Latest news with #EducationWeek
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
We surveyed 1,500 Florida kids about cellphones and their mental health – what we learned suggests school phone bans may have important but limited effects
In Florida, a bill that bans cellphone use in elementary and middle schools, from bell to bell, recently sailed through the state Legislature. Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law on May 30, 2025. The same bill calls for high schools in six Florida districts to adopt the ban during the upcoming school year and produce a report on its effectiveness by Dec. 1, 2026. Parents are divided on the issue. According to a report from Education Week, many parents want their kids to have phones for safety reasons – and don't support bans as a result. But in the debate over whether phones should be banned in K-12 schools – and if so, how – students themselves are rarely given a voice. We are experts in media use and public health who surveyed 1,510 kids ages 11 to 13 in Florida in November and December 2024 to learn how they're using digital media and the role tech plays in their lives at home and at school. Their responses were insightful – and occasionally surprising. Adults generally cite four reasons to ban phone use during school: to improve kids' mental health, to strengthen academic outcomes, to reduce cyberbullying and to help limit kids' overall screen time. But as our survey shows, it may be a bit much to expect a cellphone ban to accomplish all of that. Some of the questions in our survey shine light on kids' feelings toward banning cellphones – even though we didn't ask that question directly. We asked them if they feel relief when they're in a situation where they can't use their smartphone, and 31% said yes. Additionally, 34% of kids agreed with the statement that social media causes more harm than good. And kids were 1.5 to 2 times more likely to agree with those statements if they attended schools where phones are banned or confiscated for most of the school day, with use only permitted at certain times. That group covered 70% of the students we surveyed because many individual schools or school districts in Florida have already limited students' cellphone use. Some 'power users' of cellphone apps could likely use a break from them. Twenty percent of children we surveyed said push notifications on their phones — that is, notifications from apps that pop up on the phone's screen — are never turned off. These notifications are likely coming from the most popular apps kids reported using, like YouTube, TikTok and Instagram. This 20% of children was roughly three times more likely to report experiencing anxiety than kids who rarely or never have their notifications on. They were also nearly five times more likely to report earning mostly D's and F's in school than kids whose notifications are always or sometimes off. Our survey results also suggest phone bans would likely have positive effects on grades and mental health among some of the heaviest screen users. For example, 22% of kids reported using their favorite app for six or more hours per day. These students were three times more likely to report earning mostly D's and F's in school than kids who spend an hour or less on their favorite app each day. They also were six times more likely than hour-or-less users to report severe depression symptoms. These insights remained even after ruling out numerous other possible explanations for the difference — like age, household income, gender, parent's education, race and ethnicity. Banning students' access to phones at school means these kids would not receive notifications for at least that seven-hour period and have fewer hours in the day to use apps. However, other data we collected suggests that bans aren't a universal benefit for all children. Seventeen percent of kids who attend schools that ban or confiscate phones report severe depression symptoms, compared with just 4% among kids who keep their phones with them during the school day. This finding held even after we ruled out other potential explanations for what we were seeing, such as the type of school students attend and other demographic factors. We are not suggesting that our survey shows phone bans cause mental health problems. It is possible, for instance, that the schools where kids already were struggling with their mental health simply happened to be the ones that have banned phones. Also, our survey didn't ask kids how long phones have been banned at their schools. If the bans just launched, there may be positive effects on mental health or grades yet to come. In order to get a better sense of the bans' effects on mental health, we would need to examine mental health indicators before and after phone bans. To get a long-term view on this question, we are planning to do a nationwide survey of digital media use and mental health, starting with 11- to 13-year-olds and tracking them into adulthood. Even with the limitations of our data from this survey, however, we can conclude that banning phones in schools is unlikely to be an immediate solution to mental health problems of kids ages 11-13. Students at schools where phones are barred or confiscated didn't report earning higher grades than children at schools where kids keep their phones. This finding held for students at both private and public schools, and even after ruling out other possible explanations like differences in gender and household income, since these factors are also known to affect grades. There are limits to our findings here: Grades are not a perfect measure of learning, and they're not standardized across schools. It's possible that kids at phone-free schools are in fact learning more than those at schools where kids carry their phones around during school hours – even if they earn the same grades. We asked kids how often in the past three months they'd experienced mistreatment online – like being called hurtful names or having lies or rumors spread about them. Kids at schools where phone use is limited during school hours actually reported enduring more cyberbullying than children at schools with less restrictive policies. This result persisted even after we considered smartphone ownership and numerous demographics as possible explanations. We are not necessarily saying that cellphone bans cause an increase in cyberbullying. What could be at play here is that at schools where cyberbullying has been particularly bad, phones have been banned or are confiscated, and online bullying still occurs. But based on our survey results, it does not appear that school phone bans prevent cyberbullying. Overall, our findings suggest that banning phones in schools may not be an easy fix for students' mental health problems, poor academic performance or cyberbullying. That said, kids might benefit from phone-free schools in ways that we have not explored, like increased attention spans or reduced eyestrain. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Justin D. Martin, University of South Florida and Chighaf Bakour, University of South Florida Read more: Do smartphones belong in classrooms? Four scholars weigh in How old should kids be to get phones? Kids with cellphones more likely to be bullies – or get bullied. Here are 6 tips for parents The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11-06-2025
- First Post
Lessons in fear: School shootings are no longer just an American tragedy, Austria just another example
As school shootings become increasingly frequent around the world, no country can afford to assume its classrooms are immune to the threat of violence read more People light candles in honour of the victims of a deadly shooting at a secondary school, at the main square in Graz, Austria, June 11, 2025. Reuters In recent decades, schools, once considered sanctuaries for learning and growth, have become sites of unthinkable violence. The global increase in school shootings has challenged the assumption that such tragedies are confined to specific countries or regions. The shooting at an Austrian school on Tuesday came as a reminder that schools may no longer be safe havens for learning. A deeper analysis of recent incidents reveals a troubling trend: educational institutions worldwide are increasingly vulnerable to mass violence, often perpetrated by young individuals with access to firearms and driven by complex motives ranging from personal grievances to mental health crises. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The United States: A relentless pattern In the United States, school shootings have become tragically routine. According to CNN, by mid-May 2025, there had already been more than 20 school shootings that year alone, affecting both K–12 schools and college campuses. The Gun Violence Archive, Education Week and Everytown for Gun Safety provide data showing hundreds of such incidents annually, with 2024 marking one of the deadliest years since tracking began. Education Week reported 56 shootings during the year, resulting in dozens of deaths and injuries, while Everytown documented over two hundred incidents. Among the most notable tragedies in 2024 was the shooting at Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin, where a 15-year-old student fatally shot a teacher and a classmate before dying by suicide. Another horrifying event occurred in Texas, where an 18-year-old shot and killed several students in a high school, allegedly in retaliation for ongoing bullying. These incidents not only highlight the recurring threat of school violence in US but also highlight the accessibility of firearms to minors, a recurring theme in nearly all-American school shootings. The widespread availability of guns is one of the clearest contributing factors to the frequency of these attacks. The Small Arms Survey shows that US has more guns than people, with approximately 150 firearms for every one hundred citizens. Researchers such as Marieke Liem from Leiden University consistently link high firearm availability to increased rates of both domestic and public shootings, including those in educational settings. The country's gun ownership culture, coupled with deeply polarised political views on gun control complicates efforts to create uniform policies aimed at preventing these tragedies. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Europe: An emerging crisis While Europe has not seen school shootings on the same scale or frequency as US, the continent is no longer insulated from such violence. The shooting at BORG Dreierschutzengasse , a high school in Graz, Austria, on Tuesday marked one of the deadliest in the nation's history. A former student returned to the school armed with legally acquired weapons, killing 10 individuals before taking his own life. This incident shocked Austria and prompted a national mourning period, reflecting the rarity and gravity of such violence in the region. European nations generally enforce stricter gun control laws, which has historically limited the prevalence of shootings. Austria, for example, ranks 12th in global civilian gun ownership, far behind US. Yet, even with tighter regulations, countries like Germany, Serbia, Czechia, Finland and Sweden have all experienced school-related shootings in the past two decades, many of which mirror the lone-gunman model so familiar in the American context. In Serbia, two school shootings in May 2023 profoundly disturbed the nation. In the capital Belgrade, a 13-year-old boy killed eight classmates and a security guard using weapons owned by his father. Just days later, another shooter opened fire in a nearby village, killing and wounding more than 20 people in total. These events prompted the Serbian government to introduce tighter restrictions on firearm possession and usage. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD According to reports cited in multiple European news outlets, both shooters exhibited signs of premeditation and emotional instability raising concerns about gaps in psychological screening and preventive measures. Sweden also experienced a deadly school shooting in February 2025, when a former student killed 11 people and injured six more at Campus Risbergska, an adult education centre in Orebro. The attacker reportedly struggled with mental health issues and had a history of disconnection from educational institutions. Authorities described his actions as motivated by suicidal intent rather than ideological extremism, but the consequences were no less devastating for the community. Czechia was similarly shaken in December 2023, when a 24-year-old student opened fire at Charles University in Prague, resulting in multiple fatalities. Authorities attributed his motivations to a fascination with foreign mass shootings, particularly those in US, suggesting a disturbing trend of global imitation. These incidents collectively demonstrate that while school shootings in Europe remain statistically rare, they are increasingly appearing in a growing number of countries, signalling a shift in global patterns of violence. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Common themes across borders Despite differing frequencies, school shootings across the globe share strikingly similar characteristics. One common thread is the presence of mental health issues among perpetrators. In both American and European contexts, attackers are often young males who exhibit signs of depression, anxiety, or social alienation prior to their acts of violence. Reports suggest that the experience in majority of the incidents including the Graz shooting and others mentioned above, mental health struggles are a recurring factor that often go unaddressed until it is too late. Another shared element is the use of legally owned firearms, frequently obtained from family members. This was true in both the Belgrade and Graz shootings. In US, many school shooters also acquire weapons from within their homes, bypassing background checks or secure storage requirements. This points to the need for better enforcement of gun safety laws and more robust systems for identifying at-risk individuals. Exposure to media coverage of mass shootings has also been cited as a motivator in multiple incidents. The shooter in Prague, for instance, was reportedly influenced by coverage of American shootings and had documented his admiration for previous attackers. This copycat phenomenon, amplified by social media and news reporting, exacerbates the spread of violent ideologies and makes prevention even more difficult. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Historical context and global comparisons While school shootings are often associated with lone actors, some of the most devastating attacks globally have been rooted in terrorism. The 2004 Beslan School Siege in Russia and the 2014 Peshawar School Massacre in Pakistan were politically motivated assaults that resulted in hundreds of deaths. The FBI categorises such attacks under terrorism due to their intent to instill fear and influence government or societal outcomes. While distinct from the lone-wolf model prevalent in Western school shootings, these incidents add to the narrative that schools, regardless of geography are increasingly targeted in acts of extreme violence. Europe has also seen several attacks over the past two decades that reflect both psychological and ideological motivations. Germany experienced deadly shootings in Erfurt in 2002, Coburg in 2003 and Emsdetten in 2006. Finland faced its own tragedies in Jokela in 2007 and Kauhajoki in 2008. These events led to legislative changes, including bans on certain types of firearms and the implementation of psychological evaluations for young gun license applicants. Ongoing prevention measures and their limitations Governments and educational institutions around the world are working to implement preventative strategies, yet challenges persist. In the United States, many schools have increased security through metal detectors, surveillance systems and armed guards. Active shooter drills have become routine and some districts have established threat assessment teams to identify students who might pose a danger to themselves or others. However, these measures vary widely in their effectiveness and often raise concerns about turning schools into fortress-like environments that may harm the learning experience. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD European countries have also responded with a combination of legal reforms and mental health interventions. Following the Belgrade shootings, Serbia introduced sweeping gun control measures. Germany and Finland took similar steps after their respective tragedies. Nonetheless, experts like Marieke Liem caution that no measure can fully eliminate the risk as long as firearms remain accessible and social systems fail to provide adequate mental health support. The global discourse on school shootings is increasingly recognising that no country is immune. Differences in gun laws and cultural attitudes may influence the frequency of incidents, but the root causes—mental health issues, social isolation and the desire for notoriety—transcend national boundaries. Human and societal toll The consequences of school shootings extend far beyond the immediate fatalities. Survivors often suffer from long-term psychological trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. Families and communities must grapple with the emotional and financial aftermath, including medical bills, funeral costs, and long-term therapy. Educational systems are also impacted. Fear of violence contributes to school absenteeism, lower academic performance, and increased teacher turnover. CNN has reported that some American educators have left the profession altogether due to fear and frustration over school safety. The societal cost of school shootings, therefore, encompasses not only the loss of life but also the erosion of trust in educational institutions. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Rising incidents The growing frequency of school shootings around the world forces a sobering reevaluation of school safety. While US remains the epicentre of such violence, recent tragedies in Austria, Serbia, Sweden and Czechia demonstrate that the problem is spreading. A combination of gun availability, mental health crises and social alienation creates fertile ground for these attacks, regardless of national borders.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arkansas lawmakers give initial approval to new state insurance captives rate structure
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders tours tornado-damaged Wynne High School on April 2, 2023. (Randall Lee/Arkansas Governor's Office) A legislative committee on Monday granted preliminary permission for officials to move forward with proposed rates for Arkansas' new state property insurance program, the result of nearly two years of work aimed at developing a plan to control rising insurance premiums for schools. Following the recommendation of consultants to create the State Captive Insurance Program, an insurance company owned by the state, lawmakers this year passed Act 560 and Act 779 and approved contracts with vendors to run the self-insurance program. Under the newly approved legislation, the captive will be formed by July 1 and apply to buildings and property owned by a public school, state-supported institution of higher education or the state. During the Arkansas Legislative Council's Executive Subcommittee meeting Monday, Crossett Republican and panel chair Sen. Ben Gilmore recognized everyone who has been involved with forming the captive, which 'has been quite the process.' 'It's important that we acknowledge where we started and where we are now, and this is coming to an end…what we did is something we should acknowledge is very big with the State Captive Insurance Program,' Gilmore said. 'So we are on to the next step with that, and I appreciate your involvement, and we'll continue to work and make this successful.' Insurance premiums have been increasing nationwide due to more frequent natural disasters, additional legal liability from more lawsuits and the growing frequency of cybercrimes, according to Education Week. Arkansas firm recommends plan for controlling schools' increasing insurance rates The issue came into focus for Arkansas in July 2023 when Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced the state would help school districts cover the cost of rising insurance premiums. State lawmakers approved a request from the Arkansas Insurance Department to transfer $10.8 million from the state's restricted reserve account to offset the cost of increased premiums. The funding was split three ways — $6.3 million for the 170 districts in the Arkansas School Boards Association-managed program, $4.46 million for the 68 districts in the Arkansas Public School Insurance Trust (which is managed by the Insurance Department), and nearly $118,000 for the Bentonville School District, which procured insurance directly through the open market. Kyle Hales, a principal consulting actuary at Perr & Knight, told the committee Monday that the total cost of premiums for the three agencies approximately tripled between 2021 and 2024 insurance renewals. J.R. Bizzell, senior vice president in Stephens Insurance's risk management group, said the intent of the captive is to 'improve efficiencies with purchasing reinsurance or excess property insurance,' which is what the Little Rock-based firm is primarily helping obtain. 'There's going to be a centralized claims and underwriting component, as well as overall it should help stabilize long-term insurance costs for all of the districts, all the agencies and all the participants of this program,' Bizzell said. For the first year of the captive, Stephens recommends a flat rate for all participants. Premiums are calculated by multiplying the rate by building values, Bizzell said. All schools should have a flat rate, he said. If they change their value due to an assessment, or by adding or removing a building, 'they will experience some level of premium change, but it should be modest in nature,' he said. Stephens also recommends that participants carry a maintenance deductible that's below the captive, Bizzell said. The deductible structure would be changed to a minimum of $25,000 per occurrence, per participant, and $50,000 per occurrence if their total insured values (i.e. asset values) are over $100 million. For state agencies, the recommendation is to move to a $250,000 flat deductible for the first year, he said. The rate and deductible structure for year two is continuing to be evaluated, so Stephens made no recommendation 'outside of there is an expectation that deductibles need to continue to be rightsided and that detail will come in the future,' Bizzell said. Stephens has been coordinating with the Legislature as well as the newly created Office of Property Risk, which will be managing the program after July 1, Bizzell said. In the coming weeks, all participants will receive a summary of their expected premium and deductible, he said. The subcommittee authorized Stephens to move forward with its proposed rate and deductible structure and for the Arkansas Legislative Council's co-chairs to approve that direction by emergency action. The new rates and deductibles will be effective for the 2025-2026 academic year, if they receive final approval from the Arkansas State Board of Finance and ALC, Bureau of Legislative Research Director Marty Garrity told the Advocate. They're scheduled to meet on June 12 and June 20, respectively. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
After Harvard, these 60+ universities are now under Trump radar. Check the list
Billions Frozen, Freedoms Challenged Live Events Targeting DEI and Campus Protests A Growing List of Institutions Under Fire (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Trump administration is ramping up pressure on American higher education, launching over 100 federal investigations since May 2024. Prestigious institutions like Harvard and Columbia are now at risk of losing student visa privileges, research funding, or even accreditation as part of a sweeping campaign against what officials call 'ideological indoctrination' and rising antisemitism on has already been hit with a six-month freeze on foreign student visas, while Columbia faces possible loss of accreditation. These actions signal a broader push by the administration to confront diversity programs, gender identity policies, and responses to pro-Palestinian protests—issues officials say promote biased or unconstitutional than 60 universities are currently under active investigation. These include elite schools such as Yale, MIT , and Berkeley, as well as large public institutions like the University of Michigan and the University of Washington. The Department of Education has opened at least 104 inquiries, with 70 focused on colleges and universities—many of them nationally fallout has already begun. Federal research grants—particularly in fields like climate science, sociology, and public policy—are being delayed or frozen. At Harvard, the visa freeze has caused significant disruption for international students and are pushing back, accusing the administration of threatening not just funding, but the core values of academic freedom and institutional autonomy.'It's no longer just about student conduct or curriculum—it's about control,' said one Ivy League administrator who requested to Education Week, at least 52 universities are under scrutiny specifically for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. The administration claims such initiatives promote race-based programming and violate constitutional principles. Other investigations relate to antisemitism, gender identity policies, and responses to the Gaza Trump administration argues that the measures aim to protect Jewish students and dismantle 'leftist indoctrination machines.' But critics say the moves are ideologically driven, not universities that have tried to comply—such as Northwestern, which adopted anti-discrimination reforms—have been added to the list, raising concerns about the motives behind the list of targeted universities spans public flagships, Ivy League schools, STEM-focused institutions, and liberal arts colleges. Among them:MITUniversity of California, BerkeleyUniversity of MichiganUniversity of PennsylvaniaDuke UniversityCornell UniversityUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonUniversity of WashingtonVanderbilt UniversityGeorgetown UniversityArizona State UniversityRutgers UniversityCarnegie Mellon UniversityRice UniversityUniversity of ChicagoNew York UniversityUniversity of Oregon Washington University in St. LouisNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham Western Carolina University(And many more...)Some schools are being investigated for minor compliance failures like incomplete foreign gift disclosures, while others are under scrutiny for allowing or failing to respond to student NextWith billions in federal funding on the line and political pressure mounting, American higher education is bracing for a prolonged ideological clash. University leaders warn that these investigations could reshape campus governance and stifle academic freedom, especially for international students, minority scholars, and those involved in activist the list of investigated institutions continues to grow, so does the uncertainty surrounding the future of higher education under a second Trump term.
Time of India
05-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Not just Harvard and Columbia—these 60 universities are now on the Trump administration's radar
In a sweeping move that could reshape the landscape of American higher education, the Trump administration has escalated its efforts to pressure universities, elite and public alike, by opening more than 100 investigations across the country and suspending key benefits like student visas and federal funds. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now At the center of this campaign are two of the nation's most prestigious institutions: Harvard and Columbia. But they're just the tip of the iceberg. President Donald Trump has signed an executive order enforcing a six-month ban on foreign student visas specifically for Harvard University, citing concerns over its alleged 'ideological indoctrination.' Columbia University, meanwhile, faces the threat of losing its accreditation entirely. These actions are part of a broader effort to challenge the academic and cultural practices in higher education institutions, especially around diversity initiatives, gender identity policies, and responses to last year's pro-Palestinian protests. And it's not just rhetoric. Billions in research funds have been frozen. Dozens of investigations have been launched. And more than 60 universities—including Yale, MIT, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan—are now officially under scrutiny. A campus culture war with national stakes What began as targeted criticisms of elite institutions has now ballooned into a full-blown federal offensive. The Department of Education has opened at least 104 active investigations, most since May 2024. Of these, 70 focus on universities and colleges, many of them nationally ranked. According to an Education Week report, 52 universities have been investigated specifically over their DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, which the Trump administration claims foster 'race-based programming' in violation of constitutional principles. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The remaining cases involve alleged antisemitism, nondisclosure of foreign funding, gender policies, and responses to student activism over the Gaza conflict. What's striking is the administration's dual rationale: protecting Jewish students from what it views as rising antisemitism on campuses, and dismantling what it calls 'leftist indoctrination machines.' The real-world costs: Funding, freedom, and foreign students This crackdown goes beyond symbolism. At Harvard, the visa freeze is already creating turmoil among international students and faculty. Other universities are reporting delays or cancellations in federal research grants, especially those involving climate science, sociology, and public policy—fields often at odds with the current administration's agenda. According to university leaders, the Trump administration is threatening not just funding but the very foundation of academic freedom. 'It's no longer just about student conduct or curriculum—it's about control,' one Ivy League administrator said under condition of anonymity. Northwestern University, which had preemptively implemented a series of anti-discrimination reforms similar to those demanded of Columbia, was still added to the list of targeted schools. Experts say that reflects a more ideological motive behind the selections rather than a measured response to campus-specific issues. A list that keeps growing Columbia University Northwestern University Portland State University University of California, Berkeley University of Minnesota, Twin Cities American University University of Massachusetts, Amherst Yale University Scripps College University of Washington Arizona State University Boise State University Cal Poly Humboldt California State University - San Bernardino Carnegie Mellon University Clemson University Cornell University Duke University Emory University George Mason University Georgetown University Grand Valley State University Ithaca College Massachusetts Institute of Technology Montana State University - Bozeman New England College of Optometry New York University Ohio State University Rice University Rutgers University Towson University Tulane University University of Alabama at Birmingham University of Arkansas - Fayetteville University of Chicago University of Cincinnati University of Colorado - Colorado Springs University of Delaware University of Kansas University of Michigan - Ann Arbor University of Nebraska at Omaha University of New Mexico University of North Dakota University of North Texas - Denton University of Notre Dame University of Nevada - Las Vegas University of Oklahoma, Tulsa School of Community Medicine University of Oregon University of Rhode Island University of South Florida University of Utah University of Washington - Seattle University of Wisconsin - Madison University of Wyoming Vanderbilt University Washington State University Washington University in St. Louis Harvard University San Jose State University University of Pennsylvania University of Maryland Wagner College Western Carolina University Harvard College The full list includes public institutions, private liberal arts colleges, and tech-heavy research centers. Some have been targeted for minor issues—such as unclear foreign gift disclosures—while others are under investigation for hosting or tolerating student protests.
