Trump ties school funding to opening

Trump ties school funding to opening - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-11.html)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: Trump ties school funding to opening (/thread-20029.html)

Pages: 1 2

Trump ties school funding to opening - oregontim - 07-08-2020

The AP is reporting:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump threatens to withhold federal funds from schools that don't reopen, lashes out at health officials over guidelines."

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - OutsiderFan - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 12:39 PM)oregontim Wrote: The AP is reporting:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump threatens to withhold federal funds from schools that don't reopen, lashes out at health officials over guidelines."

I'm not aware of any way the federal government can cut funding for schools given schools are funded primarily by property taxes the U.S. Treasury Dept. doesn't ever touch.

Just another in a long and well-documented history of lies and dust kicking, now made in a desperate attempt to stay relevant.

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - Leftcoast - 07-08-2020

There are many streams of Federal funding flowing into state education programs. To mention a famous one, the Bush era “No child left behind” act was tied to Federal funding.

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - OutsiderFan - 07-08-2020

I was under the impression No Child Left Behind was killed off. No?

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - oregontim - 07-08-2020

More detail from the AP story linked in the opening post here. Unfortunately, when Trump makes proclamations like this, whether or not he has the constitutional power, whether or not he can actually carry out the threat, these things still effect the public and many public sector following actions. The threat itself changes the political environment. And schools will have to deal with it's impact on their constituents.

For example, look at Trump's impact on the wearing of masks. He doesn't have the constitutional power but his pronouncements have clearly muddied the downstream execution on many ways. IMO.

Quote:President Donald Trump on Wednesday threatened to withhold federal funding if America’s schools don’t reopen in the fall despite the coronavirus, and he lashed out at federal health officials over reopening guidelines that he complained are impractical and expensive.
As Trump increased his pressure on state and local officials, New York City announced that most of its students would return to classrooms only two or three days a week and would learn online in between. “Most schools will not be able to have all their kids in school at the same time,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Taking to Twitter before the New York announcement, Trump argued that countries including Germany, Denmark and Norway have reopened schools “with no problems.”
Trump issued his threat to withhold funds from schools that do not reopen while repeating a political claim that Democrats want to keep schools closed for election-year reasons and not because of any risks associated with the coronavirus.
“The Dems think it would be bad for them politically if U.S. schools open before the November Election,” Trump said, “but is important for the children & families. May cut off funding if not open!”

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - terry - 07-08-2020

Congress has the power to impose some conditions on grants of federal funds. The idea is that Congress may use the conditions as an incentive, but may not use them coercively.

I doubt that the president has the power to impose conditions that Congress did not impose at the time it appropriated the funds. But it would depend on the terms of the statute.

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - BostonCard - 07-08-2020

Congress appropriated $30 billion "educational stabilization fund" for schools through the CARES act:

https://www.future-ed.org/what-congressional-covid-funding-means-for-k-12-schools/

The administration obviously has some flexibility into how those funds are allocated. For example, DeVos has stated that private schools are eligible for the funds (this is the subject of a lawsuit). I could see the administration arguing that the point of the fund is to support schools in making the changes needed to have in person instruction, so that's who the funds will go towards.

BC

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - BostonCard - 07-08-2020

To me, this is the more problematic decision:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/08/pence-cdc-changing-coronavirus-school-guidelines-after-trump-attack/5398493002/

I've said that I support opening schools, but I don't support compromising safety in the reopening just because it's "tough and expensive".

BC

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - 76lsjumb - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 03:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: To me, this is the more problematic decision:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/08/pence-cdc-changing-coronavirus-school-guidelines-after-trump-attack/5398493002/

I've said that I support opening schools, but I don't support compromising safety in the reopening just because it's "tough and expensive".

BC

How do you know that it’s problematic before you even know what the changes are?

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - BostonCard - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 04:47 PM)76lsjumb Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 03:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote: To me, this is the more problematic decision:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/07/08/pence-cdc-changing-coronavirus-school-guidelines-after-trump-attack/5398493002/

I've said that I support opening schools, but I don't support compromising safety in the reopening just because it's "tough and expensive".

BC

How do you know that it’s problematic before you even know what the changes are?

Because the principle of political pressure influencing scientific advice is problematic. Like even in the hypothetical scenario where Trump was pressuring the CDC to be more stringent, he shouldn't do so. If he has an issue with the affordability of certain measures, then he ought to convene a group to transparently evaluate the cost/benefit of various CDC recommendations and say "these measures have a high benefit and low cost and should be implemented, while these measures have a pretty marginal benefit that doesn't justify their cost. But the underlying scientific advice should not be influenced by the President, even if we are looking at this again next February under a hypothetical president Biden.

BC

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - terry - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 04:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The principle of political pressure influencing scientific advice is problematic. . . . The underlying scientific advice should not be influenced by the President

Exactly right.

Apparently the CDC is going to change its science-based guidelines to bring them in line with the President's wishes and his political agenda. It's the same issue as the President altering a weather forecast with a Sharpie. It's corrupt.

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - 76lsjumb - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 05:44 PM)terry Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 04:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote: The principle of political pressure influencing scientific advice is problematic. . . . The underlying scientific advice should not be influenced by the President

Exactly right.

Apparently the CDC is going to change its science-based guidelines to bring them in line with the President's wishes. It's the same issue as the President altering a weather forecast with a Sharpie. It's corrupt.

I guess our disagreement here may be one of semantics. What you call "scientific advice" I call "risk-benefit analysis." Scientifically, no one should be in the same enclosed room with anyone else because it is possible that the first person would be infected but be asymptomatic and, due to aerosol transmission possibility, the second person might become infected, even if both are wearing N-95 masks, because even masks are not absolutely 100% safe. Therefore, the "scientific advice," until we have determined that COVID-19 has been completely eradicated from the earth, would be that no one should ever be in the same room with anyone else. Period [since, of course, we can't sacrifice even one life].

I would hope that you believe -- and agree with me -- that the foregoing is absurd hyperbole. However, you presumably can work back from that absurd hyperbole to a point where you are willing to impose restrictions that you believe are based on scientific advice. Your point, however, may very well be -- indeed, almost certainly is -- different from my point where I believe that the restrictions are warranted based on scientific advice. We likely have different risk tolerances AND we likely have different value assessments as to what things are important relative to other things.

I don't believe it's my place to brand your tolerances and values as corrupt, nor do I think it's fair of you to brand mine that way... or to brand the Administration's simply based on your dislike for Trump. There is as much evidence for the charge that Trump opponents want to keep the schools shut down for political reasons as there is for the opposite view. Indeed, I don't think you would consider it fair, or right, for me to accuse you of corruptly using science to push an agenda of seriously undermining the education of our youth simply to ensure continued unrest until Trump is defeated in November, but that charge has as much evidence to support it as the charge that Trump is somehow influencing the "underlying scientific advice."

Moreover, "science" doesn't mandate that schools must re-open, nor that they can't reopen, nor does "science" mandate what steps should be taken if and when they do re-open. Science should certainly INFORM the people who make those decisions. But, so will risk analysis and, frankly, politics.

As for weather forecasting, if you're trying to tell me that politics doesn't influence BOTH sides of the climate change debate, I've got a bridge to sell you... [But, hopefully to avoid vitriolic replies that are a waste of time, I do want to say that I agree altering weather maps with a sharpie is pointless and stupid, even if not "corrupt" (as I understand that word)]. Of course, pointless and stupid is what Trump does best, after all...

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - BostonCard - 07-08-2020

Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to reopen schools, and I agree with the President's push to do so. But the President could do a lot more by leaning on the reasons why it is important to reopen schools and by helping enable it to happen than by leaning on the CDC to retract their scientific advice. The CDC is made up of epidemiologists, not economists. They have common sense, but they probably don't know the exact budgetary impact of their recommendations. It follows that they will suggest what they think are reasonable outlays in order to protect students to the extent possible, which may turn out to be economically infeasible (especially with school scheduled to start in September). And they were tasked with reducing risk; what they produced strikes me as pretty reasonable:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/schools.html

and

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/community/School-Admin-K12-readiness-and-planning-tool.pdf

If you look at the "guiding principles" they are in accordance with what you said. They are not saying "you absolutely must do this to eliminate risk"; they are saying, "here are the steps you can take to reduce risk". Moreover if you read the document, it looks like a tiered list. For example:

Quote:[*]Space seating/desks at least 6 feet apart when feasible.
...
[*]stall physical barriers, such as sneeze guards and partitions, particularly in areas where it is difficult for individuals to remain at least 6 feet apart (e.g., reception desks).

(emphasis mine)

Yes, some of that stuff will cost money. It strikes me that if you want to reopen schools, the best way to do it would be to help them meet the recommendations, which is what Marco Rubio has proposed (sorry, can't find the reference). Or, if you find them too expensive, push to say so. But that seems like something that ought to be done by the OMB, not the CDC.

BC

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - burger - 07-08-2020

(07-08-2020, 07:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I want to be able to reopen schools, and I agree with the President's push to do so. But the President could do a lot more by leaning on the reasons why it is important to reopen schools and by helping enable it to happen than by leaning on the CDC to retract their scientific advice. The CDC is made up of epidemiologists, not economists. They have common sense, but they probably don't know the exact budgetary impact of their recommendations. It follows that they will suggest what they think are reasonable outlays in order to protect students to the extent possible, which may turn out to be economically infeasible (especially with school scheduled to start in September). And they were tasked with reducing risk; what they produced strikes me as pretty reasonable:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/schools-childcare/schools.html

and

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/community/School-Admin-K12-readiness-and-planning-tool.pdf

If you look at the "guiding principles" they are in accordance with what you said. They are not saying "you absolutely must do this to eliminate risk"; they are saying, "here are the steps you can take to reduce risk". Moreover if you read the document, it looks like a tiered list. For example:

Quote:[*]Space seating/desks at least 6 feet apart when feasible.
...
[*]stall physical barriers, such as sneeze guards and partitions, particularly in areas where it is difficult for individuals to remain at least 6 feet apart (e.g., reception desks).
(emphasis mine)

Yes, some of that stuff will cost money. It strikes me that if you want to reopen schools, the best way to do it would be to help them meet the recommendations, which is what Marco Rubio has proposed (sorry, can't find the reference). Or, if you find them too expensive, push to say so. But that seems like something that ought to be done by the OMB, not the CDC.

BC

We've been down this road with the CDC before. Their recommendations for opening businesses were weak-assed "suggestions" and arguably have gotten some people killed. The head of CDC is a Trump stooge and I'd be surprised if these suggestions hadn't been watered down, much like happened with earlier CDC guidelines.

Six feet is not magical, and sneeze guards will not stop aerosol transmission. This excellent article, which probably deserves it's own thread, points out that being in any enclosed space with more than a few people for an extended time presents a large risk of spreading the virus: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mounting-evidence-suggests-coronavirus-is-airborne-but-health-advice-has-not-caught-up/

I am rooting for the teachers' unions to shut down this recklessness. If the states and districts push for reopening, there are probably going to be some ugly fights. But I would not bet against the unions.

Meanwhile, every dollar spent on sneezeguards or whatever other useless theater CDC is recommending is a dollar that is not being spent to improve online education. That is where we are going to end up, so let's invest in that now.

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - OutsiderFan - 07-08-2020

You don’t get to have risk tolerance to suit your preferences when the entire country’s health is at stake.

The CDC does exercises to project what will happen if certain behaviors are and aren’t practiced. There is a certain threshold of behavior that if not exhibited, will, based on scientific understanding, lead to dangerous levels of virus spread.

The CDC isn’t going to recommend any restrictions stronger than what is needed to prevent spread levels that could get out of hand. Anything less than its recommendations will more than likely lead to spread events that put the entire population at risk. That’s why the CDC exists.

If anyone wants to question its protocols, might as well get rid of the whole damn agency and just do whatever the hell we feel like doing. Because if we’re not following its recommendations, the CDC and any science for that matter, is borderline useless.

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - burger - 07-08-2020

Here's what a prominent epidemiologist said about the current cdc "guidelines" for schools (in reference to the possibility that this weak tea will be watered down even more):

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1280956887144427521?s=19[/tweet]

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - 76lsjumb - 07-08-2020

Well, for some folks, it turns out my absurd hyperbole is basically their preferred policy prescription. Who knew? I keep forgetting that the only one whose opinion counts in this world is the guy who only relies on truth and facts. Everybody else [or, at least, everybody who disagrees] is just a selfish idiot. It must be nice to be that guy. I'm sure Trump would envy him...

By the way, I found BC's response eminently reasonable and, indeed, it may turn out that the proposed changes aren't beneficial and/or justifiable. We'll have to see. [After all, one could make a pretty good living off of betting that Trump would do something stupid...]

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - burger - 07-09-2020

(07-08-2020, 07:38 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: You don’t get to have risk tolerance to suit your preferences when the entire country’s health is at stake.

The CDC does exercises to project what will happen if certain behaviors are and aren’t practiced. There is a certain threshold of behavior that if not exhibited, will, based on scientific understanding, lead to dangerous levels of virus spread.

The CDC isn’t going to recommend any restrictions stronger than what is needed to prevent spread levels that could get out of hand. Anything less than its recommendations will more than likely lead to spread events that put the entire population at risk. That’s why the CDC exists.

If anyone wants to question its protocols, might as well get rid of the whole damn agency and just do whatever the hell we feel like doing. Because if we’re not following its recommendations, the CDC and any science for that matter, is borderline useless.

If you're going to defend CDC guidelines, maybe you can explain this for me. Because it sounds like CDC is doing everything it can to ensure that colleges have tons of cases this fall.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1281123159660347393[/tweet]

CDC is, like all government agencies, susceptible to pressure from political appointees who run it. That's what's happening here.

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - OutsiderFan - 07-09-2020

(07-09-2020, 07:50 AM)burger Wrote:
(07-08-2020, 07:38 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: You don’t get to have risk tolerance to suit your preferences when the entire country’s health is at stake.

The CDC does exercises to project what will happen if certain behaviors are and aren’t practiced. There is a certain threshold of behavior that if not exhibited, will, based on scientific understanding, lead to dangerous levels of virus spread.

The CDC isn’t going to recommend any restrictions stronger than what is needed to prevent spread levels that could get out of hand. Anything less than its recommendations will more than likely lead to spread events that put the entire population at risk. That’s why the CDC exists.

If anyone wants to question its protocols, might as well get rid of the whole damn agency and just do whatever the hell we feel like doing. Because if we’re not following its recommendations, the CDC and any science for that matter, is borderline useless.

If you're going to defend CDC guidelines, maybe you can explain this for me. Because it sounds like CDC is doing everything it can to ensure that colleges have tons of cases this fall.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1281123159660347393[/tweet]

CDC is, like all government agencies, susceptible to pressure from political appointees who run it. That's what's happening here.

Sorry, burger. When I say "CDC guidelines" that's intended as a reference to the REAL ones before political pressure weakens them :)

RE: Trump ties school funding to opening - burger - 07-09-2020

(07-09-2020, 08:07 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sorry, burger. When I say "CDC guidelines" that's intended as a reference to the REAL ones before political pressure weakens them :)

Got ya, my bad. I was more than a little surprised to see you defending a Trump-run agency.