Northwestern University's Prison Education Program welcomed its inaugural graduating class of incarcerated students on Wednesday, marking the first

A mother has sparked a debate after revealing that her son received a “zero” from his teacher because he didn’t bring in “classroom supplies”. The parent, Shanitta Busby, shared a recent video to TikTok about her 13 year old, in which she explained that he recently started at a new school. She noted that, prior to the middle schooler’s first day, she bought him “new school supplies,” since the list of supplies needed was “a little different” than ones she’d seen before, and she “wanted him to be prepared”. Busby said that while her child’s first week at school went well, he came home the second week and told her: “My teacher said we need to have classroom supplies.” She responded to her son by saying it was strange that his teacher wanted him to have certain “classroom supplies”. “I’m like: ‘That’s weird, because we got you everything on the list that you would need for the class. And you’re not going to be using any classroom supplies,’” she recalled. “And so I left it at that.” However, according to Busby, the teacher later told her son that she’d “give [him] a zero if [he] didn’t turn in the classroom supplies”. While the parent questioned why her son was being graded for having the items, she said that she still went on to get the “classroom supplies,” which included things like tissues, Clorox wipes, hand sanitiser, pencils, Expo markers and red pens. Although she gave her son these supplies to turn in to his teacher, she said that the following week, her son “still had a zero”. She explained that when she emailed the teacher about the grade, she also claimed that parents shouldn’t be responsible for “supplying” the items needed in the teacher’s classrooms. “I email the teacher and I’m like: ‘Hey, I’m kind of concerned because my student has an 83 in the class, and everything else in the class is 100s and 98s. And he still have a zero for something called classroom supplies,’” she recalled. “I was like: ‘We bought the supplies anyways, but I don’t feel like it’s the parent’s responsibility to supply your classroom.’” She also told the teacher that she didn’t “think it was appropriate to assign a grade to students based on whether or not they’ve supplied” their teacher’s classroom. According to Busby, the teacher responded to the email by saying: “I appreciate an involved parent, and I’ll update his grade today.” However, the teacher didn’t address the parent’s concerns about the grade itself existing. @shanittanicole Am I doing too much? #fyp #school ♬ original sound - Snooze ❣️ “She said nothing about the fact that we shouldn’t have to supply your classroom with supplies,” she explained. “So I emailed the principal, I might be extra, but I just wanna see what’s going on. Why do I have to buy supplies for the classroom? In the comment, she clarified that she and her husband bought the supplies that were needed for his homeroom, as he’s in middle school. She then specified that the grade he got for “classroom supplies” was for only his math class. Busby later shared a follow-up video with a screenshot of her son’s grade in the class, noting that there were two different grades for his “supplies”. While he got 90 for his “homework/classwork,” in the “supplies section”, he initially had a zero under the “participation” for “supplies”. However, his zero was then updated to a 100, giving him a 98 in the class. She then emphasised why she contacted the principal about her son’s “supplies” grade, adding: “Why are you assigning a grade for additional school supplies for the classroom? That’s what was wrong to me.” In the comments of the two videos, which have received more than 1.5m views combined, many people came to the parent’s defence, noting that some parents can’t afford all classroom supplies, so children’s grades shouldn’t be penalised for that. “Classroom supplies are not graded. She is not to force parents to get it,” one wrote, while another added: “That is so unfair!! Especially for the kids whose parents CAN’T afford groceries let alone classroom supplies!!!” “Somebody has to buy supplies and it’s not fair to the teacher. BUT they pool the supplies because everyone can’t afford them. To grade that is ridiculous,” a third commented. On the other hand, some parents acknowledged that they would get certain school supplies for their children, and defended teachers from having to buy them. @shanittanicole Replying to @In the view Graded School Supplies Part 2 #fyp #school #xybca ♬ original sound - Snooze ❣️ “I will buy anything my kids’ teachers need. I usually send $200 through a cash app per 1/4. Teachers shouldn’t have to buy either,” one wrote, while another added: “The grade I don’t agree with! As a former teacher, I spent a lot of my personal money on supplies. New teachers don’t even get a stapler.” “Teachers don’t make anywhere near enough to supply everything for classrooms, like tissues if your kid has a runny nose. Or wipes to clean messes,” a third wrote. Speaking to Insider, Busby said she’s still waiting to hear back from the principal on how the situation is being handled. She also shared her belief that the school districts should be giving supplies needed in classrooms, rather than having parents or teachers pay for it. The Independent has contacted Busby for comment. Read More Six-year-old girl with special needs found wandering busy road after school sent her home Father praised after teaching his daughters how to set expectations when dating men A Georgia woman confided in a friend about her relationship’s ‘tough times’. Four days later she was dead Man inundated with criticism after judging mum on her phone Brian Austin Green details stroke-like symptoms caused by diet: ‘I couldn’t speak’ Woman reveals how she discovered she’s allergic to water

The US House expelled George Santos, ending a brief but sensational turn in national politics by a serial

Fans of Brazil and Argentina brawled before World Cup qualifying match.

Israel faced growing calls Saturday to protect civilians in Gaza as its battle with Hamas encircled the territory's main hospital, where an aid agency...

Michael O’Neill could point to individual and collective mistakes after Northern Ireland lost 4-0 to Finland in their penultimate Euro 2024 qualifier but the inexperience of his young squad played a major role in Helsinki. Northern Ireland played well for much of the first half but fell behind to Joel Pohjanpalo’s penalty just before the break, and Daniel Hakans then doubled the lead three minutes into the second half before substitutes Teemu Pukki and Robin Lod added to the score late on. Ross McCausland made his debut from the start only days after being drafted in as injury cover on Monday, and there was also a late debut for Michael Forbes with O’Neill trying to make up for the raft of missing players. But it was a sadly familiar story as O’Neill’s men were unable to capitalise on early chances before being punished at the other end. “We played very well for 40 minutes in the game I thought,” O’Neill said. “We had a plan to make ourselves difficult to beat and to contain Finland and we did it very well, I can’t remember them having any opportunities in that period… “We created one or two half chances we could have done better with. Then the penalty, for all the work you do in the first 40 minutes you end up going in 1-0 down at half-time because of a penalty.” Isaac Price clipped Nikolai Alho on the edge of the box before Pohjanpalo sent Conor Hazard the wrong way. “Probably it’s a challenge he’s better off not attempting,” O’Neill said. “There’s not a lot of contact but there’s enough. The player wasn’t really in a position to shoot, we could possibly have been able to block the shot… “I was really pleased with the first 40 minutes but obviously by 48 minutes you’re in a really difficult position.” Hakans’ strike was in many ways the killer blow, coming so early in the second half. The Valerenga winger skipped through four challenges before exchanging passes with Glen Kamara, beating Hazard at his near post. O’Neill was disappointed with his stand-in goalkeeper, but also accepted more experienced players might have stopped the run by fair means or foul much further from goal. “It’s a shot that I would not expect to beat my goalkeeper at the near post,” O’Neill said. “You have to recognise the danger and there’s points in the game where maybe you have to make a technical foul as they call it and we didn’t do that. I felt probably that was something that if I was to be critical of, we didn’t win enough of those types of challenges through the 90 minutes.” When Finland then introduced Pukki off the bench, with the former Norwich striker scoring the third and creating the fourth, the game quickly went away from Northern Ireland. “That has been the big difference, the attacking players some of the opposition have had and we saw that tonight with goals three and four,” O’Neill said. “We’ve got a group of players where a lot of them are new to international football. This is their first campaign. They’re coming into games and the games are going away from them. As a manager I have to support them and back them. “They have to learn on the job and they’re having to learn quickly.” The good news is that this miserable qualifying campaign is almost over, with only Monday’s match at home to Denmark remaining. “When you come out of a defeat you look at the game from a tactical point of view and a performance point of view but what’s most important as a staff and a coach and a group of players is that people don’t question your character or mentality,” O’Neill said. “That’s what we have to show again on Monday night.” Read More Finland put Northern Ireland to the sword in Helsinki Trent Alexander-Arnold receiving the keys to England’s midfield suggests one thing England labour to win over Malta in front of bored Wembley crowd Finland put Northern Ireland to the sword in Helsinki Jarell Quansah keen to become ‘top centre-back’ after Liverpool breakthrough On this day in 2004: John Toshack becomes Wales boss on five-year deal

By Tim Hepher LISBON Brazil's Embraer voiced "full support" for Pratt & Whitney as it battles durability problems

TOKYO Japanese households' inflation expectations rose slightly in the three months to September, a central bank quarterly survey

Four major environmental groups endorsed President Joe Biden's 2024 reelection for president on Wednesday night, ahead of the president's speech at a League of Conservation Voters dinner in the nation's capital.

Veteran Brazilian international Willian on Monday re-signed for Fulham on a one-year deal with an option for...

Nikki Haley claims Kamala Harris is going to become the next President as she points out Joe Biden's inability to complete and serve another term

After the US Supreme Court struck down his administration’s plan to cancel federal student loan debts for millions of Americans, President Joe Biden has unveiled a “new path” for relief, one that he assured is “legally sound” but will “take longer”. In remarks from the White House on 30 June, the president hit out at Republican state officials and legislators who supported the lawsuit which enabled the nation’s highest court to strike down his student debt forgiveness initiative, accusing many of them of hypocrisy for taking money from pandemic-era relief programs while opposing relatively meager relief for student loan borrowers. “Some of the same elected Republicans, members of Congress who strongly opposed relief for students, got hundreds of thousands of dollars themselves ... several members of Congress got over a million dollars — all those loans are forgiven,” he said. “The hypocrisy is stunning,” he said. Accompanied by Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, Mr Biden opened his remarks by acknowledging that there are likely “millions of Americans” who now “feel disappointed and discouraged or even a little bit angry about the court’s decision today on student debt”. “And I must admit, I do too,” he said. Still, Mr Biden reminded Americans that his administration has previously taken actions to reform student loan repayment programs to make them easier to access, and to keep borrowers from spending more than five per cent of disposable income on monthly repayments, and to strengthen loan forgiveness options for borrowers who take public service jobs. The president has directed Mr Cardona to “find a new way” to grant similar loan relief “as fast as we can” in a way that is “consistent” with the high court’s decision. On Friday, the Education Department issued the first step in the process of issuing new regulations under this so-called “negotiated rulemaking” process. In the mean time, Mr Biden said his administration is creating a temporary year-long “on-ramp repayment programme” under which conditions will remain largely the same as they have during the three-year pandemic-era pause in payments which is set to expire this fall. The department’s 12-month “on ramp” to begin repayments, from 1 October through 30 September, aims to prevent borrowers who miss repayments in that time period from delinquency, credit issues, default and referral to debt collection agencies. “During this period if you can pay your monthly bills you should, but if you cannot, if you miss payments, this on-ramp temporarily removes the threat of default,” he said. “Today’s decision closed one path. Now we’re going to pursue another — I’m never gonna stop fighting,” the president continued, adding that he will use “every tool” at his disposal to get Americans the student debt relief they need so they can “reach [their] dreams”. “It’s good for the economy. It’s good for the country. It’s gonna be good for you,” he said. Asked by reporters whether he’d given borrowers false hope by initiating the now-doomed forgiveness plan last year, Mr Biden angrily chided the GOP for having acted to take away the path to debt relief for millions. “I didn’t give any false hope. The question was whether or not I would do even more than was requested. What I did I felt was appropriate and was able to be done and would get done. I didn’t give borrowers false hope. But the Republicans snatched away the hope that they were given and it’s real, real hope,” he said. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling from the conservative majority argues that the president does not have the authority to implement sweeping relief, and that Congress never authorised the administration to do so. Under the plan unveiled by the Biden administration last year, millions of people who took out federally backed student loans would be eligible for up to $20,000 in relief. Borrowers earning up to $125,000, or $250,000 for married couples, would be eligible for up to $10,000 of their federal student loans to be wiped out. Those borrowers would be eligible to receive up to $20,000 in relief if they received Pell grants. Roughly 43 million federal student loan borrowers would be eligible for that relief, including 20 million people who stand to have their debts cancelled completely, according to the White House. Lawyers for the Biden administration contended that he has the authority to broadly cancel student loan debt under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, which allows the secretary of education to waive or modify loan provisions following a national emergency – in this case, Covid-19. Since March 2020, with congressional passage of the Cares Act, monthly payments on student loan debt have been frozen with interest rates set at zero per cent. That pandemic-era moratorium, first enacted under Donald Trump and extended several times, was paused a final time late last year. Over the last decade, the student loan debt crisis has exploded to a balance of nearly $2 trillion, most of which is wrapped up in federal loans. The amount of debt taken out to support student loans for higher education costs has surged alongside growing tuition costs, increased private university enrollment, stagnant wages and GOP-led governments stripping investments in higher education and aid, putting the burden of college costs largely on students and their families. Read More Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s plan to cancel student loan debts Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action, banning colleges from factoring race in admissions Biden condemns Supreme Court striking down affirmative action: ‘This is not a normal court’ Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson delivers searing civil rights lesson in dissent to affirmative action ruling