# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Harsh truancy laws don’t help students get an education—and they unfairly attack poor parents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore case studies and emerging trends of the 4 Day Week in Education, highlighting its impact on learning, student well-being, and teachers productivity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Streaming Ads Are So Much Worse Than Traditional Ad Breaks | MZS | Roger Ebert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions cut the cords of cable to avoid ads, but the new normal is even worse.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What’s Wrong with Strict Parenting? - The Family & Youth Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research shows that most people think strict parenting produces better-behaved kids. However, research studies on discipline consistently show that strict, or authoritarian, child-raising actually produces kids with lower self-esteem who behave worse than other kids — and therefore get punished more! Strict parenting actually creates behavior problems in children. Why? 1. Strict parenting deprives kids […]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Streaming companies, let’s skip ads forever! - The Observer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For many students at WCHS, all one wants to do after a long day at school is sit down and catch up on their favorite show. From Disney+ to Hulu, many platforms offer a multitude of shows and movies. Despite all of their differences, however, these services all have one thing in common: the recent…

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Although the A-F grading scale used today in the United States was established by educators at Mount Holyoke University in 1897, educators have been somewhat divided on the numeric grading system for much longer. The debate centers largely around learning outcomes and how numeric grading in education affects student motivation and classroom fairness. That said, many experts also express concern over its impacts on student well-being.

Whether grading is beneficial, detrimental, or a combination of both may vary greatly depending on several factors. The role of the individual also plays a large part: While grading in education might be effective for some students, it might not be helpful for and may even be detrimental to others. Here, we'll discuss the role and potential pros and cons of grading and how it can impact student motivation and mental health.

Getty/vitapix

Pressures around school performance can cause stress

What is grading in education, and what does it aim to achieve?

The grading process involves assigning a " rank or level of quality given to a product, substance, person, or organization." Within the context of education, it informs how teachers calculate student competencies in certain areas. In contrast to assessments based on verbal feedback, grading assigns a numeric value to an individual's school performance based on classroom assignments and tests. There are several core goals of grading. They include:

Measuring academic performance

Providing feedback for improvement

Communicating achievement to parents, colleges, or employers

If you are struggling with substance use, contact the SAMHSA National Helpline at 1-800-662-HELP (4357) to receive support and resources. Support is available 24/7.

Grading's influence on motivation, from elementary to high school learning and beyond

Several psychological theories of motivation outline what drives people toward or away from a specific goal. Some suggest that behavior is motivated by an individual's innate need to maintain optimal physiological arousal and well-being. Others posit that human behavior is motivated by factors we can more easily manipulate, such as incentives, rewards, or pressures.

Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are often associated with traditional grading systems and student motivation. Intrinsic motivation involves a person's innate drive toward things that interest them. Conversely, extrinsic motivation can be defined as an externally sourced reason to initiate or continue a certain behavior. In a classroom setting, extrinsic motivation may arise from environmental incentives such as grades.

The role of grading in fear-based learning

Fear is another source of motivation that drives behavior according to the presence or intensity of something we fear. Grading systems can play a significant role in fear-based learning. For example, they may create an environment in which fears of the consequences of a low grade motivate students rather than a love of learning.

Potential positive impacts of grading on student learning

In some cases, grading can have a positive effect on student learning. When combined with quality feedback and clear expectations, it can act as a tool to guide a student toward better understanding and academic growth. The grading system can positively facilitate learning by incentivizing effort and improving student work in several areas.

Letter grades for accountability and structure

In some cases, a grading system may effectively hold students accountable for their academic performance. It might play a role in motivating students to take ownership of their learning and set goals for improvement.

Focus and organization

Students can use their grades to gauge their learning progress and identify areas where they need to focus more effort. This knowledge can help the student organize a goal-oriented, time-based plan for improving those areas.

Student performance assessment

By analyzing grades, teachers can assess student performance and identify those requiring additional support or interventions to succeed. The grading system also provides students a simple way to see where they stand academically and understand their performance relative to others.

Expectations for student learning achievement

Letter grades can help set clear expectations for student achievement. In some cases, grades serve as a clear way to communicate a student's academic performance to parents, guardians, and other relevant parties, which can open the door for dialogue and solutions.

Potential negative impacts of grade-based learning

Getty/Olga Rolenko

Focus on performance over learning

In a conventional grading system, students may prioritize grades over understanding. When students prioritize only achieving high grades, they might use conditioned learning and memorization tactics to pass tests rather than truly comprehending the subject matter.

Limited feedback

A single letter grade often doesn't provide sufficiently detailed feedback to students about their academic performance. When students can't identify and understand their strengths and weaknesses on a deeper level than a grade measurement, they'll likely encounter barriers to academic improvement.

Impact of grading in education on fairness and objectivity

Biases in the grading systems can significantly impact fairness. Instructors may subjectively grade student work, leading to inconsistencies in how students are assessed. Research suggests that race- or gender-based discrimination and other biases may affect the grades teachers give, which may significantly impact the classroom environment and the educational outcomes of students. Additionally, measuring academic achievement based on grade comparisons between students doesn't always consider differences in learning styles or diverse individual needs and strengths.

Impact on creativity and critical thinking

For some students, a traditional grading system may discourage risk-taking and exploration, potentially impacting their ability to think critically and solve problems. It may also create an atmosphere of competition that hinders creative, collaborative learning.

Alternatives to traditional grading systems

Research on learning systems and how they impact student outcomes reveals a wide variety of potentially successful alternatives that aim to provide more detailed insights into student understanding beyond a single letter grade. Alternative learning systems may be a way to deliver more effective feedback and clearer expectations as well as opportunities for active engagement in the learning process. Such alternatives may also reduce bias by focusing on specific skills and progress rather than comparing students to each other.

Standards-based grading practices for elementary through high school

Standards-based grading (SBC) is a type of alternative grading in which student marks are determined according to specific learning standards versus an entire assignment. For example, a teacher might measure a student's aptitude in solving a multi-step math problem using a scale of one to four, with one indicating minimal understanding and four indicating complete mastery. A final grade may be calculated according to a student's mastery of each standard through multiple assessments. SBC also provides teachers and students alike with deeper insight into areas needing improvement and the foundation to work on them together.

Competency-based education

This assessment model focuses on mastering skills rather than achieving letter grades. It's often self-paced and uses real-life experience to determine a student's success. A competency-based approach provides a holistic way to evaluate students' learning through accumulated work. These types of programs are often college-level and internet-delivered.

Narrative feedback in education

In the context of grading practices, narrative assessment involves providing detailed, qualitative feedback instead of or in addition to numeric or letter grades. Through this model, teachers may gain a more nuanced picture of a student's journey that highlights both strengths and areas for development. It may also be more helpful when establishing a goal-oriented plan for student improvement.

School performance and mental health

For some students, high academic performance provides a sense of accomplishment and boosts self-esteem. For others, it can create emotional distress and diminished well-being. When school pressures do impact mental health, not everyone experiences the same level of stress. It often depends on an individual's ability to cope and their level of support from teachers, counselors, or parents.

Persistent pressure-whether from oneself, outside influences, or both-can cause anxiety and stress, especially when students interpret that they are not meeting expectations. Academic performance that doesn't meet given standards can negatively affect a student's confidence and overall self-perception. Such interpretations can create a cycle of self-doubt, potentially leading to decreased motivation, anxiety, and depression.

Additionally, comparing oneself to peers who seem to be achieving higher grades can exacerbate perceptions of inadequacy and low self-worth. In some cases, academically struggling students might become targets for bullying, further impacting their self-esteem and mental well-being. Stress related to school performance can also affect an individual's physical health, which is linked to mental health. For example, stress over poor grades may disrupt sleep patterns, leading to fatigue and difficulty concentrating.

How to support students experiencing academic stress

Research suggests that academic stress is a worldwide issue that can affect every facet of a student's life. Understanding its sources, symptoms, and consequences can help inform effective intervention strategies. Self-care and positive lifestyle habits like eating nutritious foods, getting plenty of quality sleep, and engaging in regular exercise may help lay the foundation for effective stress management. A strong support system of friends, family, teachers, and peers may also help.

Another way to support students with academic stress is to help them receive the care of a licensed counselor or therapist. Studies suggest that therapy, including online therapy, has the potential to boost one's ability to cope with the mental and emotional distress associated with academic stress. For example, a post-COVID meta-analysis of 17 studies indicates that online intervention had a significant impact on depressive symptoms in participants, particularly in adolescents and young adults-many of whom were affected by academic stress. The same study also suggested favorable outcomes for individuals experiencing anxiety and social issues.

The reasons behind such successes are varied. Some research suggests that, among adolescents, the " most valued benefits of online therapy include alleviation of stigma"and increased availability. Online therapy typically offers more convenience and flexibility in accommodating student schedules and may also provide connection to a larger pool of therapists with diverse experience and specialization.

Getty/Vadym Pastukh

Pressures around school performance can cause stress

The future of letter grades in the learning process

Overall, the future of grading will likely shift from a more traditional "A-F" approach to a more collaborative, balanced system of evaluating student learning. Instead of simply assigning a letter grade, educators may provide a more holistic approach to student assessment that emphasizes individual progress, deeper understanding, and a focus on skills development. To help students achieve success, teachers may use more diverse assignment methods, including but not limited to performance-based tasks, portfolios, and presentations.

Frequently asked questions
What is the grading system in school?
The grading system refers to the way teachers assess students' performance. It typically uses numbers and/or letters to represent grades and can be used to evaluate a student's GPA (grade point average).
What is the purpose of grading?
Grading is a way to quantify a student's current performance and whether they are meeting learning targets. Over time, grades can reveal student progress and whether their performance has been consistent over time. This may enable different students to self-reflect and identify the areas in which they could improve.
How is grading calculated?
Each school and teacher may have their own grading system. Some teachers may offer extra credit opportunities to make up for early mistakes, for example, while others may only grade homework and tests directly related to curriculum and daily instruction. Effective grading systems work in such a way that they offer high-quality feedback on learners' progress.
What is the five-level grading scale?
The five-level grading scale consists of the grades A, B, C, D, and F. A is the highest grade, while F indicates that a student has failed.
What are the three methods of grading?
There are several grading methods that schools can use, including the five-level grading scale described above, a pass/fail system, and a credit/no credit system.
How do teachers do grading?
Most teachers grade students on homework, quizzes, tests, projects, work habits, and class participation. Often, schools' required reporting practices mean time spent grading takes up a significant amount of teachers' days.
What is the grading process?
The grading process varies between teachers and schools. For more information, ask your teacher about their reporting system and what is most important for good grades on report cards. Will you self-assess your efforts, or will your teacher use common rubrics and scoring guides to evaluate your progress in their course? Will low-stakes practice worksheets count for a grade? When is the marking period? How will you know if you're achieving at, above, or below grade level? Getting this information at the beginning of the school year may allow for better feedback and room to learn new skills.
What is the most common grading scale?
In the United States, the most common grading scale tends to be the five-level grading scale (A, B, C, D, F) alongside the 4.0 GPA scale. This scale encourages students to set high expectations for themselves by achieving the highest grades possible.
What is standard-based grading?
Rather than assigning a grade to students, standards-based grading measures their performance against specific standards and skills. It breaks down larger subjects into smaller learning objectives.
What is the highest grading method?
The highest grade is typically an A, but this depends on the type of grading scale used. Innovative teaching methods may evaluate student behavior and academic performance in different ways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Grading In Education Affects Student Learning And Education In School | BetterHelp

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn about outcomes of letter grades-based learning in school and education settings, including how it affects student learning in high school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Food dyes your children eat may cause hyperactivity and moodiness. An Ohio State child and adolescent psychiatrist offers some advice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why College Athletes Should Be Paid? Detailed Analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here’s all the reasons why college athletes should be paid with our detailed reports and analysis. Understand financial struggles & more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Something Went Terribly Wrong With Online Ads

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A new study from researchers at the George Washington University suggests that emissions savings from electric vehicles (EV) might be overestimated.

The assumption among modelers and regulatory bodies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been that EV owners drive their cars about the same number of miles as owners of gas vehicles.

The study, " Quantifying Electric Vehicle Mileage in the United States," was published in Joule.

In one of the largest studies on EV mileage to date, researchers at GW and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory examined odometer data from 12.9 million used cars and 11.9 million used SUVs between 2016 and 2022. They found that battery electric vehicle (BEV) cars were driven almost 4,500 fewer miles annually than gas cars. The study found a gap for both cars and SUVs: electric cars had traveled 7,165 miles while gas-powered cars had traveled 11,642 miles annually, and electric SUVs traveled 10,587 miles while their gas-powered counterparts traveled 12,945 miles annually.

"People often assume that buying an EV is good for the environment, and it generally is, but the impacts scale with mileage," said John Helveston, study co-author and assistant professor of engineering management and systems engineering at GW. "Our study shows that the current generation of EV owners aren't using them as much as gas cars. For maximum impact, we need the highest-mileage drivers behind the wheel of EVs rather than low-mileage drivers."

Because EVs generally have lower emissions over their lifetime, replacing a higher-mileage gasoline vehicle with an EV results in larger emissions savings, all else being equal.

The researchers also compared miles traveled in Tesla versus non-Tesla BEVs, given Tesla's prominence in the EV market and other features like higher-range vehicles and a well-established fast-charging network. Nonetheless, they found that while Teslas were driven more than other EVs, Teslas were still driven less than conventional gas cars. The study did show that plug-in hybrid and hybrid vehicles were driven similarly to gas vehicles, however.

The study has implications for policymakers and regulators who are drafting and implementing emissions regulations, as the findings challenge current assumptions about how far people are driving their electric vehicles. For example, the latest analysis from the EPA assumes EVs are already driven the same number of miles as conventional gas cars.

"If you're going to craft a model that predicts how much emissions can be saved from EV adoption, that model heavily depends on how much you think EVs will be driven. If federal agencies are overestimating true mileage, that results in overestimating the emissions savings," Helveston said. "We need to better understand not just who is buying EVs, but how they're driving them. What trips are EV owners substituting for a cleaner trip in an EV, and what trips are EV owners not taking?"

While not a focus of the study, Helveston suggested a couple of factors that may be affecting how far EV owners are driving their cars, including a lack of charging infrastructure that may limit EV owners' ability to reliably take longer-distance trips. Researchers also suggest multi-vehicle households may be another reason behind these findings. People who own EVs often own multiple vehicles, and they may be spreading out their annual miles over each of them, resulting in lower overall mileage on the EV.

"The magnitude of data used in this study posed several technical challenges, but I hope our efforts can inform policy around the impacts of EV adoption," said Lujin Zhao, a GW Ph.D. student who led the study.

The study's findings also have implications for the electricity grid as it means the anticipated electricity consumption from EV adoption may be lower than utilities are planning for. Additionally, the researchers say it's also important to consider that making a battery-powered EV typically results in higher upfront emissions compared to making a gasoline vehicle. Helveston and the research team said it will take longer to compensate for those higher up-front emissions if people aren't driving the EV enough.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Study Finds Electric Vehicles Are Driven Less Than Gas Cars | GW Today | The George Washington University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the largest studies to date finds current EV owners drive far fewer miles than owners of gas vehicles, translating to lower emissions savings from EVs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The .gov means it's official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Abstract

Background: Food dyes, synthesized originally from coal tar and now petroleum, have long been controversial because of safety concerns. Many dyes have been banned because of their adverse effects on laboratory animals or inadequate testing.

Conclusions: This review finds that all of the nine currently US-approved dyes raise health concerns of varying degrees. Red 3 causes cancer in animals, and there is evidence that several other dyes also are carcinogenic. Three dyes (Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) have been found to be contaminated with benzidine or other carcinogens. At least four dyes (Blue 1, Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) cause hypersensitivity reactions. Numerous microbiological and rodent studies of Yellow 5 were positive for genotoxicity. Toxicity tests on two dyes (Citrus Red 2 and Orange B) also suggest safety concerns, but Citrus Red 2 is used at low levels and only on some Florida oranges and Orange B has not been used for several years. The inadequacy of much of the testing and the evidence for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and hypersensitivity, coupled with the fact that dyes do not improve the safety or nutritional quality of foods, indicates that all of the currently used dyes should be removed from the food supply and replaced, if at all, by safer colorings. It is recommended that regulatory authorities require better and independent toxicity testing, exercise greater caution regarding continued approval of these dyes, and in the future approve only well-tested, safe dyes.

Similar articles

In vitro and in vivo indications of the carcinogenicity and toxicity of food dyes.

Price PJ, Suk WA, Freeman AE, Lane WT, Peters RL, Vernon ML, Huebner RJ. Price PJ, et al. Int J Cancer. 1978 Mar 15;21(3):361-7. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910210318. Int J Cancer. 1978. PMID: 631937

Testing of 24 food, drug, cosmetic, and fabric dyes in the in vitro and the in vivo/in vitro rat hepatocyte primary culture/DNA repair assays.

Kornbrust D, Barfknecht T. Kornbrust D, et al. Environ Mutagen. 1985;7(1):101-20. doi: 10.1002/em.2860070106. Environ Mutagen. 1985. PMID: 3967633

Carcinogenicity and regulation of caramel colorings.

Jacobson MF. Jacobson MF. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2012 Jul-Sep;18(3):254-9. doi: 10.1179/1077352512Z.00000000031. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2012. PMID: 23026009

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national center for biotechnology information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This review finds that all of the nine currently US-approved dyes raise health concerns of varying degrees. Red 3 causes cancer in animals, and there is evidence that several other dyes also are carcinogenic. Three dyes (Red 40, Yellow 5, and Yellow 6) have been found to be contaminated with benzidi ...

# data[].attributes.body
How much it costs for different types of tuition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Average Cost of College [2025]: Yearly Tuition + Expenses

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An in-depth analysis of the average cost of college broken down by tuition, living expenses, loans, and lost income.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Academic Pressure: Causes, Effects, and Coping Strategies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Academic pressure is typically experienced by students. Read on to learn more about it as well as ways to cope.

# data[].attributes.body
How it can be helpful or unhelpful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the cost of an in-state, four-year institution is roughly $19,000 per year. The price tag on a college education is rising faster than wages. So, the question of whether or not lowering college tuition is a good idea comes up frequently. The arguments for and against this notion are rife with moral, political, and economical considerations.

Here, we will look at both sides of the coin. We will present the reasons why lowering college tuition is a good idea, as well as share the arguments that have been made against it.

Pros of Lowering the Cost of Education

The reasons to lower college tuition seem obvious. We all know that life isn't "fair," but education seems like it should be a human right. At least, that's what we believe at the University of the People.

As such, there are many reasons why making college more affordable is a good idea. Here are some pros to lowering college tuition:

1. Level the Playing Field:

Right now, if you can't afford to pay for college out of your pockets, you can't always go to your school of choice. You may feel forced to take loans or apply for scholarships. Therefore, the playing field is not equal. The only way to really make college education fair for everyone is to make it affordable (or free) for everyone. A lot of countries, especially in Europe, have already made this a reality. The University of the People has done the same by being a high-quality, 100% online, and tuition-free institution.

2. More Educated Population:

If more people could afford college, more people would probably attend. This leads to a more educated population. It has been shown that a more educated public results in higher political participation. With more people involved in a society, there is more opportunity to make positive changes and move society forward at a faster rate.

3. Less Debt:

On average, students in America graduate with debt that is more than $31,000. Entering into the workforce with that amount of debt makes saving a far reality, and also makes spending more difficult. Being in debt may delay big purchases like buying a house or car. These investments often require more loans, and the interest helps to stimulate the economy. But, with the massive amount of student loan debt, graduates have to budget to pay back loans.

4. More Money:

For the most part, having your college degree provides you with the opportunity to earn more money over your lifetime. With each higher level of education comes higher salaries. For example, high school graduates earn an average of $30,000 per year. Those with bachelor's degrees earn around $50,000, and graduates with a master's earn around $70,000.

5. Passion for Education:

When college costs are high, the experience is considered an investment. Therefore, students often weigh the pros and cons of different majors and may end up choosing a major out of the salary potential. Rather than studying what they love, they may feel forced to major in a subject that provides more earning potential. College should be an enjoyable experience. If there were less stress on money, then people around the world may be more inclined to pursue their passions. This would, in turn, result in a workforce that feels more satisfied with their jobs.

Arguments Against Lowering Tuition

It makes sense that making college free isn't an easy thing to do. Firstly, you have to pay the staff and administration, as well as the overhead costs to keep the campus running. Secondly, many universities are for-profit and run as a business. Therefore, profits are of utmost importance.

Some arguments against lowering college tuition include the following:

1. Financing:

The question is, "Where would the money come from?" Some people say that increasing taxes is the solution, but who will bear the burden? Also, other ideas would be to cut military spending, for example. This creates a highly polarized political argument.

2. Money Management:

For many people, college is the first big item on their life's list where they need to learn money management. College can teach how to create budgets and understand money skills that can be used later in life. So, if college tuition was lessened, how would younger generations hone this skill?

3. Value:

If everyone can attend college, does education lose its value? College degrees serve as a signal to employers and make the hiring process inherently differentiated between college graduates and those who didn't get a degree. Will college lose its importance if everyone can go and you don't really have to pay for it?

4. Quality:

Another concern is that if the demand for college was higher, then would the quality suffer? The argument here is that if the quality suffered, then more people may opt out of college, ultimately decreasing enrollment rather than increasing it over the long-term.

The Case for Tuition-Free Higher Education

While the arguments against lower tuition do have some validity, education should be a right for all.

The University of the People started in 2009 to make this a reality. Of course, as a completely online university with aid from volunteers and donations, this is achievable. At the University of the People, the educational model is uniquely different than traditional universities on many levels. For one, everything is online. Additionally, there is a high importance to the level of interaction between peers as students may even grade one another's work. Furthermore, the requirements for entrance are a lot less strict than most American universities. There is no need to complete a college entrance exam, like the SAT or ACT. Instead, prospective students must demonstrate that they are proficient in English and have completed high school.

To Be Continued...

Only time and political decisions will decide whether or not college tuition fees will be lowered. The facts show that tuition continues to increase faster than wages, which is making college affordability an issue.

On the one hand, students have alternatives like finding tuition-free universities, studying abroad, or studying online. On the other hand, it would be a fair and idyllic world if everyone had equal access to the institution of their choice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and Cons of Lowering College Tuition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is lowering college tuition a good idea? There are arguments that support this for good reason, as well as valid opinions against lowering tuition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Demonstrators calling for support to lower voting age in Seattle, Washington, 1969. (Museum of History and Industry)

Amendment Twenty-six to the Constitution was ratified on July 1, 1971. It lowered the voting age for all Americans to eighteen years, having previously been twenty-one years for the longest time. The official text is written as such:
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
At the time of its enactment, Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment established protections for the right to vote, specifically for the "male inhabitants of the state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States." The earliest calls for lowering the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen emerged in the 1940s, with Congressional proposals being endorsed by First Lady Elanor Roosevelt. Dwight D. Eisenhower publicly supported lowering the voting age in his 1954 State of the Union address, and in so doing became the first president to endorse the proposal. Later in the 1960s and early 1970s, the increasing public opposition to the Vietnam War renewed debates over lowering the right to vote. The age for the U.S. military's draft was set at eighteen years, leading to many conscripted citizens being effectively ordered to fight in a conflict that they had no political authority to vote on the country's involvement in. Many individuals and groups who were in favor of lowering the voting age argued that if a citizen was old enough to serve the country in the military, then they should be able to have the right to vote at the same age, hence the slogan "old enough to fight, old enough to vote." At the same time, the increasing number of young American men and women graduating high school, going to college, and engaging in political and social activism led to an increasing national awareness of the process of crafting laws and Constitutional amendments.

In light of the increasing calls for lowering the voting age, President Richard Nixon added a provision to do so in the 1970 extensions of the Voting Rights Act. This new act of Congress was challenged in the Supreme Court case of Oregon v. Mitchell, where it was determined that Congress has the authority to lower the voting age for federal elections, but not for state elections. A proposed amendment to have the voting age lowered for all levels of government was proposed and passed by both chambers of Congress in March 1971. After being sent out to the states for ratification, the new amendment - now recognized as the Twenty-sixth - was ratified on July 1, 1971. The Twenty-sixth Amendment has faced a few legal challenges in the decades since its ratification, with the general arguments ranging from how a college student from out-of-town is represented at the polls, if the amendment extends any other political institutions such as serving on a jury, or if voter identification laws are valid and recognized beneath it. On its own, the Twenty-sixth Amendment addressed one of the larger domestic controversies that had emerged amid the Cold War. The question of a citizen being old enough to fight and vote was asked, and it was answered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Constitutional Amendments - Amendment 26 - "Voting at the Age of Eighteen"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Constitutional Amendments - Amendment 26 - "Voting at the Age of Eighteen". Demonstrators calling for support to lower voting age in Seattle, Washington, 1969. (Museum of History and Industry) Amendment Twenty-six to the Constitution was ratified on July 1, 1971.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Banned: Growing number of high schools prohibiting fidget spinners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools across the country are banning the toy that every kid wants - the fidget spinner. According to SpinnerList, which claims to be the biggest database of all fidget spinners and makers on the market, 32 percent of the top 200 high schools in the United States have banned the toys.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
8 Tips to Prevent and Get Out of Truancy Charges

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
I looked at the mom/client sitting next to me at truancy court and gave her hand a squeeze. She looked up and gave me a

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sixteen- and 17-year-olds are able to drive a car, hold employment, pay taxes and represent the next generation of leaders. They have ignited social movements, but they are often ignored and unable to leverage their political power because they do not have the ability to vote. Lowering the voting age would help young people achieve greater political representation and allow them to engage in advocacy efforts with the extra power of being a voter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Spinners and the other toy crazes banned from schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The list already includes the yo-yo, marbles and Tamagotchi but now fidget spinners are the latest craze being banned from UK classrooms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Strict parenting can have some benefits, but research suggests the long-term risks outweigh the benefits.

Parenting is one of the most challenging jobs. The most constructive parenting styles often don't come naturally, making it even more work to be a great parent.

You have to navigate setting expectations for your child, consequences, and other responsibilities to foster their growth into a well-rounded adult. Some parents may be overly lenient in achieving this goal, while others focus on control and unquestioning obedience.

Do strict parents achieve better results for their kids? While the research shows strict or authoritarian parenting can be good in some ways, it often has negative effects.

Strict parents have a bad reputation. But rigid rules and high expectations often come from a good place. Strict parents usually impose tough rules and guidelines on their children because they want what is best for them. But this doesn't always produce the outcomes they want.

A person's culture may also dictate strict parenting. For example, older research suggests that those from collectivist cultures, such as Malaysia, tend to subscribe to authoritarian parenting styles.

The 4 types of parenting styles

There are generally four types of parenting styles.

Authoritarian style

Authoritarian-type parents are generally strict and inflexible. They impose a particular set of inflexible rules on their child and expect the child to obey without questioning their rules or expectations.

For example, a parent may assign specific chores, and there is no room for negotiation regarding what the chores are or when they're required to be completed.

If you operate from this parenting style, you likely have high expectations of your children. Children are often punished for making mistakes. Parents of this style are less nurturing and can come off as cold.

Authoritative style

Authoritative parents are nurturing but also discipline their children. They use appropriate consequences to support their children, not punish them. They explain why they set the rules that they do.

Children with authoritative parents have input and communication about their parents' expectations. Authoritative parent-child relationships are frequently close, with healthy and warm communication.

According to numerous research studies, authoritative parenting is the parenting style with the most benefits. It finds a balance between children's discipline and autonomy.

Permissive style

Permissive parents have low levels of expectations from their children. They rarely use disciplinary measures or have rules. Instead, they tend to be nurturing but often let children figure things out for themselves.

Permissive parents have open communication with their children. Parents that operate from this parenting style often adopt a friendship-type relationship with their children rather than take on a parent role.

Uninvolved style

In this style, parents give their children complete freedom to do what they want. As a result, parents often meet their children's basic needs and nothing more.

Parents that operate from an uninvolved style are generally viewed as cold and unaffectionate. These types of parents do not implement disciplinary tactics with their children, nor do they have a lot of communication with their children.

There are some benefits to having strict parents, which we define as parents who live by the authoritarian parenting style.

Well-behaved children

Children that grow up with authoritarian parents are often well-behaved. This is because strict parents set clear expectations of a child's behavior, and children know what's expected of them.

Behaving well is driven by fear. Children understand if they don't live up to expectations, there will be consequences.

This benefit may be most helpful during a child's younger years, as following strict rules can help keep them safer during various activities.

Goal-driven children

Children raised with authoritarian parents often have high expectations of themselves. These high expectations can help them reach their goals.

For example, research on college students in China found that authoritarian parenting style and high personal expectations were positively associated. In contrast, the same research study found that authoritarian parenting was positively associated with concern for one's mistakes.

Science has found several negative effects of strict parenting.

Lower academic achievement

In Western cultures, authoritarian, permissive, and uninvolved parenting styles have been negatively associated with performance in school. This is in contrast to authoritative parenting, which has been associated with higher levels of academic achievement.

Lower life satisfaction

Pure authoritarian parenting styles may impact a person's level of life satisfaction.

For example, research that explored the association between life satisfaction and parenting style found that parents who used only authoritarian styles had a substantial negative effect on children's life satisfaction in all 10 countries included in the study.

Increased anxiety and depression

Researchers have found links between authoritarian parenting and negative mental health outcomes in various countries, including childhood anxiety and depression.

Difficulty making decisions

According to a 2006 study of parents in Asian cultures, children with strict parents also have lower self-esteem.

They depend on others to build their confidence, which is less innate since they constantly look to their parents for approval. Their low self-esteem leads to difficulty making decisions.

Low self-esteem might be connected to strict parenting's tendency to raise kids with less empathy and social acceptance by peers, according to a 2020 study.

Higher levels of conflict intensity

Children raised with several harsh rules tend to rebel. For example, research examining conflict among adolescents and parents in China found that adolescents reported higher levels of conflict intensity when their parents used an authoritarian or uninvolved parenting style.

There are a few benefits to strict parenting, such as having your children behave in public or setting high expectations for themselves in achieving their goals. However, the long-term effects of authoritarian parenting tend to negatively affect children's self-esteem, academic achievement, and overall life satisfaction.

Authoritative parenting, which finds a balance between having rules and supporting them if they don't meet them, appears to have the best outcomes.

Parenting is a tough job, but having open communication with your children and allowing them room to make mistakes may be the best option for raising a happy and successful child.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Strict parenting can have some benefits, but research suggests the long-term risks outweigh the benefits. Parenting is one of the most challenging jobs. The most constructive parenting styles often don't come naturally, making it even more work to be a great parent.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Voting Age | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Voter Registration, & Elections | Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should the U.S. voting age be lowered to 16?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fidget Spinners are nothing new in this house. In fact one might say that we have enough fidgets in our house to arm an entire fidgeting army. So you can imagine my excitement when I started to see fidgets being used by the neighbor across the street, by the kid in this grocery store, and in almost every classroom in America. But just like any trend that children get excited about (you know slime, Pokemon go, unicorn drinks) for some reason, adults instantaneously freak out, find all of the negatives about the trend, and ruin it for the kids.

This morning alone I saw five different articles about why fidget spinners are ruining our world. One article went so far as to say that fidget spinners are killing America. Are you kidding me? A teeny tiny plastic tool is going to be the demise of America. Is that really our biggest problem that we have right now?

Could they have some valid points? Maybe there really is a valid reason why we should ban fidget Spinners from every school in America.

As a national board certified Early Childhood teacher and a parent that has spent the last five years researching sensory processing, the benefits of sensory play and fidgets, I have to say I'm actually appalled.

I could go on and on and tell you all of the benefits of the newly famous fidget spinner, but you might not listen to me. You see, every time I introduce a fidget, a sensory tool, or a new sensory strategy that could help a kid who struggles with focus, attention, and mind wandering (God forbid their mind wanders and they dream of far-off places where anything is possible) I am always met with the "yeah but" argument. So today I've decided to face them head-on.

Here are the top 5 reasons fidget spinners should be banned in every classroom in America...

Number 1: Kids are just using fidget spinners as toys

Seriously, so what if our kids are just using these as toys?

Don't you get excited every time you get that new gadget? I just got a new Fitbit last night for my birthday and goodness... I can't stop playing with the thing. I know what's going to happen when I tap the screen, yet, I'm immediately drawn to it...

30 minutes later... check the app. Tap, tap, tap... yep, still says the same thing.

30 minutes later... tilt my wrists and watch the light magically turn on.

There's something magical to getting something new. We want to investigate it. We want to learn about it. We want to figure out it's ins-and-outs and decipher exactly how it's going to be useful in our life.

Plus, we just want to have fun.

So if my kid decides his fidget spinner should be spun on his finger, on his nose, or on his toe... I don't really care. In fact, he just informed me this morning he can spin it on his tongue. What in the world? But honestly, I'm kind of amazed that he can balance this teeny tiny alien shaped thing on every body part possible.

Number 2: Fidget spinners are distracting in the classroom

Yes they are. I am not going to argue that they are not a distraction. I am not going to pretend that if an entire classroom of ten year olds came into my room whirring these teeny tiny things that I wouldn't want to lose my ever-loving mind.

But, if I remember correctly from my days in the classroom, I was a pretty good teacher. That meant that I had amazing classroom management skills. If we were presented with a problem... let's say kids using a new tool in an inappropriate way, we would bring it up during our class meeting.

Here's how this would go down today.

I would say... "Hey you're being annoying."

Okay, I wouldn't say it like that. Let's start over.
"Hey guys, I noticed lately some of you are using fidget spinners and that is awesome. Unfortunately, some of you are using them when we shouldn't, having balancing contests during tests or you're throwing them at my head while I'm teaching... these are all bad ideas. So, how can we solve this problem?"
You see, I would give the problem back to the kids and guess what?

The kids would help me come up with a solution. I know they would tell me that we should come up with designated times that the fidget spinners would be available (if this was needed).

They would tell me we need to come up with a class set of rules on how to use this fidget spinners. Things like ...

Fidgit Spinners must stay in our pocket.

Fidget Spinners must stay in our hands.

Fidget spinners should not fly across the room.

Amazing, right? If we give kids the chance, they're actually pretty brilliant.

So can fidget spinners be a distraction?

Absolutely.

Can good teachers help their children learn when and when it's not appropriate to spin their fidget spinner on their nose?

I sure hope so.

Click here to get a high quality fidget spinner from Top Trends (We sold out on Project Sensory)

Number 3: Not all kids need fidget spinners

How do you know?

Seriously! How do you know that every kid in America does not need a fidget?

When you were in school, did you not tap your pencil on your desk? Did you not have kids in your class that leaned back in their chair so far that they fell over and hit their head on the desk behind them? When you're sitting in your boardroom meetings, do you not have people at the table that are tapping their their feet so much that it shakes the table?

STOP!!

Stop what you're doing right now.

Look up from your screen.
Look around you. Out of the people that you see... how many of those people are picking their nails? chewing their fingernails? rubbing a piece of clothing? twiddling their hair? chewing bubble gum? or using their hands to talk?
You see, the problem in America is not that all of the sudden kids need to use fidgets to focus. The problem is that it's never been recognized before.
Now, let's talk about those kids that need them (the ones that can't sit still in the classroom) ... the ones that you're so worried about alienating if you ban fidget spinners or any other tool that the kids suddenly get excited about.

You are going to alienate the kids that you are worried about most. Their constant need to move their hands, fiddle with their fingers, or tap their pink pencil is now the norm. Give them that. They deserve it.

They waited a long time for this.

They get to feel like everybody else and do you really want to take that away from them?

Oh, and don't worry. The kids that "really" need it won't care that the trend fades and fidget spinners hit the trash cans across America in a few weeks. Why? Because they need them and they've finally found something that helps.

Number 4: There's no real evidence that fidget spinners help kids with Autism, ADHD, and other special needs

Are you freaking kidding me ?

How long do we have together today?

How many articles can I link to before you get sick of me linking to the benefits of fidgeting for focus and attention?

Not to mention the numerous articles that I could share that are going to point to the benefits of stimming for kids that have ADHD, autism, or other differently wired brains.

Just a few weeks ago the whole world was up in arms over how deadly slime is, how terribly messy and annoying slime is, and how there can't possibly be a benefit to this ooey gooey substance that all our kids are infatuated with.
I call BS.
Why do we keep ruining the things that are amazing for our kids?

Why do we keep looking for death and destruction in every teeny tiny little thing?

People always say "Well, when I was a kid there wasn't so much ADHD, autism, and sensory processing disorder. We just called those kids brats."

You know what I call those kids ... misunderstood, misdiagnosed, and MISSED, completely missed.

We owe it to our kids today that are screaming in our face and telling us that they need things like slime, bouncy seats , balls and fidget spinners in their classroom. Don't even get me started on why I think they need all of these things. I could go on for hours and hours. Number 5: Fidget spinners shouldn't even be needed.

Amen sista! Seriously, I hear your argument that kids need recess. They need to move. They need to wiggle and play and be kids. They need lots of things that we are not giving them in the modern day classroom but that is for a completely different post.

Here's the thing though, we are not giving kids these things. How many articles have you read about the importance of extended recess , later start times , and more active and engaged learning? Yet, year after year, after year, we add on more and more tests. We put more restraints on the teachers and the students. We add more after-school activities.

And for the kids who are falling behind, we tell them to add more hours of tutoring to their day, come to school a few minutes early to get extra support or practice a little more at home.

Don't even get me started on the kids who are acting out in class (probably throwing Spinners at their teachers heads). What do we do with these kids? We take away their recess.

I wish I could say that the problem was just recess. I wish I could tell you that if kids played more, jumped more, ran more and were kids more, all of this would go away. But, that would be foolish.

Many kids that need fidgets, bouncy balls, and movement in the classroom are wired differently and when we, as a society, can realize that there are many children and people among us every single day that think and act differently than we do, we won't care if the new fad is slime or fidget spinners or hacky sacks.

So I guess I am just left with one more question?
Do you still think that we should ban fidget spinners in every school in America? Why or why not?
I'd love to hear your thoughts. Comment below or tell me on Facebook! Since this post is going viral, I will be hopping on my Facebook page later to talk all about the pros and cons of allowing fidgets in schools. Be sure to follow so you can join the conversation.

So many people have asked for resources for teaching and loving fidgety kids, so I have gathered some of my favorite posts about supporting sensory needs in the classroom (and at home) for you:

RESOURCES TO LEARN MORE ABOUT FIDGETING
Sensory Hacks to Focus a Fidgety Child
The REAL Reason Kids Can't Sit Still
100 Sensory Strategies for the Classroom
How to Introduce Fidgets in the Classroom
The REAL Reason Kids Fidget
How to Teach a Fidgety Child
A Letter to the Teacher From "That Kid" (The Fidgety, Can't Sit Still, Meltdown Having Kid)
Many people have also mentioned that fidget spinners are too loud, too annoying and just toys. There are tons of other options out there if you are in the mood to try fidgets but want to stay clear of a fad. I plan to write a whole list, but for now here are a few to get you started!

FIDGETS THAT AREN'T ANNOYING

The Fidget Fix (5 awesome fidgets for a super low cost)
DIY Stress Balls
Therapy Putty
Rubber Bands (Yes, the same rubber bands you keep on your wrists)
Calming Slime (Yes, I'm scared of all the slime haters... but it's a great tool)
Totally Rad DIY Fidget Spinners

I could seriously go on and on. I have over 100 calm down tools and strategies you can use to help ALL kids focus and feel successful. Take this as a chance to try new things.

Oh, and while you are here. If you are looking for more ways to engage your wiggly kids, provide support for your disorganized kiddo, or simply want to take all the frustration out of your day with your little one and you know a kid with hidden "super powers" ... you will want to check out my new book coming out in August, The Superkids Activity Guide to Conquering Every Day (Awesome Games and Crafts to Master Your Moods, Boost Focus, Hack Mealtimes and Help Grownups Understand Why You Do the Things You Do)!

With over 75 day to day solutions for your kiddos from DIY fidgets to games that teach social skills, it empowers children to help adults understand why they do the things they do. You can pre-order now and send me a receipt to PREORDER at SUPERKIDSGUIDE.COM for a special gift just for you and your Superkid! Psss... It's gonna be epic!!!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons to Ban Fidget Spinners from Every Classroom in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fidget Spinners are nothing new in this house. In fact one might say that we have enough fidgets in our house to arm an entire fidgeting army. So you can imagine my excitement when I started to see fidgets being used by the neighbor across the street, by the kid in this grocery store, and in almost every classroom in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2021, the NCAA introduced an interim name, image, and likeness (NIL) policy, and in 2024, agreed to a settlement to resolve a set of anti-trust lawsuits related to the payment of college athletes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's new pressure on the Food and Drug Administration to take action on the synthetic food coloring, red No. 3, after California passed a law to ban it last week.

California became the first state to ban four food additives, including red No. 3, and public health advocates are pushing to remove the dye from the food supply nationwide. "I think the passage of the bill in California creates undeniable pressure on the FDA," says Dr. Peter Lurie, president and executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

His group, joined by other consumer advocacy groups including Public Interest Research Group and Consumer Federation of America, filed a petition last October with the FDA to ban the use of red No. 3. Lurie says he thinks the action in California will "make it more likely that they grant our petition."

Back in 1990, the FDA halted the use of the red No. 3 in cosmetics and externally applied drugs, such as medicated ointments or lotions, based on a study that it can cause cancer in rats. But the FDA continued to allow the dye's use in foods and has become ubiquitous in the U.S. food supply. Since then, multiple studies have linked consumption of synthetic dyes to behavioral issues in children, including hyperactivity.

"For 33 years now, we have been waiting for the FDA to take common sense action that would remove [red No. 3] from the market and thereby better protect American consumers," says Lurie.

Synthetic food dyes, including red No. 3, give bright, flashy coloring to foods, making them more appealing to the eye.

"The vibrant colors are important to our industry," says Christopher Gindlesperger, of the National Confectioners Association, a trade group that includes companies that make candy. Red No. 3 is also found in many other foods and beverages, such as bright-colored sodas, juices, yogurts, snacks and frozen desserts. He says his industry does not use any ingredients that do not comply with FDA's safety standards.

But Gindlesperger says the California ban, slated to take effect in 2027, would create a patchwork of state requirements that could increase food costs and create confusion amongst consumers, including parents.

He says the FDA should use its regulatory authority to settle the issue of whether red 3 can continue to be used in food. In a letter to the FDA, the organization said that California was "out of its depths when it comes to national food safety standards."

"It's FDA's call to make," Gindlesperger says. "It's time for the FDA to lean into the discussion and, have a solid review, [and] evaluate all the available science," he says, so the agency can provide the guidance that food companies need.

When California's Environmental Protection Agency reviewed the body of evidence on synthetic dyes, they found evidence the dyes consumed in food can negatively impact children's behavior. Out of about 25 studies, more than half identified a positive association between artificial food coloring intake and behavioral outcomes.

They also reviewed dietary survey data and found a higher intake of synthetic dyes in lower income communities. "We also found Black Americans tended to have higher intake," says Asa Bradman, a public health scientist at the University of California, Merced, who helped with the state's analysis.

"I tend to err on the side of precaution," Bradman says. "I think there is good reason to remove [red No. 3] from the food supply."

In one double-blinded study, children, aged 3 to 9 years old, consumed a drink that contained synthetic dyes or a placebo drink that was dye-free. The researchers found artificial colors in the diet resulted in increased hyper-activity.

"I think the evidence is compelling from those human studies that children's consumption of synthetic food dyes can contribute to increases in symptoms like inattention, hyperactivity in some children," says Mark Miller, a scientist with California's EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Miller has also published a review of animal studies, which indicate synthetic food dyes can affect memory and learning. He says the state's review suggests it's time for the FDA to re-evaluate synthetic dyes, based on the newer evidence.

An FDA spokesperson told NPR the agency is "actively reviewing" the petition from the consumer advocacy groups to halt the use of red No. 3 in foods. The agency will assess whether there's "sufficient data" to revoke its use, according to the spokesperson.

In regard to a potential cancer risk identified back in 1990, the agency argues this risk is specific to rats. "These data have been carefully studied and widely understood among the scientific community to not be relevant to human cancer," the spokesperson wrote in an email to NPR.

Scientists with the Center for Science in the Public Interest disagree. "By our evaluation, the mechanism by which Red 3 causes cancer has still not been clearly established," wrote Thomas Galligan, a scientist who focuses on food additives for the group. He says establishing a mechanism would require long-term studies, which have not been conducted, to his knowledge.

He points out that red dye 3 is already severely restricted in the European Union, among other countries.

The FDA spokesperson also says a state-initiated ban on food ingredients, referring to the new California law, could potentially disrupt the food supply. "The U.S. depends on a unified food system," the spokesperson says, adding that "the science-based FDA approach to oversight of the food system is the best way to ensure safety."

Though synthetic food dyes in general have been linked to behavioral issues in kids, red dye 3 has been singled out for a ban due to the evidence on cancer. "It's very low-hanging fruit that FDA really should have picked decades ago," Galligan says, but the evidence that synthetic colors can influence children's behavior extends to a range of colors. His group has been urging the FDA to ban eight synthetic food dyes since 2008, including Yellow 5, Red 40, Blue 1, Blue 2, Green 3, Red 3, Yellow 6, and a rarely used orange hue.

Meanwhile, California EPA's Miller says it may be difficult to conduct more trials on the effects of synthetic food dye on humans, since there's already a body of evidence pointing to a link. Better evidence could come from a controlled study, where kids are dosed with dye, but "it might be considered unethical to perform those tests," Miller says.

"That's really important because, the data that we have now may be the all the data we're really going to have in human children," he adds.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has long advised parents to limit sugary drinks, juices and candy, the types of foods that often contain synthetic dyes, and the group concluded these dyes may have effects on children's behavior and attention.

Some candy manufacturers have already removed red No. 3 from their products. For instance, M&M's and Skittles no longer contain the dye. But it can still be found in many other products, including certain snacks, cake and cookie icing and decorations and some Halloween treats.
Edited by Carmel Wroth. The radio version of this story was edited by Diane Webber.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
FDA faces pressure to act nationwide on red dye in food

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Red No. 3 was banned from cosmetics three decades ago. Consumer advocates question why it's still allowed in food products, including many popular with kids.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Basiyr Rodney, PhD, Webster University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA

There is no question that the chronic teacher shortage plaguing the nation was exacerbated by COVID-19.

In Missouri, there is an ongoing acceleration of teachers leaving the profession and an increasing difficulty to attract new candidates. As a leader in teacher preparation I often get the question, "How do we attract new teachers?" Or more recently I get: "Can you send some of your student teachers to my school? I'll pay them to be in the classroom even if they have not graduated yet."

I find both these questions troubling especially when they come from school superintendents and principals. The fact is there is a tested solution to our teacher shortage. It is the four-day school week or four-day schedule. As of this year, 25% of Missouri districts have adopted a four-day school week.

Many districts, such as Everton School District in Dade County, adopted this approach in 2013 for teacher retention. But the approach also serves two other crucial purposes. It enhances the professional profile of teaching and reduces teacher burnout. Offering teachers more professional autonomy attracts more teachers. This flexibility communicates a higher level of respect for teachers and the profession.

Some districts originally adopted the strategy for cost savings. Although not a great deal of money is saved (most estimates suggest cost savings of 10% to 20%), the stability of the teaching staff is strengthened. Most districts report a reduced need for substitute teachers and a marked reduction of teacher absences as a result of the four-day schedule.

A chronic question about the four-day schedule is it's impact on urban children in large districts. Although the research is still ongoing, we now know that generally there is no significant difference in student performance. Moreover, the stability in the teaching force in some cases is leading to better learning performance. The Devers School District in Texas recently reported an increase in performance.

Since the early 2000s education leaders in Finland have demonstrated that shortened school days do not lead to less effective teaching and does not necessarily lead to diminished student achievement. In Finland and the high performing Nordic countries, school is only four hours per day. Teacher shortages are unheard of, and the large majority of students are generally high performing. In fact, students in these countries routinely outperform students from other developed countries, including the U.S. and the U.K.

Missouri would do well to follow the 25% of school districts across our state with the four-day week. Districts that have adopted this approach are addressing teacher shortages and are effectively providing motivated and professional teachers to meet students' needs. As a parent, I would prefer a four-day schedule with a qualified teacher to a five-day week with a substitute or a teacher in training. Districts that choose to avoid this path by relying on temporary teachers, pool substitutes or even student teachers are engaging in educational malpractice. School boards should hold themselves accountable for the negative impact on children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why a Four-Day School Week Might Save the Teaching Profession

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Webster University faculty member believes there is a tested solution to our teacher shortage. It is the four-day school week or four-day schedule, which 25% of Missouri districts have adopted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pros and Cons of Strict Parenting: How It Can Affect Your Child’s Development. - School Dekho

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India’s first search engine for school admissions. We’re dedicated to giving you the best school of your choice, with a focus on education as a priority, infrastructure, and nature, like extracurricular activities, programs, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
How high tuition costs are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Much Does College Cost (A Realistic Estimate) | Farm Bureau Financial Services

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Get the articles, news, tips, and more you need to help you plan today and prepare for tomorrow.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
College sports are big business but not necessarily for all athletes. Is the new NCAA decision to let them get paid justified?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Judicature | The Scholarly Journal About the Judiciary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Scholarly Journal about the Judiciary published by the Bolch Judicial Institute of Duke Law School.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Judicature | The Scholarly Journal About the Judiciary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Assessing Safety and Security Challenges in State Courts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Scholarly Journal About the Judiciary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Banned: Growing number of high schools prohibiting fidget spinners

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Schools across the country are banning the toy that every kid wants - the fidget spinner. According to SpinnerList, which claims to be the biggest database of all fidget spinners and makers on the market, 32 percent of the top 200 high schools in the United States have banned the toys.

# data[].attributes.body
Why hospitals need more money.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction

For over two years since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, America's hospitals and health systems have been on the front lines caring for patients, comforting families and protecting communities.

With over 80 million cases, nearly 1 million deaths, and over 4.6 million hospitalizations, the pandemic has taken a significant toll on hospitals and health systems and placed enormous strain on the nation's health care workforce. During this unprecedented public health crisis, hospitals and health systems have confronted many challenges, including historic volume and revenue losses, as well as skyrocketing expenses ( See Figure #1).

Hospitals and health systems have been nimble in responding to surges in COVID-19 cases throughout the pandemic by expanding treatment capacity, hiring staff to meet demand, acquiring and maintaining adequate supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect patients and staff and ensuring that critical services and programs remain available to the patients and communities they serve. However, these and other factors have led to billions of dollars in losses over the last two years for hospitals, and over 33% of hospitals are operating on negative margins.

The most recent surges triggered by the delta and omicron variants have added even more pressure to hospitals. During these surges, hospitals saw the number of COVID-19 infected patients rise while other patient volumes fell, and patient acuity increased. This drove up expenses and added significant financial pressure for hospitals. Moreover, hospitals did not receive any government assistance through the COVID-19 Provider Relief Fund (PRF) to help mitigate rising expenses and lost revenues during the delta and omicron surges. This is despite the fact that more than half of COVID-19 hospitalizations have occurred since July 1, 2021, during these two most recent COVID-19 surges.

At the same time, patient acuity has increased, as measured by how long patients need to stay in the hospital. The increase in acuity is a result of the complexity of COVID-19 care, as well as treatment for patients who may have put off care during the pandemic. The average length of a patient stay increased 9.9% by the end of 2021 compared to pre-pandemic levels in 2019.

As hospitals treat sicker patients requiring more intensive treatment, they also must ensure that sufficient staffing levels are available to care for these patients, and must acquire the necessary expensive drugs and medical supplies to provide high-quality care. As a result, overall hospital expenses have experienced considerable growth.

Data from Kaufman Hall, a consulting firm that tracks hospital financial metrics, shows that by the end of 2021, total hospital expenses were up 11% compared to pre-pandemic levels in 2019. Even after accounting for changes in volume that occurred during the pandemic, hospital expenses per patient increased significantly from pre-pandemic levels across every category. ( See Figure #1)

The pandemic has strained hospitals' and health systems' finances. Many hospitals operate on razorthin margins, so even slight increases in expenses can have dramatic negative effects on operating margins, which can jeopardize their ability to care for patients. These expense increases have been more challenging to withstand in light of rising inflation and growth in input prices. In fact, despite modest growth in revenues compared to pre-pandemic levels, median hospital operating margins were down 3.8% by the end of 2021 compared to pre-pandemic levels, according to Kaufman Hall. Further exacerbating the problem for hospitals are Medicare sequestration cuts and payment increases that are well below increases in costs. For example, an analysis by PINC found that for fiscal year 2022, hospitals received a 2.4% increase in their Medicare inpatient payment rate, while hospital labor rates increased 6.5%.

These levels of increased expenses and declines in operating margins are not sustainable. This report highlights key pressures currently facing hospitals and health systems, including:

1. Workforce and contract labor expenses

2. Drug expenses

3. Medical supply and PPE expenses

4. Rising economy-wide inflation

Each of these issues separately presents significant challenges to the hospital field. Taken together, they represent conditions that would be potentially catastrophic for most organizations, institutions and industries. However, the fact that the nation's hospitals and health systems continue to serve on the front lines of the ongoing pandemic is a testament to their resiliency and steadfast commitment to their mission to serve patients and communities around the country.

Hospitals and health systems are the cornerstones of their communities. Their patients depend on them for access to care 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Hospitals are often the largest employers in their community, and large purchasers of local services and goods. Additional support is needed to help ensure hospitals have the adequate resources to care for their communities.

I. Workforce and Contract Labor Expenses

The hospital workforce is central to the care process and often the largest expense for hospitals. It is no surprise then that even before the pandemic, labor costs - which include costs associated with recruiting and retaining employed staff, benefits and incentives - accounted for more than 50% of hospitals' total expenses. Therefore, even a slight increase in these costs can have significant impacts on a hospital's total expenses and operating margins.

As the pandemic has persisted for over two years, the toll on the health care workforce has been immense. A recent survey of health care workers found that approximately half of respondents felt "burned out" and nearly a quarter of respondents said they anticipated leaving the health care field.

This has been mirrored by a significant and sustained decline in hospital employment, down approximately 100,000 employees from pre-pandemic levels. At the height of the omicron surge, approximately 1,400 hospitals or 30% of all U.S. hospitals reporting data to the government, indicated that they anticipated a critical staffing shortage within the week. This high percentage of hospitals reporting a critical staffing shortage stayed relatively consistent throughout the delta and omicron surges.

The combination of employee burnout, fewer available staff, increased patient acuity and higher demand for care especially during the delta and omicron surges, has forced hospitals to turn to contract staffing firms to help address staffing shortages.

Though hospitals have long worked with contract staffing firms to bridge temporary gaps in staffing, the pandemic-driven-staffing-shortage has created an expanded reliance on contract staff, especially contract or travel registered nurses. Travel nurses are in particularly high demand because they serve a critical role in delivering care for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients and allow the hospital to meet the demand for care, especially during pandemic surges.

According to a survey by AMN Healthcare, one of the nation's largest health care staffing agencies, 95% of health care facilities reported hiring nurse staff from contract labor firms during the pandemic. Staffing firms have increased their recruitment of contract or travel nurses, illustrating the significant growth in their demand. According to data from EMSI/Burning Glass, there has been a nearly 120% increase in job postings for contract or travel nurses from pre-pandemic levels in January 2019 to January 2022. ( See Figure #2)

Similarly, the hours worked by contract or travel nurses as a percentage of total hours worked by nurses in hospitals has grown from 3.9% in January 2019 to 23.4% in January 2022, according to data from Syntellis Performance Solutions. ( See Figure #3) In fact, a quarter of hospitals have experienced nearly a third of their total nurse hours accounted for by contract or travel nurses.

As the share of contract travel nurse hours has grown significantly compared to before the pandemic, so too have the costs of employing travel nurses compared to pre-pandemic levels. In 2019, hospitals spent a median of 4.7% of their total nurse labor expenses for contract travel nurses, which skyrocketed to a median of 38.6% in January 2022. ( See Figure #3) A quarter of hospitals - those who have had to rely disproportionately on contract travel nurses - saw their costs for contract travel nurses account for over 50% of their total nurse labor expenses. In fact, while contract travel nurses accounted for 23.4% of total nurse hours in January 2022, they accounted for nearly 40% of the labor expenses for nurses. ( See Figure #3) This difference has grown considerably compared to pre-pandemic levels in 2019, suggesting that the exorbitant prices charged by staffing companies are a primary driver of higher labor expenses for hospitals.

Data from Syntellis Performance Solutions show a 213% increase in hourly rates charged to hospitals by staffing companies for travel nurses in January 2022 compared to pre-pandemic levels in January 2019. This is because staffing agencies have exploited the situation by increasing the hourly rates billed to hospitals for contract travel nurses more than the hourly rates they pay to travel nurses. This is effectively the "margin" retained by the staffing agencies. During pre-pandemic levels in 2019, the average "margin" retained by staffing agencies for travel nurses was about 15%. As of January 2022, the average "margin" has grown to an astounding 62%. ( See Figure #4)

These high "margins" have fueled massive growth in the revenues and profits of health care staffing companies. Several staffing firms have reported significant growth in their revenues to as high as $1.1 billion in just the fourth quarter of 202110, tripling their revenues and net income compared to 2020 levels.11

The data indicate that the growth in labor expenses for hospitals and health systems was in large part due to the exorbitant rates charged by contract staffing firms. By the end of 2021, hospital labor expenses per patient were 19.1% higher than pre-pandemic levels, and increased to 57% at the height of the omicron surge in January 2022. A study looking at hospitals in New Jersey found that the increased labor expenses for contract staff amounted to $670 million in 2021 alone, which was more than triple what their hospitals spent in 2020. High reliance on contract or travel staff prevents hospitals and health systems from investing those costs into their existing employees, leading to low morale and high turnover, which further exacerbates the challenges hospitals and health systems have been facing.

II. Drug Expenses

Prescription drug spending in the U.S. has grown significantly since the pandemic. In 2021, drug spending (including spending in both retail and non-retail settings) increased 7.7%14, which was on top of an increase of 4.9%15 in 2020. While some of this growth can be attributed to increased utilization as patient acuity increased during the pandemic, a significant driver has been the continued increase in prices of existing drugs as well as the introduction of new products at very high prices. A study by GoodRx found that in January 2022 alone, drug companies increased the price of about 810 brand and generic drugs that they reviewed by an average of 5.1%.16 These price increases followed massive price hikes for certain drugs often used in the hospital such as Hydromorphone (107%), Mitomycin (99%), and Vasopressin (97%).17 For another example, the drug manufacturer of Humira, one of the most popular brand drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, increased the price of the drug by 21% between 2019 and 2021.18 A study by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that in Medicare Part B and D markets, half of all drugs in each market experienced price increases above the rate of inflation between 2019 and 2020 - in fact, a third of these drugs experienced price increases of greater than 7.5%.19 At the same time, according to a report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), eight drugs with unsupported U.S. drug price increases between 2019 and 2020 alone accounted for an additional $1.67 billion in drug spending, further illustrating that drug companies' decisions to raise the prices of their drugs are simply an unsustainable practice.20

As hospitals have worked to treat sicker patients during the pandemic, they have been forced to contend with sky-high prices for drugs, many of which are critical and lifesaving for their patients. For example, in 2020, 16 of the top 25 drugs by spending in Medicare Part B (hospital outpatient settings) had price increases greater than inflation - two of the top three drugs, Keytruda and Prolia - experienced price increases of 3.3% and 4.1%, respectively.

As a result of these price increases, hospital drug expenses have skyrocketed. By the end of 2021, total drug expenses were 28.2% higher than pre-pandemic levels. When taken as a share of all non-labor expenses, drug expenses have grown from approximately 8.2% in January 2019, to 9.3% in January 2021, and to 10.6% in January 2022. ( See Figure #5) Even when considering changes in volume during the pandemic, drug expenses per patient compared to pre-pandemic levels in 2019 saw significant increases, with a 36.9% increase through 2021.

While continued drug price increases by drug companies have been a major driver of the growth in overall hospital drug expenses, there also are other important driving factors to consider:

Drug Treatments for COVID-19 Patients: Remdesivir, one of the primary drugs used to treat COVID-19 patients in the hospital, has become the top spend drug for most hospitals since the pandemic. This drug alone accounted for over $1 billion in sales in the fourth quarter of 2021. Priced at an average of $3,120, Remdesivir's cost was initially covered by the federal government. However, hospitals must now purchase the drug directly.

Limitation of 340B Contract Pharmacies: The 340B program allows eligible providers, including hospitals that treat many low-income patients or treat certain patient populations like children and cancer patients, to buy certain outpatient drugs at discounted prices and use those savings to provide more comprehensive services to the patients and communities they serve. Since July 2020, several of the largest drug manufacturers have denied 340B pricing to eligible hospitals through pharmacies with whom they contract, despite calls from the Department of Health and Human Services that such actions are illegal. Because of these actions, many 340B hospitals, especially rural hospitals who disproportionately rely on contract pharmacies to ensure access to drugs for their patients, have lost millions in 340B drug savings. In addition, these manufacturers have required claim-level data submissions as a condition of receiving 340B discounts, which has increased costs to deliver the data as well as staff time and expense to manage that process. The loss of 340B savings coupled with increased burden of providing detailed data to drug companies have contributed to increasing drug expenses.

Health Plans'/Pharmacy Benefit Managers' (PBMs') "White Bagging" Policies: Health plans and PBMs have engaged in a tactic that steers hospital patients to third-party specialty pharmacies to acquire medication necessary for clinician-administered treatments, known as "white-bagging." This practice disallows the hospital from procuring and managing the handling of a drug - typically drugs that are infused or injected requiring a clinician to administer in a hospital or clinic setting - used in patient care. These policies not only create serious patient safety concerns, but create delays and risks in patient care; add to administration, storage and handling costs; and create important liability issues for hospitals.

Taken together, these factors increase both drug expenses and overall hospital expenses.

III. Medical Supply and PPE Expenses

The U.S., like most countries in the world, relies on global supply chains for goods and services. This is especially true for medical supplies used at hospitals and other health care settings. Everything from the masks and gloves worn by staff to medical devices used in patient care come from a large network of global suppliers. Prior to the global pandemic, hospitals had established relationships with distributors and other vendors in the global health care supply chain to deliver goods as necessitated by demand. After the pandemic hit, many factories, distributors and other vendors shut down their operations, leaving hospitals, which were on the front lines facing surging demand, to fend for themselves. In fact, supply chain disruptions across industries, including health care, increased by 67% in 2020 alone.

As a result, hospitals turned to local suppliers and non-traditional suppliers, often paying significantly higher rates than they did prior to the pandemic. Between fall 2020 and early 2022 costs for energy, resins, cotton and most metals surged in excess of 30%; these all are critical elements in the manufacturing of medical supplies and devices used every day in hospitals. As COVID-19 cases surged, demand for hospital PPE, such as N95 masks, gloves, eye protection and surgical gowns, increased dramatically causing hospitals to invest in acquiring and maintaining reserves of these supplies. Further, downstream effects from other global events such as the war in Ukraine and the energy crisis in China, as well as domestic issues, such as labor shortages and rising fuel and transportation costs, have all contributed to drive up even higher overall medical supply expenses for hospitals in the U.S. For instance, according to the Health Industry Distributors Association, transportation times for medical supplies are 440% longer than pre-pandemic times resulting in massive delays.

Compared to 2019 levels, supply expenses for hospitals were up 15.9%30 through the end of 2021. When focusing on hospital departments involved most directly in care for COVID-19 patients − primarily hospital intensive care units (ICUs) and respiratory care departments − the increase in expenses is significantly higher. Medical supply expenses in ICUs and respiratory care departments increased 31.5% and 22.3%, respectively. Further, accounting for changes in volume during surge and non-surge periods of the pandemic, medical supply expenses per patient in ICUs and respiratory care departments were 31.8% and 25.9% higher, respectively. ( See Figure #6) These numbers help illustrate the magnitude of the impact that increases in supply costs have had on hospital finances during the pandemic.

IV. Impact of Rising Inflation

Higher economy-wide costs have serious implications for hospitals and health systems, increasing the pressures of higher labor, supply, and acquisition costs; and potentially lower consumer demand. Inflation is defined as the general increase in prices and the decrease in purchasing power. It is measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U). In April 2021, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that the CPI-U had the largest 12-month increase since September 2008. The CPI-U hit 40-year highs in February 2022. Overall, consumer prices rose by a historic 8.5% on an annualized basis in March 2022 alone.

As inflation measured by consumer prices is at record highs, below are key considerations on the potential impact of higher general inflation on hospital prices:

Labor Costs and Retention: Labor costs represent a significant portion of hospital costs (typically more than 50% of hospital expenses are related to labor costs). As the cost-of-living increases, employees generally demand higher wages/total compensation packages to offset those costs. This is especially true in the health care sector, where labor demands are already high, and labor supply is low.

Supply Chain Costs: Medical supplies account for approximately 20% of hospital expenses, on average. As input/raw good costs increase due to general inflation, hospital supplies and medical device costs increase as well. Furthermore, shortages of raw materials, including those used to manufacture drugs, could stress supply chains (i.e., medical supply shortages), which may result in changes in care patterns and add further burden on staff to implement work arounds.

Capital Investment Costs: Capital investments also may be strained, especially as hospitals have already invested heavily in expanding capacity to treat patients during the pandemic (e.g., constructing spaces for testing and isolation of COVID-19 patients). One of the areas that has seen the largest increase in prices/shortages is building materials (e.g., lumber). Additionally, a historically large increase in inflation has resulted in increases in interest rates, which may hamper borrowing options and add to overall costs.

Consumer Demand: Higher inflation also may result in decreases in demand for health care services, specifically if inflation exceeds wage growth. Specifically, higher costs for necessities (food, transportation, etc.) could push down demand for health care services and, in turn, dampen hospital volumes and revenues in the long run.

Health care and hospital prices are not driving recent overall inflation increases. The BLS has cited increases in the indices for gasoline, shelter and food as the largest contributors to the seasonally adjusted all items increase. The CPI-U increased 0.8% in February on a seasonally adjusted basis, whereas the medical care index rose 0.2% in February. The index for prescription drugs rose 0.3%, but the hospital index for hospital services declined 0.1%.33

This is consistent with pre-pandemic trends. Despite persistent cost pressures, hospital prices have seen consistently modest growth in recent years. According to BLS data, hospital prices have grown an average 2.1% per year over the last decade, about half the average annual increase in health insurance premiums. ( See Figure #7) More recently, hospital prices have grown much more slowly than the overall rate of inflation. In the 12 months ending in February 2022, hospital prices increased 2.1%. In fact, even when excluding the artificially low rates paid to hospitals by Medicare and Medicaid, average annual price growth has still been below 3% in recent years.

Conclusion

While we hope that our nation is rounding the corner in the battle against COVID-19, it is clear that the pandemic is not over. During the week of April 11, there have been an average of over 33,000 cases per day and reports suggest that a new subvariant of the virus (Omicron BA.2) is now the dominant strain in the U.S. As a result, the challenges hospitals and health systems are currently facing are bound to last much longer.

As COVID-19 infections and hospitalizations are decreasing in some parts of the U.S. and increasing in others, hospitals and health systems continue to care for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. With additional surges potentially on the horizon, the massive growth in expenses is unsustainable. Most of the nation's hospitals were operating on razor thin margins prior to the pandemic; and now, many of these hospitals are in an even more precarious financial situation. Regardless of potential new surges of COVID-19, hospitals and health systems continue to face workforce retention and recruitment challenges, supply chain disruptions and exorbitant expenses as outlined in this report.

Hospitals appreciate the support and resources that Congress has provided throughout the pandemic; however, additional support is needed now to keep hospitals strong so they can continue to provide care to patients and communities.

Sources

1. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

2. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

3. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#new-hospital-admissions

4. https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/research-report/national-hospital-flash-report-january-2022

5. https://premierinc.com/newsroom/blog/pinc-ai-data-cms-data-underestimates-hospital-labor-spending

6. https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/usa-today-ipsos-healthcare-workers-covid19-poll-022222

7. https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces6562200001?amp%253bdata_tool=xgtable&output_view=data&include_ graphs=true

8. https://healthdata.gov/hospital/covid-19-reported-patient-impact-and-hospital-capa/g62h-syeh

9. https://www.amnhealthcare.com/siteassets/amn-insights/surveys/amn-survey-of-temporary-allied-healthcareprofessional-staff-trends-2021.pdf

10. https://www.axios.com/amn-healthcare-pandemic-travel-nurses-profit-revenue-ebb5bcfd-4ca9-4263-a091-fb87bbb8d105.html

11. https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/hospital-lobbies-congress-ftc-travel-nurse-rate-caps-covid/618194/

12. https://www.kaufmanhall.com/sites/default/files/2022-02/nationalhospitalflashreport_feb2022.pdf

13. https://www.njha.com/pressroom/2022-press-releases/feb-25-2022-hospitals-confront-rising-staff-vacancy-ratesand-employment-costs-as-covid-sparks-unprecedented-workforce-challenges/

14. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35385103/

15. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33880494/

16. https://www.goodrx.com/healthcare-access/drug-cost-and-savings/january-drug-price-hikes-2022

17. https://www.aha.org/system/files/2019-01/aha-drug-pricing-study-report-01152019.pdf

18. https://www.goodrx.com/healthcare-access/drug-cost-and-savings/january-2021-drug-increases-recap

19. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/prices-increased-faster-than-inflation-for-half-of-all-drugs-covered-bymedicare-in-2020/

20. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/prices-increased-faster-than-inflation-for-half-of-all-drugs-covered-bymedicare- in-2020/

21. https://icer.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/icer_upi_2021_assessment_031522.pdf

22. https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/research-report/national-hospital-flash-report-january-2022

23. https://www.vizientinc.com/-/media/documents/sitecorepublishingdocuments/public/pmo322_ pharmacymarketoutlook_highlights?sc_camp=a51548e6b3f14b729860854df5b33d2e

24. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/gilead-covid-drug-takes-top-spot-us-hospitalspending-report-2022-02-01/

25. https://www.340bhealth.org/files/contract_pharmacy_survey_findings_january_2022_final.pdf

26. https://premierinc.com/newsroom/blog/report-the-current-state-of-healthcare-supply-chain-disruptions

27. http://www.fccoop.org/?p=10720

28. https://premierinc.com/newsroom/blog/report-the-current-state-of-healthcare-supply-chain-disruptions

29. https://www.hida.org/distribution/news/press-releases/2022/transportation-delays-persist-healthcare-supplychain.aspx

30. https://www.kaufmanhall.com/insights/research-report/national-hospital-flash-report-january-2022

31. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

32. https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-inflation-consumer-price-index-march-2022-11649725215

33. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

34. hospital prices: bureau of labor statistics, annual average ppi industry data for general medical and surgical hospitals by patient type-private insurance patients, not seasonally adjusted, series id: pcu62211a62211a

35. https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html

36. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/29/health/ba2-variant-covid-cases.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For over two years since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, America's hospitals and health systems have been on the front lines caring for patients, comforting families and protecting communities. With over 80 million cases, nearly 1 million deaths, and over 4.6 million hospitalizations, the pandemic has taken a significant toll on hospitals and health systems and placed enormous strain on the nation's health care workforce.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn more about how homework became a standard educational practice and if it’s still relevant today as teachers and parents consider other options.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do digital learning materials improve student achievement? – Digital Promise

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Not always — but the real potential may lie in enhancing engagement, not necessarily achievement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Debby Elley explains why classroom bans on fidget items can sometimes prevent students from making important progress
You might be reading this article in the hope that it outlines some useful interventions you can use to help your students with SEND. There are times, however, when you can foster success simply by doing nothing.
Sounds like music to the ears, right? Nevertheless, there can be certain situations where students remain calm and focused due to the actions of teachers who simply know when to leave well alone.

Mental overload

Take, for example, what we'll call here the 'habit' of fiddling and twiddling with things. It's a behaviour you may notice far more among autistic students, but please don't assume it means they're not properly listening to you. If anything, it's more likely to be the opposite. Rather than distracting them from the lesson, some students' fidget toys may in fact be the very coping mechanism that enables them to be attentive.

Autistic youngsters have highly reactive nervous systems. Their brains are constantly busy processing information that the rest of us can easily ignore as 'background data'. Trying to then attend to auditory information at the same time is no walk in the park if you have autism.

The mental overload caused by trying to focus on a lone voice in a busy classroom can overspill into physical movement. How can you stay in your seat and continue to be polite whilst all this is happening to you? The answer is that you find something to fiddle with.

My autistic son Bobby, aged 18 and currently attending university, is now able to put into words the kind of insights he couldn't express when he was in his early teens. "I've found that I can't keep still, and need something to fiddle with," he says. "My body is highly irritable sometimes, but having a fidget helps to calm me physically, so that I can focus mentally.

"Things like 'simple dimples' and fidget spinners can be really useful for work, because they can help you focus when you're thinking about something. It matters that your hands are latched onto something when your brain is busy processing. It gives you a sense of calmness. It means you don't have to rotate chairs or tap desks."

Brain regulation

In specialist schools, where students can find focusing on tasks extremely difficult, occupational therapists will often timetable calming, physical activities ahead of lessons with heavy cognitive demands.

Robert Monk is an OT at the Seashell Trust - a school and college that supports students with profound and complex learning difficulties. He describes how, "Our team of sensory-integration trained OTs work with students to identify sensory strategies, which may include the use of fidget toys and/or twiddles. For some students, this tactile stimulation can help them concentrate and focus on a task."

It shouldn't come as a surprise that there will be students with similar sensory needs in mainstream settings. In mainstream schools, teenagers with sensory processing differences often end up having to find their own ways of regulating their busy brains, and a common one tends to be fidget toys.

Incidentally, this isn't limited to just students with autism. Sensory Processing Disorder is usually part of autism, but stands distinct from it, and will often present in other conditions too. So how can you tell when someone is being genuinely inattentive, or merely fidgeting a little because it helps them to focus?

Personal context

The key to answering that is to understand the personal context - and it's in these sorts of areas that Education, Health and Care Plans can often overlook crucial information. Getting it right depends on great SENCOs asking students and their families appropriate questions to ensure that any important coping mechanisms are included in their support plans.

What do you find calming when there's a lot going on? What helps to focus you? Is there anything that's worked for you in the past? If these self-regulation tools aren't given attention, then things can, and often will go wrong.

"I get the impression that some teachers see it as more of a distraction,' says Bobby. "I think it's because when fidget spinners were popular around 2017, everyone started jumping on the bandwagon. But whereas they may be a distraction for others, they really aren't for people with autism."

A parent who shared her experiences with me and co-author Gareth Morewood for our book Championing Your Autistic Teen at Secondary School told us that her son used to take Blu Tack with him to primary school. She recalled how his fidgeting was occasionally used as a punishment - 'You can't have your Blu Tack until you do this piece of work!' As she recalled, "All the 'punishment' did was make him cry, and the work never got done!"

As Gareth often likes to point out, we wouldn't remove wheelchairs or hearing aids from students, yet we'll often deny young people their own coping mechanisms through the unintended consequences of wider systems and policies.

I'm therefore hoping that as you read this article, you're starting to wonder whether your school's policies support the use of self-regulation tools or encourage a blanket ban on them. If it's the latter, I'd venture that a rethink might be in order so that your setting can be inclusive, and adhere to that all-important need to make 'reasonable adjustments' for your SEND cohort.

Whilst fidget toys can help regulate busy brains, comfort items can be similarly important for reducing anxiety. In my last article for Teach Secondary, I wrote about how anxiety can quickly accumulate for people with autism, who will have difficulty in regulating their emotions when that happens. It's what I call 'the double whammy', and it can lead to very obvious signs of overload.

Comfort items can form part of a raft of strategies to mitigate this risk. A typical comfort item might be a favourite possession from home. Sometimes it can just be an image. Bobby used to have a keyring with laminated photographs of his special interests that he could look at. The photographs would flood his brain with positive, soothing feelings, and drown out some of the 'noise' from his otherwise alien surroundings. Comfort items don't always need to be on show - sometimes just knowing they're available can make all the difference. Be led by the student.

What about the argument that allowing comfort items and fidget toys in class sets an unhelpful precedent? In my experience, concerns around whether peers will understand this 'special treatment' are generally raised by schools where leaders haven't recognised the need for peer training to reinforce the policy exceptions that sometimes need to be made for students with SEND.

Difficulties will only arise when it hasn't been explained that fidget toys are as important to some students as wheelchairs might be to others - and that no one would dream of banning wheelchairs on the grounds that they provide certain students with an unfair 'advantage' compared to their peers.

Collective solutions

If a fidget or comfort item is genuinely incompatible with the rest of the class being able to focus, enquire about what could be used as a less distracting alternative that performs the same job. The important thing is not to impose your own solution, but to work with families on finding one that suits all of you.

When considering all of this, I'd recommend you ponder one of my favourite quotes from the American poet, Robert Frost: 'Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it has been put up.'

When they feel secure, and in their own time, students will gradually reduce their reliance on fidget items. And if they don't - so what? Inclusion doesn't happen by making everyone else like us. It happens through accepting that some brains need different conditions in which to learn.

Debby Elley is the co-founder of AuKids magazine and a parent to twin sons, both with autism; Championing Your Autistic Teen at Secondary School, by Debby Elley with Gareth D. Morewood, is available now (£14.99, Jessica Kingsley Publishers). Browse more resources for Autism Acceptance Week, including our autism in girls checklist.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Classroom behaviour - Why banning 'fidget toys' can do more harm than good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Debby Elley explains why classroom bans on fidget items can sometimes prevent students from making important progress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fidget Spinners are nothing new in this house. In fact one might say that we have enough fidgets in our house to arm an entire fidgeting army. So you can imagine my excitement when I started to see fidgets being used by the neighbor across the street, by the kid in this grocery store, and in almost every classroom in America. But just like any trend that children get excited about (you know slime, Pokemon go, unicorn drinks) for some reason, adults instantaneously freak out, find all of the negatives about the trend, and ruin it for the kids.

This morning alone I saw five different articles about why fidget spinners are ruining our world. One article went so far as to say that fidget spinners are killing America. Are you kidding me? A teeny tiny plastic tool is going to be the demise of America. Is that really our biggest problem that we have right now?

Could they have some valid points? Maybe there really is a valid reason why we should ban fidget Spinners from every school in America.

As a national board certified Early Childhood teacher and a parent that has spent the last five years researching sensory processing, the benefits of sensory play and fidgets, I have to say I'm actually appalled.

I could go on and on and tell you all of the benefits of the newly famous fidget spinner, but you might not listen to me. You see, every time I introduce a fidget, a sensory tool, or a new sensory strategy that could help a kid who struggles with focus, attention, and mind wandering (God forbid their mind wanders and they dream of far-off places where anything is possible) I am always met with the "yeah but" argument. So today I've decided to face them head-on.

Here are the top 5 reasons fidget spinners should be banned in every classroom in America...

Number 1: Kids are just using fidget spinners as toys

Seriously, so what if our kids are just using these as toys?

Don't you get excited every time you get that new gadget? I just got a new Fitbit last night for my birthday and goodness... I can't stop playing with the thing. I know what's going to happen when I tap the screen, yet, I'm immediately drawn to it...

30 minutes later... check the app. Tap, tap, tap... yep, still says the same thing.

30 minutes later... tilt my wrists and watch the light magically turn on.

There's something magical to getting something new. We want to investigate it. We want to learn about it. We want to figure out it's ins-and-outs and decipher exactly how it's going to be useful in our life.

Plus, we just want to have fun.

So if my kid decides his fidget spinner should be spun on his finger, on his nose, or on his toe... I don't really care. In fact, he just informed me this morning he can spin it on his tongue. What in the world? But honestly, I'm kind of amazed that he can balance this teeny tiny alien shaped thing on every body part possible.

Number 2: Fidget spinners are distracting in the classroom

Yes they are. I am not going to argue that they are not a distraction. I am not going to pretend that if an entire classroom of ten year olds came into my room whirring these teeny tiny things that I wouldn't want to lose my ever-loving mind.

But, if I remember correctly from my days in the classroom, I was a pretty good teacher. That meant that I had amazing classroom management skills. If we were presented with a problem... let's say kids using a new tool in an inappropriate way, we would bring it up during our class meeting.

Here's how this would go down today.

I would say... "Hey you're being annoying."

Okay, I wouldn't say it like that. Let's start over.
"Hey guys, I noticed lately some of you are using fidget spinners and that is awesome. Unfortunately, some of you are using them when we shouldn't, having balancing contests during tests or you're throwing them at my head while I'm teaching... these are all bad ideas. So, how can we solve this problem?"
You see, I would give the problem back to the kids and guess what?

The kids would help me come up with a solution. I know they would tell me that we should come up with designated times that the fidget spinners would be available (if this was needed).

They would tell me we need to come up with a class set of rules on how to use this fidget spinners. Things like ...

Fidgit Spinners must stay in our pocket.

Fidget Spinners must stay in our hands.

Fidget spinners should not fly across the room.

Amazing, right? If we give kids the chance, they're actually pretty brilliant.

So can fidget spinners be a distraction?

Absolutely.

Can good teachers help their children learn when and when it's not appropriate to spin their fidget spinner on their nose?

I sure hope so.

Click here to get a high quality fidget spinner from Top Trends (We sold out on Project Sensory)

Number 3: Not all kids need fidget spinners

How do you know?

Seriously! How do you know that every kid in America does not need a fidget?

When you were in school, did you not tap your pencil on your desk? Did you not have kids in your class that leaned back in their chair so far that they fell over and hit their head on the desk behind them? When you're sitting in your boardroom meetings, do you not have people at the table that are tapping their their feet so much that it shakes the table?

STOP!!

Stop what you're doing right now.

Look up from your screen.
Look around you. Out of the people that you see... how many of those people are picking their nails? chewing their fingernails? rubbing a piece of clothing? twiddling their hair? chewing bubble gum? or using their hands to talk?
You see, the problem in America is not that all of the sudden kids need to use fidgets to focus. The problem is that it's never been recognized before.
Now, let's talk about those kids that need them (the ones that can't sit still in the classroom) ... the ones that you're so worried about alienating if you ban fidget spinners or any other tool that the kids suddenly get excited about.

You are going to alienate the kids that you are worried about most. Their constant need to move their hands, fiddle with their fingers, or tap their pink pencil is now the norm. Give them that. They deserve it.

They waited a long time for this.

They get to feel like everybody else and do you really want to take that away from them?

Oh, and don't worry. The kids that "really" need it won't care that the trend fades and fidget spinners hit the trash cans across America in a few weeks. Why? Because they need them and they've finally found something that helps.

Number 4: There's no real evidence that fidget spinners help kids with Autism, ADHD, and other special needs

Are you freaking kidding me ?

How long do we have together today?

How many articles can I link to before you get sick of me linking to the benefits of fidgeting for focus and attention?

Not to mention the numerous articles that I could share that are going to point to the benefits of stimming for kids that have ADHD, autism, or other differently wired brains.

Just a few weeks ago the whole world was up in arms over how deadly slime is, how terribly messy and annoying slime is, and how there can't possibly be a benefit to this ooey gooey substance that all our kids are infatuated with.
I call BS.
Why do we keep ruining the things that are amazing for our kids?

Why do we keep looking for death and destruction in every teeny tiny little thing?

People always say "Well, when I was a kid there wasn't so much ADHD, autism, and sensory processing disorder. We just called those kids brats."

You know what I call those kids ... misunderstood, misdiagnosed, and MISSED, completely missed.

We owe it to our kids today that are screaming in our face and telling us that they need things like slime, bouncy seats , balls and fidget spinners in their classroom. Don't even get me started on why I think they need all of these things. I could go on for hours and hours. Number 5: Fidget spinners shouldn't even be needed.

Amen sista! Seriously, I hear your argument that kids need recess. They need to move. They need to wiggle and play and be kids. They need lots of things that we are not giving them in the modern day classroom but that is for a completely different post.

Here's the thing though, we are not giving kids these things. How many articles have you read about the importance of extended recess , later start times , and more active and engaged learning? Yet, year after year, after year, we add on more and more tests. We put more restraints on the teachers and the students. We add more after-school activities.

And for the kids who are falling behind, we tell them to add more hours of tutoring to their day, come to school a few minutes early to get extra support or practice a little more at home.

Don't even get me started on the kids who are acting out in class (probably throwing Spinners at their teachers heads). What do we do with these kids? We take away their recess.

I wish I could say that the problem was just recess. I wish I could tell you that if kids played more, jumped more, ran more and were kids more, all of this would go away. But, that would be foolish.

Many kids that need fidgets, bouncy balls, and movement in the classroom are wired differently and when we, as a society, can realize that there are many children and people among us every single day that think and act differently than we do, we won't care if the new fad is slime or fidget spinners or hacky sacks.

So I guess I am just left with one more question?
Do you still think that we should ban fidget spinners in every school in America? Why or why not?
I'd love to hear your thoughts. Comment below or tell me on Facebook! Since this post is going viral, I will be hopping on my Facebook page later to talk all about the pros and cons of allowing fidgets in schools. Be sure to follow so you can join the conversation.

So many people have asked for resources for teaching and loving fidgety kids, so I have gathered some of my favorite posts about supporting sensory needs in the classroom (and at home) for you:

RESOURCES TO LEARN MORE ABOUT FIDGETING
Sensory Hacks to Focus a Fidgety Child
The REAL Reason Kids Can't Sit Still
100 Sensory Strategies for the Classroom
How to Introduce Fidgets in the Classroom
The REAL Reason Kids Fidget
How to Teach a Fidgety Child
A Letter to the Teacher From "That Kid" (The Fidgety, Can't Sit Still, Meltdown Having Kid)
Many people have also mentioned that fidget spinners are too loud, too annoying and just toys. There are tons of other options out there if you are in the mood to try fidgets but want to stay clear of a fad. I plan to write a whole list, but for now here are a few to get you started!

FIDGETS THAT AREN'T ANNOYING

The Fidget Fix (5 awesome fidgets for a super low cost)
DIY Stress Balls
Therapy Putty
Rubber Bands (Yes, the same rubber bands you keep on your wrists)
Calming Slime (Yes, I'm scared of all the slime haters... but it's a great tool)
Totally Rad DIY Fidget Spinners

I could seriously go on and on. I have over 100 calm down tools and strategies you can use to help ALL kids focus and feel successful. Take this as a chance to try new things.

Oh, and while you are here. If you are looking for more ways to engage your wiggly kids, provide support for your disorganized kiddo, or simply want to take all the frustration out of your day with your little one and you know a kid with hidden "super powers" ... you will want to check out my new book coming out in August, The Superkids Activity Guide to Conquering Every Day (Awesome Games and Crafts to Master Your Moods, Boost Focus, Hack Mealtimes and Help Grownups Understand Why You Do the Things You Do)!

With over 75 day to day solutions for your kiddos from DIY fidgets to games that teach social skills, it empowers children to help adults understand why they do the things they do. You can pre-order now and send me a receipt to PREORDER at SUPERKIDSGUIDE.COM for a special gift just for you and your Superkid! Psss... It's gonna be epic!!!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Reasons to Ban Fidget Spinners from Every Classroom in America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fidget Spinners are nothing new in this house. In fact one might say that we have enough fidgets in our house to arm an entire fidgeting army. So you can imagine my excitement when I started to see fidgets being used by the neighbor across the street, by the kid in this grocery store, and in almost every classroom in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
why prices of needs for hospitals need to go down

# data[].attributes.headline
What the cost should be lowered to for tuition

# data[].attributes.subject
What the cost should be lowered to for tuition

# data[].attributes.body
with graphs and percents about why and how!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Most colleges charge students more than they can afford. Statements to that effect are typically based on a misplaced focus on the "sticker price" of college. That price (formally labeled the cost of attendance) includes the full amount of tuition and fees, living expenses, and other related expenses. The average sticker price adjusted for inflation has nearly tripled in the last four decades.

Yet most students will pay less than the sticker price. They receive financial aid from the government and/or the institution they attend that reduces the amount they really pay.

But it is not enough. Lower- and middle-income families in particular are asked to pay "net prices," which factor in financial aid, that are beyond their means.

Every student deserves the opportunity to obtain an affordable, high-quality college education. College can raise lifetime wages and expand students' understanding of the world. Our society also benefits if a high-quality college education is available to all students. A college education promotes social mobility, civic engagement, and worker productivity, among other things. But if some students are unable to take advantage of this opportunity because it is unaffordable, we all lose those benefits.

How do we satisfy the dual, and conflicting, goals of improving access while maintaining quality?

But college affordability does not occur in a vacuum. If students pay less, institutions' revenue falls. Colleges will have less money to maintain the quality of our higher education system if we improve access by lowering costs. How do we satisfy the dual, and conflicting, goals of improving access while maintaining quality?

My goal in this report is to evaluate the pricing systems in different types of higher education institutions, focusing on whether they accomplish these two conflicting goals. How could those systems be modified to increase access and maintain quality?

Ultimately, I argue that our higher education system cannot accomplish these dual goals without additional governmental resources devoted to the system. Highly-endowed private institutions largely already satisfy them because they have extensive financial resources, but their model is difficult to replicate. Public institutions simply need more funding to provide affordable pricing to all students while maintaining educational quality. The solution for less well-endowed private institutions is unclear. Greater government support will come with further challenges: larger subsidies for colleges and universities will also require additional regulations to maintain quality while avoiding excessive spending. And any solution to the affordability issues that colleges face requires far greater transparency in college pricing.

Readers looking for specific numbers regarding who should pay how much or for specific policy proposals will be disappointed-this is a conceptual exercise. But these concepts have important implications for higher education and the policies that affect its operation.

Consider students from low-income families (perhaps below the poverty line or twice the poverty line, corresponding to about $30,000 to $60,000 for a family of four). Their families' income may have fluctuated during their lives, but they have probably had moderate income throughout their childhood. They likely have little or no wealth. Their focus is putting food on the table and a roof over their heads. There is little left over to pay for college.

These students really cannot afford to pay anything out-of-pocket to attend college. They might be asked to pay a low net price that could be covered by a reasonable level of student loans and work-study earnings. But many students are averse to high levels of debt and working extended hours is inconsistent with a quality education. These forms of payment should not be excessive to promote attendance and graduation. For simplicity, I focus the analysis here on what students are asked to pay out-of-pocket, which should be zero for the lowest-income students.

Students from very high-income families have the financial resources to pay a lot for college. They likely have substantial wealth. Considering the high cost of delivering higher education, the large economic returns, and the value of the personal experience of attending college, these students from high-income families should pay a substantial amount for college.

But they should not pay an excessive amount. Some limit on the price that these students pay is warranted. Most colleges and universities are organized as nonprofit institutions with a social mission. Charging exorbitant prices to any student, even very wealthy ones, would violate those principles.

One reasonable candidate for the maximum price is the institution's average expenditure per student. Determining the exact value of that statistic may be complicated by the variety of activities that colleges and universities engage in (research, athletics, medical centers, and the like). The point of this exercise is not to specifically define how to construct it, but to recognize that such a concept exists and is relevant in setting college prices.

Note that this proposed maximum price is not the same as the "sticker price" (formally labeled the "cost of attendance," or COA). Some institutions offer some form of financial aid (need-based and/or merit-based awards to most of their students (as described below). Their sticker price exceeds the true maximum price that most/all students pay. And highly endowed institutions often subsidize even their highest-income students; the sticker price is less than average expenditure per student. Setting the maximum price at the average expenditure per student does not require that anyone be charged that price; it allows institutions to charge less than that amount should they so choose.

So far, I have argued that the price for students from low-income families should be zero, and for high-income students the price should be no more than the institution's average expenditure per student. Students with incomes between these two extremes should pay a price somewhere in between these two values. Families that can afford to pay more should pay more. This is characterized in Figure 1.

A system like this one requires two important pieces of information. The conceptually easy one is the institution's average expenditure per student. The harder one is determining how much each family can afford to pay based on their finances. This involves value judgements about what is reasonable for families to afford to pay, but that is what the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and the College Scholarship Service (CSS) Profile do now. Whether these systems precisely capture how much a family can afford to pay is unclear, but one could imagine it is possible to accomplish that goal.

College pricing does not work the same as pricing in a typical market. For most products, everyone pays the same price, determined in the market without regard for what specific consumers are willing or able to pay. If you cannot afford it, you do not buy it.

But such an approach to pricing is not well-suited for higher education. Unlike for most "goods," "firms" (colleges) can and do charge "consumers" (students) different prices. Most students attend nonprofit institutions, for which maximizing profits is not the main objective. At public institutions, the state government is also involved in determining the prices colleges charge to different students. The basic model of pricing in competitive markets does not apply here. The pricing system I propose for higher education is specifically designed to ensure that everyone can afford to attend college.

One obvious problem with this system is that revenue from students is insufficient to cover the cost of operating higher education institutions. This is demonstrated in Figure 2. Students from higher income families would pay no more than the institution's average expenditure per student. Everyone else would pay less than that. Such a system will always generate less revenue for an institution than it is spending. Additional funding is required to cover its costs.

There are two main sources of funding available to cover those costs: endowments and public funding. Many institutions, including some public colleges, have endowment funds provided by past donors. A relatively small number of largely private institutions have very large endowments. The returns from these funds are used to cover the cost for those students who pay less than the average cost.

Public funds collected through the tax system could also be used to fill in this gap. They could come from the federal or state governments. Because most taxes are progressive, higher-income taxpayers provide funds that enable lower-income students to attend college.

For those institutions that require public funding to cover their funding gaps, this financing system would create incentives to spend more money. If an institution spends more, the size of the funding gap increases. But if public funds automatically cover the gap between average spending and what students can afford to pay, the institution could "afford" those spending increases. Some have worried that the current Pell Grant program similarly provides incentives for excessive institutional spending. This incentive would be much greater if the government guaranteed it would completely fill in this funding gap.

Some form of regulation on institutional spending would be required to manage this incentive. Such regulations would surely be complicated and require extensive discussion. Below, I discuss the types of institutions where these regulations may be warranted.

Ensuring that institutions can spend enough to provide a quality education is a key consideration in designing such a system. Reining in spending is necessary, but maintaining the strength of American higher education remains a priority. Regulations designed to limit excessive spending still need to incorporate the need for sufficient spending to maintain students' educational attainment.

The framework presented in Figure 2 also can be modified to represent a "free college" system or the college pricing approaches used in many European countries. In extreme versions of both types of systems, the student would not be expected to pay anything regardless of family income. In practice, such systems often focus just on tuition and fees. To satisfy affordability goals, such a system would also need to include these costs along with living and other expenses.

Suppose we imposed an income cap, such that families who can afford to pay a lot receive no subsidy (they would pay a price equal to per-pupil spending). The funding gap triangle illustrated in Figure 2 would convert to a funding gap rectangle, as displayed in Figure 3. For every student below the income cap, students would pay nothing. The government would have to provide all the necessary funds to cover their educational expenses.

If there were no income cap -that is, all students receive the same subsidy, regardless of income- then none of an institution's revenue would come from students. There would be no need for prices, so there would be no need to regulate them. De facto, an institution's spending per student would be set by the amount of the subsidy provided by the government. Again, that level of spending would need to be set appropriately to support a high-quality college education without being excessive.

The level of government funding required for such a system is much larger than what would be needed for the system shown in Figure 2. Such a high level of funding could be politically difficult to achieve in the United States.

Higher education institutions receive public subsidies already in the form of Pell grants, subsidized student loans, and state payments to public universities. They also use their own funds to provide additional financial aid. Yet a college education remains unaffordable for many.

In past work, I have investigated how much students at different levels of income and assets pay at different types of institutions. That analysis focused on dependent students living away from their parents attending public and private 4-year institutions. I consider three types of institutions: private institutions with very large endowments, other private institutions, and public institutions with a focus on state residents.

Figure 4 displays a stylized version of the relationship between what students can afford and what they pay at different types of institutions. The 45° line (labelled "pay = afford") represents payments that families can afford. Any price above that line is not affordable.

These patterns do not match public perceptions of college costs. Those perceptions generally focus on the sticker price, represented by the maximum price paid at each type of institution in this figure (the flat portion of each line on the right). Most students pay less than that amount because of financial aid.

Although many families pay less than the sticker price, lower- and middle-income students often must pay more than they can afford. Private institutions with very large endowments are the exception; no student pays more than they can afford (according to the financial aid formula they use). The reasons for these patterns differ by type of institution.

Large endowment private colleges and universities

At private colleges with large endowments, lower-income families face limited costs after factoring in financial aid. As family financial resources rise, the price rises. At some high-level of family income, students pay the high sticker price. This pattern is consistent with the affordable pricing system I described earlier.

These institutions can implement this type of pricing system because they have considerable market power and very large endowments. Their market power derives from their prestige and quality, which in turn derive from high levels of spending supported by their large endowments. This ensures that students from high-income families are willing to pay high sticker prices even if there are less expensive alternatives available (such as public colleges with lower sticker prices for state residents). These private colleges typically spend more per student than the sticker price. Even the high-income students are subsidized. Lower-income students require even larger subsidies. These institutions depend on returns from their very large endowments to fill the gap between their total costs and what students are able to pay.

These institutions are said to "meet full need," meaning they charge admitted students the amount that the formula says they can afford. However, they may choose not to admit students with financial need. Institutions that are "need blind" do not consider need when they make admissions decisions and provide this high level of financial support for any student who enrolls. I will return to this distinction below.

Public colleges and universities

The defining feature of the pricing system at public institutions is a sticker price that is set by the state with a goal of maintaining affordability for state residents. It is typically tens of thousands of dollars less than the sticker price at private institutions. Students from higher-income families pay that price. The lower sticker price means less revenue for the institution, so spending per student at public institutions is typically lower than at large endowment private colleges and universities.

But many students cannot afford the sticker price at their state institutions. These institutions rarely have large endowments available to fund financial aid sufficient to fill the gap. Instead, their main additional source of funding is the state. But that funding is often insufficient to meet the needs of all students. A handful of flagships meet full need, but most public institutions do not. Lower- and middle-income students are often asked to pay more than they can afford at these institutions.

Other private colleges and universities

Private colleges and universities that do not have large endowments typically spend less per student and are more comparable in quality to public institutions. They compete much more directly with those colleges. That limits the price that higher income students are willing to pay to attend. Some students may be willing to pay more for attributes like smaller classes, higher graduation rates, and attractive campuses, but that premium is unlikely to be large, limiting the maximum price these private universities can charge.

The maximum price students pay is often less than the sticker price at these institutions. They set a high sticker price and then offer financial aid to most or all students. Students ineligible for need-based aid receive merit awards. For students eligible for need-based financial aid, any merit aid they receive is often offset by a reduction in need-based aid, so their net price is unaffected by merit aid. This is a marketing strategy designed to signal the quality of the institution (by setting a high sticker price) and to convey to students that they are valued (by offering "merit aid"). The students who benefit the most from these merit awards are those who do not require need-based financial aid and would otherwise pay the full sticker price.

These institutions, like many public institutions, may also provide additional merit aid targeted to the highest-achieving applicants. Again, these awards typically displace need-based grants and largely do not benefit students from lower- and middle-income families.

Overall, these private institutions struggle to provide adequate financial aid. They do not have large endowments or state support to fully finance the necessary subsidies. They simply do not have sufficient resources available to provide affordable college pricing for lower- and middle-income students.

Students for whom financial aid does not make the price of college affordable have limited options. They can borrow more, attend local institutions (community colleges or nearby four-year colleges) that may not match their academic abilities but reduce their living expenses, or perhaps not go to college at all.

High-need students may be directly shut out from admission to selective institutions as well. To help close funding gaps, those institutions may favor enrolling students who can afford to pay more. For instance, public institutions frequently enroll students who reside in other states. Those students pay much more than in-state students and may not be eligible for much financial aid. Similar practices are used at both public and private institutions in their enrollment of international students. Institutions may want to enroll out-of-state and international students because they offer a diversity of viewpoints that has educational benefits, but they also improve institutional finances.

Even many wealthy private institutions with very large, but not the largest, endowments face this problem. They do not have quite enough resources to support any student they wish to admit without regard to need. These institutions therefore limit how many students from lower- and middle-income families they admit. They meet full need for all enrolled students, but they are not need blind.

Such strategies are inconsistent with the goals of an affordable pricing system. Institutions' use of these strategies to balance their expenditures with their tuition revenue highlights the crucial role of outside resources in making college affordable. The money to fill the gap shown in Figure 2 has to come from somewhere.

Our current system of college pricing leaves college unaffordable for many students. College costs more to provide than most families can afford to pay, and most institutions cannot make up the difference on their own. The ultimate problem is a lack of resources. Institutions need sufficient funding to enroll lower- and moderate-income students at an affordable price, a position only the wealthiest private institutions find themselves in. Most institutions simply need more money.

Where would that money come from? Larger endowments would help, but the donations needed and the time required for those funds to grow make such a solution impractical in most cases. Higher sticker prices paid by higher-income families could be used to generate surplus revenue, but that approach is unlikely to be well-received. Those students may demand more programs and services to justify those higher costs, driving expenditures up and eliminating some or all of the surplus. Greater direct support from state governments to public institutions would also help. Yet the politics of college affordability at the state level often involves keeping the sticker price low, even if that means cutting financial aid.

The federal government is the best funding source for the subsidies necessary to make higher education affordable. The federal government already subsidizes many activities that enable families to acquire basic life needs like food, housing, and medical care. Enabling students to obtain a college education regardless of their families' finances has benefits that extend beyond the student receiving the education. We should provide the necessary subsidies to enable low- and moderate-income students to pursue higher education.

This is the approach I described earlier regarding ways to fill in the funding gap shown in Figure 2. In essence, this approach would lead to a pricing system where students' full financial need is met, and admissions' decisions are made in a need-blind manner. This would make college affordable, but automatically offering federal subsidies to fill the gap between average spending and student payments creates an incentive for institutions to spend more. Regulation on spending would be required to overcome this problem.

A remaining question is what institutions would be incorporated into this pricing system. It would be natural to include all public institutions in such a system. The government is already heavily involved in this sector, but funding is insufficient. The pricing system I described would alleviate the funding gap with regulations instituted to manage incentives for excessive spending.

Highly endowed private institutions would not need to be part of such a system because they largely use their own funds to cover the gap between spending and affordable student payments. It is ironic that these institutions attract considerable attention for their high sticker prices because they best satisfy the goals of an affordable pricing system. They also enroll a high percentage of high-income students who pay full price. Those students tend to have stronger academic credentials and are more likely to be admitted even holding constant academic credentials. The pricing system these highly endowed institutions use is virtually impossible for most institutions to emulate. They simply do not have the money.

But what about prices at private institutions with considerably smaller endowments? They do not have the money to fill in the funding gaps themselves. The extensive subsidies and pricing regulation that would be required for the government to do so are inconsistent with their status as private entities. But these institutions will not be able to provide affordable pricing for students at all income levels without subsidies.

One alternative is to expand current financial aid programs, like increasing the Pell Grant. This approach can help reduce funding gaps at these institutions, but it may not eliminate them. We may need to be content with a system where these institutions are not accessible to all students regardless of need. Increasing educational opportunities, though, for more lower-income students to attend these institutions is still a worthwhile goal.

A final, necessary element of this system is pricing transparency. Even if we implement a system where institutions charge prices students can afford, they need to know how much that is. Without this information, how can students and their families make appropriate enrollment decisions?

It would help if institutions charged prices based on a calculation of how much students can afford to pay, as displayed in Figure 1. If so, online systems could enable younger students to forecast the amount they are likely to pay before getting a definitive price as they approach the age of college entry. The key is that they pay what they can afford.

Creating that formula is no simple task, partly because there is no "right" answer in translating income and assets into an amount families can afford. Whatever approach we use, maintaining simplicity in such calculations is critical (although doing so isn't always easy).

We also need to eliminate current practices that hinder pricing transparency. Setting a sticker price that few, if any, students pay as described earlier, provides one such example. Its use provides a marketing advantage for institutions, making it difficult for them to give up. It would take an agreement among schools to restrict this practice, an action that would almost surely (if unwisely) generate scrutiny from the Justice Department. Such scrutiny in this context would not increase competition in a way that lowers the price. Instead, it contributes to the lack of pricing transparency in the market that harms students.

The dual goals of excellence and affordability in our higher education system are difficult to achieve simultaneously. Institutions need incentives to strive for excellence, recognizing the impact of their decisions on affordability. Broadly speaking, our current system does not accomplish that. Achieving excellence and affordability will require significant changes.

The system I propose would move in that direction. The fundamental problem is insufficient resources at all but the most highly endowed private colleges. Where can additional resources come from? The simple answer is that they need to come from the federal government. The social benefits of a more educated society mean that such spending is a sound investment. Investments in higher education needs to be weighed against alternative uses of funds and the need to collect taxes to cover the cost. That said, this one seems worthwhile.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How much should college cost students? | Brookings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Phillip Levine explores a path to making college affordable for everyone while maintaining the quality of our higher education system.