# data[].attributes.headline
Hailey Beaulieu- Is it really time to consider removing metal detectors from schools?

# data[].attributes.subject
Hailey Beaulieu- Is it really time to consider removing metal detectors from schools?

# data[].attributes.body
some schools have metal detectors to prevent people from bringing things into the school. but articles say that violence still happens in school regardless of them bringing weapons.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It’s Time to Consider Removing Metal Detectors from Schools Now - The Education Trust

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week, several members of Congress complained about the hardening of the Capitol after last week’s violent insurrection. They complained that the metal detectors created chaos and lines, infringed on their liberties, and were a diversion of valuable resources. These are the same complaints that…

# data[].attributes.headline
Evan Paschke-Not every student should go to college and that’s ok

# data[].attributes.subject
Evan Paschke-Not every student should go to college and that’s ok

# data[].attributes.body
should students go to college right after high school why or why not

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Forty years ago 32 percent of counselors and teachers advised all students to go to college. Just 10 years later, in 1990, that percentage had doubled with roughly two-thirds of educators recommending college for all. Despite a recent surge in popularity for career and technical education, signs indicate that the college recommendation trend has increased over the last generation.

All that college-going advice may do harm in ways most adults in the lives of teenagers hadn't realized. Research we conducted over the past several years suggests that a "college for all" message causes far too many students from all demographics to make choices that result in failure.

Instead of forcing college on students, educators would do better to encourage them to consider more than one pathway into a good life. Some pathways will include college now or later and some not. Educators also have a responsibility to help create those pathways, and students' choices rather than their backgrounds should determine which they take.

In our research, we collected and analyzed more than 200 stories from students about their postsecondary education choices and surveyed over 1,000 more students to understand what caused them to enroll in college, both two- and four-year institutions, as well as some coding bootcamps and shorter graduate programs. Our participants were roughly representative of the population of students that attend college in the United States across gender, racial, and ethnic lines. Forty-six percent were first-generation college students, meaning neither of their parents had completed a bachelor's degree. Eighteen percent had at least one child, and 60 percent lived in households with incomes that placed them in the bottom three socio-economic quintiles.

We learned that a significant number of students from all backgrounds enroll in college to do what's expected of them or to help them get away from a bad circumstance in their lives. These students go to college not because they want the college experience or because of what college will help them obtain. In other words, they are motivated by external factors not internal goals. They choose college because it is a socially acceptable answer to what they are doing next.

Students who attend college for extrinsic reasons suffer poor outcomes. According to our research, 74 percent of those who attended college to "do what was expected of them" dropped out or transferred. Of those who went to college "to get away," over half had left the school they were attending without a degree at the time we talked to them.

One student we talked to, who was the first in her family to attend college, chose college to get away from a bad relationship with her stepdad. She enrolled in a college three hours away from home-even though it didn't have the courses of study in which she was interested. Once there, she took a heavier-than-usual course load first semester, partied hard, and found herself on academic probation.

Things improved a little second semester, but the improvement was not enough to justify the money she was spending on tuition, she thought. She still struggled with time management and a nagging sense that she didn't know why she was enrolled. So with $40,000 in federal and private student loans outstanding, she dropped out, returned home, mended things with her family, and started to find jobs to help pay off the debt.

Too many students go to college not knowing what they want to get out of it or how to make it work for them. Committing to a four-year school and taking on lots of debt when they lack passion and focus for the endeavor is risky, particularly given the grim college completion and student debt statistics.

Over 40 percent of first-time, full-time students who started college in the fall of 2012 failed to graduate from four-year programs within six years, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. Non-completers not only lose out on the benefits of a college degree, but also face increased debt without increased earnings. Non-completers have a three-fold higher risk of default than completers, according to the Center for American Progress.

Instead of adding to the pressure around college, which parents often fuel, high school educators should be the first line of defense for students who might benefit more from another path. Yes, educators must avoid the low expectations that direct students away from college because of their family's income, their race, or their ethnicity. Instead, they should encourage all students to reflect on their goals and explore more than one pathway to purpose and success.

One way to help is through courses that are now emerging to give students structured opportunities to discover what drives them. But high schools should go further. They must counter the narrowing of the curriculum over the last couple decades caused by an overemphasis on test results and the decrease in career and technical education pathways in many schools. Extracurricular activities, experiential learning, and opportunities to build relationships with adults outside of school through real-world projects can help students discover their strengths and interests. Rather than marginalize these opportunities, schools should integrate them into every student's program.

Our research in no way implies that college is a one-time decision. Just because college isn't the right step now

for a student doesn't mean it will never be the right step. College and, more to the point, education can help bring a lifetime of happiness, as studies have documented. But that education has to be at the right time and in the right circumstance.

If students aren't yet ready, then taking a gap year can be a smart move. The stereotype of rich kids gallivanting around Europe is outmoded. An increasing number of programs offer gap-year experiences with financial aid so that all students can partake of them. Counselors and teachers should help students explore these opportunities, which are filled with immersive activities that help students learn about themselves and, in many cases, earn money through holding a series of jobs. This can make a gap year considerably more affordable than college.

Far better than a monolithic college-for-all vision is for individuals to know where they are in their lives, what they want, and how to articulate it. Only then can we ensure that education delivers on its promise of helping people build their passions, fulfill their human potential, and live a lifetime of productive struggle and happiness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Not Every Student Should Go to College. And That's OK (Opinion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forty years ago 32 percent of counselors and teachers advised all students to go to college. Just 10 years later, in 1990, that percentage had doubled with roughly two-thirds of educators recommending college for all. Despite a recent surge in popularity for career and technical education, signs indicate that the college recommendation trend has increased over the last generation.

# data[].attributes.body
why should we have to get a vaccine to work, go out in the world, see family?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Featured Experts:

Yes. The two mRNA vaccines, Pfizer and Moderna, authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), are very safe and very good at preventing serious or fatal cases of COVID-19. The risk of serious side effects associated with these vaccines is very small.

Lisa Maragakis, M.D., M.P.H., senior director of infection prevention, and Gabor Kelen, M.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Office of Critical Event Preparedness and Response, answer questions about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines.

COVID-19 Vaccine Safety - What We Know

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are strongly recommended as safe and effective at preventing serious illness or death from COVID-19.

From December 2020 to December 2021, about 470 million doses of COVID-19 vaccine have been given in the U.S.

Roughly 12 months of data, including data from tens of thousands of participants in clinical trials, show that the vaccines are safe and effective at preventing serious disease or death due to COVID-19.

Additional shots and boosters are also authorized for those who meet the guidelines.

mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines has been in development for over 15 years.

The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines received full FDA approval, which means more data show how well that particular vaccine works.

Due to potential blood clots following administration of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the CDC updated its recommendations in December 2021. The CDC noted that the two mRNA vaccines, from Pfizer and Moderna, are preferred over the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Are there risks or safety concerns regarding the COVID vaccines?

To help catch risks or safety concerns, the CDC and FDA monitor possible safety issues with the COVID-19 vaccines. This ongoing work has led to revised recommendations for the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and information about rare side effects tied to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.

Johnson & Johnson/Janssen. In December 2021, the CDC updated its recommendations and stated that either of the two mRNA vaccines is preferred over the Johnson & Johnson (J&J) COVID-19 vaccine. The CDC explained that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are preferred due to a greater risk for developing rare but severe blood clots, called thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), following administration of the J&J vaccine. The CDC noted that there are some situations when a J&J vaccine may still be used, if the recipient understands the risks and benefits of the J&J vaccine. Read about side effects related to the rare blood clot.

At Johns Hopkins Medicine, we offer Pfizer and Moderna vaccines throughout our vaccine clinics.

Pfizer and Moderna. After observing rare occurrences of myocarditis following the second injection of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, the CDC released information for the public. Most of these myocarditis events happened in teens and young adults, and the majority of the cases were mild and cleared up on their own. Read about side effects related to myocarditis.

This review process continues to monitor vaccine safety. Potential risks of COVID-19 vaccines are reviewed and weighed against the benefits of protection that the vaccines offer as well as the known, serious risk of harm due to COVID-19.

What if I got a J&J vaccine? Should I worry about blood clots?

If you received a Johnson & Johnson vaccine more than three weeks ago, you do not need to watch for side effects related to blood clots.

If you received the J&J vaccine within the last three weeks, you should watch for possible symptoms of TTS and get medical help immediately if you have any of the following:

Severe or persistent headaches or blurred vision

Shortness of breath

Chest pain

Leg swelling

Persistent abdominal pain

Easy bruising or tiny blood spots under the skin near the injection site

Is there a risk of an allergic reaction to a COVID vaccine?

According to the CDC, anyone who has a severe allergy (e.g., anaphylaxis) to any of the mRNA vaccine ingredients should not receive this vaccine. The CDC says people with allergies to certain foods, insects, latex and other common allergens can safely receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Those with a history of severe allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) to injectables or other vaccines should discuss the vaccination with their doctor, who can evaluate and assess their risk.

The COVID-19 Vaccines: What you need to know | Las vacunas anticovid-19: información imprescindible

How was the COVID-19 vaccine developed so quickly?

The relatively quick development of these vaccines does not mean safety measures were skipped. There are several reasons why the COVID-19 vaccines were developed faster than other vaccines:

The technologies used to develop the COVID-19 vaccines have been in development for years to prepare for outbreaks of infectious viruses. The manufacturing processes were ready very early in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Countries shared genetic information when it was available about SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, which gave vaccine developers an early start at finding a vaccine.

The testing processes for the vaccines didn't skip any steps, but the vaccine developers conducted some stages of the process simultaneously to gather as much data as quickly as possible.

Governments gave money to vaccine developers in advance, so the companies had resources they needed.

Some types of COVID-19 vaccines were created using messenger RNA (mRNA), a new technology that allows a faster approach than the traditional way vaccines are made.

Social media enabled companies to reach out to and enroll study volunteers, and plenty of people wanted to help, so there were enough research participants to test the COVID-19 vaccines.

Because SARS-CoV-2 is so contagious and widespread, many volunteers who got the vaccines were exposed to the virus, and with so many exposures, it took a shorter time to see if the vaccines worked.

Companies began manufacturing vaccines ahead of their authorization or approval so some supplies would be ready if authorization occurred.

What steps are taken to help make sure the COVID-19 vaccines are safe?

Safety is always a top priority as federal agencies work with vaccine manufacturers and independent scientific organizations to develop, study, authorize and approve new vaccines. Here are some of the steps taken for COVID-19 vaccines, as well as other vaccines:

Careful testing. All vaccines go through clinical trials to test safety and effectiveness. For the COVID-19 vaccine, the FDA set high safety standards for vaccine developers to meet. This graphic from the National Institutes of Health shows the four phases a vaccine goes through before it is released to the public.

Authorization for emergency use. If a vaccine or medicine is needed to address an emergency situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic, once it is shown to be safe and effective, the FDA can grant it an emergency use authorization (EUA). An EUA allows a vaccine, treatment or medication to be used before the formal FDA approval.

Continuous monitoring for problems and side effects. Once a vaccine gets an EUA and is being given to people, the FDA and the CDC continue to watch carefully in case problems arise. Data on the vaccine's safety record accumulates over time, as more and more people who receive it report on their experience and any side effects. One important way to report adverse events after vaccination is through the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

Learn more from the CDC about the safety steps for the COVID-19 vaccine.

Demographics of the COVID-19 Vaccine Trials

Do I still have to wear a mask if I get a vaccine?

The CDC continues to monitor the spread of COVID-19 and makes recommendations for wearing face masks, both for those who are fully vaccinated as well as people who are not fully vaccinated.

The CDC also recommends that masks and physical distancing be required when going to a doctor's office, hospital or long-term care facility, including all Johns Hopkins hospitals, care centers and offices.

Johns Hopkins Medicine's mask safety guidelines have not changed, and we still require everyone to wear masks inside all of our facilities.

Can I get COVID-19 from the vaccine?

You cannot and will not get COVID-19 from any of the vaccines. The COVID-19 vaccines do not have any virus or other infectious material in them.

What about the safety of COVID-19 vaccination for diverse groups of people?

The FDA and other reviewers closely consider diverse populations and include them in the trials. The clinical trials for the first two COVID-19 vaccines included members of underrepresented minorities and older age groups, and people with conditions such as obesity, diabetes, and heart and respiratory conditions.

Does Johns Hopkins Medicine recommend that I get a COVID-19 vaccine?

Yes, we recommend that everyone who is eligible get vaccinated with one of the currently authorized mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: Pfizer or Moderna. We view both as highly effective in preventing serious disease, hospitalization and death from COVID-19 (including disease caused by the very contagious delta and omicron variants of the coronavirus), and we believe that their benefits outweigh their risks.

At Johns Hopkins Medicine, we offer Pfizer and Moderna vaccines throughout our vaccine clinics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our experts answer some frequently asked questions about vaccine safety.

# data[].attributes.body
Should the average citizen be able to purchase and or carry a firearm?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which concerns the right to bear arms, is always a hot-button issue, especially during election season. Gun rights and gun control groups alike have been lobbying Congress for decades to craft legislation in their respective favors. Twice in the past two years the gun issue has reached the nation's highest court.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evan Paschke- Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

# data[].attributes.subject
Evan Paschke- Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

# data[].attributes.body
why should women have the right to have an abortion? if you got pregnant thats on you because you didn't go the extra mile to do something about it before you got pregnant. you didn't think before you acted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Public discussion about abortion in the United States has generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention are the women behind the statistics-the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year-and their reasons for having abortions. While a small proportion of women who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response to an unintended pregnancy. However, "unintended pregnancy" does not fully capture the reasons and life circumstances that lie behind a woman's decision to obtain an abortion. What personal, familial, social and economic factors lead to the decision to end a pregnancy?

The research into U.S. women's reasons for having abortions has been limited. In a 1985 study of 500 women in Kansas, unreadiness to parent was the reason most often given for having an abortion, followed by lack of financial resources and absence of a partner. In 1987, a survey of 1,900 women at large abortion providers across the country found that women's most common reasons for having an abortion were that having a baby would interfere with school, work or other responsibilities, and that they could not afford a child. Since 1987, little research in this area has been conducted in the United States, but studies done in Scandinavia and worldwide have found several recurring motivations: economic hardship, partner difficulties and unreadiness for parenting. An extensive literature (both quantitative and qualitative) examines how women make the decision to have an abortion or a birth. Here, we focus on women who have already made the decision to have an abortion.

Why revisit this topic? One compelling reason is that the abortion rate declined by 22% between 1987 and 2002, and another is that the demographic characteristics of reproductive-age women in general and of abortion patients in particular have changed since 1987. For example, the proportion of abortion patients who have already had one or more children has increased, as have the proportions who are aged 30 or older, who are nonwhite and who are cohabiting. In addition, between 1994 and 2000, the proportion of women having abortions who were poor increased. Because social and demographic characteristics may be associated with motivations for having an abortion, it is important to reassess the reasons why women choose to terminate a pregnancy.

A better understanding of these motivations can inform public opinion and prevent or correct misperceptions. Likewise, a fuller appraisal of the life circumstances within which women decide to have an abortion bears directly on the issue of public funding for abortions and provides evidence of how increasing legal and financial constraints on access to abortion may affect women's lives.

METHODS

Our study included a quantitative component (a structured survey) and a qualitative component (in-depth interviews), which together provide a more comprehensive examination of women's reasons for having abortions. The survey instrument, the interview guide and implementation protocols were approved by our organization's institutional review board. We also make comparisons to nationally representative surveys of abortion patients fielded in 1987 and 2000, and to a 1987 survey of reasons for abortion.

Quantitative Component

The design of the structured questionnaire was modeled after the one used in the 1987 U.S. study, and we kept the wording as similar as possible to the language of that survey. Our eight-page questionnaire covered in detail the reasons why the respondent chose to terminate her pregnancy. The first question was open-ended: "Please describe briefly why you are choosing to have an abortion now. If you have more than one reason, please list them all, starting with the most important one first." Nearly eight in 10 respondents provided at least one answer.

The next 12 questions asked about reasons for deciding to have an abortion. If the woman answered affirmatively to any of the first three ("Having a baby would dramatically change my life," "Can't afford a baby now" and "Don't want to be a single mother or having relationship problems"), she was asked which of a set of specific subreasons were relevant. Multiple responses were allowed, and a space was provided to write in reasons that were not listed.* The questionnaire then had a space for reasons that did not fit into any of the categories provided. Finally, women were asked about their demographic and social characteristics.

We purposively sampled 11 facilities from the universe of known abortion providers that perform 2,000 or more abortions per year; such facilities performed 56% of all abortions in the United States in 2000. Our sample was chosen to be broadly representative, rather than strictly statistically representative, of all large providers. We included at least one facility in each of the nine major geographic divisions defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, and chose facilities that represented a variety of city sizes, patient characteristics and state abortion policies (such as waiting periods, parental consent regulations and use of state Medicaid funds). Most were clinics or private practices; one was a hospital. Of the 11 sites originally chosen, one clinic declined to participate and was replaced by a similar facility.

The questionnaire was pretested at a clinic that was not part of the sample to assess how well women understood the informed consent process and the survey questions.

Staff at the selected facilities asked women arriving for a pregnancy termination to participate in the survey and, if they agreed, to fill out the questionnaire by themselves and return it to a staff member in a sealed envelope. The questionnaire was available in English and Spanish. Participation was voluntary, and no identifying information about the respondents was collected.

The fielding period ranged from one to six weeks, depending on each facility's caseload. We established a minimum response rate of 50% of all abortion clients seen by each facility during its sampling period for the data to be considered representative of the women at that facility. The overall response rate was 58%, and facility rates ranged from 50% to 76%, because some women declined participation and some staff had minor difficulties adhering to the protocol. Fielding ran from December 2003 until March 2004, and 1,209 abortion patients completed the questionnaire.

Qualitative Component

We also conducted in-depth interviews with 38 women at four sites. The interview guide included all of the same topics as the survey. The selected sites were hospital-based and freestanding, in different regions of the country and in states with differing restrictions on access to and Medicaid reimbursement for abortion services. The sites were also chosen to represent varying city sizes and to capture a cross section of abortion patients. In three of these facilities, the structured survey had also been distributed. Staff at the study clinics offered all abortion patients a chance to participate; recruitment was not based on social or demographic characteristics.

Members of the study team interviewed respondents during their medical visit, typically before the procedure. Women were informed that the interviews would be recorded, and they provided verbal consent. The interviews lasted 30-60 minutes and were anonymous. The qualitative component was limited to fluent English speakers. Women were compensated $25 in cash for their participation. The interview period began at the end of the structured survey period and continued for two months.

Data Analysis

We used chi-square tests to examine differences in reasons for abortion across demographic subgroups. Multivariate logistic regression models refined our understanding of the variables associated with each reason. In addition, we conducted a factor analysis of the closed-ended and write-in reasons and subreasons to identify logical groupings.

The 1987 study purposely oversampled women having abortions at 16 weeks of gestation or later. We therefore weighted figures for 1987 to reflect the true distribution of abortions by gestation for all U.S. women. Given that the 2004 survey was not nationally representative, individual cases were not weighted. Because the sampling design involved 11 primary sampling units, we used statistical techniques that accounted for the clustered design to calculate accurate standard errors. We conducted all analyses using Stata version 8.2. All associations discussed were significant at p&;.05 or less.

Of the 1,209 respondents, 4% gave no reasons and were excluded from most analyses. Higher proportions of these women than of the others were nonwhite and had children. In addition, nonresponse was 12-14% for age, parity, marital status, race and employment, and 26% for income, causing the Ns for the multivariate models to be lower than those for the univariate and bivariate tabulations.

The audiocassettes of the in-depth interviews were professionally transcribed, and the research team listened to every tape while reviewing the transcription. Errors were corrected, and any information that could potentially identify respondents was removed. The edited transcripts were systematically coded using categories based on the project focus as well as related ideas emerging from the data. All coding was done by one author and checked for validity by another. We used the software N6 for coding and data analysis.

RESULTS

Respondents' Characteristics

Respondents to the structured survey of reasons for abortion were not substantially different from a nationally representative sample of abortion patients surveyed in 2000 in terms of age, marital status, parity, income, education, race or gestation ( Table 1). Twenty percent were 19 or younger, and 57% were in their 20s. Seventy-two percent had never been married, and 59% had had at least one child. Some 60% were below 200% of the federal poverty line, including 30% who were living in poverty (not shown). More than half had attended college or received a college degree. Thirty-one percent of respondents were black, and 19% were Hispanic. (Four percent completed the questionnaire in Spanish.) Sixty-one percent were at fewer than nine weeks of gestation, and 85% were at fewer than 13 weeks.

However, the characteristics of abortion patients had changed between 1987 and 2000, and these changes were reflected in the 1987 and 2004 surveys of reasons for abortion. For example, the proportion who were mothers increased from 48% to 61% in the nationally representative surveys carried out in 1987 and 2000; a similar increase (from 42% to 59%) was seen between the 1987 and 2004 surveys of reasons. The median age of respondents was 23.0 in the 1987 survey of reasons and 24.1 in 2004 (not shown). Fifty percent of women were below 200% of the federal poverty level in the 1987 survey of reasons, while in 2004, 60% were below this level. Also, the proportion who were Hispanic rose from 7% in 1987 to 19% in 2004.

The in-depth interview respondents were slightly older than the structured survey respondents; more than half were 25 or older (not shown). More than two-thirds had children, and two-thirds were living below 200% of the federal poverty level (with half at or below the poverty line-not shown). Marital status was similar between the two samples. Nearly half were black, and the proportion who were Hispanic was only 11%. Furthermore, almost half of the interview respondents were in their second trimester; a possible explanation for this overrepresentation is that these women were usually in the clinic on two consecutive days for their abortion procedures, and therefore were more likely to be available to participate in the interviews.

Reasons for Abortion

*Reasons in 2004. Among the structured survey respondents, the two most common reasons were "having a baby would dramatically change my life" and "I can't afford a baby now" (cited by 74% and 73%, respectively- Table 2). A large proportion of women cited relationship problems or a desire to avoid single motherhood (48%). Nearly four in 10 indicated that they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third said they were not ready to have a child. Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively). Respondents wrote in a number of specific health reasons, from chronic or debilitating conditions such as cancer and cystic fibrosis to pregnancy-specific concerns such as gestational diabetes and morning sickness.

The most common subreason given was that the woman could not afford a baby now because she was unmarried (42%). Thirty-eight percent indicated that having a baby would interfere with their education, and the same proportion said it would interfere with their employment. In a related vein, 34% said they could not afford a child because they were students or were planning to study.

In the in-depth interviews, the three most frequently stated reasons were the same as in the structured survey: the dramatic impact a baby would have on the women's lives or the lives of their other children (32 of 38 respondents), financial concerns (28), and their current relationship or fear of single motherhood (21). Nine women cited health concerns for themselves, possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or both as a reason for terminating the pregnancy.

However, the proportion of women indicating that they had completed their desired childbearing increased substantially (and significantly) between 1987 and 2004, from 28% to 38%. To assess whether this shift was due to a change in mothers' propensity to give this reason (in addition to the change in population composition described earlier), we stratified this analysis by both survey year and whether the woman had any children. The findings showed that mothers in 2004 were more likely to report this reason than were mothers in 1987 (not shown). Thus, the overall increase likely reflected both a rise in the proportion of abortion patients who were already mothers and an increased tendency of mothers to give this reason. The proportion of women indicating that having children or other dependents was a reason not to have another child increased from 22% to 32% between 1987 and 2004. This change, however, appeared to be due solely to the change in population composition (not shown). The proportion of women who cited a physical problem with their health also increased over the period.

On the other hand, smaller proportions of women in 2004 than in 1987 said that having a baby would interfere with their job or career (38% vs. 50%), that they were not mature enough (22% vs. 27%), that their husband or partner wanted them to have an abortion (14% vs. 24%), and that they and their partner could not or did not want to get married (12% vs. 30%). In both surveys, 1% indicated that they had been victims of rape, and less than half a percent said they became pregnant as a result of incest.

*Most important reasons. In both 1987 and 2004, unreadiness for a child or another child and inability to afford a baby were each mentioned by about one-quarter of women as their most important reason for having an abortion ( Table 3, page 114). The proportion indicating that they had completed their childbearing, that they had others depending on them or that their children were grown increased over this period, from 8% to 19%. In contrast, the proportions reporting fear of single motherhood or relationship problems, and reporting that a child would interfere with school or career, both declined, as did the percentage describing themselves as not mature enough or too young.

Seven percent of women cited health concerns for themselves or possible problems affecting the health of the fetus as their most important reason in 2004, about the same as in 1987. Only half a percent of women indicated that their partners' or their parents' desire for an abortion was the most important reason behind their decision.

*Number of reasons given. Of the 1,160 women who gave at least one reason, 89% gave at least two and 72% gave at least three; the median number of reasons given was four, and some women gave as many as eight reasons out of a possible 13 (not shown). Among women who gave at least two reasons, the most common pairs of reasons were inability to afford a baby and interference with school or work; inability to afford a baby and fear of single motherhood or relationship problems; and inability to afford a baby and having completed childbearing or having other people dependent on them.

In-depth interview respondents gave an average of five reasons (range, 1-10) for why they were ending their pregnancy. However, women's responses often did not fit the categories of the structured survey; the reasons tended to overlap between the domains of unplanned pregnancy, financial instability, unemployment, single motherhood and current parenting responsibilities. For example, one 25-year-old woman, separated from her husband, said:

"Neither one of us are really economically prepared. For myself, I've been out of work for almost two years now, I just started, you know, receiving benefits from DSS and stuff. And with my youngest child being three years old, and me...constantly applying for jobs for a while now,...if I got a job, I'm going to have to go on maternity leave. And with [the father],...let's just say, with four children, I don't think he needs another one." -Mother of two, below the poverty line

Factors Related to Reasons for Abortion

This study also examined the relationship between various social and demographic characteristics and reasons for having an abortion. These analyses included all women who mentioned each reason; they are not restricted to women's most important reasons. In several cases, we have grouped two reasons on the basis of their similarity and the factor analysis of related reasons.

Nulliparity was the most important correlate of reporting interference with education or work as a reason for choosing abortion, after other variables were controlled for. Women who had children were less likely than women with no children to give these reasons (odds ratios, 0.2-0.3). In addition, women aged 30 and older were much less likely than those aged 17 and younger to cite educational or career interference (0.1).

Having no children was also the key predictor of reporting unreadiness for a child or another child: Women with children had reduced odds of citing this reason (odds ratios, 0.3-0.4). The fact that the odds ratios for women with one, two, and three or more children are similar suggests that unreadiness is more strongly linked to initiating childbearing than to limiting the number of children.

Fewer than half of the interview respondents said that having a baby now would keep them from fulfilling their goals or that they were not ready to have a(nother) child. The majority of these women were young and nulliparous; their aspirations were primarily educational. Many women who gave one of these reasons said they were too young to have children and felt they were "just starting out" in their lives. Most framed their decision in terms of the desire to have children later, when they could better provide for them. A never-married woman who had just started college and whose partner was still in high school remarked:

"You know, I'm 19 years old. I don't think I should be having a child right now. I should be more focused on what I'm trying...I'm trying to do things for myself. How am I supposed to do something for another human?" -Woman with no children, above the poverty line

In the qualitative sample, of women who stated that they could not afford to have a child now, the majority had children already. Financial difficulties included the absence of support from the father of either the current pregnancy or the woman's other children, anticipating not being able to continue working or to find work while pregnant or caring for a newborn, not having the resources to support a child whose conception was not planned and lacking health insurance. Respondents who gave financial reasons for having an abortion frequently reported feeling stressed and strained to the limit of their current resources, as did the never-married woman who commented:

"I am on my own, and financially and mentally, I can't stand it now. That is one whole reason....It's a sin to bring the child here and not be able to provide for it....This is just in the best interest for me and the children-no, my children and this child." -19-year-old with three children, below the poverty line

One respondent had recently been homeless, and another's partner prevented her from working; some respondents were on government assistance:

"I have three kids already, and the guy that I was living with, he was, you know, doing good as far as helping me, but he just went to jail....I am alone with three kids, and they are all I have. It's hard....I am barely making it, you know, because it is...harder to get things,...you can't get food, you know, you cannot get food stamps....I only get 50 [dollars] in food stamps [a month]....It is just too hard." -22-year-old, below the poverty line

A few respondents articulated their fears that having another baby now would force them onto public assistance, an outcome they wanted to avoid. For example:

"If you think about it, OK-I get pregnant; I might not be financially stable. I got to take somebody's working money for welfare. You know what I'm saying? Why not let me get out of this situation, so I could better myself so when I do get pregnant and have another baby, I don't have to take your money, because you're working. I'm not going to be working, because I'm going to be sitting on my welfare, taking care of my baby! Why?" -21-year-old with one child, below the poverty line

More than half of the women in the qualitative sample cited concerns about their relationship or single motherhood as a reason to end the pregnancy. Relationship problems included the partner's drinking, physical abuse, unfaithfulness, unreliability, immaturity and absence (often due to incarceration or responsibilities to his other children). Many of these women were disappointed because their partner had reacted to the pregnancy by denying paternity, breaking off communication with them or saying that they did not want a child. A small number of women stated that they were in new relationships and that it was too soon to have a child with their partner. Most who gave this reason had children already. They related how hard it was to raise children by themselves and how hard it would be to add another child to their families. Some felt depleted and alone:

"Well, I already had one son, and right now he's growing up without a father, just me and him....If you ain't got a lot of help with the family support, it's really hard. Sometimes I can't handle it, but I have to, you know, for my son's sake....I believe, right now, I'm gonna take care of myself and my son." -19-year-old, below the poverty line

A number of women stated that it was unfair to one's children to bring them up without a father figure.

Combining all reasons that refer to other people or to future children,** we found that 74% of women, including at least two-thirds of women in every age, parity, relationship, racial, income and education category, identified concern for or responsibility to other individuals as a factor in their decision (not shown). Nine in 10 of these women (66% of all women) cited their inability to care for a child at this stage in their life or the quality of life they could provide for a(nother) child, and 45% of them (33% of all women) reported concern for other individuals, most commonly their children.

An initial multivariate analysis indicated that, as might be expected, women with children had sharply elevated odds of saying that they had completed their childbearing or that they had children or others depending on them; this variable overwhelmed the impact of other variables (not shown). Because of the extremely high odds ratios for this variable, we omitted nulliparous women from a second model (also not shown), and found that parity was no longer significant-that is, the important difference was between women with any number of children and those with no children. For the model shown in Table 5, we omitted parity entirely, and found that women aged 18 and older, married and formerly married women, black women, and poorer or less educated women had elevated odds of giving these reasons, findings that reflected the bivariate results.

Some interviewees said they were ending this pregnancy because they did not want any more children. Women cited financial reasons, their age and health, not wanting to "start over" and already having children of both genders. Many mentioned that having another baby would deprive the children they already had of financial, emotional and time resources. One lower income, divorced mother said:

"There is just no way I could be the wonderful parent to all three of them and still have enough left over to keep the house clean and make sure the bills are paid and I'm in bed on time so I can be at work on time. It's impossible." -30-year-old with two children, below the poverty line

Women's concerns ranged from worries about their own health, to dealing with their children's chronic illnesses or severe disabilities, to a lack of adequate birthspacing.

Concern for one's own health was a more common reason for having an abortion among older women and those with children; it was cited less often by women who were never married and not cohabiting. Women aged 30 and older had greatly elevated odds of citing their own health compared with the youngest age-group (odds ratio, 21.9), but we found no significant association with parity. In addition, women living at or above 150% of the federal poverty level were less likely to mention their own health than were women living in poverty (0.3-0.6).

A woman's concerns for her health or possible fetal health problems were cited as reasons to end her pregnancy by one-fourth of the qualitative sample. Women who felt that their fetus's health had been compromised cited concerns such as a lack of prenatal care, the risk of birth defects due to advanced maternal age, a history of miscarriages, maternal cocaine use and fetal exposure to prescription medications. Concerns about personal health included chronic and life-threatening conditions such as depression, advanced maternal age and toxemia. More commonly, however, women cited feeling too ill during the pregnancy to work or take care of their children.

*Opinions on adoption. Respondents were not specifically asked about adoption; nevertheless, it came up spontaneously in both parts of the study. While fewer than 1% of women in the quantitative survey volunteered that they would not consider or did not favor having a baby and giving it up for adoption, more than one-third of interview respondents said they had considered adoption and concluded that it was a morally unconscionable option because giving one's child away is wrong.

DISCUSSION

Women's reported reasons for ending pregnancies have been consistent over time. Furthermore, the proportion of women reporting each major reason changed relatively little between 1987 and 2004. The few larger changes appear to have been at least partially due to changes in the composition of the population, rather than entirely to changes in women's tendency to give those reasons.

The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by diverse, interrelated reasons. Nearly three-quarters of respondents indicated that they could not afford to have a child now, and large proportions mentioned responsibilities to children, partner issues and unreadiness to parent. The in-depth interviews revealed that these reasons are multiple dimensions of complicated life situations. For example, financial difficulties are often the result of lack of support from one's partner, or lack of a partner altogether; and the financial and emotional responsibility to provide for existing children without adequate resources makes it too hard for some women to care for another child.

Yet some broad concepts emerged from the study. A cross-cutting theme was women's responsibility to children and other dependents, as well as considerations about children they may have in the future. Most women in every age, parity, relationship, racial, income and education category cited concern for or responsibility to other individuals as a factor in their decision to have an abortion. In contrast to the perception (voiced by politicians and laypeople across the ideological spectrum) that women who choose abortion for reasons other than rape, incest and life endangerment do so for "convenience," our data suggest that after carefully assessing their individual situations, women base their decisions largely on their ability to maintain economic stability and to care for the children they already have.

In addition, the topic of women's limited resources, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, regularly appeared in the survey and interview responses. A large majority of women cited financial hardship, often along with other reasons. Financial problems, exacerbated by other forms of instability, limit women's ability to provide sufficient support to additional children. The concept of responsibility is inseparable from the theme of limited resources; given their present circumstances, respondents considered their decision to have an abortion the most responsible action. The fact that many women cited financial limitations as a reason for ending a pregnancy suggests that further restrictions on public assistance to families could contribute to a continued increase in abortions among the most disadvantaged women.

Although these concerns appeared among all groups, different groups of women gave diverse reasons for having abortions. Younger women who had not begun their childbearing often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women, the large majority of whom were already mothers, regularly cited their responsibility to children or other dependents as a key factor behind the decision to have an abortion.

Only a small proportion of women cited concerns about their own health. However, the qualitative results showed that these concerns encompassed not just risks to future health, but also the health burden of pregnancy itself. They further revealed how health concerns are linked to the concept of responsibility: Some women saw the physical burden of pregnancy and its associated health conditions as threatening their ability to fulfill responsibilities to dependents. Others underscored the importance of appropriate birthspacing for their own health and for the health and economic security of their children.

In light of the public debate over the morality of abortion, it is notable that the women in our survey emphasized their conscious examination of the moral aspects of their decisions. Although some described abortion as sinful and wrong, many of those same women, and others, described the indiscriminate bearing of children as a sin, and their abortion as "the right thing" and "a responsible choice." Respondents often acknowledged the complexity of the decision, and described an intense and difficult process of deciding to have an abortion, which took into account the moral weight of their responsibilities to their families, themselves and children they might have in the future.

In the in-depth interviews, the language women used suggests that abortion was not something they desired; instead, these women were deciding not to have a child at this time. Facing unintended pregnancies, they clearly understood the implications of having a child (most of them firsthand) and were aware of their options. They saw not having a child as their best (and sometimes only) option.

Some advocates have used highly selective samples to claim that the majority of women having abortions are coerced into the decision. Such claims suggest that women lack control over their own lives, but our findings attest that women independently make the decision to have an abortion. The proportion of women citing influence from partners or parents is small (and has declined since 1987), and fewer than 1% of respondents indicated that this influence was their most important reason.

This study is subject to some limitations. Our sample is not strictly nationally representative. Also, only 58% of the abortion patients seen by the participating facilities completed the survey, and nonresponse on some variables-notably, income-was high. However, the social and demographic characteristics of respondents were similar to those of two nationally representative surveys, which provides some reassurance that the findings are representative of abortion patients in the United States.

Although the focus of this study was women's reasons for having abortions, our findings have broader implications regarding the burden of unwanted pregnancy and the need for increased access to and use of contraceptive services. Better access to emergency contraception, for example, could lead to a reduction in unintended pregnancy, a decrease in the national abortion rate and, on the individual level, a decline in the number of women confronted with the difficult decision of how to resolve an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that an increasing proportion of women having abortions are poor underscores the importance of public assistance for family planning programs as an effective means of reducing the incidence of both unintended pregnancy and abortion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public discussion about abortion in the United States has generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention are the women behind the statistics-the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1-and their reasons for having abortions.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conner-Americans’ views on whether, and in what circumstances, abortion should be legal

# data[].attributes.subject
Conner-Americans’ views on whether, and in what circumstances, abortion should be legal

# data[].attributes.body
Should abortion be legal or illegal?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1. Americans’ views on whether, and in what circumstances, abortion should be legal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the long-running debate over abortion reaches another key moment at the Supreme Court and in state legislatures across the country, a

# data[].attributes.headline
Conner- Should Kids Be Required to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine? An Ethics Perspective

# data[].attributes.subject
Conner- Should Kids Be Required to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine? An Ethics Perspective

# data[].attributes.body
Should kids be forced to get the covid vaccination to get a good education?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As COVID-19 cases in Washington state and around the world continue to rise, there is increasing focus on when a vaccine will be available and to whom.

But are COVID-19 vaccines being developed safely? Who will get the vaccine first and why? Should children be required to get it? We asked Dr. Doug Opel, associate director of the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, these questions and more. Read on to learn what he had to say.

How will the approval process for a COVID-19 vaccine differ from typical vaccines?

The standard path to vaccine licensing in the U.S. is the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Biologics License Application (BLA) process. This is a rigorous process that requires comprehensive data on the vaccine's safety and efficacy, and several levels of review by federal advisory committees. The BLA process has an extraordinary track record of promoting clinician confidence and public trust in vaccines that are ultimately approved.

Due to the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA commissioner has stated a willingness to use an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for a COVID-19 vaccine. An EUA does not require safety and efficacy data that is as comprehensive as the standard process. For instance, EUA guidelines for a COVID-19 vaccine require a median of two months of follow-up safety data. This is a shorter duration of safety data than required by the standard process. The intent with an EUA, though, is to strike a reasonable balance between making a vaccine available quickly and making sure it is safe and effective.

An EUA has only been used to make a vaccine available once - in 2005 to make the anthrax vaccine. Existing research suggests many people might be wary of a vaccine made available by an EUA. A recent study found most U.S. adults would not be willing to accept a COVID-19 vaccine made available through an EUA.

Children are currently being included in clinical trials for a COVID-19 vaccine. Is this ethical?

Typically, children are not included in clinical trials until phase 3 trials (in which the vaccine is given to thousands of people and tested for efficacy and safety) have been done in adults. This is justifiable in order to ensure we have strong and compelling safety data of the vaccine in adults before enrolling kids. Children are a vulnerable research population because they cannot provide consent, so it is important to minimize the risks to which they are exposed in research.

That said, to control this pandemic, kids will need to be vaccinated, so we need to start accumulating data on the safety and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine in children. Therefore, even though phase 3 trials in adults are not yet complete, enrollment of children can be justifiable, especially when done in a staged manner, such as by starting enrollment with teenagers and only including younger children and infants after some understanding of its side effects in teenagers.

"It would be a mistake to make a COVID-19 vaccine mandatory without sufficient safety data. Vaccine safety is fundamental to maintaining the public's trust in vaccines and skirting this safety criterion could have far-reaching consequences."

Dr. Doug Opel, associate director, Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics

Who will get the vaccine first, and why?

Four criteria have been proposed to help determine who will get the vaccine first: those who are at high risk of getting infected; those who are at high risk of severe disease or death if they get infected; those who have societal function and other individuals' lives and livelihoods depend on them directly; and those who are at high risk of transmitting infection to others.These criteria are based on foundational ethical principles, such as maximizing benefit. According to these criteria, high-risk healthcare workers and first responders will be prioritized first, along with individuals of all ages with underlying conditions that put them at significantly higher risk.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has suggested the vaccine is unlikely to be initially available to children. Is this fair?

The proportion of children who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 and who become severely ill is much smaller than in adults, so prioritizing others at higher risk of infection and severe disease is justifiable. Also, vaccine trials only began enrolling children recently, so it is important to take the time needed to accumulate the safety and efficacy data of the vaccine that will form the basis for any approval decisions for use of the vaccine in children.

Should a COVID-19 vaccine be mandated for children in schools?

It's too early to know. We don't know enough about the performance of any COVID-19 vaccine or the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 in children to make any firm judgments about whether a COVID-19 vaccine should be mandatory in children. There are a few criteria, though, that my colleagues and I recently argued should be used when it is time to make this decision:

1. First and foremost, there must be evidence that a COVID-19 vaccine is safe for children with an acceptable level of risk.

2. The burden of COVID-19 disease ought to be substantial in at least a subset of the population. This criterion has already been met.

3. Vaccinating an infant, child or adolescent against this disease should reduce the risk of person-to-person transmission. At this time, the role of children in person-to-person transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is still poorly understood.

4. The COVID-19 vaccine must be effective in protecting a child from the disease. It doesn't need to be 100% effective, but its effectiveness should be comparable with other vaccines we currently require for children.

5. The COVID-19 vaccine mandate should not be burdensome for a child or, more accurately, a child's parent or guardian, to comply with. This means the vaccine must be widely available, easily accessible and affordable to all.

How does refusal to accept a COVID-19 vaccine compare to more general vaccine hesitancy?

I believe they are distinct. Hesitancy toward a COVID-19 vaccine is mostly rooted in the fact that these vaccines are still in development and have an unknown safety and efficacy profile. On the other hand, general vaccine hesitancy - being indecisive about a vaccine that has a known safety and efficacy profile, has been approved for use and has been administered to millions of people - is steeped in a complex sociocultural milieu of consumerism, pervasive misinformation and the rejection of objective, scientific evidence as truth.

However, there is overlap between vaccine hesitancy and a reluctance to accept a COVID-19 vaccine in terms of trust. Both require trust in the processes and systems that develop, approve and monitor the safety of vaccines, as well as the people and agencies who recommend and endorse vaccination.

Is it appropriate to compare the COVID-19 vaccine to the flu vaccine?

The analogy is understandable since COVID-19 has been portrayed by some in the media as like influenza. Though it is true that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is a respiratory virus like influenza with the most common symptoms being cough and fever, there are many important differences. And these differences are really important to how we should decide whether we require the vaccine to prevent these two diseases.

For instance, SARS-CoV-2 appears to spread more efficiently than influenza. The number of others to whom an infected person would spread the disease if they were placed in a susceptible population (i.e., the reproduction number) is approximately 1 for the influenza virus. For SARS-CoV-2, the reproduction number is 2 to 2.5. We should focus on the specifics of each vaccine, each disease and how each vaccine is delivered to determine whether or not it should be mandated.

What can be done to increase confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine?

We need to restore trust among the public in vaccine development and approval processes. The politicization of these processes over the last year has badly damaged public trust. A good starting point would be a unified, proactive, highly visible communication structure within federal public health agencies to inform the public on a regular basis about the status of these processes.

Note

This article is based on the following articles Opel has recently published in JAMA Network Open and JAMA Pediatrics: Building Trust to Achieve Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines and Should We Mandate a COVID-19 Vaccine for Children?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Kids Be Required to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine? An Ethics Perspective

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Are COVID-19 vaccines being developed safely? Who will get the vaccine first and why? Should children be required to get it? We asked Dr. Doug Opel, associate director of the Treuman Katz Center for Pediatric Bioethics, these questions and more. Read on to learn what he had to say.

# data[].attributes.headline
Dulce- Trophy Hunting: The moral implications of killing animals for “sport”

# data[].attributes.subject
Dulce- Trophy Hunting: The moral implications of killing animals for “sport”

# data[].attributes.body
Is it morally right to kill animals as a sport? Why is hunting so popular in America?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A person hunting. One type of hunting is called hunting for sport, and it refers to hunting for entertainment. Photo by Tima Miroshnichenko/Pexels

The Cambridge Dictionary defines "hunting" as "chasing and killing an animal or bird for food, sport, or profit." Now when it comes to debating the morality of hunting, there's an endless pit of conflicting arguments that could be covered. However, if we zoom in on hunting "for sport" in particular, the ethical waters become significantly less murky and a clear answer always emerges: sport hunting is simply unnecessary and highly problematic.

I want to make it clear that we aren't debating hunting out of necessity, food, environmental conservation/population control, or the plethora of other topics that are used as a basis to criticize hunting. This is simply criticizing the act of killing an animal purely for the thrill of it. The sense of enjoyment that people derive from shooting an animal, proudly taking a picture with it, or hanging it up as wall décor strikes me as deeply cruel.

Hunting for sport is killing animals recreationally. When conversations come up with those who are pro-hunting, one of the claims I hear most often is that - "They were going to die anyway, either through the meat industry or other natural predators, so what's the big deal?" Again, it's the principle of the matter in connection with each individual hunter. Regardless of what happens to the animal after it is killed, the act of going out to kill an animal purely as a game and for personal pleasure is difficult to rationalize.

The problem lies in considering taking the life of an animal is an "achievement" to begin with. Trophy hunting regards wildlife as a commodity and renders animals as some sort of play-toy to be conquered and thrown around by humans. It's a highly anthropocentric view of the world - the belief that the purpose of everything in our universe is for the benefit of humans and doesn't exist autonomously.

The main issue I have with sport hunting is that it's so blatantly unnecessary. For most people, humans have evolved past the time when hunting was crucial to survival. Now, hunting for sport is nothing but a pastime for those who can't seem to find a different hobby that doesn't involve merciless killing. Trophy hunting fanatics are not as niche as they are painted out to be, and one of the most outlandish explanations I've heard is that regulated hunting for sport is justified because the quarry was given a fair chance to escape and earn its freedom with its abilities. If the hunter was skilled enough to shoot game down, then why shouldn't they be proud of their achievement?

This is not a new sentiment by any means: The social aspect and "codes" of hunting for sport has always underwritten the game itself. According to Britannica's historical record for sport hunting and its origins, "the pioneer tradition of 'every man a hunter' persisted until after the frontier closed near the end of the 19th century." Essentially, hunting for amusement wasn't essential anymore and the tradition was only practiced by kings and nobles who had the most leisure time and the wealth to shoot game for reasons other than putting food on the table. Hunting being a lifestyle choice was purported "Under the reign of Francis I during the Renaissance in France and according to Alimentarium, "Post-hunt banquets were an opportunity to demonstrate social relationships in court." Clearly, the symbolic status of social and economic class throughout history has been inherently attached to trophy hunting.

So, what does all this have to do with hunting for sport today? Primarily, the extensive history around the world and throughout time illustrates the archaic nature of hunting for sport and the outdated traditions trophy hunters continue to uphold. Despite our advancements as a species, some humans seem to want to rewind to a time when society was so heavily divided into classes, primarily defined through what one had to do versus what one could do. And the question that ultimately arises is that just because we can treat hunting animals as a sport, should we? Well, when it comes to trophy hunting, the aspect of cruelty is undeniable, and it reflects on the character of those who decide to take an unnecessary action to kill animals for entertainment. Hunting for "sport" deserves no exception from criticism, and according to me, those who chose to participate in this culture are irredeemable for the basic cruel nature of shooting an animal and seeing its corpse as a trophy to be hung above their fireplace.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trophy Hunting: The moral implications of killing animals for "sport"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Cambridge Dictionary defines "hunting" as "chasing and killing an animal or bird for food, sport, or profit." Now when it comes to debating the morality of hunting, there's an endless pit of conflicting arguments that could be covered.

# data[].attributes.headline
Keaton hoverson- later starting times for schools 

# data[].attributes.subject
Keaton hoverson- later starting times for schools 

# data[].attributes.body
i think thats school should start at 9 or 10 because students are always falling asleep in class or they don't focus on what the teacher is saying and its harder to learn when your tired.

# data[].attributes.body
i think every school should have one because if our teachers give us homework then we can do it in the class if we don't have time after school.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
We shouldn't have any homework over the weekends or holidays because that's supposed to be our free time and relaxation and to hangout with family and friends  

# data[].attributes.headline
keaton hoverson- No homework over the weekend or the holidays 

# data[].attributes.subject
keaton hoverson- No homework over the weekend or the holidays 

# data[].attributes.headline
Dulce- Should Personality Assessments be used in Hiring? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Dulce- Should Personality Assessments be used in Hiring? 

# data[].attributes.body
Would this make hiring people easier? Would't this affect people who have the least wanted MBTI for a job?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Council Post: Should Personality Assessments Be Used In Hiring?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Personality assessments can play a helpful, objective role in the hiring process, but there are a few things every employer needs to keep in mind.

# data[].attributes.headline
Benefits of Parenting Classes in High School- Madi Dahl 

# data[].attributes.subject
Benefits of Parenting Classes in High School- Madi Dahl 

# data[].attributes.body
- How can taking parenting classes prevent future child abuse?
- I find it interesting how the students can understand the growth and the development of a child and also learn how to handle each stage as the the child grows
- Why do some schools cover sex education and pregnancy prevention as a part of the parenting class? Wouldn't you normally talk about that in health class?
- I find it kind of interesting how if a pregnant high schooler goes to a parenting class they can help foster a strong start to their parent-child relationship and also being well prepared for the fact that having a kid isn't all fun and games and that the young parents will also be better able to cope with the big responsibilities coming their way.
- How can this class help students have a grater capacity for empathy and potentially increase the quality of their relationships with others around them?
- I like how schools can have a supportive parenting classes for teens who are already parents, because it can help them learn how to better handle the balancing act of being a parent and student at the same time
- Why do some smaller schools that have less room for elective classes may choose to offer a language class or extra history class over a parenting class.
- I find it pretty good that there is also books out there about parenting, so if your school doesn't offer a parenting class you can still read up on it.
- I also like how that it is easy to accept that teaching kids all about the hardships of parenting is a good way to help avoid unwanted pregnancies. But it is also teaching teens valuable skills that they may use later in life, and some parenting classes might even teach kids something that saves a life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's important to understand the ways that parenting can be an asset to a high school education. If you are a high school student and are thinking about taking parenting classes, rest assured that there are many benefits to taking a few classes about parenting.

Seven Benefits of High School Parenting Classes

When speaking to the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Bob Filner stated that school-based parenting classes can help prevent future child abuse because they help future parents gain crucial skills and understanding of child development. Below are seven benefits that await high schoolers who take parenting classes.

Related Articles

Get Insights on Adult Responsibilities

Although it is designed for young people, a high school parenting class thoroughly conveys what parents have to face when raising children. The full weight of what it's like to be responsible for another human being, 24 hours a day, every day of the week, is hard for a lot of teens to truly grasp. However, planned activities and lessons can shed light on this aspect of parenthood. These classes help teens realize what you have to be able to take on in order to be a capable parent.

Find the Difficulties of Teen Parenting

The class should also educate students about the limitations that teen parenting imposes on one's life. While going to prom and other school dances is a given for many teenagers without a child, a young parent has to juggle finding a babysitter, paying for the babysitter, and how to make sure she can be reached at all times in case of an emergency. If she has an after-school job, she may also then have to request time off from work - and there's no guarantee she'll get the time requested. None of the pleasures of youth are simple once there is a child to care for. That idea needs to be explained in depth.

Learn Basic Skills

One of the most practical benefits of parenting classes are the vast variety of life skills that they teach students. In order to be a competent parent, most teenagers would need to learn a lot of skills in a relatively short amount of time, and the sheer volume of things they need to comprehend can easily be overwhelming. By going through the skills step by step in a classroom environment, these necessary skills become much more manageable, and all students can reap rewards from these newly learned skills, even those who do not plan on having children.

Some of the most memorable skills a teen should learn in parenting classes include:

Domestic skills like cooking and cleaning that will help teens later on in life

Growth and development of a child, and learning how to handle each stage as the child grows

How to obtain child support and government help for single parents

Learning how to change diapers, bathe infants and young children, and other things that are important to know as a parent

Mastering self-control and focus to avoid losing one's temper when dealing with a demanding child

Learning how to do fun projects that children will enjoy, such as arts and crafts or building projects

Sex Education and Pregnancy Prevention

Some schools cover sex education and pregnancy prevention as part of the parenting classes. Even if they don't, most parenting classes offered for general high school students do cover these interrelated topics that teens face. Many schools approach this topic differently, depending on the objective of the class, whether the school has a religious affiliation, and if permission slips have been signed by parents.

These classes can leave students with an in-depth understanding, and a very real grasp, of why they should finish school and have job and financial security before becoming parents. Parents of teenagers might want them to take childcare classes during their high school years so they can see just how hard it is to be a parent, especially at a young age. This might help keep them from facing an unwanted pregnancy. Also, if a student wishes to go into a field with children, such as teaching or pediatrics, taking parenting classes in high school will look good on college applications.

Improvement of the Parent-Child Relationship

For teenagers who are facing unexpected pregnancies, a parenting class can help foster a strong start to the parent-child relationship. Also, by being well prepared for the fact that having a baby is not all fun and games, young parents will be better able to cope with the big responsibilities that come along with a child. Teaching the teen coping skills for moments of stress can even help prevent child abuse and neglect.

Greater Empathy

According to the latest research done by a group called Parents Under Construction, some students report having a greater capacity for empathy after taking parenting classes. That will serve all students, even the ones who choose to remain child-free, and it will potentially increase the quality of their relationships with others. As reported by Psychology Today, when we are able to experience increased feelings of empathy, we also have less suffering and better resilience. Empathy also helps people connect and better deal with conflict.

Preventing Drop-Outs

Pregnancy plays a big role in why people drop out of high school, so teenagers who are already parents are much more likely to drop out. When schools have supportive parenting classes for teens who are already parents, it can help them learn how to better handle the balancing act of being a parent and student at the same time. While there should be no sugarcoating the challenges of that situation, teens need to have a positive, non-judgmental, and supportive school environment, and parenting classes can be an important part of that support system.

Continuing Education

Some schools may not offer a parenting class to high school teens; smaller schools that have less room for elective classes may choose to offer a language class or extra history class over a parenting class. If your school does not offer parenting classes, but you still want to learn more about it, there are hundreds of books written about parenting available to teenagers.

It's easy to accept that teaching kids all about the hardships of parenting is a good way to help avoid unwanted pregnancies. In addition to teaching teens valuable skills that they may use later in life, high school parenting classes might even teach kids something that saves a life; CPR is often a part of the curriculum. Most schools offer some type of parenting or family planning class as part of their curriculum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Benefits of Parenting Classes in High School | LoveToKnow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's important to understand the ways that parenting can be an asset to a high school education. If you are a high school student and are thinking about taking parenting classes, rest assured that there are many benefits to taking a few classes about parenting. When speaking to the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
should furries be banned? should we have litter boxes in our bathroom? why are people turning into animals? why are we wearing costumes to school and why is it okay? why are we letting kids in our society think they are cats and dogs? whats a furry?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Public schools

Despite acknowledging that "the costume issue is small," the Iredell-Statesville School Board is suggesting banning animal costumes in response to online rumors.

In one North Carolina school district, students may soon find an unusual new directive in their school's dress code policy: a on "furry" costumes.

Officials in the Iredell-Statesville School District, which serves a suburb of Charlotte, North Carolina, appear to be undertaking a strange response to a social media hoax. to Queen City News , a local news station, the school district was recently inundated with emails alleging that students identifying as "furries" had been coming to schools dressed as animals and bringing litter boxes into school bathrooms. While officials determined that the reports were false, some school board members appear to believe there is some danger to the hoax. As a result, board members have proposed an amendment to the district dress code to officially students from wearing "furry" costumes to school, "including tails, gloves, ears, or collars."

However, the proposed amendment will likely act to stoke overblown culture war fears, not calm them. Not only is a ban on animal costumes an overzealous reaction to a nonexistent problem, but it will also ultimately give ammunition to feckless culture warriors looking for proof, however flimsily, that an internet rumor of wokeness gone awry is true.

of students identifying as "," or animals with a cartoonish animal alter-ego, and using litter boxes in school bathrooms began to circulate in late 2021, with the earliest acknowledgment of the phenomenon by a school district coming in October of that year. The hoax gained widespread traction in January 2022 after the Twitter account Libs of TikTok a video of a woman at a Michigan school board meeting who claimed that she "heard that at least one of our schools, in our town, has in one of the unisex bathrooms a litter box for the kids that identify as cats." The post received over 4,500 retweets and quote tweets and spurred of the hoax.

So far, all reports of schools providing litter boxes for "furry" students have proven to be false, but that hasn't kept officials at the Iredell-Statesville school district from falling prey to baseless panic, even if they acknowledge that the online claims aren't true.

During a recent school board meeting, Iredell-Statesville School District officials said that an unspecified TikTok video spurred rumors that the district was providing litter boxes for "furry" or otherwise animal-identifying students. Board members noted that these rumors, like other similar claims, are baseless. "The kitty litter boxes in the bathrooms, that's not happening," Board Member Mark Page. "I'm so tired of hearing comments. It seems like it's at one and maybe two of our high schools that these kids are just starting this stuff up."

Despite acknowledging the hoax, the board introduced a proposed amendment to the district's dress code that would ban "a costume or part of a costume including tails, gloves, ears, or collars." The policy contains exceptions for spirit weeks or theatre productions. The new policy appears intended to quash rumors that the school district supports "furry" students by explicitly banning animal costumes. "We're trying to address it before it becomes a major problem," board member Bryan Shoemaker told Queen City News. T he board will vote on the amendment next month.

Rather than prevent a "major problem," the district's response seems far more likely to add fuel to furry-rumor flames. After all, why would a school ban animal costumes if fursuit-wearing teenagers weren't rampant? As Page , "The costume issue is very small. It's just a small group of the kids that are jerking the chains of adults." However, by suggesting this policy change, it appears that Iredell-Statesville School District officials have allowed a small number of contrarian teenagers to grab their attention-and likely keep rumors about the scourge of "furries" in high schools alive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
a North Carolina school district wants to ban 'furry' costumes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public schools In one North Carolina school district, students may soon find an unusual new directive in their school's dress code policy: a on "furry" costumes. Officials in the Iredell-Statesville School District, which serves a suburb of Charlotte, North Carolina, appear to be undertaking a strange response to a social media hoax.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cooper Lawrence- Should we assume peoples genders?

# data[].attributes.subject
Cooper Lawrence- Should we assume peoples genders?

# data[].attributes.body
Why does it matter to use pronouns in the first place? Why should people use pronouns in resumes? Why can't you identify as a different age? Why can't you identify as a different race?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
May 28, 2020 By: Gemma Martin, Louis Choporis, and Bali White

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are Gender Pronouns? Why Do They Matter? | Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Words are powerful language tools that help us convey meaning and connect. We use words to communicate, characterize, and describe everything around us. Nothing may be more personal than the words people use to refer to us through our names and pronouns.

# data[].attributes.headline
We should provide food for the poor- Madi Dahl

# data[].attributes.subject
We should provide food for the poor- Madi Dahl

# data[].attributes.body
questions or opinions about the article
- So much food is wasted every year, and I feel like whatever leftovers you have should go to the poor because they have just as much of a right to eat as we do every day.
- Why aren't the people with more money not helping the poorer people who don't have a whole lot of money to even afford food?
- I feel like if the poor were able to get more food somehow not so many people and children will be dying every day or every year.
- Why are so many countries and places wasting so much food that someone can eat? (United Nations Food Agency states that one billion tonnes of food is wasted around the world every year and rich countries waste almost as much as two hundred and twenty-two million tons).
- I feel like if the poor don't get the food they're going to have an even harder time trying to escape poverty and hunger. (If you dont have food, you don't have energy and if you don't have energy, you can't work and provide the necessities needed to be healthy and mainly to stay alive)
- How much nutrition does a human body need to survive and be productive and have more energy?
- How can we help the poor get off of the streets and give them a better life?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We should all provide food for the poor. So many families die every day of starvation while we waste our food. Everyone needs food, otherwise how are we meant to survive? If we don't have food to keep us moving and staying healthy it's not possible to work and make a living for ourselves and our families. Everyone should have the right to live a healthy life especially when there are tonnes of food being wasted every year. Thousands of people are dying because of hunger. People become less productive and able to work without food, we need to help them out. No one deserves to go through the pain of starvation, that's why we should all provide food for the poor.

All human beings need food to survive and there are so many people who waste their food every day. Food is one of the main things needed in life and some people are going without it. The world food program states that poor nutrition causes 3.1 million children under the age of five to die (45%) every year and about one out of six children in developing countries are underweight. If wealthier people have a large amount of food and money they should help provide the amount of nutrition needed to lower the risk of children dying around the world. Everything we eat does something to our body in some way and the nutrition in the food we eat helps the cells in our bodies to execute their relevant functions. We all need to survive and because people are dying of starvation and we need to help the people in need.

There is more than enough food being produced in the world to feed everyone. United Nations Food Agency states that one billion tonnes of food is wasted around the world every year and rich countries waste almost as much as two hundred and twenty two million tonnes. If we waste so much food and throw it away why don't we just use that food to help the poor and the hungry who can't support themselves? The food that gets wasted isn't necessarily out of date or covered in mould, people just think that some of the food we call "scraps" can never be used again. There are so many ways that one piece of food can be used without becoming old or out of date. The food people think is waste, can be used for many things and one of those things is feeding the poor.

People need energy to work and food is one of the main things needed to have energy. By eating at work it can increase your productivity by 20% on average. People living in poverty cannot afford nutritious food for themselves and their families. This makes them weaker and less able to earn the money that would help them escape poverty and hunger. If you don't have food, you don't have energy and if you don't have energy, you can't work and provide the necessities needed to be healthy and mainly to stay alive. Giving people the food to become healthier will give them a head start on earning their own food and living a healthy life.

There are so many reasons why we should provide food for the poor. There are so many families dying of starvation and it is not right. Food is important as we need the right amount of nutrition in our bodies to survive. Food also helps people become more productive and have more energy. All that wasting food does is waste lives. Everyone should give a helping hand out to the people in need.

Faith Maddison

References
BBC News, (2014). One third of food wasted, says UN. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13364178 [Accessed 29 May. 2014].

Poverty.com, (2014). Poverty.com - Hunger and World Poverty. [online] Available at: http://www.poverty.com/ [Accessed 28 May. 2014].

Wfp.org, (2014). Hunger Statistics | WFP | United Nations World Food Programme - Fighting Hunger Worldwide. [online] Available at: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats [Accessed 25 May. 2014].

Wfp.org, (2014). What causes hunger? | WFP | United Nations World Food Programme - Fighting Hunger Worldwide. [online] Available at: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes [Accessed 25 May. 2014].

Widrich, L. (2014). How the Food You Eat Makes You More (or Less) Productive. [online] Lifehacker. Available at: http://lifehacker.com/5953060/how-the-food-you-eat-makes-you-more-or-less-productive [Accessed 30 May. 2014].

References: BBC News, (2014). One third of food wasted, says UN. [online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13364178 [Accessed 29 May. 2014]. Poverty.com, (2014). Poverty.com - Hunger and World Poverty. [online] Available at: http://www.poverty.com/ [Accessed 28 May. 2014]. Wfp.org, (2014). Hunger Statistics | WFP | United Nations World Food Programme - Fighting Hunger Worldwide. [online] Available at: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats [Accessed 25 May. 2014]. Wfp.org, (2014). What causes hunger? | WFP | United Nations World Food Programme - Fighting Hunger Worldwide. [online] Available at: http://www.wfp.org/hunger/causes [Accessed 25 May. 2014]. Widrich, L. (2014). How the Food You Eat Makes You More (or Less) Productive. [online] Lifehacker. Available at: http://lifehacker.com/5953060/how-the-food-you-eat-makes-you-more-or-less-productive [Accessed 30 May. 2014].

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Free Essay: We Should provide food for the poor - 731 Words | Studymode

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We should all provide food for the poor. So many families die every day of starvation while we waste our food. Everyone needs food, otherwise how are we...

# data[].attributes.headline
Griffin Lundeen- Should students be able to order food and deliver it while at school?

# data[].attributes.subject
Griffin Lundeen- Should students be able to order food and deliver it while at school?

# data[].attributes.body
Is it giving access to school from strangers? Is it disruptive? is it bringing other food and allergies concerns to school?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should students be allowed to have food delivered at school?

# data[].attributes.headline
Darian Newland- Why is art so controversial?

# data[].attributes.subject
Darian Newland- Why is art so controversial?

# data[].attributes.body
Why does everyone perceive art differently? Why do we argue about things we didn't create ourselves? Why is art so personal?

# data[].attributes.body
Is there a way to know if you are capable of getting Stockholm syndrome and if, can you prevent it? Whose at fault when the victim gets Stockholm syndrome?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological condition that occurs when a victim of abuse identifies and attaches, or bonds, positively with their abuser. This syndrome was originally observed when hostages who were kidnapped not only bonded with their kidnappers, but also fell in love with them.

Professionals have expanded the definition of Stockholm syndrome to include any relationship in which victims of abuse develop a strong, loyal attachment to the perpetrators of abuse. Some of the populations affected with this condition include concentration camp prisoners, prisoners of war, abused children, incest survivors, victims of domestic violence, cult members, and people in toxic work or church environments.

The Characteristics of Stockholm Syndrome

It may be easier to understand Stockholm syndrome as an actual survival strategy for victims. This is because it seems to increase victims' chances of survival and is believed to be a necessary tactic for defending psychologically and physically against experiencing an abusive, toxic, and controlling relationship. Stockholm syndrome is often found in toxic relationships where a power differential exists, such as between a parent and child or spiritual leader and congregant. Some signs of Stockholm syndrome include:

Positive regard towards perpetrators of abuse or captors.

Failure to cooperate with police and other government authorities when it comes to holding perpetrators of abuse or kidnapping accountable.

Little or not effort to escape.

Belief in the goodness of the perpetrators or kidnappers.

Appeasement of captors. This is a manipulative strategy for maintaining one's safety. As victims get rewarded-perhaps with less abuse or even with life itself-their appeasing behaviors are reinforced.

Learned helplessness. This can be akin to "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." As the victims fail to escape the abuse or captivity, they may start giving up and soon realize it's just easier for everyone if they acquiesce all their power to their captors.

Feelings of pity toward the abusers, believing they are actually victims themselves. Because of this, victims may go on a crusade or mission to "save" their abuser.

Unwillingness to learn to detach from their perpetrators and heal. In essence, victims may tend to be less loyal to themselves than to their abuser.

Anyone can be susceptible to Stockholm syndrome. Yes, there are certain people with abusive backgrounds that may be more likely to be affected, such as people with abusive childhoods; but any person can become a victim if the right conditions exist.

Battered partners or spouses are a prime example of Stockholm syndrome. Oftentimes, they are reluctant to press charges or initiate a restraining order, and some have attempted to stop police from arresting their abusers even after a violent assault. After the relationship has ended, victims of domestic violence may often make statements such as, "I still love him," even after being brutally beaten.

Battered partners or spouses are a prime example of Stockholm syndrome. Oftentimes, they are reluctant to press charges or initiate a restraining order, and some have attempted to stop police from arresting their abusers even after a violent assault.

How Stockholm Syndrome Works

Stockholm syndrome occurs when certain dynamics are at play, and it happens within particular circumstances. Following is a list of ingredients that can contribute to the development of the syndrome in individuals:

The condition can develop when victims of abuse believe there is a threat to their physical or psychological survival, and they also believe their abusers would carry out that threat.

When victims of kidnapping are treated humanely or simply allowed to live, they often feel grateful and attribute positive qualities to their captors believing that they are, indeed, good people.

Intermittent good/bad behavior can create trauma bonds. Stockholm syndrome is a form of trauma bond, where the victims "wait out" the bad behaviors for the "crumbs" of good behaviors bestowed on them.

Victims are isolated from others. When people are in abusive systems, such as a kidnapping situation, access to outside input and communication is limited, or even nonexistent. This way, only the perpetrators' input is allowed. It's like "uber-propaganda."

How to Help People Who May Have Stockholm Syndrome

Understanding the underlying psychology surrounding Stockholm syndrome can help you know how to help someone who has it. Stockholm syndrome is the victim's response to trauma and involves many social dynamics. Some of these social dynamics include conformity, groupthink, deindividuation, romantic love, and fundamental attribution error, among others.

Try psychoeducation. Psychoeducation involves teaching victims of Stockholm syndrome what is going on. Remember the saying, "Knowledge is power"? Knowing what you're up against is the best offense to win the battle for your loved one's freedom.

Avoid polarization. Don't try to convince the victim of the villainous traits of the abuser; this may cause the victim to polarize and defend the perpetrator.

Use the Socratic method. Ask the victim questions about how they see the situation, how they feel and think, and what they believe needs to happen next.

Listen without judgment. As the victim ponders everything that's happened and processes their experience with the perpetrator, listen and use reflection to show concern and validation.

Don't give advice. Victims of abuse need to be empowered to make their own decisions. If you come along and tell them what to do because you "obviously know better," then you are not helping the victim build their muscle of personal power. Remember, the road to healing from abuse is often to empower the victim to make their own decisions, to know this, and to own it.

Address the cognitive dissonance. Being in a manipulative relationship can cause cognitive dissonance. This means the victim's intuition has been damaged, and they may be confused about reality. Help them by validating their truth and encouraging them to trust themselves.

Identify the "hook." Victims of Stockholm syndrome can become dedicated to a cause or an unspoken desire. They may over-identify with the perpetrator in a dysfunctional way in order to fulfill a personal need. This is the "hook." Help the victim identify what the underlying need is that is being fulfilled by the abusive relationship connection. Once the victim understands why they are so committed to the relationship, they can start making positive changes.

Examples of hooks include a variety of feelings, such as those of loyalty. They can be found in statements such as "I'll be there no matter what," or "It's you and me against the world." These types of needs tend to be unconscious and may have developed at an earlier stage of an individual's life.

Being aware of the psychological underpinnings of Stockholm syndrome can help you understand how to best help someone with the condition. Its treatment is under-researched. While there is ample discussion of the legal ramifications of the disorder, very little has been written on how to help someone who has been affected. The bottom line, no matter what intervention you use to help someone who has this condition, is to remember to offer empathy always and coercion never.

If you think you or a loved one is experiencing Stockholm syndrome, a therapist may help you or them work through some of the steps to healing above. Start your search for the therapist best suited to helping you today.
References:

1. Alexander, D. A. & Klein, S. (2009, January 1). Kidnapping and hostage-taking: A review of effects, coping and resilience. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 1(102), 16-21. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.080347

2. Carver, J. M. (2014, December 20). Love and Stockholm syndrome: The mystery of loving an abuser, page 1. Retrieved from https://counsellingresource.com/therapy/self-help/stockholm

3. Dittman, M. (2002). Cults of hatred. American Psychological Association, 10(33), 30. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov02/cults.aspx

4. Gray, M. D. (2017, January 16). How to treat Stockholm syndrome. Retrieved from https://health.onehowto.com/article/how-to-treat-stockholm-syndrome-7546.html

5. Kerkar, P. (2017, August 28). What is a Stockholm syndrome & how is it treated? Retrieved from https://www.epainassist.com/mental-health/stockholm-syndrome

6. Social psychology. (2010). Retrieved from https://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~willia55/120/LectureSocialF10.pdf

© Copyright 2018 GoodTherapy.org. All rights reserved. Permission to publish granted by Sharie Stines, PsyD

The preceding article was solely written by the author named above. Any views and opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by GoodTherapy.org. Questions or concerns about the preceding article can be directed to the author or posted as a comment below.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Stockholm Syndrome Happens and How to Help - GoodTherapy.org Therapy Blog

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Stockholm syndrome is a psychological condition that occurs when a victim of abuse identifies and attaches, or bonds, positively with their abuser. This syndrome was originally observed when hostages who were kidnapped not only bonded with their kidnappers, but also fell in love with them.

# data[].attributes.body
I could go off on this, but to keep it simple. Assault weapons do not exsist. they do not.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During a fundraiser Friday evening, President Joe Biden predicted Democrats would keep their majorities in Congress and speculated what that could mean for his next two years in office, including tackling gun control and other initiatives.

"I don't know many deer wearing Kevlar vests," Biden said, noting Democrats could look to ban assault weapons.

He also spoke about Democrats' chances in the upcoming election.

"I think we're going to win, I really do," Biden said, describing an optimistic campaign trail where crowds were large and enthusiastic.
BIDEN PREDICTS DEMOCRATS WILL TAKE SENATE, HAVE CHANCE TO KEEP THE HOUSE IN MIDTERMS
The fundraiser was held for two Democrats in tough re-election races, Illinois Reps. Lauren Underwood, of the 14th District, and Sean Casten, of the 6th District.

The candidates could win, Biden said, if Democrats could more effectively convey the administration's wins to people.

"We've passed so many good things," Biden said. "They've been so good people haven't realized how good they are yet."

His administration's accomplishments, including infrastructure and capping insulin costs, which he said were "for the people."

Biden described the infrastructure legislation as a large investment and said it would take years for people to see the completion of its long-term projects.

"You're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure - well, they're just now starting," he said.
BIDEN TO VISIT DEEP-BLUE CHICAGO 4 DAYS BEFORE MIDTERM ELECTIONS
Biden also praised Democrats for capping insulin costs, which he commended Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who was also in the room, for helping pass.

"Dick and I have been fighting the Pharma companies since we got to Congress. Well, we finally beat them. It's a big deal," he said.

"Every time I have a problem I call Dick," Biden joked.

Should Republicans win majorities in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, Biden predicted it would be a "horrible two years."

He also said he would flex his veto power over Republican-proposed legislation.

"The good news is I'll have a veto pen," he said.

On the GOP platform, Biden added: "All they are is against everything we've done."

The president also said Republicans would only make inflation worse, including a swipe at former President Donald Trump's tax cuts.

"Everything they wanna do would make inflation worse. Every single thing," he said.

In Illinois, Rep. Underwood is facing off with Republican Scott Gryder, while Rep. Casten is running against Orland Park Mayor Keith Pekau.

Fox Power Rankings have both races leaning Democratic.
Fox News' Allie Simon contributed to this report.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Biden pitches banning assault weapons at Dem fundraiser: 'I don't know many deer wearing Kevlar vests'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During a fundraiser Friday evening, President Joe Biden predicted Democrats would keep their majorities in Congress and speculated what that could mean for his next two years in office, including tackling gun control and other initiatives. "I don't know many deer wearing Kevlar vests," Biden said, noting Democrats could look to ban assault weapons.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ellie Nelson- Why do people hate gay people?

# data[].attributes.subject
Ellie Nelson- Why do people hate gay people?

# data[].attributes.body
Are they scared of us? Are they jealous? Do you think were weird? Do we make you feel a certain way that you don't like? Why can't you just mind your own business? How are we affecting you so much that you feel the need to act in a negative way towards us? Can straight people not control their own mind and thoughts? Why do I hate straight people so much?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A forensic psychologist, Karen Franklin's dual interests in psychology and the law brought her to question the roots of anti-gay hate crimes. Her interviews with perpetrators and with San Francisco Bay Area college students provide badly needed empirical data on the nature and extent of negative reactions to gays.

Other than their assaults, Andrew, Brian, and Eric have little in common. They span the spectrum of opinion toward homosexuality and, indeed, contemporary lifestyles more generally. Brian is a young White man with a college education; a self-described liberal, he has gay friends and argues against homophobia with family members. Andrew is an African American man in his mid-30s with a postcollege education who also espouses progressive politics and is "down with gay rights"; he resigned from the military after witnessing a brutal gay bashing by fellow soldiers, but he also expressed personal revulsion for male-male sex acts, saying he would rather "lick my dog's butt" than kiss a man. Eric is an economically and politically marginalized biracial (Native American and White) man who professes hatred of "faggots" and a litany of other groups, including both Jews and "rednecks," but denies committing assaults based on sexuality per se:

Although their assaults fall within most legal definitions of hate crime, Brian, Andrew, and Eric--like the rest of the informants I interviewed-- all insisted that their assaults were not motivated by hatred of homosexuals. To reconcile the apparent contradiction between the socially normative attitudes often held by assailants and the viciousness and brutality of their behavior toward gay men and lesbians, during the course of my research I came to conceptualize the violence not in terms of individual hatred but as an extreme expression of American cultural stereotypes and expectations regarding male and female behavior.

From this perspective, assaults on homosexuals and other individuals who deviate from sex role norms are viewed as a learned form of social control of deviance rather than a defensive response to personal threat. Thus, heterosexism is not just a personal value system, it is a tool in the maintenance of gender dichotomy. In other words, through heterosexism, any male who refuses to accept the dominant culture's assignment of appropriate masculine behavior is labeled early on as a "sissy" or "fag" and then subjected to bullying. Similarly, any woman who opposes male dominance and control can be labeled a lesbian and attacked. The potential of being ostracized as homosexual, regardless of actual sexual attractions and behaviors, puts pressure on all people to conform to a narrow standard of appropriate gender behavior, thereby maintaining and reinforcing our society's hierarchical gender structure.

Eric exemplifies how heterosexual males, once they have incorporated a heterosexist ideology, appoint themselves as agents for the control of sexual deviance. In describing the three assaults on gay men that he committed while alone, Eric used shorthand explanations that assumed a shared cultural belief that his victims had violated unwritten codes of appropriate behavior and thus deserved punishment. In the first instance, Eric inflicted punishment for the gender-inappropriate act of cross-dressing; the fact that he offered no justification for this assault other than to repeatedly describe his transvestite victim's physical appearance (makeup, female clothing, and long braided hair) suggests that he believed the gender-norm beliefs upon which he acted are universally shared.

In the case of the man who had stolen his cousin's jacket, Eric inflicted punishment primarily for thievery; the man's identity as a "fag" merely provided additional justification for a beating that would have ensued anyway. In Eric's mind, "thief" and "fag" were equivalent concepts, as both entail violations of social norms shared by his peer group and society at large. Finally, in assaulting his relative's gay friend, Eric distinguished his victim's sexual inclinations, which were not problematic, from his refusal to be invisible. Thus, Eric was punishing the man not for homosexual acts but for so-called flaunting, that is, refusal to be shamed of deviance. In each case, Eric was enforcing gender norms that he understood to be mandatory in our culture.

The enforcement of gender norms also explains Brian's calculated assaults on men whom he labeled "weak," and explains why he exhibited only shallow and unconvincing remorse. Indeed, Brian seemed driven by a visceral contempt for men he perceived as lacking in physical strength. More than once during our discussion, he nodded toward certain men walking by--men with slim builds and studious demeanors-- as "pathetic" examples of prime candidates for assault. Brian's scorn was ironic in that he considered himself socially progressive and claimed to despise the fraternity ethos of "tribal," chest-thumping masculinity. Because Brian has a small build and has experienced male rape attempts, one explanation for his revulsion is defensive displacement of weakness. However, contempt for "weak," or insufficiently masculine, men is a central characteristic not just of Brian but of our entire culture. Thus, cultural norms of masculinity help explain Brian's self- righteousness and lack of remorse, despite his professed support for gay rights and social tolerance.

Eric's and Brian's commitment to the enforcement of masculine norms stems from the nature of masculinity as an achieved, rather than ascribed, status. Masculinity and its converse, femininity, are relatively recent constructs of Western culture. Connell (1995) has argued that there is not one but many masculinities within contemporary Western society, with the dominant ideal--or hegemonic masculinity-- operating more as a cultural standard than as an achievable status for the majority of men. Although hegemonic masculinity is somewhat elastic--its features change depending upon the labor needs of the state in a particular era--it generally connotes dominance, competitiveness, occupational achievement, and heterosexuality. McCarthy (1994) has traced these role prescriptions to a medieval warrior ethos concerning physical courage, strength, and honor that was repopularized during the 19th century in the service of American and European colonial expansionism.

Notably, all three assailants committed assaults either with or in front of friends, pointing to another social dimension of antigay violence. Brian and Eric in particular characterized their actions as assisting their friends. Brian saw himself as helping a friend who needed money and a calling card; Eric saw himself as protecting his young and hotheaded friend Mike. The peer group is especially influential for young men like Eric, who are alienated from institutions of society such as the school, the family, the workplace, religion, and politics. Pinderhughes (1991) has explored how marginalized young males establish their identity and self-worth by proving through toughness and hatred of the appropriate enemies that they are "down with the program".

In youthful peer groups, socially prohibited acts serve several instrumental functions. One of these is the garnering of social status by individuals who are often cut off from other methods of achieving it. A second function is to reduce intragroup competition by displacing it onto an external object--a surrogate victim scapegoated as deserving the abuse. A third function is to increase group solidarity and cohesion; this in turn bolsters interpersonal support in networks typically characterized by low cohesion and stability. Interviewing men convicted of robbery, for example, Cordilia (1986) identified a pattern in which social factors overrode monetary gain as a motive. In this pattern, the robbery was not planned until after the men began drinking together, and the crime served to solidify a disconnected group by providing it with a cooperative enterprise.

The phenomenon of group escalation, in which people engage in more extreme behaviors as part of a crowd than they would if alone, has been extensively documented and has been shown to be particularly powerful among teenagers and young adults. Research into juvenile delinquency has largely adopted this explanation of crime as the outcome of group processes. Individuals may participate in criminal acts without fully intending to do so and without necessarily possessing values that condone crime:

During the course of conversation, or while exchanging banter, someone may jokingly propose doing something delinquent. As the discussion continues, a situation of "pluralistic ignorance' develops in which each person believes that the others are more committed to carrying out the act than they really are. Rationalizing their behavior in various ways, they perform the deed in a state of "shared misunderstanding." (Mawson, 1987, p. 52)

Eric's feeling that he was compelled to join in the altercation once it was underway is thus explained by the dynamics of collective action, in which the group--often under the leadership of its most impulsive member--takes on a life of its own . Even when motives are consciously formulated, in such situations there is often a large gap between the original plan and the extent of actual destruction, with participants later expressing that things went further than they intended. The role of rationalization thus becomes important both to enable collective criminality in the first place and to reduce subsequent guilt. Rationalizations identified by Sykes and Matza (1957) include denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim (e.g., the victim "asked for it"), condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties. Eric used several of these rationalizations in reframing the incident as self-defense (the man struck him first), claiming he was provoked (by being stared at), condemning his condemners as homosexuals with "special rights," and invoking peer loyalty.

The peer influences described by Eric and Brian are consistent with my survey results, in which peer group dynamics--including the desire to feel closer to friends, to live up to friends' expectations, and to prove both toughness and heterosexuality to friends--were the primary motivation for a distinguishable group of assailants. Peer dynamics was the only motivational factor in my survey that was significantly more endorsed by male than by female assailants, suggesting its particular relevance in male group contexts.

Because it offers direct--rather than secondhand--evidence, group violence against homosexuals is an ideal way for men to demonstrate their masculinity to their peers. Not only is there the stereotype, mentioned by Brian, that homosexual men are unlikely to fight back, but in addition they are fairly easy to locate in urban areas and are less likely than others to report assaults to police . Thus, in group assaults the homosexual victim can be seen as fundamentally a dramatic prop, a vehicle for a ritualized conquest through which assailants demonstrate their commitment to heterosexual masculinity and male gender norms while simultaneously engaging in homosocial bonding with eachother. ...

For Brian, a primary motive in committing assaults was to "have fun." He and his friends launched their adventures with excited anticipation and high energy. They prepared like athletes before a game, stretching their limbs, rehearsing their moves, avoiding alcohol and drugs. Brian explained:

It wasn't because we had something against gays, but because we could get some money and have some fun. It was a rush. A serious rush. Massive rush. Danger, fight-or-flight syndrome, pumps up the adrenaline. And when we get over on someone, it really heightens the rush.... It was nothing at all against gays. They're just an easy target. Gays have a reputation that they can't fight. It's a stereotype, it's not always true.... Women are easy targets, too, but that's cowardly. That's lame. I've never hit a woman. But if someone's male, and an adult, and the sizes are reasonable, then he's fair game. At least that was my attitude at the time.

This sporting tenor is not unusual. Consider this account by a man who was invited on a gay-hunting expedition at a college party by some young men who did not realize that he himself was openly gay:

Nothing could better illustrate the casualness with which antigay violence is perpetrated than their casual invitation, the absence of . . . hostility or rancor motivating it. It was more like they were bored and looking for something interesting to do, to liven up the evening.... They were inviting me to join them in what was essentially a social activity. Our great grandfathers who grew up in rural areas used to go out and hunt rabbits and squirrels for fun. Nowadays, in urban areas, they hunt gays and Latinos. (Varnell, 1991, p.4)

Factor analysis of survey respondents' motivations identified this thrill-seeking motivation as primary for a distinguishable group of assailants. Thrill seekers included both men and women who assaulted out of boredom, the desire for excitement and fun, and the wish to feel strong. A comparison of the survey accounts of thrill seekers and peer-driven assailants revealed both commonalities and differences. Both types of assailants exhibited only minimal animosity toward homosexuals. However, peer-driven assailants tended to recognize the harm to victims while downplaying their own roles and freedom of choice, whereas thrill seekers typically minimized the impact on victims by depicting incidents as harmless and amusing. This was certainly true of Brian who jokingly described how funny his victims looked as they desperately tried to avoid being beaten and robbed.

In contemporary American society, young people--from the poor to the upper middle classes--are systematically neglected and devalued. Lacking access to meaningful, challenging experiences, and sensing a declining potential for success in today's increasingly service-oriented economy, they are often frustrated, discouraged, and socially alienated . Young White males in particular face the contradiction of being taught to expect hegemonic masculine power while being denied any real access to it. This contradiction fosters "power- seeking, adventurist recreational activities at the expense of others who also lack power within the social order," such as women, racial minorities, and homosexuals. Trapped in a temporal vortex between devalued adolescence and adult male privilege, teenage males are given tacit permission to engage in a certain degree of rowdiness and aggression, under the auspices of "boys will be boys." This is particularly true for young men from more privileged strata, such as the fraternity boys discussed earlier, for whom peer group dynamics and thrill seeking often lead to exaggerated displays of masculinity regarding which society largely looks the other way.

However, if violence becomes a pervasive way of life and endures into adulthood, the scale tilts from socially excused to maladaptive. Eric's aggression, which led to 3 years behind bars and cost him an education, is illustrative of a violent lifestyle that falls outside the ideals of hegemonic masculinity. Describing how he drank and fought his way through adolescence, Eric said, "I used to beat people up, just to beat them up. When I ran out of people I didn't like, l'd beat up people my brother didn't like." Of his assault on the businessman, he commented, "I got satisfaction out of kicking the guy."

Eric's masculinity has the exaggerated quality of masculine protest , in which violence is employed as an overcompensation for perceived weakness. Connell (1995) views this protest masculinity as a social, rather than individual, practice. In what he labels marginalized masculinity, economically and socially disempowered men like Eric "claim the potency that European culture attaches to masculinity" through a facade of power when their actual circumstances provide "no real resources for power". In other words, males who incorporate the gender-norm expectations of hegemonic masculinity yet cannot realize these expectations due to their economic or racial status may act out in extreme manners, often with homosexuals as their targets.

This is by no means to imply that the majority of men from lower-class or racial minority backgrounds respond to poverty and oppression with hypermasculinity and violence, even in the most compelling of peer group situations. In most cases, a predisposition is engendered through childhood socialization involving not only poverty and social oppression but also violent victimization and exposure to violence . Eric, for example, experienced not only childhood violence but also parental abandonment, alcoholism, and death. And when Andrew was a child, his sadistic father routinely beat him with weapons while verbally deriding him. Andrew said it had taken him many years to learn to control the violent impulses engendered by this paternal abuse.

One of the hallmarks of the marginalized masculinity that may develop out of childhood poverty and violence is a preoccupation with a masculine front, or the protection of reputation and pride. Recall Eric's explanation that his relative's gay friend deserved punishment for disrespecting him. And although the businessmen whom Eric and his friends assaulted "didn't even know it was coming," among Eric's peers the assault was far from surprising. For them, the men's eye contact, laughing derision, and profanity were provocative challenges requiring physical response. Indeed, cognitive research has identified sets of norms, rules, and expectations that are shared within subcultures and lead to this type of predictable, even ritualized, social aggression.

Analyzing assailants' self-disclosed motivations illustrates how a combination of primarily social factors, rather than a simple and singular psychological element such as hatred or repressed homosexuality, explains antigay violence. The mutually reinforcing melding of hierarchical gender norms, peer dynamics, youthful thrill seeking, and economic and social disempowerment explains how individuals as divergent as Brian, Andrew, and Eric ended up on such parallel missions. In a nation that glorifies violence and abhors sexual diversity, a minority perceived to violate gender norms functions as an ideal dramatic prop for young men to use in demonstrating their masculinity, garnering social approval, and alleviating boredom. This becomes more true as heterosexuality increasingly becomes a primary measure of masculinity and as gay men and lesbians become increasingly visible in the media and popular culture. Furthermore, for members of economically and socially marginalized groups, gay men in particular are ideal targets because of their symbolic identification with upper-class privilege.

The three cases presented in this chapter illustrate how antigay violence can be seen primarily as an extreme manifestation of pervasive cultural norms rather than as a manifestation of individual hatred. This distinction explains why assailants typically express little remorse despite the fact that their expressions of cultural hostility are experienced by gay men and lesbians as vicious terrorism. This distinction is also critical if we hope to reach assailants and potential assailants at the clinical and educational levels, because people who have assaulted homosexuals typically do not recognize themselves in the stereotyped image of the hate-filled extremist.

Excerpted with permission from Unassuming Motivations: Contextualizing the Narratives of Antigay Assailants in Gregory M. Herek, Ed., Stigma and Sexual Orientation: Understanding Prejudice Against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1998), pp. 1-20.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Roots Of Homophobia - Inside The Mind Of People Who Hate Gays | Assault On Gay America | FRONTLINE | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A forensic psychologist, Karen Franklin's dual interests in psychology and the law brought her to question the roots of anti-gay hate crimes. Her interviews with perpetrators and with San Francisco Bay Area college students provide badly needed empirical data on the nature and extent of negative reactions to gays.

# data[].attributes.headline
Morgan Crandall- How could work effect teenagers?

# data[].attributes.subject
Morgan Crandall- How could work effect teenagers?

# data[].attributes.body
How might working too much while in school have negative effects. How do you choose the right job to be able to balance school and work?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Benefits and Risks of Adolescent Employment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Much controversy surrounds the consequences of adolescent paid work, with researchers coming to diverse conclusions about whether work is good, work is bad, work doesn’t matter (the purported effects of employment are spurious, dependent on processes…

# data[].attributes.headline
kennett- why trans do not belong in sports 

# data[].attributes.subject
kennett- why trans do not belong in sports 

# data[].attributes.body
do males belongs in womens sports? do trans belong in sports?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Three Australian sports scientists have complained that women are being disadvantaged by the participation of transwomen in women's sports. In two articles in the International Journal of Sport and Society ( here and here), Helen Parker, Beth Hands and Elizabeth Rose argue that "competitor eligibility based on gender identity is not the solution to complex and important social issues of identity, social justice, and human rights."

Biological males participating in sports for biological females has become a red-hot issue after Lia Thomas's victories in the US College championships and an attempt by UK cyclist Emily Bridges to qualify for the Commonwealth Games in July in Birmingham.

"Sports bodies should pay greater heed to the biological facts and continue to seek research to support participation policies," they write. "In the meantime, we argue that the current transgender participation guidelines be withdrawn, and that sports organizations explore other fairer solutions to facilitate inclusive participation for trans athletes."

The academics' first paper reviewed "the inherent and enduring physique and performance superiority of biological males despite gender transitioning, leading to unfairness and safety concerns for natal female competitors in the same events."

The second paper asked whether women's sport can survive this challenge.

"Inclusion based on gender identity in sport is not without consequences for the integrity of female sport as a social good." They say that it will affect a range of issues, including "the worth of performance records, role models, sports career opportunities, regulatory imposts on sport and volunteers, and diversion of scarce resources within sport for regulatory compliance."

The three women wrote to the boards of nine major sports in Australia- including Cricket Australia, the AFL, Hockey Australia, Tennis Australia and Netball Australia - but none of them replied.

"I hope that the rise of elite trans women athletes like US swimmer Lia Thomas and the UK cyclist Emily Bridges is really a wake-up call and alert sports boards to really look at what they're trying to achieve in terms of advancing girls and women in their sport," Dr Parker told The Australian. (She was the first female commissioner on the Western Australian Football Commission.)

"If they are going down this transgender inclusion role, then they really have not only dropped the ball, they've basically made a balloon out of the issue and just let it float away. It looks as if they're not serious in their custodianship of their code and advancing women's sport."

Dr Parker believes that a separate category for transgender athletes may ultimately be necessary.

"There is no biological science supportive of overturning sex-divided sports categories," Parker says. "I would say to all sports, please consult more widely when you are deliberating such radical change to redefine who is a female athlete. Sports must do the hard yards to work out how to include transgender athletes. They deserve to be included but we need to create a new, innovative way of including these athletes, not just shoehorn them into existing sports structures, because it doesn't work and it's not fair or safe for women athletes."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Transwomen don't belong in women's sports, say scientists - BioEdge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Three Australian sports scientists have complained that women are being disadvantaged by the participation of transwomen in women's sports. In two articles in the International Journal of Sport and Society (here and here), Helen Parker, Beth Hands and Elizabeth Rose argue that "competitor eligibility based on gender identity is not the solution to complex and [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
Trian P - Should Teachers Be Armed With Guns?

# data[].attributes.subject
Trian P - Should Teachers Be Armed With Guns?

# data[].attributes.body
What are the dangers of having teachers with guns in a classroom? How will they prevent school shootings?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mr. Trump later clarified his stance on how to best protect schools against shooting massacres:

"I want certain highly adept people, people who understand weaponry, guns" to have a permit to carry concealed firearms in schools, Mr. Trump said during his second White House meeting in two days to discuss how to respond to the shooting that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Teachers who were qualified to handle a weapon - Mr. Trump estimated between 10 percent and 40 percent - would receive "a little bit of a bonus," he said, adding that he would devote federal money to training them.

"I want my schools protected just like I want my banks protected," the president said. ...

Mr. Trump said he was not in favor of one measure that schools around the nation have increasingly taken to defend themselves and their students against school shooters: holding drills to practice what to do.

"Active shooter drills is a very negative thing," Mr. Trump said after Pam Stewart, the Florida Department of Education commissioner, mentioned such preparations. "I don't like it. I'd much rather have a hardened school."

Mr. Trump added that active shooter drills were "crazy," and "very hard on children."

In " An Armed Principal Detained a Campus Gunman. But He's Against Arming School Staff," reporter Stephanie Saul writes:

Even before a gunman opened fire at a Florida school last week, killing 17 people, a national effort had been underway to arm and train teachers and administrators to defend against mass shootings.

That effort has gained momentum in recent days. Legislators have moved to permit concealed weapons in schools. Sheriffs' offices have offered to train school staff members in armed response.

But one assistant high school principal who survived a school shooting - after loading his Colt .45 pistol, then chasing and detaining the suspect at gunpoint - says the idea is misguided.

"Teachers have to teach, and that's what they should be doing," said Joel Myrick, the former assistant principal at a high school in Mississippi. "It doesn't matter what a pistolero you are, or think you are. You don't need to be in school in charge of protecting children."

Before Columbine, Sandy Hook or Stoneman Douglas - indeed, before school shootings became devastatingly routine - there was Pearl High School, near Jackson, Miss.

Students: Read the entire article, then tell us:

- Do you think teachers and other school staff should be armed with guns? After considering the different viewpoints from the articles and video, has your initial reaction changed or been reinforced in any way? If so, how? If not, why not?

- Think about your own school for a moment. How would you feel if you knew some adults were carrying concealed weapons?

- Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers and a former teacher, says gun training "places an unfair burden on teachers." Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? What do you think a teacher's roles and responsibilities should include?

- In addition to arming teachers, some experts have recommended increasing police presence, hiring more security guards, and installing metal detectors, door buzzers, security cameras and barricades in schools. Others have suggested more proactive efforts, like investing in mental health counseling and peer mediation, practicing active shooter drills, and manning doors and hallways with teachers - not security guards - whom students know and trust. Which of these safety measures do you think your school should implement? Which ones would you not want to see at your school? Why?

- What other solutions would you propose to make schools safer?
Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Teachers Be Armed With Guns? (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mr. Trump later clarified his stance on how to best protect schools against shooting massacres: "I want certain highly adept people, people who understand weaponry, guns" to have a permit to carry concealed firearms in schools, Mr. Trump said during his second White House meeting in two days to discuss how to respond to the shooting that killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

# data[].attributes.headline
Talan Lindquist- NASA Study: Rising Sea Level Could Exceed Estimates for U.S. Coasts

# data[].attributes.subject
Talan Lindquist- NASA Study: Rising Sea Level Could Exceed Estimates for U.S. Coasts

# data[].attributes.body
How could this can effect people's lives? How can this effect coastal infrastructure? What can we do to help prepare for this? As well as what is causing this rise in sea level?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By 2050, sea level along contiguous U.S. coastlines could rise as much as 12 inches (30 centimeters) above today's waterline, according to researchers who analyzed nearly three decades of satellite observations. The results from the NASA Sea Level Change Team could help refine near-term projections for coastal communities that are bracing for increases in both catastrophic and nuisance flooding in coming years.

Global sea level has been rising for decades in response to a warming climate, and multiple lines of evidence indicate the rise is accelerating. The new findings support the higher-range scenarios outlined in an interagency report released in February 2022. That report, developed by several federal agencies - including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Geological Survey - expect significant sea level rise over the next 30 years by region. They projected 10 to 14 inches (25 to 35 centimeters) of rise on average for the East Coast, 14 to 18 inches (35 to 45 centimeters) for the Gulf Coast, and 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) for the West Coast.

An illustration of the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich satellite. Launched in November 2020, it is the latest in a series of spacecraft - starting with TOPEX/Poseidon in 1992 and continuing with the Jason series of satellites - that have been gathering ocean height measurements for nearly 30 years. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Building on the methods used in that earlier report, a team led by scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California leveraged 28 years of satellite altimeter measurements of sea surface height and correlated them with NOAA tide gauge records dating as far back as 1920. By continuously measuring the height of the surrounding water level, tide gauges provide a consistent record to compare with satellite observations.

The researchers noted that the accelerating rate of sea level rise detected in satellite measurements from 1993 to 2020 - and the direction of those trends - suggest future sea level rise will be in the higher range of estimates for all regions. The trends along the U.S. Southeast and Gulf coasts are substantially higher than for the Northeast and West coasts, although the range of uncertainty for the Southeast and Gulf coasts is also larger. This uncertainty is caused by factors such as the effects of storms and other climate variability, as well as the natural sinking or shifting of Earth's surface along different parts of the coast.

"A key takeaway is that sea level rise along the U.S. coast has continued to accelerate over the past three decades," said JPL's Ben Hamlington, leader of the NASA Sea Level Change Team and a co-author of both the new study and the earlier report.

Hamlington noted that the team wanted to determine if they could refine sea level estimates for communities facing imminent changes. "We've been hearing from practitioners and planners along the coasts that they need more information on shorter timescales - looking not 70 or 80 years into the future, but looking 20 or 30 years into the future," he said. "The bottom line is that when looking ahead to what we might experience in coming years, we need to consider these higher possibilities."

This image of Earth shows sea level measured by the Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich satellite in 2021. Red areas are regions where sea level is higher than normal while blue indicates where it's below normal. The satellite collects measurements for about 90% of Earth's ocean. Credit: NASA's Earth Observatory

Shift in High-Tide Flooding

The hazards of rising sea level are amplified by natural variabilities on Earth.

For instance, by the mid-2030s, every U.S. coast will experience more intense high-tide floods due to a wobble in the Moon's orbit that occurs every 18.6 years. Hamlington said that this lunar cycle, in combination with rising sea level, is projected to worsen the impacts of high-tide flooding during the 2030s and 2040s.

Year-to-year variabilities such as the effects of El Niño and La Niña also can make it challenging to forecast how high and how fast sea levels will rise annually. Hamlington said forecasts will continue to be refined as satellites contribute more data over time.

A visualization tool from NASA's Sea Level Change Team makes data on future sea level rise from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change easily accessible to the public. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

NASA and France's space agency Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES) started jointly flying satellite altimeters in the early 1990s, beginning a continuous space-based record of sea surface height with high accuracy and near-global coverage. That legacy continues with 2020 launch of the joint U.S.- European Sentinel-6 Michael Freilich mission and its altimeter, which will provide scientists with an uninterrupted satellite record of sea level surpassing three decades. The mission is a partnership between NASA, NOAA, ESA (European Space Agency), the European Organisation for the Exploration of Meteorological Satellites, and CNES.

NASA sea level researchers have long worked to understand how Earth's changing climate affects the ocean. Along with launching satellites that contribute data to the long global record of sea surface height, NASA-supported scientists look to understand the causes of sea level change globally and regionally. Through testing and modeling they work to forecast how much coastal flooding U.S. communities will experience by the mid-2030s and provide an online visualization tool that enables the public to see how specific areas will be affected by sea level rise. Agencies at the federal, state, and local levels use NASA data to inform their plans on adapting to and mitigating the effects of sea level rise.

Learn more about sea level and climate change:
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
News Media Contacts

Jane J. Lee / Andrew Wang

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

818-354-0307 / 626-379-6874

jane.j.lee@jpl.nasa.gov / andrew.wang@jpl.nasa.gov

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national aeronautics and space administration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
By Sally Younger,
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NASA Study: Rising Sea Level Could Exceed Estimates for U.S. Coasts - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By 2050, sea level along contiguous U.S. coastlines could rise as much as 12 inches (30 centimeters) above today's waterline, according to researchers who analyzed nearly three decades of satellite observations. The results from the NASA Sea Level Change Team could help refine near-term projections for coastal communities that are bracing for increases in both catastrophic and nuisance flooding in coming years.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cooper Lawrence- Should there be school on Fridays?

# data[].attributes.subject
Cooper Lawrence- Should there be school on Fridays?

# data[].attributes.body
Would this put a positive affect on students metal health towards school? Would this affect the overall knowledge kids learn at school? I think this would help students who have a lot of homework so they could have a day to catch up.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In comparison to other schools, our school has five days of school each week. This leads to stress because of the amount of homework handed out throughout that week.

Being able to have three days to relax and get caught up with homework would help students be less stressed and be more prepared on Monday.

If we participated in having only four days, it would also help our school with having an even amount of A and B days instead of having an extra day of a class in a week. Also, getting Fridays off would give teachers the opportunities to have in-service days on Fridays so that school would not have to be canceled.

Although having Fridays off would be wonderful for not only to me but to each student, there are some positives to having five days a week like turning in homework before a three day break. Five days give teachers more time to teach and allow students to have enough time to learn.

As well as with those five days, many faculty members believe that having only two days away from school will give students enough time to relax and become motivated to come back to school again. The faculty also believes that two days off each week makes sure students do not get bored with school. I feel like it is still not enough time to get away from school.

Even with those positives of having a whole week of school, I think that Fridays off would be good for everyone. Having a three day weekend is relaxing, and not a lot of snow days would be used if we had them as well.

Our school should participate in a four-day week schedule to give students the break away from school that they need. Fridays off will give me, students, and faculty members the relieving break after an already stressful week.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students shouldn't be required to go to school on Fridays

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In comparison to other schools, our school has five days of school each week. This leads to stress because of the amount of homework handed out throughout that week. Being able to have three days to relax and get caught up with homework would help students be less stressed and be more prepared on Monday....

# data[].attributes.headline
Griffin Lundeen- Does Headgear for wrestling actually help prevent cauliflower ear?

# data[].attributes.subject
Griffin Lundeen- Does Headgear for wrestling actually help prevent cauliflower ear?

# data[].attributes.body
What gives you cauliflower ear? Does cauliflower ear go away? Can you actually prevent cauliflower ear?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to avoid cauliflower ear - coach Firas Zahabi

# data[].attributes.headline
Mental health awareness within the workplace - Melaina Anderson

# data[].attributes.subject
Mental health awareness within the workplace - Melaina Anderson

# data[].attributes.body
Questions I have:
How often do employers take mental health seriously?
Why do larger corporations do so little when it come to mental struggle amongst their workers? Why do they value attendance over the safety and stability of the people physically working in their establishments?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When we published our research on workplace mental health in October 2019, we never could have predicted how much our lives would soon be upended by the Covid-19 pandemic. Then the murders of George Floyd and other Black Americans by the police; the rise in violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs); wildfires; political unrest; and other major stressors unfolded in quick succession, compounding the damage to our collective mental health.

One silver lining amid all the disruption and trauma is the normalization of mental health challenges at work. In 2019, employers were just starting to grasp the prevalence of these challenges, the need to address stigma, and the emerging link to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). In 2020, mental health support went from a nice-to-have to a true business imperative. Fast forward to 2021, and the stakes have been raised even higher thanks to a greater awareness of the workplace factors that can contribute to poor mental health, as well as heightened urgency around its intersections with DEI.

Although employers have responded with initiatives like mental health days or weeks, four-day workweeks, and enhanced counseling benefits or apps, they're not enough. Employees need and expect sustainable and mentally healthy workplaces, which requires taking on the real work of culture change. It's not enough to simply offer the latest apps or employ euphemisms like "well-being" or "mental fitness." Employers must connect what they say to what they actually do.

Mind Share Partners' 2021 Mental Health at Work Report in partnership with Qualtrics and ServiceNow offers a rare comparison of the state of mental health, stigma, and work culture in U.S. workplaces before and during the pandemic. This follow-up study to our 2019 Mental Health at Work Report uses the same metrics and includes additional questions and segmentations on the effects of the pandemic, racial trauma, and the return to office; it also fleshes out our less comprehensive study from April 2020. As in 2019, we collected responses from 1,500 U.S. adults in full-time jobs, with statistically significant representation across racial and ethnic backgrounds, gender identities, membership in the LGBTQ+ community, generational divides, primary caregiver statuses, levels of seniority, and other factors. Here's a summary of what we learned and our recommendations for what employers need to do to support their employees' mental health.

The Employee Mental Health Experience

When we examined the data on how employees experience mental health challenges, we found that prevalence increased from 2019 to 2021 and that younger and historically underrepresented workers still struggle the most.

Increased attrition.

More employees are leaving their jobs for mental health reasons, including those caused by workplace factors like overwhelming and unsustainable work. While the 2019 rates of attrition were already surprisingly high, they've gone up even more since then. Sixty-eight percent of Millennials (50% in 2019) and 81% of Gen Zers (75% in 2019) have left roles for mental health reasons, both voluntarily and involuntarily, compared with 50% of respondents overall (34% in 2019). Ninety-one percent of respondents believed that a company's culture should support mental health, up from 86% in 2019.

High prevalence.

Mental health challenges are now the norm among employees across all organizational levels. Seventy-six percent of respondents reported at least one symptom of a mental health condition in the past year, up from 59% in 2019. While that's not surprising due to the many macro stressors, it supports the notion that mental health challenges affect nearly all of us on a regular basis.

Our 2019 study showed the same prevalence of mental health symptoms across all levels of seniority, debunking the myth that successful leaders are immune. Perhaps as a result of having to lead through this unprecedented era, our 2021 study showed that C-level and executive respondents were now actually more likely than others to report at least one mental health symptom. Let's finally put the stigma to rest and admit that mental health challenges affect us all.

Widespread disclosure.

More employees are talking about mental health at work than in 2019. Nearly two-thirds of respondents talked about their mental health to someone at work in the past year. This is an important step in the right direction, especially in terms of reducing stigma, which affects willingness to seek treatment. That said, only 49% of respondents described their experience of talking about mental health at work as positive or reported that they received a positive or supportive response, which is comparable to 2019 rates.

DEI implications.

Demographics continue to play a strong role in workplace mental health, with younger workers and historically underrepresented groups still struggling the most. Millennials and Gen Zers, as well as LGBTQ+, Black, and Latinx respondents were all significantly more likely to experience mental health symptoms. Like Millennials and Gen Zers, caregiver respondents and members of historically underrepresented groups - including LGBTQ+, Black, and Latinx respondents - all were more likely to leave roles for their mental health and to believe that a company's culture should support mental health. In fact, 54% of all respondents said that mental health is a DEI issue, an increase from 41% in 2019.

The Company's Role in Employee Mental Health

Employees don't experience mental health challenges in isolation. Employers play a role, too - both good and bad.

Certain workplace factors negatively affected mental health.

The way we're working isn't sustainable, and it's hurting our mental health. Until recently, the conversation has primarily centered on preexisting mental health conditions and the related stigma. Increasingly, the focus is on work's effect on everyone's mental health.

An overwhelming 84% of respondents reported at least one workplace factor that negatively impacted their mental health. Younger workers and members of underrepresented groups were affected even more severely. When looking across all respondents, the most common factor was emotionally draining (e.g., stressful, overwhelming, boring, or monotonous) work, which also worsened since the pandemic. This was closely followed by work-life balance.

The other workplace factors that most notably worsened since the pandemic were poor communication practices and a low sense of connection to or support from one's colleagues or manager, perhaps unsurprising in a predominantly remote workforce. The workaholism that characterizes much of U.S. culture has only been exacerbated by the challenges of the pandemic, leading to increased employee burnout.

Companies increased investment in employee mental health - sort of.

Companies are finally investing more in mental health support out of necessity, but they still haven't achieved true culture change. Our respondents noted that the availability of many resources provided by employers grew since the pandemic, including extra paid time off, company-wide mental health days, and mental health training.

In addition, employees used accommodations to a much greater extent - especially those that provided day-to-day support. These included extended or more frequent breaks from work and time during the workday for therapy appointments. Utilization rates for other accommodations included time off and leaves of absence, which saw no growth from 2019. This highlights a contrast in what employees used versus what employers provided, which were often more temporary, Band-Aid solutions. In fact, the "resource" most desired by respondents (31%) was a more open culture around mental health.

Companies took steps toward culture change.

While there is still a great deal to be done, some companies have made progress on the culture front, likely fueled by the pandemic. Fifty-four percent of respondents believed that mental health was prioritized at their company compared to other priorities, up from 41% in 2019. In addition, 47% of respondents believed that their company leaders were advocates for mental health at work (compared to 37% in 2019), and 47% believed that their manager was equipped to support them if they had a mental health condition or symptom (compared to 39% in 2019). These are both potentially results of increased training and discussion.

However, the added awareness surprisingly didn't translate across all dimensions. There was a 5% decline in respondents who felt comfortable supporting a coworker with their mental health and a comparable percentage in who knew the proper procedure to get support for mental health at work.

Employers benefit from supporting mental health at work.

Employers that have supported their employees with the pandemic, racial injustices, return-to-office planning, and/or mental health overall have better mental health and engagement outcomes. For example, workers who felt supported with their mental health overall were 26% less likely to report at least one symptom of a mental health condition in the past year. Respondents who felt supported by their employer also tended to be less likely to experience mental health symptoms, less likely to underperform and miss work, and more likely to feel comfortable talking about their mental health at work. In addition, they had higher job satisfaction and intentions to stay at their company. Lastly, they had more positive views of their company and its leaders, including trusting their company and being proud to work there. This reinforces the tie between workplace culture and its ability to support mental health at work when done intentionally.

What Employers Need to Provide

Employers must move from seeing mental health as an individual challenge to a collective priority. Given all the workplace factors at play, companies can no longer compartmentalize mental health as an individual's responsibility to address alone through self-care, mental health days, or employee benefits. Here's what they need to provide to make real progress.

Culture change.

Culture change requires both a top-down and bottom-up approach to succeed. Workplace mental health is no different - our recommendations from 2019 still hold. Mind Share Partners' Ecosystem of a Mentally Healthy Workplace Framework illustrates that everyone has a role to play, starting with leaders and managers.

Leaders must treat mental health as an organizational priority with accountability mechanisms such as regular pulse surveys and clear ownership. It should not just be relegated to HR. Leaders should serve as allies by sharing their own personal experienc es to foster an environment of transparency and openness. Due to fear and shame, even companies with the best mental health benefits won't see an uptick in usage unless a stigma-free culture exists.

Organizations have to train leaders, managers, and all employees on how to navigate mental health at work, have difficult conversations, and create supportive workplaces. Managers are often the first line in noticing changes and supporting their direct reports. Building an environment of psychological safety is key. Mental health policies, practices, culturally competent benefits, and other resources must be put in place and (over)communicated.

Investing in DEI to support employee mental health and address its intersectionality is also crucial. Black and AAPI employees have been hit especially hard by the trauma of systemic racism and violence. Workers who are caregivers - often mothers - have faced school closures and the associated burnout. Our study found that allowing employees to discuss challenging social and political topics at work is also part of a mentally healthy culture. At the grassroots level, employees should be empowered to form mental health employee resource groups (ERGs) and other affinity groups, become mental health champions, and start peer listening initiatives.

More sustainable ways of working.

Employers must change their ways of working to be more sustainable - it's time. A critical component is providing flexibility, which many workers experienced with remote work for the first time during the pandemic. Respondents reported that their company's return-to-office plans were negatively impacting their mental health. The top two reasons given were the policies around in-person versus remote work (41%) and the lack of work-life balance or flexibility based on the policy (37%).

Promoting autonomy, establishing boundaries, and creating norms around communications, responsiveness, and urgency can go a long way toward building a mentally healthy culture. For example, a professional services firm might require long hours for a client deadline but could make internal deadlines more malleable. Other ideas include no email after hours, focused work time, and no-meeting days. Leaders must model these and other mentally healthy behaviors for employees to truly feel like they can do the same. Having conversations between managers and direct reports to articulate individual working styles and preferences supports inclusion. Employers must also ensure that teams have the resources and bandwidth necessary to do their jobs effectively while remaining mentally healthy.

Deeper connection.

Finally, a culture of connection is key - from regular check-ins that make time for the question, "How are you?" to healthy working relationships to meaningful interactions among teams. Employers should provide organization-wide opportunities for connection and also promote these ongoing, deeper one-on-one conversations between managers and direct reports as well as between colleagues. "How are you?" should always be followed up with "How can I help you?" especially at the manager level. The importance of empathy and authenticity cannot be overstated.

...

The massive societal shifts underway have changed company cultures and employee perceptions around mental health. Although employers have started to invest more, employees have rightfully increased their expectations. The future of workplace mental health demands culture change - with more vulnerability, compassion, and sustainable ways of working. We've already started down the path of culture change thanks to Covid-19. Let's use this moment to be intentional as we craft new ways of working instead of rushing back to the status quo of 2019. Let's imagine what could be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
It's a New Era for Mental Health at Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2019, employers were just starting to grasp the prevalence of mental health challenges at work, the need to address stigma, and the emerging link to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). One silver lining amid all the disruption and trauma over the last two years is the normalization of these challenges.

# data[].attributes.headline
Darian Newland- Why is marijuana legal in some states and not others?

# data[].attributes.subject
Darian Newland- Why is marijuana legal in some states and not others?

# data[].attributes.body
Why is marijuana illegal in some states and others can use it medically and recreationally? What are the health benefits connected to marijuana? What are disadvantage of using marijuana?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How can marijuana be legal in some states but not in all states?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Answer (1 of 27): I have found doing some checking into the politicians, and the people on the medical marijuana board in iowa …have been getting money from special interest groups…especially a month to 3 before a vote is to be taken… i have also noticed that the medical community gets a huge inc...

# data[].attributes.headline
Trian P - Cell Phones In The Classroom: Learning Tool Or Distraction

# data[].attributes.subject
Trian P - Cell Phones In The Classroom: Learning Tool Or Distraction

# data[].attributes.body
Are kids going to be able to focus if they are allowed phones in class? What is the biggest reason that phones shouldn't be allowed in a classroom?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
These days, more and more students are bringing cell phones to class. Even elementary school-aged students have cell phones in their pockets and backpacks.

However, the news of Ontario's decision to ban cell phones in classrooms opens again the debate about whether or not students should have cellphones in school. It also brings up the question of whether it's possible for technology to exist in the classroom as a learning tool-rather than simply a distraction.

Ontario's Classroom Cell Phone Ban

Starting in September 2019, cell phones will be banned in Ontario classrooms during instructional time.

The new ban means elementary and secondary school students won't be able to use their cellphones in the classroom unless it is for educational purposes, medical reasons, or as a support for students with special needs. How the ban is enforced will be up to individual boards and schools.

By banning cellphones, Ontario's Education Ministry hopes to remove distractions so students can focus on acquiring foundational learning skills they need, including reading, writing and math.

The decision and renewed debate has many teachers and parents left wondering: can cell phones ever really benefit students in class, or are they best left tucked away?

Read on to learn more about the pros and cons of students having cell phones in school.

Cell Phone Use In The Classroom

Students check their phones in the classroom an average of more than 11 times a day. That can add up to a lot of time spent distracted from schoolwork. And when students are distracted, it's a recipe for extra stress, frustration, and catch-up time for everyone.

With students spending up to 20% of their in-class time texting, emailing, and checking social media, it's no wonder the debate about cell phones in the classroom is alive and well.

Students check their cell phones in the classroom more than 11 times a day.
[ Tweet this]

Learn more about the pros and cons of students bringing their cell phones into the classroom.

How Cell Phones Can Be Used Effectively In the Classroom

If properly managed, cell phones can be used as tools to help children learn in the classroom. The following are some of the pros of allowing cell phones in school:

1. Using educational learning apps

Cell phones give students access to tools and apps that can help them complete and stay on top of their class work. These tools can also teach students to develop better study habits, like time management and organization skills.

2. Incorporating digital platforms into lessons

Using social media can keep students interested in class and encourage them to participate in the discussion. Some teachers create twitter hashtags or message boards students can use during class discussions to share thoughts and ideas. This can be especially helpful for students who might not be comfortable speaking in class.

3. Supplementing lessons with digital materials

Teachers can take advantage of cell phones by providing students with resources to find more information about a topic. This can include videos, news stories, online discussion groups, and more. Allowing students to access these resources in class can help encourage participation and discussions.

4. Providing easy access to more information

Cell phones can give students access to more information, letting them research more about a topic while having class discussions. This is especially true for current events that have not yet been covered in school textbooks.

The Drawbacks Of Allowing Cell Phones In Classrooms

While cell phones can be used as learning tools, it is a challenge to make sure students are using them for school-related tasks. A cell phone can easily turn from "classroom learning tool" into "classroom disruption".

Cons of allowing cell phones in school include:

1. Distractions and interruptions

When students use their cell phones to check social media and text their friends in class, it leads to distractions for those students as well as for their peers. This can cause disruptions in class, particularly if the teacher is constantly telling students to turn their devices off.

2. Cyberbullying

Cell phones can also lead to increased problems with bullying on the schoolground. Cyberbullying can be harder to see than other forms of bullying, making it difficult for teachers to identify and stop when it is happening.

3. Cheating

Cell phones can be a helpful learning tool in class. But they can also be used by students to access information while taking a test, leading to cheating. Even if a student isn't caught, this can lead to him or her having a poor understanding of the material in the future, and is unfair to students who studied hard to do well.

4. Disconnection from face-to-face activities

While cell phones can help encourage participation by offering different channels, this can also lead to less in-person discussion and fewer learning opportunities. Learning to work together with others is an important part of students' education, and can be lost with too much dependence on cell phones and other digital technology.

The Bottom Line: Should Students Have Cell Phones In School?

There's no easy answer: there are both pros and cons to students having cell phones in school. Although they can be used as a learning tool in the classroom, this only works as long as students use them effectively.

This means for teachers who decide to use cell phones (or any other digital device) as part of their lessons, it's important to set ground rules and keep a close eye on how they are being used.

Where do you stand on the cell phone debate? Let us know by tweeting @oxfordlearning on Twitter!

Related Resources:

Is Multitasking Bad For Students?
How To Study Without Being Distracted

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Cell Phones Be Allowed In Classrooms? | Oxford Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should students have cell phones in the classroom? Learn more about the pros and cons of students having cell phones in school, and weigh in on the debate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Morgan Crandall- How is metal health connected to school?

# data[].attributes.subject
Morgan Crandall- How is metal health connected to school?

# data[].attributes.body
How might school effect our mental health? How can we help stop school from negatively effecting people?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
School-based mental health is becoming a vital part of student support systems. According to the most recent data in 2005, over one-third of school districts used school or district staff to provide mental health services, and over one-fourth used outside agencies to provide mental health services in the schools.1 The President’s Now Is the Time plan to improve access to mental health care in our schools and communities emphasizes the urgency to “make sure students and young adults get treatment for mental health issues” through early identification, referral for treatment, training for school teachers in early detection and response to mental illness, assistance for schools to address pervasive violence, and training for additional mental health professionals to provide mental health services in schools.2 Federal agencies such as the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Institute of Medicine are also calling on schools to enhance early identification methods to assess and connect students with mental health.3

# data[].attributes.headline
Tucker K. - Are men silent sufferers in the modern world

# data[].attributes.subject
Tucker K. - Are men silent sufferers in the modern world

# data[].attributes.body
why are men silent sufferers? is there any way to help this?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yes :-

There are male victims of domestic violence, who are suffering in silence because they are afraid of society's response, if they open up about their problems. Society is more likely to belittle men, who fall victim to domestic violence. This is more severe in India, were men are appreciated for their masculine behaviour.

Women are encouraged to leave abusive relationships and will be labeled as courageous. But if a man ends his abusive relationship, he will be labeled as cruel for leaving his wife.

These days, every man is considered as a potential rapist. If a woman makes a false molestation complaint against a man out of revenge or any other motive, society is more likely to believe the woman's words. Society and media exposes the accused before the investigation. This kind of attitude of society helps victims in genuine cases. But the scope of false cases is ignored. However the same is not true with the complaints against women. If the complaint is against a woman, people doubt about the genuinity of the case. What if the sexual harassment case against the man is a false case? Some people think like men can take anything. False molestation cases will result in the irreversible loss of reputation and causes mental agony to the accused and his family.

If a crime is committed by a woman, she is less likely to be punished than a man who committed the same crime. Even if they are punished, men are being awarded longer prison terms than women.

Many false domestic violence cases are being reported in India. Girl can drag their in-laws to court, but the same is not true with a boy. In many domestic violence cases, in-laws didn't even stay with couple, but are booked for 'influencing' the boy. Do girl's parents not 'influence' her? And the saddest thing is that girl can complain against her sister-in-law and sister-in-law's husband too under domestic violence, even if they are not staying at her place. Women can be as cruel as men in harassing their life partner.

It's happy to hear the progressive thinking that "Why should women do all the house chores?". But no one is asking, "Why should men take entire financial responsibility of family?". Now, an average women have choice to work or not to work. But an average man is expected to take responsibility of house chores along with financial responsibility for the whole family.

Why should man pay half of his hard-earned money to a cheater wife, who decides to leave him?

No :-

Women have been facing discrimination, violence from ages. Now progressive women and men working towards uplifting women's position in society. In the process society should support women, hence positive discrimination towards women is must.

The long held belief that men are superior to women, is still strong in many parts of the world. Hence women should be protected from such kind of men.

Though dowry is illegal, many people are giving and taking dowry. There are dowry deaths happening across the country even now. Many women facing domestic violence by their in-laws. So, it's society's responsibility to believe women's words.

Men too have support groups and laws in favor of them, if they become victims.

Conclusion :-
Even in this 21st century, many women are suffering due to molestation, discrimination and patriarchal attitudes. Society has responsibility to help these women. But not all men are bad, and not all women good. Few men are suffering in silence because of the indifference of society. And we all have responsibility to protect them, irrespective of their gender.

Afterwords :- Do you think men should be protected too? What is your opinion on this topic? Express your thoughts in the comment section below.

Copyright @ Group Discussion Ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Men silent sufferers in this modern world? ~ Group Discussion Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yes :- There are male victims of domestic violence, who are suffering in silence because they are afraid of society's response, if they open up about their problems. Society is more likely to belittle men, who fall victim to domestic violence. This is more severe in India, were men are appreciated for their masculine behaviour.

# data[].attributes.headline
lily williams- is online school better than in person school. 

# data[].attributes.subject
lily williams- is online school better than in person school. 

# data[].attributes.body
is online learning more beneficial to kids? who thrives with online learning? who thrives with in person learning? is a hybrid plan better?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
2 Modes Of Learning

Learning can never be stopped; it is a lifelong process. Many passionate individuals prefer to continue their studies alongside a career. This requires flexible schedules and proper time management. Online learning can be a suitable option for them to fulfill their goals. The classroom environment facilitates an active interaction among educators and learners. The students have to follow the rules associated with an institute.

Over the past few years, the pandemic has affected the entire world. It has brought tremendous changes in various sectors, especially the education sector. While classroom learning allows for a face-to-face connection, online learning also has its own benefits.

How These 2 Modes Of Learning Can Be Related And Which One Suits Your Needs

1. More Convenience

As far as convenience is concerned, online classes bring great ease. You can access courses from the comfort of your home. You do not need to panic about traveling to an institute for study. By learning through online means, you get a chance to explore various options.

On the other hand, classroom learning requires great motivation. You have to travel to a specific place to acquire knowledge. Classroom learning can be less convenient than online learning. Many students these days prefer online learning because of the ease of accessibility.

2. Less Social Interaction

Students get a fair chance to have an effective interaction with their teachers in classrooms. The classroom environment is usually more dynamic and allows active debates and participation, whereas online learning may not have this much engagement.

Online classes usually have one-way communication, in which the teacher provides required materials and instructions to the students. They may not have good discussions or share information.

3. More Flexibility

Online learning has the big plus of flexibility in schedule. Mostly, the students are facilitated to access recorded lectures if they missed a class. Many universities offer online courses that have flexible and easy criteria.

Studying in classrooms requires following a proper routine. Students have to be punctual while attending classes. Their performance is observed by instructors and administrative bodies.

4. Greater Affordability

Showing up in a physical space involves travel expenses. Students who learn in classrooms may face financial burdens. The investment in notes, tuition fees, traveling and other activities can be hard.

Online classes are affordable and save the students from additional charges. Students just need to have a stable internet connection and pay the course fee. Many institutes also offer free courses that students can benefit from.

5. More Learning Opportunities

The online world provides more learning opportunities for students. They can access courses in any time zone across the globe. Those having a job can adjust their schedules accordingly. They do not have to panic about balancing studies and work at the same time.

Undoubtedly, the classroom environment facilitates effective interaction among instructors and learners. Students can ask questions directly and gain knowledge. However, their learning opportunities are limited in comparison to online programs.

6. Self-Discipline Required

Students in the classroom have to follow strict rules. Their performance is being checked properly. They have to fulfill the expectations of the teachers to excel in studies and other activities.

In online learning, some people may get distracted. If they skip or delay a class due to another commitment, the learning process may get disturbed. They will have to restrict themselves to improve their performance for better results.

7. Additional Training For Instructors

To reach the goals of online education, instructors have to train themselves for great efficiency. They might not be very familiar with online tools and the latest techniques. This increases the burden and demands more effort from their side.

Educating through classrooms is easier. The instructors can bring their best due to long experience and an interactive environment. With more expertise, they do not have to invest time in learning the latest online teaching methods.

8. Technical Issues May Occur

Online classes are full of technical issues. With delays in audio or video due to connectivity issues, students may get demotivated. They may not pay attention and get involved in other activities. Various software, like Zoom, Google Meet, etc., is used for online education.

Classrooms facilitate a smooth learning experience. Students and teachers engage directly, and there are minimal disturbances. There is active assessment and more productivity in terms of learning.

9. Class Management Can Be Challenging

Managing a class can be tough while teaching online. Since the educators cannot directly interact with students, this can bring ineffectiveness. The higher-level courses grant freedom to students, but school and college-level learning require more efficient class management.

In a classroom, teachers can observe students without relying on any media. They can get an active response from students and notice their facial expressions. This allows for better class management.

10. Assessment Requirements

Many new techniques have been used for assessing students. Online tools can be used for grading students in an efficient manner. It depends on the preference of a teacher whether to use online tools or to grade students manually. Some teachers find online assessment quite difficult and non-productive.

In a classroom, students can submit their assignments by hand. They are assessed in various ways through performance in tests and other learning activities. Students learn in a more competitive environment.

Which One Is Better For Learning?

Both of these modes of learning have their own pros and cons. While students get more attention in classrooms, online learning is technology-dependent. If the teacher is successful in bringing a productive outcome through online classes, it can be a highly beneficial experience. There, the effort from both sides can make the learning process worthwhile.

Classrooms allow teachers more control over students. They get a chance to understand the needs of each student better. They can solve problems more effectively.

Online learning can be a great opportunity in 2022 but it involves less control of teachers over students. Only those students who possess a responsible attitude get maximum benefit. It is a combined effort of educators and students that facilitates an ideal learning environment.

Conclusion

Online learning is great for those who want to manage studies with work and other life activities. With adjustable schedules and less burden, they can learn with ease. Classrooms require more discipline and active participation. Teachers get greater command over students in a traditional learning environment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Is Online Learning As Good As Classroom Learning In 2022?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learning can never be stopped; it is a lifelong process. Many passionate individuals prefer to continue their studies alongside a career. This requires flexible schedules and proper time management. Online learning can be a suitable option for them to fulfill their goals. The classroom environment facilitates an active interaction among educators and learners.

# data[].attributes.headline
Griffin Lundeen- Does Money Buy Happiness 

# data[].attributes.subject
Griffin Lundeen- Does Money Buy Happiness 

# data[].attributes.body
What can actually make you happy? Is it just shopping alone what makes you happy? if it does how does it give you happiness?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Can money buy happiness? : Michael Norton at TEDxCambridge 2011

# data[].attributes.body
what is causing the up roar in concussions in the 2022 nfl season? is it the helmets? do we need to change the rules.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I will be writing another article soon about why banning helmets may not be able to make the game safer. I do not have a strong opinion either way. So to all those who plan on hurling abuse about how I want to ruin their favourite game and make it soft, please steer clear of commenting. However, anyone up for a good debate I will do my best to reply promptly.

Now, to the real article.

For the right or wrong reasons, Roger Goodell and his crew are trying to make the NFL a safer place. This is on the back of many irrefutable studies which have proved that the head to head collisions and other concussions in football can cause serious issues for players later in life.

Many ex-players who tragically died early and donated their brains to medical research were discovered to have brain damage consistent with an 80 year old with dementia at just 50 years of age. It has become plain that improvements have to be made to make football safer.

While there have been many proposals that have been accepted into the league such as moving kickoffs to the 30 yard line and taking a strict line on helmet to helmet collisions, a radical proposal that could kick the problem entirely would be to take away players helmets. This idea has already been proposed by the Wall Street Journal and has a strong argument behind it.

Firstly, taking away helmets would remove the feeling of invulnerability that modern players, especially defenders, carry.

In my opinion, this can only have positive consequences. Defenders would be less reckless going in for tackles and running backs would stop running with their head leading the way. This would do much towards the eradication of concussions and lasting brain damage. Defenders who treat themselves as guided missiles would also curb this tendency, which would limit other miscellaneous injuries not related to the head.

It would also change the tackling technique for defenders, which could be a reason why if this change was implemented it should start with the little leagues and build towards the pinnacle of the NFL.

Instead of being taught to hit with the helmet, defenders would be taught to tackle leading with the shoulder, in the "true" form of tackling. For those of you who feel that this would be dangerous, take a look at rugby games. Very few players are injured in the process of tackling.

Another more sinister issue relates to linemen. On every play, there is a minor helmet to helmet collision. It is an important part of the game, and is entrenched in players techniques. However, these 50 to 60 collisions a game can have an even worse effect on players long term health than one major concussion, and despite how effective helmets become, this damage will continue to occur.

Taking helmets out of the game would make the trenches far safer over the long term.

The perception of the NFL would also improve. While the anything goes attitude does draw some people to the sport, it also repulses many more, especially in my home country of New Zealand and other international markets.

Taking away helmets would create rules around tackling which would ban head high tackles, and would probably make the sport more popular throughout the world. This is a major project that the NFL is undertaking at the moment, and removing helmets would probably help.

A common defense for helmets is that it protects players from other injuries such as landing on their heads after a tackle. However, many injuries such as falls onto their heads or the most common football injury, knee injuries, are not protected by helmets. In fact, players arms and legs would be more protected without helmets. The collisions would be delivered with less force, and this would protect unprotected areas of a footballers anatomy much better.

The final advantage of removing helmets is related to the aesthetic of the game rather than its safety.

Without helmets, removing body pads or the reduction of their bulk would be possible. This would make the game faster because players would be unencumbered by pads. This would add to the spectacle of the game, and allow even more amazing feats of athleticism. From the perspective of the NFL, this is what gets fans into the stadiums and buying team jerseys.

In conclusion, the removal of helmets from the NFL could paradoxically make it a safer place to play.

Defenders would have to stop tackling with their heads, linemen would suffer less head to head knocks a game and players would be faster and more athletic without such bulky pads. It should mean less brain damage for players and less serious injuries as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
NFL Player Safety: The Case for Banning Helmets and Why It Could Make American Football Safer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a vital disclaimer for every fan about to comment to read the article: I will be writing another article soon about why banning helmets may not be able to make the game safer...

# data[].attributes.headline
Evan Anderson - White Versus Yellow Onions: What's the Difference?

# data[].attributes.subject
Evan Anderson - White Versus Yellow Onions: What's the Difference?

# data[].attributes.body
What are the main differences between white and yellow onions? Do they taste different?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
White Versus Yellow Onions: What’s the Difference?

# data[].attributes.headline
Morgan Crandall- Is social media helpful or harmful?

# data[].attributes.subject
Morgan Crandall- Is social media helpful or harmful?

# data[].attributes.body
How does social media effect people and how might this effect be negative or positive?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
he digital landscape has put increased pressure on teenagers today, and we feel it. There are so many social media channels: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Tumblr, you name it. I made a conscious decision to avoid Snapchat and Instagram because of the social pressure I saw them putting on my 14-year-old little sister. If my mum turned off the WiFi at 11pm, my sister would beg me to turn my phone into a hotspot. She always needed to load her Snapchat stories one more time, or to reply to a message that had come in two minutes ago because she didn't want her friend to feel ignored. If I refused, saying she could respond in the morning, I'd get the "You're ruining my social life" speech. Even as a teenager as well, I sometimes find this craze a little baffling.

A new study has found that teenagers who engage with social media during the night could be damaging their sleep and increasing their risk of anxiety and depression. Teenagers spoke about the pressure they felt to make themselves available 24/7, and the resulting anxiety if they did not respond immediately to texts or posts. Teens are so emotionally invested in social media that a fifth of secondary school pupils will wake up at night and log on, just to make sure they don't miss out.

Teens are so emotionally invested in social media that a fifth will wake up at night and log on

Perhaps the worst thing about this is that teenagers need more sleep than adults do, so night-time social media use could be detrimental to their health. Research has shown that teenagers need 9.5 hours of sleep each night but on average only get 7.5 hours. A lack of sleep can make teenagers tired, irritable, depressed and more likely to catch colds, flu and gastroenteritis. These days, I am always tired at school, and I'm not one to stay up until 2am chatting with a boy. Homework and the pressure to have the perfect set of grades mean I'm up late working. And it seems that at school, most of my mates are exhausted too.

During the summer holidays, I lost my phone. And for the week that I was phoneless, it felt like a disaster. I love my phone. It gives me quick access to information and allows me to be constantly looped in with my friends, to know exactly what is going on in their lives. So when I didn't have my phone for a week, I felt a slight sense of Fomo, or if you're not up to speed with the lingo, fear of missing out. By the end of the week, I'd got used to not having a phone and I'd quite enjoyed the break from social media. But there was still a lingering sense of sadness at the back of my mind that there would be conversations I had missed, messages that had been sent, funny videos shared and night-time chats that I would probably never get to see.

A separate study by the National Citizen Service found that, rather than talking to their parents, girls seek comfort on social media when they are worried. The survey also suggests that girls are likely to experience stress more often than boys - an average of twice a week.

It's becoming more and more obvious how the pressures of social media disproportionately affect teenage girls. I can see it all around me. Pressure to be perfect. To look perfect, act perfect, have the perfect body, have the perfect group of friends, the perfect amount of likes on Instagram. Perfect, perfect, perfect. And if you don't meet these ridiculously high standards, then the self-loathing and bullying begins.

What is really worrying is that time and time again, these studies pop up and demonstrate that the mental health of teenagers, especially teenage girls, is on the line. We know this. We know the perils of the internet, we've heard about online bullying and the dangers of Ask.fm, we know the slut-shaming that goes on in our schools. We know these things. We know that these studies demonstrate that we have to make personal, social and health education (PSHE) statutory in schools and ensure it covers a range of issues from healthy eating and sleeping to consent. And yet, Nicky Morgan and the government refuse to act. So I ask: what are we waiting for? Inaction on these issues is harming the physical and emotional wellbeing of young people in this country. What has to happen before we do something?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Social media is harming the mental health of teenagers. The state has to act | June Eric Udorie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
he digital landscape has put increased pressure on teenagers today, and we feel it. There are so many social media channels: Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, Tumblr, you name it. I made a conscious decision to avoid Snapchat and Instagram because of the social pressure I saw them putting on my 14-year-old little sister.

# data[].attributes.body
Liam Martell
- id agreee with saying bees are very important for ours and the planets well being. bees and pollinators are major in the reproduction of plants. without these many plants and crops would decline in numbers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Smithsonian’s National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Smithsonian’s National Zoo & Conservation Biology Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eight Reasons To “Bee” In Awe Of Pollinators

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did you know that the fuzzier an animal is, the better it picks up pollen? Or that most pollination happens by happy accident? Get the buzz on pollinators from Donna Stockton, an entomologist and animal keeper at Amazonia.

# data[].attributes.headline
Cooper Lawrence- Should teachers carry weapons for self defense?

# data[].attributes.subject
Cooper Lawrence- Should teachers carry weapons for self defense?

# data[].attributes.body
This is such a controversial topic, especially nowadays with the spike in school shootings. I think teachers should be trained for the situation if it actually presents itself. Because we were always taught to just hide in a room, and if a guy broke in then you fend for yourself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Traditionally thought of as gun-free zones, some schools are now allowing teachers to carry guns in classrooms- an effort that is meant to increase school safety, particularly when it comes to stopping school shootings. But this move is sparking controversy nationwide, as many opponents question whether arming teachers with guns would actually make schools safer.

TEACHERS: Guide your students to practice civil discourse about current topics and get practice writing CER (claim, evidence, reasoning) responses. Explore lesson supports.

What are the main arguments for allowing teachers to carry guns at school?
Some arguments in favor of arming teachers include that if teachers had guns, they would actually be able to defend against an attack - potentially minimizing deaths. Supporters often point to instances where armed bystanders have stopped shootings in other places. Additionally, arming teachers could act as a deterrent- if potential shooters knew teachers were armed, they may be less likely to carry out an attack.

What are the main arguments against allowing teachers to carry guns at school?
Many opponents worry that there's too much potential for something to go wrong if you allow teachers to carry guns. What happens if a student gets ahold of a teacher's gun, or if they accidentally shoot an innocent bystander. There's also concern that a teacher could misinterpret a student's actions and shoot at someone unnecessarily, and this is especially a concern for students of color- where research shows they are disproportionately disciplined more than white students. Could implicit racial bias lead to a teacher unnecessarily shooting at a student of color? There's also concern that training and arming teachers is expensive and could take funding away from other academic or school safety resources.

SELECTED SOURCES:
Should Teachers Carry Guns? The Debate, Explained (EdWeek) https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/arming-teachers.html

Arming Schoolteachers: What Do We Know? Where Do We Go From Here? (American Journal of Public Health) https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304464

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should Teachers Be Allowed To Carry Guns at School? | KQED

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Some schools are now allowing teachers to carry guns in classrooms- an effort that is meant to increase school safety. But this has met strong opposition. Explore both sides of the issue.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tucker K. - Is human gene editing good or bad?

# data[].attributes.subject
Tucker K. - Is human gene editing good or bad?

# data[].attributes.body
how could this effect the future of human race? could it lead to different mutations?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Favour :-

Almost 4% of the babies born every year have some type of genetic disorder which could be cured by genetic engineering.

Genetic Diseases affect only a minority. The majority doesn't understand the pain and politicizes the situation.

When America was colonized several species of humans and animals were eliminated; the same stands true for nuclear power, chemical resources, and genetic engineering - all of which could be used for the good and the bad. The only thing required is a reasonable restriction rather than an altogether ban.

Some people who believe in modifying the genes believe that it not only increases the span of life but also increases the quality of life.

DNA has got nothing to do with spirituality. It is made up of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen - the very same elements that make up the majority atmosphere. It is just as godlike as is the air around us.

Against :-

Playing with the DNA of an organism, especially when it's to be inherited to the next generation is equivalent to creating an entirely new organism which is different from all other individuals. Even a small mistake, that shows up only once will be copied to a sufficiently large number of individuals, could end an entire species or destroy an ecosystem.

Undergoing a somatic gene therapy may mean that one fault is corrected and several others are created. This is because the genetic code is very specific in nature and a single misplaced atom can have widespread effects. This is what happens naturally in diseases like 'sickle cell anemia'.

G. Wells, in his futuristic book "The Time Machine", imagined a world where humans give birth to designer babies. In such an atmosphere, when only the rich and the affluent get access to these services, there will be a new divide between the people.

Many religions believe that genetic engineering, after all, is equivalent to playing God, which is also against their ethical values.

Present Scenario :-

Chinese researchers, in August 2017, successfully altered the genes of a human embryo to correct the life-threatening genetic disorder Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. The embryos so formed were all devoid of the disorder, which would have lead to strain in the heart muscles and an imminent heart failure. Although the experiment was only part of a research and the embryos were all disposed of, it throws ample light on the future that we have in front of us.

Countries like Britain have not only legalized experimentation on human embryos but also increased the investment in these fields.

The release of genetically modified organisms into the wild in the past few years has raised considerable ethical and scientific questions. The potential consequences of releasing genetically crippled mosquitoes in the southern United States to reduce transmission of tropical viruses drew a firestorm of concern over the effects on humans and the environment.

Conclusion :-

We have now embarked on a long journey and it is unclear whether we will be able to do it or not. We also have to make sure of each and every step that we take, because it is unlikely we will ever be able to turn it backward. The main issue is that not every country in the world has the same sorts of regulations or the same ability to enforce regulations. So, we all need to work together and try to get everyone on the same page. This could be the first steps towards a future in which we are able to literally edit a disease out of humans.

[polldaddy poll="9856895″]

Afterwords :- What is your opinion on this topic? Express your thoughts in the comment section below.

Copyright @ Group Discussion ideas.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Human Gene editing - Good or Bad? ~ Group Discussion Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Favour :- Almost 4% of the babies born every year have some type of genetic disorder which could be cured by genetic engineering. Genetic Diseases affect only a minority. The majority doesn't understand the pain and politicizes the situation.

# data[].attributes.headline
lily williams- are people with mental illness treated different in society 

# data[].attributes.subject
lily williams- are people with mental illness treated different in society 

# data[].attributes.body
is there discrimination against people with mental illnesses? do people believe people with mental illnesses are dangerous? do employers discriminate against mental illnesses?

# data[].attributes.headline
Ellie Nelson- Is it okay for young children to watch R rated movies?

# data[].attributes.subject
Ellie Nelson- Is it okay for young children to watch R rated movies?

# data[].attributes.body
Will it affect them mentally? Will it cause behavior changes? Do they learn more from these adult films? Will they try new things at a younger age than they should be?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
R-rated movies portray violence and other behaviors deemed inappropriate for children under 17 year of age. A new study finds one more reason why parents should not let their kids watch those movies: adolescents who watch R-rated movies are more likely to try alcohol at a young age.

Published in the March issue of Prevention Science, a scientific journal of the Society for Prevention Research, the study of 6,255 children examined the relationship between watching R-rated movies and the probability of alcohol use across different levels of "sensation seeking," which is a tendency to seek out risky experiences. The study was funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism and conducted by James D. Sargent, MD, a pediatrician at Dartmouth Medical School. The children were surveyed every 8 months for a period of two years from 2003 through 2005.

"The study found that watching R-rated movies affected the level of sensation seeking among adolescents. It showed that R-rated movies not only contain scenes of alcohol use that prompt adolescents to drink, they also jack up the sensation seeking tendency, which makes adolescents more prone to engage in all sorts of risky behaviors" Sargent said.

"There is another take home point in the findings. When it comes to the direct effect on alcohol use, the influence of R-rated movies depends on sensation seeking level. High sensation seekers are already at high risk for use of alcohol, and watching a lot of R-rated movies raises their risk only a little. But for low sensation seekers, R-rated movies make a big difference. In fact, exposure to R-rated movies can make a low sensation seeking adolescent drink like a high sensation seeking adolescent." Sargent explained.

The Dartmouth pediatrician said that one possible explanation is high sensation seeking adolescents tend to get their experiences out on the street. They hang around other high sensation seekers, who are also engaging in risky behaviors, so there is less room for movies to make a difference in their risk for alcohol use.
R-rated movies and alcohol
"The message to parents is clear. Take the movie ratings literally. Under 17 should not be permitted to see R-rated movies," Sargent said.

The study was based on telephone surveys of 6,522 adolescents aged 10-14 years. Parental consent and adolescent consent was obtained prior to interviewing each respondent. To protect confidentiality, adolescents indicated their answers to sensitive questions by pressing numbers on the telephone, rather than speaking aloud. The study sample mirrored the U.S. adolescent population with respect to age, sex, household income and census region, but with a slightly higher percentage of Hispanics and a slightly lower percentage of Blacks.

Sensation seeking was based on how individual subjects identified with statements like: "I like to do scary things, I like to do dangerous things, I often think there is nothing to do, and I like to listen to loud music." Adolescents were also asked if they had ever tried alcohol that their parents were not aware of. This excluded adolescents who initiated drinking with sips of alcohol provided by parents. R-rated movie watching was measured by asking respondents if they had watched a random selection of movie titles drawn from box office hits during 2003 that had grossed at least $15 million. The movie titles included movies that had G (general audience), P/G (parental guidance) and R (restricted) ratings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
alcoholism; child psychology; addiction; k-12 education; media and entertainment; popular culture; poverty and learning; educational policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
R-rated movies increase likelihood of underage children trying alcohol

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
R-rated movies portray violence and other behaviors deemed inappropriate for children under 17 year of age. A new study finds one more reason why parents should not let their kids watch those movies: adolescents who watch R-rated movies are more likely to try alcohol at a young age.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evan Anderson - Jeff Bezos’ top tips for managing the economic downturn

# data[].attributes.subject
Evan Anderson - Jeff Bezos’ top tips for managing the economic downturn

# data[].attributes.body
Will the economy crash? should people start conserving their money?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hold off on big purchases like TVs, Jeff Bezos warns | CNN Business

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Amazon founder Jeff Bezos recently warned consumers and businesses they should consider postponing large purchases in the coming months as the global economy contends with a downturn and faces a possible recession.

# data[].attributes.headline
Small classes are better than big classes-Madi Dahl

# data[].attributes.subject
Small classes are better than big classes-Madi Dahl

# data[].attributes.body
List some questions or your opinion on the story:
- Why do some kids do better in smaller classes than in bigger ones?
- How can it increase the teacher's workload if the number of students per class is lower granted they are assigned more than one class a day?
- How can younger grades (like elementary grades) still benefit from this experience even if they are in a larger class when their father up in elementary or in middle school?
- I feel like if you're in a smaller class you have more time to get more homework done and get more topics done as the school year is going on.
- I feel like if you're in a smaller class you get the chance to talk to your peers around you and get to know them and your teacher and or the teacher's aid as the year goes on
- How can being in a smaller classroom increases the probability of attending college
- How is it expensive for the school to make arrangements for smaller classrooms, even though it's also expensive when students leave public schools and go into private ones?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
NCTE has long-established positions on class size for English language arts teachers. In 1960 it adopted a policy that secondary teachers of English should teach a maximum of 100 students per day, and that elementary teachers should have a comparable load. In 1971 it passed a resolution to inform local, state, and national administrators and policymakers about this policy. In 1983 and again in 1995 there were resolutions urging more attention to the issue of class size. And in 1999 NCTE issued a position statement on class size and teacher workload.

Today public schools employ 250,000 fewer people than before the recession of 2008-09, while enrollment has increased by 800,000, and class sizes in many schools are at record highs (Rich, 2013). Recent research tells us why this matters:
What Is Class Size? Academic Performance
In research on early elementary school students, small classes usually mean fewer than 20 students, while for high school students the definition of "small" classes is usually somewhat larger. There are similar variations in what constitutes small classes for college writing instruction. In addition to the ambiguity about how many students constitute a smaller class, researchers use different strategies for assigning a class-size number. It can mean the number of students enrolled in the course, the number of students completing the course, or the number of students completing major course assignments (Arias & Walker, 2004). Furthermore, there is a shifting relationship between class size and teacher workload. Reducing class size can, for example, increase teacher workload if the number of students per class is lowered but teachers are assigned one more class per day.

Overall, research shows that students in smaller classes perform better in all subjects and on all assessments when compared to their peers in larger classes. In smaller classes students tend to be as much as one to two months ahead in content knowledge, and they score higher on standardized assessments. It is worth noting, however, that some studies analyze student assessment results in terms of individual student performance and others in terms of class-wide aggregated performance, which can obscure the differences in individual students' performances.

These positive effects of small class sizes are strongest for elementary school students, and they become more powerful and enduring the longer students are in smaller classes. That is, students who have smaller classes in early elementary grades continue to benefit from this experience even if they are in larger classes in upper elementary or middle school (Bruhwiler & Blatchford, 2011; Chingos, 2013).
Student Engagement
Despite the generally positive effects of smaller classes, the benefits are not consistent across all levels and populations. Small classes make the biggest difference for early elementary school students, while for many high school students smaller classes do not make a significant difference in academic performance. However, for minority and at-risk students as well as those who struggle with English literacy, smaller classes enhance academic performance. Class size also shapes the quality of writing instruction at all levels, including college, because smaller classes are essential for students to get sufficient feedback on multiple drafts. Not surprisingly, smaller writing classes increase retention at the college level (Blatchford et al., 2002; Horning, 2007).
Long-Term Success
Academic performance is important, but it is not the only measure of student success. In the area of student engagement, findings consistently show the value of small classes. Students talk and participate more in smaller classes. They are much more likely to interact with the teacher rather than listen passively during class. Not surprisingly, students describe themselves as having better relationships with their teachers in smaller classes and evaluate both these classes and their teachers more positively than do their peers in larger classes. Students display less disruptive behavior in small classes, and teachers spend less time on discipline, leaving more time for instruction. Specifically, teachers in smaller classes can diagnose and track student learning and differentiate instruction in response to student needs. In smaller classes students spend less time off-task or disengaged from the work of the class, and they have greater access to technology. Research also suggests that smaller class sizes can help students develop greater ability to adapt to intellectual and educational challenges (Bedard & Kuhn, 2006; Dee & West, 2011; Fleming, Toutant, & Raptis, 2002).
Teacher Retention
The benefits of smaller classes extend beyond test scores and student engagement. In addition to the longer-term positive attributes of small class sizes in the early grades, benefits include continued academic and life success. Researchers have found that reducing class size can influence socioeconomic factors including earning potential, improved citizenship, and decreased crime and welfare dependence. The beneficial effects of being assigned to a small class also include an increased probability of attending college. This benefit is greatest for underrepresented and disadvantaged populations. While the increased probability for all students is 2.7%, it is 5.4% for African American students and 7.3% for students in the poorest third of US schools (Dynarsky, Hyman, & Schanzenbach, 2013; Krueger, 2003).
The Cost Factor
Teacher quality has, for some time, been recognized as the most important variable in the academic success of students. Recruiting and retaining effective teachers has become increasingly important as school districts impose mandates about student test scores and overall academic performance. Class size has an effect on the ability to retain effective teachers because those with large classes are more likely to seek other positions. Research indicates, however, that instead of rewarding effective teachers by decreasing their class size, administrators often increase the class sizes of the most effective teachers in order to ensure better student test scores (Barrett & Toma, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2000; Guarino, Santibañez, & Daley, 2006).
Recommendations
One of the most common arguments against smaller class sizes is financial. School districts claim that they cannot afford to reduce the size of classes because it would be too expensive. However, it is also expensive when students leave public schools to attend private ones. Research shows that class size is a significant factor in parents' decisions to send their children to private schools. Despite the enormous emphasis on test scores in public schools, parents report little interest in these scores when choosing a school. Instead, two of the top five reasons parents give for choosing a private school are "smaller class sizes" (48.9 %) and "more individual attention for my child" (39.3%). The other three reasons are better student discipline, better learning environment, and improved student safety, all of which are influenced by class size (Kelly & Scafidi, 2013).

Class size is a major factor in student learning. To be sure, it is one of several important factors, and more research is needed to determine how it interacts with phenomena such as teacher quality and context, but existing research should guide policy decisions in several ways.

Do not conflate class size and teacher workload.

Class size can refer to enrollment in or completion of a given class or program of study, and each of these has different implications for a teacher's workload. If a large number of students enroll but do not complete a course, for example, the ratio of class size to workload will shift depending upon whether enrollment or completion is considered. Furthermore, requiring teachers to teach more classes with smaller numbers of students in each does not constitute a decrease in workload.

Recognize that the benefits of reduced class size are not uniform across all grades and populations.

Although more research is needed to understand the full effect of class size, existing research shows that younger students, at-risk students, and special-needs students receive greater benefit from small classes than other populations.

Consider the differential effects of class size across the disciplines.

Most research on class size does not distinguish among disciplines, so it is easy to assume that an increase or decrease in class size will have the same effect in every classroom. However, a class that assesses student learning with multiple choice tests may not receive as much benefit from a reduction in class size as a class that assesses student learning with written essays.

Use multiple measures to evaluate the effects of reducing class size.
References
Since class size interacts with several dimensions of learning that extend beyond what can be measured with a standardized test, it is important to use several different measures to determine the effects of making classes smaller.

Arias, J. J., & Walker, D. M. (2004). Additional evidence on the relationship between class size and student performance. Journal of Economic Education 35(4), 311-329.

Barrett, N., & Toma, E. F. (2013). Reward or punishment? Class size and teacher quality. Economics of Education Review 35, 41-52.

Bedard, K., & Kuhn, P. J. (2006). Where class size really matters: Class size and student ratings of instructor effectiveness. Economics of Education Review 27, 253-265.

Blatchford, P., Goldstein, H., Martin, D., & Browne, W. (2002). A study of class size effects in English school reception year classes. British Educational Research Journal, 28(2), 169-185.

Bruhwiler, C., & Blatchford, P. (2011). Effects of class size and adaptive teaching competency on classroom processes and academic outcome. Learning and Instruction 21(1), 95-108.

Chingos, M. M. (2013). Class size and student outcomes: Research and policy implications. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32(2), 411-438.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 8.

Dee, T., & West, M. (2011). The non-cognitive returns to class size. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 33(1), 23-46.

Dynarsky S., Hyman, J. M., and Schanzenbach, D. W. (2013). Experimental evidence on the effect of childhood investments on postsecondary attainment and degree completion. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 32(4), 692-717.

Finn, J. D., & Achilles, C. M. (1999). Tennessee's class size study: Findings, implications, misconceptions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21(2), 97-109.

Fleming, R., Toutant, T., & Raptis, H. (2002). Class size and effects: A review. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Guarino, C. M., Santibañez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2006). Teacher recruitment and retention: A review of the recent empirical literature. Review of Educational Research 76(2), 173-208.

Horning, Alice. (2007). The Definitive Article on Class Size. WPA: Writing Program Administration 31(1/2), 14-34.

Kelly, J., & Scafidi, J. (2013). More Than Scores: An Analysis of How and Why Parents Choose Schools. Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Retrieved from https://www.edchoice.org/research/more-than-scores/

Krueger, A. B. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. The Economic Journal 113 (485), F34-F63.
This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.
Rich, M. (2013, December 21). Subtract teachers, add pupils: Math of today's jammed schools. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/education/subtract-teachers-add-pupils-math-of-todays-jammed-schools.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NCTE has long-established positions on class size for English language arts teachers. In 1960 it adopted a policy that secondary teachers of English should teach a maximum of 100 students per day, and that elementary teachers should have a comparable load. In 1971 it passed a resolution to inform local, state, and national administrators and policymakers about this policy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Child education after COVID-19 - Melaina Anderson

# data[].attributes.subject
Child education after COVID-19 - Melaina Anderson

# data[].attributes.body
Coming up on our two-year mark of COVID-19, the educational impact, or lack thereof, is having catastrophic consequences on both teachers and kids alike. COVID took away crucial years of learning things like everyday social skills and basic respect concepts for tomorrow's generation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As we reach the two-year mark of the initial wave of pandemic-induced school shutdowns, academic normalcy remains out of reach for many students, educators, and parents. In addition to surging COVID-19 cases at the end of 2021, schools have faced severe staff shortages, high rates of absenteeism and quarantines, and rolling school closures. Furthermore, students and educators continue to struggle with mental health challenges, higher rates of violence and misbehavior, and concerns about lost instructional time.

As we outline in our new research study released in January, the cumulative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on students' academic achievement has been large. We tracked changes in math and reading test scores across the first two years of the pandemic using data from 5.4 million U.S. students in grades 3-8. We focused on test scores from immediately before the pandemic (fall 2019), following the initial onset (fall 2020), and more than one year into pandemic disruptions (fall 2021).

Average fall 2021 math test scores in grades 3-8 were 0.20-0.27 standard deviations (SDs) lower relative to same-grade peers in fall 2019, while reading test scores were 0.09-0.18 SDs lower. This is a sizable drop. For context, the math drops are significantly larger than estimated impacts from other large-scale school disruptions, such as after Hurricane Katrina-math scores dropped 0.17 SDs in one year for New Orleans evacuees.

Even more concerning, test-score gaps between students in low-poverty and high-poverty elementary schools grew by approximately 20% in math (corresponding to 0.20 SDs) and 15% in reading (0.13 SDs), primarily during the 2020-21 school year. Further, achievement tended to drop more between fall 2020 and 2021 than between fall 2019 and 2020 (both overall and differentially by school poverty), indicating that disruptions to learning have continued to negatively impact students well past the initial hits following the spring 2020 school closures.

These numbers are alarming and potentially demoralizing, especially given the heroic efforts of students to learn and educators to teach in incredibly trying times. From our perspective, these test-score drops in no way indicate that these students represent a " lost generation " or that we should give up hope. Most of us have never lived through a pandemic, and there is so much we don't know about students' capacity for resiliency in these circumstances and what a timeline for recovery will look like. Nor are we suggesting that teachers are somehow at fault given the achievement drops that occurred between 2020 and 2021; rather, educators had difficult jobs before the pandemic, and now are contending with huge new challenges, many outside their control.

Clearly, however, there's work to do. School districts and states are currently making important decisions about which interventions and strategies to implement to mitigate the learning declines during the last two years. Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) investments from the American Rescue Plan provided nearly $200 billion to public schools to spend on COVID-19-related needs. Of that sum, $22 billion is dedicated specifically to addressing learning loss using "evidence-based interventions" focused on the " disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on underrepresented student subgroups." Reviews of district and state spending plans (see Future Ed, EduRecoveryHub, and RAND's American School District Panel for more details) indicate that districts are spending their ESSER dollars designated for academic recovery on a wide variety of strategies, with summer learning, tutoring, after-school programs, and extended school-day and school-year initiatives rising to the top.

Comparing the negative impacts from learning disruptions to the positive impacts from interventions

To help contextualize the magnitude of the impacts of COVID-19, we situate test-score drops during the pandemic relative to the test-score gains associated with common interventions being employed by districts as part of pandemic recovery efforts. If we assume that such interventions will continue to be as successful in a COVID-19 school environment, can we expect that these strategies will be effective enough to help students catch up? To answer this question, we draw from recent reviews of research on high-dosage tutoring, summer learning programs, reductions in class size, and extending the school day (specifically for literacy instruction). We report effect sizes for each intervention specific to a grade span and subject wherever possible (e.g., tutoring has been found to have larger effects in elementary math than in reading).

Figure 1 shows the standardized drops in math test scores between students testing in fall 2019 and fall 2021 (separately by elementary and middle school grades) relative to the average effect size of various educational interventions. The average effect size for math tutoring matches or exceeds the average COVID-19 score drop in math. Research on tutoring indicates that it often works best in younger grades, and when provided by a teacher rather than, say, a parent. Further, some of the tutoring programs that produce the biggest effects can be quite intensive (and likely expensive), including having full-time tutors supporting all students (not just those needing remediation) in one-on-one settings during the school day. Meanwhile, the average effect of reducing class size is negative but not significant, with high variability in the impact across different studies. Summer programs in math have been found to be effective (average effect size of .10 SDs), though these programs in isolation likely would not eliminate the COVID-19 test-score drops.

Figure 1: Math COVID-19 test-score drops compared to the effect sizes of various educational interventions
Source: COVID-19 score drops are pulled from Kuhfeld et al. (2022) Table 5; reduction-in-class-size results are from pg. 10 of Figles et al. (2018) Table 2; summer program results are pulled from Lynch et al (2021) Table 2; and tutoring estimates are pulled from Nictow et al (2020) Table 3B. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals are shown with vertical lines on each bar. Notes: Kuhfeld et al. and Nictow et al. reported effect sizes separately by grade span; Figles et al. and Lynch et al. report an overall effect size across elementary and middle grades. We were unable to find a rigorous study that reported effect sizes for extending the school day/year on math performance. Nictow et al. and Kraft & Falken (2021) also note large variations in tutoring effects depending on the type of tutor, with larger effects for teacher and paraprofessional tutoring programs than for nonprofessional and parent tutoring. Class-size reductions included in the Figles meta-analysis ranged from a minimum of one to minimum of eight students per class.
Figure 2 displays a similar comparison using effect sizes from reading interventions. The average effect of tutoring programs on reading achievement is larger than the effects found for the other interventions, though summer reading programs and class size reduction both produced average effect sizes in the ballpark of the COVID-19 reading score drops.

Figure 2: Reading COVID-19 test-score drops compared to the effect sizes of various educational interventions
Source: COVID-19 score drops are pulled from Kuhfeld et al. (2022) Table 5; extended-school-day results are from Figlio et al. (2018) Table 2; reduction-in-class-size results are from pg. 10 of Figles et al. (2018); summer program results are pulled from Kim & Quinn (2013) Table 3; and tutoring estimates are pulled from Nictow et al (2020) Table 3B. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals are shown with vertical lines on each bar. Notes: While Kuhfeld et al. and Nictow et al. reported effect sizes separately by grade span, Figlio et al. and Kim & Quinn report an overall effect size across elementary and middle grades. Class-size reductions included in the Figles meta-analysis ranged from a minimum of one to minimum of eight students per class.
There are some limitations of drawing on research conducted prior to the pandemic to understand our ability to address the COVID-19 test-score drops. First, these studies were conducted under conditions that are very different from what schools currently face, and it is an open question whether the effectiveness of these interventions during the pandemic will be as consistent as they were before the pandemic. Second, we have little evidence and guidance about the efficacy of these interventions at the unprecedented scale that they are now being considered. For example, many school districts are expanding summer learning programs, but school districts have struggled to find staff interested in teaching summer school to meet the increased demand. Finally, given the widening test-score gaps between low- and high-poverty schools, it's uncertain whether these interventions can actually combat the range of new challenges educators are facing in order to narrow these gaps. That is, students could catch up overall, yet the pandemic might still have lasting, negative effects on educational equality in this country.

Given that the current initiatives are unlikely to be implemented consistently across (and sometimes within) districts, timely feedback on the effects of initiatives and any needed adjustments will be crucial to districts' success. The Road to COVID Recovery project and the National Student Support Accelerator are two such large-scale evaluation studies that aim to produce this type of evidence while providing resources for districts to track and evaluate their own programming. Additionally, a growing number of resources have been produced with recommendations on how to best implement recovery programs, including scaling up tutoring, summer learning programs, and expanded learning time.

Ultimately, there is much work to be done, and the challenges for students, educators, and parents are considerable. But this may be a moment when decades of educational reform, intervention, and research pay off. Relying on what we have learned could show the way forward.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The pandemic has had devastating impacts on learning. What will it take to help students catch up?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As we reach the two-year mark of the initial wave of pandemic-induced school shutdowns, academic normalcy remains out of reach for many students, educators, and parents. In addition to surging COVID-19 cases at the end of 2021, schools have faced severe staff shortages, high rates of absenteeism and quarantines, and rolling school closures.

# data[].attributes.headline
lily Williams- do schools handle bullying well 

# data[].attributes.subject
lily Williams- do schools handle bullying well 

# data[].attributes.body
my questions- are there proper ways to handle bulling situations? do they handle these situations correctly? is there punishments for bullies?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stop Bullying on the Spot

When adults respond quickly and consistently to bullying behavior they send the message that it is not acceptable. Research shows this can stop bullying behavior over time.

Parents, school staff, and other adults in the community can help kids prevent bullying by talking about it, building a safe school environment, and creating a community-wide bullying prevention strategy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
StopBullying.gov provides information from various government agencies on bullying, cyberbullying, prevention and response.

# data[].attributes.headline
Talan Lindquist- Meditation as effective as medication for anxiety, study finds

# data[].attributes.subject
Talan Lindquist- Meditation as effective as medication for anxiety, study finds

# data[].attributes.body
What other things can meditation be good for? How could this effect the medical world and how Therapist/Doctors help their patent's anxiety? How could this effect people who manicure anxiety medication, when or if meditation becomes the new method to treat anxiety?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The first study ever to directly compare medication to meditation for anxiety finds the two methods work equally well at reducing symptoms.

The finding, published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, suggests that people struggling with anxiety could be helped either by a daily pill (which could come with side effects) or a daily practice of mindfulness (which requires a substantial time commitment).

"For both treatments, we had people who said, 'This really worked,'" said study author Dr. Elizabeth Hoge, director of the Anxiety Disorders Research Program and associate professor of psychiatry at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C.

About 6.8 million adults in the U.S. have generalized anxiety disorder, but less than half receive treatment, according to the Anxiety & Depression Association of America.

The two-month study included 276 patients diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder. Half were given a common antidepressant - escitalopram (brand name: Lexapro) - and the other half participated in a mindfulness-based stress reduction program.

Both groups reported moderate improvements: a 20% reduction in symptoms at the end of the study, regardless of their treatment.

That kind of benefit is consistent with other studies of medications to treat anxiety, said Craig Sawchuk, a psychologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who was not involved with the new research.

The study "shows there are alternative options that don't involve medicine to help treat anxiety, that are just as effective,"said Lindsey McKernan, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee, who was also not involved with the study.

Side effects were more common among those who received the antidepressant; nearly 80% of the participants experienced at least one side effect, such as trouble sleeping, nausea, headaches, decreased libido and increased anxiety. Most were considered mild.

Just one side effect, increased anxiety, was reported in the mindfulness group, by about 15% of the participants.

The mindfulness program, however, was time-consuming: Participants were required to attend twice weekly 2 1/2-hour group classes for eight weeks, plus one full day at a meditation retreat. In addition, they were told to practice meditating for 45 minutes each day for the entire study period.

Hoge noted that at a six-month follow-up, 58% of people in the Lexapro group were still taking the drug, while just 28% in the meditation group were still practicing mindfulness at least four days a week.

It's unclear why so many meditation participants appeared to drop off, she said. It could be that they were no longer experiencing symptoms, or that the time constraints were simply too great.

"It might be easier to remember to take a medication one time per day," than fitting in a 45-minute meditation, Sawchuk said.

The time commitment to mindfulness throughout the study, however, was important for people to learn the proper techniques, Hoge said. Mindfulness involves focusing on one single thing, usually breathing, or the sounds going on around you, and clearing the mind of other thoughts.

That's difficult to do for more than a few seconds before the mind wanders and reverts to thinking about other things: to-do lists, what ifs, concerns about the future. Mindfulness teaches the brain not to get so overwhelmed by these intrusive thoughts.

The thinking behind mindfulness, Hoge said, is that it can make the thoughts that fuel anxiety less powerful. She gave an example of a person worried about failing an exam. "Before treatment, that thought makes them sweaty and nervous and they can't think about anything else," she said. "But the problem is just the thought itself, not reality."

Learning to accept such thoughts and move on "creates freedom," Hoge said. "The thought arises, and it doesn't have to take control of the person."

"It's like helping you build a system where you can learn how to respond to stress instead of react to it," McKernan said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Meditation as effective as medication for anxiety, study finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The first study ever to directly compare medication to meditation for anxiety finds the two methods work equally well at reducing symptoms. The finding, published Wednesday in the journal JAMA Psychiatry, suggests that people struggling with anxiety could be helped either by a daily pill (which could come with side effects) or a daily practice of mindfulness (which requires a substantial time commitment).

# data[].attributes.headline
Ellie Nelson-Should parents start raising their kids gender-neutral?

# data[].attributes.subject
Ellie Nelson-Should parents start raising their kids gender-neutral?

# data[].attributes.body
How would this affect their kids as they grow older? Are there cons to raising kids like this? What are they?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
India is progressing at a fast pace and not only is it developing economically; the mentality of people is also evolving. Nowadays more and more people are deciding to raise their kids gender-neutral, especially in Urban India. Search " baby clothes shopping online " to search for clothes that fit the lifestyle of your child and scroll down to know more about gender-neutral parenting.

What is Gender-Neutral Parenting?

In Layman's terms, Gender-Neutral parenting means raising a child without preconceived gender norms and focusing more on the traits that they require to grow as a human. General examples of raising a baby in this way include that parents would call their child 'baby' instead of 'boy' or 'girl' in front of others and in private, allow kids to wear their favorite colors, i.e. whether the boy wants to wear pink or the girls wear blue; keeping room decor and toys neutral and avoiding any type of gender stereotyping in general.

Babycouture brings you the effects, pros, and cons of gender-neutral parenting for new parents to adapt to their parenting style at the correct time. Also, get a stylish baby dress online on Babycouture to dress your children fashionably for festivals and functions.

Effects, Pros, and Cons of Gender-Neutral Parenting

Scroll down to have a look at the effects and impact of raising your child as neutral gender.

Effect on Social life:

Strict Gender-Neutral parenting becomes impossible when your child goes out to play or goes to daycare. It can attract awkward questions and lead to bullying and teasing by his playmates causing trouble for you and your child.

Effect on Playtime:

Gender-Neutral parenting positively affects the playtime of the child as parents tend to promote them playing different games and using a variety of toys.

Effect on Sexuality:

The impact of the environment is considerably lower on a child's sexuality than expected. Research shows that 85% of gender-neutral children become heterosexual adults in the future.

Pros of Gender-Neutral Parenting

Freedom of experience and choice makes gender-neutral children more creative than their peers.

They have the ability to have more hobbies and interests and can enhance their insights.

They easily become familiar with the interests of the opposite gender.

It can easily increase the child's awareness of self and identity greatly.

They grow up learning to be unbiased in any and every situation.

Cons of Gender-Neutral Parenting

Gender-neutral children can become doubtful and confused in their early years when meeting children of their age in school and other places.

Gender-neutrality should not be pushed onto your child, that means if a boy likes blue and sports, and if a girl likes pink and princesses, then they have their own interests and it's "OK".

Avoiding all gender-specific pronouns at home like him, her, she, or he will be difficult for parents.

Being gender-neutral is a choice of your children and not a type. Be careful to not slip and consider gender-neutrality a type.

These are the main things that you have to keep in mind when raising your kids as a Gender-Neutral Parent. Search for the best infant clothes online on Babycouture to make your child the star of the evening.
Also Read: Matching Outfit Ideas for Siblings | Babycouture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Gender-Neutral Parenting? Effects, Pros, and Cons | Babycouture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
India is progressing at a fast pace and not only is it developing economically; the mentality of people is also evolving. Nowadays more and more people are deciding to raise their kids gender-neutral, especially in Urban India.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jacob Dahlen- Should Abortion be legal? 

# data[].attributes.subject
Jacob Dahlen- Should Abortion be legal? 

# data[].attributes.body
Is it good for the person aborting? Will it screw up their mental health/physical heath? How many months in does it actually Murder

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The debate over whether abortion should be a legal option has long divided people around the world. Split into two groups, pro-choice and pro-life, the two sides frequently clash in protests.

Proponents of legal abortion believe abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives, while abortion bans endanger pregnant people not seeking abortions, and deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.

Opponents of legal abortion believe abortion is murder because life begins at conception, that abortion creates a culture in which life is disposable, and that increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary. Read more background...

Pro & Con Arguments

Pro 1

Abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives.

The death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions. By contrast, there are one to two deaths per 100,000 plastic surgery procedures, three deaths for every 100,000 colonoscopies, and three to six deaths per 100,000 tonsillectomies. Childbirth has nine deaths per 100,000 deliveries.

Pregnancy-related maternal deaths could increase 20% in US states with abortion bans. Amanda Stevenson, Sociology Professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, explained, "People with resources are more likely to make it out of state or find out about medication abortions. People who can't are more likely to have health issues, to live in poverty and have less access to resources." People of color are especially likely to be in the latter category and, thus, negatively impacted by abortion bans.

The predicted 20% maternal death rate does not include those who will die from "back alley" or illegal abortions because legal options were not available.

Globally 45% of abortions are unsafe, 97% of which take place in developing countries. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), "Evidence shows that restricting access to abortions does not reduce the number of abortions; however, it does affect whether the abortions that women and girls attain are safe and dignified. The proportion of unsafe abortions are significantly higher in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws than in countries with less restrictive laws."
Read More

Pro 2

Abortion bans endanger healthcare for those not seeking abortions.

Medical treatment for nonviable pregnancies is often exactly the same as an abortion.

Ectopic pregnancies occur when a fertilized egg implants somewhere other than the uterine cavity. About one in 50 pregnancies are ectopic, and they are nonviable. Bleeding from ectopic pregnancies caused 10% of all pregnancy-related deaths, and ectopic pregnancies were the leading cause of maternal death in the first trimester.

One out of every ten pregnancies ends in miscarriage. The drugs used for medication abortions are the only treatment recommended for early miscarriages. For later or complicated miscarriages, the same surgical procedure used for abortions is recommended.

While some abortion bans include specific exceptions for nonviable pregnancies and miscarriages, other bans are too vague to be practicable. Healthcare providers may refuse to perform a procedure that could be interpreted as an "on-demand" abortion for fear of liability or prosecution.

Further, bans are a slippery slope to contraceptive and other healthcare restrictions. For example, some already wrongly view Plan B (the morning after pill) as an abortifacient and are thinking of including it in abortion bans.
Read More

Pro 3

Abortion bans deny bodily autonomy, creating wide-ranging repercussions.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated, "eliminating the rights of women to make decisions about when and whether to have children would have very damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades.... In many cases, abortions are of teenage women, particularly low-income and often Black, who aren't in a position to be able to care for children, have unexpected pregnancies, and it deprives them of the ability often to continue their education to later participate in the workforce."

After being denied an abortion, household poverty increased and lasted four or more years, resulting in an inability to cover basic expenses including food, housing and transportation. A denied abortion was associated with a lowered credit score, increased debt, and an increase in negative public records including evictions and bankruptcies. The households were also more reliant on government assistance. Transgender and nonbinary people denied abortions may face even worse outcomes.

And the consequences can be much more dire. "If a woman of childbearing age dies, it has enormous economic consequences.... It's someone who society has invested in and who has many productive economic years ahead of them," according to David Slusky, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Kansas. Often, death also removes a wage-earner and caregiver from the household.

60% of women seeking abortions already had other children. Being denied an abortion worsened the well-being of their older children, including not meeting childhood development markers.

The Turnaway Study concluded, "Abortion does not harm women," and "Women who receive a wanted abortion are more financially stable, set more ambitious goals, raise children under more stable conditions, and are more likely to have a wanted child later."
Read More

Con 1

Life begins at conception, making abortion murder.

Conception is the moment a sperm cell fertilizes an egg cell, which begins the process of cell division that creates a human.

Tara Sander Lee, Senior Fellow and Director of Life Sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, stated, "life begins from the moment of conception when the sperm fertilizes the egg, because there is the creation of a new, totally distinct, integrated organism or a human being, which is going to be biologically distinct from all other life forms on this planet." The first cell is biologically distinct because it has its own DNA that is different from either biological parent and all other humans.

Ending a life is murder legally and ethically, even a life that is only a few growing cells at the time of death.

Pope Francis explained, "Abortion is murder. Those who carry out abortions kill.... At the third week after conception, often even before the mother is aware (of being pregnant), all the organs are already (starting to develop). It is a human life. Period. And this human life has to be respected. It is very clear.... Scientifically, it is a human life."

That people may face difficulties without abortion as an option does not excuse or justify murder. A reader of The Atlantic, who gave only the initial K., clarified the moral dilemma: "I wish that I could be pro-choice because the awful circumstances so many women face-that I can't even imagine facing-seem so much more real to me than the rights of a fetus who doesn't even always look human. But abortion is the intentional killing of a human being and we look back with horror at anyone in history who decided a group of people did not actually count as people. We cannot solve the problem of injustice against women with more injustice. We need solutions that support women without killing fetuses."
Read More

Con 2

Legal abortion promotes a culture in which life is disposable.

Echoing a 2014 remark by Pope Francis that connected abortion to " throwaway culture," Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark, New Jersey, stated, "abortion represents a failure to recognize the sanctity of human life and promotes a culture in which human life in its most vulnerable moment is perceived as disposable. Such a proposal targets poor women as needing an expedient solution to a complex problem."

Tobin previously declared legal abortion a "brutalization of the American heart" on par with the "dehumanization of the undocumented" immigrants.

Alveda King, former Georgia state representative and niece of Martin Luther King, Jr., also connected abortion to other societal ills: "Abortion and racism are both symptoms of a fundamental human error. The error is thinking that when someone stands in the way of our wants, we can justify getting that person out of our lives. Abortion and racism stem from the same poisonous root, selfishness. We create the deceptions that the other person is less important, less worthy, less human. We are all fully human. When we face this truth, there is no justification for treating those who look different than us as lesser beings. If we simply treat other people the way we'd like to be treated, racism, abortion, and other forms of inhumanity will be things of the past."

As King notes, some fetuses are treated as less than human. This ideology combined with legal abortion could create a slippery slope to designer babies, gender selection, termination of disabled but healthy fetuses, and other trait-selection-based abortions. The slippery slope can then extend to the mentally disabled and elderly in general.

"[A]bortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation," according to US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "Technological advances have only heightened the eugenic potential for abortion, as abortion can now be used to eliminate children with unwanted characteristics, such as a particular sex or disability."
Read More

Con 3

Increased access to birth control, health insurance, and sexual education would make abortion unnecessary.

Experts largely contribute the decline in abortions in the United States and elsewhere to the improved safety and availability of LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) including IUDs and contraceptive implants that can last up to 10 years.

Access to health insurance to pay for contraceptives also contributed to a drop in abortions. With the passage of Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), more people were insured with access to free or low-cost contraceptives and reproductive care.

Linda Rosenstock, Public Health Professor of Health Policy and Management at UCLA, summarized the simplicity of the connection: "In the United States each year, about half of pregnancies are unintended and about 40% of those lead to abortion. Access to birth control leads to fewer abortions."

Further, teens are having sex later in life than their parents. 38.4% of American high schoolers reported they have had sex (down from 54% in 1991) and only 27.4% reported they were currently sexually active (37.5% in 1991).

Because teen birth control use has not increased significantly, experts attribute the decline in part to better sex education. A 2021 study found that students who received comprehensive sexual education initiated sex later than students who did not participate in sex ed. The later teens have sex, the less chance there is for them to become pregnant unintentionally, which leads to fewer abortions.
Read More

Did You Know?

1. Throughout much of Western history, abortion was not considered a criminal act as long as it was performed before "quickening" (the first detectable movement of the fetus, which can occur between 13-25 weeks of pregnancy).

2. In 1821, Connecticut became the first US state to criminalize abortion.

3. The death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions. By contrast, there are one to two deaths per 100,000 plastic surgery procedures, three deaths for every 100,000 colonoscopies, and three to six deaths per 100,000 tonsillectomies. Childbirth has nine deaths per 100,000 deliveries.

4. Abortion rates in the United States have fallen at what the CDC called a "slow yet steady pace" since a peak in 1981. That year there were 29.3 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44. The rate fell to 11.4 abortions per 1,000 women in 2019.

5. 60% of women seeking abortions already had other children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Abortion - Top Arguments For and Against - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Pro Choice side says women should have control of their bodies. Pro Lifers say abortion is murder. Explore both sides of the debate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Darian Newland -Why does white privilege exist?

# data[].attributes.subject
Darian Newland -Why does white privilege exist?

# data[].attributes.body
Why is there still white privilege? Why do some not acknowledge it? How can we move past this? If the people stop ignoring the fact that they have privilege and advantages over others maybe things would change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
University of Central Florida News | UCF Today

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The killing of George Floyd by a white police officer, coupled with the Black Lives Matter protests that have swept across the world in its wake, have led many white people to question - some for the first time - their role and complicity in structural racism in the United States. Books such as Robin DiAngelo's White Fragility and Ibram X. Kendi's How to be an Antiracist have topped The New York Times' bestsellers list in recent months.

As a professor, I find that terms such as "white privilege" and "white supremacy" often provoke defensive reactions - what DiAngelo calls "white fragility" - in white people. Students from blue-collared backgrounds can find it hard to emotionally connect with the notion that they are privileged when they have struggled financially. Others from more comfortable middle-class backgrounds can feel that their family success is being undermined or that they haven't worked as hard as others to achieve their success. And some students complain that such concepts are merely tools to "shame white people."

One of the major stumbling blocks here is that such students reduce both racism and white privilege to certain individuals. As the epigraph to Peggy McIntosh's foundational 1989 article, "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" states, "I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of meanness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group." Just as systemic racism is reduced to individual bad actors, privilege is misunderstood as something individual rather than a system in which white people as a collective are centered and prioritized.

"Just as systemic racism is reduced to individual bad actors, privilege is misunderstood as something individual rather than a system in which white people as a collective are centered and prioritized."

McIntosh explains, "As a white person, I realized I had been taught about racism as something that puts others at a disadvantage, but had been taught not to see one of its corollary aspects, white privilege, which puts me at an advantage." She then lists 50 ways in which white privilege manifests itself. These include:

I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

Extending the work of McIntosh, DiAngelo notes that many Americans equate white supremacy with groups such as the torch-carrying white nationalists who marched in Charlottesville, Virginia. For sociologists, however, the term white supremacy denotes, as DiAngelo writes, a "socio-political system of domination based on racial categories that benefits those defined and perceived as white. This system of structural power privileges, centralizes and elevates white people as a group." Even though in 2020, 59.7 percent of the U.S. population is white, she draws on data from 2016-17, giving examples of this supremacy, including:

Ten richest Americans: 100% white

U.S. Congress: 90% white

People who decide which TV shows we see: 93% white

People who decide which news is covered: 85% white

Teachers: 82% white

To understand the concepts of "white privilege" and "white supremacy," we have to move beyond individual experiences to understand the structural conditions and the wider historic and social context in which all individuals are shaped. How have legal and social systems in the U.S. functioned to produce and maintain white privilege? And what is the cost of such white privilege to Black Americans?

One good example is the legacy of redlining, a state-sponsored practice by which the government maintained segregation between white and Black populations. From 1935 to '40, federal government housing policies shaped 230 cities in the United States. City planners literally drew red lines across the city to establish white suburban housing areas that were often separated by highways from Black and immigrant neighborhoods. Often confined to densely packed and more polluted urban centers, Black Americans were often denied mortgages or only offered mortgages with high interest rates. While these practices were made illegal through the 1968 Fair Housing Act and the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, many of them continued in new, less overt forms. Before the 2008 recession, for instance, there was an increase on risky loans for low-income borrowers. Afterward, many Black Americans lost their homes and property value decreased in minority neighborhoods.

The legacy of redlining is clear to see in wealth inequities today. A report by the Federal Reserve stated that white families today have nearly 10 times the net worth of Black families and more than eight times that of Hispanic families. As explained in the Mapping Inequality Project, "Redlining directed both public and private capital to native-born white families and away from African American and immigrant families. As homeownership was arguably the most significant means of intergenerational wealth building in the United States in the 20th century, these redlining practices from eight decades ago had long-term effects in creating wealth inequalities that we still see today."

Another legacy of redlining is health inequities between white and Black Americans. A 2016 report found that African Americans have higher rates of diabetes, hypertension and heart disease than any other group. Black children have a 500 percent higher death rate from asthma than white children. African American adults are much less likely to survive prostate, breast and lung cancer than their white counterparts.

A major factor in determining health and life expectancy is where you live. A study of housing districts in the Washington, D.C., area revealed that the average life expectancy in the affluent white neighborhood of Bethesda, Maryland, was 10 years higher than that of people in the predominantly Black neighborhoods of southeast Washington, which is only 10 miles away. This is because where we live determines our access to education, employment, fresh food and outdoor space - factors which all contribute to health.

Through specific examples such as redlining and health inequities, my students are able to see how white privilege and white supremacy are structural phenomena rooted in historic legal and social processes. This offers them an opportunity to move beyond individual defensiveness and to develop empathy and solidarity with Black Americans. One of my current students, for example, shared that during high school she was struck by the massive differences in resources between the predominately Black urban school she attended and the predominantly white suburban school her brother attended. She discovered that her school was in a former redlined neighborhood, which had been denied the same resources and opportunities as white ones. Understanding her experience in wider social and historical context made her commit to tackling racism in her own family and community.

While individual white people are not to blame for policies that began before they were born, we are still benefiting from them at the -- often grave - expense of Black Americans. Seeing the undeniable truth of this, we must challenge rather than comply with white supremacy and work toward creating a country that is more livable for everyone. What are some specific ways white people can recognize and take responsibility for white supremacy?

Educate ourselves on systemic racism and white supremacy

Participate in anti-racist training programs

Commit to having difficult conversations with white family and friends about systemic racism

Join multiracial organizations such as Showing Up for Racial Justice

Partner with Black organizations

Support Black-owned businesses

As constitutional law scholar Bruce Ledewitz states, "Since white racism is the problem, it is the responsibility of white people to end it."

What are we waiting for?
Ann Gleig is an associate professor of religion and cultural studies who has taught about racism and white supremacy in religion since earning a doctorate in religious studies from Rice University in 2010.
Resources

Anti-Racism Resources: An open-source resource for white people and white parents wanting to dismantle white supremacy. Available at bit.ly/ANTIRACISMRESOURCES

"White Privilege Papers" Peggy McIntosh

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Color Blindness, Michelle Alexander

So You Want To Talk About Race?, Ijeoma Oluo

The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America, Richard Rothstein

Me and White Supremacy: Combat Racism, Change the World and Become a Good Ancestor, Layla F. Saad

Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race, Beverly Daniel Tatum

Waking Up White: And Finding Myself in the Story of Race, Debbie Irving

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Waking Up to Whiteness and White Privilege

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The killing of George Floyd by a white police officer, coupled with the Black Lives Matter protests that have swept across the world in its wake, have led many white people to question - some for the first time - their role and complicity in structural racism in the United States.

# data[].attributes.headline
Trian P - Should We Let the Wolves of Isle Royale Disappear?

# data[].attributes.subject
Trian P - Should We Let the Wolves of Isle Royale Disappear?

# data[].attributes.body
Why are the wolves disappearing from Isle Royal? Why is this group of wolves so important?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Photo: Gary Kramer/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The wolves are disappearing on Isle Royale National Park, a remote wilderness island on Lake Superior. Should we save them?

That may seem a simple question for a conservation blog to answer. Of course we should save an animal disappearing from its native habitat! What other answer could there be?

In reality, there is nothing simple about this story.

In ecological circles, the wolves of Isle Royale hold special resonance. For more than 50 years, biologists have studied how wolves and moose interact, a project considered to be the longest-running research on predator-prey relationships.

The results of that research have helped inform wolf reintroduction in places like Yellowstone, and have become a template for predator-prey studies globally.

The wolf and moose populations have fluctuated throughout the study. In the 1980s, a virus introduced by a visitor's sick pet decimated the wolf population. It recovered, but now inbreeding and the island's isolation have again threatened the wolves.

At the beginning of this summer, the wolf population was down to eight animals, and they appeared to not be breeding. That proved untrue - two wolf pups were born in August - but the long-term prognosis for the large predator on the island is not rosy.

The original wolves arrived in the late 1940s, likely via an ice bridge connecting Isle Royale to the mainland. With warmer winters, there have not been ice bridges, so the chances of new wolves reaching the island on their own are slim.

The National Park Service is considering its options. One is to simply let the wolves survive or die out without human intervention. Another is to let them die out, then reintroduce a new population. Or additional wolves could be added to the population now, providing more genetic diversity to the population.

The decision to bring wolves in to bolster the population is pitched by some as assisting species in adapting to climate change. Others see it as protecting the ecological value of large predators, and certainly a significant body of literature has demonstrated that these predators are essential for ecological health.

Rolf Peterson, the longest-serving director of wolf-moose studies on Isle Royale, argued for this view in an op-ed he coauthored for the New York Times:
"The future health of Isle Royale will be judged against one of the most important findings in conservation science: that a healthy ecosystem depends critically on the presence of top predators like wolves when large herbivores, like moose, are present. Without top predators, prey tend to become overabundant and decimate plants and trees that many species of birds, mammals and insects depend on."
Again, this all seems pretty straightforward, right?

But looking at the island's ecological history makes things a bit more complicated.

On any island habitat, species tend to come and go more rapidly than on large, intact habitats. Some species on islands disappear rapidly. Some evolve rapidly to take over new niches. The smaller the island, the less likely that a species will survive over the long haul - what conservation biologists call island biogeography.

If you visited Isle Royale at the turn of the twentieth century, you would have found a very different island. There were no wolves or moose. There were caribou, coyotes and lynx, animals that had been present on the island for thousands of years. They're gone now.

Moose showed up by the early 1900s and prospered a bit too well; some feared they would run out of food. Nutritious plants that grew in the wake of a large fire allowed the moose to rebound. The wolves arrived in 1948 or 1949.

What is the true natural state of Isle Royale? Is it wolves and moose? Or is it caribou and lynx?

What about new brand-new species arriving on the island, like a bat and several amphibians? Are they natural introductions or should they be viewed as non-native interlopers? And if it's natural for new species to show up, why is it less so for other species to disappear?

Questions, questions, questions.

Ron Meador, in his excellent MinnPost story, quotes Tim Cochrane, park superintendent of Grand Portage National Monument: " What is natural on Isle Royale is a dicey question. Whether wolves 'belong' on the island is an open question."

Meador goes on to write:
"Returning the island's species balance to its longest running iteration, [Cochrane] said not quite seriously, would require letting the wolves disappear, assigning hunters to take out the moose, then reintroducing woodland caribou and lynx."
Perhaps he was not quite serious. But he has a point. It's difficult to know the "natural" state of Isle Royale, because islands (or any ecosystem for that matter) have always been changing. Flora and fauna have constantly been coming and going.

This one may be trickier because many believe humans have affected the wolf populations - by introduced viruses and by climate change. But we also can't definitely say that new wolves would have make it to Isle Royale even without climate change. After all, there is a long history of a wolf-free Isle Royale.

And there is good evidence that moose only made it to Isle Royale because they were prospering on the mainland-due to increased logging. Humans have played a role on Isle Royale for millennia; Native Americans traditionally hunted caribou there, no doubt affecting island ecology.

At a place like Isle Royale, it's not easy to figure out what is natural and what is human caused - or even if these are valid distinctions.

I am not against human intervention to save species, of course. I think Rolf Peterson and his coauthors put it well in the New York Times:
"Where no place on the planet is untouched by humans, faith in nonintervention makes little sense. We have already altered nature's course everywhere. Our future relationship with nature will be more complicated. Stepping in will sometimes be wise, but not always. Navigating that complexity without hubris will be a great challenge."
But we do have to make decisions. Conservationists will have to prioritize where investing in reintroductions or other extreme measures make sense, and where letting a species disappear is the more "natural" choice.

The existing wolves may yet rebound and thrive, or they might disappear. Either way will have dramatic effects on moose and many other species on the island. No doubt about it.

There are no "right" or clear answers here. But considering the short tenure of wolves on this island, Isle Royale is not a place we should be spending large amounts of money by introducing new wolves to the population.

This is one instance where intervention makes little sense; the island's animal life has seen many and dramatic changes in recent times. It would make more sense to focus conservation dollars to connect large expanses of land where populations wolves and other wide-roaming wildlife can move freely and interbreed, as in the national parks and public lands of the western United States.

It makes more sense to prevent habitat from becoming de facto islands in places like the Northern Rockies than to try to fight natural processes - including species disappearances - on real islands.

Let Isle Royale's fauna continue to come and go as it has for thousands and thousands of years. And let's continue studying this national park, learning how fauna and flora adapt, change, survive and disappear over time.

And who knows? Maybe wolves will find a way there on their own. Or maybe lynxes will return. Or a new animal. Let's just see what natural forces bring, on at least this one island.

Around the world, conservationists will face choices like this. There often won't be easy answers. It may not be comforting to let a population of charismatic animals disappear, but sometimes it may be the right choice.
What do you think? Should we take measures to save the wolves of Isle Royale, or let the current population run its course, even if that means the population disappears?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Should We Let the Wolves of Isle Royale Disappear?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The wolves are disappearing on Isle Royale National Park, a remote wilderness island on Lake Superior. Should we save them? That may seem a simple question for a conservation blog to answer. Of course we should save an animal disappearing from its native habitat! What other answer could there be?

# data[].attributes.headline
Tucker K. - are women better managers than men?

# data[].attributes.subject
Tucker K. - are women better managers than men?

# data[].attributes.body
Are women more experienced in the administrative area than men? What does this mean for men?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are women better managers than men? ~ Group Discussion Ideas

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Women were encouraged to be empathetic, kind etc. Men were taught to be harsh and demanding. Now the situations are changing.

# data[].attributes.body
What was homework really invented for and who does it benefit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Homework | Pros, Cons, Arguments, Debate, School, Education, & Students | Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Is homework beneficial? Learn the pros and cons of the debate.

# data[].attributes.headline
Talan Lindquist - Breeding success raises hopes for future of endangered African penguin

# data[].attributes.subject
Talan Lindquist - Breeding success raises hopes for future of endangered African penguin

# data[].attributes.body
What are some other ways to help increase the population of African penguin's? Is there way for the Penguin's to learn their fight or flight response when put into a situation when a predator attacks?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Breeding success raises hopes for future of endangered African penguin

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two African penguin chicks have emerged from their nest beneath a boulder at a site in South Africa where conservationists have used lifelike decoy penguins and broadcast penguin calls to entice adult penguins to breed. Christina Hagen, the Pamela Isdell Fellow of Penguin Conservation at BirdLife So…

# data[].attributes.headline
Ellie Nelson- Why is lunch time at school so short?

# data[].attributes.subject
Ellie Nelson- Why is lunch time at school so short?

# data[].attributes.body
Lunch time includes the time it takes to get to the Lunchroom, waiting in line for food, finding a seat, eating and discarding of any waste. This cannot all be done within a 30 minute time frame.

# data[].attributes.body
Questions I have:
What type of environment are people in that makes them believe this is a normal thing?
Is this mindset related to poor childhood upbringings?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Love and respect must be the foundation of any relationship. Nevertheless, some people have a thing for dangerous people with criminals tendencies. This is known as hybristophilia. Today's article will discuss the main factors and variables that can trigger it.

Hybristophilia is a sexual attraction to dangerous people. Haven't you ever heard about how some serial killers and other criminals receive fan letters with sexual or romantic connotations? In some cases, these people end up establishing relationships and even marrying these criminals. Continue reading to find out more about this tendency.

From a logical perspective, choosing such individuals as potential partners or feeling the desire to relate to them on an intimate level isn't easy to understand. After all, respect, trust, mutual care, and other indispensable aspects of a loving bond don't seem to be available with such people. What's the reason for this attraction? Let's try to answer this question.

"There she sits contemplating me with her mad eyes like a deranged seagull studying a clam. I can feel her spreading hot sauce on me already."
-Ted Bundy-

Serial killer Ted Bundy, sentenced to death for about 30 homicides in the 1970s, received hundreds of love letters in prison.

What's hybristophilia?

It's the sexual attraction to dangerous people who harm others. John Money, a New Zealand psychologist coined the term in the 1950s. He also said that this tendency particularly manifests in heterosexual women. Still, it's occurrence in other types of relationships and sexual orientations is possible.

Hybristophilia isn't an official mental disorder in any of the current diagnostic manuals. However, one can consider it a type of paraphilia, as some people get a kick out of having sex with a dangerous criminal.

It's also possible to find milder manifestations of this tendency. For example, some people experience romantic or sexual attraction to those who lie, beat, and cheat. In short, towards those proven potentially dangerous.

Why does hybristophilia occur?

It can be difficult to understand why someone would want to associate with anyone who could harm them. However, there are several possible explanations for hybristophilia:

Firstly, there may be a preference for strong mates at an evolutionary level due to their ability to protect the female and her offspring. Dangerous people seem powerful and capable of dominating others. Thus, genetics may play a role in this.

Secondly, dangerous or criminal men often possess a dark triad personality characterized by traits of narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Studies reveal that these men are quite attractive to some women for a variety of reasons.

Childhood experiences and early attachment also exert an influence on the choice of sexual and romantic partners. Studies show that women abused during childhood are more likely to choose abusive partners.

Finally, society itself and a person's culture may determine the attractiveness of dangerous men. Thus, traditional gender roles indicate that women are to be submissive and men dominant, influencing the preferences of women.

According to forensic psychologist Katherine Ramsland, some women believe their love can change bad men.

Is there a treatment?

Hybristophilia isn't a mental disorder in itself, but a paraphilia. In other words, a deviation of conventional sexual attraction. Thus, treatment might be necessary if this inclination has negative repercussions (for example, choosing dangerous people as partners). Also, if a person can only be sexually aroused within these parameters.

In any case, there's no single, well-established treatment for hybristophilia, even though some techniques might be effective.

Furthermore, cognitive techniques can help identify and modify thoughts related to the origin. For example, some people believe they'll succeed in changing and transforming a criminal and even experience affection and sympathy that lead to a need for protection. There are also those who feel safer with a strong powerful person. Detecting these beliefs and working on them can be helpful.

Similarly, some masturbation programming techniques may help weaken the association created between dangerous people and sexual pleasure. In any case, individualized intervention based on the specific circumstances of each individual will be necessary.
It might interest you...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hybristophilia, the Attraction for Criminals

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Love and respect must be the foundation of any relationship. Nevertheless, some people have a thing for dangerous people with criminals tendencies. This is known as hybristophilia. Today's article will discuss the main factors and variables that can trigger it. Hybristophilia is a sexual attraction to dangerous people.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jacob Dahlen-Do Video Games Cause Violence

# data[].attributes.subject
Jacob Dahlen-Do Video Games Cause Violence

# data[].attributes.body
Violent video games have been blamed for school shootings, increases in bullying, and violence towards women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Do Video Games Cause Violence? 9 Pros and Cons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proponents say playing violent video games causes more aggression. Opponents say the games are a convenient scapegoat for real-life violence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Evan Anderson - McCarthy wins GOP nomination for speaker, with 31 Republicans voting against him

# data[].attributes.subject
Evan Anderson - McCarthy wins GOP nomination for speaker, with 31 Republicans voting against him

# data[].attributes.body
What does this mean for republicans? What does this mean for democrats?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kevin McCarthy poised to lead House GOP despite far-right revolt | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is hoping to pass a crucial test on Tuesday in his campaign to become House speaker despite an underwhelming midterm election performance that launched a search among conservatives for a challenger.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mr. Reynolds - It's 25 years since wolves were reintroduced to Yellow Stone. They have caused the ecosystem to thrive.

# data[].attributes.subject
Mr. Reynolds - It's 25 years since wolves were reintroduced to Yellow Stone. They have caused the ecosystem to thrive.

# data[].attributes.body
What might this mean for hunters are farmers? How can wolves and farmers co-exist and evolve together?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Laramie, WyomingTwenty-five years after gray wolves returned to Yellowstone National Park, the predators that some feared would wipe out elk have instead proved to be more of a stabilizing force. New research shows that by reducing populations and thinning out weak and sick animals, wolves are helping create more resilient elk herds.

For the past 12 years, elk numbers in the park's largest herd have leveled off between about 6,000 and 8,000, instead of extreme boom-and-bust cycles due to climate fluctuations.

"Elk aren't starving to death anymore," says Chris Wilmers, a wildlife ecologist at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

During years with normal amounts of rain and snow, wolves primarily kill older cow elk, since they're the easiest to hunt. But Wilmers led a recent study that showed during particularly dry years-when grass, shrubs, and wildflowers aren't as lush-wolves switch to hunting bulls. These burly males already don't eat much in the fall, focusing instead on making deafening bugles and smashing into each other while fighting over cows. All that effort burns calories, weakening them heading into winter. In dry years, they're even more diminished.

As adaptable, intelligent predators, wolves have learned to recognize these conditions, and they would rather kill an undernourished 750-pound bull versus a 450-pound cow. So by targeting bulls during years of scarce food, they give the cows a chance to reproduce, thus keeping the population afloat. ( Explore the Yellowstone most don't see.)

But most importantly, the Yellowstone area's wolves-which now number between 300 and 350-could help elk herds weather the perils of a more volatile climate, according to the study, published in the Journal of Animal Ecology. For instance, elk herds that maintain consistent numbers, rather than yo-yoing up and down, can better withstand more frequent droughts-one impact of climate change that is already occurring in the region.

"In a future that will be very unpredictable, we want a buffer" against mass die-offs, says Doug Smith, Yellowstone's senior wildlife biologist, and wolves' ability to keep elk herds balanced can play that role. Through hunting and management practices, "humans help stabilize elk populations, but they don't do the same thing as wolves."

The findings in Yellowstone are also relevant, he adds, as Coloradans vote in November whether to reintroduce wolves to their state, home to about 287,000 elk-the largest number in the U.S.

Finding a balance

For their study, Wilmers, Smith, and colleagues analyzed more than a thousand dead elk in Yellowstone -located in the states of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho-over 20 years. The scientists spent about a month at the beginning and end of each winter tracking three wolf packs, locating every elk kill the wolves made; recording the dead animal's age and sex; and removing a bone marrow sample, which determined the elk's physical condition before death. The team then used satellite data to derive how much plant life was available for elk to eat each year, an amount dependent on snowmelt and rainfall.

Synthesizing all of that data revealed that wolves target bulls during years when vegetation is poor, offering a clearer understanding of how shifts in climate can change predators' behaviors.

This is especially useful for managing and conserving wolves, which are still rebuilding their numbers after over a century of persecution. Before the 1900s, Yellowstone predators such as grizzly bears, black bears, wolves, and mountain lions thrived alongside robust populations of American bison, elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep.

But a coordinated campaign by the federal government exterminated almost all those predators, and bison, from the area. The last known Yellowstone wolf pack was killed in 1926, and the canines were also wiped out in most of their historic range in much of the lower 48, hanging on in a few populations around the Great Lakes. ( Read more about the history of Yellowstone National Park.)

With the wolves gone, and bears and lions greatly diminished, elk populations skyrocketed. Between 1932 and 1968, the U.S. National Park Service and the state of Montana removed more than 70,000 elk from the Northern Yellowstone herd by killing them or shipping them across the country to areas where they'd been eliminated.

When the park stopped killing elk in 1968, numbers shot up again from about 5,000 to close to 20,000. For the next several decades, elk cycled through population booms and collapses along with climate fluctuations; hard winters left the ground littered with hundreds of the carcasses of elk that had starved to death. Then, between 1995 and 1997, wildlife officials reintroduced 41 wolves to Yellowstone. Grizzly bears and mountain lions, which also prey on elk, increased due to more protections from states and the federal government. The elk population dropped, eventually evening out the spikes and dips.

In the winter of 2010 to 2011, for instance, elk fared relatively well during abnormally deep snow and cold temperatures, compared with the mass deaths seen during similar winters in the 1980s and 1990s, Smith says. ( Read about the threatened species bouncing back in Yellowstone.)

"These systems are better evolved or better adapted to that way of life than elk starving to death," Smith says. "What elk starving to death means is they're eating themselves out of house and home."

Lessons for other states

As November's ballot initiative looms, researchers are using the 25 years of data to predict what might happen if the predators return to Colorado or any other U.S. state within the species' historic range. Some groups are pushing to reintroduce more Mexican wolves, a gray wolf subspecies, into their former habitats of New Mexico and Arizona.

So far, there are more questions than answers. While the Yellowstone area is vast and sparsely populated, much of Colorado is not-which means where wolves would be reintroduced, how many would be allowed to roam the mountains, and how much humans would tolerate their presence are all potential challenges, says Joanna Lambert, an environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado Boulder and scientific advisor for the Rocky Mountain Wolf Project, which advocates for wolf reintroduction. ( See 12 of our favorite wolf photos.)

State officials would manage the wolves, unlike packs reintroduced into Yellowstone, which were managed federally. This means that wolves that wandered outside Yellowstone Park were largely prohibited from being killed, particularly early in the reintroduction. Colorado would likely not have similar restrictions.

But one takeaway from Yellowstone is clear, Lambert says: Wolves will certainly eat some of Colorado's abundant elk.

If wolves are reintroduced, she expects the state's herds will be "leaner, meaner, and healthier."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
25 years after returning to Yellowstone, wolves have helped stabilize the ecosystem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Laramie, WyomingTwenty-five years after gray wolves returned to Yellowstone National Park, the predators that some feared would wipe out elk have instead proved to be more of a stabilizing force. New research shows that by reducing populations and thinning out weak and sick animals, wolves are helping create more resilient elk herds.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mr. Reynolds - What is wrong with these people? Why would anyone enjoy something as repulsive as The Terrifier movie franchise?

# data[].attributes.subject
Mr. Reynolds - What is wrong with these people? Why would anyone enjoy something as repulsive as The Terrifier movie franchise?

# data[].attributes.body
Should ultra-violent and blood films, best illustrated by The Terrifier 2, be censored more? What does this say about us as a society?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Horror film ‘Terrifier 2’ is causing viewers to puke, faint in theater; producer warns of ‘graphic violence’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“Terrifier 2” was released in theaters as a low-budget, indie-slasher film and instantly had fans taking to Twitter to share about their visceral reactions to watching the movie.

# data[].attributes.headline
Mr. Reynolds -  Cell phones are being banned in area schools. Is this a good thing?

# data[].attributes.subject
Mr. Reynolds -  Cell phones are being banned in area schools. Is this a good thing?

# data[].attributes.body
Should LHS reconsider its cell phone policy? Would limiting cell phone use to just passing time be better for student learning and classroom focus?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cell Phones and Other Electronic Devices During School Hours

Students are not permitted to use cell phones or other electronic devices (sound or image) during the school day in any unauthorized area of the school building or at any school sponsored events or activities. "Use" of a cell phone includes text messaging. "Unauthorized area" means any area where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy; including, but not limited to classrooms, locker rooms, and restrooms or any other area designated by the building principal. Use of cell phones or image recording devices in locker rooms and restrooms at anytime is strictly prohibited. Students in violation of any portion of this policy will be subject to disciplinary procedures and confiscation of the cell phone or other electronic device. If a student's cell phone or other electronic device is confiscated, the building principal may search the confiscated property up on a reasonable suspicion that the search will yield evidence of a violation of a school rule or upon reasonable suspicion that the school safety or security may be in jeopardy. Disciplinary action up to and including suspension, expulsion and/or citation by law enforcement may be taken against any student using a prohibited device contrary to this rule or in a manner that causes substantial disruption to the educational environment. The building principal or a designee is authorized to make exceptions to the prohibitions set forth in this policy for health, safety, emergencies, or as required by an individual education program. Electronic devices include, but are not limited to: personal radio, take, CD MP3 or iPod players, game boys, or any variation of these devices, cameras, cell phones, and camera cell phones.

First Offense:

Device will be kept in the office until the end of the day

The student will be able to pick up their electronic device at 3:30 p.m

Second Offense:

Parents will be called and must pick up the electronic device in the office

Students will not be allowed to pick up the device

Third Offense:

Parents will be called and must pick up the electronic device in the office

Students will not be allowed to pick up the device

In addition, the student will serve detention

Last revised 8/2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Students / Cell Phone and Electronic Device Policy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Students are not permitted to use cell phones or other electronic devices (sound or image) during the school day in any unauthorized area of the school building or at any school sponsored events or activities. "Use" of a cell phone includes text messaging.