Tuesday, October 20, 2020


Trump vs. Democrats on Higher Education

The Trump budget is viewed by the denizens of the D.C. swamp as austere, but it maintains the trillion dollar deficits amidst under four percent unemployment that characterize the current era, and despite exceedingly rosy economic assumptions, does not foresee balanced budgets anytime soon. But it has a distinct austerity vibe to it when applied to education. For example, the recommended budget for the U.S. Department of Education is down $5.6 billion (7.8%) over current spending levels.

The Administration must be reading this blog. To deal with dysfunctional federal student financial assistance programs, it proposes putting more stringent limits on PLUS loans to parents, ending student loan forgiveness for those with public sector jobs, restricting somewhat the amount graduate students can borrow, ending the Stafford subsidized loan program, reducing the federal Work Study program, etc. Needed reforms in my opinion. Additionally, the Trump budget proposes reductions in research funding for agencies such as the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of Health.

Contrast this with Democrats’ proposals. Rather than restricting federal student financial assistance, they wish to expand it significantly, including big increases in Pell Grants. Some Democratic leaders want to move towards “free college,” where the federal government makes college tuition free for at least community college if not four-year college students. And expand research funding. Some are advocating complete federal student loan forgiveness.

It is the equivalent of Democrats saying the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, while Republicans say that it will rise in the west. Completely opposing views. I once wrote a column called “Three Cheers for Gridlock,” suggesting that when radically different ideas are in play, failure to reach agreement keeps extreme positions from being adopted. That certainly is going to be the case in 2020—absolutely nothing radical is going to happen in higher education policy. Radical Trump budget cuts are dead on arrival, and given the complete lack of fiscal discipline in both parties (one unfortunate area of bipartisan agreement), I suspect the final budget will at least modestly increase total education spending.

Economists are lousy at economic forecasting, much less political prognostication. Nonetheless, as an aging tenured professor with little to lose, I think it is highly unlikely that one political party will control all of government next year. The presidency is clearly up for grabs and could go either way, although, as Democratic guru “Ragin’ Cajun” James Carville says, Trump will win if the Democrats nominate one of the radicals like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren (who now appears all but dead politically). Otherwise, it could go either way. The odds are 80% the Dems will control the House but also 75% that the GOP will control the Senate. The probability of 100% control of government by either party is small, meaning incremental change in higher education policy is more likely than truly substantive revisions until at least 2023.

One reason why a cost-sensitive policy closer to the GOP position may prevail ultimately is that decades of fiscally irresponsible behavior by both parties might lead to an economic crisis forcing the U.S. into fiscal austerity—a gentler version of what happened to Greece several years ago. Taxes may go up some and spending increases will cease for a time.

If that happens, higher education will be a big loser. Maintaining popular but fiscally shaky Social Security/Medical Care entitlements is politically vastly more popular than maintaining a bloated budget for the U.S. Department of Education or even costly student loan and grant subsidies. Declining public support for higher education, pronounced among Republicans but also surprisingly strong among Democrats, will prompt some fiscal brakes, slowing the fueling of bloated university bureaucracies and their enablers.

San Diego school districts overhauls grading system to combat racism

The San Diego Unified School District last week approved a major overhaul to its grading system as a part of a larger effort to combat racial discrimination.

The new changes came in response to data that showed disparities between the percentage of white and minority students who received D or F grades, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

According to the data, Black students accounted for about 20% of all D or F grades during the first semester of last year, while Native American and Hispanic students each accounted for 23%. By comparison, white students made up 7% of all D or F grades during that same period.

Under the district’s new system, non-academic factors like late work and classroom behavior will not be counted toward their overall academic grade.

SDUSD Vice President Richard Barrera said the overhaul represents the district’s “honest reckoning.”

“If we’re actually going to be an anti-racist school district, we have to confront practices like this that have gone on for years and years,” Barrera said. “I think this reflects a reality that students have described to us and it’s a change that’s a long time coming.”

The new system, which affects mostly middle school and high school students, will be implemented over this year and next.

All Vermont middle and high schoolers will have access to free condoms under new bill

Every high school and middle school in Vermont will now provide free condoms to students under a new bill that was just signed into law.

"In order to prevent or reduce unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, each school district shall make condoms available to all students in its secondary schools, free of charge," the bill reads. "At a minimum, condoms shall be placed in locations that are safe and readily accessible to students, including the school nurse’s office."

The Vermont Agency of Education and Department of Health both expressed support for the legislation, which was signed by Republican Gov. Phil Scott on Oct. 5th.

A 2019 survey by the state's health department found that nearly a third of high school students are sexually active, but of those students, only 32% report regularly using condoms.

Republican Rep. Topper McFaun, who introduced the bill, told Vermont Public Radio that the aim of this legislation is to allow students to protect themselves and reduce the number of abortions that are happening.

“I’m talking about allowing people to be in the position where they don’t have to make the decision, that crucial decision, to have an abortion or not — that’s what I’m trying to prevent,” he told the local news outlet. “And the way to do that is to provide ways to allow people to protect themselves.”

A 2018 study in the American Journal of Health Promotion found that making condoms freely available to students does not increase sexual behavior, but does increase condom use among sexually active students.

Not everyone is convinced that making condoms available to students will be a net positive though, particularly for middle schoolers. The Vermont Right to Life Committee cited the bill as one of the "dangerous new proposals" that has "potential to increase abortion rates in Vermont."

"There should be concern when there is evidence that a child is engaged in a sexual relationship - such as when a 12-year old seeks out condoms," Sharon Toborg, a policy analyst for the Vermont Right to Life Committee, said in opposition to the bill. "Yet instead of strengthening efforts to identify children who are potentially being abused, [the bill] weakens the mandatory reporting laws."

Nationally, 7.2% of high schools and 2.3% of middle schools provide condoms to students, according to the CDC. Vermont will be the first state to require that schools provide condoms to students though, the National Coalition of STD Directors told Vermont Public Radio.

Vermont's bill is set to go into effect on July 1st.

College biology quiz refers to Trump as 'eugenicist'

Voter outreach on college campuses is a big challenge for Democrats amid the pandemic – in part because a lot of students aren't there.

A biology professor at Gettysburg College referred to President Trump as a 'eugenicist' on a quiz administered to students, according to a screenshot obtained by Young America’s Foundation through its Campus Bias Tip Line.

YAF's Kara Zupkus said the submission came from a student in adjunct professor Betty Furster's introductory biology class during the Spring 2020 semester, who chose to remain anonymous out of "fear of retribution."

Students were given a multiple choice question which read “Trump is a ____?”.

If students clicked on “eugenicist” as their answer, they were given a point and provided an explanation that defined the term as “the ‘science’ of human improvement through better breeding."

"It was discredited in 1939 but Trump thinks he’s smart because his uncle was an MIT professor and healthy because he has good genes – we don’t know if he’s healthy, they haven’t released the results of his last check-up,” the explanation adds. "He's orange."

Zupkus noted the question about the president was the only political question on the quiz, with the remaining four questions covering biology concepts such as pleiotropy, heritability, and twins.

A spokesperson for Gettysburg College told FOX News that the school's Office of the Provost immediately looked into the matter as soon as it was made aware of it.

"Gettysburg College and the instructor both recognize that this incident is inconsistent with our commitment, detailed in our Freedom of Expression Philosophy, to sustain a community in which all members feel their ideas, opinions, and beliefs are respected and protected, even when those ideas are not shared universally," the spokesperson added. "The instructor has acknowledged it was a mistake in judgment and explained to us that, when a student expressed concern last spring, she apologized."

***********************************

My other blogs: Main ones below

http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

No comments: