The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act was passed in 2012 in an attempt to save the failing National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that was deeply in debt and spiraling toward insolvency. As a result, homeowners in flood-prone areas, many of whom had never legally been in a flood zone prior to FEMA’s re-mapping efforts under the act, were required to buy flood insurance at outrageous premiums, with some homeowners seeing a 55 percent increase in their annual premiums. As a result, Congress has stepped in to delay Biggert-Waters’ implementation until these unforeseen side effects can be mitigated, though we have yet to see how this will be done. Read on to learn about the Biggert-Waters Act, flood insurance in the U.S., and what the next steps are.

How does flood insurance work?

While most of us know insurance is often sold by private companies consisting of comedic cavemen and geckos with accents, many types of insurance exist that are sold directly by or backed by the federal government, sometimes in conjunction with private companies. The National Flood Insurance program sells flood insurance, a highly risky type of insurance that most companies normally would not want to sell. It is sold through private insurers who perform the administrative work concerning policy issuance and premium collection, while the federal government collects the final premiums and pays all claims. Homeowners in designated flood zones are required to purchase this insurance, and since its creation in 1968 many policies are partially subsidized by the government to keep premiums reasonable. As of 2011, the program had 5.6 million policies in effect and $1.246 trillion in total insured value. Watch this adorable commercial created by the NFIP (who knew flood insurance could be cute?)

What is the Biggert-Waters Act?

The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 was a piece of bipartisan legislation aiming to correct growing problems with the NFIP by bringing premiums in line with the actual risks they represented, and to establish flood zones that coped with the effects of climate change. As government subsidies of flood insurance premiums continued, the amount policyholders were paying into the program became gradually less commensurate with the actual risks being insured. Prior to the passage of Biggert-Waters, many flood insurance policies were subsidized. Despite this, the NFIP had remained stable until Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy struck the Gulf Coast and the Eastern Seaboard, requiring massive claims payments in addition to disaster relief, which severely depleted the resources keeping the NFIP afloat. After Hurricane Sandy, the NFIP needed $28 billion in bailouts, and currently the program is running $24 billion in the red.

Biggert-Waters sought to reform the National Flood Insurance Program in a number of ways. The bill aimed to increase the amount subsidized homeowners pay for their insurance, bringing the premiums paid in line with the actual risks and generating more revenue for the bankrupt NFIP. The NFIP would also no longer be able to provide a free pass for homes built before the NFIP came into effect, which had previously been grandfathered into the program. The program also commenced an extensive re-mapping project to make more homeowners aware of shifting and growing flood zones and to encourage them to purchase flood insurance, instead of remaining unaware until they require federal disaster aid. These mapped flood zones, as they had before Biggert-Waters, impose strict regulations on new home construction that require homes to be built at certain heights or with various loss-prevention methods. All of these reforms were meant to stabilize the NFIP financially and to accurately insure actual flood risks, reducing the strain on federal disaster relief funds.

 Why is there an effort to delay Biggert-Waters?

Some unforeseen side effects of the Biggert-Waters Act have caused many politicians, including Representative Maxine Waters (one of the bill’s authors), to seek a delay in implementation of the bill. She, and others, have done so through the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, which amends and delays the effects of Biggert-Waters. As a result of the re-mapping done by FEMA, many homeowners have found themselves in a higher-risk flood zone than they had been previously, which have stricter requirements governing the construction of homes, such as the height to which homes should be raised and the addition of flood vents or break-away walls. If these requirements are not met, a homeowner’s insurance premium can skyrocket.

Such was the case with Richard and Sandra Drake of Union Beach, New Jersey, who saw their annual flood insurance premium jump from $598 in 2013 to $33,000 in 2014 after they were re-mapped into a higher-risk zone. After Hurricane Sandy, the couple rebuilt their home and raised it three feet above the federal requirements for their flood zone. After re-mapping, however, their home was too low for the requirements of their new flood zone, and this was reflected in their annual premium. The new premium threatened to force them to sell and find a new home before Senator Robert Menendez stepped in and worked with FEMA to lower their premium back to pre-mapping rates. New York was forced to set up the Special Initiative for Rebuilding & Resiliency to combat the hikes in rates. Even residents whose homes are built to federal regulations may see premium increases. These rates simply are not feasible for many people who rely on federal flood insurance, which covers regions that range from secondary beach houses to low-income coastal communities.

How is Biggert-Waters being modified?

In 2014 Congress passed the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HFIAA), which repeals and modifies the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act. It limits rate increases to 18 percent annually to prevent steep jumps in premiums while mandating increases to subsidized policies, in order to create a more gradual and cushioned path toward the end results sought by Biggert-Waters. It also provides options for homeowners placed into higher-risk flood zones in the new FEMA maps to become eligible for Preferred Risk Policies (PRP), which help lower individual homeowners’ premiums. In addition, it reinstates “grandfathering” in order to help those homeowners who have been re-mapped into higher-risk flood zones.

In essence, the HFIAA is meant to move toward some of the goals of Biggert-Waters at a more gradual pace, allowing homeowners to grow accustomed to unsubsidized rates instead of being confronted with them all at once; however, many homeowners point out that, while gradually achieved, the future unsubsidized premiums will still be too much to pay in high-risk areas, especially in later years when many homeowners will be living on fixed incomes. While the HFIAA cushions the blow of Biggert-Waters, it does not altogether remedy the controversy.

Who opposes the HFIAA?

Critics of the HFIAA argue that the continued subsidies on homes in high-risk areas leave communities unprepared when the next disastrous flood strikes. By paying unrealistic premiums, critics believe homeowners will be less proactive in elevating their homes, constructing their homes with preventive measures, and working with insurance agents to find a workable financial solution to flood insurance. Many critics also oppose “grandfathering,” in which policies created before the NFIP was implemented in a given community receive lower rates, instead of being prompted to modify their home to be more prepared for potential floods. In response to homeowners who claim that modifying their older homes may not be financially or physically feasible, these critics argue that the effort and resources required to modify a home are negligible in comparison to the effort and resources required to rebuild after a devastating flood. In all, critics are disappointed with a Congress that triumphantly passed bi-partisan legislation aimed at balancing the federal budget, and when citizens began to complain, “bowed to short-term constituent demand.”

Why do we continue to build homes and live in flood-prone areas?

When digesting all of this information one might be prompted to wonder, “Why don’t people simply move away from flood zones? And why are people living there in the first place?” The answer, as is the case with most socio-political questions, is not so simple.

Many homeowners find themselves in flood zones because, historically, cities were often built along rivers or the coast for the accessibility of water transportation. The areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy are located near cities–New Orleans and New York, respectively–that rose to prominence due to their accessible harbors, and now these metropolitan areas, suburbs and all, are at the mercy of storm surges and fluctuating rivers and coastlines. In the modern era, prompting entire communities to pack up and move is simply not practical. Many of these communities date back decades and are multi-generational, making it difficult to abandon the area for higher ground. Many new development projects are also taking place in these areas because they are often profitable regions. A beach or a river valley can be an important tourist destination, and so construction in these areas continue despite the risk and the rising cost of flood insurance.

Opponents to flood-zone development are becoming more vocal, however, and are questioning why these areas remain filled with homes. At a certain point, opponents argue, the cost of living in flood zones will become too great and populations will be forced to evacuate. The United States is not the only country struggling with the question over the habitation of flood zones. Severe flooding that affected various parts of the British Isles in February 2014 caused a storm of political bickering and thorough media coverage. Many sources condemned coastal townships and politicians alike for lack of preparedness and for the approval of new development projects in flood zones. Thirteen percent of all new development projects in the United Kingdom in February 2014 were on flood plains, despite well known flooding in those areas. Similar to the U.S., the British government partnered with the Association of British Insurers to create a not-for-profit company to keep flood insurance available and affordable for the U.K.’s citizens. While the dispute over flood-plain communities has existed and will exist for some time, the impending insolvency of the National Flood Insurance Program demands immediate action.

Resources

Primary

House of Representatives: Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012

House of Representatives: Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014

Additional

USA Today: Flood Insurance Bill Clears Congress

Think Progress: How the New Flood Insurance Reforms Make Costly Future Climate Disasters More Likely

Times Picayune: How Controversial Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Bill Became Law

NJ.com: Union Beach Couple Gets $33K Flood Insurance Bill After Raising Their Home Above New Federal Standards

Insurance Journal: Rep. Waters, Author of Flood Reform Act, Calls for Delay in Implementation

PropertyCasualty360: House, Senate Reject Efforts to Delay NFIP Rate Increases

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Biggert-Waters Act: Fix it, Don’t Abandon it

The New York Times: Outrage as Homeowners Prepare for Substantially Higher Flood Insurance Rates

The New York Times: Homes in Flood Zone Double in New FEMA Map

Independent: Why Do We Insist on Building on Floodplains?

Architects Journal: Flood Debate: Should We Build on Floodplains?

BBC: Why Do People Buy Houses in Places Prone to Flooding?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Flood Insurance: The Biggert-Waters Act and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

While debate still surrounds issues involving climate change, scientists have agreed that global carbon emissions must begin to be reduced by the year 2020 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Unsurprisingly, however, this agreement has spawned new debates concerning what to do about it. One solution that has gained political momentum in the past decade is a process commonly referred to as “Cap and Trade”.

What is Cap and Trade?

Cap and Trade, as one might surmise from its name, is a two-step system that attempts to definitively lower carbon emissions and provide an incentive for carbon-reducing technological innovations. In step one, a governing body (be it state, regional, federal, or global) sets a maximum limit of carbon emissions for all participating entities that is a certain degree lower than current emissions. Each year this cap will be gradually reduced until the coalition meets its reduction goal in x amount of years. Simple enough.

Step two involves quantifying the carbon emissions allowable under the cap into carbon credits or permits. Each permit would represent a definable amount, such as one ton of carbon emitted. These credits would then be distributed amongst polluting entities such as factories, refineries, companies, and others, forcing these entities to pollute no more than the amount of carbon credits they possess. If a company comes in under their pollution amount, they can sell their excess credits to carbon brokers or to other companies for a profit. In this way, the trade system incentivizes technological innovations that reduce carbon emissions and the companies that invest in them. In turn, companies that are in danger of exceeding their given amount or are in the process of implementing long-term carbon reduction plans, the results of which would not be seen for a number of years, will purchase carbon credits so as not to exceed their limit. The ability to purchase credits off the carbon market allows for flexibility in the way polluting entities choose to reduce their emissions. Overall, there are only as many credits as the cap allows, and as the cap is incrementally reduced each year, companies will gradually receive less credits, ensuring carbon emissions are reduced annually until a specific goal is reached.

What are some examples of Cap and Trade programs?

Cap and Trade systems exist at different levels of government and have been created for pollutants other than carbon. The 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act, which created a permits program for sulfur pollution in an attempt to improve air quality, is seen as one of the earliest of these programs and is often hailed by advocates as a successful Cap and Trade program. However, carbon is the principal greenhouse gas affecting climate change, and proponents of Cap and Trade claim that this program can be adapted for carbon as well as a number of other pollutants.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, implemented the Cap and Trade system as part of its global approach to emissions reductions. The trading program is operated by the United Nations and binds 37 industrialized countries to global emissions reductions, using several carbon emission trading schemes to accomplish the task. The global carbon market is unfortunately, to a degree, at the mercy of global politicians as they attempt to negotiate a post-Kyoto program, with the first commitment period having ended in 2012. Also at the international level, the European Trading System is a carbon Cap and Trade system created in 2005 and run by the European Union. This trading program is factory-based and distributes its emissions credits to individual companies, factories, power plants, etc. Because of this, the European Trading System is the largest Cap and Trade system in the world, incorporating more than 11,000 individual entities in 31 countries.

At the state and national levels, New South Wales and New Zealand have Cap and Trade emissions reduction systems, created in 2003 and 2009, respectively. Additionally, China plans to establish a nation-wide Cap and Trade system in 2016 in response to social unrest over increasing pollution levels in Chinese cities.

In North America, a number of American states and Canadian provinces in the American Northeast participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an organization aiming to reduce carbon emissions by 10 percent by 2020 from the 2009 levels. Pennsylvania, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec act as observers to the coalition, and while New Jersey was a founding member, Governor Chris Christie withdrew the state from the program in 2012. California also implemented an economy-wide Cap and Trade system in 2013 that seeks to reduce emissions by 16 percent between 2013 and 2020.

What are the advantages of a Carbon Trading program?

Advocates of Cap and Trade list a number of advantages this system has over rival emissions-reduction solutions, such as a flat carbon tax. Cap and Trade creates an assured and definite outcome, provides flexibility for the participating entities in their emission reduction methods, incentivizes technological innovation, and represents a global solution.

A flat carbon tax does not necessarily guarantee reduced emissions; it merely makes carbon more expensive in the hope of deterring polluters. Cap and Trade ensures a definite outcome through the cap on total emissions of the participating entities. As the cap is gradually lowered each year, the total emissions within that program decreases, regardless of the number of carbon permits any particular entity owns.

The gradual decrease in the emissions cap and the ability to purchase carbon credit creates the flexibility inherent in this system and the incentive for technological progress. Instead of making carbon significantly more expensive overnight, the cap is reduced in increments while the polluting parties learn to adjust to the new restrictions. It provides companies, factories, and countries time to research, develop, and implement a plan for carbon emissions reduction and provides them with more breathing room in terms of how they want to address their concerns. Some entities might want to implement long-term plans which may have large effects but the results will not be seen for a number of years, while others may want to experiment with new, emerging technology. If the plan does not work the first time around, they can purchase more carbon credits for that particular segment of the process and try something else. Entities that have more successful pollution reduction methods, however, will spend less time and less money, prompting industry and economy-wide investment in clean technology.

Lastly, Cap and Trade represents a global solution to a global problem. Because the trading aspect of the system requires a coalition of entities working in tandem and agreeing to common pollution reduction goals, the carbon market makes an international, far-reaching solution possible. The Kyoto Protocol and the European Trading System are examples of this kind of cooperative effort. A carbon tax, unless agreed upon in the United Nations (an unlikely event), can only feasibly be employed on a national level. However, pollution is a global problem, and a reduction in pollution in one country will not reduce the pollution in others.

What are the disadvantages of a Cap and Trade system?

Despite the goals it sets out to accomplish, there is significant opposition to Cap and Trade as a pollution reduction mechanism. Opponents often favor alternate solutions such as a flat carbon tax or increased public investment in emerging green technologies. Many groups find fault with Cap and Trade because they feel it will create problems with the price of carbon within the artificial carbon market, making it difficult to sustain and even more difficult to produce actual beneficial effects for the economy. James Hansen, in his New York Times Op-ed article “Cap and Fade”, argues that if all or even a large majority of participating bodies were to reduce their carbon emissions in a given year, the market would be over-saturated with carbon permits. The price of carbon would plummet and the artificial Cap and Trade market would collapse. At that point, the individual bodies will see little incentive in continued participation in the program, and Cap and Trade will have ultimately done little to reduce pollution.

Opponents also malign the various “offsets,” or alternatives to carbon reduction that are included within Cap and Trade programs. These offsets raise the overall cap for such measures as the avoidance of deforestation in Brazil or planting trees in a former industrialized area. Opponents point out that reduced pollution in one area should not allow increased pollution in another area. These offsets end up producing no net decrease in overall pollution, hindering the main purpose for which Cap and Trade systems are created.

Another issue critics have with Cap and Trade is that unless it is implemented on a global scale, with as many countries participating as possible, much of the world will continue polluting unabated. If Norway enters into a global program or creates a domestic cap and trade carbon market, that’s great, good for Norway. However, this does not compel another country, say India, to join as well. Climate change does not discriminate where its effects will be felt, and the climate over Norway will be affected the same as the climate over India, regardless of who is participating in a cap and trade program. Therefore, if not all major polluters join the cause, what incentive does that give to the countries or entities that are willing?

Critics also point to the problems experienced in the European Trading System’s carbon market in recent years as a sign that large-scale carbon trading is not a sustainable or effective solution. In early 2013 carbon prices within the European market fell considerably, so low that it threatened to destabilize the market altogether, and forced the European Union to delay credits distribution and take other measures to drag prices back up to a reasonable level. While many advocates argue that a carbon market would regulate itself, many look at the example of the ETS and remain skeptical.

Many are also afraid that Cap and Trade lends itself to corruption and big-business manipulation. Already in the carbon trading programs that currently exist, carbon brokers have materialized to service the buying and selling of carbon permits, in an attempt to get in on a piece of the Cap and Trade pie. Because Cap and Trade relies on the price of carbon and the machinations of a free market, opponents worry that a program will become another appendage of Wall St. without producing real environmental benefits.

Conclusion

Due to economic downturn in 2008 and the increased costs to consumers as a result of a carbon cap, the drive to implement a national carbon trading scheme in the United States has slowed considerably. However, Cap and Trade programs continue to appear in various shapes and sizes, and as the debate surrounding its effectiveness continues, we will wait and see how successful the current programs in effect prove to be.

Resources

Primary 

United Nations: Kyoto Protocol

European Commission: EU Emissions Trading System

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Model Rule

California Environmental Protection Agency: Cap and Trade Program

Additional 

Forbes: Four Reasons California Cap and Trade Had an Extraordinary First Year

Clean Technica: Five Good Things Cap and Trade Has Done for You

Environmental Leader: Why Cap and Trade is Good for Environmental Marketing

Environment 360: The Flawed Logic of the Cap and Trade Debate

The New York Times: Cap and Fade

Chron: Risks of Cap and Trade

Grist: Beyond Baby Steps: Analyzing the Cap and Trade Flop

Washington Post: The Folly of Unilateral Cap and Trade

Council on Foreign Relations: The Debate Over Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade

Environmental Defense Fund: How Cap and Trade Works

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: What Is Cap and Trade?

Ecosystem Market Place: Washington State to Pursue Cap and Trade Program

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cap and Trade: The Solution to Climate Change? appeared first on Law Street.

The now much-maligned No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)–an attempt to improve the American education system–became law in early 2002. Since then, NCLB has become a divisive political issue, called a failure by many, and blamed for many inadequacies of our admittedly weak education system. But beyond all of the politics, what have the ramifications of NCLB actually been? Read on to learn about NCLB, and what it’s done to measure student growth and teacher effectiveness.

What exactly is NCLB?

The No Child Left Behind Act is bipartisan legislation signed in 2001 that was designed to improve student achievement and to help schools and parents work together to create educational solutions for struggling students. The act is based on four essential themes: accountability for results; doing what works based upon scientific research; expanded parental options; and expanded local control and flexibility.

The most controversial aspect of this act is the accountability for results. This requires states to create a single standardized test for each grade level to be administered to students of all levels, regardless of disability or educational background. Each state is required to determine a score on math and reading tests that they deem  to be “proficient.” All states were then required to have 100 percent of students score at at least that level on their standardized tests by 2014. Additionally, each state had to define “Adequate Yearly Progress” (AYP) and ensure that all student groups make AYP based upon standardized tests administered each year. These accountability measures, according to NCLB co-author Representative George Miller, were intended to be diagnostic and to help schools and parents work together to remedy student weaknesses.

What’s the argument for NCLB’s effectiveness?

Advocates of NCLB argue that accountability serves as a way to identify areas where schools and students need improvement, and enables schools and parents to work together to make those improvements. No Child Left Behind mandates that its quota of 100 percent of students reaching the proficient level by 2014  includes students with disabilities and students from low socio-economic backgrounds. Advocates argue that accountability and testing ensure that these often marginalized groups do not slip through the cracks and that they obtain the support and resources they need to succeed in school.

The Act also demands higher qualifications for teachers as well as giving parents the option of transferring their children out of schools that have failed to meet their AYP quotas; both aspects have been seen as a step toward improving the American education system. Additionally, schools that do not meet their AYP receive technical assistance from the federal government and are required to draft an improvement plan aimed at targeting the groups of students who did not show improvement on standardized tests. Supporters of NCLB find these measures helpful in providing quality education to all student groups and in improving education in areas previously allowed to fall behind.

Why do people want to get rid of NCLB?

Opponents of NCLB argue that standardized testing is a flawed method of gauging student learning and that “accountability” causes schools and teachers to teach to the test. Opponents of standardized testing argue that these types of tests measure only superficial knowledge and do not measure critical or creative thinking. Scientists and psychologists have also determined that all students have different learning styles and intelligences; some are visual learners, some are kinesthetic learners, etc. Standardized tests, with their “one size fits all” method of testing, do not account for this diversity among student learning styles. Additionally, many students simply are not good test takers, and while they may know the content, the anxiety of test-taking impedes their ability to recall and use this information.

Due to this uncertainty about the validity of test scores, opponents of NCLB argue that schools and teachers are forced to “teach to the test” or “drill and kill.” With the funding of their schools and the security of their jobs hinging solely upon the results of standardized tests, teachers often feel they have to provide a narrow form of education for their students. These teaching styles require minimal critical thinking and understanding of topics, and instead rely on repetition and quick regurgitation of information to ensure students do well on a standardized test. This method of teaching offers an incomplete education to students and teaches them to simply memorize and repeat instead of understand the underlying concepts of a topic.

It has also been argued that states will lower their AYP quotas in order to meet NCLB standards instead of providing further funding for educational support. Opponents of NCLB argue that the act’s emphasis on accountability and standardized testing lead schools and teachers to adopt faulty educational methods in order to meet federal requirements.

Conclusion

NCLB can certainly be considered a good idea in theory that attempted to fix a struggling American education system. Unfortunately, the results speak for themselves, and they certainly leave a lot to be desired. NCLB still has some supporters who point out its advantages, but most are turning to new ways to reform our educational system.

Resources

Primary

Department of Education: “No Child Left Behind” Act (2001)

Department of Education: “No Child Left Behind” Act Is Working

SC Department of Education: New Study Confirms Vast Differences in State Goals for Academic ‘Proficiency’ Under NCLB

NJDOE: No Child Left Behind Overview

Additional

National Center on Educational Outcomes: “No Child Left Behind” Act: What it Means for Children With Disabilities

Wrights Law: “No Child Left Behind Act”

Wrights Law: What Teachers, Principals & School Administrators Need to Know

Education: The Purpose of No Child Left Behind

EdSource: NCLB Author Rep. Miller Says He Never Anticipated NCLB Would Force Testing Obsession

NPR: Former “No Child Left Behind” Advocate Turns Critic

Fair Test: What’s Wrong With Standardized Tests?

ASHA: “No Child Left Behind” Fact Sheet

RAND: Accountability for NCLB: A Report Card for “No Child Left Behind”

Schools of Thought: The High Stakes of Standardized Tests

Huffington Post: States Offered More Time to Ignore Education Law

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Child Left Behind: Where is it Now? appeared first on Law Street.

Midway into a new football season, there are certainly plenty of controversies surrounding the National Football League. Between the ongoing debate on concussions and player safety and the number of NFL players who are under public and legal scrutiny for their actions on and off the field, the NFL is no stranger to scandal. But one of the hottest topics for a while now has been the status of the Washington Redskins’ name. Read on to learn about the controversy, and where it now stands.

Washington Redskins’ History

Up until the 1970s, high school, collegiate, and professional sports teams across the country used mascots depicting Native American historical figures and culture to evoke values of courage, strength, and tenacity, in order to signify these values in the realm of sports. Fans became emotionally attached to these mascots and these symbols; showing their appreciation by performing rituals such as “tomahawk chops” and dressing up in makeshift Native American regalia to support their team. However, these mascots and rituals received backlash during the late 1960s and 1970s, as Native American advocacy groups brought attention to the stereotypical nature of these mascots and their negative portrayal of American Indian culture.

At the request of local tribes, many of these teams abandoned their mascots for less controversial ones, leaving a relatively small number left carrying names such as “Braves,” “Indians,” and the most controversial “Redskins.” In addition to a handful of high school and collegiate teams, five professional sports teams retain their use of American Indian nomenclature: the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Cleveland Indians, and the Kansas City Chiefs. Debate has raged over the past couple decades as to whether these teams and their mascots represent racial slurs and harmful, derogatory stereotypes; or whether they are merely evoking Native American culture out of respect and honor for their courageous spirit.

A lawsuit, which has bounced back and forth between various overturned decisions, was brought against the Washington Redskins in 1992 arguing that its name used a racial slur and should be changed. More resolute than ever in the face of this opposition, the team’s owner Daniel Snyder went on record in 2013 that the Redskins would “NEVER” change its name. In response, a bill was introduced to the House of Representatives in March 2013 by Representative Eni Faleomawaega of Samoa called the “Non-Disparagement of American Indians Trademark Registrations Act of 2013,” a bill that would essentially cancel all trademarks on the name “Redskins” and prevent future parties from trademarking the name. While the bill does not look likely to be passed, it raises interesting questions on the nature of Native American mascots and the legality of their use.

Cancellation of the Trademark

During summer 2014, the Washington Redskins trademark was cancelled by the US patent office. It was cancelled in response to a ruling by the independent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). As the Patent Office put it in its media fact sheet:

The TTAB — an independent administrative tribunal within the USPTO — has determined, based on the evidence presented by the parties and on applicable law, that the Blackhorse petitioners carried their burden of  proof. By a preponderance of the evidence, the petitioners established that the term “Redskins” was disparaging of Native Americans, when used in relation to professional football services, at the times the various registrations involved in the cancellation proceeding were issued. Thus, in accordance with applicable law, the federal registrations for the “Redskins” trademarks involved in this proceeding must be cancelled.

The lawyers and administration of the Washington Redskins have said that regardless of the Patent Office’s decision, they will continue to use the name, logo, and produce paraphernalia.

Media Response 

Within the last year or so, more and more TV newscasters, journalists, and media outlets have refused to use the word “Redskins.” Instead, they refer to it as the Washington Football team. As of this summer, the Washington Post announced that in its editorials it will not use the name of the team. As the editorial board put it:

While we wait for the National Football League to catch up with thoughtful opinion and common decency, we have decided that, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves. That’s the standard we apply to all offensive vocabulary, and the team name unquestionably offends not only many Native Americans but many other Americans, too.

Who wants to keep the name as is?

Advocates of Native American mascots argue that they represent a respectful portrayal of the culture that highlights positive attributes and offers opportunities for cultural education and understanding. Throughout the debate, teams have maintained that their use of American Indian imagery is done with the best intentions of portraying values such as strength, courage, and pride. These portrayals, advocates argue, honor Native Americans and their ancestors, and serve as a respectful tribute to these proud nations.

While many Native American groups have been vocal in their opposition, a recent poll suggested that as much as 90 percent of Native Americans do not find these mascots offensive or harmful. If a majority of American Indians themselves do not have a problem with these mascots, advocates argue, then the mascots are not entirely the offensive, stereotypical caricatures that opponents have portrayed them to be. Additionally, many advocates argue that these mascots provide opportunities for cultural education that benefit Native and non-Native Americans alike.

Many teams, especially at colleges, work closely with local tribes to provide some form of educational tools for fans and visitors to gain an accurate representation of the Native Americans that their mascots portray. Many tribes are opposed to bans on the use of culturally sensitive mascots because these bans would scuttle potential opportunities such as these to create educational bridges to Native American culture and to promote a harmonious inter-cultural working relationship. To this end, some sports teams using American Indian mascots have received the support of local tribes in the interest of maintaining a respectful portrayal of Native American culture. Florida State University receives the support of the Florida Seminole tribe, which has provided input into decisions regarding the University’s mascot and sports ceremonies. In return for their support, the tribe receives numerous scholarships and reduced tuition for its youth seeking higher education. Advocates argue that this relationship is a vision of the positive effects that could result from the continued use of Native American mascots.

Who wants to change the name?

Opponents argue that cultural references such as the term “Redskins” are inherently derogatory and harmful to the way Native and non-Native Americans view American Indian culture. Merriam Webster states the term “Redskin” is “an offensive term and should be avoided;” Native Americans often equate it to racial slurs used against African Americans and Jewish individuals. Additionally, mascots such as the Cleveland Indians’ “Chief Wahoo” are considered racist caricatures that are equally offensive and should be changed in favor of less controversial mascots.

The recent uproar over comments by the NBA’s Donald Sterling has empowered arguments by opponents seeking to root out racial negativity in professional sports. Opponents argue that these mascots promote racial stereotypes that produce harmful psychological and societal effects on Native Americans. The American Psychological Association recently announced its support for the removal of Native American mascots after the publication of numerous reports revealed links between these mascots and a decrease in self-esteem of Native American youth. A 2004 paper published by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg, a cultural and psychological scholar and a registered member of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington State, uses empirical evidence to argue that these Native American mascots have a negative psychological effect on American Indians and a positive psychological effect on European Americans. Dr. Fryberg indicates that these mascots harm the self-confidence and sense of cultural identity of these youth, which could potentially contribute to lower achievement later in life.

Cancelling the trademark on the term “Redskins,” opponents argue, could provide a legal push for the Redskins team to finally change its name and bring professional sports into the standards of equality and anti-discrimination that the federal government expects. Opponents of Native American mascots argue that their concern is not only the way these mascots influence outsiders’ views, but also how Native Americans view themselves.

Conclusion

The Redskins’ battle to keep its name is really starting to look like a losing one. Although the argument has waged on for years, as the the trademark is now null and void, and members of the media rebel against the name, we may be at a turning point. Public pressure is on — it’s up to Dan Snyder to respond.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: HR 1278 Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2013

Additional

CNN: Native American Mascots: Pride or Prejudice?

USA Today: 50 Senators Sign Letter Urging Redskins to Change Team Name

ESPN: Time to Rethink Native American Imagery

University of Colorado Denver: Do American Indian Mascots = American Indian People?

Think Progress: Native American Group: Fight Against ‘Redskins’ About More Than Just the Name

ESPN: Tribe Supports Native American Mascots

The New York Times: Amid Rising Discord Over Indian Images, FSU Has Harmony

CBS DC: How Many Native Americans Think “Redskins” is a Slur?

Oregon Live: Two Tribes Call State’s Native American Mascot Ban Disappointing

Washington Post: Lawmakers Offer Bill to Ban ‘Redskins’ Trademark

USA Today: Bill in Congress Challenges Redskins Trademark

HeraldNet: The Debate: Indian Names, Mascots For Sports Teams

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Washington Redskins: What’s Next in the Name Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

The world has a complicated relationship with non-renewable resources. Large chunks of these resources are controlled by just a few countries. The United States has long worried about its ability to help our allies obtain these resources. One proposed way has been to pass the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act. Read on to learn about the underlying energy crisis, and the arguments for and against this legislation.

Background of the Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

As the Ukrainian crisis continues to wage on, the question of oil dependence has emerged as a relevant and pressing issue that could impact geopolitical events. Currently, Russia provides one third of Western Europe’s natural gas, and an even higher percentage of Eastern Europe’s, leaving countries such as Ukraine locked under the power of Russian oil prices. As oil and gas prices rise as a result of political tensions in the region, these countries will look to import their natural gas from other sources, hoping that wider options in the market will drive prices down for their manufacturing and private sectors.

Meanwhile, the United States currently has large reserves of natural gas that amount to more than enough for domestic consumption for the foreseeable future. The natural assumption here would be to export US natural gas to these countries seeking independence from Russian energy. However, in order to export natural gas, it must be processed and liquefied at cryogenic temperatures, creating a liquid that can be shipped. The application process for creating export facilities that create Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG), which must pass through both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), is convoluted and delayed; only seven applications have been approved since 2011, with 24 applications still pending.

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act, approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and through the House in full, would remove these restrictions by federal agencies and expedite the process for approving applications for the construction of LNG export facilities. However, fierce opposition has risen against this bill. Opponents argue that the bill will inadvertently raise domestic oil and gas prices while providing funding to energy production methods that wreak havoc on natural environments.

What’s the argument for the legislation?

The goal of the act is clear: provide Ukraine with American natural gas, thus breaking their dependence on Russia for energy and balancing the scale of global power in region. Until former satellite nations are able to break their dependence on Russian energy, many argue, Russia will be able to economically, and therefore politically, control these countries. The U.S. State Department recently announced, “The United States is taking immediate steps to assist Ukraine, including the provision of emergency finance and technical assistance in the areas of energy security, energy efficiency, and energy sector reform.” This, in short, is an announcement that US natural gas reserves will be shipped to Ukraine in order to regulate the balance of power that has tipped in that region.

Exporting US natural gas to these areas would, advocates argue, create a number of benefits for the United States and its citizens, in addition to benefits for Ukraine. The act would make the US the world’s top producer of natural gas, thus reinstating America’s dominance in energy production and improving its trade deficit. Shipping natural gas overseas requires the construction and operation of natural gas liquefaction installations, which could create roughly 450,000 jobs by 2025. The main impediment to the export of natural gas, which the bill addresses, is the application process for constructing these new facilities. Both the DOE and FERC have to sign off on any natural gas liquefaction projects, where environmental factors, the LNG buyers’ Free Trade Agreement status, public interest, and a number of other factors must be taken into account. During the FERC phase of the approval, over 20 government agencies become involved in the review process, creating a bottleneck effect in the long line of applications. Advocates argue that this act, designed to expedite this review process and enable LNG buyers to begin exporting American natural gas, will strengthen both America’s economy and the economy of nations such as Ukraine that are heavily dependent on Russian energy.

What’s the argument against the legislation?

Opponents, however, argue that the infrastructure required to ship gas to Ukraine has not yet been built, making it years before any gas would actually reach Ukraine (which, coincidentally, does not have any LNG import facilities, as it gets almost all of its natural gas via pipeline from Russia). Approving applications now to construct LNG export facilities, opponents state, is a long-term solution to an immediate problem. Many believe that exporting natural gas reserves would also negatively impact the US economy in a number of ways, creating more economic problems than the current geopolitical situation is worth. Some experts believe exporting America’s natural gas reserves will increase domestic gas prices, which have been kept low, internationally speaking, by its abundant reserves. Exporting natural gas and creating scarcity would drive up domestic oil and gas prices, hurting commercial interests and everyday consumers. This would also stifle what many refer to as the “American manufacturing renaissance” that has been occurring as a direct result of these gas reserves.

The great quantity of easily accessible natural gas has drawn energy-intensive companies to the U.S. to invest in manufacturing facilities across the country. Recently 97 energy-intensive chemical manufacturing companies invested roughly $72 billion in the U.S., spurring job growth and economic strength. Opponents argue that it is this type of economic growth that America must seek, instead of distant, fleeting profits from the sale of our natural gas. Were America’s natural gas to be exported, rising energy prices and a growing scarcity of domestic energy would smother the manufacturing renaissance and would place economic growth in the unstable hands of the oil and gas industry, instead of the diversified and profitable chemical manufacturing industry.

Lastly, opponents have been joined by environmental advocates who have voiced their concern over the environmental impacts of increased drilling and exportation of American natural gas. If the demand for natural gas export increases, opponents argue, then the demand for natural gas would also increase, which would lead to expanded drilling projects using controversial methods such as fracking to extract more natural gas. The construction of LNG export facilities and expanded drilling projects would also place more wildlife areas at risk that environmentalists have struggled to protect. The pressure for more natural gas recovery would also lead to increased carbon emissions and higher risks of spills and accidents that could dramatically damage an ecological area. Instead, many economic experts argue that the US should export drilling technology and raw materials to countries such as Ukraine to enable them to produce their own natural gas and free themselves from the bonds of Russian energy. In this way, the US could immediately profit from international trade and provide economic aid to its ally, the Ukraine.

Conclusion

The Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act passed the House this summer, and now is waiting in the Senate. While the bill is subject to much debate, it does begin to deal with the question of how nonrenewable resources are transferred internationally, and the political implications that accompany such transfers.

Resources

Primary

U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee: Domestic Prosperity and Global Freedom Act

Additional

Fuel Fix: U.S. LNG Exports Could Ensure European Energy Security

Energy Collective: Exporting U.S. LNG to Prized Non-FTA Countries: Bottlenecks in the Approval Process

Oregon Catalyst: Walden Presses Obama to Stop Natural Gas Export Delays

Roll Call: LNG Exports: An Opportunity For America

Deseret News: Liquid Natural Gas Exports Threaten U.S. Jobs

The New York Times: Foreseeable Trouble in Exporting Natural Gas

Sierra Club: Stop LNG Exports

Reuters: The Case Against Natural Gas Exports

Greeley Tribune: Colorado’s Delegation Pushes to Fast-Track LNG Exports to Non Free-Trade Countries

Lexology: Congress Turns Its Attention to LNG Exports

The New York Times: U.S. Hopes Boom in Natural Gas Can Curb Putin

Hill: DOE Approves Natural Gas Export Terminal

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Politicization of Natural Gas Exports appeared first on Law Street.

As of March 2012, there were roughly 11.7 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States, many of whom had brought their children with them when they crossed the border. America has been left to figure out how to deal with this massive immigration influx and to determine the best course of action for possible immigration reform. Special attention is paid to undocumented youth who were brought to America illegally as children and have been residing in the country for some time. One big question that the country is struggling to answer is should these young people receive in-state college tuition? Read on to learn about the debate.

What action has been taken?

The Obama administration started the program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which permits undocumented youth who were brought to the US under the age of 16 and have been in the US for more than five years to work, get a driver’s license, get a loan, and go to college without the fear of being deported. These youths have also attended their local school systems through programs designed to provide undocumented youths with a K-12 education. Now, as these individuals prepare to graduate high school, they are met with an insurmountable financial wall that prevents them from attending college and pursuing high-paying careers. While DACA permits these students to attend college, they are required to pay out-of-state tuition costs based on their immigration status, which can be considerably more expensive than in-state tuition. Out-of-state tuition is often unaffordable for undocumented families. Paying in-state tuition would greatly reduce this financial burden and make college a real possibility for many undocumented students.

Several states have begun passing “tuition equity” legislation that allows undocumented youths who have graduated from state high schools to pay in-state tuition costs at state schools. Advocates see this as a model of immigration and education reform. Seventeen  states currently provide tuition equity. However, this legislation has been met with strong opposition by those who feel that offering undocumented citizens in-state tuition cheapens American citizenship and rewards illegal behavior.

What’s the argument for providing tuition equity?

Advocates argue that tuition equity could benefit undocumented students and US citizens alike by providing a clear and navigable path toward achieving the American dream. Advocates argue that these students should not be blamed for the actions of their parents, and while they are not US citizens they have grown up and received their education in this country, and cannot call any other place home.

US public school districts currently spend roughly $243,000 per student to educate undocumented youths in K-12. Many feel that this effort and taxpayer money is wasted if these students, who have worked hard throughout their K-12 education, are not given a chance at an affordable college education. While many middle-class families currently struggle to afford hefty out-of-state tuition costs for their children, those tuitions are nearly impossible for undocumented citizens to afford. Upon this realization, many undocumented youths are motivated to drop out of high school and fail to live up to their academic potential. Advocates argue that making tuition feasible would inspire more undocumented students to graduate high school, attend college, and pursue a high-paying career, which could potentially benefit US citizens and the American economy.

Having a college education would encourage more of these students to enter the job market as tax-paying American citizens. The influx of more college-trained individuals into the job market could encourage job growth through entrepreneurial enterprises and increase tax revenue from the higher salaries these individual could make by having a college degree. In the long run, advocates say, tuition equity benefits undocumented and documented citizens alike.

What’s the argument against providing in-state tuition?

Opponents of offering in-state tuition to undocumented students argue that tuition equity validates illegal immigration and is inequitable to tax-paying US citizens. The parents of undocumented students often do not pay taxes that contribute to the funding and maintenance of state colleges and universities, and opponents argue that therefore their children should be charged out-of-state tuition costs. The cost of running these educational institutions would instead be deferred to state citizens who are legal residents. Following California’s DREAM Act, a tuition equity bill signed into law in 2011, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s office estimated that it would require an additional $65 million per year by 2016/2017 in order to provide higher education benefits to undocumented citizens.

Opponents also feel that tuition equity is inherently inequitable toward out-of-state students who are legal residents of the United States. These students would be required to pay a higher tuition merely because they happen to live in a different state than the college they are interested in attending, albeit legally. Some argue that if in-state tuition costs are offered to undocumented residents, then these same lower tuition rates should be offered to out-of-state legal citizens as well, at which point the concept of in and out of state tuition becomes moot.

Because tuition equity is largely backed by Democrats, some opponents feel that it is used merely as a political tool to attract the Latino vote and to secure a growing population for the Democratic Party. Opponents argue that tuition equity and DACA do not actually provide any real immigration reform, but rather pander to Hispanic voters. Momentum for tuition equity has been gaining steadily, however, and this debate will continue to unfold as more states struggle with questions of immigration and education.

Conclusion

The status of children who are brought into the United States illegally by their parents is a tough topic from all angles. Whether or not they should receive in-state tuition for college education continues to be a divisive fight at all levels of government. Some states have moved forward to allow it, while others continue the argument.

 Resources

Primary

Oregon State Legislature: Tuition Equity Bill HB 2787

State of New Jersey: Tuition Equality Act

Additional

USA Today: Why Christie Should Endorse Tuition Equity

Voxxi: Oregon Is One Step Away From Allowing Dreamers to Pay In-State Tuition

American Immigration Council: Tuition Equity Could Be Coming Soon to a State Near You

Students for a Democratic Society: SDS Launches National Push For Tuition Equity

Gazette Times: Tuition Equity Has A Political Agenda

Oregon Catalyst: Tuition Equity Bill: Worst Example of Agency Advocacy

Daily Californian: Children of Illegal Immigrants Should Not Go to College and Gain Legal Status

NJ Policy Perspective: To Put the “Equity” In Tuition Equity, Access to State Aid is Essential

Oregon Public Broadcasting: Tuition Equity Bill Has Backers, Doubters

Washington Post: Seven Immigrants Brought to U.S. as Children Sue For In-State Virginia College Tuition Rates

The New York Times: The Uncertain Cost of Helping Illegal Immigrants Go to College

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just a DREAM? In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants appeared first on Law Street.

Logging was once a major industry in the western United States and often supported entire towns in rural areas. In the 1970s and 80s, under pressure from environmental groups, the federal government dramatically reduced timber harvesting inside federally protected land, reducing logging activity by up to 80 percent in some areas. Since the rampant wildfires that have swept through western states such as California, Nevada, and Oregon over the past few summers, many have called for increased logging inside national parks and forests in order to thin forests and decrease the number of destructive wildfires each year. Read on to learn about the logging industry, and the arguments for and against allowing continued logging in national parks and forests.

What has the government been doing about logging on federal land?

The House of Representatives passed the “Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act” (HR 1526), a bill that would require a minimum quota of timber to be harvested from federal lands each year for the creation of lumber or bio-mass energy, while removing environmental and federal restrictions to timber recovery projects in order to expedite this process. While the bill passed the Republican-controlled House with a 244-173 vote, political experts predict the bill has little chance of passing the Democrat-held Senate, especially after the Obama administration has promised to veto the bill if it reaches the President’s desk. The debate will most likely be ongoing until some sort of legislation can be agreed upon.

What’s the argument for logging in forests?

Logging supporters argue that forests have become too dense and overcrowded, and that forest thinning could help reduce the risk of forest fires while stimulating the economy. In the summer of 2013, a fire in the Yosemite Rim incinerated 400 square miles of forest while endangering nearby communities, and numerous similar fires have prompted affected residents to look for ways to reduce the threat of wildfire.

Forest fires not only threaten the trees in a particular area, but the wildlife as well. Some experts have indicated that fires such as these are increasing in frequency due to the increased density of national forests, caused by the reduction of logging in these areas in the 70s and 80s. Californians have a vested interest in the health of their national forests, as in addition to the yearly threat of wildfires, roughly 75 percent of California’s drinking water comes from forest watersheds. Many believe forest thinning through logging can improve the health of national forests and protect local wildlife.

Increased logging activity means more revenue for rural counties, where logging mills are often located, and more jobs in these areas. Many rural communities have experienced economic decline since environmental concerns decreased logging on federally protected lands. The authors of HR 1526framed the bill as a measure to both decrease the risk of wildfires and stimulate the job market in economically stagnant communities.

What is the argument against logging in forests?

Opponents of HR 1526, including Senate Democrats and the White House, are apprehensive about the bill’s measures to decrease regulations on logging, while pointing out that the economic stimulation of logging would counteract the outdoor recreation industries that have flourished in these same regions. An integral part of the bill is a measure to decrease public input, environmental analysis, and federal regulation of timber harvesting projects, which opponents say decreases control over the timber industry and would lead to a resumption of rampant deforestation experienced in the early-to-mid twentieth century. While the logging industry could create more jobs and provide economic stimulation to rural counties, logging would damage the outdoor recreation industry that has flourished in communities adjacent to national parks and forest. Therefore, HR 1526 would essentially destroy one newly established industry in the hope of reinstating what many consider an antiquated industry.

Many opponents also point out that in past TSPIRS reports (Timber Sale Information Reporting System), the US Forest Service repeatedly reported significant losses in its timber sales. Although the Forest Service has not released one of these reports since 1997, opponents of logging in national parks do not expect the logging industry to be much more profitable for the US Forest Service now than it was then.

Many scientists point out that forest wildfires are a natural part of the life of any forest, and that while in the short term these wildfires destroy trees, wildlife, and their habitats, in the long run wildfires help create enriched soil, greater biodiversity, and the greater overall health of a forest. While it is important to protect communities at risk of wildfire destruction, forest thinning would actually do little to improve the health of American forests.

Conclusion

Logging is both a way to provide energy and keep forest populations under control, but when done in excess it can be harmful. The political debate about logging has been contentious, but with the constant changes brought by the environment, the political landscape, and logging companies, but it is a hot topic to keep an eye on.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. Congress: Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act

Additional

Billings Gazette: Barrasso Sponsors Bill to Increase Logging in National Forests

CBS Sacramento: Rim Fire Prompts Calls for Opening National Forests to Logging

San Francisco Gate: Pro and Con on the Healthy Forest Initiative

Jefferson Public Radio: Groups Aim to Boost Logging, Restoration in Olympic National Forest

A New Century of Forest Planning: Planning in HR 1526

Earth First: Greenwashing Senators Call for Increased Logging in National Forests

Kentucky Heartwood: The Economics of Logging Our National Forests

AmericanForests.org: Burning Hot: The Evolution of Eastern and Western Fires

All Gov California: House GOP OK’s a Lot More Logging in California National Forests

Los Angeles Times: House OK’s More Logging in National Forests, Including in California

AmericanForests.org: HR 1526: Limiting Judicial Review of Forest Management

Jurist: U.S. House Approves Bill to Increase Logging in National Forests

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Logging in National Parks and Forests: A Contentious Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs around the country cultivate today’s students to become the pilots of economics and commerce in the world of tomorrow. In an effort to make the business school experience richer and more beneficial for these students, many top business schools have adopted Grade Non-Disclosure (GND) policies to refocus both students and recruiters away from grades and toward other aspects that many feel are more important and valuable. Read on to learn about what these Grade Non-Disclosure policies do, whether or not they’re effective, and the arguments for and against them.

What does a Grade Non-Disclosure policy do?

A Grade Non-Disclosure policy demands that students do not discuss their grades or GPA with recruiters until they have a full-time job offer; however, students are free to discuss any awards or honors, test scores, or undergraduate grades with recruiters. These GND policies are, as of now, only found in business schools, and only elite business schools at that. These policies also vary from school to school. At Harvard up until 2005, when its GND policy was repealed, for example, the school itself introduced and enforced the GND policy. At Wharton and Chicago Booth, the student body approves and imposes the policy upon themselves. Grade Non-Disclosure policies have their advocates and opponents, with school administrators usually favoring disclosure and students usually favoring non-disclosure. See an NYU parody video below about Grade Non-Disclosure policies for a lighter look.

What’s the argument in favor of Grade Non-Disclosure Policies?

Whether instituted by the school administration or the student body itself, advocates say Grade Non-Disclosure allows students to take more engaging and difficult classes without fear of the repercussions on their GPAs, while encouraging a more collaborative atmosphere and focus upon the more important aspects of business school. In a 2011 survey by the Graduate Management Admissions Council, the majority of business recruiters look primarily for applicants who demonstrate initiative, professionalism, motivation, integrity, creativity, efficiency, goal orientation, and adaptability with little emphasis on grades as a criteria for hiring.

Many business professionals note that the importance of business school lies in the networking and employment opportunities that arise from studying in such a setting, not in the receipt of a grade for a particular class. Because grades carry less importance in an MBA program, advocates of GND policies claim that under these policies students are allowed to take more engaging and challenging classes that broaden their intellectual horizons without worrying about taking low-level, GPA-boosting classes. These policies also enable recruiters to focus on the aspects of candidates that many feel truly reveal their real-world potential, such as awards, honors, extra-curricular activity, and other distinguishing factors.

Many institutions have quotas and maximum limits on As and Bs awarded and average GPAs, which fosters fierce competition between the relatively small number of MBA students for those top grades. GND policies eliminate the incentive for this bitter competition and instead promote an environment of collaboration, cooperation, and networking between students.

What’s the argument against Grade Non-Disclosure Policies?

While some opponents may agree that grades are not the sole purpose of a business school program, they do find that Grade Non-Disclosure policies entice students to forego preparing and working hard for classes, and only benefit students of elite business schools because of their name-brand education. A 2011 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that in the first four years after Wharton students instituted a GND policy, the time spent on academics dropped by 22percent with no patterns of change in the types of courses students were enrolling in. Other graduate students and faculty have noticed that under these policies students exhibit an increase in apathy and a decrease in motivation concerning their classes.

While seven of the top ten MBA programs in the country had GND policies, no schools ranked 20-50 among business schools had them. The reason why these policies only exist at elite schools, many opponents claim, is that by not divulging their GPAs, students at these schools are allowed to rest on the merits of their school’s name, and not upon their own academic achievement. Students in lower-ranked business programs do not have that luxury as the mere name of their institutions would not garner the same respect and prestige that would have an impact on a job interview.

Conclusion

Education is only as valuable as what you learn from it, even at the MBA level. The idea of Grade Non-Disclosure policies is that they help students to focus on learning rather than getting better grades than their peers. After all, the skills that they learn will be significantly more useful in the workforce than the ability to pinpoint and take easy classes. However, opponents of Grade Non-Disclosure policies argue that the policies incentivize students to not work as hard as they can. There’s also the argument that Grade Non-Disclosure policies hurt students who work very hard at lower-ranked schools. Given that there is no centralized MBA Grade Non-Disclosure program, it is likely that schools will continue to make the choices for themselves. For those looking at MBA programs, it’s an important facet of education to take into account.

Resources

Primary 

Chicago Booth School of Business: Grade Non-Disclosure Policy

Wharton Graduate Association: Grade Non-Disclosure Policy

Additional

U.S. News & World Report: Reports Examine Grade Non-Disclosure Policies in MBA Degree Programs

To MBA or Not to MBA: On Grade Non-Disclosure

Financial Times: The Perks of GND

Freakonomics: Why Do Only Top MBA Programs Practice Grade Non-Disclosure?

Business Insider: Wharton Students Don’t Prepare For Class Because Employers Never Find Out Their Grades

NYU Stern Graduate Student Newspaper: On Grade Non-Disclosure

Inside MBA: Which Business Schools Have Grade Non-Disclosure?

Poets and Quants: Cornell Debates Grade Non-Disclosure Policy

Wharton Journal: Grade Non-Disclosure Vote Opens This Week

Economist: News From the Schools

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Making the Grade? MBA Programs and Grade Non-Disclosure Policies appeared first on Law Street.

Wood is the oldest and most reliable source of heat known to man. Twelve million Americans still use wood stoves to heat their homes. Wood is less expensive than natural gas or electric, and is readily available in rural areas that may not have reliable gas or electric lines. However, there have been some concerns about the environmental inefficiency of wood burning as well as its health effects. Read on to learn about the arguments for and against regulating woodburning stoves.

What are the concerns about wood burning stoves?

The pollution caused by burning wood has been linked to asthma, damaged lungs, and early deaths in areas where woodburning is common. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced its desire to institute regulations that would ban all woodburning stoves that release more than 12 micrograms of particular matter per cubic meter, a requirement that 80 percent of stoves currently in use would not meet. This regulation would cause all new wood stoves to burn 80 percent cleaner than stoves manufactured under the existing 1988 regulations. While the EPA regulation promises to cut down on air pollutants and would not affect wood stoves already in use, the proposed ban has been met with opposition by those who believe it will have adverse effects on the wood-stove industry and prohibit many buyers from purchasing. Opponents also dispute the actual impact this ban would have, arguing that the areas with the most air pollution are the areas that contain the least amount of wood stoves in use.

What are the arguments in favor of regulating wood burning stoves?

Supporters of the EPA’s proposal argue that while current wood stove owners will not be affected, future wood stoves will reduce harmful emissions by 80 percent, cutting down on air pollution and saving Americans money on health care. The particles released by burning wood have been linked to lung damage, asthma, shorter life expectancy, and climate change. The EPA estimates that these regulations will provide Americans with $1.8-$2.4 billion in annual health savings, and will reduce carbon dioxide, methane, and black carbon emissions as well.

While eco-friendly wood stoves are more costly to make and purchase, the EPA and its supporters argue that individuals will see returns in the long run in reduced healthcare costs and improved overall health. Some states have already needed to decree woodburning bans for short periods of time. In December 2013, Utah banned wood burning in five counties when weather conditions and increased wood burning led to dangerous levels of particular matter in the air around these areas. Similar actions have been taken in parts of Alaska. Advocates of the EPA’s ban see these events as signals that stronger federal action needs to be taken to ensure wood-stove pollution does not produce lasting damage. Supporters also emphasize that the proposed regulations would only come into effect in 2015, and that they would not affect wood stoves already in use.

What are the arguments against regulating woodburning stoves?

Opponents argue that these regulations will destroy the wood-stove industry, costing many Americans jobs and financial stability. The regulations will make the production of wood stoves more expensive, and with the majority of wood-stove buyers being rural, low-income families, this ban on cheaper, less-environmentally friendly stoves could cause a reduction in stove sales and cause many wood-stove manufacturers to go out of business.

Although the ban will only affect newly manufactured stoves, citizens will be prevented from selling their old, inefficient stoves, making them incapable of trading their old stoves for a new one. Many opponents also see these regulations as an example of what they call the EPA’s “Sue and Settle” policy. Opponents accuse the EPA of working in tandem with large environmental groups and state agencies in a process whereby the group will sue the EPA for not going far enough in its restrictions and regulations, and instead of going to court the EPA will settle out of court by offering to impose what some believe are pre-determined regulations on manufacturing, allowing both the EPA and environmental groups to get what they want through the façade of a lawsuit. Shortly after the wood-stove ban was proposed, Connecticut, Maryland, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, Oregon, and Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against the EPA claiming it did not do enough to reduce air pollution and demanded that the EPA add woodburning water heaters to the list of regulated woodburning appliances. Opponents of the regulations have cried foul and accuse the EPA of using a corrupt scheme to impose regulations that will force wood stove manufacturers out of business and will make it more difficult for rural families to heat their homes.

Conclusion

Woodburning stoves are a simple way that people can provide energy — particularly heat — for their homes. But they’re not always the most efficient or environmentally friendly way to do so. The potential health concerns have also led to worries. As a result, the EPA has taken action to try to change the ways in which woodburning stoves are regulated. There are many proponents of the stoves, as well as those who want to see them done away with, but change and regulation will be slow to develop.

Resources

Primary 

Environmental Protection Agency: Source Performance Standards for Residential Wood Heaters

Additional

Climate Progress: No, President Obama is Not Trying to Make Your Wood-Burning Stove Illegal

Fox News: EPA Proposes Restrictions for New Wood Stoves

Washington Post: EPA Moves to Regulate New Wood Stoves

NewsMiner.com: Feds Announce Plans for Stricter Wood Stove Regulations

Climate Progress: EPA Unveils Long-Awaited Regulations to Make New Wood Heaters Burn 80 Percent Cleaner

Clovis News Journal: People Justified to Get Heated on Stove Rules

Forbes: EPA’s Wood-Burning Stove Ban Has Chilling Consequences For Many Rural People

New American: EPA Wants to Snuff Out Wood and Pellet Stoves

Inquisitr: EPA Wood Stove Bans Include 80 Percent of Burners Now on the Market

Independent Sentinel: EPA Bans Most Wood Burning Stoves in a Corrupt Scheme, Fireplaces Next

Troy Record: EPA Wood Stove Ban is Heating Debate

Newsmax: EPA Wood-Stove Proposal Prompts Rural Backlash

Rural Blog: EPA Proposes Regulations Limiting Particle Pollution From New Wood-Fired Stoves and Furnaces

National Conference of State Legislatures: Regulating Fireplaces and Wood-Burning Stoves

Gazettenet.com: U.S. EPA Issues Tougher Regulations For Residential Wood-Burning Devices

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Heat is On: The Debate Over Woodburning Stoves appeared first on Law Street.

Tenure was originally created as a protection for teachers. In more recent times however, critics have grown concerned that it has turned into a system that has the potential for abuse. Read on to learn about the history of tenure and the arguments for and against it.

The History of Tenure

The early twentieth century saw an immense number of unions formed in a wide array of industries, empowering the American workers and dramatically altering legal precedent concerning workers’ rights. During this time, American public school districts began adapting and adopting the process of tenure from colleges and universities and applying it to their own school systems. Tenure, in the K-12 public school sense, provides teachers with the right to due process before being terminated. Before tenure became a common aspect of public school districts, female teachers were often dismissed for getting pregnant or even being seen in town with a man to whom she was not married to; and older teachers were often replaced with new, younger teachers simply because they had become too expensive for the district.

As educational professionals seek ways to improve the American education system in the wake of No Child Left Behind’s rigorous standards, many argue that replacing teacher tenure with a merit-based system would improve teacher quality and, therefore, student performance. However, advocates of teacher tenure argue that is protects vital rights that, if removed, would allow teachers to be exploited and would constrict their ability to improve their educational strategies.

What are the arguments for teachers being able to receive tenure?

Advocates argue that the tenure system protects teachers from being wrongfully dismissed because of problems that could arise out of industry politics, economics, and other such dynamics, as well as personal or political reasons, such as disagreeing with the school board over whether to teach a topic such as evolution or to teach a banned book. Advocates argue that this allows teachers to take more risks in their teaching style and methods, encouraging teachers to push the pedagogical boundaries and improve themselves as educational professionals in the process. A distinction that many advocates of teacher tenure make is that it does not make it impossible to fire a tenured teacher. Instead, tenure ensures due process is followed when a district seeks to dismiss a teacher.

Tenure is not merely given to any teacher hired by a district; most school districts require teachers to spend three to four years in a probationary period before receiving tenure, which allows the teacher to gain experience and allows the district to determine whether the teacher will continue to be a valuable addition to the school’s faculty.

Many teachers also face the prospect of termination due to false student accusations. At times a student may falsely accuse his or her teacher of committing a fireable offense, which often gains a large amount of negative publicity for the school district and could potentially blacklist a teacher from getting a job elsewhere. Tenure ensures that a thorough investigation is conducted before the administration acts upon a student’s accusation, thus protecting good teachers from malcontented students.

What are the arguments against teacher tenure?

Opponents of the tenure system argue that it is being manipulated by teachers’ unions to make ineffective teachers difficult to dismiss and creates a system that favors seniority over merit. Opponents argue that while teachers must work through a probationary period before receiving tenure, nearly all teachers receive it once they reach that mark, and therefore tenure becomes a process not aimed at protecting and retaining good teachers, but at protecting the job security of all teachers regardless of merit. In the New York City public school district, 97 percent of teachers received tenure after teaching for three years, and opponents argue that statistics such as these indicate that tenure is not a highly selective process.

Tenure also makes teachers difficult to fire by allowing teachers’ unions to drag out the termination process and to dispute any decisions concerning dismissal, making the removal of poor teachers expensive and time consuming. A study published in 2009 stated that 89 percent of administrators did not fire ineffective teachers for fear of the time and money it would require to do so. Additionally, in the Chicago public school district, where only 28.5 percent of student met expectations on standardized tests, only 0.1 percent of teachers were dismissed for performance-related reasons between 2005 and 2008. Obviously, there is a disconnect between the poor performance of students in this district and the replacement of teachers who were unable to improve that performance.

Many opponents also argue that tenure allows teachers to stop seeking personal improvement and to begin to “coast” through their jobs. In a profession that demands constant improvement while children’s education hangs in the balance, a system that provides teachers with impeccable job security unrelated to merit is not the way to promote teacher development.

Conclusion

The history of granting teachers tenure makes sense, but whether or not the system has reached antiquity is a common topic of debate. Tenure has many benefits — protection and incentives for teachers — but also some downsides — potential to kill innovation. As the American education system evolves and begins to adopt more alternative forms of teaching, such as charter schools, tenure policies may have to evolve too to keep up.

Resources

Primary

University of Minnesota: A Study of Transparency of K-12 Teacher Tenure: What the Evaluation Policy Documents Reveal

Additional

Huffington Post: An Argument For Teacher Tenure

NEA Today: What Teacher Tenure Is and What it Is Not

Teach For America: Point/ Counterpoint: In Support of Teacher Tenure

News Observer: Wake County School Board Opposes Elimination of Teacher Tenure

Teachers Union Exposed: Protecting Bad Teachers

NPR: Is Teacher Tenure Still Necessary?

USA Today: States Weaken Tenure Rights For Teachers

Scholastic: Weigh In: Is Tenure For Teachers Over?

Education.com: Should Teachers Have Tenure?

Concordia Online Education: K-12 Teacher Tenure: Understanding the Debate

Teachhub.com: Teacher Tenure Debate: Pros and Cons

Take Part: Pros and Cons of Teacher Tenure: What You Didn’t Know

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teachers and Tenure: An Outdated System? appeared first on Law Street.

Students have always loved snow days as an excuse to play in the snow and forget about their schoolwork, if only for a day. However, snow days are a logistical headache for the administration and teachers who already have a difficult time cramming 2,500 years of world history or all of the basic principles of chemistry into a school year. As a result, some education reformers are suggesting that we should have “virtual” school on snow days. Read on to learn about what exactly that means, and the debate on virtual school days.

What’s the logic behind virtual snow days?

Snow days disrupt the academic schedule at a critical time in the year when students are least distracted and are preparing to take any number of standardized tests that come in early Spring. Additionally, administrators have to decide whether to add days lost because of snow to the end of the year, which is expensive and adds days at a time when students are mentally checked out and ready for summer.

After this past winter, one of the coldest on record and with an immense amount of snowfall, school districts are looking for ways to cope with a large amount of snow days. On February 13 the Pascack Valley Regional High School in Hillsdale, New Jersey tried holding a virtual school day after schools were closed due to snowfall. All students in the district had been assigned a laptop to bring home at the beginning of the year, and while remaining at home, teachers and students engaged in discussion, completed assignments, and continued progress on coursework. Students even had their physical education class, in which they were instructed to measure their heartbeat before and after going outside to shovel snow for 15 minutes. Though innovative, the New Jersey Board of Education has yet to decide whether they will accept this “virtual” day as an official school day.

While advocates hail this experiment as a success that will usher in a new era of productive snow days, opponents argue that technological barriers and a myriad of other problems prevent this idea from becoming a widely recognized solution.

What’s the argument for virtual snow days?

Advocates see virtual school days as a progressive way to prevent academic disruption and to provide students with as much education as possible prior to the standardized tests that have become so important in the era of “No Child Left Behind.” Standardized tests are often scheduled for February, March, or April regardless of how many snow days a school has had, and days added on in June do not benefit students on these tests that end up determining school funding and grade progression. It would be beneficial to have students continue to progress on coursework, as it not only takes away time from standardized test preparation but is disruptive to a teacher’s academic schedule to have to push back lessons, reviews, and test days.

It is also costly for school districts, which often have an already-tight budget, to keep school open at the end of the year, which involves extending building costs and staff salaries, while also disrupting the schedules of families that may have scheduled a vacation or have signed their children up for day camp during the regularly scheduled summer vacation. Virtual school days would eliminate these logistical problems and provide students with education during the time of year when they are most focused, and not daydreaming of being outdoors.

Advocates point to the success of online college courses and the growing number of individuals who work remotely from home via their computers as an indicator that this system could be adapted for use at the grade-school level. Additionally, advocates argue that virtual school could be adapted for such cases as when students are recovering from an illness but not quite well enough to return to school, which could prevent sick students from falling behind their peers.

What are the arguments against virtual snow days?

Despite being a useful method for keeping school on track and preventing disruption in academics, there are several logistical problems that would make virtual school days difficult to implement. First, snowfall often brings about power outages due to falling tree branches or car accidents, and without power a virtual school day cannot happen. Also, the technology required is not accessible to all school districts or all families that have school-aged children. While more affluent districts may be able to provide laptops for their students, most districts such as those in inner-city neighborhoods do not have the resources to make this happen. While beneficial, many opponents argue that the cost of providing each and every student with virtual school technology is simply not worth the benefits of productive snow days. In areas where all families have their own internet access, a situation in which a family has multiple children but only one computer, as is common, would create problems with virtual school. (Remember how difficult it was to share the TV with your siblings? Try sharing the resource you need in order to complete your schoolwork for the day.)

Another logistical problem faced by virtual school is the teachers who are parents themselves, and so have to watch their children on snow days. Many teacher-parents do not relish the thought of having to teach a full school day via computer while looking after their own children. Teachers of younger children also argue that virtual school would be difficult for children in elementary school, who often need more hands-on guidance with their schoolwork and find it more difficult to sit still and focus for long periods of time. Without the presence of a teacher in the same room as them, many feel that virtual school would not succeed in providing a quality educational day for younger students.

Many professionals are also against using e-learning technology to hold virtual school because many say teaching in this method requires a widely different skill set than those used for in-class teaching. Very few teachers have any type of training in using this technology or this method, and so opponents argue that while virtual school days would have students completing assignments on snow days, the quality of education the students would receive on these days would be dramatically different on days they are in the classroom.

Conclusion

With the state of American education where it is, every chance that we have to provide quality education to our children is valuable. That being said, creating make-shift learning opportunities from home may be more trouble than it would be worth. For those of us located in snow-prone climates, it will be a debate that many school districts will have to have for themselves in coming years.

Resources

Primary

Pascack Valley Regional High School School District: Virtual High School

Additional

NorthJersey.com: Make Snow Days Into Virtual School Days

NJ.com: Schools Offer ‘Virtual Classes’ to Keep Lessons on Track During Snow Storms

Accuweather.com: Could Virtual Classrooms Be a Solution For Snow Days?

Washington Post: Gasp! No More Snow Days?

Gizmodo: Terrible News: The Internet May Kill Snow Days

Middletown Press: Poor Elijah’s Almanack: Neither Snow Nor Blizzard Bags

NorthJersey.com: Snow Day’s Virtual Classroom: Are Lessons at Home the Next Logical Step?

CBS: NJ School District Tries to Get Around Snow Days With “Virtual School Days”

CNN: Students, Say Goodbye to Snow Days–and Say Hello to School at Home

Boston.com: Virtual School Days Replace Snow Days For Some Schools

NBC: New Jersey Students Spend Snow Day in Virtual School

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Snowmen or Textbooks: The Debate Over Virtual Snow Days appeared first on Law Street.

As a world, we’re constantly on the lookout for new ways to obtain our non-renewable resources. Some of the new areas that have been discussed as possible drilling areas include the Arctic and Antarctic. Read on to learn about what drilling in those regions would mean, and the arguments for and the against expanding drilling to the Arctic and Antarctic.

Why would we want to drill in the Arctic and Antarctic?

The Earth’s poles, comprised of the Arctic at its northern pole and the Antarctic in the south, are held in a precarious geopolitical and environmental situation as melting ice at the fringes of the poles reveals reservoirs of valuable resources that are easier to extract than ever before. In September 2012, it was found that arctic ice levels were at their lowest on record, dating back to 1979. Aside from a myriad of environmental effects, these lower ice levels have also revealed the treasures they have held for millions of years: vital natural resources, and plenty of them.

Some have estimated that the Arctic holds roughly 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 15 percent of its oil, while others have quantified the amount at around 40 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In addition to natural gas and oil, the Arctic and Antarctic contain large deposits of coal, lead, iron, chromium, copper, gold, nickel, platinum, uranium, and silver, which become increasingly valuable in an industrialized world. Figures such as these have many eager to begin extracting these materials for market, but they are held in restraint by grave environmental concerns over the economic and environmental future of the Arctic and Antarctic, and by international organizations that attempt to balance these concerns with the global need for fuel.

The Arctic is governed by the Arctic Council, a collection of eight countries whose international borders lie directly within the Arctic Circle. The Antarctic, on the other hand, has no territorial claims and is therefore governed by an international council of countries that conduct scientific experiments on the continent and who have a vested interests in its security and/or resources. As these resources grow steadily within our grasp during a time of economic stagnation, these groups must decide whether to make the Arctic and Antarctic off limits to resource exploration and exploitation, or to begin devising plans for environmentally sound exploitation of these regions.

Resource extraction in the Arctic has occurred since the 1970s, with both the US and Russia successfully drilling for oil north of the Arctic Circle. Since then, technological innovation has made oil drilling more profitable and environmentally sound than it has been in the past, which has advocates calling for an expansion of drilling projects currently occurring in the Arctic. Resource extraction, many argue, is currently ideal due a number of factors.

1. The melting pack ice surrounding both the Arctic and Antarctic is gradually melting, making it easier to reach natural resources with less environmental impact.
2. While the Arctic has territorial claims on its southern fringes, the majority of the Arctic and the entirety of the Antarctic have no political ownership and have no indigenous populations to stand in the way of these natural resources. Extraction would not displace or steal land away from any native population, and no one country or group of countries can monopolize the reserves of carbon-based and mineral resources there, making the polar regions a vital economic opportunity for all nations. Drilling has been taking place in Russia, Norway, and parts of Greenland and Canada with few negative environmental repercussions while providing these countries with vital natural resources, and advocates argue that as technology progresses, the positive potential for resource exploitation in the Arctic only increases. Oil drilling efforts have, in fact, brought economic prosperity to several northern towns and cities that would otherwise have been remote, forgotten villages on the political as well as geographical fringes of their respective countries. During the current economic recession, advocates argue, an influx of natural resources and raw materials would help to kick start manufacturing and consumption that would benefit the economy on a global scale.
3. As climate change progresses, it will be come even easier and more cost effective to access these areas to drill.

What’s the argument against drilling in the Arctic and the Antarctic?

Opponents, led by environmental groups, argue that resource extraction in the Arctic and Antarctic will only exacerbate the current rate of global warming, strengthen our addiction to fossil fuels, and risk destroying one of the last untouched wildernesses on Earth. While melting pack ice on the fringes of the Arctic and Antarctic helps to uncover these stored resources, opponents of oil drilling and resource extraction point out that the reason why the pack ice is melting in the first place is because of global warming due to irreversible exploitation of resources and the burning of fossil fuels.

The “opportunity” that tantalizes advocates of exploitation, opponents argue, is merely an unfortunate side effect of that same opportunity. Achim Steiner, the United Nations Environmental Program’s Executive Director, said, “What we are seeing is that the melting of the ice is prompting a rush for exactly the fossil fuel resources that caused the melt in the first place.” The polar caps of the Earth are, in fact, a vast wilderness teeming with biodiversity and an area yet to be fully understood by scientists and naturalists. Because of its remote location and harsh environment, it has remained largely unchanged throughout the course of human industrialization. As technological innovation provides greater access to these regions and makes the exploitation of its resources easier, environmentalists are worried that the relentless search for energy will permanently ruin one of the last pristine wild areas on the planet.

Allowing resources such as oil, natural gas, and minerals to be extracted from the Arctic and Antarctic increases the risk of oil spills, Arctic pollution, and the destruction of natural habitats. While the Arctic and Antarctic may contain vast reservoirs of fossil fuels and natural resources and the combination of current technology and melting pack ice is making these resources easier to reach, many are fighting to keep the Arctic and the Antarctic the way they are: untouched by man.

Case Study: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was established in 1960 for the purpose of preserving a 19.6 million acre area of wilderness and the accompanying wildlife in northeastern Alaska bordering northern coastline. ANWR, operated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, is home to a variety of ecosystems as well as a variety of wildlife such as caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, and muskoxen. The rest of Alaska’s northern coast, including Prudhoe Bay and much of the North Slope, have been opened to oil exploration and drilling, has delivered billions of barrels of oil to American markets since the 1970s. Since its formation there has been debate on whether to allow oil exploration and drilling to take place in ANWR. It is well known that Alaska sits on large oil reserves.

Advocates claim that oil drilling in ANWR would benefit the American economy with minimal environmental impact. Through land leasing, bids, and taxation the oil in Alaska’s wilderness is estimated to add billions of dollars in revenue to state and federal treasuries. The oil found here would be an alternative to costly imported oil, and the extraction of oil in ANWR is also estimated to create 250-735 thousand new jobs, further stimulating the economy. Advocates of drilling also argue that the environmental impact of oil exploration and drilling would be minimal, citing advanced drilling technology and the fact that only eight percent of the wildlife refuge would be used for exploration and drilling. Additionally, supporters cite polls that show a majority of Alaskan citizens favor drilling for oil in the refuge. Proponents of oil drilling say that the economic benefits would far outweigh the minimal environmental impact in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Opponents argue that the proposed economic benefits of oil drilling in the Arctic are minimal, and that the drilling severely harms local ecosystems and species. Given that oil prices are based upon world supply and are largely dictated by OPEC, drilling at ANWR would have little impact on oil prices for everyday consumers. This oil reserve would only account for one to four percent of daily consumption in the U.S., and if approved the oil would not reach markets for another ten years due to the exploration, construction, and production involved in creating a new oil field. Opponents cite a report written by the Environmental Information Agency claiming that at peak production in 2030 ANWR oil would only reduce foreign oil imports by three percent. Opponents of drilling also questions oil companies’ desire to find oil in ANWR when it was reported in 2010 by the Bureau of Land Management that oil companies were developing less than 30 percent of the federal land they had already leased or owned for the purpose of oil drilling. Citing these figures, opponents argue that access to oil inside ANWR would have little economic benefit to the United States.

Opponents also dispute the drilling advocates’ claim that the environmental impact of drilling would be much greater than proponents estimate. They disagree on the claim that exploration and drilling would use only eight percent of ANWR land. The oil in this area is scattered in several small pockets instead of one large reservoir, requiring much more land to explore and access these oil reserves. These lands would include birthing areas, migratory routes, and natural habitats of numerous wild species and a variety of ecosystems. Many opponents accept that advanced technology reduces the risk of oil spills and other disasters, but they argue that even the presence of heavy machinery and human interference will have adverse effects on these ecosystems and on the flora and fauna that live there. Environmentalists are also worried that allowing oil drilling in ANWR would open the floodgates to more corporate control over federally protected wildlife areas, thus nullifying the point of creating national parks and wildlife refuges in the first place.

Conclusion

It’s clear that there’s pressure to find new and reliable sources of natural gas and oil, but many opponents pose the important question: at what cost? There are both incentives and huge downsides to drilling the Arctic and Antarctic poles. As the options for where to get non-renewable resources continue to narrow, it’s an important debate to keep an eye on.

 Resources

Primary 

Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty: The Antarctic Treaty

Additional

Moscow Times: Russia Pushes For Further Arctic Exploitation

CNN: It’s Time to Develop Our Arctic Resources

Earth Sky: Robert Blaauw on Oil Exploration and Development in the Arctic

Arctic: Towards An Agenda For Arctic Sustainable Development

Minnesota Daily: ANWR Drilling Benefits Americans

Committee on Natural Resources: ANWR: Producing American Energy and Creating American Jobs

CNSnews.com: ANWR Drilling Would Ease Energy Crisis, Create Economic Boon, Supporters Say

Cool Antarctica: Human Impacts on Antarctica and Threats to the Environment– Mining and Oil

Climate Science Watch: U.S. Arctic Strategy Aims to Exploit Oil and Gas For ‘National Security’

Reuters: Arctic Needs Protection From Resource Rush as Ice Melts

Grid Arendal: The Arctic–A New Victim of Global Development?

National Wildlife Refuge Association: Protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Record: Oil is the New Gold in Arctic ‘Cold Rush’

Globe and Mail: The North’s Resource Boom: Is it Prosperity or Exploitation?

SciDev: Developing Nations Seek a Share of Antarctica’s Spoils

CBN News: The ANWR Debate: To Drill or Not to Drill

National Geographic: Arctic Oil Drilling Debate Escalates

Heritage Foundation: Opening ANWR: Long Overdue

Alaska Dispatch News: Drilling ANWR is Not the Answer to U.S. Energy Challenges

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debating Resource Exploitation in the Arctic and Antarctic appeared first on Law Street.

The past few decades have seen an increase in negative childhood behavior such as bullying and school violence, causing many to feel that today’s youth do not subscribe to the same moral values and codes of conduct that previous generations have. Traditionally, education in morality and social conduct was primarily done in the home, and children learned from their parents, elders, and neighbors. School was a place merely for academic education, and children were expected to come prepared with a sense of right and wrong. However, there are many people today that feel that public schools are, at least in part, responsible for providing students with education in areas such as morality, ethics, and good citizenship.

Answering the call, numerous character education programs have been created by private organizations, state and local school boards, and corporations that have designed curricula, created lessons, and provide the tools necessary for schools to provide character education to their students. Read on to learn about these character education programs, their benefits and problems, and what they mean for the future of education.

What does character education consist of?

Character education usually consists of some sort of system of values or principles that help students develop their own moral priorities and ideologies.

Eighteen states currently mandate character education in public schools through legislation such as North Carolina’s Student Citizen Act of 2001, which requires local boards of education in the state to develop and implement a character education program in their schools. As the momentum for character education grows, it remains to be seen whether it will become an integral part of the American education system.

What are the arguments for character education?

Advocates of character education argue that these programs teach universal values that create more academically successful students and, in time, more socially productive citizens. Values such as respect, responsibility, integrity, perseverance, justice, courage, and self-discipline are commonly agreed to be desired characteristics in an individual, and character education programs target these core values and teach children to incorporate these values into their everyday lives. Teachers, parents, and students who have worked with character education argue that teaching these values in school produces students with higher academic performance, improved school attendance, reduced violence, fewer disciplinary issues, less substance abuse, and less vandalism.

Reports and polls have shown that around 90 percent of Americans support teaching values such as honesty, democracy, and acceptance in public schools. Additionally, many teachers argue that character education makes students easier to teach. More importantly, advocates argue that character education is necessary in a democratic society to create good, moral citizens. In a society in which the people have power in the political sphere, many argue that it is imperative to have a citizenry with a strong sense of morality and its role in society. Therefore, character education is entirely required to transform the youth of today into the citizenry of tomorrow.

Lastly, many character education programs are reactionary tools used to combat an increase in bullying and school violence. Advocates argue that by teaching universal values, schools can help create a stronger sense of community and a safer learning environment for students.

What are the arguments against character education?

While character education has its advocates, many argue that it presents children with a negative view of humanity and is often used more as a tool for control or political sway than for the nurturing of caring, thoughtful students. Opponents point to a commonality that most character education programs share called the “fix the kids” orientation, which attempts to teach children morality on the basis that all people are inherently bad in nature and must be taught how to live among one another. Many experts argue that this negative view of humanity is harmful to children’s conception of morality and ethics, and that instead these programs should encourage students to reflect upon what causes people to make bad decisions, and how they themselves could make a better decision in that same situation.

Similarly, many of these programs are conducted through the use of extrinsic rewards such as candy or a pizza party for good behavior, which experts say teaches students to do what they are told simply for a reward, and not to behave morally because it is the right thing to do. In addition to criticizing the methods by which character education programs work, many opponents also criticize their underlying foundations and purpose. While these programs teach “universal values,” opponents point out that there is still bias upon deciding just which universal values to teach to children.

Many argue that these programs have political undercurrents, often teaching children traditional, conservative values that lean toward the political right. In the end, opponents say, these programs are designed to create malleable, robotic students who do not question authority and will grow up to become benign citizens uninterested in questioning or changing the current power structures. These findings were corroborated in a 2010 study conducted by The Institute of Education Sciences that found the benefits of character education to be negligible. In a study of 84 school districts around the country, researchers found that there was no difference in academic improvement between schools with character education programs and those without. Opponents argue that this federal report provides statistical evidence to their claims that character education is used merely as a form of crowd control and does not make students inherently more moral. Instead, many would prefer to implement programs that promote thoughtful reflection on social issues and inter-personal communication in order to teach students concepts such as empathy, critical thinking, and understanding.

Conclusion

It’s important that we teach our children to be responsible and good citizens, but for a long time we’ve been questioning how exactly to do that. Some people argue that it’s a matter best taken on by parents and communities, while others think that schools can play an important role. Don’t be surprised if character education shows up on your child’s curriculum soon.

Resources

Primary

U.S Department of Education: Efficacy of Schoolwide Programs to Promote Social and Character Development and Reduce Problem Behavior in Elementary School Children

Additional

NC Public Schools: Character Education

Atlantic: The Benefits of Character Education

National Character Education Center: Character Education Should Be Taught

The Genius in Children: Should Schools Teach Values or is That the Parents’ Responsibility?

Alfie Kohn: How Not to Teach Values: A Critical Look at Character Education

Education Week: Character Education Found to Fall Short in a Federal Study

Boston Review: Whose Character? Why Character Education is Inherently Flawed

Patriotism For All: The Problem With Character Education

The New York Times: Should Character Be Taught? Students Weigh In

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: A Common Goal

Red Orbit: Character Education in America’s Public Schools

Education Week: Should We Teach “Character” In Schools? If So, How?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Character Education on the Public School Agenda appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new guidelines for what gasoline can contain. The motive behind the new regulations was to create gasoline that minimizes the effects on the environment, improve public health, and mitigates the effects of climate change. One big change was that the EPA announced its desire to minimize the amount of sulfur in gasoline. Read on to learn about the effects of sulfur in gasoline, the debate, and the end results.

Why do we care about sulfur in our gasoline?

Sulfur is a smog-forming pollutant that has been linked to respiratory diseases and air pollution. The new regulations would require refiners to reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline by 60 percent by 2017, from 30 parts per million to 10 parts per million. President Obama asked the EPA for cleaner gasoline standards in 2010, and since then the EPA has worked with scientists and automakers to develop these new regulations. However, the regulations would require oil refiners to install expensive new equipment in their refineries and would force auto manufacturers to install new pollution-control in car engines. While some argue that these new regulations will improve health at a minimal cost, oil refiners argue that the costs are unnecessarily expensive to their industry, thus hurting consumers, taking away jobs, and negatively impacting the economy as a whole.

What are the arguments for these new guidelines?

Advocates argue that the additional costs of the EPA regulations would pay for themselves by the year 2030 through decreased costs in health care. The EPA estimates that the reduction in sulfur emissions would save Americans between $5.7 and $19 billion by the year 2030 and would reduce the amount of sick days taken at school and work. The EPA also estimated that Americans could see the prevention of 770-2,000 premature deaths, 2,200 hospital admissions, 1,900 asthma attacks, and 30,000 reported cases of respiratory problems in children living near highways or urban centers. All of these health benefits, the EPA claims, would come at an increase of just 2/3 of a cent per gallon and the addition of just $75 to the sticker price of a new car.

Representative John Dingell (D-MI) explained the benefit behind the new law, stating,

We do have a serious problem with too much sulfur in gasoline. It screws up the mufflers, it screws up the catalytic converters, and it screws up a lot of other things, too.

Other advocates point to the emission standards of the European Union, Japan, and South Korea, which are far ahead of those in the United States, to argue that these regulations would bring the US up to speed with other developed countries. Lastly, some in the auto industry have argued that these sulfur emission standards would be beneficial to auto makers in enabling them to meet newer, stricter federal environmental regulations, which would more than make up for the additional cost of rigging their cars to emit less sulfur.

What are the arguments against the new guidelines?

Opponents argue that the EPA regulations would have minimal environmental impact while putting greater strain on the economy and ultimately hurting consumers. Since 2000, oil refiners have already been required to reduce the sulfur levels in gasoline by 90 percent; the new regulations would mandate the removal of the last 10 percent, which according to experts is much more difficult and costly to remove than the initial 90 percent. This process would cost the oil industry roughly $10 billion and would increase the cost of gas by nine cents per gallon. This increased cost would force the oil companies to cut employment and raise prices, which in the end hurts the average consumer. Additionally, opponents argue that these increased costs are unnecessary because they will have little impact on climate change and global warming. While sulfur emissions contribute to smog and some air pollution, there has been no link found between sulfur emissions and the factors that contribute to climate change, leading opponents to argue that the environmental impact of these regulations is just not worth the economic stress forced upon consumers and job seekers.

The American Petroleum Institute (API) disagreed with the new guidelines, complaining especially about the little time that producers will have to comply with the guidelines. The API’s Bob Greco claimed that the rules don’t allow enough flexibility for producers to switch over in both a timely and safe manner. Patrick Kelly, an API Senior Policy advisor, also said:

API opposes this discretionary rulemaking as we have serious doubts as to the Agency’s justification for it. We have been insisting that EPA demonstrate a scientific justification for two and a half years. API commissioned research on the costs and benefits associated with further reductions in gasoline sulfur. We found some clear conclusions: The proposed standard will yield little immediate or longer term air quality benefits. And, reducing average sulfur from 30 parts per million to 10 parts per million will impose enormous costs. Further reducing gasoline sulfur is not necessary for meeting more stringent vehicle emissions standards, and automakers are unlikely to introduce vehicle emission technology that is enabled by the lower sulfur fuel.

Conclusion

The implementation by the EPA of new guidelines regarding sulfur in gasoline made news this spring. As the guidelines continue to be phased into place, there is still disagreement about the viability and fairness of the rules, and whether or not they will have a concrete effect on our environment, health, and economy remains to be seen.

Resources

Climate Progress: A Comprehensive Guide to the EPA’s New Pollution-Reducing Gasoline Rules

Huffington Post: Sulfur, Sulfur, Toil and Trouble

TIME: EPA’s New Emission Rules Could Increase Gas Prices, Save Lives

Earth Day Network: EPA Finalizes Tier 3 Gasoline Standards

Environmental Protection: API Opposes EPA’s Tier 3 Rule

Bloomberg: Refiners Rebuff EPA Concessions In Rule to Cut Sulfur

Machinery Lubrication: New EPA Gasoline Regulations Costly, Counterproductive

Bloomberg: EPA Said Poised to Issue Lower Sulfur Limits On Fuel

The New York Times: EPA Set to Reveal Tough New Sulfur Emissions Rule

Utah Political Capitol: Tier 3 Gasoline: Air-Pollution Slayer or Tail Pipe Dream?

Convenience Store and Fuel News: EPA Finalizes Tier 3 Emission & Fuel Standards

Union of Concerned Scientists: The EPA’s Tier 3 Standards

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post EPA Rules Aim to Phase Out Sulfur in Gas: What Does it Mean For Your Wallet? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States mandates education for its children and provides public access to that education. When a child’s formal education begins, however, depends on several factors, including the state, the child, and the wishes of the child’s parents. But when exactly we should begin providing that education is up for debate. Read on to learn about the concept of universal pre-school, and the arguments for and against it.

What’s the current status of Preschool in the U.S.?

On March 4, 2014 President Obama announced his intention to allocate $750 million for the foundation of universal, federally funded pre-school in the United States. These funds would guarantee that Pre-K would be available, but not mandatory, for all young Americans, and some research has shown that a pre-school education creates better students and more productive citizens later in life. The concept of universal pre-school is nothing new; several states and cities including New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Boston, and Tulsa have had various forms of universal Pre-K programs since the middle and late 1990s. However, many oppose these measures, saying that a pre-school education does not guarantee success for a child, making the taxpayer investment simply not worth the risk. While there are numerous studies indicating the success rates of pre-school educated children, these reports are disputed, and plenty of other reports exist that argue pre-school does not positively affect a student’s academic success later in their education. It remains to be seen whether the President will be able to garner enough support, and funds, for this educational endeavor.

What are the arguments for Universal Pre-school?

Supporters of universal pre-school highlight the long list of rewards students can reap from a Pre-K education, while arguing that future returns, as well as the influx of former stay-at-home parents into the workforce, will actually improve the economy now and in the future. Advocates point out a wide array of benefits that can stem from obtaining a Pre-K education. These include higher test scores, better emotional development, higher high school graduation rates, lower poverty rates, and the end of racial socio-economic disparity.

The jump start on learning for pre-schoolers allows them to enter Kindergarten with some pre-existing content knowledge and experience in working in a classroom setting with their peers. The end result of these benefits, supporters argue, is that these students will achieve a higher level of education, get better jobs, and contribute to the end of poverty and race-based economic gaps. Privately-owned pre-schools, while maintaining high standards, are expensive and thus seem to cater to middle and upper class families. Without access to Pre-K due to economic restrictions, many argue that children of low-income families are locked into a cycle of poverty.

The problem that remains, however, is how the government and taxpayers will pay for this type of program. Political advocates have offered popular ways to pay for universal pre-school; New York City’s Mayor De Blasio plans to tax New York’s wealthiest residents to pay for his Pre-K program, while President Obama has suggested increasing the tax on cigarettes from $1.01 to $1.95. Advocates argue that these strategies would allow the government to fund a universal Pre-K program without significant impact on the taxes of average Americans. Additionally, supporters point out the economic benefits of universal pre-school, indicating it will pay for itself and more over time.

What are the arguments against Universal Pre-school?

Opponents argue that universal Pre-K would be detrimental to quality private pre-schools. Opponents dispute the same reports that link the myriad of benefits to a pre-school education, using other reports to argue that students with and without this early start earn similar test scores, high school graduation rates, and career achievement. One of the best sources of support for this argument, opponents claim, is the failure of current federal pre-school programs such as Head Start.

Initiated in 1965 as part of Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society,” Head Start offers low-income families access to pre-school for their children. Within the last decade, educational professionals have been united in their acknowledgement that Head Start fails to achieve its goals of inequality-gap reduction. Advocates claim this is due to a lack of funding and the low quality of the Pre-K offered under Head Start (the pre-school teachers are not required to have a teaching degree), whereas modern universal pre-school proposals call for high-quality education with highly qualified teachers. Opponents, however, say this is evidence that federally-funded Pre-K programs fail to meet the needs of economically disadvantaged students.

Opponents argue the only way to ensure a quality pre-school education is to maintain competition in the Pre-K market, thus prompting privately-owned pre-schools to maintain high standards. Offering free, federally-funded pre-schools could potentially undercut successful private pre-schools and lower the overall standards of a Pre-K education in the United States. With roughly 45 percent of American children already enrolled in pre-school, opponents feel that the introduction of a universal pre-school program would only have negative effects for students, parents, and society.

Conclusion

Educational support is one of the most important things that our government provides for its citizens. We have accepted that young people should be in school, but how young is too young to start? And what are the benefits of providing preschool rather than allowing parents and students to make those choices? These are all intrinsic components of the debate surrounding universally-funded preschool in the United States, and while President Obama has taken concrete action on the subject, the laws are developing.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Serving Pre-School Children Through Title I

Administration for Children & Families: Federal Office of Head Start

Additional

Think Progress: Georgia’s Universal Preschool Program Significantly Improves Children’s Skills

Huffington Post: Do Right By Our Children: Enact Universal Pre-K

National Institute for Early Education Research: The Universal vs. Targeted Debate: Should the United States Have Preschool For All?

U.S. News & World Report: Why the GOP Should Get On Board With Preschool

Nation: How Universal Pre-K Could Redistribute Wealth–Right Here, Right Now

National Affairs: The Dubious Promise of Universal Preschool

Reason Foundation: The Case Against Universal Preschool in California

Heritage Foundation; Universal Preschool’s Empty Promises

Brookings: New Evidence Raises Doubts on Obama’s Preschool For All

ABC: Universal Pre-K: ‘This Whole Thing is a Scam’

Breitbart: Obama Budget Proposal Pushes for $750 Million for Universal Preschool

Huffington Post: Elected Officials Embrace Preschool, But Funding is the Catch

Scholastic: Universal Preschool: Is it Necessary?

The White House: Fact Sheet President Obama’s Plan For Early Education For All Americans

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Universal Pre-School in the United States: When Should Kids Start School? appeared first on Law Street.

Security cameras are a common facet in many places that we frequent, from office complexes to shopping malls. Closed circuit security cameras (CCTV) are mainly put in place to keep people safe, but one notable place where CCTVs are missing is our schools.

Tragedies such as the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 have raised alarms for increased school security and the use of technology to keep children safe. Many schools have security cameras at their entrances and, in some cases, in hallways and other high-traffic areas. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations, schools are beginning to experiment with the idea of placing closed-circuit security cameras in classrooms. Read on to learn the arguments about whether or not we should extend CCTV coverage to our public school classrooms.

What are the arguments for putting CCTVs in classrooms?

Those who support the addition of cameras to public school classrooms argue that they will increase school security while providing a useful tool for teacher collaboration. Many claim that the presence of the cameras alone would be enough to deter many students from committing crimes or engaging in common misbehavior while in the classroom. Cameras can also provide evidence if students are accused of a crime, saving administration from conducting lengthy and probing investigations.

Cameras could also be used by teachers as a tool to share effective learning methods and to connect with parents. Experienced, highly effective teachers could videotape segments of their lessons to be used in professional development programs and teacher training courses. Advocates have also argued that cameras could serve as deterrents to those bad teachers who do exist, particularly in special needs classrooms where students may have difficulty communicating instances of abuse to their parents. Parents would also have the ability to become in tune with what their children experience in the classroom, creating a closer marriage of a student’s education and home life and allowing parents to understand and supplement that education.

What are the arguments against CCTVs in classrooms?

Opponents are cautious about the installation of CCTVs due to the intrusion upon public school classrooms. Some administrators have indicated plans to use CCTVs to evaluate teacher performance and determine teacher effectiveness. Many professionals in American education oppose this method of teacher evaluation, as it seeks to make direct links between teacher methods and student achievement without accounting for other variables, such as socio-economic conditions and student behavior.

Additionally, using constant video surveillance of teachers as a form of evaluation would lead to a system where teacher merely imitate specific behaviors and methods they know evaluators are looking for while lacking creativity, individuality, and maverick methods that often characterize the best teachers and drive innovation. Many opponents also indicate that the presence of cameras could create a “Big Brother” atmosphere in the classroom, dampen student participation, and dissuade many students from exercising free speech.

Others worry that it infringes upon the relationships that teachers can have with their students. Teachers often have the ability to engage with their students about sensitive topics, including problems at home, difficulties in school, and the like. Teachers worry that installing CCTV cameras will make it less likely that students can confide in them, and therefore less likely that they are able to provide help or advice for those students. This worry is compounded by the fact that in most cases where cameras are installed, they are not able to turned off by the teachers themselves.

CCTVs in Classrooms in the UK

The idea of CCTVs has gained great momentum in Britain, where 85 percent of schools currently have CCTVs, and some schools, such as Stockwell Park High School in South London, have over 100 cameras inside its buildings (two in each classroom and 40 in hallways, cafeterias, and other areas).

The CCTV-based monitoring has had mixed reception in the UK. Teachers don’t really seem to like the institution of the cameras, citing concerns that they’re not in place for safety reasons, but rather to judge teachers. A teachers union conducted a study in the UK and discovered that 41 percent of teachers claimed that the cameras were used to find evidence that led to “negative views” of the staff being monitored.

There have also been cases of students in the UK being unhappy with the CCTV cameras placed in their schools. In a school in Essex, a student named Sam Goodman started a protest after discovering that cameras that were said to have been placed in his school for training purposes had actually been switched on. Goodman took many issues with the implementation of CCTV cameras, pointing out, “We’ll end up with all teachers being the same. And pupils will grow up thinking that it’s acceptable to be monitored like this.” He also was suspicious that the cameras were just supposed to be used for teacher training, claiming that the equipment seemed too extensive for such a narrow purpose. He eventually started a walk-out to protest the CCTV cameras.

There’s also a debate ongoing in the UK that the placement of CCTV cameras has gone too far. According to a British watchdog group called Big Brother Watch, more than 200 schools had installed CCTVs in restrooms and changing rooms (locker rooms). The only way that Big Brother Watch got that information was by filing a Freedom of Information Request with the government. A statement from Big Brother Watch claimed:

The full extent of school surveillance is far higher than we had expected and will come as a shock to many parents. Schools need to come clean about why they are using these cameras and what is happening to the footage. Local authorities also need to be doing far more to reign in excessive surveillance in their areas and ensuring resources are not being diverted from more effective alternatives. The Home Office’s proposed regulation of CCTV will not apply to schools and the new Commissioner will have absolutely no powers to do anything. Parents will be right to say that such a woefully weak system is not good enough.

While CCTV surveillance has become a sort of norm in the UK, many are still not happy about it. Those who are advocating for CCTV cameras in classrooms in the U.S. may be able to improve on the UK’s experiment to avoid the problems found there, while those who oppose the implementation may use the UK’s problems as reasoning for avoiding CCTV cameras in classrooms here.

Conclusion

Given the concentration of cameras in certain institutions, it’s no surprise that we’re now talking about implementing them in public school classrooms. While there are certainly benefits, such as added security and deterrence from fighting, there are also strong arguments against the practice, such as privacy concerns. Taking a cue from the UK’s book may be a smart idea, but whether or not the practice will catch on in the U.S. remains to be seen.

Resources

Primary 

Change.org: Cameras in Special Needs Classrooms

Hudson Park High School: CCTV Report

Additional

PR Web: CCTV Cameras Can Prevent Violence in the Classroom

SelfGrowth.com: Classrooms Should Have Closed-Circuit Cameras

Boss Closed Security: School Closed Circuit TV: How Does it Work and Why?

TES Connect: CCTV is Used to Spy on Teachers

Sydney Morning Herald: School Surveillance Puts Trust at Risk

LoveToKnow.com: Keep Security Cameras Out of School Classrooms

Salon: Big Brother Invades Our Classrooms

National Education Policy Center: Cameras in the Classroom: A Good Idea?

Guardian: Someone to Watch Over You

Learn By Cam: CCTV in Schools and Classrooms

USA Today: Who’s Watching the Class?

ZD Net: Should CCTV Be Allowed in Schools and Universities?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CCTV Cameras in Classrooms: Big Brother Watching? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that the state of public education in the United States is concerning. We are falling behind our peer nations, and recent efforts to improve the American education system haven’t been great. So what can be done? One proposal that has been floated is to link the pay of teachers to how successful their students are, sometimes referred to as “merit pay.” Read on to learn why merit pay was suggested, what it means, and what the arguments for and against merit pay are.

How’s the state of public education in the U.S.?

Let’s be honest, not that great. There are a lot of factors at play here, but a lot of people are concerned about what our students are learning. There are many voices and debates out there — should we test more or test less? Offer more structured education, or less structured education? No one’s really sure, but what we do know is that something definitely needs to change. A big question is if we’re spending money in the right places. Here’s a quick overview on the money spent in the American educational system.

What is merit pay?

Amid a general call for reform in American education that resulted in legislation such as the Bush Administration’s “No Child Left Behind” Act and the Obama Administration’s “Race To The Top” school incentive program, there has been a call for the implementation of a merit pay system for public school teachers. Currently, teachers get a set raise in salary each year. Merit pay would establish a system in which teachers would receive raises and bonuses based upon their effectiveness, much the same way that corporate employees receive raises.

There’s no real consensus about how merit pay would be decided — some suggestions include that it be tied to test scores, teacher evaluations, or a combination of those factors and other more intangible parameters.

What are the arguments for merit pay?

Advocates see merit pay as a fair system that would create a form of natural selection that retains effective teachers and drives out those who are ineffective. Advocates of merit pay note the flaws in the current system, wherein teachers who have been at a school the longest have the highest salaries based on set raises each year, and the tenure system that keeps older teachers in their jobs. They say this old system assumes that experience translates into effectiveness, which is not always the case, and also prevents younger teachers with newer, fresher ideas from being able to get jobs.

Advocates point to merit pay’s successful use in the corporate world as an indicator of its possibilities in education. If teachers’ salaries were based upon their performance, all teachers, young and old, would continually strive to improve their teaching and work hard throughout their careers to ensure that they are effective in teaching their students. This system would also draw more highly-qualified professionals to the profession who would have otherwise been driven away from a profession known for its relatively moderate salaries, thus adding more quality to the talent pool. While many opponents chafe at the thought of standardized test scores determining teacher salaries, advocates argue that this system could be based on a combination of test scores, lesson observations, school involvement, and even peer reviews.

Those who favor a merit pay system also point out that it was originally met with resistance in the business sector, as well. The current system of rewards that we see right now at many corporations only came to fruition around the early 1980s. It was deemed unfair and too subjective by many workers, but now it’s become the norm. Advocates for merit pay point out that the transformation didn’t happen overnight but rather took some time, and now business as a whole has been improved by the implementation. They argue that the same thing will happen with merit pay for teachers — it will take some time but the kinks will be worked out and everyone will eventually be pleased with the changes.

What are the arguments against merit pay?

Opponents of merit pay argue that this system would have less-than-desirable side effects that would damage the education system. Opponents point out that education budgets in most towns and cities are already stretched thin, and that these limited budgets would make the bonus incentives of merit pay minimal and parsimonious. Therefore this system would pit teachers against one another in competition for raises and destroy the collaboration that currently exists between teachers, while possibly leading to favoritism.

Merit pay would also reduce the intrinsic motivation that currently drives many teachers, replacing a genuine desire to educate students with a desire to merely jump through hoops in order to gain more money. Such attitudes, opponents argue, would promote a narrow focus on what educators are teaching students and, if the system were based even in part on standardized test scores, would also promote a practice of “teaching to the test”. “Teaching to the test” shows students how to answer simple, multiple-choice style questions without activating any deeper analytical or critical thought, and would provide an incomplete and shallow education for students as a result of standardized testing. If this emphasis were placed on standardized testing, the pursuit of merit pay would drive many effective teachers toward affluent, high-achieving districts and away from less affluent school districts where low socio-economic status and other problems often factor just as much into test scores as the effectiveness of a teacher.

There’s also the issue that merit pay would be very difficult to organize. The businesses that give certain employees bonuses for good performance already have many of the bureaucratic mechanisms in place. Schools don’t necessarily have the extra administrative capacity to come up with a fair and equitable way to measure merit in addition to actually implementing it. It would distract from the real goal of administrators: making sure that students receive the best education possible. Overall, opponents argue, these negative side effects of merit pay far outweigh the benefits it may bring to education.

Conclusion

There’s no doubt that there are plentiful issues that need to be discussed in the way we run our public schools. One proposition has been to link teachers’ salaries to their performance, however that performance may be measured. The idea, while certainly drawing some applause, and some ire, is an interesting one in an environment where ingenuity is so desperately needed.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Teacher Incentive Fund

Additional

City Journal: Why Merit Pay Will Improve Teaching

Forbes: Merit Pay For Teachers is Only Fair

ASCD: When Merit Pay is Worth Pursuing

Washington Post: Does Teacher Merit Pay Work? A New Study Says Yes

CATO Institute: Teachers Deserve Merit Pay, Not Special Interest Pay

NEA: Pay Based on Test Scores?

Washington Post: Why Merit Pay For Teachers Sounds Good–But Isn’t

United Teachers Los Angeles: No Merit to Merit Pay

Voice of San Diego: Problems With Merit Pay Outweigh Benefits

eSchool News: Why Teacher Merit Pay Can’t Work Today–and What Can Be Done About This

USA Today: States Push to Pay Teachers Based on Performance

Economist: Merit Pay for Teachers

Dayton Daily News: Schools Push Merit Pay For Teachers

Times-Picayune: Teachers to Begin Receiving Merit Pay Based on 2013-14 Evaluation Scores

wiseGEEK: What is Merit Pay For Teachers?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Merit Pay for Teachers Fix Our Education Woes? appeared first on Law Street.

Social Media has exploded in recent years as the most popular way for young people to communicate. At the time of a Pew study created in 2012, 95 percent of teens aged 12-17 had access to the Internet. Thirty-seven percent owned some sort of smart phone, and 80 percent had a computer. Eighty-one percent reported regularly using some sort of social media platform. While the specific social media platforms that teens actually use has evolved over the years, it’s clear that using these types of sites to communicate isn’t going away any time soon. Given that students are moving away from the kind of social media that their parents are attracted to, the question is clear: is anyone monitoring what happens on social media sites between teenagers? Read on to learn about the debate, the perspective of schools, and where we currently stand.

Why might schools get involved with student social media use?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teens and Social Media: How do Schools Fit In? appeared first on Law Street.

In a world where the price of gas is costly for both our wallets and the environment, environmentally friendly cars are becoming increasingly popular. In fact, the United States government is encouraging the purchase and use of environmentally friendly cars by offering tax credits. Read on to learn about the environmental car trend, tax credits offered, and their effects.

 What are environmentally friendly cars?

Environmentally friendly cars, sometimes referred to as “green” cars, are essentially cars that minimize their harmful effects on the environment. They can include, but are not limited to:

• Hybrid cars: While these cars can take many forms, this category of eco-friendly cars include any type of car that uses multiple energy sources to power a vehicle. The most common type is a hybrid-electric vehicle.
• Bio-diesel cars: These cars are powered by diesel, or a mix of diesel and vegetable oil.
• Ethanol-powered cars: This category of eco-friendly cars use ethanol created from a material such as corn, barley, or wheat.
• Electric cars: These cars run on electricity and are plugged in to gain enough charge to function.
• Hydrogen-powered cars: These vehicles use hydrogen for power, in the form of fuel cells. Many versions of hydrogen cars are still in the development processes.

Eco-friendly vehicles make up a relatively small number of the vehicles sold in the United States, but the market is growing. JD Power and Associates has estimated that by 2015 eco-friendly cars that contain some sort of hybrid component could make up as much as 10 percent of the vehicle market share.

What tax credits can you obtain for using an environmentally friendly car?

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a series of tax incentives, namely credits, for individuals purchasing or leasing eco-friendly vehicles such as electric cars, hybrids, and alternative-fuel vehicles. This bill was expanded upon by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Because of the added cost of their fuel-efficient technologies as well as their lack of presence in the current auto market, eco-friendly cars are significantly more expensive than similar cars with engines run on gasoline. These federal tax incentives were aimed at increasing the sales of these “green” cars to make them a larger part of the transportation vehicle market and thus reduce harmful carbon emissions in the United States into the environment.

Currently, individuals purchasing electric cars and plug-in hybrids can qualify for a tax credit of up to $7,500 dollars, which in some cases can significantly reduce the cost of these cars. These incentives are designed to gradually phase out for a given manufacturer after that company has sold more than 60,000 electric cars. Individual states also have their own incentives for purchasing “green” cars. Since their introduction into the car market, there has been debate as to whether these incentives are effective reaching their goals or whether they should even be offered in the first place.

What is the argument for creating these tax credits?

Supporters of these incentives argue that tax credits will increase sales of this type of car and help establish eco-friendly car brands such as Tesla or the Nissan Leaf as economically viable options for consumers. When the federal and state tax incentives are combined with the increased fuel economy, they often become just as cheap, if not cheaper, than standard gasoline-combustion cars. Leases are popular for these relatively-new cars, and in many states such as Washington and Georgia, where state tax incentives for eco-friendly cars are high, individuals are able to lease these cars nearly for free.

Supporters assert that these tax incentives allow fledgling hybrid manufacturers to gain an economic foothold and to become serious competitors in the auto market. Through increased sales due to federal tax incentives, Nissan was able to open lithium ion battery factories in Tennessee to cut down on cars being shipped from Japan, allowing them to drop the price of the Nissan Leaf by $6,400. Price reductions such as this will lead to increased sales and company growth, allowing hybrid manufacturers to gain a larger share of the profit from auto sales. Altogether, as hybrid manufacturers grow and as more people purchase and lease hybrid and electric cars, US emissions will be dramatically reduced.

What is the argument against creating the tax credits?

Opponents of these tax incentives argue that the tax credits do not make these environmentally-friendly cars more cost effective; they do not help reduce emissions; and they only make “green” cars more affordable to already-wealthy individuals while requiring taxpayers and the federal government to foot the bill.

The federal government imposes standards on the average fuel economy of all vehicles each company sells, and mandates that a company cannot exceed this limit. By selling more hybrid cars, car companies are in fact able to sell more low-fuel economy cars while still adhering to these federal standards, thus negating the tax incentives’ effect on improving the environment. And while tax incentives in some states may make eco-friendly cars cheaper to lease, some studies indicate that even with the tax incentives cars such as the Chevy Volt could still take up to 27 years to pay off.

The Congressional Budget Office stated in a 2012 report that it would require tax incentives of about $12,000 — $4,500 higher than current incentives — to have a serious impact upon the price of hybrid and electric cars. According to these reports, hybrid and electric cars still are not affordable to the average consumer. Opponents then argue that the tax incentives only serve to make these eco-friendly cars more affordable for affluent families who can already afford them. Meanwhile, the federal government and taxpayers are forced to cover the money lost by these incentives. The Congressional Budget Office report estimated these incentives would cost the federal government roughly $7.5 billion through 2019.

There’s also some concern about whether or not hybrids are actually good for the environment, as depicted in the infographic below.

Conclusion

Environmentally friendly cars are certainly here to stay, and while their market share increases the government has been happy to encourage it. However, as they become more prevalent among the average driver, the government may not have the resources to continue with the tax credits. For now, it’s a innovative program that could be a good choice for those in the market for a new car.

Resources

Primary

State of Utah: Clean Fuel Vehicle Tax Credit

U.S. Congress: Energy Policy Act of 2005

Additional

Wall Street Journal: To Spark Buyers for Electric Cars, Drop the Price to Nearly $0

Street: Why Electric Cars Are Selling in California: They’re Free

Palisades Hudson Financial Group: Atlanta Turns Over a New Leaf

Seattle Times: Seen a Tesla Today? Electric Cars Turn Up Fastest in Washington State

The New York Times: Payoff For Efficient Cars Takes Years

Fortune: Electric Vehicles Still Struggling to be Cost-Competitive

American Enterprise Institute: Subsidy-Powered Vehicles

Forbes: If Tesla Would Stop Selling Cars, We’d All Save Some Money

Congressional Budget Office: Effects of Federal Tax Credits for the Purchase of Electric Vehicles

Bankrate.com: Tax Breaks For Gas Savers

Green Car Reports: Will Georgia Kill Its $5,000 Tax Credit For Electric-Car Purchases

San Francisco Gate: Car Fuel Efficiency Tax Breaks

Internal Revenue Service: Going Green May Reduce Your Taxes

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Tax Credit Battle Over Environmentally Friendly Cars appeared first on Law Street.

The vast majority of public school classrooms in the United States are composed of students of both genders. While some private schools do occasionally embark on single-sex education, public schools focus on a blend of genders. However, there is growing debate about the effectiveness of each method of education. Read on to learn about single-sex education, its benefits, its problems, and its future.

History of Single-Sex Education

In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, single-sex classrooms in public schools were the norm and a product of cultural views on women and their roles in society. In the latter half of the twentieth century, however, single-sex education was only found in elite private schools and reserved for students whose parents could afford to send their children to expensive preparatory programs. Recently, however, there has been a push to offer single-sex classrooms in the American public school system.

In the mid 1990s, there were only two public schools in the United States that offered single-sex classrooms; today there are more than 500. As education professionals search for innovative ways to improve the education system, many have looked toward single-sex education as a way to capitalize on boys’ and girls’ different learning styles. While various studies and reports proclaiming the merits of a single-sex education, many claim just the opposite.

What are the Arguments for Single-Sex Education?

Advocates claim single-sex education offers students a learning environment that is directed toward their gender’s natural learning style. Research has shown that boys and girls learn differently; where boys often learn better in an environment that emphasizes physical activity and more structure, girls often learn best in a classroom that emphasizes verbal communication and empathy. In a single-sex classroom, a teacher would be better able to focus on those learning styles to enhance the experiences of each gender.

Advocates also argue that a single-sex classroom would help to remove existing gender biases, which some professionals say are pushing girls away from computer technology careers and boys away from the arts. Traditionally, boys excel in math and sciences while girls succeed more in the arts and English. Some argue that single-sex classrooms would allow students to explore all of these areas unhindered by any gender biases that may exist.

Many people point out that removing the distraction of trying to impress the other gender, especially for middle and high school students, would improve student performance. Experts say girls tend to “dumb themselves down” for boys, while boys will often act out or goof off in order to catch the attention of girls. Without the distraction of the opposite gender, some experts say that students will be more focused and serious about their schoolwork.

What are the Arguments Against Single-Sex education?

Opponents of single-sex classrooms point out the similarities between separating genders in education and the “separate but equal” doctrine aimed at African Americans in public schools in the 1950s. They argue that separate but equal education is “inherently unequal.”

To some, single-sex classrooms violate Title IX, a federal educational amendment that requires females to be included in any educational program or activity. Opponents feel that single-sex classrooms would actually reinforce the same gender stereotypes advocates hope to eliminate. The kind of learning environments proposed by advocates of single-sex classrooms cater to existing stereotypes about males and females, and would present problems for students such as, for instance, a sensitive boy or an assertive girl.

Opponents argue that students are not cookie cutter molds of the traits commonly associated with their gender; rather their character varies along a spectrum ranging from loud and physically active to quiet and empathetic. Single-sex classrooms would trap students in rigid stereotypes, failing to allow students who fall anywhere else on the spectrum the chance to grow individually and academically.

Additionally, opponents say the true failure of a single-sex education is that it does not provide opportunities for boys and girls to work together, thus failing to prepare them for a co-educational world. As women anchor their places in American industry and business, today’s students will need to learn how to function with both genders, without being distracted simply because of the presence of the opposite sex.

Case Studies: Examples of Single-Sex Education Across the U.S.

Urban Prep

Located in Chicago, Illinois, Urban Prep Academies is a collection of single-sex all-male public charter schools. They are currently the only all-male public schools in the state of Illinois. The curriculum includes a heavy focus on community and public service, and working toward either college admittance or a professional field. Urban Prep has made reaching out to young men, and teaching in ways that correspond to the way in which young men learn, one of its primary goals.

The success of Urban Prep has been well documented — it certainly has had a higher graduation rate than many of its peers in other public schools in the area. However, there are questions as to whether that comes from the single-sex aspect of education, or the other benefits offered by a charter school like Urban Prep. There’s also the question of whether the model that Urban Prep employs would be sustainable on a wider scale.

William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity

The William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity (WALIPP), located in Houston, Texas, is an all-male public school. One interesting aspect of WALIPP is that in addition to an all-male student population, the teaching staff is also all men. The reasoning behind such specific hiring is that the teachers act as strong male role models for the young men who are in their classrooms. Many of the young men at WALIPP were raised primarily by their mothers, in single-family households, and benefit from having successful older men to look to for guidance. Audrey Lawson, the founder of WALIPP, explained that: “inner city boys started out not being thought of as good students. In elementary school, they have had mostly women teachers, and girls respond better to them.” 

Conclusion

Whether or not we’ll start to move more convincingly toward single-sex classrooms is uncertain; although it is important to note that as more charter schools try unconventional methods, it is certainly a possibility. The benefits have yet to be proven, but as American students constantly struggle in meeting educational benchmarks, the experiment of single-sex learning may be valuable enough for some schools to consider worth the risk.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Department of Education: Title IX and Sex Discrimination

Additional

Washington Post: Boys and Girls Learn Separately at Prince George’s School

National Association for Single Sex Public Education: What Have Researchers Found When They Compare Single-Sex Education With Co-Education?

Denver Post: Genders Split Up At More Schools

CRC Health Group: The Many Advantages of Single-Sex Schools

ASCD: Single-Gender Classes Can Respond to the Needs of Boys and Girls

Synonym: The Disadvantages of Single Gender Education Schools

Al Jazeera America: Study: Single-Sex Education Offers No Benefits

Atlantic: The Trouble With Single-Sex Schools

American Psychological Association: Single-Sex Education Unlikely to Offer Advantage Over Coed Schools, Research Finds

The New York Times: Single-Sex Education is Assailed in Report

Washington Post: More Schools Trying Separation of the Sexes

Huffington Post: Arlington High School in Indianapolis Separating Boys and Girls in Classes

Great Schools: Single-Sex Education: The Pros and Cons

Atlantic: The Never-Ending Controversy Over All Girls Education

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post More Public Schools are Experimenting With Single-Sex Education appeared first on Law Street.

The United States has long had a population heavily built on immigration. Currently, many immigrants coming into the United States are from Hispanic nations. The question of whether or not the U.S. should provide bilingual educational opportunities for these immigrants and their children has long been a pressing debate. Read on to learn about what bilingual education is, why it’s important, and what the arguments are both for and against.

History of Bilingual Education

Bilingual education has long been offered by the United States to its immigrant populations. In the late 1830s, Ohio began offering English classes for German immigrant students. Louisiana also offered early bilingual education classes for French-speaking immigrants. Wherever there were large influxes of immigrant populations, states enacted provisions to provide multilingual education for those groups.

As a result of reactionary national attitudes during the early twentieth century, however, the U.S. started to shift away from offering bilingual education services. English-only education was adopted in a sort of a sink-or-swim attitude. It wasn’t until later in the twentieth century that bilingual education became a consideration once again.

Bilingual Education Act of 1968

The Bilingual Education Act (BEA) of 1968 was passed as part of a move toward more expansive Civil Rights for immigrant populations, particularly Hispanic immigrants. The BEA mainly helped to provide federal funding to states and schools looking to implement bilingual education programs. The BEA has undergone many significant changes since its original passage. In 1974, the act was expanded to reach more students and provide additional funding. In 1978, amendments were added again to further expand the pool of students reached by the act to those who spoke some English but still needed help gaining full proficiency. The bill was expanded again in 1984 and 1988, creating more professional support and flexibility in bilingual education programs.

What Bilingual Education Does

Since the first large waves of Hispanic immigrants began to arrive and build their lives in America in the 1960s, bilingual education has been seen by some as the answer and by others as the roadblock to English language acquisition and academic success for the children of foreign-language speakers. From 2000 to 2010, the US Census captured a 43 percent increase in the Hispanic population of the United States, resulting in 35 million children aged five and over who speak Spanish in their homes.

The goal of bilingual education is to help students who are learning English as a second language by teaching partially in their native language and partially in English. In this way, supporters believe, the transition from their native language to English is eased and the student is able to learn other subjects such as math, science, and history while becoming fluent in English. Despite a sound methodology, bilingual education has become controversial in the last few decades as to whether or not it truly brings non-native speakers up to speed with students who speak English as their first language.

Since the late 90s, California, Arizona, and Massachusetts have all passed laws banning bilingual education in favor of an English immersion model. In the rest of the states bilingual programs can look wildly different, and this lack of continuity adds fuel to the burning debate over the virtue of bilingual education.

What are the arguments in favor of bilingual education?

Supporters of bilingual education argue that these programs have strong academic benefits for non-English speaking students, in addition to the added benefit of preserving cultural heritages and preparing our students for success in a global economy. Some studies have shown that it is easier for students to learn how to read in their native languages and then transfer those skills over into a new language, rather than learning to read and learning a new language at the same time. Simply put, once reading “clicks” in one language, it’s a lot easier to do in another language.

Vocabulary is also easier to transition when a student already knows a similar word in his native tongue. Most students, regardless of what they learn in school, will probably speak their native languages at home. Being able to incorporate that into their studies allow for a more comfortable transition, and better ability to interact with their families about their schoolwork. With the struggle of learning to read eased by bilingual programs, many suggest this would reduce student stress and contribute to smoother acculturation and socialization of these students.

In the multicultural atmosphere of America, supporters argue that it is important to preserve the cultural heritage of foreign language speakers by allowing them to incorporate their native languages into American education and thus, American culture. It also helps children to retain their identity and be able to communicate with relatives who may not speak English. A strong sense of cultural identity can have a positive effect on a child’s well-being, confidence, and emotional and mental health. It also helps them share their language and cultural identity with their English-speaking peers.

Additionally, supporters point out that in an increasingly global economy, the United States will need more bilingual business executives to ensure that American businesses remain compatible with foreign markets. Countless other professions, including health care, education, legal jobs, and others can be aided by including workers who speak multiple languages fluently. Bilingual education also helps native English speakers — they will have access to jobs that require bilingual speakers.

What are the arguments against bilingual education?

Opponents also have studies and data to suggest that a bilingual education in fact retards student growth and delays English acquisition. Opponents often favor English immersion, a method in which the student is taught in nothing but English. The argument here is that by being immersed in the language students will become English-literate more quickly and will be able to join students on the regular educational track.

Opponents argue that bilingual education programs actually delay English acquisition by “coddling” students in their native language for too long. The failure of bilingual programs keeps students on a lengthened ELL track that essentially segregates these students from the rest of the student population, making acculturation and socialization among their American peers more difficult and denying them from ever reaching their true educational potential. Additionally, opponents argue that the language of financial success in America is English, and that although the global economy brings more foreign languages in contact with American businesses, it is still English that is spoken in American board rooms and meetings, making it imperative that the children of non-native speakers learn English as quickly as possible through English immersion.

Bilingual education is also expensive and requires more staff. These staff members need to be trained in not only how to speak both languages in which they are teaching, but also how to appropriately teach children how to learn English in an academic setting.

Conclusion

The debate over bilingual education is ongoing, and as the United States becomes increasingly multicultural, it will likely continue to wage on. For now, however, the BEA remains in effect, and the United States strives to do its best to educate every student, regardless of background.

Resources

Primary

Brockton (MA) Public Schools: Bilingual Education Program

State of California: English Language in Public Schools Initiative Statute

Additional

National Association for Bilingual Education: What is Bilingual Education

San Diego State University: California’s Bilingual Education Debate: A Case Study in Intergroup Conflict and Patterns of Prejudice

Education Week: Should Bilingual Learning Be Required?

Denver Business Journal: The Pros of Bilingual Education

Atlantic: The Case Against Bilingual Education

Human Events: Abolish Bilingual Education

Hoover Institution: Bilingual Education: A Critique

ProEnglish: Bilingual Education

University of Southern California: Bilingual Education, the Acquisition of English, and the Retention and Loss of Spanish

WNYC: English Immersion: The Bilingual Education Debate

MoraModules: The Bilingual Education Controversy: a Road Map

CNN: Should Kids Be Taught In Spanish?

ASCD: Bilingual Education: Effective Programming for Language-Minority Students

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Merits of Bilingual Education Divide the Education Community appeared first on Law Street.

The global community is quickly working its way through the natural resources available to us. As we seek new ways to access oil and gas, one of the newest possible frontiers is the American Atlantic Coast. The U.S. has toyed with using a supposedly minimally invasive tactic to test for oil and gas deep in the Atlantic Ocean called airgun testing. Read on to find out what airgun testing is, what affect it has on the environment, and what its prospects are moving forward.

What is Airgun Testing?

Airgun testing is essentially a way to test for oil and gas reserves. The seismic airguns attach onto ships, and then blast loud, strong bursts of air onto the ocean floor. How the air responds can tell the airgun operator whether or not there may be oil or gas reserves below the surface. Watch the video below for a simple, technical explanation of how airgun testing works.

The History of Airgun Testing in the United States

On February 27, an Environmental Impact Statement was released by the Interior Department that allows the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to begin issuing permits for seismic testing off the Atlantic Coast for oil and gas exploration. Although the ocean floor was tested for oil reserves in the 1970s and 80s, many experts feel those reports used outdated technology and gave an inaccurate representation of the oil and gas deposits in the Atlantic.

Some experts say that oil reserves could be found off the Atlantic coast that would be similar to those known to be in the Gulf of Mexico and could dramatically boost the American economy. Environmental groups, however, strongly oppose oil exploration using this method, as it is known to kill small fish and eggs in close vicinity to the air blasts. The long-term effects on the behavior of larger aquatic animals such as dolphins and whales is unknown. The proposed area for seismic exploration spans several miles off the coast and stretches from Delaware to Florida, and though the area in question is banned from any oil exploration activity until 2017, the next president could overturn that rule.

What are the arguments in favor of airgun testing?

Advocates of oil exploration off the Atlantic Coast using airgun seismic testing argue that the permits issued by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) place restrictions that will make airgun testing safe for marine wildlife. The Environmental Impact Statement recommends three restrictions to ensure that these tests are conducted in a safe, environmentally conscious manner:

1. Prohibit survey activity on the migratory routes of the endangered Right Whale. A path roughly 20 miles wide would be created in the middle of the proposed area in which exploration could not be conducted from November through April — the whale migration season — creating a safe corridor for the whales.
2. Prohibit more than one survey from being conducted at any given time.
3. Prior to any survey activity, exploration vehicles would be required to use passive acoustic monitoring systems to identify wildlife in the exploration area; if any wildlife are found that would be affected by the airgun, the survey area for that day would be shifted to a different location.

Advocates feel that these provisions, written into any permits issued by the BOEM, would safeguard against potential negative effects of airgun testing.

Advocates also point to the economic benefits of updated oil exploration off the Atlantic Coast. Some experts claim that the Atlantic coast could hold the equivalent of seven years of oil generated in the Gulf of Mexico, enough to boost the American economy and strengthen the United States’ energy security. The American Petroleum Institute has estimated that the oil to be found there could generate nearly 280,000 jobs, $195 billion in private revenue, and $51 billion in government revenue.These estimates, of course, are dependent upon the discovery of more oil than the current 3.3 billion barrels estimated to be there. Additionally, supporters argue that airgun testing can also be used for tasks such as discovering sand deposits for beach recovery and as scouting for possible locations of off-shore wind turbines.

What are the Arguments Against Airgun Testing?

Opponents argue that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has been too hasty in its approval for permits without proper studies of the long-term effects of airgun testing on marine wildlife. It is known that the high pressure airgun blasts can injure or kill small fish and their eggs, but little is known about the long-term effects on marine animals such as behavioral disruption, migration, and mating patterns. The area up for seismic testing puts 34 species of whales and dolphins and several species of turtles at risk. Because sound travels faster in water, aquatic wildlife miles away from the seismic testing could be affected, although the effects of airgun testing are still being studied. Environmental group Oceana argues that the November through April ban on seismic testing will not save the whales and that the BOEM did little to use current acoustic data on whale activity or search for alternatives methods to airgun testing.

Airgun testing in the Atlantic has also sparked backlash because it could potentially harm tourism and fishing industries in coastal areas, in addition to the negative effects of offshore oil production that are sure to result from oil exploration. Opponents point to the results of airgun testing off the coast of Southwestern Africa, which severely disrupted tuna migration patterns, and thus damaged the tuna industry that normally thrives in that area.

Some experts argue that while 280,000 jobs in oil exploration and production could be created, some 730,000 jobs in the fishing and tourism industries would be lost if oil exploration were to disrupt aquatic wildlife. Additionally, opponents argue that oil exploration will inevitably progress to oil production, which could have disastrous effects upon the Atlantic coast. The effects are still felt today of the 2006 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Exxon-Valdez oil spill near Alaska in 1989. The same type of oil spill could potentially occur off the Atlantic coast if drilling were permitted there, which runs the risk of affecting a greater population than either of the previous spills. Oil drilling itself could pose a myriad of negative effects upon marine wildlife, and airgun testing could be blamed for paving the way to large-scale offshore oil drilling near the Atlantic coast.

 Resources

Primary

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management: Atlantic Geological and Geophysical Activities Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

Additional

Bloomberg: Review Clears Path For Seismic Tests of U.S. Atlantic Oil

International Business Times: Obama Administration Releases Environmental Study to Set Rules For Oil and Gas Exploration in Atlantic Ocean

Examiner: Use of Air Guns Being Considered For U.S. Oil and Gas Exploration

Greenville Online: Rules Set For Oil Testing in Atlantic Ocean

Star News Online: McCrory Adds Voice to Coastal Governors Who Want Offshore Drilling

Climate Progress: ‘Airgun’ Drilling in the Atlantic Wouldn’t Find Much Oil, But Could Harm Wildlife

National Geographic: Atlantic Seismic Tests For Oil: Marine Animals At Risk?

EcoWatch: U.S. to Allow Seismic Airgun Testing For Offshore Drilling Exploration, Will Threaten Marine Life

Oceana: Seismic Airguns: An Ocean Threat

The New York Times: U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over Sea Life

McClatchy DC: Interior Department Favors Controversial Seismic Tests For Atlantic Ocean Oil

Tech Times: Atlantic Oil Drilling Using Seismic Airgun May Wipe Out Endangered Right Whales

Washington Post: U.S. Rules Would Allow ‘Seismic Air Guns’ in Search For Offshore Oil, Gas

TIME: To Drill or Not to Drill: The Debate Over Offshore Testing and Drilling in the Atlantic

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Airgun Testing For Oil Reserves is a Controversial Environmental Issue appeared first on Law Street.

For the average American public high school student, school starts around 8:00am. When you factor in the fact that bus and/or driving transportation is required, the day can start much earlier for most students. Many people have argued that school should start later for growing adolescents. Read on to learn about the laws surrounding our educational start times, the debate about changing the times, and what factors are taken into account when planning a school’s first bell.

Why does school start so early?

There’s not actually a very good answer to this question. It’s partly tradition — school has always started early, possibly as a way to “train” students for the real world. There’s also the desire to make time for extracurriculars. A packed resume becomes more desirable for college applicants, so schools want to leave plenty of time in the afternoon for students to engage in sports, clubs, part-time jobs, and other activities. With regard to sports and other outdoor activities, schools want to leave enough time for students to be able to be outside before it gets too dark. There’s also the transportation argument — often school districts stagger when local levels of schools start so they don’t need to send out buses for elementary, middle, and high school students at the same time.

What would be the benefits to changing the start times?

Less Tardiness, More Participation 

It is no secret that during their first period of the day, high school students are often still mentally asleep, which creates problems involving both class participation and school tardiness. The University of Minnesota conducted a study when the Minneapolis Public School System changed the starting time of seven high schools from 7:15am to 8:40am. The study found that students benefited academically from gaining additional hours of sleep each week. Advocates of later morning bells argue that this shift would enable students and teachers to make more of the school day.

Preventing Accidents

Additionally, many high school juniors and seniors who drive to high school in the morning are often “driving drowsy” and the decreased alertness caused by driving this early in the morning is often a factor in many adolescent automobile accidents. “Driving drowsy” is incredibly dangerous:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conservatively estimates that 100,000 police-reported crashes are the direct result of driver fatigue each year. This results in an estimated 1,550 deaths, 71,000 injuries, and $12.5 billion in monetary losses. These figures may be the tip of the iceberg, since currently it is difficult to attribute crashes to sleepiness.

Additionally, according to the National Sleep Foundation, adults between 18-29 are more likely to get into accidents from driving drowsy. While there doesn’t appear to be statistics available for 16 and 17-year-old drivers, it’s safe to assume they’d be consistent with or worse than that of their slightly older counterparts. Allowing students to get more adequate nights of sleep would help prevent potentially dangerous accidents.

Helping Teenagers to Grow

One of the most convincing arguments for why we might want to change the start times at the high school level is that they don’t work with the specific circadian rhythms of teenagers. According to doctors, when adolescents hit puberty, their bodies release melatonin later into the night than adults. This makes it very difficult for them to fall asleep, even if they go to bed early, and therefore harder to wake up first thing in the morning. In addition, teenagers need more sleep than adults, given that they are usually still growing. It’s estimated that a teenager needs about nine-and-a-half hours of sleep on any given night.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently started advocating for a school day that starts at 8:30am or later. The doctors explain that sleep deprivation can have very negative ramifications on students’ health. It’s unsurprisingly much harder to concentrate on school work and tests when you’re running on less sleep than your body needs to operate. But there are also lesser known consequences: lack of sleep among teenagers hasbeen linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety, and obesity.

What are the arguments against changing school start times?

Opponents acknowledge that current school schedules are out of sync with teenagers’ natural sleep cycles; however, many parents and administrators argue that these changes would bring about a number of problems, and therefore would not be worth the questionable academic benefits to their students.

As more students each year apply to colleges, extracurricular activities and sports have become vital in rounding out a student’s resume; however, if school starts and ends later, students will have less time for these extracurricular activities. Additionally, many students either have to watch younger siblings after school while their parents work or have after-school jobs themselves, both of which would become problematic if these students were to get out of school later. Busing would become a major problem, as well. Administrators have stated that it would be impossible to bus high school, middle school, and elementary students all at the same time, and they are unwilling to have elementary school children walking to school or waiting for the bus at 6:45 in the morning.

High school students driving to school later would often end up getting caught right in the middle of morning rush hour traffic, negating the decrease in the risk of accidents due to drowsy driving. Lastly, there are many who feel that if school were to start later, students would simply use that as an excuse to go to bed late. Oponents instead argue that it is the parent’s jobs to strictly enforce curfews to ensure that their children get adequate sleep in preparation of their early schedules, and that students need to learn to get up early before entering the real world.

What else can be done to help students get more sleep?

While it seems like schools are starting to consider later start times, and more and more doctors are advocating for these changes, we probably won’t be seeing changes anytime soon. There are a lot of logistical, financial, and policy issues that need to be untangled before schools shift start times dramatically. In the mean time, doctors recommend that students attempt to get the appropriate amount of sleep whenever possible, and that their parents help as much as they can.

One big recommendation deals with the increasingly common use of electronics before bed time. As Children’s Hospital pediatrician Mary Palmer points out:

As society has moved along, now we have things that keep us awake after the sun goes down. You have to have a time to process and decompress and if you’re still multitasking, which most of our electronics have us doing. I mean, we’re going from email to Twitter and there’s just so many inputs, so you have to have less distractors.

While adolescents’ Circadian rhythms may be different than those of adults, it’s still important to listen to advice like Palmer’s. Steps can be taken that make it easier for students to fall asleep at times that will give them the appropriate amount of shut-eye before school starts in the morning. While many schools are still working their way through instituting later start times for high school students, this advice is especially valuable.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. House of Representatives:  H. Con. Res. 176 ZZZ’s to A’s Resolution

Fairfax County School Board: Goal to Start High Schools After 8:00AM

Additional

KUOW.org: Sleep-Deprived Teenagers? Starting School Later Could Help Them Catch Up

Today: Teen Sleep Zombies: Should High Schools Have Later Start Times?

Smithsonian: School Really Should Start Later

National Sleep Foundation: School Start Time and Sleep

Start School Later: What’s the Big Deal?

Bethesda Magazine: Not Everyone Thinks MCPS High Schools Should Start Later

The New York Times: Are You Up Yet?

WFSU: Proposal to Push Back High School Start Times Raised School Districts’ Ire

Washington Post: Spend Millions to Let Teens Sleep Later?

mLive: Why Do High School Kids Go to School So Early? Because That’s the Way it’s Always Been

Week: Should High School Start Later?

ABC WFTS: More Debate On if High School Students Should Start Classes Later

Huffington Post: Should a School Change Start Time For Sleep? Later School Times Improve Student Performance: Study

Associated Press: Starting High School Later May Help Sleepy Teens

CBS: Stop Starting School So Early Doctors Say

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post School Start Times: Do More ZZZs Equal More A’s? appeared first on Law Street.

Charter schools have made news in recent years among American pedagogues, offering quality education for students who often live in inner city areas where a quality education is hard to come by. While repeated attempts have been made to reform America’s public school system, educational progressives have hailed charter schools as the solution to the problem of overcrowded, under-achieving public schools in urban areas; however, some see the special privileges that have been endowed on these schools recently, such as free real estate inside public school buildings, as too much of a distraction from the job of truly improving public schools. One such debate took place in New York City, when Mayor Bill De Blasio chose not to let charter schools move into public school space. Read on to learn about the controversy.

The Buildup

In New York City, former Mayor Bloomberg had accepted applications by charter schools to co-habit public school buildings rent free, allowing charter schools to open up in areas where rent and real estate are expensive. However, Mayor Bill De Blasio has been vocal about his opposition to providing special privileges to charter schools. De Blasio made comments about prolific New York charter school founder Eva Moskowitz during his election campaign, saying “There’s no way in hell Eva Moskowitz should get free rent, OK?” and “These changes appear to be part of a sustained pattern to privilege Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy schools with space and resources at the expense of the traditional public schools with which they share buildings.”

True to his word, on February 27, 2014 De Blasio withdrew three agreements to allow charter schools to share space with public schools in public education buildings. These three withdrawals were the only ones among 17 total charter school applications, leaving 14 charter schools that were permitted to continue with plans to share public education space. While the Mayor’s administration used a strict set of four criteria to withdraw those schools, the three he did revoke were all from the Success Academy chain headed by Moskowitz, leading many opponents to argue that this was an act of a personal vendetta.

What’s the argument in favor of De Blasio’s actions?

De Blasio’s supporters see this issue as a political ploy by Moskowitz to maintain her company’s economic growth in New York City, and maintain that De Blasio used unbiased criteria in his selection of schools to withdraw from co-location agreements. Out of 45 total applications, De Blasio approved 36–an overwhelming majority–and of the 17 charter school applicants, 14 were approved. The De Blasio administration used the following four criteria as the basis for this decision:

• It would not approve putting an elementary school in a high school.
• It would not open any school with fewer than 250 students because the school would be too small to meet the needs of students.
• It would not approve any co-locations that required heavy construction.
• It would not approve any co-locations that dislocated students with disabilities.

Many find these perfectly reasonable criteria, and 36 of the 45 applying schools met these requirements. De Blasio claims that these approvals were rushed by the previous administration, and that they simply did not pass his own set of criteria. Some Moskowitz opponents also argue that the reason behind Success Academy’s triumphs in New York City is due to the Academy’s ability as a private school to dismiss or force out any unsatisfactory students, including students with special needs. This allows them to retain only the upper-tier students to generate excellent test scores and apparent success. These charter schools also often cater to the city’s political and economic elite, ensuring charter schools’ continued success through campaign contributions and political dealings.

Additionally, the Success Charter School chain had submitted eight total co-location applications, five of which were approved by De Blasio. The Mayor’s supporters equate Moskowitz’s actions to those of someone throwing a tantrum for not getting everything she wants. After learning of the three withdrawn applications, Moskowitz closed all Success Academy schools on March 4, 2014 to organize a protest march to Albany to combat the new mayor, and since then has filed a lawsuit against the mayor for his co-location decisions. This is in addition to an event in October in which Moskowitz also closed all her schools to organize a march across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest De Blasio during his mayoral campaign. De Blasio supporters argue that Moskowitz is using cheap political tactics at the expense of students to fight with a mayor who simply blocked three of five new schools from obtaining free rent in America’s largest city.

What are the arguments of those who disagree with De Blasio?

Opponents accuse De Blasio of using politics to level a personal vendetta against the Success Academy leader, and point to charter schools’ proven success rate to argue that these schools should be given the same chance as public schools to flourish in New York City and elsewhere. De Blasio had already made remarks about Moskowitz during his campaign, saying she was a person not to be “tolerated, enabled, and supported.” Some opponents frame these application withdrawals as a Chris Christie-esque act of political revenge.

Additionally, charter schools have been proven successful in New York City. Success Academy Harlem 4’s students have some of the highest math scores in New York State, but with their co-location application denied, they do not have the resources to expand and accept more students. Many parents are upset at the prospect of being forced to send their children to their local public schools, where dropouts and crime are common. In the end, charter school supporters argue, it’s the children who are most affected by De Blasio’s policy. Roughly 600 students already enrolled in the Success Academy schools that were about to be opened up will instead be routed to an uncertain future in the public school system, prompting calls from many to put aside political bickering in favor of true discussion over what is best for New York City’s children.

 Resources

Primary

NYC Charter Schools: Co-Location: How Public Schools Share Space in New York City

Additional

Huffington Post: The Smear Campaign Against Bill De Blasio

Brooklyn Eagle: Parents, Teachers, Kids, Pols Rally Against Charter School Plans

DNA Info: Harlem Special Needs School Rallies Against Charter School Expansion

Washington Post: Why NYC Mayor Is Getting Unfairly Bashed Over Charter Schools

New York Post: Deputy Mayor: Charter School Expansion Could Lead to “Privatized” School System

New York Post: De Blasio Starts His War on Charter Schools

Fox News: New York’s De Blasio Boots Charter Schools From City Space

CNN: New York Mayor Fails Charter School Kids

US News: De Blasio Stands Alone: De Blasio Has an Extreme Position on Charter Schools

Washington Post: Why is New York Mayor Bill De Blasio Undermining Charter Schools?

New York Magazine: Mayor De Blasio vs. Charter Schools, Round 1

The New York Times: De Blasio Seeks to Halt 3 Charter Schools From Moving Into Public Spaces

Huffington Post: Major Charter School Chain To Lose Space Under New De Blasio Plan

New York Daily News: Charter Schools Axed By Mayor De Blasio

Fox News: NYC Mayor De Blasio Hit With 3 New Lawsuits in Charter School Fights

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Preventing Charter and Public Schools From Sharing Space appeared first on Law Street.

On December 18, 2013, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus unveiled a discussion draft for an energy tax reform plan intended to make progress in the federal government’s current system of corporate tax incentives for the production of clean energy. The old system was criticized as being too complicated and too decentralized. Read on to learn about Baucus’ energy plan, the arguments in favor of it, and the arguments against it.

What was Baucus’ plan?

There are forty separate tax incentives offered to corporations for a variety of forms of energy including fossil fuels, wind, solar, and nuclear power; however, many of these are short-term incentives set to expire every two years or so until they are re-authorized by Congress, often leaving companies unsure of which tax incentives would still be in effect in the future. These incentives are also often specific in a way that does not provide for new and emerging technologies that may contribute to reducing emissions.

Senator Baucus’ plan aims to make energy tax incentives “more predictable, rational, and tech-neutral” by consolidating some of these incentives and eliminating others to form two broader and simpler tax incentives, one focused on clean production of electricity and one focused on clean production of transportation fuel. These incentives are granted after a particular plant is using a method that produces emissions intensity 25 percent cleaner than average energy production methods (“emissions intensity” is measured as the amount of emissions released per amount of energy produced, and is used to compare the environmental effect of different methods of energy production).

Baucus’ plan also calls for using the federal money saved through this tax reform to lower the corporate tax rate, which currently stands at 35 percent. Baucus, however, was confirmed in January as the next US Ambassador to China, and though leadership of the Senate Finance Commission will transfer to Senator Ron Wyden, who has worked closely with Baucus on this reform plan, many expect the plan to become stalled as its leader moves overseas. Despite this uncertain future, Baucus’ reform plan is seen as an indicator of impending reform to the current energy tax system in the United States.

What is the argument for Baucus’ plan?

Supporters of the reform say Baucus’ plan is an effective way to simplify the tax incentive structure while supporting clean energy. Companies would not have to waiting on their toes to see whether the particular incentives that apply to them would be renewed, and knowing that these incentives will have more longevity would promote more investment into clean energy production technology projects in the future. Most importantly, this reform plan is tech-neutral, meaning that it does not favor certain technologies over others and in fact does not specify any technologies in its incentives.

Supporters argue that this aspect of the plan will benefit newer and cleaner technologies that may not necessarily fit into the rigid outlines of our current tax incentives, thus paving the way for further innovation and investment into energy-producing technology. Additionally, many of the incentives that are to be eliminated and not included in the broader transportation fuel incentive are tax breaks that benefit Big Oil, a move hailed by many supporters who do not see the point of offering tax breaks to companies in an industry that has shown record profits year after year [cite]. Lastly, with the federal revenue gained from simplifying the tax incentive structure and removing breaks for big oil companies, Senator Baucus’ plan intends to lower corporate tax rates, which supporters hope will provide impetus for further economic growth.

What is the argument against Baucus’ plan?

Others are strongly opposed to this reform plan due to its emphasis only on energy producers (companies that use coal, fossil fuels, wind, solar and other methods to produce energy) and not energy users (all other private citizens and companies that use electricity, gasoline, etc.), and because the emissions reduction quotas of the incentives are, as one critic put it, “unambitious”, and would have little effect on improving the environment.

The two main tax incentives of Baucus’ plan target producers of electricity and transportation fuel, with no mention of companies that use energy in a cleaner way. This means that companies that make their buildings more energy efficient, companies that manufacture environmentally-friendly appliances and cars, and the individuals who use these greener manufactured goods would no longer receive the tax incentives they currently receive. Many opponents see this as being counter-productive in the struggle to promote cleaner energy technologies.

And while this plan does target energy production, many opponents point out that this plan would actually reduce incentives provided to areas such as solar and wind power. Whereas currently producers of solar power receive an investment tax credit of 30 percent, under this new plan they would only be entitled to either a production tax credit of $0.023 per kilowatt or an investment tax credit of 20 percent. Therefore, despite favoring carbon-free methods of energy production, many opponents feel this plan will do little to help area such as solar, wind, and other green energy production.

There has also been a backlash from the oil and natural gas industry, as well as from areas such as Montana and North Dakota who have a fledgling oil industry, arguing that by favoring carbon-free technologies the plan would be stifling job opportunities and economic growth brought about by the oil industry. Lastly, some opponents of the plan argue that the reduction quotas are too low. One critic points out that a 25% reduction in emissions “intensity”, which is the wording used in the discussion draft, is vastly different from a concrete measurement of emissions, and depending upon economic growth and the relative amount of energy these companies are producing, companies could meet this quota without any serious reduction in emissions. On a broader scale, some oppose tax incentives for alternative energy production altogether, arguing that global warming is, as indicated by its name, a global phenomenon, and that any reduction in emissions in the US is offset by emissions due to economic growth in developing countries, where environmental legislation is often more lax.

Conclusion

It’s clear that something needs to be done to fix the very confusing and red-tape-littered energy tax process. While there are certainly tangible benefits to Baucus’ plan, opponents worry that it would do more harm than good.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate Committee on Finance: Baucus Unveils Proposal For Energy Tax Reform

U.S. Senate Committee on Finance: Energy Tax Reform Discussion Draft

Additional

American Progress: Baucus Tax Reform Cuts $46 Billion in Oil Breaks

Domestic Fuel: Senator Max Baucus Unveils Energy Tax Reform

EE News: Baucus Proposal Replaces Dozens of Energy Breaks with Credits for ‘Clean’ Fuel, Electricity

BioMass Magazine: Sen. Baucus Releases Proposal To Overhaul Energy Tax Incentives

BillingsGazette: Baucus’ Tax Reform Must Be Fair To Energy Industry

ThinkProgress: Max Baucus’ Renewable Energy Tax Break Reform: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Daily Caller: Analysis: Baucus Energy Tax Plan Comes With Dubious Benefits

Breaking Energy: Are Subsidies the Answer to Energy Sector Tax Reform?

Solar Industry: Baucus Energy Tax Reform Plan Reduces Solar Investment Credit

Washington Post: The Way Congress Funds Clean Energy Is A Mess. Max Baucus Thinks There’s A Better Idea

Politico: Baucus Proposes To Overhaul for Clean-Energy Tax Breaks

Lexology: US Teax Reform Update: Senate Finance Chairman Baucus Issues Energy Tax Reform Proposal

Hill: Baucus Proposes Dumping Energy Breaks

Tax Reform Law: Baucus Proposes Major Overhaul To Energy Incentives

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Max Baucus’ Tax Plan: Could it Work? appeared first on Law Street.