Though nothing has been set in stone yet, there are many proposed changes coming forth in what students are taught in Florida’s public school system. Some changes may be loved by some and hated by others. You can find here a full list of proposed changes.
For example, instead of the United States being referred to as a democracy, it would be referred to as its correct form as a constitutional republic. The United States is not a democracy, despite many public assertions that it is; it is in fact a constitutional republic. Also, there is a call to explain advantages of capitalism and free market over socialism and communism. As well, it could make an emphasis on the Federalist papers in classrooms besides teaching students will recognize Judeo-Christian principles of law and government in primary sources (e.g., rule of law, God-given rights, equality of mankind, limited government, separation of powers, consent of the governed).
Today, May 26, 2021, teachers, school principals, and superintendents in Baker County, Sarasota County and Okaloosa County joined Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to announce $765 million in funding to support Florida’s teachers. These investments include $550 million to continue elevating minimum teacher salaries, as well as $215 million to provide all of Florida’s eligible public school principals and teachers with $1,000 disaster relief payments.
Governor DeSantis worked with the Florida Legislature to fight for continued funding to support Florida’s teachers through the Florida Leads budget, and for the $550 million to continue to raise minimum teacher salaries represents an additional $50 million over last year’s historic $500 million investment. Over the past year, minimum pay for Florida’s teachers increased by an average of $6,000 from $40,000 to $46,000. Overall, 68 of Florida’s 74 school districts (92 percent) now have a starting salary of $40,000 or higher.
“While most other states locked down their schools, Florida followed the science and opened our schools for in-person instruction, five days a week,” said Governor DeSantis. “Thanks to the tireless efforts of our teachers and school leaders Florida succeeded where so many other states failed. I can’t thank them enough for their hard work and dedication during this school year and these bonuses are a small way to say thank you on behalf of our state. My thanks also go to Speaker Sprowls, Senate President Simpson, Senator Stargel, and Representative Trumbull for their leadership during the 2021 legislative session to make this funding a reality.”
“Governor DeSantis has proven once again that Florida is the Education State,” said Commissioner of Education Richard Corcoran. “His exceptional leadership and bold vision has taken Florida’s minimum teacher salaries to an average of $46,000, and his focus on celebrating and elevating our educators is unparalleled. The way to ensure that Florida has the best teachers is to outpace the nation in minimum teacher pay and to reward, recruit, and retain the best teaching talent possible. Thank you to the Florida Legislature for heeding the Governor’s request to prioritize our state’s educators.”
CFO and State Fire Marshal Jimmy Patronis said, “Since day one, Florida’s teachers and first responders have been on the frontlines of the pandemic, working tirelessly to protect our communities and care for our students. The bonus checks that Governor DeSantis proposed, and secured from the Legislature, means a lot to these educators, our first responders and their families who endured through this crisis with them. These heroes are the backbone of our communities and today the Governor sent a clear message that Florida loves and appreciates their hard work and dedication. I thank Governor DeSantis for his leadership throughout these challenging times and for putting families first as we work together to move Florida forward.”
“Dedicated teachers across Florida have gone above and beyond over the last 18 months to make certain our students have every opportunity to continue to make learning gains in the midst of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” said Senate President Wilton Simpson. “In addition to increases in funds available specifically for teacher salary increases, I hope these bonuses will demonstrate just how much our state appreciates and values the contributions of Florida’s teachers.”
“During this pandemic, we were reminded of the importance of Florida’s teachers to our children,” said Florida House Speaker Chris Sprowls. “While other states kept their schools closed, Florida opened them up and allowed students to return to normalcy. I applaud Florida’s teachers for stepping up and giving students the ability to learn in-person, from the classroom. Thank you Governor Ron DeSantis for these bonuses.”
“We are so proud of the work our teachers have done over the last year, innovating every step of the way,” said Senator Kelli Stargel. “They have had to make so many adjustments and have worked so hard to make sure every child has a chance to learn. This bonus is so well deserved, and along with an increase in our teacher salary increase allocation, demonstrates our commitment to Florida teachers and the service they provide to our state.”
“Ensuring that our children had access to in-person education during the COVID-19 pandemic was perhaps the most important task our state faced in the past year,” said Representative Jay Trumbull. “Florida’s teachers and principals went above and beyond this school year under unprecedented circumstances. I would like to thank Governor DeSantis and Speaker Sprowls for their tireless leadership in securing this well-deserved $1,000 bonus for the heroes in Florida’s classrooms.”
As part of President Biden’s Build Back Better, another $3 trillion is reportedly now in the works on top of the $1.9 trillion that was just approved earlier this month with the American Rescue Plan. The $3 trillion would come in two parts; one for infrastructure and a second focus on childcare and education. Officially, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said, “”Those conversations are ongoing, so any speculation about future economic proposals is premature and not a reflection of the White House’s thinking.”
It is unclear how much an appetite Republicans and many Democrats have for additional spending over what is part of the regular budget and the $6 trillion extra spending that has been allocated in the name of COVID relief. This extra spending allocated so far comes to about $37,000 per federal income tax paying American on top of the regular budget for the federal government.
The $3 trillion plan is still in its early phases of development and could change if it ever makes it to President Biden’s desk for signature. One part of the plan would help pay for roads, bridges, and public transportation in addition to 5G telecommunications and rural broadband. Part two of the plan deals with social welfare programs such as government run pre-K plans, community college support and to help pay childcare costs for parents.
It is unclear how federal taxpayers would pay for the $9 trillion in new spending on top of the $32 trillion federal debt we will have by the close of the year, or the unfunded liabilities of $83 trillion. The entire U.S. gross domestic product is only $21.6 trillion, so by the close of this year, the United States will probably run at least 140 percent of the country’s GDP (currently 130%). When you add in total debt owed by all U.S. governments (federal, state, and local), we are currently at 145.31 percent of GDP. As for spending, the federal deficit is now running over $4.5 trillion.
As most economists will tell you, although governments can run the debt that high for a very temporary time, it must be made up quickly either by paying down that debt, reducing spending, dramatically raising the GDP or a combination of both quickly in order to not default on the U.S. debt. We have seen the federal debt as an issue that most politicians have not wanted to address and continue to “kick the can down the road” in hopes it will fix itself. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has warned that a “large and continuously growing federal debt would… increase the likelihood of a fiscal crisis in the United States.” Experience shows that high levels of government debt reduce growth and increase financial fragility. In their study of financial crises in history, Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff concluded, “again and again, countries, banks, individuals, and firms take on excessive debt in good times without enough awareness of the risks that will follow when the inevitable recession hits.” Government debt, they found, “is certainly the most problematic, for it can accumulate massively and for long periods without being put in check by markets.”
We are at the highest level of federal debt to GDP in the United States’ history since 1940. For comparison, the level was at 34.55 percent in 1980 and 58.67 percent in 2000.
Governor Ron DeSantis sent a letter to Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson and Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives Chris Sprowls outlining how to utilize a portion of federal funds the state is expected to receive via the recently signed American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
The federal stimulus package provides $1.9 trillion in new spending in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Act includes “Coronavirus State and Local Recovery Funds,” which provides $195.3 billion to the States and the District of Columbia.
The Governor’s recommendations include helping Floridians in need, and making major investments in critical areas such as infrastructure, education, and workforce development to continue Florida’s rapid economic recovery.
A top priority of the Governor remains the support and celebration of pandemic first responders and their role in serving the state. The Governor’s recommendations include a onetime $1,000 direct payment to full-time sworn law enforcement officers, firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians. The Governor’s recommendations further support Floridians by putting in place a modernized reemployment assistance system to correct critical design flaws and improve the delivery of services to Floridians.
Florida’s recovery has far outpaced early projections and is on track to restore pre-pandemic economic growth. To bolster Florida’s recovery efforts, the Governor is recommending over $500 million for economic development and recovery initiatives. These recommendations will boost Florida’s tourism industry, support critical job sectors, and maximize Florida’s economic incentive toolbox to get money out the door to support programs that create high-paying jobs.
The Governor’s recommendations also take important steps to invest in Florida’s infrastructure, resilience, and readiness. Florida’s transportation work program will be made whole again, fully funded at pre-pandemic levels. Further, the Resilient Florida Grant Program, offering state and local grants for resilience projects, will receive a $1 billion lift. This will provide more than $2 billion over the next four years when combined with the Governor’s Florida Leads Budget recommendation. The Governor also invests in Florida’s security with a recommended $41.7 million to enhance the Florida National Guard and $1 billion for the creation of an Emergency Management Response Fund.
Finally, the Governor is recommending $185 million for workforce training and research initiatives. Through Executive Order 19-31, the Governor began making Florida the number one state in the nation for workforce education, and this recommended funding continues that focus to prepare Floridians to fill high-demand, high-wage occupations. The Governor continues efforts to support research to prevent, diagnose, treat, and cure Alzheimer’s disease by dedicating $10 million for the Ed and Ethel Moore Alzheimer’s Disease Research Program.
Governor DeSantis’ budget recommendations to the Florida Legislature regarding the use of these federal funds are listed below:
Providing Assistance to Floridians
$208.4 Million (FY 20-21) – Direct Payments to Pandemic First Responders
$73.2 Million (FY 21-22) – Re-Employment Assistance Modernization
$56.6 Million (FY 21-22) – Re-Employment Assistance Operations
$72 Million (FY 21-22) – Behavioral Health System Modernization
Promoting Economic Development and Recovery
$258.2 Million (FY 20-21) – Relief for Florida’s Seaports
$150 Million (FY 21-22) – Florida Job Growth Grant Fund
$50 Million (FY 21-22) – VISIT FLORIDA
$50 Million (FY 21-22) – Economic Development Transportation Fund
Investing in Infrastructure, Resiliency and Readiness
$938.4 Million (FY 20-21) – Transportation Work Program
$1 Billion (FY 21-22) – Resilient Florida Grant Program
$1 Billion (FY 21-22) – Emergency Management Response Fund
$41.7 Million (FY 21-22) – Florida National Guard Expansion
Workforce Training and Research
$125 Million (FY 21-22) – Education and Employment Training Program
$60 Million (FY 21-22) – Workforce Development Capitalization Incentive Grants
$10 Million (FY 21-22) – Alzheimer’s Disease Research Program
The Governor’s recommendations total $4.1 billion, of which $1.4 billion are recommended for immediate use during the current fiscal year. The Governor is not recommending the appropriation of the full expected state allocation, and instead is requesting the Legislature leave a portion of the funds aside to evaluate Florida’s economic recovery throughout the year and make additional targeted appropriations at a later time.
The Governor’s letter outlining his recommendations can be found HERE.
House Democrats have just released their $2.2 trillion stimulus proposal to support the U.S. economic recovery. It sets house Speaker Nancy Pelosi up to talk to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin on the deal. It would provide another new round of direct payments to Americans of $1,200 per taxpayer and bring back federal unemployment benefits of $600 a week through January 2021. President Trump has not yet come out in favor or against the proposal.
The Democrat’s proposal would give $436 billion to state and local governments, $225 billion for education—including $182 billion for K-12 schools and nearly $39 billion for postsecondary education—and $57 billion to support child care for families. The proposal includes a bailout for the airlines; though it is unclear how many billions it devotes to that industry.
The bill includes $75 billion for coronavirus testing, contact tracing and isolation measures, with attention to the disparities facing communities of color, free coronavirus treatment. The $2.2 trillion bill also includes $28 billion for procurement, distribution and education campaigns for a safe and effective vaccine.
The bill also includes tens of billions in additional support to assist renters and homeowners make monthly rent, mortgage and utility payments and other housing-related costs—preventing homelessness. It also includes a 15 percent increase to the maximum SNAP benefit and additional funding for nutrition programs that help families put food on the table, and targeted support for farmers and producers affected by the crisis.
This November 3, 2020, voters in Florida’s District 31 for the Florida State Senate will choose between incumbent Lori Berman or Tami Donnally. The two face off again as they have gone up against each other in the past, most recently during the 2018 special election. While Donnally is showcasing the issues of mental health, addiction, and education, Berman lists no stance on any issues on her website. She does state that she is for gun control, is pro-choice on abortion, and is an advocate for government-run schools.
Donnally and Berman agree that “home rule” should be the case for each municipality and county, getting the federal and state government out of as many issues as possible. Though they may disagree on the scope of home rule, they seem lockstep in strong local control.
Tami Donnally
As schools are “reopening” today, Donnally and Berman are on opposite ends of this issue. Donnally is confident in reopening of in-person school education so long as the school district meets certain parameters, while Berman is opposed to it as being unsafe and students should continue virtual learning.
While Berman is supportive of public charter schools, she is against school choice via the state’s voucher program. Florida Governor DeSantis recently expanded the program, which helps underprivileged students expand their options on education during their formative years. Donnally is supportive of school choice, allowing parents to choose which school their child attends, public or private.
Lori Berman
On the issue of guns, there are stark differences between the two. Berman believes we should require one to ask permission from the government to own a firearm, should not be permitted to conceal carry, and would like to see stricter gun control measures on Florida citizens. Donnally is a firm supporter of the Second Amendment and would like vote against further gun control measures should she represent District 31 in the Florida State Senate.
When it comes to the issue of drugs, both Berman and Donnally are not in favor of a general legalization. While Berman would be will to tax and legalize marijuana, it would come with a host of provisions and she is against legalizing any other drugs which are currently illegal such as cocaine or heroin. Donnally is not in favor of any measure as she finds drugs currently illegal, harmful enough and would not support their legalization.
My wife and I recently hired a financial advisor who is helping us map out our financial future.
He seemed stunned that we didn’t want to take advantage of the US tax code’s 529 provision, which helps parents save for their children’s education.
“You have three kids,” he said. “Odds are at least one will go to college. It’s a no-brainer.”
We nonetheless demurred. I like shaving my tax liability as much as the next guy, but the truth is both my wife and I have serious doubts about higher education. Though we both attended college ourselves, options today look less promising than they once did.
College might have been a “no-brainer” at one time for parents and students who could afford it, but that is no longer the case. Soaring costs, grade inflation, diminishing degree value, the politicization of campuses, and a host of other issues have made the once-clear benefits of college less clear.
Despite all this, a large part of me still wants my kids to go to college because it feels like so few other options are available. That could be changing, however.
Google’s Effort to Disrupt the College Diploma
In July Kent Walker, Google’s Senior Vice President for Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer, announced on Twitter that the company was expanding its education options.
It was a direct salvo at America’s higher education industry.
“College degrees are out of reach for many Americans, and you shouldn’t need a college diploma to have economic security,” Walker wrote on Google’s blog. “We need new, accessible job-training solutions—from enhanced vocational programs to online education—to help America recover and rebuild.”
Today @google is rolling out a comprehensive new digital jobs program to help Americans get back to work, break down educational barriers by prioritizing skills, and support the country’s economic recovery. Details in my post and highlights below.https://t.co/c4GrH5OA6h
To be sure, it’s hard to imagine anyone taking on America’s $600 billion higher education industry. Nevertheless, a quick look at Google’s model shows why colleges should be worried.
Google is launching various professional courses that offer training for specific high-paying jobs that are in high demand. Program graduates can earn a “Google Career Certificate” in one of the following positions: Project manager ($93,000); Data analyst ($66,000); UX designer ($75,000).
While Google didn’t say how much it would cost to earn a certificate, if it’s anything close to Google’s IT Support Professional Certificate, the cost is quite low, especially compared to college.
That Google IT support program costs enrollees $49 per month. That means a six-month program would cost about $300—about what many college students cough up on textbooks alone in a semester, Inc points out.
Unlike college, Google won’t just hand you a diploma and send you away, however. The company has promised to assist graduates in their job searches, connecting them with employers such as Intel, Bank of America, Hulu, Walmart, and Best Buy.
Graduates will also be eligible for one of the hundreds of apprenticeship opportunities the company is offering.
Is College ‘Worth It’?
In economics we use a simple term to talk about something’s worth: value. We know that value is subjective. But if consumers freely purchase something, it suggests consumers place a value on that good higher than the price.
Judging the value of a degree is tricky, however. It’s not like buying steak at a grocery store. Buyers are mostly shielded from the costs in the short term, and the benefits of the purchase are extended out over many years.
We know that for many students, college is a wonderful investment that increases their earnings, while for others it will turn out to be a poor investment because they don’t graduate or they acquire job skills that do not translate into increased earnings. (For example: I was a bartender after I received my undergraduate degree; I didn’t make more money because I had a degree.)
We also know that the prices and value change over time. In the case of higher education, prices have increased sharply in the last 30 years while the value has diminished.
As Arthur C. Brooks pointed out in The Atlanticin July, from 1989-2016 university costs in tuition and fees increased by 98 percent in real dollars (inflation-adjusted), about 11 times that of the median household income.
At the same time, there is compelling evidence that while the price of college is increasing sharply, the value of degrees is diminishing because of a surplus of college diplomas.
For parents like myself, the idea of spending $350,000 to send my three children to university is, to be frank, slightly nauseating. All things being equal, I don’t see the value there. (As I tell my wife, however, this doesn’t mean I won’t send my child to Princeton if he or she is admitted and I believe college is the right fit for that particular child.) Over the last couple of years, whenever I’d think about my children’s futures, I’d find myself growing more and more nervous.
If not college, then what? Why are there not better options? There’s a huge need.
The beautiful thing about free markets is that needs do not go unmet for very long. In a free system, innovation has a way of filling the gaps to fulfill what consumers want.
Google’s expansion of its accreditation system offers two things young people (and their parents) highly value: 1) job training skills; and 2) prestige.
Do not underestimate the power of the latter. Prestige mattes a lot. In fact, when you look at actual education many college students receive today, prestige is what they’re purchasing, not education.
The value of degrees might have been diminishing for years, but parents and kids could still rationalize the excessive costs because there was a certain amount of status and recognition conferred simply for being in college and then graduating.
Major corporations like Google have more to offer than they realize. In today’s marketplace, having Google on a resume can offer the same prestige as a university—and arguably far more in terms of job skills.
Once corporations figure out their brand can offer commodities consumers want—job-training and validation—it could disrupt the current education model. It’s possible corporations could also bring on a resurgence of the once-popular apprenticeship-style learning that can be traced back to the Code of Hammurabi in Ancient Babylon through to business-training programs of today like Praxis and Google.
At the very least, programs like Google Career Certificates will offer much-needed competition to the university system and additional options to young people looking to take their next step in the world.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.
Bylines: The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
Fall hasn’t even arrived yet, but some US schools are already announcing closures during the sixth month of the coronavirus pandemic.
On Sunday, news broke that a Georgia school district announced it will close a third high school after 25 students tested positive for the coronavirus.
“On behalf of the Superintendent, please be advised that we are, effective immediately, temporarily closing in-person learning at Creekview High School,” the school said in a statement.
The announcement came shortly after media reported that a 15-year-old Georgia boy in Gwinnett County died from COVID-19. Reports said the child had pre-existing conditions. (There were conflicting reports on this front, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution appears to have received clarification from the state confirming the child did have pre-existing conditions.)
It should be noted, however, that it appears the 15-year-old did not get the virus at school. Media reports indicate that Gwinnett County, home of Georgia’s largest school district, was in a virtual-only school format.
This is tragic news and an inauspicious beginning to the school year. Schools across the US are already grappling with the difficult decision of determining whether they should open or institute virtual learning (or a “hybrid” of both).
The question of whether children should be permitted to congregate to learn and play is a highly relevant issue. It extends well beyond public schools and includes child gathering of all kinds: private schools, homeschool groups, summer camps, clubs, outdoor groups, parties, “learning pods,” and more.
The death of a teenager is a tragic reminder that there are myriad risks and tradeoffs regardless of whatever course schools, businesses, and organizations take. “Stay home, stay safe” may be a nice catchphrase, but we should not presume that staying at home is safer, and we should definitely resist making that choice for others.
‘The Risks to Children Are Low’
With fall approaching, it’s important to understand that evidence suggests that children gathering to learn should be the least of our worries as far as COVID-19. A panel of medical experts who spoke to NBC last month agreed that children are the least likely to contract or suffer from COVID-19.
“This has been a strange pandemic because usually for respiratory viruses, children are the first and most substantially affected,” Dr. C. Buddy Creech, an associate professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, told the network. “This has really been a flip of that, where it’s our adults, and particularly older adults, that have been more affected.”
When the pediatricians were asked by NBC if they would send their own children back to school in the fall, there was a chorus of agreement—“Yes.” “Absolutely.” “Without a hesitation.” “I have no concerns”—and government data show why.
American children make up roughly 22 percent of the population, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data show, but they account for just 2 percent of COVID-19 cases.
A forthcoming study out of the United Kingdom, billed as one the largest to date on studying the coronavirus in schools, suggests we have little to fear from allowing children to gather to play and learn.
The study analyzed 100 schools in the UK. And though the raw data has not yet been made public, the results of the study have.
“A new study that has been done in UK schools confirms there is very little evidence that the virus is transmitted in schools.” Professor Russell Viner said of the forthcoming Public Health England study. “The risks to children from Covid are very low…”
This was precisely what public health officials in Sweden concluded earlier this year when they decided to leave its schools open.
When 91.3 percent of the world’s schoolchildren were not in school, Swedish children continued to go to class. Masks were allowed, but not required, and some measures were taken to encourage social distancing.
Sweden’s approach was highly controversial, but the results of its policy were not. Not one Swedish child has died—inside of school or outside—and children comprise a lower percentage of COVID-cases than neighboring countries.
A report last month from Sweden’s health agency found that there were 1,124 confirmed COVID-19 cases among children in Sweden recorded between February 24 to June 14, roughly 0.05 percent of children under 19. That’s exactly the same rate—0.05 percent—as Finland, which recorded 584 cases during the same period, even though Finland closed its schools. (Moreover, Swedish children actually account for far fewer COVID cases overall, just 2.3 percent, compared to 8.2 percent of Finnish children.)
Sweden’s public health agency declared that its school policy had “no measurable impact” on the spread of the virus.
These results might come as a surprise to many, but they likely are not a surprise to the architect of Sweden’s health strategy. Early in the pandemic, Anders Tegnell expressed that above all else he was confident that health officials had made the right decision by allowing schools to remain open.
“We feel more and more confident about [not] closing schools,” Tegnell told TV host Trevor Noah in May. “It’s not something that really is going to be effective for this kind of disease. Schools don’t seem to be very much of a motor of this epidemic.”
Gathering to Play and Learn Is Fundamental to Children
The results from Sweden and the UK are important because research shows that allowing children to gather to play, learn, and explore is fundamental to their physical and mental health.
Their attentional, emotional, and cognitive skills are sharpened when they interact with other children in settings that allow them to freely interact with and learn from others. It strengthens immune systems, psyches, and character. If we opt to shelter children from social gatherings and put them in front of screens all day, we sever them from some of the most important and effective learning pathways.
Fear of COVID-19 is understandable, but if we fail to manage that fear we risk damaging our most precious resource.
The scholar Peter Gray, a research professor of psychology at Boston College, has shown that children are natural learners who thrive when given the freedom to play and explore. Much of this learning, Gray writes, is social and moral education children learn through their social interactions with other children.
“Social play is the primary natural means of every child’s social and moral education,” Gray writes. “It is through play that children learn to get along with others. In play they must take into account the other children’s needs, learn to see from others’ points of view, learn to compromise, learn to negotiate differences, learn to control their own impulses, learn to please others so as to keep them as playmates.”
This is a form of natural learning through social interaction, one that cannot be replicated through a school lesson or homework assignment.
Depriving children of social interaction has consequences beyond lost learning, however. Gray and other psychologists link the documented increases in anxiety and depression in children to trends showing a general decline of free play, a consequence of education systems that increasingly forego free learning for formalized instruction, such as worksheets and test prep.
While the detriments of rigid classroom instruction are apparent, emerging evidence suggests social isolation is even worse.
A recent Wall Street Journalarticle (paywalled) written by Julie Jargon shows that already-high levels of anxiety and depression in young people have surged during the pandemic, particularly in adolescent girls.
One recent nationwide study, Jargon points out, found that nearly 80 percent of girls in grades fifth through eight reported feeling more lonely and isolated since the COVID outbreak began.
Older teens reported similar results, and clinical experts said the decline in mental health stems from quarantine life.
“All of the things that a year ago were increasing girls’ depression have been exacerbated by the pandemic,” Dr. Mary Pipher, a clinical psychologist and author of Reviving Ophelia: Saving the Selves of Adolescent Girls, told Jargon. “Our recommendations were that girls spend more time with other girls, that they spend more time outside the home and that parents encourage girls to take more risks in order to develop skills on their own. Most of those things aren’t happening now because of Covid.”
It is not necessary to put children through this. The best scientific evidence we have shows that children have the least to fear from COVID-19. As the CDC points out, the common flu is far more dangerous for children than the coronavirus.
A society that deprives children of the basic freedom to gather to play, learn, explore, and socialize does them a grave injustice, one that will result in far more harm than good.
Fortunately, we have ample evidence and real-life examples that show the costs of quarantining healthy children far outweigh the benefits.
Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune.
Bylines: The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.
This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.
One result of the poll may surprise many in that Bernie Sanders still has a strong following in the Democratic Party. While 61% wanted Joe Biden to be their presidential nominee, 32% wanted Bernie Sanders.
We’ll start with how many people trust Biden or Trump when they give medical advice to the public. 56% of respondents in the poll trust Biden while 32% trust Trump, even though neither have any serious medical background. When the question came up, if people trusted Anthony Fauci the result was that only 54% trusted him while 63% trusted the Center for Disease Control (CDC). Whether people trusted Jo Jorgensen offering medical advice was likely left out for lack of name recognition because of the media blackout of her presidential campaign, even though she will be on the ballot in all 50 states alongside Biden and Trump. For who could best handle the COVID-19 pandemic, only 31% felt confident Biden would be capable while.
Is the country better off now than four years ago? 31% felt the country was better off now than four years ago, while 52% felt it was better four years ago than today. For their personal situation, 42% stated they were better off today than four years ago and 39% felt they were better off four years ago than today (20% were unsure).
One result of the poll may surprise many in that Bernie Sanders still has a strong following in the Democratic Party. While 61% wanted Joe Biden to be their presidential nominee, 32% wanted Bernie Sanders.
When asked directly, “If an election for president were going to be held now and the Democratic nominee was Joe Biden and the Republican nominee was Donald Trump, would you vote for…” 48% said Joe Biden, Donald Trump at 41% and “other” received 5%. Since the poll did not include Jo Jorgensen’s name, we can only assume since she is the only other presidential nominee who will be on the ballot in all 50 states alongside Biden and Trump, that this is the case. Six percent of the respondents are unsure or would not vote this November. For whether people like the Democratic or Republican parties, most respondents had an unfavorable opinion of both.
Few answering the poll are very enthused about either Trump or Biden. Only 27% are enthused about Trump’s running again and only 23% of enthused about Biden. Most feel their vote for Biden is a vote against Trump (54%) which shows the lack of enthusiasm for Biden. Opposite that, 74% of those expecting to vote for Trump are voting for him, and not against Biden.
As for who people expect to win the White House in November, it is a statistical tie with 38% for Biden and 39% for Trump, while 23% of registered voters are up for grabs for any of the three presidential nominees. Similarly, it is an even split who people think will control the U.S. Senate. Though 50% feel the Democrats will continue to control the U.S. House.
We expect Joe Biden to announce his Vice Presidential pick soon. According to the poll, most Democrats feel it is a race between Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Susan Rice; with 21% unsure who will be picked.
When the poll turned to hosting the Democratic Party and Republican Party national conventions in-person, 56% felt it would be unsafe to do so due to COVID-19. If they hold in-person conventions, 74% felt strict social distancing requirements should be adhered to. The results were mixed whether either party should limit the number of attendees at the conventions.
When gun control came up, 77% of registered voters said the issue was important to them. Unfortunately, the poll did not delve into whether respondents were in favor of increased or decreased firearm regulations. The top three most important issue for the registered voters in the poll were (in order of importance) healthcare, jobs and the economy, and education. Healthcare and jobs/economy were, by far, the most important issues registered voters are concerned about.
Meanwhile, according to the poll, only 18% of Americans feel Congress is doing a suitable job, but history shows most voters will vote for the same people back in office. The U.S. Supreme Court has a 44% approval rating for how it is handling its job of adjudicating constitutional issues of the country.
66% of respondents said their personal financial situation is the same or better than last year, while 27% felt they were worse off than a year ago. While 48% are not worried about losing their job, 52% are somewhat or very worried. For those still working, 60% said they were happy with their job.
After last week’s landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which held that it is unconstitutional to exclude religious schools from private educational choice programs, the Institute for Justice (IJ), which litigated the Espinoza case on behalf of parents, released a 50-state guide to help policymakers in each state better understand the impact of Espinoza in their state. The guide analyzes each state’s constitution considering Espinoza and explains how the ruling affects policymakers’ ability to enact educational choice programs.
Photo Credit: Institute for Justice
“As a result of Espinoza, nearly every state is now free to enact programs that will empower parents to choose the educational environment that works best for their own children, whether those options are public, private or religious,” said IJ Senior Attorney Tim Keller. “This new guide helps policymakers understand how this momentous decision clears the way for robust educational choice programs with the ability to spur the creation of a greater number of educational opportunities for students.”
In Espinoza, the Supreme Court ruled that the Montana Supreme Court violated the federal Constitution when it relied on its state Blaine Amendment to invalidate a tax-credit scholarship program solely because parents could use their scholarships to send their children to religious schools. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State does so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” The Espinoza ruling builds on previous Supreme Court decisions that hold that when a government enacts a scholarship program, the benefits only go to schools through the independent choices of students and parents. As the Court explained, “[G]overnment support makes its way to religious schools only as a result of Montanans independently choosing to spend their scholarships at such schools.”
“It is important to note in the context of Espinoza and earlier school choice U.S. Supreme Court rulings, not one dollar of funds may be spent for a child’s education in a religious school but for the private and independent choice of a parent,” said Keller. “The funds used in school choice programs are used to secure a quality education for each child, not to subsidize any school. This is not the government subsidizing religious schools; choice programs are about giving mostly low-income families access to a high-quality education they could not otherwise afford.”
With this ruling, the Court sharply limits the application of the 37 state Blaine Amendments and ensures that no state, whether it has a Blaine Amendment or not, can exclude parents from choosing religious educational options just because they participate in a private educational choice program. The U.S. Constitution, the Chief Justice wrote, “condemns discrimination against religious schools and the families whose children attend them. They are ‘member[s] of the community too,’ and their exclusion from the scholarship program [in Montana] is ‘odious to our Constitution’ and ‘cannot stand.’”
Although 20 states have already interpreted their Blaine Amendments to allow parents to select religious schools as part of a choice program, most of the remaining 15 states can no longer rely on their Blaine Amendments to prevent parents from choosing the best school for their children. (Two states—Massachusetts and Michigan—will be unaffected by Espinoza).
Its Blaine Amendment will haunt Florida’s educational choice landscape. Florida’s Blaine Amendment discriminates against religious educational options as the Montana Blaine Amendment was at issue in Espinoza. It thus cannot be invoked to prohibit religious educational options from an available choice program. After Espinoza, Florida’s Blaine Amendment is no longer an impediment to passaging an available educational choice program. However, lawmakers must still navigate the intricacies of the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Bush v. Holmes, striking down a state voucher program for children attending chronically failing schools under the state constitution’s education article. Bush held that the voucher program at issue in that case violated the state’s obligation to operate a uniform public education system. Thankfully, Florida continues to offer families robust educational choice through its tax credit program, its voucher and education savings account programs for students with special needs, and its means-tested voucher program.
The IJ guide analyzes each state and includes links to model legislation for policymakers who are interested in expanding educational choice in their state.
“This decision is a great opportunity for supporters of educational choice,” said IJ Educational Choice Attorney David Hodges. “We are looking forward to working with policymakers nationwide to enact programs that ensure that no matter where children live or how much money their parents have, they can get access to a good education.”
The Palm Beach Examiner 