Latest news with #AASA
Mail & Guardian
03-07-2025
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Humans must be the decisionmakers when AI is used in legal proceedings
The use of artificial intelligence in arbitration may support justice, but it cannot replace those who are tasked with safeguarding it South Africa has no legal framework to govern artificial intelligence (AI) use in alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proceedings, placing at risk the preservation of the principles of fairness, accountability, transparency and confidentiality when machines join the table. To offer much-needed direction for parties and tribunals integrating AI into adjudications and arbitration, the Association of Arbitrators (Southern Africa) (AASA) issued AI guidelines in May 2025 on the use of AI tools in this environment. AI tools are already embedded in arbitration proceedings in South Africa and are assisting with numerous legal tasks. Such tasks include collating and sequencing complex case facts and chronologies; managing documents and expediting the review of large volumes of content; conducting legal research and sourcing precedents; drafting text (for example, legal submissions or procedural documents); and facilitating real-time translation or transcription during hearings. While the new AI guidelines are not exhaustive nor a substitute for legal advice, they provide a helpful framework to promote responsible AI use, protect the integrity of proceedings and balance innovation with ethical awareness and risk-management. As a starting point, the guidelines stress the importance of parties reaching agreement upfront on the use of AI, including whether the arbitrator or tribunal has the power to issue directives regarding their use. The use of AI in arbitration proceedings can easily result in confidentiality and data security risks. One of the key advantages of arbitration is the confidentiality of the proceedings that it offers, as opposed to public court proceedings. This can be threatened by irresponsible use of AI by the parties or the tribunal, and expose the parties to risk. The use of AI tools can also result in technical limitations and wavering reliability. AI tools can produce flawed or 'hallucinated' results, especially in complex or novel fact patterns. This can lead to misleading outputs or fabricated references. AI tools are well known to fabricate case law references to answer legal questions posed to them. The AI guidelines highlight core principles that should be upheld whenever AI is used. These include that tribunals and arbitrators must be accountable and must not cede their adjudicative responsibilities to software. Humans ultimately bear responsibility for the outcome of a dispute. Ensuring confidentiality and security is also a key principle. For example, public AI models sometimes use user inputs for further 'training', which raises the risk that sensitive information could inadvertently be exposed. The need for transparency and disclosure is also important and parties and tribunals should consider whether AI usage needs to be disclosed to all participants. Finally, fairness in decision-making is paramount. There is a risk of underlying biases or inaccuracies in AI-generated outputs due to training data biases. Human oversight of any AI-driven analysis is indispensable to ensure just and equitable results. The guidelines advise tribunals to adopt a transparent approach to AI usage throughout proceedings, whether deployed by the tribunal itself or by the parties. Tribunals should also consider obtaining explicit agreement on whether, and how, AI-based tools may be used and determine upfront if disclosure of the use of AI tools is required. Safeguarding confidentiality should be considered upfront and throughout the proceedings, and agreement should be reached on what information can be shared with what AI tools to ensure parties are protected. During hearings, any AI-driven transcription or translation services should be thoroughly vetted to preserve both accuracy and confidentiality. Equal access to AI tools for all parties should be ensured so that no party is prejudiced. Ultimately, the arbitrator's or adjudicator's independent professional judgment must determine the outcome of any proceeding, even if certain AI-generated analyses or texts help shape the final award. As disputes become ever more data-intensive and as technological solutions proliferate, parties, counsel and tribunals must consider how best to incorporate AI tools into their processes. The guidelines affirm that human adjudicators remain the ultimate decision-makers. Vanessa Jacklin-Levin is a partner and Rachel Potter a senior associate at Bowmans South Africa.
Washington Post
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
How Washington is stressing out American schools
Public schools have had a tough run — pandemic closures and culture wars, falling test scores and rising absenteeism. Now they're facing a host of new pressures, this time from state and federal policies including proposals for private-school vouchers, funding cuts, and scrutiny of their approaches to gender and race. Many of the issues are under consideration, either in Congress or at the Supreme Court. Some proposals may be modified, and in some cases, the court may side with the schools' point of view. Nonetheless, taken together, public education today faces a landscape skeptical of, if not outright hostile to, its policies and priorities. The shifts could put new strains on schools' budgets and change how they handle controversial topics. That's particularly true for school districts in liberal states and communities, whose policies on race and gender are being challenged. But many of the threats and changes affect conservative communities, too. Some of the policies are economic, and some are cultural. Some are narrow, and others are broad. Some are proposals, and some are already in place. But put it all together, and public school advocates say they feel like they are constantly on the defensive. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement 'The attacks on public education are coming from everywhere — from the judicial branch, the executive branch, the legislative branch,' said Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy for AASA, the School Superintendents Association. 'They're coming fast and furious.' Republicans control the White House, Congress and more than half the statehouses, and conservative justices make up a supermajority on the Supreme Court. Not all the pressures are ideological, but many are. This is certainly not the first time public education has felt pressure from Washington. Under President George W. Bush, the No Child Left Behind law imposed sweeping new accountability standards and requirements on schools with high-stakes consequences, including potential loss of federal funding. But that effort was bipartisan and came after a deliberative debate in Congress. This time, the pressure is coming from multiple directions, sometimes without warning or congressional action. Take a journey through our schoolhouse to see some of the headwinds facing K-12 education in America today. Federal funding The federal Education Department has worked to cancel billions of dollars' worth of K-12 grants and contracts that support teacher training, mental health, and education research and testing. The Trump administration said the teacher training and mental health grants wrongly funded diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. It said the education research was not a priority. And its budget proposal for next year would cut deeper: replacing $6.5 billion in programs for K-12 schools with a new $2 billion fund. The administration also is trying to cancel more than $2 billion worth of pandemic-relief funding that school districts have been counting on, a move that is being litigated. The Biden administration had given districts extra time to spend their allocated funding, a decision the Trump administration abruptly canceled. School WiFi The Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the federal E-Rate program that helps pay for school telephone and internet connectivity and represents the fifth-largest tranche of federal funding supporting K-12 schools. It is funded through the Universal Service Fund, whose funding structure is being challenged as an unconstitutional tax. School meals Congressional Republicans are considering significant cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps, by increasing requirements for participation. The changes could put millions of people at risk of losing benefits, which would affect schools because many students are considered automatically eligible for free school meals based on their family's SNAP eligibility. The Urban Institute, a think tank, estimated that 832,000 students might need to prove their eligibility in another way if the changes take effect. In addition, the Agriculture Department cut a $660 million program that helped schools buy fresh food and meat from local farmers, ranchers and fishers. Medicaid cuts Medicaid is the state-federal health-care program for low-income Americans, but it also helps public education by reimbursing costs of care delivered in school. Republicans are planning significant cuts to Medicaid as part of their large tax and spending bill, stripping health coverage from millions of Americans. That could reduce reimbursements to the schools. It also could put new budget pressure on states, where education and health care compete for funding. Race and gender The Trump administration has threatened to pull federal funding from any school district that considers race in virtually any way for any reason, saying this is a violation of federal civil rights law. The administration had demanded that every district sign a letter affirming it is in compliance with the administration's interpretation of civil rights law, though the directive has been blocked for now by the courts. And the Education Department has launched multiple investigations of school systems that have diversity, equity and inclusion policies the administration does not like. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court may allow parents who object to lessons with LGBTQ+ themes on religious grounds to opt their children out. Schools say this would be logistically complicated, among other objections. Transgender athletes The Trump administration has said schools that recognize transgender students are advancing 'radical gender ideology' in violation of Title IX, which bars discrimination based on sex. The Trump administration has sued Maine because the state allows transgender athletes to compete in school sports, and it threatened to sue California after a 16-year-old transgender athlete placed first in two events at the state track-and-field championship. The Education Department also is investigating California and Maine for limits they put on what school districts can be required to tell parents about the names and pronouns students use at school. Students with disabilities The Supreme Court is considering a case that could make it easier for children with disabilities to win court cases in which they are challenging the accommodations offered by school districts. To win a certain type of case, families now must satisfy a high standard and show that the district, in denying the request for accommodations, acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment.' The challenge seeks to change the standard, which would make it easier for families to win cases against districts. Voucher programs Many states now offer parents tax dollars to pay for private schools or home schooling. A dozen states have programs that benefit all or almost all families, regardless of family income, though some are being phased in. The programs give families more choices but also provide an incentive for them to leave public schools. They also eat into state tax dollars that might have been spent on public education. A national voucher program is also under consideration at the federal level. The plan would allow federal taxpayers to donate money to state-based scholarship-granting organizations and then get their money back through a dollar-for-dollar, 100 percent tax credit. The scholarship organizations would hand out the vouchers, which could be used to pay for private school or home-school expenses. The vouchers could be offered in liberal states as well as conservative ones. Some of the Trump administration's actions may be blocked by the courts. Some of the Supreme Court cases might favor public schools. Some of the provisions in the GOP tax bill might be softened. But all in all, people on both sides of the debate agree that this is a moment of intense pressure. As a result, school officials have been forced to pay close attention to action in policy and politics, said Pudelski, of the superintendents' group. 'The message is that if you ignore what's happening in Washington, you do so at your own peril.'
Scoop
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Trump And Republicans Want Taxpayers To Fund Their Pet Project: Private Schools
When is a 'school choice' proposal not really about school choice? In the budget bill that Republicans rushed through the House on May 12, 2025, school choice is just a cover-up for tax relief for the rich. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans are trying to ram through a major taxpayer-funded private school programme, according to education policy experts who appeared on an online 'town hall' on May 22, 2025, which was about a nationwide school voucher scheme that's buried deep in the text of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. On the surface, the bill promises to provide $5 billion annually in school voucher funds for parents to apply for and use to pay for private-school tuition, homeschooling, and for-profit online learning. 'Supporters [of school choice have] hailed the proposal as 'historic' and a 'huge win,'' reported Dana Goldstein of the New York Times in May. But that topline description of what the measure proposes is deceptive and hides what amounts to 'a tax shelter that serves to benefit only the most wealthy Americans,' said David R. Schuler in the town hall. Schuler is the executive director of AASA, the School Superintendents Association. Although Goldstein framed the measure in pure political terms as a way for Republicans to push through a bill Democrats oppose, it's not really about party politics, and opposition to the proposal is bipartisan. And like Goldstein reported, while it's true that the rhetoric of school choice is at the center of the fight over this measure, 'This is not about giving families or parents choice,' said Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, another speaker at the town hall. 'This is about giving schools choice to discriminate against kids.' Yet there is a reason for this deception, and it's got everything to do with what's at the core of the Trump administration's MAGA agenda. An 'Unprecedented Giveaway' to the Wealthiest It's telling that the measure, originally called the Educational Choice for Children Act of 2025 when it was introduced and in committee, is now called 'tax credit for contributions of individuals to scholarship granting organisations' and appears in the part of the bill devoted to 'Additional Tax Relief for American Families and Workers,' rather than grouped with other education proposals in the Committee on Education and Workforce section. But the subterfuge goes much deeper than the name, according to the speakers at the town hall, including Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), who called the measure 'the quintessential definition of a tax shelter.' The tax advantages are derived from how the programme is funded. As Hanauer explained, school vouchers would be funded by a tax credit system and a federally mandated network of scholarship granting organisations (SGOs), one in every state. Each SGO is its own nonprofit that can grant vouchers to parents who apply. When private individuals and corporations donate to an SGO, they would, in turn, receive a tax credit from the federal government that's dollar-for-dollar equal to the amount of the donation—limited to 10 percent of a donor's income. The first advantage is that the reward for donating comes in the form of a credit rather than a tax deduction, which, as the Tax Policy Center pointed out, increases the value of the tax advantage because a credit is 'subtracted directly from a person's tax liability,' while the value of a deduction 'depends on the taxpayer's marginal tax rate, which rises with income.' Those specifics make the voucher program a more attractive system for giving than other charitable causes. Also, 'no other charity, not pediatric cancer research, not disaster relief, not assisting disabled veterans, nothing gets this level of tax incentive,' said Hanauer, 'no other charity has ever gotten this kind of one-for-one payback.' There's a ripple effect of savings on state tax, too. 'Because state income taxes largely piggyback on federal law,' Hanauer said, 'the bill would also reduce [a donor's] state tax.' Even more lucrative to donors is a provision in the proposal to allow stock donations and avoid capital gains taxes on what they earned from the stock. In other words, by donating to an SGO, wealthy donors can profit from their 'donations,' and the wealthier the donor, the higher the potential profit. 'Elon Musk would have cut his capital gains tax bill by $690 million alone, him personally, if this [provision] had been in effect in 2021,' Hanauer said. It's an 'unprecedented giveaway that would enrich the wealthiest people, particularly those whose incomes come from stock,' she said. Whose Choice? Perhaps all these tax-related shenanigans could be justified as a federal programme for 'kids and families,' but that's not really true of this proposal. As Rodrigues explained, parents who want to use voucher money to pull their children out of the public system and send them to a private school will find that these schools don't have to accept them. She and other speakers in the town hall pointed out that private schools, regardless of whether or not they get public funding through a voucher programme, will continue to have the freedom to screen out applicants who struggle with academic work, who aren't fluent in English, who have histories of discipline problems, or who have learning disabilities. Although the bill includes language about holding voucher receiving schools accountable for ensuring federally required supports—IEPs or Individual Education Programs—for students with learning disabilities, there's no enforcement mechanism included, according to Rodriques, and the bill 'doesn't enforce or ensure any dispute resolution' when a parent doesn't agree with how a school is treating their child. Another speaker at the town hall, Amanda Tyler, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, noted that because the vast majority of private schools are religious, the voucher programme would fund religion with tax dollars. Religious private schools 'cannot separate their faith from their teaching, and nor should they,' she said, but that condition creates problems for kids and families when practicing religious faith means excluding LGBTQ+ families and students or barring enrollment of families who do not share the school's religious faith. Passage of a federal voucher program would be especially detrimental to rural families, said Ginny Mott, vice president of the Maine State Parent Teacher Association, who also spoke at the meeting. There are very few private schools in rural parts of her state, she pointed out. 'For rural working families, limited availability, distance, lack of transportation, and cost of tuition beyond what the voucher system will cover means for many families there is no realistic choice,' she said. While a voucher programme with limited choice would provide benefits for a very select group of families, it would inflict serious harm on the public schools that 83 percent of families send their children to, according to 2024 figures provided by Pew Research Center. 'Rural communities, children, and families will be especially hard hit by a voucher school system which would divert funding away from their public schools,' Mott said. '[I]mposing a new national voucher program would simply drain… resources away from our existing schools.' Indeed, public schools everywhere would feel the impact, according to ITEP's Hanauer, as public coffers that pay for education and other services lose funds to tax credits taken by donors. 'We estimate that this bill would reduce federal tax revenue by $23.2 billion over the next decade,' she said. States would take a revenue hit too, losing $459 million to voucher tax credits, according to Hanauer. AASA's Schuler also noted that '[private schools] can also kick kids out whenever they want.' And when they do, the voucher funds the school collected don't follow the child back to the public school. The Worst Possible Scenario for Our Children Given all the negatives in the bill, numerous speakers questioned why it was pushed through. True, President Trump and his Secretary of Education Linda McMahon are openly hostile to public schools, and many in the Republican party have long campaigned to privatize education by expanding school voucher programs and enticing parents to pursue education options other than their local public schools. Town hall participant Denise Forte, President and CEO of the Education Trust, echoed this theme when she called the voucher proposal 'part of the great American heist on public education.' But politics alone doesn't explain the design of this particular bill. Kentucky parent Maria Clark, who also spoke at the town hall, described her state's rejection of a school voucher referendum in the 2024 November election, noting that 'voters in all 120 counties' voted against vouchers in a state where Trump won the popular vote in 118 of those counties. Voters also gave thumbs down to vouchers in Nebraska in November 2024, another conservative state where Trump won overwhelmingly. 'Why is Congress,' Clark asked, 'specifically a Republican Congress, voting to force a voucher program on our state?' Hanauer likely put her finger on the primary motivation when she said the bill 'is something that's as much about increasing inequality as it is about undermining our public schools.' Public education, after all, has long been an engine for equality, so any effort to undermine it is an effort to undo the public system's equalizing force. Such an outcome makes sense in the minds of Trump and his MAGA followers, who see the world in terms of a 'zero-sum' struggle with winners and losers. In this worldview, proposing a federal voucher system with an accompanying budget to fund it is not enough. The program must come at the expense of the public school system. It's not enough that beneficiaries of this bill—primarily well-to-do, white Christian parents who already can afford to send their children to private schools—get a boost; the rest of us who remain in the public system must make do with less. That goal might sound fine to Trump and his supporters, but it's a governing philosophy that will result in the worst possible outcomes for our children. Author Bio: This article was produced by Our Schools. Jeff Bryant is a writing fellow and chief correspondent for Our Schools. He is a communications consultant, freelance writer, advocacy journalist, and director of the Education Opportunity Network, a strategy and messaging center for progressive education policy. His award-winning commentary and reporting routinely appear in prominent online news outlets, and he speaks frequently at national events about public education policy. Follow him on Bluesky @jeffbinnc.
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Decatur City Schools superintendent selected to governing board of school administrators' group
The American Association of School Administrators named City Schools of Decatur Superintendent Gyimah Whitaker to the group's governing board. The organization is described as the premier organization of more than 10,000 school system leaders that advocates for public education on Capitol Hill. [DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks] Whitaker will be installed on the governing board at the upcoming AASA meeting on July 8-10 in Washington, D.C. The school district said her term began on June 1 and will last through June 30, 2026. Whitaker's role on the governing board will give her a decision-making voice. She will help set policy for the group. Whitaker will also report on the board's work to the Georgia School Superintendents Association, the state affiliate. TRENDING STORIES: College soccer player from Atlanta, son of former CFL star, found dead in his dorm room 30-year-old father found shot to death in his truck on busy DeKalb road Former GA deputy accused of attacking 3 women, including 2 police officers She is serving out the remainder of the term of retiring Baldwin County Superintendent Noris Price. 'I am honored to join the AASA leaders, representing City Schools of Decatur and districts across the southeast,' Whitaker said. 'This will afford me the opportunity to further my commitment to bolster public education on behalf of students locally and nationwide.' The governing board consists of 135 members from seven U.S. regions. Whitaker will represent Georgia in Region 5, which also includes Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Other Georgia-based superintendents serving on the AASA are Superintendent Dr. Morris C. Leis of the Coffee County School District and Superintendent Kenneth Dyer of the Dougherty County School District. [SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
United News of India
18-05-2025
- Politics
- United News of India
RCP merges his party with Jan Suraaj, vows to work with Prashant for better Bihar
Patna, May 18 (UNI) Former Union Minister RCP Singh, who was once a close confidant of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, on Sunday merged his party Aap Sabki Awaj (AASA) with Jan Suraaj and vowed to work with its founder Prashant Kishor to build a better Bihar. Singh, along with his supporters, announced the merger of his party AASA with Jan Suraaj in the presence of Kishor. Both Kishore and Singh expressed their commitment to work for building Bihar, which would be free from crime, corruption and communalism. Kishor, speaking on the occasion, said that Chief Minister Kumar had once asked him to expand JD(U) in such a way that there could be no space for crime, corruption and communalism. He was then in JD(U), the Jan Suraaj leader recalled. "JD(U) is not a party which was once under the dynamic leadership of Chief Minister Kumar, as it has been hijacked by four ministers close to him after the physical and mental ability of Kumar decreased so much that he is not taking any decision on his own," Kishor said and exhorted JD(U) workers to join Jan Suraaj, as their party was now a sinking ship after Kumar lost control over it. Workers in JD(U) were honest and committed, he noted. Singh, on his part, appreciated Kishor and recalled how both of them had played a crucial role in scripting the victory of the Grand Alliance and the formation of its government in 2015. Grand Alliance had stopped the victory spree of BJP in Bihar, he pointed out. "Kishor has been working hard for making a better Bihar, and it could be achieved sooner after his party merged with Jan Suraaj and both work together," Singh said. It was certain that PM Narendra Modi had no thought for the development of Bihar and his focus was on Gujarat, he pointed out. "The national average per capita income is Rs 2 lakhs, while in Bihar it is just Rs 60,000, and the gap would remain so even after India becomes a developed country by 2047, as being claimed by PM Modi," the former Union Minister emphasised. He had given a number of suggestions to Chief Minister Kumar for tapping vast mineral resources in Bihar, including gold, but no attention was given by him, he pointed out. National Mineral Development Corporation(NMDC) in its report had stated about vast resources of minerals in Bihar, but the Nitish Kumar government was indifferent in taking steps for tapping the same, he lamented. UNI KKS ARN
