain state and federal requirements at the district or school level to encourage local innovation and reform. States like Colorado and Massachusetts have used their waivers to implement "innovation school" models, which allow individual public schools to waive certain district rules in exchange for "performance commitments," or accountability for student outcomes.
More recently, Iowa became the first state to receive approval for a Returning Education to the States waiver, which expands the state's flexibility over federal education funding. The waiver's flexibility is expected to reduce compliance costs, "allowing nearly $8 million to be redirected from bureaucratic red tape to the classroom over four years. State education leaders will use the redirected funds and the greater flexibility they afford to expand support for evidence-based literacy training, strengthening their teacher pipeline, and narrowing achievement gaps."
Consider targeted mandate relief at the district and school level.
Minnesota legislators have proposed legislation that would allow school boards to opt out of certain new state mandates through formal resolution. Reducing top-down requirements would not only provide mandate relief but restore flexibility in areas like discipline policy, where rigid, one-size-fits-all requirements aren't beneficial.
Consider differentiated compensation systems.
Several states and districts have experimented with differentiated compensation systems. The Dallas school district redesigned its compensation structure to incorporate performance-based metrics -- and student achievement improved. Multiple studies on aligning compensation with effectiveness have found statistically significant positive results on student test scores. More broadly, states such as Tennessee and South Carolina have "career ladder" systems that reward teachers for effectiveness and for taking on additional responsibilities or serving in high-need schools.
* * *
Catrin Wigfall is a Policy Fellow at Center of the American Experiment.
catrin.wigfall@americanexperiment.org
* * *
Original text here: https://www.americanexperiment.org/a-growing-divide-in-how-teachers-view-student-learning/
[Category: ThinkTank]
Center for Economic & Policy Research: Americans Oppose U.S. War With Cuba by 64% to 15%, New YouGov Poll Finds
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release on May 6, 2026:
* * *
Americans Oppose US War with Cuba by 64% to 15%, New YouGov Poll Finds
Nearly two-thirds also agree that the war in Iran has harmed Americans and the world.
*
A new poll by YouGov finds that 64 percent of Americans oppose the US going to war against Cuba, while 15 percent support it and 21 percent are not sure.
Among those who express a view, 81 percent are against a war.
"This should make President Trump think twice about another 'war of choice,'" said Mark Weisbrot,
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 7 -- The Center for Economic and Policy Research issued the following news release on May 6, 2026:
* * *
Americans Oppose US War with Cuba by 64% to 15%, New YouGov Poll Finds
Nearly two-thirds also agree that the war in Iran has harmed Americans and the world.
*
A new poll by YouGov finds that 64 percent of Americans oppose the US going to war against Cuba, while 15 percent support it and 21 percent are not sure.
Among those who express a view, 81 percent are against a war.
"This should make President Trump think twice about another 'war of choice,'" said Mark Weisbrot,Senior Economist and Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). "Almost all of the experts on Cuba would laugh at the idea that Cuba presents a security threat to the United States. And the war against Iran has already cost Trump and his party significant support."
The YouGov poll, sponsored by CEPR, found that respondents agreed that the war in Iran has harmed Americans and the world, by a margin of 62 percent to 24 percent.
"Trump ran for office promising 'no wars' and that he would bring down prices. Instead, he started a war that has raised prices and will likely continue to do so for some time."
President Trump has repeatedly threatened to go to war with Cuba. On March 16 he said that he will "have the honor of taking Cuba," and "I can do anything I want" with Cuba.
He followed up less than two weeks later with:
"I built this great military. I said, 'You'll never have to use it.' But sometimes you have to use it. And Cuba is next by the way."
Trump reiterated this position on May 1, saying that the United States would be "taking over" Cuba "almost immediately." The same day, he issued an executive order expanding sanctions against Cuba. Among other restrictions, the order enables the sanctioning of third-country companies and financial institutions, many of which are likely European or Canadian, that are judged by the US to have conducted transactions with the Cuban government or to have operated in the energy, defense, mining, financial services, or security sectors of the Cuban economy.
The current sanctions against Cuba have already been expanded enormously since 2017, culminating in a devastating blockade that has included a cutoff of oil. The expansion of sanctions has caused infant mortality to rise by 148 percent over the past eight years. Cuba's infant mortality rate was one of the lowest in the hemisphere, lower than that of the United States, before the increase in sanctions.
"It is clear that the increase in sanctions is responsible for this huge increase in infant deaths," said Alex Main, Director of International Policy at CEPR. "The oil blockade has been especially inhumane, disrupting the operation of ventilators, inhalers, and other crucial medical equipment and crippling emergency transportation. More than 80 percent of Cuba's electricity is based on oil and oil products."
On April 7, President Trump threatened Iran, saying: "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will." Amnesty International condemned Trump's statements as "a threat of extermination" that "may constitute a threat to commit genocide" revealing "a staggering level of cruelty and disregard for human life." Other human rights experts and organizations made similar statements.
Respondents agreed with Amnesty International's description of this statement by a 58 percent to 25 percent majority. By a 54 percent to 35 percent majority, they also said that he was not fit to be president.
Among the respondents, those who identified as Independents were very strongly against these wars and threats. For example, they opposed a war with Cuba by a 68 percent to 25 percent majority. These voters are about equally divided between Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning, and are seen as containing a substantial number of swing voters for the November election.
Weisbrot noted that this was another warning sign that a war with Cuba could have electoral consequences in November. He also noted that Trump has stated that he is looking to start a war with Cuba when he pulls out of Iran.
"It is unusual in history for a leader to use another war as a distraction for a war that is unpopular among voters and has harmed them," said Weisbrot. "But this seems like a real possibility here. Distraction has played an unprecedented role in Trump's political strategy, for campaigning, governing, and dominating the news cycle."
* * *
Original text here: https://cepr.net/newsroom/americans-oppose-us-war-with-cuba-by-64-to-15-new-yougov-poll-finds/
[Category: ThinkTank]
