Tuesday, May 31, 2022
Washington Today (5-31-22): "Respect the Fed" part of President Biden's strategy to lower inflation
Today's program looks at President Biden's 3-step plan to reduce inflation, with an interview with The Hill's WH reporter Alex Gangitano, (9) EU plans to ban 90% of Russian oil imports, not guilty verdict in the first Durham investigation trial, and […]
Read More
BTS at White House Press Briefing
WATCH: BTS at White House Press Briefing.
"We are BTS and it is a great honor to be invited to the White House today to discuss the important issues of anti-Asian hate crimes, Asian inclusion and diversity."
Full video here:
D […]
Read More
The Education Exchange: Weapon Ownership Rates Decline, as College Shootings Spike
An assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma, Daniel Hamlin, joins Paul E. Peterson to discuss Hamlin’s research on gun ownership in America, and its relationship to school shootings over 40 years.
Hamlin’s paper, “Are gun ownership rates and regulations associated with firearm incidents in American schools? A forty-year analysis (1980–2019)“, is available now.
Additionally, Hamlin and Peterson are currently moderating the virtual conference, A Safe Place to Learn, hosted by the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance.
Follow The Education Exchange on Soundcloud, Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Stitcher or here on Education Next.
— Education Next
The post The Education Exchange: Gun Ownership Rates Decline, as School Shootings Spike appeared first on Education Next.
By: Education Next
Title: The Education Exchange: Gun Ownership Rates Decline, as School Shootings Spike
Sourced From: www.educationnext.org/the-education-exchange-gun-ownership-rates-decline-as-school-shootings-spike/
Published Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 08:59:30 +0000
News.... browse around here
Exciting Finds: Atheist politician
Stay up to date on China: https://www.chinapulse.com/data-news/2021/05/30/australian-betting-technology-company-betmakers-proposes-to-acquire-tabcorps-betting-and-media-division-worth-au-4-billion-iag-inside-asian-gaming/
Booknotes+ Podcast: Andrew Kaufman on Russian Writer Leo Tolstoy
Not a day goes by that Russia is not in the news, especially since the February 24th invasion of Ukraine. In the history of Russia, one of the most familiar figures, especially in the world of writing and writers, is Leo Tolstoy. He's best known for […]
Read More
Friday, May 27, 2022
Washington Today (5/27/2022): Official: Girl told 911 ‘send the police now’ as cops waited
Today's program includes the latest from Texas officials on the massacre of 19 students on Tuesday. Aris Folley of The Hill joins by phone to discuss the latest gun legislation conversations in the Senate. And remarks from Former President Trump, Tex […]
Read More
Washington Today (5-26-22): Bipartisan Senate anti-gun violence talks begin
Today's program looks at bipartisan Senate talks on anti-gun violence measures, Senate GOP blocks bill on domestic terrorism, Sec of State Anthony Blinken on confronting rise of China and Senate confirmation hearing for NATO top general. Interview wi […]
Read More
Thursday, May 26, 2022
The Weekly Podcast: Memorial Day 1993: President Clinton is booed at Vietnam Veterans Memorial
Presidents are no strangers to getting booed. But what about getting booed by war veterans when making a speech at a war memorial on Memorial Day? In this episode of C-SPAN's podcast "The Weekly" -- themed for Memorial Day -- we remember the rough re […]
Read More
Taking on the "Exodus" Claim
Critics of education choice claim that introducing and expanding choice programs will lead to a massive exodus of students that will dismantle public-school systems by “defunding” them. For instance, one critic claims that vouchers “could dramatically destabilize public-school systems and communities.” Legislators in states such as Indiana, Ohio, and West Virginia claimed that school-choice bills introduced in their states would destroy public schools.
Such overwrought claims are hard to square with our work and many other analyses of education-choice programs, including a recent study that showed students participating in choice programs, including programs that have been around for multiple decades, represent just 2 percent of all publicly funded students in the states that operate these programs.
As part of the publication The ABCs of School Choice, we report participation rates, or “take-up rates,” by program for each school year.
This is how we calculate that figure:
Trends matter too, though. Existing research doesn’t tell us about how programs might evolve or the extent to which participation increases or decreases over time. The rate in the third year that a program operates is probably going to be different than the rate in the same program’s twenty-third year. Take-up rates over time is what we are interested in understanding.
We decided to look at programs that were introduced in 2010 or later and that were in operation for at least 5 years. Our sample includes 27 private-education-choice programs in 19 states. These programs consist of four education savings accounts programs, 13 voucher programs, and 10 tax-credit scholarship programs. Thirteen of these programs exclusively serve students with special needs. All programs in the sample are statewide except one: Wisconsin’s Racine Parental Choice, which is open to students who reside in the Racine Unified School District.
Our estimates reflect eligibility requirements in place for each program during a given year. We generate these estimates at both the program and state levels. One challenge with generating state-level estimates is that, in states with multiple programs, eligibility may overlap, which could lead to double-counting. We therefore avoid double-counting by subtracting out regions of overlap. There are also some program-specific pathways that we do not account for given data limitations, such as students from military families. Additionally, for states with special-needs programs that have income limits, we assume that the household income distribution for special-needs students is the same as the income distribution for all households with children at the state level.
Even Over the Long Term, Take-Up Rates Remain Low
We found that, even after a decade of a program’s existence, take-up rates remained low (see Table 1). An exception was Wisconsin’s Racine Parental Choice Program, which has the highest take-up rate in the sample for each year in operation: 2.95 percent in the program’s first year and 37.15 percent in the program’s tenth year. Although the Racine program may seem like a total outlier, this program is actually distinct from the others included in this analysis. It operates within a large urban school district, whereas the other programs operate on a statewide basis. Racine may also have a high take-up rate because Wisconsin has had the presence of a choice program since 1990 with the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Thus, it’s likely that many families in Racine were already aware of the Racine program when it started, due to previous familiarity with the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
Among statewide choice programs, the Maryland BOOST program experienced the highest take-up in its first year, with 1.25 percent of eligible students in Maryland participating in the program. Among programs in their tenth year, the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program had the highest take-up rate, 6.95 percent. In the initial year, all but two programs had take-up rates well below 1 percent. By the fifth year, take-up rates for 21 of the 27 programs were below 2 percent and remained below that level through their ninth year. It appears that the exodus of students from states’ public school systems did not materialize.
Even After 10 Years, Programs with High Take-Up Rates Are Exceptions (Table 1)
For most programs, take-up rates remain below 2 percent for the better part of a decade.
Scroll left-to-right for full results
| Program Name | Launch Year | Program Type | State | Number of years in operation | Eligibile to Special Needs Students Only | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | Year 6 | Year 7 | Year 8 | Year 9 | Year 10 |
| Alabama Education Scholarship Program* | 2013 | Tax Credit | AL | 9 | N | 0.01% | 1.81% | 0.26% | 1.28% | 1.39% | 1.28% | 1.47% | 1.55% | 1.11% | n/a |
| Arkansas Succeed Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities | 2016 | Voucher | AR | 5 | Y | 0.03% | 0.23% | 0.33% | 0.52% | 0.61% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts | 2011 | ESA | AZ | 10 | Y | 0.12% | 0.24% | 0.59% | 1.02% | 1.89% | 2.62% | 3.62% | 4.54% | 7.33% | 6.58% |
| Arizona “Switcher” | 2012 | Tax Credit | AZ | 8 | N | 0.43% | 1.29% | 1.55% | 1.99% | 2.13% | 2.37% | 2.54% | 2.38% | n/a | n/a |
| Florida Gardiner ESA | 2014 | ESA | FL | 7 | Y | 0.43% | 1.30% | 2.11% | 2.64% | 3.01% | 3.41% | 4.58% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Indiana School Scholarship Tax Credit | 2010 | Tax Credit | IN | 12 | N | 0.08% | 0.11% | 0.55% | 0.86% | 2.03% | 1.65% | 1.71% | 1.76% | 1.89% | 2.02% |
| Indiana Choice Scholarship | 2011 | Voucher | IN | 10 | N | 0.74% | 1.69% | 3.64% | 5.27% | 5.93% | 6.45% | 6.87% | 7.23% | 7.25% | 6.95% |
| Kansas Low Income | 2015 | Tax Credit | KS | 7 | N | 0.01% | 0.17% | 0.26% | 0.17% | 0.15% | 0.25% | 0.83% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Louisiana School Choice Program for Certain Students with Exceptionalities | 2011 | Voucher | LA | 9 | Y | 0.22% | 0.24% | 0.30% | 0.39% | 0.35% | 0.40% | 0.47% | 0.50% | 0.51% | n/a |
| Maryland BOOST | 2016 | Voucher | MD | 5 | N | 1.25% | 1.40% | 1.71% | 1.64% | 1.35% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Mississippi Dyslexia Therapy Scholarship for Students with Dyslexia Program | 2012 | Voucher | MS | 9 | Y | 0.23% | 0.52% | 0.83% | 1.12% | 1.00% | 1.22% | 1.42% | 1.45% | 1.16% | n/a |
| Mississippi Equal Opportunity for Students with Special Needs Program | 2015 | ESA | MS | 6 | Y | 0.33% | 0.67% | 0.71% | 0.69% | 1.08% | 0.96% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| North Carolina Opportuniy Scholarship | 2014 | Voucher | NC | 7 | N | 0.23% | 0.54% | 0.85% | 1.15% | 1.54% | 1.92% | 2.56% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| North Carolina Special Education Scholarship Grants for Children with Disabilities | 2014 | Voucher | NC | 8 | Y | 0.14% | 0.31% | 0.40% | 0.57% | 0.63% | 0.88% | 0.81% | 0.78% | n/a | n/a |
| New Hampshire Education Tax Credit Program | 2013 | Tax Credit | NH | 9 | N | 0.16% | 0.06% | 0.20% | 0.29% | 0.57% | 0.70% | 0.79% | 1.25% | 1.38% | n/a |
| Nevada Educational Choice | 2015 | Tax Credit | NV | 6 | N | 0.21% | 0.44% | 0.84% | 0.94% | 0.60% | 0.43% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Ohio Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship Program | 2012 | Voucher | OH | 9 | Y | 0.52% | 1.02% | 1.34% | 1.66% | 1.88% | 2.11% | 2.37% | 2.49% | 2.79% | n/a |
| Ohio Income Scholarship | 2013 | Voucher | OH | 8 | N | 0.09% | 0.29% | 0.48% | 0.66% | 1.43% | 1.82% | 2.05% | 2.87% | n/a | n/a |
| Oklahoma Lindsey Nicole Henry Scholarships for Students with Disabilities | 2010 | Voucher | OK | 11 | Y | 0.05% | 0.15% | 0.21% | 0.27% | 0.34% | 0.42% | 0.62% | 0.64% | 0.72% | 0.81% |
| Oklahoma Equal Opportunity Education Scholarships | 2013 | Tax Credit | OK | 9 | N | 0.01% | 0.08% | 0.14% | 0.16% | 0.28% | 0.45% | 0.46% | 0.19% | 0.15% | n/a |
| South Carolina Educational Credit for Exceptional Needs Children Fund | 2014 | Tax Credit | SC | 7 | Y | 0.41% | 1.16% | 2.06% | 1.88% | 2.22% | 2.15% | 1.25% | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| South Dakota Partners in Education Tax Credit Program | 2016 | Tax Credit | SD | 5 | N | 0.52% | 0.88% | 0.90% | 1.37% | 1.52% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Tennessee Individualized Education Account Program | 2017 | ESA | TN | 5 | Y | 0.04% | 0.07% | 0.11% | 0.13% | 0.23% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Virginia Education Improvement Scholarships Tax Credits Program | 2013 | Tax Credit | VA | 9 | Y | 0.01% | 0.10% | 0.25% | 0.45% | 0.55% | 0.74% | 0.79% | 0.75% | 0.79% | n/a |
| Wisconsin Racine Parental Choice | 2011 | Voucher | WI | 10 | N | 2.95% | 6.46% | 15.57% | 19.42% | 23.43% | 27.67% | 32.85% | 32.74% | 35.53% | 37.15% |
| Wisconsin Parental Choice Program (Statewide) | 2013 | Voucher | WI | 8 | N | 0.32% | 0.66% | 1.74% | 2.20% | 1.16% | 1.91% | 2.57% | 3.22% | n/a | n/a |
| Wisconsin Special Needs Scholarship Program | 2016 | Voucher | WI | 5 | Y | 0.20% | 0.21% | 0.59% | 0.87% | 1.18% | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
*Starting January 1, 2015 the Alabama Department of Revenue changed its reporting requirements from a calendar year basis to a fiscal year basis. Thus, year 3 data in the analysis for Alabama’s program is based on six months. Data for subsequent years are based on fiscal years ending June 30.
Note: A program’s first year in operation is the first year that we observe students participating in the program. We also examine take-up rates by program type (ESA, voucher, and tax-credit scholarship programs), programs that exclusively serve special-needs populations, and programs that serve non-special-needs populations. The sample includes all programs that launched in 2010 or later and have been in operation for at least five years through 2021.
As seven states in the analysis have more than one program, we also estimated overall take-up rates for each state (see Table 2). These, too, remained low.
On a State-by-State Basis, Take-Up Rates Are Low (Table 2)
For all but one state, the take-up rate in a program’s initial year of operation was below 1 percent.
| State | State abbrev | Number of programs | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
| Alabama* | AL | 1 | 0.01% | 1.81% | 0.26% | 1.28% | 1.39% |
| Arizona | AZ | 2 | 0.44% | 1.32% | 1.63% | 2.12% | 2.38% |
| Arkansas | AR | 1 | 0.03% | 0.23% | 0.33% | 0.52% | 0.61% |
| Florida | FL | 1 | 0.43% | 1.30% | 2.11% | 2.64% | 3.01% |
| Indiana | IN | 2 | 0.85% | 1.91% | 4.32% | 6.26% | 8.04% |
| Kansas | KS | 1 | 0.01% | 0.17% | 0.26% | 0.17% | 0.15% |
| Louisiana | LA | 1 | 0.22% | 0.24% | 0.30% | 0.39% | 0.35% |
| Maryland | MD | 1 | 1.25% | 1.40% | 1.71% | 1.64% | 1.35% |
| Mississippi | MS | 2 | 0.31% | 0.64% | 0.74% | 0.78% | 1.06% |
| Nevada | NV | 1 | 0.21% | 0.44% | 0.84% | 0.94% | 0.60% |
| New Hampshire | NH | 1 | 0.16% | 0.06% | 0.20% | 0.29% | 0.57% |
| North Carolina | NC | 2 | 0.23% | 0.54% | 0.84% | 1.01% | 1.32% |
| Ohio | OH | 2 | 0.19% | 0.47% | 0.63% | 0.84% | 1.56% |
| Oklahoma | OK | 2 | 0.02% | 0.12% | 0.15% | 0.18% | 0.29% |
| South Carolina | SC | 1 | 0.41% | 1.16% | 2.06% | 1.88% | 2.22% |
| South Dakota | SD | 1 | 0.52% | 0.88% | 0.90% | 1.37% | 1.52% |
| Tennessee | TN | 1 | 0.04% | 0.07% | 0.11% | 0.13% | 0.23% |
| Virginia | VA | 1 | 0.01% | 0.10% | 0.25% | 0.45% | 0.55% |
| Wisconsin | WI | 3 | 0.38% | 0.83% | 1.62% | 2.16% | 1.55% |
*Starting January 1, 2015 the Alabama Department of Revenue changed its reporting requirements from a calendar year basis to a fiscal year basis. Thus, year 3 data in the analysis for Alabama’s program is based on six months. Data for subsequent years are based on fiscal years ending June 30.
Note: After Year 5, the sample was reduced from prior years. For example, of programs that started in 2010 or later, Wisconsin had three programs that were operating during their fifth year. In year 6, there were two programs operating. In year 9, there was one program operating.
For all but one state, take-up rates for programs in their initial year in operation, including those in states with multiple programs, were below 1 percent, with the average being 0.30 percent. Maryland had the highest take-up rate at 1.25 percent, followed by Indiana at 0.85 percent. Because Maryland is a relatively small state, it may have been easier to disseminate information about the program to eligible families compared to other states.
Some programs are more popular than others, however (see Table 3). The overall take-up rate for all programs in the initial year was 0.26 percent. By the third year, the overall rate reached 1 percent, and by the fifth year, the overall take-up rate increased to just 1.74 percent. Take-up rates for ESA programs are slightly higher than rates for voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs over all years of operation.
Education Savings Accounts Are Somewhat More Popular Than Other Programs (Table 3)
But after five years, the average take-up rate for all programs is less than 2 percent.
| Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 | |
| All programs | 0.26% | 0.68% | 1.02% | 1.40% | 1.74% |
| ESA | 0.29% | 0.82% | 1.34% | 1.72% | 2.16% |
| Tax Credit | 0.18% | 0.66% | 0.75% | 1.06% | 1.32% |
| Voucher | 0.33% | 0.68% | 1.23% | 1.69% | 2.11% |
Note: The sample includes four education savings account programs, 13 voucher programs, and 10 tax-credit scholarship programs.
Tax-credit scholarship programs tend to have lower take-up rates, likely due to funding caps that are more prevalent with these kinds of programs. By the fifth year in operation, take-up rates for education savings account and voucher programs were just over 2 percent, while take up for tax-credit scholarship programs was 1.32 percent.
Take-up rates for non-special-needs programs are higher across the board compared to programs that exclusively serve students with special needs (see Tables 4 and 5). Participation in both types of programs is comparably low in their initial year (0.2 to 0.3 percent). By their fifth year, the overall take-up rate was 1.94 percent for non-special-needs programs, and 1.3 percent for special-needs programs.
Programs for Students with Special Needs Have Slightly Lower Take-Up Rates
(Tables 4 and 5)
All take-up rates are still lower than 3 percent.
Table 4: Non-special needs programs
| Program type | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
| All programs | 0.28% | 0.75% | 1.10% | 1.54% | 1.94% |
| ESA | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
| Tax Credit | 0.20% | 0.77% | 0.82% | 1.17% | 1.45% |
| Voucher | 0.36% | 0.74% | 1.40% | 1.94% | 2.51% |
Table 5: Special needs programs
| Program type | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Year 4 | Year 5 |
| All programs | 0.20% | 0.51% | 0.82% | 1.07% | 1.30% |
| ESA | 0.29% | 0.82% | 1.34% | 1.72% | 2.16% |
| Tax Credit | 0.07% | 0.25% | 0.50% | 0.65% | 0.79% |
| Voucher | 0.26% | 0.48% | 0.68% | 0.89% | 1.01% |
Note: All ESA programs in the sample are open to special-needs students only.
Among special-needs programs, tax-credit scholarship programs have a lower take-up rate than voucher and education savings account programs. ESAs have higher take-up rates over each year in operation than other program types. By the fifth year, ESA programs have take-up rates that are more than double those for voucher and tax-credit scholarship programs.
Why Are Take-Up Rates So Low?
Although this descriptive analysis does not tell us why we observe low take-up rates for most programs, there are a few plausible explanations.
- A large portion of families are unaware of school choice programs. Survey work indicates that, when parents were asked why their children did not participate in their state’s education choice programs, 36 to 53 percent of parents with children in public schools in Arizona, Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio indicated that they were unaware of them. In Indiana, program awareness was lowest among parents with children in district schools and significantly lower among rural district parents than urban district parents.
- Program design includes low funding levels and limits placed on participation. On average, choice programs receive just one third of the funding that private-school systems receive. Thus, eligible families who desire other options may not be able to access alternative settings at current choice-program funding levels. Moreover, some programs limit participation by capping program enrollment, and most tax-credit scholarship programs cap tax-credit disbursements, which can limit program participation.
- Families are satisfied with existing options and do not desire change. Public opinion polling indicates that about half of parents would prefer options outside the public-school system if financial costs or transportation were not factors in their decisions. A large disconnect remains between what families want for their children’s education and what they actually receive. We doubt, however, that this fully explains the low take-up rates we observe.
Contrary to dire predictions and claims from opponents about choice causing an exodus from public-school systems, take-up in private-education choice programs overall does not have a negative effect on public-school systems or their funding. In fact, research suggests that greater take-up in choice programs leads to better student outcomes for the vast majority of students choosing to remain in public schools. Looking at these facts, it seems clear that the claims of exodus and harm caused by choice programs are greatly exaggerated.
Marty Lueken is director of the Fiscal Research and Education Center at EdChoice. Michael Castro is a research assistant at EdChoice.
The post Tackling the “Exodus” Claim appeared first on Education Next.
By: Martin Lueken
Title: Tackling the “Exodus” Claim
Sourced From: www.educationnext.org/tackling-the-exodus-claim-reality-take-up-rates-private-education-choice-programs/
Published Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 09:00:47 +0000
News.... browse around here
Trading News: https://branch.centuryac.com/qcnfl/celebrities-who-disc-golf.html
Exciting Finds: Lankford rates worst
Stay up to date on China: https://www.chinapulse.com/data-news/2021/05/12/analysis-of-57-thousand-large-companies-globally-the-average-tax-burden-of-google-apple-facebook-and-amazon-is-only-about-60-of-their-peers-nikkei-asia/
Washington Today (5-25-22): Debate in Texas & DC over gun laws after elementary school mass shooting
Today's program looks at the debate over gun laws after Tue's mass shooting at a Texas elementary school, Senate hearing for ATF Dir nominee, President Biden issues a police reform Executive Order, FDA Commissioner on infant formula shortage and camp […]
Read More
Wednesday, May 25, 2022
Beto O'Rourke Interrupts Texas School Shooting News Conference
"Sir, you're out of line."
Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Beto O'Rourke interrupted a news conference led by current Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) on the school shooting in Uvalde.
Full video here:
Download the FREE C-SPAN […]
Read More
What Can Be Done Regarding College Shootings?
The news that a gunman killed 19 students and 2 teachers at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas is bringing new attention to the question of school safety.
A presciently scheduled May 13 session of a virtual conference on school safety organized by the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance was titled “What can be done about school shootings?”
Panelist Katherine Newman, author of Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings, noted that “rampage school shootings are a subset of gun violence on school campuses. They are not the whole story by any means. And in fact, they are different in some striking respects from background violence in cities and even on school campuses.”
“Rampage school shootings, at least at the point we were studying them, tend to take place in communities high on social capital, very high on social capital,” said Newman, who is also system chancellor for academic programs at the University of Massachusetts. She asked, “how do we make it easier for people who hear troubling information to come forward and for that information to be properly investigated? Because there was a lot of information circulating. There generally is. And the best hope for interdicting school rampage shootings is making it possible for that information to be acted on.”
Peter Langman, a researcher with the United States Secret Service and author of the books School Shooters and Why Kids Kill, said installing metal detectors at school entryways was no solution.
“My concern is if schools are putting a lot of time and effort into what’s called target hardening, making it harder for intruders to get in or for a gun to get in, they may not be doing threat assessment. They may think they’ve handled the problem. And what a lot of people forget is many school shootings have been wholly or partly outside,” he said.
Said Langman, “If you’re not tapping into what your students know with anonymous tip line, if you’re not getting the information you need to stay on top of safety issues, hardening the target is not going to keep people safe.”
A May 13 panel of a virtual conference on school safety organized by the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance was titled “What can be done about school shootings?”
A third panelist, Dewey Cornell, a professor at the University of Virginia, agreed. “We’re spending far too much on security measures and not enough on school counselors, approaches that create a softer, more welcoming environment in our schools, not a harder one. And the research bears it out. That the schools with the target hardening measures are not statistically safer and the students and teachers don’t feel safer either.”
In May of 2019, I reported from New Hampshire for Education Next that, “School shootings are shaping up as a big issue on the Democratic campaign trail.”
Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who were then rival candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination, were both emphasizing the issue. “I’m the only guy ever, nationally, to beat the NRA,” Biden said while campaigning in Nashua, N.H. “Look, the Second Amendment exists, but it doesn’t say you can own any weapon you want,” Biden said. “If you own a gun, put a damn trigger lock on it. Put it in a case.”
In May 2019, Biden called the gun issue his “single biggest priority in terms of dealing with the concerns of young people right now.”
Talking to reporters after the event, Biden said he was open to a “federal gun licensing system” or weapons that required their owner’s fingerprint to unlock. He said the biggest political obstacle to gun control law wasn’t gun owners or the National Rifle Assocation but “gun manufacturers. That’s where the money is.”
Also in May 2019, Harris said as president, she’d give Congress 100 days to act, but if it didn’t she’d take executive action to “ban the import of assault weapons into our country.”
An article in the Spring 2019 issue of Education Next (“Protecting Students from Gun Violence”), said that “target hardening” actions might contribute to student anxiety. “Some students might feel safer and calmer in hardened environments, but it is equally plausible that intensive security procedures send the message that schools are unsafe, fearful places, thus adding an element of stress to the learning environment,” the article said.
Ira Stoll is managing editor of Education Next.
The post What Can Be Done About School Shootings? appeared first on Education Next.
[NDN/ccn/comedia Links]
News.... browse around here
Trading News: https://topplantgroundworks.com/xxseem/actors-who-are-taller-than-you-think.html
Exciting Finds: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20211007164948-199-704816/bocah-as-temukan-fosil-diduga-gigi-naga-usia-12-ribu-tahun
Stay up to date on China: https://www.chinapulse.com/data-news/2021/05/12/analysis-of-57-thousand-large-companies-globally-the-average-tax-burden-of-google-apple-facebook-and-amazon-is-only-about-60-of-their-peers-nikkei-asia/
Why Even Oklahoma Couldn't Pass a College Coupon Bill
A bill to create a school-voucher program in Oklahoma failed earlier this year to win passage in the state legislature. Oklahoma is a state where 68 percent of those surveyed favor school choice, and yet this small school-choice bill, which was sponsored by the state senate’s president pro tempore and supported by the governor, was defeated.
In 2020, I was the executive director of an Oklahoma charter school authorized by the local public-school district. The district retained 5 percent of our public funding each year as its authorizing fee. When the state passed a law capping charter authorizing fees at 3 percent of public funding, the authorizer raised our rent in an amount equal to the fee reduction.
Both events highlight the critical flaw in the current K–12 education-reform movement: it underestimates the system’s hostility to innovation. Even in a school-choice-friendly state like Oklahoma, even the narrowest of reforms only occasionally survive the challenge mounted by the traditional system. When they do survive, the system easily counteracts them. Our public-education system is a bureaucratic monopoly controlled by special-interest groups and, for all intents and purposes, immune to change.
The U.S. compulsory-education system works for no one. It is expensive, achievement lags internationally, teachers are leaving the profession, and parents feel powerless. Despite 60 years of increasing costs and disappointing results, almost nothing has been done to fix the system. Adults argue and point fingers while kids and society pay the price for inaction. Progress in education has stagnated.
Meanwhile, we have made progress in virtually every other human endeavor. We are living longer and living better. We are more prosperous thanks to innovation—borne of entrepreneurs taking risks and bringing new and better ideas to market.
The enemies of innovation, however, are the drivers of our public-education system: government bureaucracy, monopoly, and special interests. Government bureaucracies do not fear failure; they crave resources and therefore serve even higher levels of the bureaucracy to obtain them. Monopolies do not fear competition; they fear failure and so avoid taking the risks necessary for change. Special interests fear competition and crave influence; they subvert market incentives by amassing disproportionate power.
In the field of education reform, those supporting the traditional system call for more resources, while reformers advocate for various forms of choice. The reformers, however, rarely describe the prerequisite political changes that need to be made to make sustainable reform possible. The solution to the ills of our education system may in fact involve more resources eventually and certainly includes greater choice, but it must be preceded by political reforms that make the system amenable to sustainable innovation.
The political processes that control the education system exist outside the established norms of our electoral system. School-board elections are commonly held at times other than when general elections are held. For example, my home state elects school-board members in February. These off-cycle elections have low voter turnout and therefore give disproportionate influence to special interests, more specifically the teachers unions. These off-cycle elections frequently produce school boards with views on education that are different from those of the community the board represents.
School-board elections also commonly omit partisan labels from the ballot. The average voter doesn’t have time to research the positions of individual school-board candidates and so, even in on-cycle elections, will leave that choice blank. Again, this gives more influence to special interests. Partisan labels inform voters about likely candidate positions.
Finally, about 25 percent of states select the top educational executive in elections independent of the governor. Running for office forces candidates to curry special-interest favor. Being elected also makes the state head of instruction a natural competitor for the governor and therefore prone to unproductive conflict.
Until these political processes are changed, we cannot expect the education system to change, either. Even minor reforms will either not survive the legislative process or be easily counteracted once implemented. Real progress can only happen after we break the hold innovation’s enemies have on the education system.
Don Parker was a charter-school board member for 15 years, served two terms as the board chair, and two years as the district’s executive director. He also served three consecutive Oklahoma department of education administrations in a variety of advisory roles.
The post Why Even Oklahoma Couldn’t Pass a School Voucher Bill appeared first on Education Next.
By: Don Parker
Title: Why Even Oklahoma Couldn’t Pass a School Voucher Bill
Sourced From: www.educationnext.org/why-even-oklahoma-couldnt-pass-school-voucher-bill/
Published Date: Wed, 25 May 2022 09:00:46 +0000
News.... browse around here
Exciting Finds: Zet news roundup
Stay up to date on China: https://www.chinapulse.com/data-news/2021/05/24/crypto-miners-halt-china-deal-after-beijing-crackdown-bitcoin-dives-reuters/
President Biden: "When in God's name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?"
President Biden delivered remarks on the deadly school shooting in Uvalde, TX.
Download the FREE C-SPAN Now App.
Discover the C-SPAN Video Library at
C-SPAN: Created by Cable in 1979. Offered as a public service.
Su […]
Read More
Washington Today (5-24-22): 14 students, 1 teacher killed in mass shooting at TX elementary school
Today's program looks the mass shooting at a Texas elementary school, NATO Secretary General urging "freedom" over "profit" when dealing with Russia & China, President Biden meets Quad leaders in Tokyo and campaign primary day in U.S. Interview with […]
Read More
Tuesday, May 24, 2022
Sen. Chris Murphy on Texas School Shooting: "What are we doing? What are we doing?
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): "The 14 kids dead in an elementary school in Texas right now. What are we doing? What are we doing? Just days after a shooter walked into a grocery store to gun down African American patrons we have another Sandy Hook on our […]
Read More
Booknotes+ Podcast: Olivier Zunz, "The Man Who Understood Democracy"
Professor Olivier Zunz has been a professor of history at the University of Virginia since 1979. He was born and raised in France and received his Ph.D. from Pantheon Sorbonne University in Paris in 1977. Alexis de Tocqueville (TOKE-vihl) was also a […]
Read More
School Board Shakeup in San Francisco
It was white supremacists and their allies, tweeted Gabriela López, who cost her her seat on the San Francisco Board of Education after city residents voted by a three-to-one margin to remove her from office. “If you fight for racial justice, this is the consequence.”
Alison Collins, who served as vice president of the board until the surfacing of anti-Asian tweets she had written in 2016, also saw herself as a political martyr in the recall vote. She’d fought to “desegregate” the city’s selective (and majority Asian) high school, Lowell, by ending merit-based admissions.
Shamann Walton, president of the County Board of Supervisors, blamed “closet Republicans.” (In a city where 86 percent voted for Joe Biden, that’s a very large closet.)
So, is bluer-than-blue San Francisco turning red? Well, it’s not Virginia. But the school-board earthquake of 2022 has shaken up the political reality.
What’s more, the recall effort was not a conservative cause. It was launched and supported by independents, moderates, and progressives who were infuriated by a toxic mix of incompetence, arrogance, and woke rhetoric.
Residents of nearly every neighborhood voted overwhelmingly on February 15 to recall López, Collins, and Faauuga Moliga, who was far less unpopular with the city’s residents but was unable to separate himself from his colleagues. The 36 percent turnout—47 percent for those requesting a Chinese-language ballot—was higher than expected for an off-cycle election. Low-income neighborhoods posted a low turnout, and the vote in these areas was split. Voters in the wealthier neighborhoods scored a high turnout and voted heavily for the recall, perhaps because of the board’s scrapping of merit-based admissions at Lowell High School.
“The voters of this City have delivered a clear message that the School Board must focus on the essentials of delivering a well-run school system above all else,” said Mayor London Breed, who strongly endorsed the recall.
Moliga stepped down the day after the recall vote, but López and Collins stayed until March 11, when they were officially removed. That same day, the mayor replaced the ousted members with three parents, Lainie Motamedi, Lisa Weissman-Ward, and Ann Hsu, who will help choose a new superintendent in June. The three will have to win their seats in November to stay on the board.
Breed consulted with parents, community groups, and the recall organizers before making her choices for the board. Both Hsu, who campaigned for the recall, and Motamedi had served on school-district committees.
Lengthy School Closures
San Francisco’s coronavirus rates were lower than those in other cities, its vaccination rates higher. Yet the public schools remained closed longer in San Francisco than in any other major city. Elementary-school students were out for a year, and the city had to sue to force the district to reopen. Middle and high schools didn’t reopen until fall 2021. (Two high schools opened with “supervision”—but no teaching—for two weeks in May, to qualify for a state grant.)
Led by López, the board president, and Collins, the school board “put performative politics over children,” said Todd David, a father of three who created a parents’ group to support the recall campaign. “What really bothered me is that, early in the pandemic, the superintendent wanted to have a reopening consultant, funded by private donors, and the board said no because the consultant had worked for charter schools,” he said.
“There is no Plan B,” Super-intendent Vincent Matthews had warned the board. And there wasn’t.
When it was clear schools wouldn’t reopen in fall 2020, city staffers worked with community groups and nonprofits to open “hubs” where needy students could get supervised remote learning, meals, and recreation. Hubs opened in rec centers, YMCAs, Boys & Girls’ Clubs, and libraries—but not in public schools or on school playgrounds. In a study, researchers blamed resistance from the board, specifically Collins, and from the teachers union.
“The city did amazing work to open learning hubs,” said David. “The board . . . it’s rare to see a governing body so completely fail.”
While public schools were closed—and private schools were open—the board decided to rename 44 schools based on a muddled and historically inaccurate process that declared Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Paul Revere, Dianne Feinstein, and others insufficiently pure.
Mayor called it “offensive” to rename schools that weren’t open. Even San Franciscans who supported renaming some schools thought the board should have waited until the crisis was over—and until someone could figure out whether Roosevelt Middle School was named for Teddy or FDR.
Ultimately, the board dropped the renaming effort. It also failed in its quest to whitewash a historic mural at Washington High School.
But the board’s virtue signaling also signaled an indifference to the job of running a school district.
In January 2021, nearly a year into remote education, the district reported significant learning losses for Black, Hispanic, and Asian students and students from low-income families.
López waved off these results. Students “are learning more about their families and their cultures” and “just having different learning experiences than the ones we currently measure,” she told the San Francisco Chronicle.
At a board meeting in March 2021, Collins reminded Ritu Khanna, the district’s chief of research, planning, and assessment, to use the term “learning change” instead of “learning loss.”
That infuriated Kit Lam, an immigrant from Hong Kong with two children. He saw his teenage son struggling with distance learning and knew the boy was not alone. As an investigator for the school district, Lam saw that “many students were falling way, way behind,” and others were just missing.
Lam Zoomed into school-board meetings, staying up late and hoping to hear about the reopening plan. There was no plan.
The recall effort was the brainchild of two newcomers to San Francisco, a high-tech couple with no political experience or contacts. Siva Raj’s two children were struggling with remote classes and had become frustrated, depressed, bored, and angry. Autumn Looijen’s three children were learning—happily—in person in suburban Los Altos, one of the first Bay Area districts to reopen schools.
Raj and Looijen put the recall on social media, and it caught fire. Lam reached out to them and volunteered to translate the recall site into Chinese and then to collect signatures on recall petitions and then to register voters. “At first, I wanted to be anonymous,” Lam says. “But I made a promise to my son: ‘I will speak for you.’ So I spoke out.”
When Lam’s union of school-district workers met to discuss the election, he argued in favor of the recall. He lost the first vote: staffers wanted to stand with the teachers union, he says. But, on a second vote, they decided not to contribute money or volunteers to the anti-recall campaign.
Fire in the Belly
At nearly every high school in America that admits students based on grades and test scores, hard-studying Asian-American students are well represented. For years, San Francisco has tinkered with Lowell’s admissions process to qualify more Black and Hispanic students but has made little progress.
The board used a lottery for admissions in 2020, arguing that the pandemic had disrupted grades and testing. Collins showed her disdain for the traditional test-based admissions process in a board meeting. “Merit, meritocracy, and especially meritocracy based on standardized testing . . . those are racist systems,” she said.
The next year, the board voted to turn Lowell into a comprehensive high school open to all students. Lowell alumni were furious. So were Asian immigrant parents (see “Exam-School Admissions Come Under Pressure amid Pandemic,” features, Spring 2021).
“People see the success of Asian students and think they’re advantaged,” said Lam. In Chinatown, “you can see a family of four living in a single room with a shared bathroom down the hall. We rely on good public education. We can’t afford private school.”
Lowell alumni filed a lawsuit, which ultimately succeeded. The new school board will decide Lowell’s fate. Hsu and Motamedi support merit-based admissions at Lowell. Weissman-Ward did not commit herself but said she supports “academically rigorous programs.”
Not long after the recall campaign began, someone posted tweets by Collins from 2016, before she joined the board, in which she accused Asian Americans of using “white supremacist thinking to assimilate and ‘get ahead’” and remarked that “being a house n****r is still being a n****r.”
In the uproar, Collins was ousted as vice president and was replaced by Moliga. She remained in office, but the majority of board members gave her a no-confidence vote. Collins sued the district and her board colleagues (except for López) for $87 million. Among other things, the suit charged “injury to spiritual solace.”
The suit, thrown out by a judge in August 2021, “cost the budget-strapped district some $400,000 to defend,” wrote Clara Jeffery in Mother Jones.
It would have been the last straw for San Franciscans, if there weren’t so many other last straws.
Chinese Americans, already angry about the board’s hostility to merit-based admissions, saw the tweets as proof that they were getting no respect.
“Education is a fire-in-the-belly issue” for Chinese parents, said Bayard Fong, president of the Chinese-American Democratic Club and the father of three children. His wife works for the district as an administrator.
The school board “acted as though some students mattered more than others,” said Fong. “We were being ignored or treated as though we were the problem.”
The club provided 100 volunteers to gather signatures for recall petitions.
Ann Hsu, one of the mayor’s replacements for the ousted school-board members, was a PTA president and former Silicon Valley entrepreneur who hadn’t been involved in politics before the recall effort arose. Then she saw her son languishing during 18 months of remote schooling. Unengaged by online classes, he “wasted his time all day, every day, playing video games,” she wrote in the New York Post.
Hsu helped form the Chinese/API Voter Outreach Taskforce to register voters for the recall. Many residents were not aware that noncitizen parents, empowered by a 2016 charter-amendment ballet initiative, can vote for school board in San Francisco. Volunteers signed up noncitizens too.
Chinese in America must “learn to speak up,” wrote Hsu.
“We Won’t Be Silent Anymore”
The board managed to anger a lot of other groups, too.
When the recall qualified for the ballot, Todd David, who runs the Housing Action Coalition, backed Raj and Looijen with his political savvy. He had political experience working for the election of State Senator Scott Wiener, another pro-recall liberal. “Siva and Autumn did a phenomenal job of grassroots organizing,” said David. “I knew how to do fundraising and a traditional campaign.” The recall raised an astounding $1.9 million, including large donations from high-tech investors and real-estate groups.
The “no on recall” side raised a small fraction of that, mostly from unions, and got some volunteers from the “Berniecrats,” but only Moliga really tried to fight the recall.
The school board’s defenders said wealthy “privatizers” wanted to destroy public education. One of the donors to the recall effort was the pioneer venture capitalist Arthur Rock, 95, a billionaire who has also supported charter schools.
But others say the recall was the only way to save San Francisco Unified.
“Parents who have choices are opting out,” said Patrick Wolff, a parent who runs Families for San Francisco, which launched Campaign for Better Public Schools to back the recall.
“The recall effort, while catalyzed by Covid, reflects deep discontent of the parent community with the state of the public schools,” said Wolff. “San Francisco has some of the worst achievement gaps in the state and one of the worst 3rd-grade reading levels.”
The state has threatened to take over if the district can’t balance its budget. To survive financially, the district must regain parents’ trust and stop losing students, said Wolff.
It won’t be easy.
San Francisco has the lowest percentage of children of any major city—more dogs than children—and a high percentage of those children attend private school. Before the pandemic, the school board tended to fly under the radar.
“During the pandemic, parents paid a lot more attention to the schools,” said Wolff. “Everything was on Zoom.”
Families for San Francisco will inform parents—and the whole city—of what public schools are doing, he said. The group already has challenged the district’s claim that “equity math” is working, citing missing, misleading, and cherrypicked data in the school system’s evaluations.
The Chinese-American community will have more clout going forward because of the landslide recall vote, Fong said. “We won’t be silent anymore. We’re standing up.”
School-board members will treat citizens with more respect, predicts Raj. They now know that people are watching.
The next political earthquake in San Francisco could come in June, when voters will decide whether to recall District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who some blame for the city’s crime wave.
Despite a surge in school-board recall efforts across the country in 2021, most didn’t qualify for the ballot. Ballotopedia tracked 92 such efforts naming 237 officials. Ultimately, 17 officials were subject to recall votes, and only one was recalled. More recall efforts are in the works in 2022, often motivated by disagreements on pandemic policies and how to teach about gender identity and racism. In Loudoun County, Virginia, where school-board meetings have been very contentious, a conservative parent group called Fight for Schools is leading a campaign to recall some board members. It’s a liberal county—Republican Glenn Youngkin got only 44 percent of the vote there in his winning bid for governor—but anything is possible in 2022.
Joanne Jacobs is a freelance education writer and blogger (joannejacobs.com) based in California.
The post School Board Shakeup in San Francisco appeared first on Education Next.
By: Joanne Jacobs
Title: School Board Shakeup in San Francisco
Sourced From: www.educationnext.org/school-board-shakeup-san-francisco-arrogance-incompetence-woke-rhetoric-trigger-successful-recall-effort/
Published Date: Tue, 24 May 2022 09:00:31 +0000
News.... browse around here
Trading News: https://cryptojizz.net/nexalin-seeks-10m-in-ipo-for-neuro-devices-to-treat-anxiety-insomnia-pendingnxl/
Exciting Finds: Oklahoma elections
Stay up to date on China: https://www.chinapulse.com/data-news/2021/05/30/australian-betting-technology-company-betmakers-proposes-to-acquire-tabcorps-betting-and-media-division-worth-au-4-billion-iag-inside-asian-gaming/
Washington Today (5/23/2022): POTUS Biden: US would intervene with military to defend Taiwan
Today's program includes the latest on President Biden's trip to Asia and his remarks on Taiwan. And Russian President Zelensky calls for max sanctions against Russia, and the first Russian war criminal is convicted.
Download the FREE […]
Read More
Monday, May 23, 2022
What’s behind Colorado’s West Nile virus surge?
Scientists express why they think infections rose sharply last year and what they’re doing to control this year’s mosquito population.
As mosquito season hatches in Colorado, scientists want to learn more about what’s behind a significant jump in cases of West Nile virus last year.
Climate change, agricultural irrigation systems and suburban sprawl may all be contributing to the surge of the potentially deadly mosquito-borne virus.
In 2021, there were 175 confirmed cases of the West Nile virus in Colorado. Of those, 11 people died and 101 developed serious neuroinvasive cases such as meningitis and encephalitis. The number of cases represents a 120% increase from the previous five-year average and the largest number of cases in 18 years.
“The epidemiology of West Nile virus in Colorado is a beautifully complicated story,” said Robert G. Hancock, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Biology at Metropolitan State University of Denver. “Mosquitoes — unlike humans, who become immune once they have been infected — are carriers for life.”
Mosquitoes carry the virus after feeding on infected birds, then transmit it to humans via their bites. There is no vaccine for the virus. While the vast majority of cases are mild, with few if any symptoms, some people develop a serious brain infection that can result in permanent brain damage or death.
“For Colorado to have such an influx of cases,” Hancock said, “we have to believe there is a large number of young birds that have been infected. And we have this because Colorado is a major flyway for migratory species as well as a habitat for crows and jays, which are especially susceptible.”
Pinpointing the cause
Some scientists think the rise in West Nile virus cases may be a sign of things to come.
Studies show that warmer temperatures associated with climate change can accelerate mosquito development, biting rates and incubation of the disease within a mosquito, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
There isn’t yet enough data to determine what proportion of West Nile virus cases is directly driven by climate change, the EPA says, but Hancock thinks other factors may also be at play for last year’s increase, including heavily irrigated agricultural systems.
“Because we are a semi-arid, high-desert region using a lot of irrigation, the reservoirs seep and create cattail marshes, which are an ideal habitat for mosquitoes,” said Hancock, who’s known as the “Mosquito Man.” “If you look at water-use statistics from 2021, drier conditions and more irrigation led to much higher usage than in previous years.”
Hancock also believes the Covid pandemic contributed to the increased number of diagnosed cases, as more people were going to their doctors with symptoms such as severe headaches, which could indicate Covid or West Nile. Additionally, more people stayed close to their homes, which often have more standing water and poorer drainage compared with metropolitan areas, creating more opportunities for exposure.
MSU Denver Biology graduate Holly Medina, a supervising technician who works at Vector Disease Control International in Broomfield, believes suburban growth and its effect on water use are primary drivers.
“We made our own problem,” she said. “Colorado is growing. There is a lot of sprawl in the metro area, and these developments have poor drainage.”
Reducing the mosquito population
Medina is one of several MSU Denver Biology graduates working to control and mitigate the mosquito population. She recruits current students to help with mosquito control from April through September.
“We bring in college students each April or May and train them on the different cycles of mosquito breeding,” she said. “We then divide them into two shifts: The daytime crew hunts for larvae, and the nighttime crew sprays pesticide to reduce the adult population.”
Hancock’s tips for mitigating mosquitoes:
|
The students are trained to identify the disease-carrying Culex mosquitoes as well as how to determine nesting areas.
Shawn Ward, a senior in Biology at MSU Denver, also works at Vector Disease Control International.
“I started working with VDCI in 2016 as a larvae technician, where I would drive around 10 hours a day looking for local water areas and searching for larvae, which I would treat with biological pesticide,” said Ward. “In subsequent years, I worked setting and collecting traps for species identification and WNV surveillance.”
Ward said that in his seven years with Vector, he has worked with and recruited multiple other MSU Denver students. “The great thing about these seasonal jobs is that it gives you that hands-on experience in the field,” he said.
Ward noted that his sister Heather, an MSU Denver alumna, worked with him for several years at VDCI and now works as a biological technician identifying mosquito species for the Anastasia Mosquito Control District in St. Augustine, Florida.
“We have a highly regarded Biology program,” said Hancock. “It’s an honor to see these students applying their degrees in such an important endeavor.”
Description
Due to the unprecedented crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, BRIO has dedicated 100% of their operations to importing critically needed respirator masks. Featuring a 3D comfort design, these KN95 masks provide filtration against particulate pollution, gases, as well as bacteria, viruses, and most odors. It's made with comfortable stretch fabric and has convenient earloops for a tight fit. These masks are perfect for everyday wear. Order your 5-Pack now!
- 3D Comfort mask design
- Convenient earloop design
- Comfortable stretch fabric for tight fit
- Easy to put on & remove
Specs
- Color: white
- Materials: 3-layer melt-blown non-woven PPE
- Product dimensions: 1"H x 8"L x 5"W
- 3D Comfort design
- KN95 PRC Standard (Similar to NIOSH N95)
- CE 0194
- FFP2 - EN149 Filtration Level
News.... browse around here
Trading News: https://branch.centuryac.com/qcnfl/celebrities-who-disc-golf.html
Exciting Finds: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/teknologi/20211007164948-199-704816/bocah-as-temukan-fosil-diduga-gigi-naga-usia-12-ribu-tahun
Stay up to date on China: https://www.chinapulse.com/data-news/2021/05/08/bain-co-social-commerce-accounted-for-about-44-of-the-109-billion-e-commerce-market-in-southeast-asia-in-2020-vietnam-leads-with-an-adoption-rate-of-65-while-thailands-adoption-rate/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)