another site
Sen. Bernie Sanders is all over the internet!
New York Magazine says he is “quietly building a digital media empire.” Mic.com calls it “one of the most powerful progressive media outfits in America.”
This matters because bettors rank Sanders one of the top four Democratic presidential contenders. And as John Stossel observes, Sanders posts a new economically ignorant video most every day.
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2noWWQ5
via IFTTT
White House aide Stephen Miller, an arch restrictionist, is about to release rules that would make it almost impossible for legal immigrants to obtain green cards, citizenship, extend their visas, or even obtain visas in the first place if they or their American family members so much as qualify for a whole slew of public benefits.
As I note in my Week column, under the guise of protecting American taxpayers from “welfare-mooching” immigrants, Miller is making a diabolical use of administrative powers to restrict legal immigration to only the tippy top. He is also doing an end-run around Congress which pointedly refused to accept Trump’s DACA fix when he attached to it his poison pill to cut legal immigration by nearly 40 percent.
I note:
The perversity of this [Miller’s scheme] cannot be overstated.
An immigrant would be barred from upgrading his status if he married, say, an American woman on Social Security disability till he crossed the 250 percent earning threshold. Or consider, a real-life example of a Haitian green-card holder who works 80 hours a week as a nursing assistant but has a severely disabled American daughter who receives public assistance. His citizenship petition may not have a prayer. In effect, Miller’s plan would penalize immigrants not because they are needy but because they have Americans in their lives who are.
What’s particularly unfair about this is that it’s not like legal immigrants get any reprieve from taxes. With very, very few exceptions, they pay all the taxes that Americans do and then some (if you count all the fees that they and their employers have to constantly cough up to get and keep their visas). Denying them a shot at citizenship would mean creating a permanently disenfranchised class that can be taxed but will be barred from basic assistance (in addition to all the federal means-tested benefits), and won’t be allowed to vote, eviscerating America’s bedrock commitment to no taxation without representation.
Go here to read the piece.
But while I’m at it, let me point out that the restrictionist right had long maintained that it wasn’t motivated by nativist concerns and its beef wasn’t with legal immigration, just illegal immigration. That few on the right have pushed back against Trump’s near daily assaults on legal immigration reveal that claim to be a complete lie. In fact, the right has only egged him on. Just last night, Laura Ingraham ranted on air, “The America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore. Massive demographic changes have been foisted on the American people, and they are changes that none of us ever voted for, and most of us don’t like … this is related to both illegal and legal immigration.” [Emphasis mine.]
Referring to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Latina social democrat who won New York’s congressional primary, Ingraham said, “Let’s face it, they [immigrants] are not too big on Adam Smith and the Federalist Papers.”
Ingraham is, of course, right about Ocasio-Cortez. However, the fact of the matter is that she, Trump, and Miller, aren’t too big on Adam Smith, either—or for that matter The Federalist Papers, or else they wouldn’t show so much contempt for the checks-and-balances that the founders enshrined. They wouldn’t know the Wealth of Nations from Das Kapital if Jesus himself appeared on her show and read it to them. Indeed, Trump’s entire mercantilist-restrictionist agenda is a giant middle finger to Smith’s carefully articulated case for free trade and free immigration in the Wealth of Nations. Trump’s stupid attack on America’s “trade deficit” or what Smith called, “the strong Jealousy with regard to the balance of trade,” is exactly what his magnum opus was debunking.
The reality is that Trump’s scheme to enrich American workers by limiting trade and immigration is more in line with Marx, given that Marx was perhaps the only major political economist of any political persuasion post-Smith to bad mouth immigration.
Marx regarded England’s decision to absorb the “surplus” Irishmen being driven out of their country during the Great Famine not as a benefit but a ploy by the English bourgeoisie to “force down wages and lower the material and moral position of the English working class.” Trump and Miller’s protestations that Third World immigration will “immiserate” the American worker has its genesis in Marxist thought. And their efforts to do an end-run around Congress to implement their anti-immigration agenda are a slap on the face of the Founders.
So if Ingraham wants to restore respect for Smith and the founders of this country, she may want to begin by holding Trump and Miller accountable for their anti-American machinations. Then she should put down her copy of Das Kapital and crack open the Wealth of Nations and The Federalist Papers.
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2OVU5dW
via IFTTT
When I hear the phrase “human rights,” the first words that jump to my mind are not “Michael Chertoff.” In the wake of 9/11, the then–assistant attorney general helped write the USA Patriot Act; he also played a central role in detaining hundreds of Arabs and Muslims without filing charges against them, a roundup that the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General later called “indiscriminate and haphazard.” After George W. Bush tapped him to run the Department of Homeland Security, Chertoff’s intrusive efforts ranged from warrantless ICE raids to a push for a national ID card. Since leaving office, he has been a vocal advocate of installing full-body scanners in airports—and a lobbyist for the companies that manufacture the scanners.
And now he’s got a new gig. Freedom House—a much-cited organization that pitches itself as a place that “works to defend human rights and promote democratic change, with a focus on political rights and civil liberties”—sent out a press release this morning:
Freedom House today announced that Michael Chertoff, a former Secretary of Homeland Security and former U.S. Court of Appeals judge, and Executive Chairman of the Chertoff Group, will become chairman of their Board of Trustees in October 2018.
“It will be an honor to lead the Board of an organization that champions the principles and promise of democracy, work that could not be more vital,” Chertoff said. “Freedom House was created for this moment, a time of great peril for freedom and democracy. I look forward to working with the superb professional staff to build bipartisan support to defend and strengthen democratic values.”
Chertoff will assume the chair’s duties from D. Jeffrey Hirschberg at the Board’s next meeting, on October 17.
“Judge Chertoff has long earned respect for his integrity, intellect, and commitment to democracy and the basic freedoms that Freedom House works to advance, said Hirschberg.
You can read the rest here. I especially enjoyed the part that says Chertoff “provides strategic counsel to enterprise and government leaders on a range of security issues.” Just the sort of résumé that a human rights group looks for, amirite?
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2MaKtgW
via IFTTT
“The demand that research funding be declined because of its origin poses a grave threat to academic freedom,” Daniele Struppa, the president of Chapman University, wrote earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal. “I am being asked to turn down donations from the dreaded Koch brothers, even when…the proposal for funding was inspired, developed and fully fleshed out by my faculty, in the most important exercise of their own academic freedom.”
In the culture wars playing out on the nation’s campuses, Chapman University, a private university about 90 minutes south of Los Angeles, is one of the hottest combat zones. The university received $15 million to help fund The Smith Institute, which seeks to bring the study of economics and of the humanities together in a way that benefits both sides. The Smith Institute is named both for Adam Smith, widely considered the father of economics, and Vernon Smith, the 2002 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.
Because some of the money to fund The Smith Institute came from the Charles Koch Foundation, some students and faculty are protesting the Institute and demanding that the university return the gift. Across the country, groups organized by “UnKoch MyCampus” are pushing for schools to return any money from libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch, arguing that the money comes with ideological strings. (Disclosures: Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes this podcast, receives money from the Koch foundation and David Koch has been on our board of trustees for over 25 years.)
But do funders actually dictate university research and teaching? Or is this simply an attempt to quash ideological diversity? And in an age when the humanities—the study of history, literature, art, philosophy, and more—are rapidly declining at universities, what are the best ways to revive interest in the very activities that make us, well, human? Those are some of the questions I put to Daniele Struppa in a conversation recorded at FreedomFest, the annual libertarian gathering held each July in Las Vegas.
Subscribe, rate, and review our podcast at iTunes. Listen at SoundCloud below:
Audio production by Ian Keyser.
Don’t miss a single Reason Podcast! (Archive here.)
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2AWSjGB
via IFTTT
New York City has decided to pump the brakes on ridesharing services like Uber and Lyft by passing tight, first-in-the-nation regulations that both limit the number of drivers allowed in the city and empower regulators to pass more restrictions in the coming months and years.
Chief among these new regulations is a year-long freeze on the issuance of new licenses for rideshare drivers, during which time regulators at the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission will study every dimension of the industry, including how much drivers make, vehicle utilization rates (the percentage of time Ubers spend with a passenger in the back), and the impact of these services on traffic congestion.
Once this study is completed, the commission will be allowed to set caps on the number of rideshare vehicles allowed on city streets, set utilization targets for rideshare fleets, regulate where these cars can pick up and drop off passengers, and establish minimum hourly pay for drivers.
In short, the regulatory breathing room that has allowed Uber and Lyft to grow into the transportation dynamos they are today is coming to an end in New York City. According to rideshare companies themselves, this means dire consequences for riders, drivers, and overall mobility in the city.
“These sweeping cuts to transportation will bring New Yorkers back to an era of struggling to get a ride, particularly for communities of color and in the outer boroughs,” Lyft Vice President of Public Policy Joseph Okpaku said in response to Wednesday’s vote.
“The city’s 12-month pause on new vehicle licenses will threaten one of the few reliable transportation options while doing nothing to fix the subways or ease congestion,” said a spokeswoman for Uber, Danielle Filson.
New York City politicians are much more optimistic, insisting that the new rules are both necessary, and will come with almost no trade-offs for the travelers who depend on ridesharing to get around the city.
“Our city is directly confronting a crisis that is driving working New Yorkers into poverty and our streets into gridlock,” Mayor Bill de Blasio told the Wall Street Journal Wednesday. “I’m confident we are getting the balance right to address plummeting driver pay and rising congestion, without harming service,” New York City Council Member Brad Lander told constituents in an email after the vote.
De Blasio and Lander claim that the rapid increase in the number of Uber and Lyft drivers on New York City streets has resulted in a big spike in traffic congestion while diminishing fares for drivers of traditional yellow cabs and rideshare cars alike, as they both compete for the same pool of riders.
Estimates vary on how much rideshare drivers actually get paid per hour, given that both hours and fares are going to vary widely between different drivers. According to a report prepared for the taxi commission, the median rideshare driver makes $14.25 an hour after expenses. Industry figures put it a little above $16 an hour.
Neither figure is enough for city politicians and regulators. Lander says that most drivers “suffer from low pay and high company mark-ups that generate huge returns for investors, but leave drivers in poverty.” The Taxi and Limousine Commission says drivers need to earn $17.22 an hour in order to make “a living wage.”
Lander and others, of course, skip over the fact that by freezing the number of new rideshare licenses—and allowing for future reductions—they’re ensuring that people who would otherwise have signed up to drive for Uber and Lyft will be excluded from the marketplace, making their driving wage $0 an hour after expenses. Should the Taxi Commission use its new powers to reduce the number of rideshare vehicles on city streets under what it is now, we would see current drivers actually lose their jobs and their livelihoods.
It’s hardly a secret that the new pay rules and cap on drivers are meant to protect incumbent drivers. The City Council’s report on the legislation it passed yesterday included multiple pages on the negative affect ridesharing has on the wages of traditional taxi drivers. Taxi drivers themselves have pushed hard for the new rules on the explicit grounds that the rules will protect their wages.
Lander waves away concerns that hiking labor costs for rideshare companies while capping the number of operators they can put on the road will result in higher prices or reduced service for riders, saying that “there are more than enough [rideshare vehicles] on the road right now to provide good service, but we need to make them more efficient.”
That putting in caps on the number of vehicles and setting “utilization rate” targets will not cause a reduction in service—particularly in New York City’s boroughs where over half of rideshare rides begin and end—strains credulity.
Fewer cars and a growing number of people demanding them would could only result in longer wait times or higher prices for riders. Demanding that drivers have a passenger in the back over and above a certain percentage of the time will discourage them from servicing peripheral areas of the city where the time spend between dropping off one passenger and picking up another one is bound to be greater.
The one potential positive from this tradeoff—a reduction in traffic congestion—is far from guaranteed.
Traffic speeds have indeed gotten worse in New York City, falling some 15 percent since 2010. How much of this has to do with Uber and Lyft is a mystery. A 2016 report conducted by de Blasio’s office found that congestion was getting worse prior to the introduction of rideshare services, and that the primary drivers of this congestion were “increased freight movement, construction activity, and population growth.”
Nevertheless, ridesharing has gotten more popular since the release of that report, meaning its impact on congestion is probably real. A cap on these services would probably produce some reduction in congestion, though how much remains to be seen.
If the city really wanted to increase traffic speeds, it could implement any one of the various congestion pricing proposals floating around. (Both Uber and Lyft have endorsed such policies.)
Still, it cannot be stressed enough that New Yorkers have increasingly taken to ridesharing as a result of the city’s deteriorating mass transit system. Ridership on the New York subway has fallen every year since 2015, even as the number of jobs and people in the city has grown. On-time rates have plummeted, maintenance problems have proliferated, and subway cars have become more crowded.
Given an ailing rail system that is increasingly failing to meet their needs, commuters have instead opted for a transportation alternative that can, with minimal wait and acceptable expense, get them directly from point A to point B in relative comfort. That may mean spending more time in traffic, but consumers appear willing to make that tradeoff. The regulations passed Wednesday seek to replace a successful and dynamic business model with a centrally controlled rideshare service. The government will not get to determine how much drivers make, how many of them can be on the road, how often they have to pick up passengers, and even where they can pick them up.
This is a loss for mobility, and for the promise of a freer market in transportation.
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2OWYuxd
via IFTTT
As the largest wildfire in California’s history continues to burn out of control, thousands of inmates from the California Department of Corrections are helping professional firefighters battle the flames.
Those inmates are literally risking their lives to protect people, homes, and businesses as part of the state’s volunteer inmate firefighter program—and they are paid less than $2 per day for their work, even as they toil alongside professionals who earn an average of $74,000 annually (and that’s not counting overtime).
An even crueler twist? Once they are released from prison, those same men and women will likely be denied the opportunity to put their skills to use, as California’s licensing laws prohibit individuals with criminal records from becoming firefighters.
“The persistent, horrific wildfires year after year make this human rights issue even more pressing for the men and women fighting these fires every day who cannot do so once released,” says Katherine Katcher, founder and executive director of Root and Rebound, a California-based nonprofit that helps the formerly incarcerated find jobs after getting out of prison. Katcher tells Reason that the state’s discriminatory licensing rules “shut people out of living wage careers that they are trained and qualified for solely because of old, expunged, and irrelevant convictions.”
California’s inmate firefighter program is open to prisoners who are not convicted of arson, sexual crimes, kidnapping or gang-related offenses, as long as they do not have a history of escape attempts and are not facing a life sentence. They receive two weeks of firefighting training and must pass a physical exam. The department says more than 2,000 volunteer inmate firefighters, including 58 youth offenders, have been deployed to battle the Mendocino Complex Fire, which has burned more than 300,000 acres near Redding and is now considered the largest fire in state history.
Inmates are used to fight smaller fires too. According to The New York Times, about half the firefighting personnel at any California wildfire will be part of the inmate program. Using them—and paying them so little compared to professional firefighters—allows the state to save between $80 million and $100 million every year.
But the real injustice is what happens once those inmates have finished serving their time.
In California, firefighters are required to be licensed as emergency medical technicians (EMTs), which requires taking classes and passing a few state-administered exams. No problem there, but state law allows licensing boards to block anyone with a criminal record from getting an EMT license, says Katcher.
“It’s sadistic on so many levels,” Shoshana Weissman, digital media specialist for the free-market R Street Institute, tells Reason. Weissman recently authored an op-ed calling attention to the various absurd ways that California limits the formerly incarcerated from finding work upon release.
Indeed, such prohibitions cause problems on many levels. Being able to use in-demand skills makes the adjustment to post-prison life more difficult for the formerly incarcerated, who often lack solid job prospects and have a hard time finding work. It unnecessarily reduces the number of qualified and trained firefighters in a state where wildfires are a serious concern. And it means the time and money spent training inmates to battle wildfires is at least partially wasted.
It might also increase crime in the long run. With fewer options for legal work, the formerly incarcerated are more likely to resume a life of crime, according to a 2017 study by the Center for the Study of Economic Liberty at Arizona State University. After reviewing licensing rules and recidivism rates for a 10-year period beginning in 1997, the study found that formerly incarcerated residents are more likely to commit a new crime within three years of being released from prison if they live in a state where they’re prohibited from getting a license solely for having a criminal record.
“Those with good jobs and good employment prospects in the legitimate labor market tend to commit less crime,” writes U.C. Berkeley public policy professor Steven Raphael in The New Scarlet Letter: Negotiating the U.S. Labor Market with a Criminal Record. “Those with poor employment prospects tend to commit more.”
According to the American Bar Assoaciation, there are more than 12,000 different restrictions in state licensing laws that limit the career choices for the roughly 70 million Americans with a criminal record. Many of those restrictions are what the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit that advocates for loosening access to jobs, calls “blanket bans” that leave no room for an applicant to argue his or her case—by pointing out, for example, that they have been trained to fight wildfires.
Instead of blanket bans, NELP suggests that states should write licensing laws that include prohibitions for specific criminal offenses—exactly how the California Department of Corrections operates their inmate firefighter program, for example. California’s licensing laws “need improvement” the nonprofit concluded in a 2016 report assessing each state’s licensing laws based on whether they create barriers for the formerly incarcerated.
“Licensing boards and certifying agencies claim these practices are for public safety, when the real threat is chronic unemployment and poverty,” says Katcher.
Lawmakers in California could start making those improvements by recognizing that inmate firefighters who are risking their lives to fight the state’s biggest wildfire deserve a chance to do the exact same thing once they are no longer locked up. Root and Rebound pushed state lawmakers to pass a bill ending the prohibition on granting EMT licenses to anyone with a criminal record, but the bill has not yet passed.
“Considering that finding a job after prison reduces the likelihood non-violent former offenders will reoffend,” says Weissman, “this is all just terrible policy.”
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2MAjGrd
via IFTTT
Since Jan. 20, 2017, Americans have seen an endless torrent of corruption beyond anything previously imagined. No president has ever had a surer instinct than Donald Trump for finding and empowering scam artists, spongers, and thugs.
As a candidate, Trump promised, “I’ll choose the best people for my administration.” Maybe he inadvertently omitted the word “not.” Looking for the best people in Trump’s circle, observes Steve Chapman, would be like looking for icebergs in the Everglades.
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2M7wjxZ
via IFTTT
The Argentine Senate rejected a measure Wednesday that would have legalized abortion within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy.
The law narrowly passed the lower house of Argentina’s legislature in June. But in a 38-31 vote yesterday, the Senate opted to keep most abortions illegal.
In addition to legalizing the procedure within 14 weeks of conception, the bill would have allowed girls 13 years of age and older to get an abortion. Women who asked for an abortion would have had to wait no more than five days to get one.
Argentine women can still obtain legal abortions, but only in limited cases, like rape or if the health of the mother is in jeopardy. According to Argentina’s Ministry of Health, at least 350,000 illegal abortions are carried out in the country each year. Women who get abortions illegally can face up to four years in prison, while the doctors who provide them can be incarcerated for up to six years.
Argentine President Mauricio Macri, a conservative, said he would sign the measure into law if it passed in the Senate, even though he personally opposes abortion. Similarly, former President and current Sen. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, whose administration was against legalizing abortion, voted in favor of the bill.
Had the bill passed the Senate and been signed by Macri, Argentina would have become the most populous of a handful of Latin American nations—including Uruguay, Cuba, Guyana, and parts of Mexico—where abortion is legal. Brazil’s Supreme Court, meanwhile, is currently considering the issue.
Legalizing abortion is a particularly contentious issue in the predominantly Catholic region, as the Catholic Church says life begins at conception. Pope Francis, who was born in Argentina, has yet to publicly comment on the law that was rejected yesterday. In June, however, he likened abortions meant to prevent birth defects to the Nazi eugenics program.
Argentina and Brazil are not the only Catholic nations where abortion has been at the forefront of the national conversation in recent months. In May, Irish citizens overwhelmingly voted to legalize the procedure. The referendum received roughly two-thirds support.
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2OkHaRI
via IFTTT
TSA speaks up about “Quiet Skies” and Muslim group files lawsuit against it. The recently revealed Transportation Security Administration (TSA) program enlists U.S. Federal Marshals to spy on U.S. citizens at airports, reporting on innocuous behaviors like watching one’s boarding gate, having a “cold stare,” and sleeping for any period of time on a flight.
“In my view, it’s been very effective,” TSA Administrator David Pekoske told USA Today, after the agency last week refused to comment on the program.
I would say to the American public: Ordinary citizens don’t need to worry about Quiet Skies. They don’t. Actually ordinary citizens should be very happy that a program like Quiet Skies is in place because I think everybody expects us to do everything that we can do that protects the privacy and constitutional rights of our citizens to ensure that there is not an incident in an aircraft in flight.
But TSA doesn’t claim the program has caught any terrorists or other evildoers, and it won’t say what targeting criteria U.S. Federal Air Marshals use or what becomes of the information they collect on passengers. All we know is that these individuals are not on the terror-watch list or under criminal investigation.
“The arbitrary surveillance of innocent people at airports guarantees that Muslim passengers will be disproportionately harassed by federal officials based on racial and religious profiling, with no benefit to the traveling public or to our nation’s security,” said Gadeir Abbas, a senior litigation attorney with the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “This is just the latest example of the federal government’s counterproductive and misguided approach to aviation security.”
The Council on American-Islamic Relations just filed a challenge to the federal government’s whole watch-listing system, “including the TSA’s recently revealed Quiet Skies program,” the group announced yesterday.
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of 20 individuals targeted by the watchlisting system. The lawsuit’s plaintiffs are all innocent American Muslims—people who have not been charged, arrested or convicted of a violent crime—from Washington DC, Florida, Michigan, Virginia, Washington State, Indiana, Kansas and New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges that the watchlisting system imposes “a kind of second-class citizenship.”
ACLU is also filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to learn more about the program. “Like the old, debunked ‘behavior detection’ program, Quiet Skies looks like the worst kind of waste,” ACLU lawyer Hugh Handeyside said.
Even the deputies have doubts about the program. “The Air Marshal Association believes that missions based on recognized intelligence, or in support of ongoing federal investigations, is the proper criteria for flight scheduling,” said association president John Casaretti in a statement. “Currently, the Quiet Skies program does not meet the criteria we find acceptable.”
Ron Paul talks Twitter action against libertarian writers. Commenting on Twitter suspending two Antiwar.com writer accounts and banning the Ron Paul Institute director from the site, Paul suggested that “antiwar activists and libertarians” were under fire for political reasons.
“You get accused of treasonous activity and treasonous speech because in an empire of lies the truth is treason,” Paul told RT. “Challenging the status quo is what they can’t stand and it unnerves them, so they have to silence people.”
(More about this and other recent Twitter drama in yesterday’s Roundup.)
Police enable heroin addicts. If this “heroin ring” was so dangerous and detrimental, why did police buy drugs for three years before doing anything? That’s what an attorney for the defendants is now asking.
“The drug police elected to drag out their investigation,” wrote defense attorney Brady Musgrave in a July court filing. “They decided to allow these individuals to spiral farther into their addictions and to do so by distributing heroin in the Western District of Missouri.”
Unfortunately, this sort of things is common in vice investigations, as cops work to build more high-profile and profitable conspiracy, money laundering, and racketeering cases and rope more people into these alleged operations instead of arresting individuals when warranted, or helping users get help. In a Seattle sex investigation, King County cops simultaneously claimed Asian escorts they were investigating were victims of horrific sex trafficking and also that they visited them for years without doing anything while they made a case against a website where the women advertised and the men who wrote there about them.
“States that allow brewers to distribute their own beer rather than forcing them to work through middlemen have more breweries than those that do not.” Protectionism prevents producers from giving customers what they want at the best prices h/t @mercatus https://t.co/3tCGyexRXY
— R Street Institute (@RSI) August 9, 2018
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2OUxIFG
via IFTTT
Around much of the country, back-to-school shopping, preparations, and anxiety are in full swing. And—as with so much in life—demand, innovation, and technology are making the “back to school” experience every bit as diverse as a vast nation full of different preferences and needs could hope for. These days, writes J.D. Tuccille, kids are heading back to increasingly varied learning experiences that might or might not include anything recognizable as a traditional school.
Union officials and policy experts argue over which sort of schools produce better test scores, notes Tuccille. But parents might take test scores into account as only one factor when they’re deciding on the right school for their kids. The culture of the school, the degree of flexibility vs. structure, and the teaching style are also important factors. And school priorities don’t always match those of parents and kids.
from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2ATHIMx
via IFTTT