Families Have a New Reason to Flee Public Schools


zumaamericasthirty919438

With the end of summer fast approaching, parents are making hard decisions about their children’s education: should they risk the pandemic-fueled chaos of forcibly pre-paid government schools, or should they try homeschooling, private schools, or something different? A recent federal court decision from California may nudge more kids out public-school doors as it affirms that private schools have much wider latitude than those run by the government to set their own policies, including responses to COVID-19. That’s an important degree of extra leeway when some officials seem eager to impose new restrictions and the CDC reverses itself to recommend that even vaccinated students should suffer through the day behind masks.

On July 23, a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a challenge to Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s across-the-board closure of all schools, private as well as public, to in-class learning last year.

“We hold that the district court properly rejected the substantive due process claims of those Plaintiffs who challenge California’s decision to temporarily provide public education in an almost exclusively online format,” Judge Daniel P. Collins wrote for a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Both the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly declined to recognize a federal constitutional right to have the State affirmatively provide an education in any particular manner, and Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing that we can or should recognize such a right in this case.”

Basically, the court says the state can force you to cough up taxes to fund its quasi-educational holding pens but, in return for that money, you’ll get what you get and too bad if you don’t like it. You have many more options, though, if you can swallow the cost of taxes and still pony up for other options.

“We reach a different conclusion, however, as to the State’s interference in the in-person provision of private education to the children of five of the Plaintiffs in this case. California’s forced closure of their private schools implicates a right that has long been considered fundamental under the applicable caselaw—the right of parents to control their children’s education and to choose their children’s educational forum.”

California has since rescinded the school closure order, but the court issued its decision anyway, citing the state’s history of “moving the goalposts” as evidence that it couldn’t be trusted to refrain from imposing strictures in the future. Renewed mask requirements in Los Angeles County on even the vaccinated and mutterings about reimposing restrictions show that the court’s concerns are justified.

So, the Ninth Circuit decision reaffirms the freedom of private alternatives to public schools to offer options that might be at odds with the preferences of public officials—or with the policies of other private institutions. Private schools, microschools, learning pods, and homeschoolers retain their ability to cater to different styles, needs, risk-tolerances, and philosophies, as they should in a diverse and at least nominally free society that respects individual choice.

That people appreciate such flexibility is reflected in the substantially greater happiness found among families that choose alternatives to default government-run district schools.

“Private School and Home School Parents are more strongly satisfied than District School Parents,” finds the latest monthly survey performed by Morning Consult for EdChoice. About 67 percent of private school parents report being “very satisfied” with their children’s experience, compared to 59 percent of homeschoolers, 59 percent of charter school parents, and 38 percent of district school parents (adding in those who are “somewhat satisfied” brings all learning categories into positive territory).

About 49 percent of private school parents say their children’s academic learning progressed “very well” during the last school year, compared to 46 percent of home school parents and 28 percent of district school parents. Private school parents and homeschoolers also substantially outstripped district school parents in their satisfaction with their children’s emotional and social development.

If given the option, and cost was not a factor, the survey found that only 41 percent of school parents would choose traditional public schools. About 37 percent would pick private schools, 9 percent would homeschool, and 7 percent would choose charters.

Large majorities of school parents, 70 percent and higher, told EdChoice that they support charter schools, school vouchers, and educational savings accounts that make it easier for them to select learning approaches instead of being stuck in government institutions. Other recent surveys find similar levels of support for education options, with Tommy Schultz, CEO of the American Federation for Children, saying of his organization’s polling that “public support for school choice is at an all-time high.”

None of this means that families fleeing public schools are all on the same page. Some are absolutely done with mask mandates and distance learning, others want even stricter rules for avoiding infection, and still others choose alternative education approaches for reasons that have nothing to do with pandemic responses. What they all have in common is a desire for learning environments that meet their needs and abide by their priorities—not those of government officials imposing one-size-fits-all mandates. Among those mandates might be renewed mask rules after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did an about-face on its recommendations this week.

“CDC recommends that everyone in K through 12 schools wear a mask indoors, including teachers, staff, students and visitors, regardless of vaccination status,” Director Rochelle Walensky advised in a reversal of earlier guidance.

That’s not exactly welcome news to families that vaccinated their teen students in hope of a return to something resembling normal life and healthy human interaction. Many of them are willing to accept the slight risk COVID-19 poses to the vaccinated in order to offset the very real damage isolation has inflicted on children’s mental health. From April through October of 2020, emergency room visits in the United States for mental health reasons increased by 24 percent for kids 5- to 11-years-old, and by 31 percent for 12- to 17-year-olds as compared to the previous year, according to researchers.

Thanks to the Ninth Circuit Court panel, parents able to pick private education options for their kids will be a lot freer to make their own assessments of relative risks and choose learning environments that suit their preferences and not those of government officials.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ierUro
via IFTTT

SEC Freezes IPOs Of Chinese Firms After Beijing Reconsiders Ban

SEC Freezes IPOs Of Chinese Firms After Beijing Reconsiders Ban

Beijing may have signaled to a group of American investment bankers that Beijing has reconsidered its decision to ban Chinese firms from listing in the US – a decision that was made after domestic markets went ballistic, prompting the intervention of China’s (far more disciplined) plunge protection team. – but that doesn’t mean the SEC is ready to simply let the next round of Chinese firms to take money from American investors without a hitch.

If Chinese firms want to continue to list in the US, then they’re going to need to properly and accurately disclose the political risks posed by their own government – and the SEC hasn’t yet finished deciding on the proper protocols for doing that.

To wit, Reuters reports that the SEC has stopped processing IPO registrations for Chinese firms while it crafts new guidance for disclosing the risks of a regulatory crackdown to its investors. The regulator has apparently asked companies to wait until it gives them specific guidance on how to properly disclose these risks.

TikTok-owner ByteDance and a handful of other companies suspended their plans to list in the US after Beijing went public with its ban. SEC commissioner Allison Lee said Tuesday that Chinese firms must adequately disclose risks of government interference to American investors as part of their regulatory reporting obligations. It’s also worth noting that the US is still trying to force Chinese firms to submit to a Western-style audit.

The SEC is also facing pressure to finalize rules about potentially de-listing Chinese companies that refuse to comply with auditing standards, a battle that still remains to be fought, and could further complicate the outlook for Chinese firms listing in the US for some time (even if Beijing has apparently reconsidered the wisdom of killing the “goose that lays the golden eggs” as some pundits have described the role American capital markets have played in enriching China).

Per Refinitiv data, some 418 Chinese companies are listed on American exchanges. But no major deals are in the works right now, and we wouldn’t be surprised if months, or even years, pass before another major Chinese firm lists in the US.

China’s party mouthpiece the China Daily reported that Beijing would soon unveil measures to further open its domestic capital markets to foreign entities, something it has done only slowly.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 07:14

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3lgvYt4 Tyler Durden

Families Have a New Reason to Flee Public Schools


zumaamericasthirty919438

With the end of summer fast approaching, parents are making hard decisions about their children’s education: should they risk the pandemic-fueled chaos of forcibly pre-paid government schools, or should they try homeschooling, private schools, or something different? A recent federal court decision from California may nudge more kids out public-school doors as it affirms that private schools have much wider latitude than those run by the government to set their own policies, including responses to COVID-19. That’s an important degree of extra leeway when some officials seem eager to impose new restrictions and the CDC reverses itself to recommend that even vaccinated students should suffer through the day behind masks.

On July 23, a panel of judges from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a challenge to Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s across-the-board closure of all schools, private as well as public, to in-class learning last year.

“We hold that the district court properly rejected the substantive due process claims of those Plaintiffs who challenge California’s decision to temporarily provide public education in an almost exclusively online format,” Judge Daniel P. Collins wrote for a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “Both the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly declined to recognize a federal constitutional right to have the State affirmatively provide an education in any particular manner, and Plaintiffs have not made a sufficient showing that we can or should recognize such a right in this case.”

Basically, the court says the state can force you to cough up taxes to fund its quasi-educational holding pens but, in return for that money, you’ll get what you get and too bad if you don’t like it. You have many more options, though, if you can swallow the cost of taxes and still pony up for other options.

“We reach a different conclusion, however, as to the State’s interference in the in-person provision of private education to the children of five of the Plaintiffs in this case. California’s forced closure of their private schools implicates a right that has long been considered fundamental under the applicable caselaw—the right of parents to control their children’s education and to choose their children’s educational forum.”

California has since rescinded the school closure order, but the court issued its decision anyway, citing the state’s history of “moving the goalposts” as evidence that it couldn’t be trusted to refrain from imposing strictures in the future. Renewed mask requirements in Los Angeles County on even the vaccinated and mutterings about reimposing restrictions show that the court’s concerns are justified.

So, the Ninth Circuit decision reaffirms the freedom of private alternatives to public schools to offer options that might be at odds with the preferences of public officials—or with the policies of other private institutions. Private schools, microschools, learning pods, and homeschoolers retain their ability to cater to different styles, needs, risk-tolerances, and philosophies, as they should in a diverse and at least nominally free society that respects individual choice.

That people appreciate such flexibility is reflected in the substantially greater happiness found among families that choose alternatives to default government-run district schools.

“Private School and Home School Parents are more strongly satisfied than District School Parents,” finds the latest monthly survey performed by Morning Consult for EdChoice. About 67 percent of private school parents report being “very satisfied” with their children’s experience, compared to 59 percent of homeschoolers, 59 percent of charter school parents, and 38 percent of district school parents (adding in those who are “somewhat satisfied” brings all learning categories into positive territory).

About 49 percent of private school parents say their children’s academic learning progressed “very well” during the last school year, compared to 46 percent of home school parents and 28 percent of district school parents. Private school parents and homeschoolers also substantially outstripped district school parents in their satisfaction with their children’s emotional and social development.

If given the option, and cost was not a factor, the survey found that only 41 percent of school parents would choose traditional public schools. About 37 percent would pick private schools, 9 percent would homeschool, and 7 percent would choose charters.

Large majorities of school parents, 70 percent and higher, told EdChoice that they support charter schools, school vouchers, and educational savings accounts that make it easier for them to select learning approaches instead of being stuck in government institutions. Other recent surveys find similar levels of support for education options, with Tommy Schultz, CEO of the American Federation for Children, saying of his organization’s polling that “public support for school choice is at an all-time high.”

None of this means that families fleeing public schools are all on the same page. Some are absolutely done with mask mandates and distance learning, others want even stricter rules for avoiding infection, and still others choose alternative education approaches for reasons that have nothing to do with pandemic responses. What they all have in common is a desire for learning environments that meet their needs and abide by their priorities—not those of government officials imposing one-size-fits-all mandates. Among those mandates might be renewed mask rules after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) did an about-face on its recommendations this week.

“CDC recommends that everyone in K through 12 schools wear a mask indoors, including teachers, staff, students and visitors, regardless of vaccination status,” Director Rochelle Walensky advised in a reversal of earlier guidance.

That’s not exactly welcome news to families that vaccinated their teen students in hope of a return to something resembling normal life and healthy human interaction. Many of them are willing to accept the slight risk COVID-19 poses to the vaccinated in order to offset the very real damage isolation has inflicted on children’s mental health. From April through October of 2020, emergency room visits in the United States for mental health reasons increased by 24 percent for kids 5- to 11-years-old, and by 31 percent for 12- to 17-year-olds as compared to the previous year, according to researchers.

Thanks to the Ninth Circuit Court panel, parents able to pick private education options for their kids will be a lot freer to make their own assessments of relative risks and choose learning environments that suit their preferences and not those of government officials.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3ierUro
via IFTTT

Iceland’s Chief Epidemiologist Suggests COVID-19 Restrictions Could Last For Up To 15 Years

Iceland’s Chief Epidemiologist Suggests COVID-19 Restrictions Could Last For Up To 15 Years

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Iceland’s chief epidemiologist has suggested that some COVID-19 lockdown restrictions may remain in place for as long as fifteen years.

Yes, really.

Þórólfur Guðnason, a doctor who serves as the Chief Epidemiologist of the Icelandic Directorate of Health, was quizzed by journalist Esther Hallsdóttir how long the rules should continue.

Guðnason was, “Asked if there is no clear way out of the epidemic, now that measures are being proposed despite vaccinations, and whether we could be on the verge of restrictions over the next five, ten or fifteen years.”

His response was in the affirmative.

It can be quite like that, no one can say with certainty what the future will be like. That’s what we’re always been saying, too, that there’s no predictability in this,” said Guðnason.

“It is nothing new and many people complain that it is not possible to bring predictability in operations and such, but it is not possible when the virus is unpredictable and something new comes up that changes what you thought a few months ago,” he added.

As we previously highlighted, SAGE government advisor and proud Communist Party member Susan Michie went even further, asserting that things like social distancing and mask mandates should last “forever.”

Another doctor in the UK who wants lockdown to remain in place indefinitely lamented that, “sadly, it can’t be forever.”

As we highlighted earlier this month, British author Peter Hitchens warned that if people continued to blithely accept lockdown restrictions, their grandchildren will still be wearing masks in 2050 and no one will remember why.

*  *  *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 06:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3yfBH6e Tyler Durden

Trots and Bonnie


ministrotsandbonnie_New-York-Review-Comics

Shary Flenniken began her career with a brief stint in underground comix in San Francisco before earning a coveted regular slot in National Lampoon, from the early ’70s to the early ’90s, for her comics about a pubescent girl named Bonnie, her talking dog, Trots, and their pals. It seems hard to believe these appeared in an over-the-counter national magazine (even one with a rep for edgy naughtiness). They portrayed with wildness, honesty, and humor this “dangerous time in a young woman’s life…with a complete lack of adult-world moralizing or editorial restraint,” writes cartoonist Emily Flake in her introduction to Trots and Bonnie, a new book collection of Flenniken’s old strips.

Flenniken gives heft to the comics through sharp ironic feminism. When Trots writes porn on walls with his urine, Bonnie asks, “How come girl dogs don’t write?” Trots replies, “They never wrote anything important, so God took their ability away.”

Flenniken also delivers in her elegant linework heartfelt and painful touches, as when Trots and Bonnie help a rape victim by walking her home dressed up like a football player, with Trots in spiked collar and fake fangs. “We should call a policeman,” they suggest. “He was a policeman,” comes the reply. Flenniken was proud to make Lampoon readers—mostly young men—confront the reality of rape in that context.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TOstPq
via IFTTT

Didi Shares Slide On Reports Of Anti-Monopoly Crackdown On Ride-Hailing Firms

Didi Shares Slide On Reports Of Anti-Monopoly Crackdown On Ride-Hailing Firms

The non-stop rollercoaster ride in Didi shares continued Friday, one day after reports that Didi might go private sent the stock into the stratosphere (however briefly) in premarket trading. But the company swiftly denied the report, bringing shares back down to earth, and although Beijing has apparently reconsidered its plan to ban US IPOs (at this point, it might be difficult to find investors willing to risk it on another Chinese firm anyway after the Didi rug-pull), the latest reports Friday morning said China’s transport regulator plans to deepen “anti-monopoly supervision” of the country’s ride hailing companies.

While Didi currently controls more than 90% of China’s ride share market, several of its upstart Chinese rivals have seized on the company’s post-IPO troubles (which included seeing Didi’s app banned from all Chinese app stores) to try and expand their business.

Didi’s US-traded ADRs were down more than 7%.

Yesterday, Nikkei reported that Didi’s upstart rivals have apparently discovered the American technique of using investor capital to subsidize rides, incentivizing customers to switch to their app. The move suggests that Didi might be forced to fight another round of brutal pricing wars with a new generation of ride-share rivals, after it already absorbed (or outmaneuvered) competitors like Uber.

Didi was a lifeline for Cindy Zhu. The 29-year-old software engineer at Tencent Holdings in Shenzhen relied on China’s largest ride-sharing app to get to work every day. But two weeks ago she started to try four other apps after colleagues told her their rates are cheaper than Didi’s.

And they were right. Zhu often received 50% discounts for rides ordered through Alibaba-backed AutoNavi, also known as Gaode. As a new user, she also received generous coupons from other apps, including Caocao Mobility, the ride-hailing arm of automaker Zhejiang Geely Holding, and Ruqi Chuxing, a joint venture between Tencent and state-owned GAC Group.

“I don’t use Didi that often now. I use whatever is cheapest,” Zhu said. “Their services are not so different.”

The fiercest competitors are Meituan’s standalone ride-hailing app, which the food-delivery giant (which has also been targeted during the CCP’s tech crackdown) relaunched after Didi’s app store ban,  and another app from T3, a two-year-old ride-hailing app that’s backed by three state-owned auto manufacturers as well as Alibaba, Tencent and Suning.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 06:17

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3feN5rA Tyler Durden

Trots and Bonnie


ministrotsandbonnie_New-York-Review-Comics

Shary Flenniken began her career with a brief stint in underground comix in San Francisco before earning a coveted regular slot in National Lampoon, from the early ’70s to the early ’90s, for her comics about a pubescent girl named Bonnie, her talking dog, Trots, and their pals. It seems hard to believe these appeared in an over-the-counter national magazine (even one with a rep for edgy naughtiness). They portrayed with wildness, honesty, and humor this “dangerous time in a young woman’s life…with a complete lack of adult-world moralizing or editorial restraint,” writes cartoonist Emily Flake in her introduction to Trots and Bonnie, a new book collection of Flenniken’s old strips.

Flenniken gives heft to the comics through sharp ironic feminism. When Trots writes porn on walls with his urine, Bonnie asks, “How come girl dogs don’t write?” Trots replies, “They never wrote anything important, so God took their ability away.”

Flenniken also delivers in her elegant linework heartfelt and painful touches, as when Trots and Bonnie help a rape victim by walking her home dressed up like a football player, with Trots in spiked collar and fake fangs. “We should call a policeman,” they suggest. “He was a policeman,” comes the reply. Flenniken was proud to make Lampoon readers—mostly young men—confront the reality of rape in that context.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2TOstPq
via IFTTT

1.6 Billion Disposable Masks Entered Our Oceans In 2020

1.6 Billion Disposable Masks Entered Our Oceans In 2020

Following the World Health Organization’s formal declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments around the world quickly mandated the use of face masks in public spaces.

This led to a massive demand shock, prompting factories to begin producing disposable masks at full capacity. The majority of these masks were produced in China, and in April 2020, the country reported a staggering daily production figure of 450 million masks.

Plastic Pollution: A Lesser Known Side Effect

In Ocean Asia’s 2020 report, Masks on the Beach, researchers developed a formula to provide reasonable estimates for the number of disposable masks entering the environment.

Given an annual production figure of 52 billion disposable masks and a loss rate of 3% (the percentage of masks that escape water management systems), Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu notes that the team concluded that nearly 1.6 billion face masks wound up in our oceans in 2020. This amounts to approximately 5,500 tons of plastic pollution.

These masks are commonly made of polypropylene, which easily breaks up into microplastics. While the effects of microplastics on human health are not yet determined, these fragments are incredibly common in our water supply – for example, 94% of U.S. tap water is deemed to be contaminated.

Disposable Doesn’t Mean They’re Gone

Despite their single-use nature, disposable masks are expected to take more than four centuries to decompose while in the ocean. Here’s how this compares to other items we use on a day-to-day basis.

The pandemic has extended well into 2021, and the number of disposable masks polluting our oceans is likely to continue growing.

With this in mind, various companies and organizations are beginning to search for a solution. One noteworthy example is Plaxtil, which is developing a method for recycling surgical masks so that the raw materials can be used for other products.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/30/2021 – 05:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2VfBmSm Tyler Durden