Sunday, October 27, 2013

And another dead good article on the need for more Pre-K education-------

The New York Times


October 26, 2013

Do We Invest in Preschools or Prisons?

CONGRESS is often compared to pre-K, which seems defamatory of small children. But the similarities also offer hope, because an initiative that should be on the top of the national agenda has less to do with the sequester than with the A.B.C.’s and Big Bird.
Growing mountains of research suggest that the best way to address American economic inequality, poverty and crime is — you guessed it! — early education programs, including coaching of parents who want help. It’s not a magic wand, but it’s the best tool we have to break cycles of poverty.
President Obama called in his State of the Union address for such a national initiative, but it hasn’t gained traction. Obama himself hasn’t campaigned enough for it, yet there’s still a reed of hope.
One reason is that this is one of those rare initiatives that polls well across the spectrum, with support from 84 percent of Democrats and 60 percent of Republicans in a recent national survey. And even if the program stalls in Washington, states and localities are moving ahead — from San Antonio to Michigan. Colorado voters will decide next month on a much-watched ballot measure to bolster education spending, including in preschool, and a ballot measure in Memphis would expand preschool as well.
“There’s this magical opportunity” now to get a national early education program in America, Education Secretary Arne Duncan told me. He says he’s optimistic that members of Congress will introduce a bipartisan bill for such a plan this year.
“When you think how you make change for the next 30 years, this is arguably at the top of my list,” Duncan said. “It can literally transform the life chances of children, and strengthen families in important ways.”
Whether it happens through Congressional action or is locally led, this may be the best chance America has had to broaden early programssince 1971, when Congress approved such a program but President Nixon vetoed it.
The massive evidence base for early education grew a bit more with a major new study from Stanford University noting that achievement gaps begin as early as 18 months. Then at 2 years old, there’s a six-month achievement gap. By age 5, it can be a two-year gap. Poor kids start so far behind when school begins that they never catch up — especially because they regress each summer.
One problem is straightforward. Poorer kids are more likely to have a single teenage mom who is stressed out, who was herself raised in an authoritarian style that she mimics, and who, as a result, doesn’t chatter much with the child.
Yet help these parents, and they do much better. Some of the most astonishing research in poverty-fighting methods comes from the success of programs to coach at-risk parents — and these, too, are part of Obama’s early education program. “Early education” doesn’t just mean prekindergarten for 4-year-olds, but embraces a plan covering ages 0 to 5.
The earliest interventions, and maybe the most important, are home visitation programs like Nurse-Family Partnership. It begins working with at-risk moms during pregnancy, with a nurse making regular visits to offer basic support and guidance: don’t drink or smoke while pregnant; don’t take heroin or cocaine. After birth, the coach offers help with managing stress, breast-feeding and diapers, while encouraging chatting to the child and reading aloud.
These interventions are cheap and end at age 2. Yet, in randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of evaluation, there was a 59 percent reduction in child arrests at age 15 among those who had gone through the program.
Something similar happens with good pre-K programs. Critics have noted that with programs like Head Start, there are early educational gains that then fade by second or third grade. That’s true, and that’s disappointing.
Yet, in recent years, long-term follow-ups have shown that while the educational advantages of Head Start might fade, there are “life skill” gains that don’t. A rigorous study by David Deming of Harvard, for example, found that Head Start graduates were less likely to repeat grades or be diagnosed with a learning disability, and more likely to graduate from high school and attend college.
Look, we’ll have to confront the pathologies of poverty at some point. We can deal with them cheaply at the front end, in infancy. Or we can wait and jail a troubled adolescent at the tail end. To some extent, we face a choice between investing in preschools or in prisons.
We just might have a rare chance in the next couple of months to take steps toward such a landmark early education program in America. But children can’t vote, and they have no highly paid lobbyists — so it’ll happen only if we the public speak up.
I invite you to comment on this column on my blog, On the Ground. Please also join me on Facebook and Google+, watch my YouTube videos and follow me on Twitter.

 

MORE IN OPINION (6 OF 27 ARTICLES)

Opinion: Slaves of the Internet, Unite!


Saturday, October 26, 2013

Responses to the previous article on the importance of Pre-K education...

The New York Times


October 25, 2013

Is Pre-K the Answer for Child Literacy?

To the Editor:
Re “Language-Gap Study Bolsters a Push for Pre-K” (front page, Oct. 22):
As a New York City high school teacher, I am painfully aware how many children start life without the language-building experience necessary to succeed in school and in life, and playing catch-up at 15 is too little too late. Investing in children at the earliest ages is the only way to break the cycle of language-deficient adults raising language-starved children.
We have to stop thinking that helping children is rewarding bad behavior by people who “deserve” to be poor. We should offer free high-quality day care to any child at any time the parents need it, so that the children can get the education they need. (This would also reduce abuse, which also takes a toll on education.)
Investing in these youngest minds would cost billions, but pay for itself a millionfold.
JOHN McGLOIN
Staten Island, Oct. 22, 2013

To the Editor:
The shocking gap in language skills of infants and toddlers should bolster a push for adult education rather than for pre-K. We obviously need more pre-K slots to meet demand across New York City, but a better strategy to close the language gap would be to focus on the child’s first and most important teacher, the parent. Parents who have never had any success in school need a hand in promoting their child’s healthy intellectual development.
The research clearly documents that the gap develops long before pre-K; so why wait until a child is 4? And why would we think that a student-teacher ratio of 20 to 1 or more will close the gap more effectively than programs working with parents who have many fewer children to care for?
ANTHONY TASSI
Executive Director, Literacy Partners
Brooklyn, Oct. 22, 2013

To the Editor:
Although longtime advocates of the importance of literature for children were heartened by the results of the recent study described in your article, once again it is a case of too little too late. While pre-K is crucial to the literacy of children, especially those from low-income families, far more vital is the children’s room of the local public library.
Most public libraries, many right in the neighborhood and easily accessible, offer programs to children as young as a few months old. These programs provide modeling and encouragement to parents and caregivers to put down their electronic devices, pick up a book, sing a song, play a game and engage in language-based activities that not only provide an introduction to words in beautifully ordered patterns but also give families something to talk about of value and substance.
These programs, and the materials available to support them, build habits crucial to long-term connections to language-based learning. For parents with literacy deficits of their own, the library is the place to house initiatives that boost skill level and confidence.
These programs will help those who care for children discover the satisfaction and solace of a good book and ignite in them the desire to share them with their babies as they grow.
Language is the very root of what it means to be human. It’s the foundation our democracy stands on. And the time to begin acquiring it in a meaningful way begins at birth and is nurtured at the library.
AMY COHN
Marblehead, Mass., Oct. 22, 2013
The writer teaches children’s literature at the college level and has worked as a children’s book editor.

To the Editor:
While expanding the pre-K program is laudable, it is important to note that the children of wealthier parents did not acquire better language skills just because they went to preschool.
Language skills are learned at home, and it is vital that parents interact verbally with their children. But this will never happen unless parents turn off the televisions, smartphones, video game players and computer screens that get in the way of simply talking and reading to their children.
WILLIAM D. PRIESTER
New York, Oct. 22, 2013

To the Editor:
Yes, the language-gap study should fuel efforts to expand high-quality preschool programs. But it should do the same for Early Head Start and home visiting programs.
Early Head Start — a program that research has shown helps parents provide more language stimulation and emotional support for their infants and toddlers, and benefits children’s cognitive and language development — serves only 4 percent of eligible children. Similarly, home visiting programs, which can also help parents nurture their very young children’s language growth, reach a fraction of families in need.
Expanding these programs can reduce the language gap early, before it becomes much harder to close, and help parents realize the hopes they have for their children’s success.
SHEILA SMITH
LEE KREADER
New York, Oct. 22, 2013
The writers are, respectively, director of Early Childhood and director of Child Care and Early Education Research Connections, National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University.

 

MORE IN OPINION (23 OF 28 ARTICLES)

Letters: Law Reviews and the Students Who Run Them


Wednesday, October 23, 2013

A teacher's response to the NYT article I posted recently.......

Hi, John. 

People who complain about the quality of teacher candidates really aren't thinking about the situation. All college programs take the highest quality candidates. No program looks for less qualified candidates. If you want to turn people away who want to teach you are going to produce fewer teachers. If we keep running teachers out of the profession we need to be bringing in more teachers not fewer. If we want to produce fewer teachers with more qualifications we need to keep the teachers that we have. I kept telling my students who wanted to run me off "I'm the teacher you got because you got rid of the last teacher. If you don't like me you need to rethink your policy of trying to get rid of teachers." 

Middle school and high school students have trouble wrapping their heads around that idea though. Their parents should be old enough to put the logic pieces together, but they don't seem to get it either. Things seem to be going better for me this year though. 

Every day I feel a little more like a teacher when I am in front of the class.

 I still don't think it was worth what I went through, but I am glad I am doing what I am.

Interesting article for a classroom science corner.....

The New York Times


October 16, 2013

Lifted From a Russian Lake, a Big, if Fragile, Space Rock

MOSCOW — Russian officials on Wednesday retrieved the largest fragment so far of a meteor that exploded in February over the city of Chelyabinsk, but as divers and a mechanical winch lifted it from the bottom of a lake, the rock broke into three pieces, and then broke the scale — literally — when all together it weighed in at more than 1,250 pounds.
Although a hole in the ice of Lake Chebarkul, southwest of Chelyabinsk, had made clear where the meteorite fragment landed, it took seven months of searching and a detailed sonar analysis to pinpoint its location, at a depth of about 40 feet and covered by about 8 feet of silt.
It then took another month of planning and work to prepare to lift it, a process that culminated Wednesday in front of a crowd gathered on the shore, with the events broadcast live on television.
After divers assured that the rock was secured with ropes, the regional governor, Mikhail Yurevich, hit a button to start the winch that pulled it to land.
As it was recovered, the meteorite fragment — which Russian scientists have estimated is more than 4.5 billion years old, or about as old as the solar system — was caught in a tangle of colorful ropes and cords, almost like an old piece of furniture tied to the top of a station wagon.
“Come on, finish up,” an official shouted as a crowd of photographers and cameramen clustered around for a close look. “It will be available in the museum.”
Scientists said the meteor was far larger when it entered the Earth’s atmosphere, perhaps as heavy as 10,000 tons.
More than 1,200 people were injured, mostly by shattered glass, when the meteor burst into the Earth’s atmosphere with a blinding streak of light and a series of sonic booms, before exploding 20 to 30 miles above Chelyabinsk.
Countless chunks of the meteor fell along its path, but what seemed likely to be the main piece left a jagged hole about 20 feet wide in the ice of Lake Chebarkul.
Scientists said that the dark, glassy surface of the rock, known as a fusion crust, and indentations on its surface were the classic markings of a meteorite and seemed to confirm its origins. Officials said it would be analyzed and then placed in a regional museum.
Once in the Earth’s atmosphere, meteors can drop fragments all along their path, with the largest typically being closest to the point of impact.
The breakup of the meteorite fragment into three pieces does not diminish its value to researchers, but it does undercut potential bragging rights. The sum total of the fragments discovered in Chelyabinsk has not come close to matching the biggest meteorites scientists have found, which tend to be 10 tons or more.

 

MORE IN EUROPE (1 OF 49 ARTICLES)

Russia Putting a Strong Arm on Neighbors


Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Yes! YES!!

October 21, 2013

Language-Gap Study Bolsters a Push for Pre-K


Nearly two decades ago, a landmark study found that by age 3, the children of wealthier professionals have heard words millions more times than those of less educated parents, giving them a distinct advantage in school and suggesting the need for increased investment in prekindergarten programs.
Now a follow-up study has found a language gap as early as 18 months, heightening the policy debate.
The new research by Anne Fernald, a psychologist at Stanford University, which was published in Developmental Science this year, showed that at 18 months children from wealthier homes could identify pictures of simple words they knew — “dog” or “ball” — much faster than children from low-income families. By age 2, the study found, affluent children had learned 30 percent more words in the intervening months than the children from low-income homes.
The new findings, although based on a small sample, reinforced the earlier research showing that because professional parents speak so much more to their children, the children hear 30 million more words by age 3 than children from low-income households, early literacy experts, preschool directors and pediatricians said. In the new study, the children of affluent households came from communities where the median income per capita was $69,000; the low-income children came from communities with a median income per capita of $23,900.
Since oral language and vocabulary are so connected to reading comprehension, the most disadvantaged children face increased challenges once they enter school and start learning to read.
“That gap just gets bigger and bigger,” said Kris Perry, executive director of the First Five Years Fund, an advocate of early education for low-income children. “That gap is very real and very hard to undo.”
President Obama has called for the federal government to match state money to provide preschool for all 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families, a proposal in the budget that Congress voted to postpone negotiating until later this year. The administration is also offering state grants through its Race to the Top Program to support early childhood education. Critics argue, however, that with so few programs offering high-quality instruction, expanding the system will prove a waste of money and that the limited funds should be reserved for elementary and secondary education.
But at a time when a majority of public schoolchildren in about a third of the states come from low-income families, according to the Southern Education Foundation, those who are pushing for higher preschool enrollment say that investing in the youngest children could save public spending later on.
In the latest data available from the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University, 28 percent of all 4-year-olds in the United States were enrolled in state-financed preschool in the 2010-11 school year, and just 4 percent of 3-year-olds.
The National Governors Association, in a report this month calling on states to ensure that all children can read proficiently by third grade, urges lawmakers to increase access to high-quality child care and prekindergarten classes and to invest in programs for children from birth through age 5. In New York, the Democratic mayoral candidate Bill de Blasio has said he would tax high-income earners to pay for universal prekindergarten in the city.
“A lot of states are saying, ‘Let’s get to the early care providers and get more of them having kids come into kindergarten ready,’ ” said Richard Laine, director of education for the National Governors Association. That way, he said, “we’re not waiting until third grade and saying, ‘Oh my gosh, we have so many kids overwhelming our remediation system.’ ”
Currently, 17 states and the District of Columbia have policies requiring that third graders be held back if they do not meet state reading proficiency standards, according to the Education Commission of the States.
Now, with the advent of the Common Core, a set of rigorous reading and math standards for students in kindergarten through 12th grade that has been adopted by 45 states and the District of Columbia, educators say the pressure to prepare young children is growing more intense.
Literacy experts have previously documented a connection between a child’s early vocabulary and later success in reading comprehension. In a study tracking children from age 3 through middle school, David Dickinson, now a professor of education at Vanderbilt University, and Catherine Snow, an education professor at Harvard University, found that a child’s score on a vocabulary test in kindergarten could predict reading comprehension scores in later grades.
Mr. Dickinson said he feared that some preschool teachers or parents might extract the message about the importance of vocabulary and pervert it. “The worst thing that could come out of all this interest in vocabulary,” he said, “is flash cards with pictures making kids memorize a thousand words.”
Instead, literacy experts emphasize the importance of natural conversations with children, asking questions while reading books, and helping children identify words during playtime.
Even these simple principles may be hard to implement, some educators say, because preschool instructors are often paid far less than public schoolteachers and receive scant training. In one study, Robert Pianta, dean of the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia,found that in observations of 700 preschool classrooms across 11 states, teachers in less than 15 percent of the classes demonstrated “effective teacher-student interactions.”
“There is a lot of wishful thinking about how easy it is, that if you just put kids in any kind of program that this will just happen,” said W. Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research, referring to the development of strong vocabularies and other preliteracy skills.
Literacy experts and publishing companies are rushing to develop materials for teachers. Scholastic Inc., the children’s book publisher, for example, began selling the Big Day for Pre-K program to preschools three years ago. Collections of books come with specific question prompts like “I see a yellow taxi. What do you see?”
Educators and policy makers say they also must focus increasingly on parents.
In Vallejo, Calif., where about 400 children up to age 5 attend publicly funded prekindergarten programs, the district invited Anne E. Cunningham, a psychologist and literacy specialist from the University of California, Berkeley, to conduct a training program for preschool teachers that included the development of parent education workshops. And in Kentucky, the governor’s Office of Early Childhood started a social media campaign last year that offers simple tips for parents like “Talk about the weather with your child. Is it sunny or cloudy? Hot or cold?”
Middle class and more-affluent parents have long known that describing fruit at the supermarket or pointing out the shape of a stop sign are all part of a young child’s literacy education.
But even in low-income families, parents who speak to their children more frequently can enhance vocabulary. In separate research, Ms. Fernald, working with Adriana Weisleder, a graduate student in psychology, recorded all the words that 29 children from low-income households heard over a day.
The researchers differentiated between words overheard from television and adult conversations and those directed at the children. They found that some of the children, who were 19 months at the time, heard as few as 670 “child-directed” words in one day, compared with others in the group who heard as many as 12,000.
Those who had heard more words were able to understand words more quickly and had larger vocabularies by age 2.
“Even in families that are low income and perhaps don’t have a lot of education, there are some parents that are very engaged verbally with their kids,” said Ms. Weisleder. “And those kids are doing better in language development.”

Monday, October 21, 2013

Teachers, take a look - Teacher Ed programs, about which I know something

The New York Times


October 20, 2013

‘An Industry of Mediocrity’

“Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. And those who can’t teach, teach teaching.”
WHOEVER coined that caustic aphorism should have been in a Harlem classroom last week where Bill Jackson was demonstrating an exception to the rule. Jackson, a 31-year classroom veteran, was teaching the mathematics of ratios to a group of inner-city seventh graders while 15 young teachers watched attentively. Starting with a recipe for steak sauce — three parts ketchup to two parts Worcestershire sauce — Jackson patiently coaxed his kids toward little math epiphanies, never dictating answers, leaving long silences for the children to fill. “Denzel, do you agree with Katelyn’s solution?” the teacher asked. And: “Can you explain to your friend why you think Kevin is right?” He rarely called on the first hand up, because that would let the other students off the hook. Sometimes the student summoned to the whiteboard was the kid who had gotten the wrong answer: the class pitched in to help her correct it, then gave her a round of applause.
After an hour the kids filed out and the teachers circled their desks for a debriefing. Despite his status as a master teacher, Jackson seemed as eager to hone his own craft as that of his colleagues. What worked? What missed the mark? Should we break this into two lessons? Did the kids get it? And what does that mean?
“Does ‘get it’ mean getting an answer?” Jackson asked. “Or does it mean really understanding what’s going on?”
At that point Deborah Kenny, the founder of the Harlem Village Academies charter schools, leaned over to me: “That right there, that is why we’re starting a graduate school.”
How America prepares its teachers has been a subject of dismay for many years. In 2005 Arthur Levine, then the president of Teachers College at Columbia University, shocked colleagues (and himself, he says) with a scathing report concluding that teacher preparation programs “range from inadequate to appalling.” Since then the outcry has only gotten more vociferous. This summer the National Council on Teacher Quality described teacher education as still “an industry of mediocrity.”
The heartening news is that the universities that have so long resisted pleas to raise their standards are now beginning to have change pushed on them from outside. Governors (including New York’s Andrew Cuomo, last month) are raising admission standards for state education colleges. Philanthropies like the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, which Levine now runs, have been pouring money into reform. And academic entrepreneurs like Kenny are arising to compete with the established schools.
“Where charter schools were 10 years ago, that’s where teacher preparation is right at this moment,” Kenny told me. With start-up money from the media executive Barry Diller (who says he hopes to see the venture amplified via the Internet) and a core of master teachers like Jackson, Kenny has begun to build a graduate education school that will be integrated with her K-12 campuses in Harlem. It will join a young cottage industry of experimental teacher training.
Of all the competing claims on America’s education dollar — more technology, smaller classes, universal prekindergarten, school choice — the one option that would seem to be a no-brainer is investing in good teachers. But universities have proved largely immutable. Educators, including some inside these institutions, say universities have treated education programs as “cash cows.” The schools see no incentive to change because they have plenty of applicants willing to pay full tuition, the programs are relatively cheap to run, and they are accountable to no one except accrediting agencies run by, you guessed it, education schools. It’s a contented cartel.
Among reformers, there is a fair amount of consensus about what it would take to fix things. The first step is to make teacher colleges much more selective. According to one respected study, only 23 percent of American teachers — and only 14 percent in high-poverty schools — come from the top third of college graduates.
The importance of selectivity comes through vividly in “The Smartest Kids in the World,” Amanda Ripley’s engrossing new diagnosis of why American education lags behind the likes of Finland and Singapore. Ripley says she was initially skeptical, since most research shows little correlation between a teacher’s grade point average and classroom results. Then she went to Finland, where only top students get into teacher-training programs.
“What I hadn’t realized was that setting a high bar at the beginning of the profession sends a signal to everyone else that you are serious about education and teaching is hard,” Ripley told me. “When you do that, it makes it easier to make the case for paying teachers more, for giving them more autonomy in the classroom. And for kids to buy into the premise of education, it helps if they can tell that the teachers themselves are extremely well educated.”
Once they are admitted, critics say, prospective teachers need more rigorous study, not just of the science and philosophy of education but of the contents, especially in math and the sciences, where America trails the best systems in Asia and Europe. A new study by the Education Policy Center at Michigan State, drawing on data from 17 countries, concluded that while American middle school math teachers may know a lot about teaching, they often don’t know very much about math. Most of them are not required to take the courses in calculus and probability that are mandatory in the best-taught programs.
“There’s a big range in this country,” said William Schmidt, who oversaw the study. “Some of our education programs are putting out math teachers at the level of Botswana, a developing country in Africa, and some rank up with Singapore.” Unfortunately, Schmidt reckons, the Botswana-level teacher programs produce about 60 percent of America’s future middle school math teachers.
Another missing component, reformers say, is sustained, intense classroom experience while being coached by masters of the profession. Too much student teaching is too superficial — less a serious apprenticeship than a drive-by. The Woodrow Wilson program, which has beachheads at 23 universities in four states, builds teacher training programs in partnership with local school districts, requires prospective teachers to spend a full year inside schools working alongside veterans, and provides three years of postgraduate mentoring in the classroom.
Kenny’s plan in Harlem is to integrate teacher training with her K-12 campuses so closely that it will be analogous to a medical residency.
After my morning in Harlem I dropped by the red-brick edifice of Teachers College to meet Susan Fuhrman, who succeeded Arthur Levine as president and is a leader in the industry under siege. She began by acknowledging the criticisms — “there is a lot of mediocrity” — and added a couple of her own. States make it far too easy to get a teaching license, she said. Bad schools are protected by politics: “There’s an ed school in every legislator’s district, and nobody wants to close ed schools.” She favors raising admission standards and figuring out ways to hold education schools accountable for their results.
But Fuhrman finds the birth of alternative teacher schools “upsetting.” “I worry about cutting that kind of preparation off from the scholarship and from emerging research” that a university offers, she said. “It can sound like I feel threatened. I don’t. But it just worries me as a trend.”
There are 3.3 million public school teachers in America, and they probably can’t all be trained by start-ups. Raising up the standards of our university programs should be an urgent priority. But one reason for the widespread mediocrity is that universities have had a cozy, lucrative monopoly. It’s about time the leaders of our education schools did feel threatened.

 

MORE IN OPINION (4 OF 30 ARTICLES)

Op-Ed Columnist: Lousy Medicaid Arguments


Thursday, October 17, 2013

This upset me today (NYT October 17)

No, not the temporary end of the chess game being played by the nation's politicians - who, I read, did receive their pay during the recent debacle - but the man made plight of yet another of nature's wonderful mammals:

The New York Times


October 16, 2013

The Disappearing Moose

For such large creatures, moose are a relatively hidden species. They are hard to count. They live where humans do not like to go, along the boggy fringes of northern lakes and rivers where the sound of summer mosquitoes fills the air. They thrive in cold weather, and their well-being depends on sharp, cold autumns and late springs, which protect them from their most important predator: not the wolf, but the winter tick.
Moose are dying off across North America for a number of reasons, most of which can be linked to a warming climate and an eroding winter. Long, warm autumns and early, wet springs benefit winter ticks, which can cluster on moose in unbelievable numbers, causing anemia, loss of appetite, hair loss from rubbing — weakening the animals at the onset of winter, just when they need their strength most.
In the Upper Midwest, moose are at risk from liver fluke, a parasitic disease, and brain worm, which can afflict the nervous system. In British Columbia, they have lost protective cover thanks to the die-back of white pine forests caused by an epidemic of pine bark beetles. The epidemic, largely attributed to climate change, has also robbed grizzly bears of the seeds they depend on for winter food.
The collapse in moose numbers — one Minnesota population has fallen from 4,000 animals to fewer than 100 — is something scientists can track but otherwise can do nothing about. It is typical of the kind of shifts that a warming climate is causing, tipping the balance in ways that favor some species and do grievous harm to others. It is the sign of an entire ecosystem caught up in changes largely brought about by human activity.

 

MORE IN OPINION (13 OF 28 ARTICLES)

Editorial: Second Thoughts on Voter ID