Washington DC, GETTING GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY: President Donald J. Trump has done more to stop the Government from interfering in the lives of Americans in his first 100 days than any other President in history.
President Trump has signed 13 Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolutions in his first 100 days, more than any other President. These resolutions nullified unnecessary regulations and block agencies from reissuing them.
Since CRA resolutions were introduced under President Clinton, they’ve been used only once, under President George W. Bush.
The Wall Street Journal editorial: “So far the Trump Administration is a welcome improvement, rolling back more regulations than any President in history.”
TAKING EXECUTIVE ACTION: In office, President Trump has accomplished more in his first 100 days than any other President since Franklin Roosevelt.
President Trump will have signed 30 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Obama signed 19 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President George W. Bush signed 11 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Clinton signed 13 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President George H.W. Bush signed 11 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Reagan signed 18 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Carter signed 16 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Nixon signed 15 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Johnson signed 26 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Kennedy signed 23 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Eisenhower signed 20 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Truman signed 25 executive orders during his first 100 days.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed 9 executive orders during his first 100 days.
A SLEW OF LEGISLATION SIGNED: Despite historic Democrat obstructionism, President Trump has worked with Congress to pass more legislation in his first 100 days than any President since Truman.
President Trump has worked with Congress to enact 28 laws during the first 100 days of his Administration.
President Obama enacted 11 laws during his first 100 days.
President George W. Bush enacted 7 laws during his first 100 days.
President Clinton enacted 24 laws during his first 100 days.
President George H.W. Bush enacted 18 laws during his first 100 days.
President Reagan enacted 9 laws during his first 100 days.
President Carter enacted 22 laws during his first 100 days.
President Nixon enacted 9 laws during his first 100 days.
President Johnson enacted 10 laws during his first 100 days.
President Kennedy enacted 26 laws during his first 100 days.
President Eisenhower enacted 22 laws during his first 100 days.
President Truman enacted 55 bills laws during his first 100 days.
By Adam Clark | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on March 30, 2017 at 5:26 PM
PRINCETON — Flooded with a record-high 30,056 applications, Princeton University accepted just 1,890 students in its Class of 2021, a record-low 6.1 percent admission rate, the university announced.
The decisions, available for students to track online beginning at 5 p.m., leave thousands of top students rejected. More than 12,000 applicants had a 4.0 GPA in high school, according to the university.
Princeton accepted 6.4 percent of applicants last year.
“The admitted students will bring extraordinary talents, achievements and motivation to the Princeton community,” Dean of Admission Janet Lavin Rapelye said. “Their diverse range of skills, ideas, backgrounds and beliefs were evident to the committee as we gave careful consideration to each application.”
Ridgewood NJ, in a recent ‘U.S. News & World Report’ Best States Ranking, New Jersey ranks 14th.New Jersey beat out New York, Florida, California, Hawaii and Pennsylvania in the overall rankings.
According to the study, the Best States ranking of U.S. states draws on thousands of data points to measure how well states are performing for their citizens. In addition to health care and education, the metrics take into account a state’s economy, the opportunity it offers people, its roads, bridges, internet and other infrastructure, its public safety and the integrity and health of state government.
What’s amazing is the rankings not only consider such categories as health care(pricey in NJ ), education (forgetaboutit ) but the “state’s economy(ugh), the opportunity it offers people (live with mom), its roads, bridges (total disaster), internet and other infrastructure (public rest rooms), its public safety (cops everywhere) and the integrity and health of state government( your kidding right).”
The Top 10 states in the overall rankings include (in order):
1. Massachusetts
2. New Hampshire
3. Minnesota
4. North Dakota
5. Washington
6. Iowa
7. Utah
8. Maryland
9. Colorado
10. Vermont
The Rankings noted the state’s “world-class universities, leading technology and biological science firms and one fast turnpike,” out of 50 states, the report lists New Jersey 2nd in education, 8th in health care, and 27th in opportunity.
In other categories, you guessed it New Jersey comes in dead last in the category of government, which takes into consideration such things as “Fiscal Stability” (ranked 49th in the country), “Budget Transparency” (29th), and “State Integrity” (18th) Scary New Jersey placed 18th.
The good news in the rankings, New Jersey leads the rest of U.S. states with a zero-percent over-capacity of its State Prison System. New Jersey comes in 2nd place for “Public Transit Usage,” and its low property crime rate ranked 3rd out of all 50 states.
Meanwhile, New Jersey ranked well in overall household income (4th), low suicide rate (2nd), fewest nursing home citations (4th), and pre-school enrollment (1st).
I’m headed to Trenton this morning because I need legislators to know what my grandsons’ public charter school means to them.
I’m raising two African American boys in Newark and we all know in this country what can happen to African American men, especially if they drop out of school.
Uncommon Schools’ North Star Academy is providing my grandchildren with an education like nothing that I experienced for myself or for my own children.
When I hear my elected representatives speaking negatively about charter schools, I want to ask them if they have ever visited North Star Academy. If they did, they would quickly see how well it is serving my grandchildren and the other kids who attend.
There are too many lawmakers who have never stepped foot in North Star Academy, or a school like it. They have never come for morning circle. They have not met with our wonderful teachers. They have not seen how well our children are doing in class.
Ridgewood NJ, so who’s Afraid of Betsy DeVos? “Mrs. Devos’s Most Important Qualification is that She Has the Courage of Her Convictions”, in an editorial the Wall Street Journal attempts to answer the critics and make the case to provide poor children with better educational opportunities. We know the unions don’t like it and neither do Democrat, lawmakers looking to stifle their constituents keeping them fat, dumb and happy. Who’s Afraid of Betsy DeVos?
The Wall Street Journal
Wall Street Journal Opinion
January 14th, 2017 Click Here to Read
Democrats are searching for a cabinet nominee to defeat, and it’s telling that progressive enemy number one is Betsy DeVos. Donald Trump’s choice to run the Education Department has committed the unpardonable sin of devoting much of her fortune to helping poor kids escape failing public schools.
Mrs. DeVos’s most important qualification is that she has the courage of her convictions.
The DeVoses have donated tens of millions of dollars to charity including a children’s hospital in Michigan and an international art competition in Grand Rapids. They’ve also given to Christian organizations, which the left cites as evidence of concealed bigotry. Yet education has been their main philanthropic cause.
During the 1990s, they patronized a private-school scholarship fund for low-income families and championed Michigan’s first charter school law. In 2000 they helped bankroll a voucher initiative, which was defeated by a union blitz. The DeVoses then turned to expanding charters, which have become Exhibit A in the progressive campaign against her.
Two studies from Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (2013, 2015) found that students attending Michigan charters gained on average an additional two months of learning every year over their traditional school counterparts. Charter school students in Detroit gained three months.
The real reason unions fear Mrs. DeVos is that she’s a rare reformer who has defeated them politically. Prior to being tapped by Mr. Trump, she chaired the American Federation for Children (AFC), which has helped elect hundreds of legislators across the country who support private school choice.
AFC has built a broad coalition that includes black and Latino Democrats, undercutting the union conceit that vouchers are a GOP plot to destroy public schools. In 2000 four states had private-school choice programs with 29,000 kids. Today, 25 states have vouchers, tax-credit scholarships or education-savings accounts benefitting more than 400,000 students.
You know progressives have lost their moral bearings when they save their most ferocious assault for a woman who wants to provide poor children with the education they need to succeed in America.
By this point in the year, most high school seniors have walked across the stage and grabbed their diploma. Many parents sit proudly by during this process, sniffing back tears and saying, “I can’t believe they’re ready to move on to college!”
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, they may not be as ready as the parents, teachers, or even students themselves think.
That’s one of the findings from a National Curriculum Survey released by the ACT.
As the ACT explains, the survey serves “to ask educators about what they teach (or don’t teach) in their courses and how important they feel various topics in their discipline are for students to be successful in these and future courses.”
By Susan K. Livio | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com
on November 30, 2016 at 1:18 PM, updated December 01, 2016 at 2:16 AM
TRENTON — A drug possession conviction is no longer a barrier to receiving welfare benefits in New Jersey under a compromise bill Gov. Chris Christie signed into law Wednesday.
Childless adults who undergo outpatient drug treatment may qualify for public assistance, despite a conviction for drug possession in their backgrounds. Previously, inpatient treatment was the requirement.
The bill’s sponsors say the old restrictions inhibited a person’s ability to become self-sufficient. The legislation is among others aimed at reducing poverty in the state, which has remained stubbornly high in the post-recession era.
“It can be tremendously hard to turn one’s life around after a drug conviction because of all the doors that close in their face due to legal constraints, especially for those who don’t have family or friends to rely on for assistance,” said state Assemblywoman Liz Muoio (D-Mercer), one of the bill’s prime sponsors. “Financial assistance, job training, and education — all of these things provide hope and a chance at a new start.”
BOE – stay strong. The teachers are unreasonable. Might not have this opinion if it was a different town but Ridgewood has always been very supportive of teachers and education as illustrated by the pay scale. We just can’t and don’t want to afford to indulge them any more. Note: Rankings are slipping … time to reconsider a lot when it comes to our schools. Some new blood might be a very good thing. Please move on if you are not happy with what our BOE is offering you.
Teachers remain completely unreasonable and are not negotiating with our volunteer BOE in good faith. Time for higher pension contributions, higher copays, and salaries growing less than the 2% property tax cap. It’s time to wake up to the reality faced by all residents of Ridgewood, not just your “la-la fantasy world” union rose tinted glasses greed.
It is time for teachers and there arrogant union leaders to step in to the twenty first century and stop livening as though it was the 1950’s where you did not have great pay and benefits. BOE say no to these people the taxpayer is fed up.
The county poaches all the best students for an elite education, stripping the local district, charging the sending district and the county taxpayers for the education. If a student and family wants an elite school for their kids, let them pay for it – full boat. Otherwise, vouchers for all kids. It’s a scam the county has played since the late school power broker John Grieco concocted. You may want to notice that they have no mandate to accept any special needs students like the local district – just an observation.
The movement of schools across the country from a traditional to a standards-based or competency-based grading model is calling into question the age-old practice of asking the valedictorian and the salutatorian to be the speakers at graduation.
New Hampshire’s Concord Monitor recently published a story describing how several New Hampshire high schools have already abandoned this model in favor of one that opens up the privilege of being selected as a graduation speaker to a much broader cohort of deserving students.
The practice of calculating class rank is obsolete in today’s educational environment. In a recent Phi Delta Kappan article, University of Kentucky professor and educational reform author Thomas Guskey explains that “Class Rank Weighs Down True Learning.”
Guskey argues that schools must decide whether their intent is to select or develop talent. Selecting talent, he explains, is indicative of poor teaching, because it is achieved when teachers and schools create the greatest possible variation of assessment scores so they can distinguish between students with greater talent from those with less.
Mary Clare ReimResearch Associate
Domestic Policy Studies
College students understandably bemoan the costs of higher education. During the 2015–2016 school year, annual costs[1] at four-year public universities reached $19,548 for in-state students and $34,031 for out-of-state students. Annual costs at private institutions reached $43,921.[2] Federal student aid has likely exacerbated the college cost problem, providing short-term relief to students in the form of loans and grants, while enabling universities to increase tuition across the board.[3]
There is an additional consequence to taxpayer-subsidized federal student loans. The average full-time college student spends only 2.76 hours per day on all education-related activities. This helps explain why most full-time students today do not graduate in four years and rack up increasingly high loan debt during their extended enrollment. Taxpayers, who are increasingly on the hook for borrower defaults and loan forgiveness programs, deserve to know what their tax dollars subsidize.
Full-Time College Is Typically a Part-Time Endeavor
Based on data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’s American Time Use Survey from 2003–2014, during the academic year, the average full-time college student spent only 2.76 hours per day on all education-related activities, including 1.18 hours in class and 1.53 hours of research and homework, for a total of 19.3 hours per week.[4]
Full-time high school students, in comparison, spent 4.32 hours per day on all education-related activities, including 3.42 hours in class and 0.80 hours of research and homework, for a total of 30.2 hours per week. Thus, full-time college students spend 10.9 fewer hours per week on educational activities than full-time high school students.
Employment eliminates this gap between college and high school students.
Full-time college students work an average of 16.3 hours per week.
Full-time high school students work an average of 4.0 hours per week.
Full-time college students, then, spend 35.6 hours per week on education-related and work-related activities, while full-time high school students spend 34.2 hours per week.
However, full-time college students spend significantly less combined time on education and work than do full-time employees. The average full-time employee works 41.7 hours per week. To match that, the typical college student would need 22.4 work hours per week, in addition to the 19.3 educational hours.
Non-employed full-time college students spend more time per week on educational activities than part-time or full-time employed students.
Non-employed and full-time student: 24.9 hours;
Employed part-time and full-time student: 19.9; and
Employed full-time and full-time student: 8.5.
In combined education and work hours, however, there remains a deficit between non-employed and employed students:
Non-employed and full-time student: 25.8 hours;
Employed part-time and full-time student: 36.8; and
Employed full-time and full-time student: 47.7 hours per week.
The combined education and work effort of the average non-employed, full-time college student (25.8 hours per week) most closely matches that of a non-student, part-time employee (22.9 hours per week), but remains substantially less than that of a high school student (34.0 hours per week) or even a part-time employee, part-time college student (33.8 hours per week).
In order to match the combined work and education effort of the average full-time employee, the average non-employed, full-time college student would need to work 16.9 hours per week, in addition to the 24.9 hours spent on educational activities.
Although expectations undoubtedly vary across institutions and fields of study, on average, full-time college demands substantially less time commitment than do high school or regular full-time employment. 60.5 percent of full-time students and 79.9 percent of part-time students work at least part-time while in school, suggesting many students recognize the merits of minimizing the debt incurred to finance their degrees. However, nearly 40 percent of full-time students do not work at all while in college.
Subsidizing Low Education-Work Efforts
The average 17-year-old, who is generally in high school, spends 31.2 hours per week on education and work activities. For 19-year-olds, total hours per week for education and work activities decrease to 26.0, and do not exceed the efforts of a 17-year-old again until age 23, after the end of the traditional college years. Total hours of education and work activities per week peak at 34.8 among 29-year-olds.
On average, Americans will not work as little as they did at age 19 until they reach age 59, when significant numbers cut back on their work hours or enter retirement. With outstanding student loan debt currently at more than $1.2 trillion, these findings raise an important question: Why are taxpayers heavily subsidizing a period in some people’s lives when combined education and work efforts are at their lowest?
Loan Forgiveness Programs Leave Taxpayers on the Hook for Generous Leisure Hours
Among the 39.5 percent of full-time college students who are not employed, the average time spent engaged in education-related activities (both class and studying) is only 24.9 hours per week, or 3.56 hours per day.
In the context of a student loan system in which students borrowed primarily through private lenders and paid back their loans themselves, evaluation of time use would largely only be an issue for the individual student, who would accrue higher levels of debt the longer it took him to complete college.
Today, however, the federal government originates and manages 93 percent of all student loans, and taxpayers underwrite generous loan forgiveness programs along with the cost of defaulted student loans.[5]
In 2016, 43 percent of individuals with federal student loans (or about 9.3 million borrowers) were either in default, were delinquent, or had postponed payments, owing more than $200 billion.[6] A long and more expensive path to the bachelor’s degree may seem relatively harmless to the individual student, but federal subsidies put taxpayers on the hook for this more expensive route if students default on their debt or enter loan forgiveness. Nationwide, fewer than 19 percent of full-time students attending non-flagship public universities earn a bachelor’s degree within four years; meanwhile, just 36 percent of students attending selective public research-based institutions will earn their degrees within four years.[7]
A study by researchers from Northwestern University suggests that, among other reasons such as lost transfer credits and remedial coursework, “most full-time students do not take the credits necessary to graduate on schedule (15 credits per semester or 30 credits per year), opting instead for lighter course loads that put them on five- and six-year plans.”[8]
Many colleges charge students based on whether a student is full-time or part-time, and in-state or out-of-state, so a full-time student who does not optimize the amount of credits he is taking would spend substantially more over a five- or six-year period in pursuit of a bachelor’s degree than the student who acquires the degree in four years, particularly if the student is paying room and board. The per-credit cost for a full-time student is typically lower than that of a part-time student. Further, at many universities, tuition for a full-time student is a fixed rate that then allows a student to enroll in a chosen number of credit hours, typically ranging from 12 to 18 per semester. With full-time tuition typically set as a flat rate, students minimize their per-credit cost as a full time student the more hours they take. Not maximizing credit hours can translate into considerable additional spending and debt for students. Estimates show that every extra year a student spends at a public four-year college costs an additional $22,826.[9]
Burden of Student Loan Costs on the Shoulders of Taxpayers
Students are accruing more debt to earn a bachelor’s degree, and the burden of loan repayment is increasingly being shifted to taxpayers. Not only do taxpayers bear the burden of defaults, but thanks to an expansion of federal loan forgiveness programs, they are also responsible for an increasing number of student loans that now qualify for forgiveness.[10] In 2015, the Obama Administration promulgated regulations expanding the income-based repayment program, which caps at 10 percent of discretionary income the amount borrowers can be required to repay per month, to all individuals with federal Direct Loans. All borrowers with undergraduate loans also have any remaining debt forgiven after 20 years. For graduates entering public-sector work upon college completion, loans are eligible for forgiveness after just 10 years. Some parent borrowers qualify for loan forgiveness of their Parent PLUS loan after 10 years if they work in the public sector.[11]
Loan forgiveness and repayment caps increase the likelihood that taxpayers will bear responsibility for a portion of students’ extended time taken to earn a degree. Loan forgiveness is bad policy in general, further enabling colleges to increase tuition and fees and shifting the burden of paying for college from the student who benefits from the education they receive to the taxpayers.
The limited amount of time spent engaged in education-related activities on average suggests that, for some students, the amount of debt accumulated finances a significant amount of non-education hours. When loans are forgiven, then, both education and non-education time is financed by taxpayers. Although numerous exogenous factors play into time to degree, such as when courses are offered and the mitigating circumstances of individual students, time-use data suggest that taxpayers end up generously subsidizing the non-education time of many college students.
Conclusion
An examination of the typical college student’s day reveals that the average full-time college student spends only 2.76 hours per day on all education-related activities. With the federal government today originating and managing 93 percent of all student loans, these data add to questions about the type of time use federal assistance is subsidizing. Taxpayers deserve to know.
Lindsey M. Burke is the Will Skillman Fellow in Education Policy in Domestic Policy Studies, of the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation. Jamie Bryan Hallis Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation. Mary Clare Reim is Research Associate in Education Policy in Domestic Policy Studies.
Results from Nation’s Report Card show slight dip from two years earlier
By
LESLIE BRODY
April 27, 2016 12:01 a.m. ET
239 COMMENTS
Only 37% of American 12th-graders were academically prepared for college math and reading in 2015, a slight dip from two years earlier, according to test scores released Wednesday.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress, also known as the “Nation’s Report Card,” said that share was down from an estimated 39% in math and 38% in reading in 2013.
Educators and policy makers have long lamented that many seniors get diplomas even though they aren’t ready for college, careers or the military. Those who go to college often burn through financial aid or build debt while taking remedial classes that don’t earn credits toward a degree.
Bill Bushaw, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the test, said the board was pleased that high school graduation rates were rising, but disappointed in the lack of progress in boosting students’ skills and knowledge.
“These numbers aren’t going the way we want,” he said. “We just have to redouble our efforts to prepare our students to close opportunity gaps.”
Ridgewood NJ, The last thing dedicated teachers want to think is that they’re fulfilling all the duties of a babysitter and not much else, says educator Mac Bogert.
“I’m often reminded of Mark Twain’s quote: ‘I never let my schooling interfere with my education,’ ” Bogert says. “Learning is among the most exciting and enjoyable experiences we have in life, yet many students and teachers herded into our school systems view school as something to be endured, as if the school day is one long detention.”
Recent findings illustrate the problem. In 2015, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed a decline in math comprehension from fourth- and eighth-graders for the first time since 1990.
“If you want to know how effective schools are, ask a teenager,” Bogert says. “Why do smart kids who enjoy reading and learning find school boring? We don’t need to make people learn, we need to free them to learn.”
Bogert, author of “Learning Chaos: How Disorder Can Save Education,” (www.learningchaos.net),and president of AZA Learning, which encourages an open-learning process for all participants, says our educational system is outdated. He proposes new methods parents can use to resurrect a love of learning from their kids.
• Ban rote learning. When preparing to teach within a traditional framework, we aren’t stimulating a child’s curiosity. Rather, we’re serving the framework of control. This sort of top-down, listen-without-interrupting teaching is limiting and alienates many types of learning personalities. Instead, foster engagement, which means an open environment where kids feel free to participate. • Encourage children to sound off. Ever see an interesting news discussion on television? If no one is saying what you want to say, you can become frustrated to the point of turning off the conversation. Students who are shy or otherwise discouraged from engaging can shut down in a similar way. But when they’re included and encouraged to participate in a lesson, their minds stay focused. They feel they have a stake in the lesson. • Take a cue from the Internet. We’re not starved for information; we’re starved for stories, which have lessons embedded within them. Simply sharing a story invites learning. That’s why you should allow a child’s narrative of inquiry to be more democratic than controlled. Allow him or her to pursue a line of thought wherever it may go, rather than controlled, assigned resources.
“Ideally, your child will be a participant within a hotbed of ideas, rather than a passive listener in an intellectually sterile environment,” Bogert says. “That may not always be possible at school, but this kind of encouragement at home will help them later in life.”
About Mac Bogert
Mac Bogert founded AZA Learning to encourage teachers and students to become equal partners in the learning process, which he details in his book “Learning Chaos: How Disorder Can Save Education,” (www.learningchaos.net). He served as education coordinator at Maryland Hall for the Creative Arts and is still active in the arts for his community.
Blog Editors Note : try increasing taxes, insurance and education costs , coupled with decline of the two parent household , decline of work ethic, and regulating small business out of existence
By John Aidan Byrne
December 27, 2015 | 2:34am
Downward mobility is catching on fast with America’s new economic underdogs — the emerging middle-class minority.
The ranks of the American middle class have sunk to a shocking new low.
After four decades as an economic majority, middle-class Americans are no longer in that admirable place. They’re down to 49.9 percent from 61 percent of the population in 1971, with the ranks of the poor and ultrarich growing to a majority in the US.
“The fabric of income distribution is stretching thin,” Rakesh Kochhar, lead author of the recent Pew Research Center study “The American Middle Class Is Losing Ground,” told The Post.
“There’s been a hollowing out in the middle, a bulking up on the edges. The gaps are at record highs,” Kochhar said, adding that the wealth of upper-income families is now about seven times that of the middle class, compared with three times about 30 years ago.
Meanwhile, the middle-class share of US household income has plunged from 62 percent in 1970 to 43 percent today.
And for lower-income families looking to move up to middle-class status, that accomplishment is getting harder to pull off, according to new analysis.
Analysts offer no single explanation for the decline of America’s middle class.
Years of wage stagnation, the decline of unions, a skills gap, economic malaise, taxation, debt and policymaking are often cited, as is technological efficiency in a more globalized economy that rewards outsourcing. Some analysts say the Fed’s trillions of dollars in quantitative easing ended up disproportionately in the hands and wallets of bankers and other upper-middle-class Americans.
At May 20 audience, he stressed that educating and raising children in the human values that form the “backbone” of a healthy society is a responsibility that each family has.
BY CNA/EWTN NEWS 05/20/2015
VATICAN CITY — In his general audience, Pope Francis spoke of the essential role parents play in educating their children, a role he said has been usurped by so-called experts who have taken the place of parents and rendered them fearful of disciplining their children.
“If family education regains its prominence, many things will change for the better. It’s time for fathers and mothers to return from their exile — they have exiled themselves from educating their children — and slowly reassume their educative role,” the Pope said May 20.
He gave harsh criticism to the “intellectual critics” that he said have “silenced” parents in order to defend younger generations from real or imagined harm, and he lamented how schools now are often more influential than families in shaping the thinking and values of children.
“In our days, the educational partnership is in crisis. It’s broken,” he said, and he named various reasons for this.
“On the one part, there are tensions and distrust between parents and educators; on the other part, there are more and more ‘experts’ who pretend to occupy the role of parents, who are relegated to second place,” he said.
