logo
The Pro-Baby Coalition of the Far Right

The Pro-Baby Coalition of the Far Right

The Atlantic11-04-2025
Children were everywhere at the second annual Natal Conference in Austin, Texas, last month, where people devoted to the cause of population growth gathered to swap ideas. A toddler girl twirled on her toes and took a tumble to the floor beneath the grand rotunda of the Bullock Texas State History Museum; nearby, a gaggle of grade-school children encircled a table to play cards. Knee-high siblings wove through clusters of adult conversation made effortless by an open bar. Parents were not monitoring their kids especially closely. Workers had brought in plastic tubs of Hot Wheels cars and puzzle-piece play mats earlier to facilitate the seldom-seen phenomenon of children entertaining themselves. It mostly worked: Having more children around is somehow usually easier than having a few. Such was the wisdom of the conference, an odd get-together of far-right online personalities, traditionalist Christians, and envoys from Silicon Valley.
The overarching thesis of the conference—that having children is good and ought to be supported by society—struck me as pretty unobjectionable; if you believe the human race should have a future, you're pronatalist with respect to somebody. And the pronatalists' more immediate concerns about aging populations seem similarly well founded: As birth rates continue to drop globally, the relatively smaller number of young people will struggle to care for the elderly, a worrying prospect regardless of one's political orientation. What was disturbing, therefore, was the degree to which discourse around these fairly innocuous propositions is now dominated by an emerging coalition of the rather far right, whose pronatalist ideas are sometimes intermixed with white supremacy, misogyny, and eugenics.
The speakers' roster included a range of figures, some more extreme than others. There were far-right culture warriors whose interest in pronatalism seemed incidental, including Carl Benjamin, also known as Sargon_of_Akkad, a relic of Gamergate who's become an ardent opponent of feminism, and the headliner Jack Posobiec, a Donald Trump super fan who spends a good deal of time issuing trollish proclamations about, for instance, overthrowing democracy, and certainly appears to sympathize with extreme forms of far-right politics. But there were also ordinary and mainly uncontroversial presenters, such as Lyman Stone, a senior fellow and the director of the Pronatalism Initiative at the Institute for Family Studies, and Daniel Hess, a researcher with a background in tech.
The more radical attendees proposed a variety of odd and unsettling ideas about falling birth rates and how to boost them, some of which seemed rather deliberately formulated for provocation—such as a suggestion by Charles Cornish-Dale, a puckish English reactionary with a large online following who goes by the name of Raw Egg Nationalist, that war may be a useful driver of population growth, and Benjamin's assertion that society ought to be reorganized to prioritize families, arguing that 'if you don't marry and have children, then your opinion is irrelevant.' (A flyer advertising the presentation of the pseudonymous speaker Yuri Bezmonov featured Trump in a McDonald's apron leaning out of a drive-through window with the inscription TRUMP: THE ART OF THE TROLL.) And there was much consideration of the decline of the West in particular (though birth rates are dropping globally), a tendency closely associated with nationalism and theories of racial superiority. 'The racism and misogyny of pro-natalist circles often gets overblown in skeptical media outlets,' Patrick Brown, a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who works on pro-family policy, recently wrote in an article for The Dispatch discussing the conference. 'But that doesn't mean those strains are completely absent from the lineup in Austin or the broader pro-natalism movement.'
More than a whiff of eugenics was also apparent. The press-hungry couple Malcolm and Simone Collins, a pair of former venture capitalists living in Silicon Valley, were on the speakers' roster, bringing their peculiar approach to childbearing and parenting to the conference floor. The Collinses have chosen to procreate using IVF technology that allows for the selection of genetically superior embryos, a decidedly techno-futurist approach. Their parenting style, meanwhile, is more retrograde; Malcolm Collins once struck his child's face in the presence of a journalist. (The couple told the reporter that their use of corporal punishment was inspired by their observation of a tiger swiping its cub in the wild.) Certain elements of their self-presentation are, again, seemingly intended to troll—Simone wears some kind of puritanical getup complete with a bonnet, and the duo proudly displays multiple guns on the walls of their house full of kids.
If some of those aims seem to contradict the goals of religious traditionalists also interested in the revival of big families, it's because the two sets of ideas—the 'trad' and the 'tech'—belong to separate factions that have formed an alliance on several fronts, pronatalism included. The tech crowd is made up of people like the Collinses—Silicon Valley types who envision a radically different future made possible by innovations in technology. The trads, meanwhile, hearken to the religious beliefs and practices of the past, and are skeptical of many aspects of modern life. The tech people are interested in pioneering new reproductive technologies; the trads—at least the Catholic ones—object in principle to IVF and dream of a society with a tolerance for simple human difference, the kind of world in which a person with Down syndrome, for example, would be welcomed with open arms. The techies aren't necessarily committed to having traditional families (see, for example, Elon Musk, the somewhat absent father of at least 14 children); the trads view the institution of family as the key to resolving the birth-rate crisis. These differences were on display at the conference: One speaker, the geneticist Razib Khan, suggested that the techies literally depart for space, perhaps to a Muskian Mars colony, and let the trads inherit the Earth.
However its components ultimately relate to one another, this new coalition is part of a broader political realignment taking shape along axes defined by Trump. It isn't any secret that most of the energy and dynamism in contemporary politics now belongs to the right; the Natal Conference alone was teeming with policy ideas and theories of society, while liberals remain scattered in a defensive crouch, with elected Democrats tripping over themselves to disavow a toxic party brand. The right's profusion of resources, followers, and thought is perhaps partially why it's dominating the discourse around an issue that isn't inherently conservative. But maybe the greater reason is that liberals seem almost uniformly unwilling to address the subject of population decline whatsoever—a stance that warrants reconsideration.
'Liberals are reluctant to wade into these matters—talking about families may imply a critique of other people's choices,' Alice Evans, a senior lecturer in international development at King's College London, recently told me. Some may believe (mistakenly, in my opinion) that conceding that having children is good and ought to be encouraged requires conceding that not having children is bad and ought to be punished, a kind of discrimination. And others may be repelled by the growing association between the subject of birth rates and the political right, forming a kind of feedback loop in which liberals avoid the topic, because it seems like a right-wing fixation, and thereby strengthen the existing association further. Whatever the source of liberal inattention, yielding to the far right the notion that humanity ought to persist on this Earth strikes me as absurd.
One doesn't have to maintain, as I do, that humankind is excellent—the paragon of animals—in order to affirm the importance of bringing children into the world; much more rational, empirical reasons place political importance on strategies that enable families to welcome children. A society in which the elderly greatly outnumber the young will encounter a multitude of hurdles to flourishing: 'As populations age, a shrinking workforce will support more elderly dependents,' Evans said. 'Older people usually work at lower rates, while being less innovative and less entrepreneurial. The entire economy becomes a bit sluggish. Costs will also rise—to pay for elderly health care and pensions.'
Countries experiencing precipitous birth-rate declines, such as South Korea, are already undergoing ominous changes. 'A baby-formula brand has retooled itself to manufacture muscle-retention smoothies for the elderly,' the author Gideon Lewis-Kraus wrote of South Korea in a New Yorker feature earlier this year. 'About two hundred day-care facilities have been turned into nursing homes, sometimes with the same directors, the same rubberized play floors, and the same crayons. A rural school has been repurposed as a cat sanctuary.' For rapidly aging countries, immigration may function as a short-term stopgap measure, but sourcing young people from other countries shifts the burden of aging populations on to immigrants' countries of origin.
What to do about falling birth rates depends on what's driving them down, and figuring out what those forces may be was a pervasive theme of the conference. Speakers and attendees presented a number of potential reasons, identifying fallout from the sexual revolution, harmful chemicals in food and water supplies, and the proliferation of porn, gambling, weed, and technology. One can imagine a number of extreme and quixotic responses to that constellation of possible causes—a Unabomber-esque rejection of modern technology, for instance, or an acceleration of technological approaches to reproduction. This year, Trump issued an order that would expand access to IVF, dubbing himself the 'fertilization president' at a Women's History Month event last March. Other strategies proposed at the conference included deregulating day cares or banning urban-growth limits in order to build huge quantities of single-family housing, along the same lines as my Atlantic colleague Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein's buzzy new book, Abundance.
Derek Thompson: The political fight of the century
But perhaps the more obvious approach is essentially a leftist one: Just give families money.
Many young people considering childbirth today are discouraged by the high costs of raising kids, including exorbitant child-care fees and income loss associated with time off work to take care of children. Sitting at a conference table sharing cups of Cheez-Its and gummy bears from the kids' buffet table, my mother (whom I had brought to the conference because she was curious about the subject, and because it provided a convenient excuse to visit our home state) leaned over to admit that she would've had 'a whole houseful of kids, if we could've afforded it.' I had never before known that I might have been one of many as opposed to only two, but if people dealing with the much lower child-care and education costs of the 1980s and '90s were financially dissuaded from raising the number of children they wanted, it would follow that the same problem has worsened for today's would-be parents. This perhaps partially explains why America's fertility gap, or the difference between the number of children the average woman has and the number of children she says she would prefer, is the highest it has been in 40 years.
And so it makes sense that people hoping to help couples bring children into the world should support setting the marginal cost of having a child at zero, which some involved in the pronatalist movement have already discerned. Stone, the policy expert who spoke at the conference, has written that 'pro-natal incentives do work: more money does yield more babies. Anybody saying otherwise is mischaracterizing the research. But it takes a lot of money.' Policies aimed at closing the fertility gap include making birth free, sending new parents 'baby boxes' with all of the essentials for welcoming a newborn, offering free child care and pre-K, covering all of children's health-care expenses, and paying families a monthly cash allowance to offset other kid-related costs, all of which could have the pronatal effect of closing the fertility gap. These kinds of proposals are typically made by the left, but the right has lately begun to rethink its typical approach to welfare programs—or at least members of the right say they have. J. D. Vance, for example, has in the past supported a $5,000 child tax credit, thousands more than the current CTC, and has said that the government should 'make it easier for young moms and dads to afford to have kids, to bring them into the world and to welcome them as the blessings that we know they are.' And why not? The right now has control of the federal government, and the attention of an entire nation. It's free to institute pro-family policies at any time, something several conference speakers noted. What those efforts may look like largely depends on which faction in the pronatalist coalition claims victory over the others, and that is anyone's guess.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A colonial hangover or a linguistic leg-up? India grapples with the enduring appeal of English
A colonial hangover or a linguistic leg-up? India grapples with the enduring appeal of English

CNN

time3 hours ago

  • CNN

A colonial hangover or a linguistic leg-up? India grapples with the enduring appeal of English

When British traders landed on India's shores in the 1600s, they arrived in search of spices and silk but stayed for centuries – leaving behind a legacy that would shape the nation long after their colonial exploitation ended: the English language. Over the centuries, English seeped into the very fabric of Indian life – first as a tool of commerce, then as the language of law and, eventually, a marker of privilege. Now, after more than a decade of Hindu-nationalist rule, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is mounting perhaps the most significant challenge yet to the language's place in India. 'Those who speak English will soon feel ashamed,' Home Minister Amit Shah said last month, igniting a heated debate about national identity and social mobility in the polyglot nation of 1.4 billion. While Shah did not mention India's former colonial masters, he declared that 'the languages of our country are the jewels of our culture' – and that without them, 'we cease to be truly Indian.' Spoken behind the walls of colonial forts and offices, English in India was at first the language of ledgers and treaties. But as British rule expanded from the ports of Gujarat to the palaces of Delhi, it became the lingua franca of the colonial elite. At independence, India faced a dilemma. With hundreds of languages and dialects spoken across its vast landscape, its newly appointed leaders grappled with the question of which one should represent the new nation. Hindi, the predominant language in the north, was put forward as a candidate for official language. But strong resistance from non-Hindi-speaking regions – especially in the south – meant English would remain only as a temporary link to unite the country. It's a legacy that endures to this day – and still rankles some. 'I subscribe to the view that English is the language of the colonial masters,' Pradeep Bahirwani, a retired corporate executive from the southern city of Bengaluru, said, adding: 'Our national language should be a language which… has got roots in India.' But critics argue that Shah's remarks risk undermining the country's global competitiveness. Equating English with cultural shame, they contend, reflects a narrow perspective that needlessly tries to erase a remnant of the colonial era that keeps India fluent in the language of global commerce. 'It's the aspiration of people to have access to a language which has a lot of prestige internationally,' said Indian linguist Ayesha Kidwai, a professor at New Delhi's Jawaharlal Nehru University. 'I don't think it's the legacy of colonialism anymore.' And pushback to the BJP's recent messaging has been strong. 'English is not a barrier, it's a bridge. English is not shame, it's strength,' wrote leader of the opposition Rahul Gandhi on X, after Shah's remarks last month. 'Every Indian language has a soul, culture, and knowledge. We must cherish them – and at the same time, teach every child English.' CNN has contacted India's Home Ministry for comment. But language tensions are no longer confined to debates in parliament – they're spilling into the streets. Just last week, video of a heated confrontation on a train in India's financial hub Mumbai went viral after a passenger was allegedly harassed for not speaking the regional language Marathi. Clashes erupted elsewhere in the city over the federal government's drive to promote Hindi – a language closely tied to the BJP's northern power base and often seen as central to the party's vision of national unity and Hindu identity. Since India's independence from Britain in 1947, the status of English in India has been deeply political – entwined with questions of identity, power, and national direction. Today, English is one of several official languages in India, spoken by about 10% of the population. Hindi is the first language for around 44% of citizens, according to the 2011 census. But in recent years, Modi's BJP has placed particular emphasis on promoting Hindi and reducing the use of English in public life. The prime minister almost never delivers speeches in English, preferring Hindi for national addresses such as his monthly radio program. His administration has encouraged officials to use Hindi on social media and in government correspondence – though, after criticism from non-Hindi-speaking states, clarified that this was intended mainly for the Hindi belt in the north. When India hosted world leaders for the 2023 G20 summit in New Delhi, invitations were sent out from 'Bharat' – the Sanskrit or Hindi name for the country – instead of 'India,' fueling speculation that the government aims to ultimately phase out the country's English designation altogether. Modi's critics have been quick to note his political motives behind these moves. With its roots in the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing organization that advocates Hindu hegemony within India, the BJP's language policies resonate with many in a country where nearly 80% of people are Hindu. Analysts say the BJP is seeking to capitalize on this demographic by promoting language policies that strengthen its support base in the north. According to Rita Kothari, an English professor from Ashoka University, the government 'is certainly interested in homogenizing the country and making Hindi more widespread.' But that policy can also backfire – in part because many regions, such as Marathi-speaking Maharashtra in the west – are staunchly proud of their local language. The violent clashes in the state's megacity Mumbai earlier this month were sparked by the regional government's controversial decision to make Hindi a compulsory third language in public primary schools. Pushback and protest has also been especially strong in the south, where English and regional languages such as Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada are valued as symbols of local identity and autonomy. For 19-year-old Steve E. Selvaraj from Tamil Nadu's capital Chennai, 'the BJP did a great job turning Hindi as their identity.' The college student, whose mother tongue is Tamil, said Hinduism has become a central focus for the ruling establishment – a way to 'get more votes.' 'Day by day, the influence of Hindi is increasing,' Selvaraj said. 'Hindi imposition may be a threat, but it will take a lot of time to disconnect the (local) connection with Tamil.' Kothari, from Ashoka University, said going after English was a convenient way of the BJP promoting Hindi without ruffling regional feathers. The government 'knows that its chances of success in south India for instance are thwarted by linguistic pride and nationalism,' she said. 'Since they can't make this public, English becomes a whipping boy.' India's widespread adoption of English can be traced back to the 19th-century British politician Thomas Macaulay, who advocated for the introduction of the language as the medium of instruction, instead of traditional languages of the elite like Sanskrit, Persian or Arabic. Macaulay's vision was unapologetically elitist. Creating a class of subjects who were 'Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect,' to serve as intermediaries between the colonial administration and the local population, he wrote, would help the British rule more effectively. These views were adopted by the British government, making English the language of Indian administration, higher education and the judiciary. The policy fostered a privileged English-educated elite – lawyers, teachers and writers – including many of India's early reformer nationalists, first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and father of the nation Mahatma Gandhi. But over time, English became far more than a holdover from colonial rule – turning into a symbol of modernity and opportunity. As India's economy transformed and its middle class expanded, English proficiency became crucial to upward mobility. For Shivam Singh, 23, the first in his family to speak English and to leave home for university, the language opened doors. 'I wanted to get a good job… English gives you an edge. All the internships I cracked was because I could hold conversations in English.' Singh practiced his spoken English on an AI app for hours, getting feedback that helped earn him the internships. India is now home to one of the world's largest English-speaking populations, with more than 130 million people reporting English proficiency in the 2011 census. This linguistic advantage has helped attract billions in foreign investment, enabled global partnerships, and powered sectors from tech support to startups. Yet, the prominence of English has also deepened social divides. Those without language skills find themselves largely excluded from lucrative careers. Wealthier, urban, or higher-caste families are far more likely to be fluent in English and English-medium schools are mainly concentrated in urban areas, leaving rural and lower-caste communities locked out. 'I am not able to find a (well-paying), because they say I do not know English,' said Vaishnavi Gujanan Narote, a housekeeper at a hotel in the capital New Delhi. She added: 'If you know Hindi, then all you can do is stay here and do odd jobs, but not get a good post, because English is a requirement.' Vijay Kumar, a computer teacher at a non-government organization in Delhi, never learned the language at school. 'I feel I did not get the opportunities in my life because I did not know English,' he said. The dominance of English and Hindi, along with rapid urbanization, have marginalized many of the country's indigenous languages – tongues spoken by hundreds of tribal communities now far removed from the mainstream. UNESCO classes nearly 200 Indian languages as endangered, and more than 220 languages in the country have disappeared in the last 50 years, according to the People's Linguistic Survey of India. 'Many languages in India do not get the respect or place they deserve,' said Aloka Kujur, a writer and activist from Jharkhand, whose mother tongue is Kuduk, a tribal language native to the east Indian state. The proliferation of English, Kujur said, cost her community recognition in the country. Kuduk is spoken by just under 2 million people and is in a 'vulnerable' state, according to UNESCO. Kujur said that in Jharkand, indigenous groups 'have an affinity with their language that cannot be broken,' but notices that Kuduk's use in everyday life is slipping away. As India looks toward the future, analysts say the English language's role in the country might not be going anywhere any time soon. 'There is no fear of sidelining English,' Kothari, from Ashoka University, said. 'It is much too strong to be sidelined.' It's a sentiment Singh, the first student, agrees with. 'We cannot afford to not learn English in India,' he said. 'We are a developing country, we need to learn from the world.'

Unfrozen: White House releases remaining $5B for K-12 programs
Unfrozen: White House releases remaining $5B for K-12 programs

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Unfrozen: White House releases remaining $5B for K-12 programs

This story was originally published on K-12 Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily K-12 Dive newsletter. The Trump administration will release the remaining fiscal year 2025 K-12 grant funds that it had frozen — nearly $5 billion — to states and districts, the Office of Management and Budget confirmed Friday. The funding for student academic supports, English learners, immigrant students and teacher training was supposed to be available July 1, but was not released pending a "programmatic review" by OMB, the White House's budget arm. That review was to ensure the grants align with Trump administration policies and priorities, OMB told K-12 Dive earlier this month. The office had said initial findings showed "many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.' On Friday, a senior administration official told K-12 Dive in an email, "Guardrails are in place to ensure these funds will not be used in violation of Executive Orders or administration policy." Earlier this week, OMB began releasing $1.3 billion it had withheld for after-school and summer programming under the 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant, according to the Afterschool Alliance. The remaining funds to be released are: $2.2 billion for Title II-A for professional development. $1.4 billion for Title IV-A for student support and academic enrichment. $890 million for Title III-A for English-learner services. $375 million for Title I-C for migrant education. Education officials, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, education organizations, parents and nonprofits had all urged OMB to release the funds that were approved by Congress in an appropriations bill that President Donald Trump signed in March. They said the weekslong delay in accessing the money was already causing "budgetary chaos" for schools, which began cancelling contracts, laying off staff and eliminating programs when the funds didn't arrive as scheduled. The disruption also spurred two lawsuits. A survey by AASA, the School Superintendents Association, found ​​that nearly 30% of districts said they needed access to the withheld funds by Aug. 1 to avoid cutting programs and services for students. By Aug. 15, survey respondents said they would have to notify parents and educators about the loss of programs and services. The survey was conducted earlier this month and drew responses from 628 superintendents in 43 states. On Friday, David Schuler, AASA's executive director, said in a statement that he was pleased the "critical" funds would now be available to schools. Sen Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement Friday, "There is no good reason for the chaos and stress this president has inflicted on students, teachers, and parents across America for the last month, and it shouldn't take widespread blowback for this administration to do its job and simply get the funding out the door that Congress has delivered to help students." Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, addressed the news during a keynote speech Friday at the Together Educating America's Children conference in Washington, D.C., according to a press release. "Today, they backed down: our lobbying, our lawsuits, and our advocacy for why these funds matter to kids, it worked." Weingarten said. Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association, said in a Friday statement, "These reckless funding delays have undermined planning, staffing, and support services at a time when schools should be focused on preparing students for success.' Recommended Reading Lawsuit adds pressure on Trump administration to release K-12 funds Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Federal education funding to be released, offering relief to Florida schools
Federal education funding to be released, offering relief to Florida schools

Miami Herald

time7 hours ago

  • Miami Herald

Federal education funding to be released, offering relief to Florida schools

Close to $400 million in federal grants promised to Florida school districts will be released by the Trump administration, according to reports. As of yesterday, the $35 million in funds promised to Miami-Dade County Public Schools remained frozen. Earlier this month, the figure was $10 million higher, but some funds were released for after-school programs. In Broward, at least $30 million in funds were promised to the school district and then frozen. Nationwide, more than $5 billion in public school funding had been placed on hold. The freeze began June 30, just one day before the grants were expected to arrive. The White House Office of Management and Budget has been reviewing the funds to determine whether they were being used to support a 'radical leftwing agenda.' 'It is incredible, encouraging news that we do not have to hold back on certain areas,' said Miami-Dade Superintendent Jose L. Dotres. 'It will allow us to continue improving the trajectory of the school district and the services we provide to our community.' Dotres had been lobbying lawmakers in Tallahassee and Washington, D.C., to release the funding for the past few weeks, and had already started making cuts for the upcoming year, such as cutting purchases on textbook, supplies, and delaying certain teacher training programs. Now, the district will be able to proceed as usual. In Miami-Dade, the grants fund programs such as English language learning, science and technology innovation, teacher training, migrant education and adult education. John J. Sullivan, chief communications officer for Broward schools, said he is grateful the funds will soon be released. 'These critical resources allow us to continue providing essential services and supports for our students, families, and schools,' said Sullivan. Ron Steiger, the Miami-Dade school district's chief financial officer, said he received multiple texts with links to news articles announcing the release of funds. Though he has not yet received formal notice from the U.S. Department of Education, he said he was relieved. 'Nothing actually ended up harming anything,' he said, adding that he believed this outcome was the most likely all along. Two lawsuits related to the funding freeze are still active. One, brought by 24 states and the District of Columbia, asked a federal judge in Rhode Island to order the release of the funds. Florida was not a party to that suit. A second case was filed by a coalition of organizations—including the Florida Parent Teacher Association and P.S. 305, a Miami education advocacy group—in the same court. On Wednesday, a judge agreed to consider the two cases together. A hearing for emergency relief is scheduled for Aug. 13. Despite the administration's announcement, Florida PTA President-elect Jude Bruno said the legal challenge remains necessary. 'The harm still exists until school districts actually receive the funds or, at the very least, are issued award and grant issuance letters with clear timelines for when to expect them,' Bruno said in a text message to the Miami Herald. Mina Hosseini, executive director of P.S. 305 agreed that this is not the end of what she says is a school 'system chronically starved of resources.' 'The future of public education cannot be left vulnerable to political whims—it must be protected by the people,' she told the Miami Herald. An administrative assistant for Mari Tere Rojas, the chair of the Miami-Dade school board, said in a statement, 'These programs, which enjoy bipartisan support, are vital for the operation and functioning of our local public schools for this upcoming school year.' Ray Hart, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, a coalition of school districts, said in a statement that he is 'relieved' the Education Department has released the remainder of the funds authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 'for the benefit of schoolchildren throughout our nation.' School board member Steve Gallon also welcomed the news—but issued a warning. He expressed frustration that some elected leaders had remained silent 'in the face of what could potentially devastate the learning and lives of children and families… Seemingly shackled by fear and partisanship,' he said in a text message. 'I am concerned that this is not the end,' he added.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store