overhaul

Caracas, August 7, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government and a faction of the opposition formally began a fresh US-backed dialogue initiative on Thursday that is expected to renew the country’s judicial and electoral bodies.

After a plenary session, the two sides announced a methodology for the upcoming talks, and the ratification of the agenda that will guide daily discussions through August 12.

“On that day, the continuation of the plenary will be evaluated, taking into consideration the progress of the work and the results achieved,” stated a joint communiqué issued after the two sides held an in-person meeting at La Carlota Air Base in Caracas.

The government delegation led by National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez and the opposition faction headed by Dinorah Figuera, head of the defunct 2015 parliament, signed a set of negotiating principles based on good faith and the pursuit of benefits for the country, including political, peaceful, democratic, and constitutional solutions. The principles also include mutual recognition and respect, political equality, and parity between the parties.

The sides further agreed to produce verifiable commitments, the protection of the human and political rights of “all forces,” and to “promptly inform the entire country of the progress achieved in these conversations.”

Neither delegation spoke to the press after the initial talks. The government delegation, apart from Rodríguez, features Higher Education Minister Ana María Sanjuán, National Assembly First Vice President Pedro Infante, and lawmakers América Pérez, Génesis Garvett, and Jorge Arreaza. On the opposition side, accompanying Figuera are former lawmakers Marco Aurelio Quiñones, Ramón López, Jorge Millán, Juan Miguel Matheus, and Sergio Vergara. 

Thursday’s meeting followed a preliminary conference call on August 1 between Rodríguez and Figuera, who arrived in Venezuela on Wednesday, having been based in Spain for over eight years.

Upon her arrival, the opposition figure reiterated that the negotiations would lead to the appointment of a new “credible and trustworthy” National Electoral Council (CNE) by November and a “re-institutionalized” Supreme Court (TSJ) before the end of 2026.

The National Assembly had already begun discussions on reforming the TSJ. Lawmakers approved legislation reducing the number of justices on the Full Chamber from 32 to 20. However, a parliamentary process to appoint new justices was subsequently suspended. According to the Venezuelan Constitution, the appointment of electoral and judicial authorities is the exclusive competency of the legislature.

The two negotiating parties held a second session on Friday afternoon at the 5-star Meliá Hotel in Caracas, but offered no public updates.

The Trump administration welcomed the talks, describing them as a “unique opportunity” for reconciliation and “transition” in Venezuela.

“We applaud the efforts to address the urgent needs of those affected by the June 24 earthquakes, expand political freedoms, and advance a more stable and prosperous future for the Venezuelan people,” the State Department affirmed in a statement.

The communiqué added that Washington would remain committed to supporting the “Venezuela-led process,” while emphasizing the White House’s “three-phase plan” which culminates with a “political transition.”

The US-endorsed dialogue comes seven months after a military operation that saw US forces bomb Caracas and kidnap President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores. In the months since, the Trump administration has wielded considerable influence over Venezuelan affairs, with US officials having input on legislative reforms and the US Treasury Department controlling Venezuelan export revenues.

The negotiations have caused tensions among different opposition factions, with far-right sectors criticizing the exclusion of María Corina Machado.

In a recent interview, Machado stated that she was not involved in the “design, construction, and functioning” of the dialogue, but vowed not to obstruct agreements that represent concrete advances toward a “democratic transition.”

In a statement, the Machado-led Unitary Democratic Platform (PUD) expressed its expectation that the dialogue will yield an “appropriate presidential electoral timetable” and pledged to assess the process based on “concrete achievements,” including the “release of political prisoners” and “electoral guarantees for all actors.”

In contrast, grassroots Chavista organizations have rejected the dialogue and denounced US “interference.” During a demonstration on August 1, the Popular Anti-Imperialist Front warned that the process was intended to place “US puppets” in the justice system and electoral authority, and subsequently organize “unconstitutional” elections.

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration is planning a dramatic overhaul of Head Start that would gut its quality standards, upending the hallmarks of the early education program for impoverished children, two people familiar with the deliberations said.

Head Start, established in the 1960s to help fight poverty, has long been considered by experts to be a gold standard early learning program. Its regulations, which stretch more than 100 pages, outline requirements on everything from child-to-teacher ratios and child health screenings to family engagement.

The Republican administration would replace those regulations with around a dozen pages of rules, leaving most of the specifics up to state and local law, said the people familiar with the deliberations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss information that was not yet public and because they feared reprisal.

The draft rules would require more documentation from parents who are homeless or unemployed, the people familiar with the deliberations told the Associated Press. An early version of the proposal also would have barred parents who are in the United States illegally from enrolling their children, even if the children are U.S. citizens. It’s unclear whether those provisions will make the final draft.

Head Start’s rules target poverty, experts say

Head Start serves more than half a million low-income babies, toddlers and preschoolers nationwide. For families that qualify, it offers free preschool and screenings to identify developmental delays. It also offers supports for families.

The changes to Head Start would deliver a win for conservatives who have sought wholesale elimination of it. The Trump administration would also further its efforts to eliminate regulations it views as onerous or unnecessary.

If the changes take effect, they could make Head Start unrecognizable, said Khari Garvin, who ran the Office of Head Start under President Biden, a Democrat.

“We’d have the carcass of Head Start,” Garvin said. “You might have a program that’s called Head Start, but in substance it will not be.”

Proposal has a long way to go to take effect

The proposed rules were originally reported in The Bulwark. The White House, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Head Start, did not respond to questions about the changes.

Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Head Start Assn., said the organization has yet to see the proposed rules. But he said the potential for a massive overhaul has left the organization on edge.

“We’re very anxious,” Sheridan said. “When it does come out … we’ll be ready to fight back where we need to fight back.”

Still, he emphasized that Head Start centers might not be impacted for months, if the rules get on the books at all. Once the proposal is made public, federal law requires the administration to give at least a month for the public to weigh in on it. Then, once finalized, it may take more time for the rules to take effect. There’s also the potential for a lawsuit to halt implementation.

Created during War on Poverty

Head Start was created as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty and targets the myriad challenges that low-income households face. It serves children and adults alike, coaching parents on reaching their goals, connecting them with services and even employing them.

Head Start operators, which include school districts and nonprofit organizations, are required to provide medical, dental and vision screenings for children and to monitor them for developmental delays. There’s also a curriculum framework and prohibitions on physical and emotional abuse of children.

Many of the features that make Head Start distinct from mainstream preschools are spelled out in 122 pages of performance standards. The Trump administration’s proposal would toss most of that rule book and replace it with a much shorter version that eliminates or loosens many requirements, the people familiar with the proposal said. But the proposal also calls for some new regulations, such as requiring all instruction in English.

Head Start, which has enjoyed robust bipartisan support for decades, has faced several threats since Trump took office last year. Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint authored by the official who is now Trump’s budget chief, called for the federal government to get rid of the program altogether.

Balingit writes for the Associated Press. Associated Press writer Ali Swenson contributed reporting.

A new commission made up of legislators, public defenders, academics and advocates seeks to push California — one of just two states that don’t pay for basic public defense — to begin providing resources and enforcing minimum standards for county public defender systems.

The California Independent Commission on Public Defense includes three assemblymembers and two senators — among them Jesse Arreguín and Nick Schultz, chairs of the Senate and Assembly Public Safety Committees — as well as chief public defenders from several counties, retired judges, the directors of criminal justice nonprofits, and the heads of organizations representing thousands of defense attorneys in the state.

“We have discussed the problem of our public defense system for years,” said Schultz, a Democrat from Burbank and former prosecutor who has sponsored legislation to improve public defense.

The goal is to “move past discussion and study, and come up with an actionable road map of what we need to do to really build out the robust public defense infrastructure that Californians are rightfully entitled to,” he said.

The commissioners plan to develop a five-year plan to phase in state funding, along with enforceable standards like caseload limits and access to defense investigators.

A CalMatters investigation last year found that criminal defendants across the state are routinely convicted without anyone investigating the charges against them, significantly increasing the likelihood of wrongful convictions. Many California counties do not employ a single defense investigator who can interview witnesses, review police reports, visit crime scenes and retrieve video surveillance footage. CalMatters also found that lawyers in some rural counties are handling caseloads that far exceed even the most permissive standards, making them less likely than other defense attorneys to challenge the prosecution’s evidence in legal motions and take their cases to trial.

But the state has resisted stepping in. After a proposed bill that would have created an official state commission to address the issue was abandoned, two advocacy groups, the Wren Collective and UC Berkeley’s Criminal Law and Justice Center, decided to form an independent commission and began assembling participants who could develop and act on reforms. These types of commissions, which have facilitated significant improvements in other states’ public defender systems, are usually established by the governor.

“It became clear that this was an issue that was not a high priority for Sacramento, especially during a budget crisis,” said Chesa Boudin, the Berkeley center’s founding director and a former San Francisco district attorney. It also became clear, Boudin said, that “there was a tremendous gap between what experts understood to be the crisis and the public perception of California government as a kind of progressive leader in the country.”

In the decades since the U.S. Supreme Court established the right to an attorney in state court criminal proceedings, California has saddled its counties with the responsibility of providing lawyers to poor people accused of crimes. Many of those counties have opted for the cheapest path: paying private lawyers and firms a flat fee to represent indigent defendants, regardless of how many cases they handle or how much time they spend on each case.

“You’ve got some offices that have an incredibly high caliber of representation that they can provide, and you have other offices that are doing these flat-fee contracts where the quality has been documented to be pretty bad,” said Eve Brensike Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan.

Primus is the only member of the new commission from outside of California. She was asked to join because of her extensive research and writing about the structure of indigent defense.

An indigent defense commission in Michigan, which was formed by the legislature in 2013, has led to significant reforms and a substantial influx in state funding.

The California commission’s work, Primus said, can serve “as a catalyst for political actors to do the right thing and start to fund and improve indigent defense delivery, or as fodder for lawsuits that then can try to get the judiciary to push the political actors to do what is necessary to provide for effective representation.”

The commission is scheduled to hold its first in-person meeting, which will be open to the public, in Berkeley in October, with additional meetings planned for Los Angeles, the Central Valley and Northern California over the next 12 months. Commissioners say they will work in subcommittees in between these quarterly sessions to develop a concrete fiscal plan for the state, draft legislative language, and establish minimum standards for how counties should structure their public defender offices, compensate their attorneys, provide access to experts, and report on their work.

Anat Rubin writes for CalMatters.

June 18 (Asia Today) — South Korea is again considering changes to a local education funding system that automatically receives a fixed share of national tax revenue, as a semiconductor-driven rise in government receipts is expected to increase grants despite a shrinking student population.

The debate centers on local education finance grants, the main source of funding for elementary, middle and high schools administered by regional education offices.

The grants have risen to about 76 trillion won ($50 billion) under this year’s supplementary budget, according to the National Assembly Budget Office and education officials.

Some projections suggest the total could exceed 80 trillion won ($52.6 billion) if stronger tax revenue from the semiconductor industry is fully reflected.

The grant system receives 20.79% of internal tax revenue along with part of the national education tax. That means the amount increases when tax receipts rise, regardless of changes in student enrollment.

The number of elementary, middle and high school students fell from 5.96 million in 2016 to 4.92 million this year, a decline of 1.04 million, or 17.4%.

Over the same period, local education grants increased from 43 trillion won ($28.3 billion) to 76 trillion won, an increase of 33 trillion won ($21.7 billion), or 76.7%.

Budget officials and public finance experts say the automatic link to tax revenue makes government spending less flexible.

They argue that funding for primary and secondary education continues to expand despite falling enrollment while early childhood, higher education and lifelong learning programs face comparatively greater financial constraints.

Proposals include adjusting the percentage of internal tax revenue allocated to the grants or incorporating changes in the school-age population and nominal economic growth into the funding formula.

Education officials have strongly opposed reducing the grants based mainly on student numbers.

Superintendents-elect from South Korea’s ninth nationwide local elections issued a joint statement Monday warning that students would ultimately bear the cost of a funding overhaul driven primarily by fiscal considerations.

“Personnel expenses for teachers and other employees, school operating costs and facility safety and maintenance expenses arise at the school and classroom level, not simply on a per-student basis,” they said.

Schools also face growing fixed costs for meal services, after-school care and administrative support.

Personnel costs for permanent contract employees at public schools, including cafeteria workers, care staff and administrative assistants, reached 5.74 trillion won ($3.77 billion) last year.

That was a 61% increase from 2021. The figure is expected to exceed 6 trillion won ($3.94 billion) this year.

Three major teachers’ organizations also rejected claims that regional education offices have excess money.

They said the combined initial budgets of special education accounts fell by about 1 trillion won ($657 million) this year.

Funding for teaching and learning support declined 14.9%, while spending on school facility improvements fell 22.4%, they said.

The groups described education office reserve funds as a financial safeguard rather than unused money.

The Education Ministry is reportedly considering alternatives to immediately lowering the legally mandated allocation rate.

Possible measures include retaining the link to internal tax revenue while placing a ceiling on annual increases or allowing regional education offices to use more of the money for early childhood, higher education and lifelong learning.

The approach is intended to avoid a sudden reduction in primary and secondary school funding while directing more resources toward other parts of the education system.

Park Nam-gi, an emeritus professor at Gwangju National University of Education, said many necessary programs remain underfunded despite claims that schools have surplus resources.

“There are many things schools cannot do because they lack funding,” Park said.

He cited the expansion of special education, separate spaces and personnel needed to protect teachers and investment in education suited to the artificial intelligence era.

“It is wrong to conclude that education funding is excessive without properly supporting these needs,” Park said.

He said cash assistance programs introduced by some superintendents should be corrected where necessary, but that such concerns should not be used to justify reducing the overall education budget.

“Unlike welfare spending for the present, education funding is an investment in the country’s future,” Park said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260618010006611

Strictly Come Dancing is reportedly going to be unrecognisable by the time it returns to screens later this year, after bosses have decided to give the show a makeover

Strictly Come Dancing is undergoing a major makeover. The BBC dancing programme is set to return to screens later this year with three new hosts following the departure of Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman.

And Tess and Claudia aren’t the only people who’ve left; a string of professional stars have also departed, making way for new names to take to the dancefloor. But that’s not the only shake-up: sources say the show will look completely unrecognisable by the time it returns in autumn.

The dance floor is likely to undergo a makeover, with bosses currently deciding whether to change the iconic backdrop, which has become extremely familiar to viewers. The current studio, the George Lucas studio at Elstree, is made up of bright coloured panels, lights and some screens.

But sources claim this could switch to larger screens that display visuals during routines. “It was natural that bosses look at giving the show a whole new look as it enters a new era, but they aren’t ditching the traditional presentation of the show, just the way it is delivered,” a source told The Sun.

The source went on to add: “It’s going to get a more sleek, impressive set, but it will still be all about fun, glitz and sparkles. They aren’t trying to turn it into the set of Star Wars. But it would have been strange not to have made some change to the look of the show, given that the programme is starting a new chapter with so many other new elements.”

The publication claims that the new set has been compared to the shake-up The X Factor underwent in 2009, which saw the show’s backdrop made up entirely of large screens.

The rumoured new set-up has recently been seen across the UK tour of Strictly: The Professionals, and bosses have decided to keep the staircase and band, but the rest of the display was on giant green screens. The Clauditorium is said to remain the same.

With three hosts rather than two, there will also be a new backstage element of the programme. Emma Willis, comic Josh Widdicombe and professional dancer Johannes Radebe are the new faces of Strictly and will make their presenting debut in the autumn.

Another change this year is that Janette Manrara won’t be returning to the front spin-off show, It Takes Two. Manrara was also widely rumoured to be facing the axe, and has now confirmed she has left the series.

In a video posted on her YouTube account, she said: “Strictly Come Dancing has changed hugely, and I am no longer a part of It Takes Two or the main show. I’ll still be involved in other ways. But that just means that I’m free to pursue and do many other projects that I’ve always wanted to do and never really thought about doing.

“Strictly is all I’ve known for the last 14 years so it is a bit like, ‘Oh, we’re going into a different world, a different space, how are we going to navigate that?'”

The Mirror approached Strictly Come Dancing for comment.

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.