Connect with us

Montana

Montana families deserve choice school options: opinion

Published

on

Montana families deserve choice school options: opinion


Families across the country have long benefited from the ability to attend a public charter school if they determined that was the best option for their children. Montana parents, however, have been stymied until recently when lawmakers finally stepped up. The Montana Legislature in 2023 passed two charter options for public education – HB 562 and HB 549. HB 562, the Community Choice Schools Act, is one of the strongest charter school laws in the country.

Advertisement

Public charter schools, called “Choice Schools” under Montana’s unique framework, are tuition-free public schools that are publicly funded but independently run. Choice Schools are granted flexibility from traditional public school regulations to build a learning environment and curriculum that fits the needs of their students. Choice Schools are subject to a contract that includes ongoing general government supervision, performance monitoring, and oversight. If Choice Schools don’t perform, they will be closed.

As they have done in nearly every state that has voted to launch public charter schools, the education establishment has sued to prevent implementation of HB 562 and deny families this important option.

This is why our organizations joined together to file an amicus brief in the case of Felchle v. Montana, to defend Choice Schools as an option for Montana families.

It’s abundantly clear that Montana’s Community Choice Schools Act (CCSA) is constitutional, consistent with charter school programs in other states, and will enable quality public education options for students. This is why we’re asking the court to uphold the Community Choice Schools Act and preserve this opportunity for Montana communities to expand the local public education system with student-centered Choice Schools.

Our amicus brief emphasizes three key points:

Advertisement

Constitutionality: The CCSA properly acknowledges the requirement in the Montana Constitution for the Board of Public Education to exercise “general supervision” over Choice Schools.

Consistency: The CCSA’s framework is consistent with the understanding of constitutional requirements for state board supervision of charter schools in other states.

Quality: The data on similar schools in other states, including research from Stanford University, demonstrates that Choice Schools will provide equality of educational opportunity and offer a quality education to Montana students.

We conclude our legal brief by noting: “For over three decades, children across the country have attended public charter schools and became more successful students because of it. Charter schools have a clearly demonstrated positive effect on their students and the data continues to show a positive upward trend, even in states where the charter law contains broad exemptions from state laws and regulations. Based on this data, Montana’s Choice Schools will provide a quality education because they follow a model that has led to academic quality in other states.”

For example, neighboring Idaho has more than 70 charter schools and a new law was passed this year that makes them easier to operate. Discussing Idaho’s charter schools, Kimberly School District Superintendent Luke Schroeder recently said: “You have to look at education for your entire community, not just your district. It’s human nature to be competitive, but we’ve got to put our egos aside and see what’s best for kids … At the end of the day, we just can’t be territorial about education.”

Advertisement

We believe that equality of educational opportunity guaranteed to all students by Montana’s Constitution means an all of the above approach – traditional public schools, choice schools, private schools, micro-schools, homeschooling, and more. We’re hopeful that Montana judges will agree. Allowing families more education options shouldn’t be a controversial idea. Montanans have waited long enough.



Source link

Montana

Montana Lottery Powerball, Lotto America results for March 2, 2026

Published

on


The Montana Lottery offers multiple draw games for those aiming to win big.

Here’s a look at March 2, 2026, results for each game:

Winning Powerball numbers from March 2 drawing

02-17-18-38-62, Powerball: 20, Power Play: 2

Check Powerball payouts and previous drawings here.

Advertisement

Winning Lotto America numbers from March 2 drawing

03-08-17-24-34, Star Ball: 06, ASB: 02

Check Lotto America payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Big Sky Bonus numbers from March 2 drawing

06-12-19-29, Bonus: 11

Check Big Sky Bonus payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Powerball Double Play numbers from March 2 drawing

21-28-58-65-67, Powerball: 25

Advertisement

Check Powerball Double Play payouts and previous drawings here.

Winning Millionaire for Life numbers from March 2 drawing

28-41-42-50-55, Bonus: 02

Check Millionaire for Life payouts and previous drawings here.

Feeling lucky? Explore the latest lottery news & results

When are the Montana Lottery drawings held?

  • Powerball: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
  • Mega Millions: 9 p.m. MT on Tuesday and Friday.
  • Lucky For Life: 8:38 p.m. MT daily.
  • Lotto America: 9 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Big Sky Bonus: 7:30 p.m. MT daily.
  • Powerball Double Play: 8:59 p.m. MT on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday.
  • Montana Cash: 8 p.m. MT on Wednesday and Saturday.
  • Millionaire for Life: 9:15 p.m. MT daily.

Missed a draw? Peek at the past week’s winning numbers.

This results page was generated automatically using information from TinBu and a template written and reviewed by a Great Falls Tribune editor. You can send feedback using this form.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Montana

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate

Published

on

Apparent AI Glitch in Filing by Montana Public Defender, Recent Congressional Candidate


Everyone makes mistakes, even experienced professionals; a good reminder for the rest of us to learn from those mistakes. The motion in State v. Stroup starts off well in its initial pages (no case law hallucinations), but is then followed by several pages of two other motions, which I don’t think the lawyer was planning to file, and which appear to have been AI-generated: It begins with the “Below is concise motion language you can drop into …” language quoted above.

Griffen Smith (Missoulian) reported on the story, and included the prosecutor’s motion to strike that filing, on the grounds that it violates a local rule (3(G)) requiring disclosure of the use of generative AI:

The document does not include a generative artificial intelligence disclosure as required. However, page 7 begins as follows: “Below is concise motion language you can drop into a ‘Motion to Admit Mental-Disease Evidence and for Related Instructions’ keyed to 45-6-204, 45-6-201, and 4614-102. Adjust headings/captions to your local practice.” Page 10 states “Below is a full motion you can paste into your pleading, then adjust names, dates, and styles to fit local practice.” These pages also include several apparent hyperlinks to “ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws,” “ppl-ai-fileupload.s3.amazonaws+1,” and others. The document includes what appears to be an attempt at a second case caption on page 12. It is not plausible on its face that any source other than generative AI would have created such language for a filed version of a brief….

There’s more in that filing, but here’s one passage:

While generative AI can be a useful tool for some purposes and may have greater application in the future, when used improperly, and without meaningful review, it can ultimately damage both the perception and the reality of the profession. One assumes that Mr. Stroup has had, or will at some point have, an opportunity to review the filing made on his behalf. What impression could a review of pgs. 12-19 leave upon a defendant who struggles with paranoia and delusional thinking? While AI could theoretically one day become a replacement for portions of staff of experienced attorneys, it is readily apparent that this day has not yet arrived.

The Missoulan article includes this response:

Advertisement

In a Wednesday interview, Office of Public Defender Division Administrator Brian Smith told the Missoulian the AI-generated language was inadvertently included in an unrelated filing. And he criticized the county attorney’s office for filing a “four-page diatribe about the dangers of AI” instead of working with the defense to correct her mistake.

“That’s not helping the client or the case,” Smith said, “and all you are doing is trying to throw a professional colleague under the bus.”

As I mentioned, the lawyer involved seems quite experienced, and ran for the Montana Public Service Commission in 2020 (getting nearly 48% of the vote) and for the House of Representatives in Montana’s first district in 2022 (getting over 46% of the vote) and in 2024 (getting over 44%). “Его пример другим наука,” Pushkin wrote in Eugene Onegin—”May his example profit others,” in the Falen translation.

Thanks to Matthew Monforton for the pointer.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Montana

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV

Published

on

Your guide to local sports events, plus what’s on TV





Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending