Connect with us

Finance

Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee approves 4 reading curriculums under Act 20

Published

on

Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee approves 4 reading curriculums under Act 20

Editor’s note: With low reading proficiency scores across the state, USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin is exploring the causes and consequences of low literacy. This article is part of the By the Book series, which examines reading curriculum, instructional methods and solutions in K-12 education to answer the questions: Why do so many Wisconsin kids struggle to read, and what can be done about it? 

To read other stories in the series, click here.

Wisconsin’s Joint Committee on Finance approved Monday a list of four reading curricula schools can adopt to be in compliance with the state’s new reading law, Act 20. The curricula approved are those recommended by the state’s Early Literacy Curriculum Council, a nine-member council created to specifically evaluate K-3 reading curriculums for their compliance with Act 20.

The four curricula approved are:

  • Core Knowledge Language Arts K-3
  • Our EL Education Language Arts
  • Wit and Wisdom with Pk-3 Reading Curriculum
  • Bookworms Reading and Writing K-3

Act 20, signed into law last summer, requires curriculum to be backed by the “science of reading”: a decades-old body of research that explains how the brain learns to read. It includes an emphasis on phonics, which teaches students the sounds letters make and how those sounds combine in predictable patterns to form words.

The law’s changes are aimed at improving reading proficiency in the state, which has been low for years. Fewer than half of students at the state’s five largest school districts are considered proficient in reading, according to state exam scores since 2018.

Advertisement

Part of the law’s revamping of reading instruction requires schools to use specific instructional methods that are systemic and explicit by next school year. This instruction must include fluency, phonological awareness, phonemic awareness, phonics, oral language development, vocabulary, writing, comprehension and building background knowledge.

The list of approved curricula is significant because school districts that adopt one of them can receive reimbursement for up to half the cost, which can be millions of dollars. Many districts will be turning to this list as they redefine how they teach reading.

Committee Democrats, DPI worry list will open state up to litigation

This list was approved 10-4 along party lines with all Republicans on the committee voting in favor and no Democratic support. While Republicans were in favor of the four curricula recommended by the Early Literacy Curriculum Council, Democrats wanted to approve the Department of Public Instruction’s broader list.

In February, the Early Literacy Curriculum Council released its list of four recommended curricula. About 30 curriculum vendors submitted materials for evaluation by the council, and by February, it had reviewed about half, according to a memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Advertisement

Given how much time curriculum review requires and the swift deadlines in Act 20, the council didn’t have enough time to review all the submitted curricula, the bureau’s memo said.

DPI, the state’s education agency, did its own evaluation of all the curricula, recommending 11. It rejected one of the council’s recommendations (Bookworms Reading & Writing for K-3) and added others that the council hadn’t rated. 

More on Act 20: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction asks lawmakers to change deadline for implementing part of Wisconsin’s new literacy law

In a letter to the Joint Committee on Finance, the DPI said the council’s process for evaluating curricula had exposed the state to “an unacceptable level of risk.”

Because not all vendors who submitted curriculum materials were evaluated by the council, one that wasn’t evaluated could sue, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau.

Advertisement

Democrats on the Joint Committee on Finance said that was reason enough to go with DPI’s recommendations. However, Republicans saw that as weak argument, opting for the four curricula from the Early Literacy Curriculum Council.

“This council, they’re experts. This is what they do,” said. Sen. Duey Stroebel during the committee meeting. “And I’m sorry I’m not going to look to DPI as, my god, the only people in the world who can pick the correct curriculum.”

He said the committee shouldn’t “water down, not give our kids the best quality curriculum” because of a “far-fetched legal theory.”

More on Act 20: Wisconsin passed a landmark literacy law 3 months ago. So what happens next?

The committee’s move is a “missed opportunity,” said state Superintendent Jill Underly in a media release.

Advertisement

“The DPI’s list of high-quality materials is robust, offers more support and flexibility, meets the definition of science-based early literacy detailed in Act 20 and mirrors materials recommended by other states undergoing similar changes,” Underly said.

The Early Literacy Curriculum Council is required to annually recommend science-based K-3 reading curricula, so Monday’s list is subject to expansion next year.

Why does the list of curricula matter?

Districts aren’t required to adopt the approved curricula, but those will be the only ones eligible for partial reimbursement — a large incentive for districts, given the cost of curriculum adoption.

Many districts will likely make the switch to new reading curriculum, if not the four approved Monday. In the past, DPI has recommended that districts use curricula positively rated by a third-party curriculum evaluation organization called EdReports.

Advertisement

At least 79% of school districts surveyed by the Department of Public Instruction in 2021 said they use a curriculum that is either not rated or is negatively rated by EdReports. About 80% of school districts participated in the survey.

Districts have been waiting for the release of curricula so they can adopt new practices, train their staff and be in compliance with Act 20 by the 2024-25 school year. The Green Bay School District, for example, has been waiting for the literacy council and DPI to release its curriculum list before it buys new reading curriculum. It plans to select something for grades kindergarten through eight in March.

Danielle DuClos is a Report for America corps member who covers K-12 education for the Green Bay Press-Gazette. Contact her at dduclos@gannett.com. Follow on Twitter @danielle_duclos. You can directly support her work with a tax-deductible donation at GreenBayPressGazette.com/RFA or by check made out to The GroundTruth Project with subject line Report for America Green Bay Press Gazette Campaign. Address: The GroundTruth Project, Lockbox Services, 9450 SW Gemini Drive, PMB 46837, Beaverton, Oregon 97008-7105.

Advertisement

Finance

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Published

on

Robinhood Is Becoming a Full-Service Financial Platform. Is the Stock a Buy? | The Motley Fool

Founded in 2013, Robinhood (HOOD +2.80%) changed the brokerage industry with its free trading model. Today, the broker’s product lineup has expanded well beyond stocks to include products like cryptocurrencies and prediction markets. With a focus on smaller investors, Robinhood is living up to its goal to “democratize finance for all.” But is becoming a full-service financial platform enough to make the stock a buy?

Robinhood is growing quickly

Although it was founded in 2013, Robinhood didn’t go public until 2021. In its first earnings release in the second quarter of that year, it had $102 billion in custody. In the first quarter of 2026, roughly five years later, that figure had grown to $307 billion, and it is now called total platform assets, given the broadening of the company’s business. The company has rapidly become a major player in the finance industry, building off its early success in attracting younger traders interested in stocks.

Image source: Getty Images.

There’s no question that management deserves a great deal of credit for what Robinhood has achieved. But that alone doesn’t make the stock worth buying. Notably, Robinhood is being afforded a premium valuation, with a price-to-earnings ratio of 45x, compared to P/Es of 39x for Interactive Brokers (IBKR +0.96%) and 18x for Charles Schwab (SCHW 2.97%). A growth investor may be able to justify Robinhood’s valuation, but a value investor likely wouldn’t be interested.

What’s going on with Robinhood’s customer base?

There’s another issue to consider here as well. With a focus on new investors, Robinhood may be taking on more risk than its long-established peers, such as Charles Schwab. This potential risk was highlighted in Robinhood’s solid first quarter 2026 results. Risk-taking is the big issue.

Advertisement

While Robinhood’s transaction-based revenue jumped 7% year-over-year in the quarter, that growth was largely driven by prediction markets, which boosted “other” revenue by 320%. Cryptocurrency-related revenue, however, fell by 47%. This is notable because it suggests that aggressive investors shifted to what is the current hot trading idea.

Robinhood Markets Stock Quote

Today’s Change

(2.80%) $2.95

Current Price

$108.15

The problem is that Robinhood has never lived through a deep market downturn, such as the dot-com crash or the bear market associated with the Great Recession. Until it has, it is hard to know what its customers will do when every market seems to be heading lower, and losses are piling up. In other words, what will its customers do when there’s no new hot investment idea to jump on? There is a very real possibility that fear drives less experienced investors to get out of the market and stay out. Risk-averse investors will likely want to wait for Robinhood to be stress-tested before buying it.

Robinhood is not a bad company, but it is still quite young

None of this is meant to suggest that Robinhood is a bad company. It has done incredible things in a very short period of time. But that short period of time is a problem because the vast majority of it has been good for the stock market and investing. Robinhood’s stock is expensive, and the company has yet to face a deep, prolonged market downturn. Only the most aggressive growth investors will likely be interested in it for now.

Charles Schwab is an advertising partner of Motley Fool Money. Reuben Gregg Brewer has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Interactive Brokers Group. The Motley Fool recommends Charles Schwab and recommends the following options: long January 2027 $43.75 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, short January 2027 $46.25 calls on Interactive Brokers Group, and short June 2026 $97.50 calls on Charles Schwab. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Finance

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Published

on

Personal Finance: SpaceX IPO bends the rules | Chattanooga Times Free Press

Elon Musk made history again this month with the largest public offering of a company in the history of the known universe. Space Exploration Technologies, better known as SpaceX, began trading June 12 on the Nasdaq exchange under the ticker symbol SPCX. In the first three days, the stock soared by 50%, blasting the rocketeer past Amazon into fifth place among America’s largest companies.

While the public liftoff was impressive for its size and the hype surrounding it, what truly set this transaction apart was how Musk used his leverage to succeed in changing the rules during the final countdown and advance his own interest at the expense of shareholders.

Space Exploration Technologies is a truly intriguing collection of assets with a history of big accomplishments and even bigger ambitions. At its core is Starlink, a profitable satellite internet and data transmission operation. In the offering document, Musk imagines a network of massive orbiting data centers, which is not entirely crazy and is likely to face less political opposition from nearby residents.

SpaceX also includes the familiar rocket launch enterprise and an artificial intelligence startup called xAI with its Grok AI assistant. While private investors and Starlink have provided operating cash flows to fund the space operations, SpaceX needs substantial additional funding to support its galactic expansion plans. That requires selling shares of this privately held company to the public in an initial public offering.

The process involves a syndicate of investment banks that facilitates the sale of shares held by the company’s founders or private investors at a specific price, the proceeds of which allow early investors to cash out and provide a large injection of capital. Once the shares are sold to public buyers, they change hands on a market exchange at a price determined by supply and demand.

Advertisement

The prospect of the largest initial offering ever ignited a frenzy of interest. It also allowed Elon Musk to leverage the buzz of a monster IPO to convince Wall Street to bend the rules.

To win the listing, the Nasdaq stock exchange agreed to substantial waivers of its own listing rules. While new companies must typically wait at least three months before they become eligible for inclusion in the popular Nasdaq 100 index, Nasdaq jettisoned this “seasoning” period and allowed SpaceX to enter the index after only 15 days. This tech-heavy index serves as the benchmark for over $1.4 trillion in fund assets that will now be required to sell other holdings to make room for SpaceX in their portfolios. Estimates range from $8 to $15 billion in forced purchases that will create artificial demand for the stock. It also means that many passive investors in retirement funds will end up owning the stock, like it or not.

Nasdaq also waived its own liquidity rules. Ordinarily, at least 10% of the company’s shares must be offered to the public, called the “float,” or percentage, of the total stock value that trades publicly. SpaceX floated only 4.3% of its stock, with private shareholders retaining 95.7%. Using some arithmetic legerdemain, Nasdaq created a “multiplier,” triple-counting the float for companies in the top 40 by total market value. Presumably for firms whose founders’ initials are E.M.

To its credit, S&P Global Inc. considered but ultimately refused to loosen its own standards for joining the S&P 500 index, concerned about the potential reputational damage. The S&P 500 is the benchmark for $20 trillion in assets and opted to retain its 12-month seasoning period as well as a four-quarter profitability hurdle. SpaceX may one day dock with the S&P 500, but the countdown has not started.

Aside from eliciting waivers and exceptions for index inclusion, SpaceX massively advantages its visionary but mercurial founder. In its surprisingly entertaining prospectus, the company boosted Musk’s control far beyond his ownership stake. The shares issued to the public are called Class A shares, and each carries one vote on matters of corporate governance. However, Musk’s stake resides in so-called Class B shares, each with 10 votes, giving Musk 84% voting control.

Advertisement

There are a few other little gems. The prospectus requires that any disputes between shareholders and the company must be settled privately through arbitration. Lawsuits, including the type of class action suits that tend to hold management’s feet to the fire, are expressly prohibited. And speaking of fire, Musk may only be fired by himself.

Some of these more restrictive provisions have been used before. For instance, in its initial offering, Google essentially pioneered the idea of multiple share classes that vested voting control with the founders. SpaceX propels contempt for shareholder rights into a higher orbit.

Separate from the structural disadvantage to public shareholders is the question of valuation. SpaceX lost nearly $5 billion in 2025 and another $4 billion just last quarter. The initial offering of loss-making companies is hardly new, especially in technologically emerging fields. SpaceX has reached the stratosphere.

With no profits to measure, a useful metric is the ratio of the total value of all the company’s stock divided by last year’s revenues, called the price to sales ratio. When the unprofitable Amazon went public in 1996, its total market value was three times its 1995 sales. Google’s 2004 offering priced at 15 times sales, Facebook at a hefty 28 times, and even Musk’s own Tesla launched at a multiple of 15 times sales. SpaceX cleared the tower at an otherworldly 95 times sales, soaring to 130 by the end of day two as the frenzy intensified. During the first full trading day, it comprised 75% of all stock purchases by individual investors. In the prospectus, Musk expatiates on his plan to colonize Mars. He’s halfway there.

There is no precedent for a public offering of this size, with such a long and speculative arc toward profitability and so few shareholder protections. SpaceX is a pure play wager on a precocious space cadet with interstellar aspirations astride a solid rocket booster. Enjoy the ride.

Advertisement

Christopher A. Hopkins, CFA, is a co-founder of Apogee Wealth Partners in Chattanooga.

Continue Reading

Finance

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

Published

on

Financial adviser warns, ‘stay away from the hype’ of an IPO

BURLINGTON, Vt. (WCAX) – Initial public offerings, better known as IPOs, may seem like big investment opportunities, but a financial adviser is warning they could be a risky addition to your portfolio.

Dan Cunningham of the investment management company One Day in July, said he recommends that people stay away when a company starts selling initial shares on the stock market.

Most recently, Elon Musk’s SpaceX became the biggest IPO ever, but Cunningham said people shouldn’t get caught up in the hoopla.

“They generate a lot of excitement, but when you look at long term results, IPOs have not been a good investment. So we really try to encourage people to stay away from the hype. You are really betting on the future and taking an enormous amount of risk by buying IPO shares in many cases,” Cunningham said.

According to Cunningham, the good news is that, over the long term, the market and most retirement funds that mirror it will balance out.

Advertisement

Copyright 2026 WCAX. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending