برچسب: Just

  • John Thompson: Oklahoma Has Its Own DOGE, Just as Destructive as Elon’s

    John Thompson: Oklahoma Has Its Own DOGE, Just as Destructive as Elon’s


    After Trump introduced Elon Musk and his so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” several Republican-controlled states created their own DOGE operations. Like the one Musk launched, these were non-governmental, unelected, unaccountable cost-cutters, set loose to apply a chainsaw to state government.

    John Thompson reports on what happened in Oklahoma.

    CBS’s Sixty Minutes recently reported on the danger of H5N1 bird flu spinning out of control. It cited Dr. Kamran Khan who explained why “We are really at risk of this virus evolving into one that has pandemic potential.” Another expert agreed that “this flu could make Covid look like a walk in the park.”

    This frightening reporting comes as the DOGE–OK seeks to cut nearly $150 million for programs that provide immunization services, pathogens surveillance, and emerging infectious diseases prevention, and provide Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention of Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases.

    And this is only one reason for looking into the DOGE–OK process.

    Anyone paying attention to Elon Musk’s leadership of the Trump administration’s DOGE campaign to cut federal programs has reason the fear the DOGE campaigns launched in 26 states. After all, as the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) explains, when Governor Kevin Stitt opened Oklahoma’s DOGE-OK, he called for a reduction in our personal income and corporate tax rates, thus making the state’s tax code even more regressive.

    The EPI further explained that Stitt selected Marc Nuttle, “who was the ‘chief strategist’ behind Oklahoma’s 2001 so-called right-to-work referendum—a policy designed to disempower workers and lower wages (and contrary to proponents’ claims, it did not bolster job growth in the state).” The executive order empowered Nuttle to lead efforts of a newly formed agency to study the state budget.

    Moreover, the EPI explains:

    DOGE-OK is itself duplicative since the Office of the State Auditor and Inspector is constitutionally mandated to “examine the state and all county treasurers’ books, accounts, and cash on hand, stipulating that [the office] shall perform other duties as may be prescribed by law.” Similar to DOGE-OK, the auditor reviews staffing levels, assesses state spending, and issues public reports to promote transparency.

    The DOGE-OK report now explains:

    Once DOGE-OK ideas are received, they are analyzed and vetted with the appropriate group. If validated, ideas are added to the DOGE-OK website. 

    But, when I studied the report, I found no sign of hard evidence to back its claims. For instance, they didn’t explain their methodology, and offered no cost/benefit analyses. DOGE didn’t explain what “groups” it considered to be “appropriate,” and what data was used to analyze and vet, and validate their ideas.  

    Since the first DOGE headlines focused on $157 million in supposedly “wasteful health grants” by the federal government, I focused on Medicaid and Department of Health cuts.

    These proposed cuts are especially disturbing because, as Shiloh Kantz, the executive director of the nonpartisan Oklahoma Policy Institute, explained, “Oklahoma already ranks among the worst in health outcomes.”

    First, DOGE-OK claimed that $60 million per year would be saved if the state, not the federal government, performed eligibility checks on children. And, they cited two drugs that received accelerated approval without working, costing $42 million. But, they did not mention the number and the benefits of the other drugs, like the Covid vaccine, that received accelerated approval.

    Also, DOGE-OK inexplicably said that easing the prescription drug cost cap would improve prices. And they recommended repeal of staffing requirements for Long-Term Care facilities in order to save $76 million annually, without mentioning harm to elderly patients due to under-staffing.

    DOGE-OK also said that three Oklahoma State Department of Health programs should be cut by almost $150 million because their funding exceeded the amount necessary.  As already mentioned, in the wake of Covid pandemic, and as measles and bird flu spread, these programs provide immunization services, pathogens surveillance, and emerging infectious diseases prevention, etc. So, how did DOGE reach the conclusion that the full funding of those programs is no longer necessary?  

    Then, DOGE-OK said that 7 programs should have cuts because of “duplication,” with partners doing the same or similar work. They said $2.2 million would be saved by getting rid of the team efforts necessary to improve health.

    And Sex Education should be cut by $236,000 because of its low Return on Investment.

    Again, I saw no evidence behind their recommendations for $157,606,300 in overall health care reductions. Neither did they address financial costs of implementing their ideas. And, there is no evidence that DOGE seriously considered the costs in terms of the lives that would be damaged or lost.

    Given the history of the Trump/Musk DOGE, none of the DOGE–OK should be a surprise. When Gov. Stitt selected Nuttle, a true-believer in Milton Friedman, to run the project, Stitt said, “With his help, we’ll leave state government leaner than we found it.”

    Is that the proper way to launch a supposedly balanced and evidence-driven investigation of such complex and crucial policy approaches?

    Stitt’s news release previewed Nuttle’s methodology: “use his knowledge of the inner workings of government to comb through agency budgets, legislative appropriations, and contracts.”

    So, to paraphrase the DOGE-OK report’s description of its methodology, its proposals would be “analyzed and vetted” by what they see as the “appropriate group.”

    In other words, Oklahomans were never promised an open, balanced, evidence-based DOGE process for making our state better. But the same is also true for Musk’s federal DOGE chainsaw.



    Source link

  • When will Black minds matter in California’s actions, not just words?

    When will Black minds matter in California’s actions, not just words?


    restorative justice

    Alison Yin for EdSource

    During a recent work trip to another state, I ran into an acquaintance I’d met a few times at education conferences. After our initial chit-chat about jet lag, they brought up a sentiment I’ve increasingly heard lately: Surely I must be glad to do education work in California, where equity isn’t a bad word; where diversity is championed, and state leaders are quick to defend the programs, practices and policies that support students of color.

    It’s becoming harder to fix my face when I hear these words. Rhetoric is one thing, actions and data are another. And in a state where the current trajectory won’t have all Black students at grade level in math until at least 2089, I worry that our focus on saying the right words is taking the place of doing the right thing. 

    Before I get written off as too angry, let me be clear that there are absolutely things to celebrate in California’s approach to education. But here is where the conundrum lies for me. Why is it that California pursues so many positive steps forward in education, but continually sidesteps significant action that would lead to tangible results for Black students? 

    EdTrust—West’s report “Black Minds Matter 2025: Building Bright Black Futures,” comes a decade after we originally issued a call to action for California leaders by launching the Black Minds Matter campaign in 2015. We found a big disconnect between the dreams and aspirations of Black students and the opportunities our education systems give them to succeed. Black students are more likely to attend schools with novice teachers. Black students have the lowest high school graduation rate in California. Fewer Black students are going to college after high school than 10 years ago, and Black students are still underrepresented at California State University and the University of California. On nearly every indicator we analyzed, the education systems charged with caring for our students fail to support Black students. Wouldn’t you be angry if these were your kids or family members? 

    Our reports, policy work, and that of other researchers and advocacy organizations show how many efforts proclaimed as supportive to Black students are performative and piecemeal, or watered down or abandoned altogether, like the changes made to the Black Student Achievement Program in Los Angeles and the quashing of 2023’s Assembly Bill 2774

    This work, and some of our previous statements about the pace of progress in the state, have pissed people off. It confounds me that some folks in power are more upset about the ways we describe the data on how schools and colleges are doing for Black students than they are about how schools and colleges are doing for Black students. We have to remember that there are real people behind these data points.

    Some folks told us not to share this data and advocate strongly for Black students right now. The political climate is too tenuous to speak up for Black students, they said. We need to fly under the radar rather than speak loudly and boldly, they said. It is not lost on me that the individuals suggesting this quieter path are well-intentioned. However, as professor Shaun Harper points out, now is precisely the time for organizations and educational institutions “to showcase DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) activities to confirm that they are not the racist, divisive, discriminatory and anti-American activities that obstructionists erroneously claim”. 

    California may be in the crosshairs, but we are also at a crossroads.

    The dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education is being framed as returning education to the states. So, let’s take them up on that in ways that not only reaffirm our values verbally, but also through new, bolder actions.

    Many of our recommendations are not new, except one: We need a California Commission on Black Education Transformation. Our current education infrastructure is failing far too many Black students. As we outline in our report and will continue to share in upcoming materials, we are not proposing that this commission act as another task force, but rather that it serves as an entity with power and authority around resources and accountability measures. We need an overhaul, and now —when states are being told they are empowered to lead on education — is the time to do it. 

    What I reminded the colleague I saw at the recent conference is this: The fight for racial justice has always been an uphill battle, even in California. Yet what we have in California — or at least what I am hoping we have — are leaders who will not only not back down, but will embrace the call to be bold.

    I’ve advised college students and been an adjunct professor. I would never tell a student to temper their expectations for themselves. I would never say to a student not to fight for what is right because it is hard. I hope California doesn’t, either. 

    •••

    Christopher J. Nellum, Ph.D., is executive director of EdTrust—West, a nonprofit organization advancing policies and practices to dismantle the racial and economic barriers embedded in the California education system. 

    The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

  • Michael Tomasky: Trump Just Did the Most Corrupt Thing Any President Has Ever Done

    Michael Tomasky: Trump Just Did the Most Corrupt Thing Any President Has Ever Done


    Michael Tomasky is a veteran journalist who is the editor of The New Republic and editor in chief of Democracy. He has written for NewsweekThe Daily BeastThe American Prospect, and The New York Review of Books.

    When reading the article, it’s important to remember that the President is not supposed to enrich himself while in office. It’s illlegal.

    Tomasky writes:

    He’s using the White House to get rich from anonymous investors—and it’s hardly even a news story.

    Imagine that Joe Biden, just as he was assuming office, had started a new company with Hunter Biden and used his main social media account to recruit financial backers, then promised that the most generous among them would earn an invitation to a private dinner with him. Oh, and imagine that these investors were all kept secret from the public, so that we had no idea what kinds of possible conflicts of interest might arise.

    Samuel Corum/Sipa/Bloomberg/Getty Images

    Take a minute, close your eyes. Let yourself see Jim Jordan’s face go purple in apoplexy, hear the moral thunder spewing out of Jesse Watters’s mouth, feel the shock (which would be wholly justified) of the New York Times editorial board as it expressed disbelief that the man representing the purported values and standards of the United States of America before the world would begin to think it was remotely OK to do such a thing. The media would be able to speak of nothing else for days. Maybe weeks.

    Yet this and more is what Donald Trump just did, and unless you follow the news quite closely, it’s possible you’ve not even heard about it. Or if you have, it was probably in passing, one of those second-tier, “this is kind of interesting” headlines. But it’s a lot more than that. As Democratic Senator Chris Murphy noted Wednesday: “This isn’t Trump just being Trump. The Trump coin scam is the most brazenly corrupt thing a President has ever done. Not close.”

    Trump announced this week that the top 220 buyers of his $Trump (strump, as in strumpet) meme coin between now and mid-May will be invited to an exclusive dinner on May 22 (“a night to remember”) at his golf club outside Washington, D.C. The Washington Post and other outlets have reported that in the days since the announcement, “buyers have poured tens of millions of dollars” into the coin; further, that the holders of 27 crypto wallets have acquired at least 100,000 coins apiece, “stakes worth about a million dollars each.” Holders of crypto wallets are anonymous, if they want to be, so the identities of these people (or businesses or countries or sovereign wealth funds or whatever they might be) are unknown and will presumably remain so until the big dinner or, who knows, maybe for all time.

    It’s also worth noting that Trump launched this meme coin just a few days before inauguration. Its value quickly shot up to around $75. It steadily declined through the first month of his presidency, and by early April, as Americans grew weary of a president who was tanking the economy, it had fallen to $7.14.

    Mind you, a meme coin is a thing with no intrinsic value. It’s just some … thing that somebody decides to launch based on hype because they can get a bunch of suckers to invest in it. As Investopedia gingerly puts it: “Most meme coins are usually created without a use case other than being tradable and convertible.” It should come as no surprise that some meme coins are tied to right-wing politics. Elon Musk named his Department of Government Efficiency after his favorite meme coin, dogecoin (which, in turn, was indeed named after an actual internet memein which doge is slang for a Shiba Inu dog).

    So, to go back to my opening analogy—this isn’t even like Joe and Hunter Biden starting a company from the White House. A company is a real thing. It makes a product or provides a service. It files papers with the Securities and Exchange Commission. It pays taxes. It employs people. Assuming that it’s a good corporate citizen and that it exists at least in part to solve some problem or offer the public some innovation, it contributes to the general welfare.

    Not so a meme coin. It’s just a hustle. It may make certain investors rich, but it does the world no good whatsoever.

    So stop and think about this. First, Trump, preparing for the presidency, purportedly busy thinking about how many millions of people he’s going to deport and how he’s going to bring “Jina” to its knees and how he’s going to hand eastern Ukraine to Putin and how he’s going to cut Meals on Wheels, for Chrissakes, takes time out from all that to stop and think: Now, how can I profit from returning to the White House? So he launches, naturally, the griftiest Christmas present ever.

    It starts out great. Then its value drops by 90 percent. So in April, while he’s illegally deporting legal U.S. residents to El Salvador and roiling the world’s financial markets, he stops and takes the time to think: Hey, what happened with my meme coin? I had better figure out a way to goose this grift. So he comes up with this dinner. As well as showing just how tawdry his mind is, how he just automatically and intrinsically thinks it’s his right to make a buck from the presidency, it’s unspeakably corrupt. (One small silver lining here is that after peaking Wednesday at almost $15, it’s now under $12.)

    Who knows who these “investors” are? Will we ever know? Inevitably, on May 22, people will be invited to that dinner. Will we know the guest list? Will the list be sanitized? Will a few Russian oligarchs be among the top 220 but send surrogates to keep their identity hidden?

    This doesn’t create the “appearance” of corruption or set up the “potential” for conflict of interest. It is corruption, and it’s a standing conflict of interest. Patently, and historically. Chris Murphy is right: This is the most corrupt thing any president has ever done, by a mile.

    What are the others? Watergate? It was awful in different ways, but of course Trump is worse than Richard Nixon in all those ways too. Teapot Dome? Please—a tiny little rigged contract, and it didn’t even involve Warren Harding directly, just his interior secretary. Credit Mobilier? Run-of-the-mill bribes by a railroad company, again not involving President Grant directly, just his vice president.

    And yes, I’ve been thinking this week of the Lincoln Bedroom scandal. In 1995–96, the Clintons invited a lot of people to spend a night in the famous chamber. Many of them made large donations to the Democratic Party. It was unseemly. But it wasn’t illegal. And it certainly didn’t line the Clintons’ personal pockets. But if you were around at the time, you remember as I do the swollen outrage of Republicans about how relentlessly corrupt the Clintons were.

    Today? Crickets.

    Finally: Before we leave this topic, I want you to go to GetTrumpMemes.com and just look at those illustrations of Trump. There’s a big one in the middle of him with his fist raised, echoing the image from his attempted assassination. Then off to the right, there’s Trump seated at the head of a dining table.

    In both, he looks about 50. The artist has airbrushed a good quarter-century off his face, in terms of jowl fat and wrinkles and accumulated orange pancake. And in the dominant, middle image … what do we think Trump’s waist size is, about 46, 48? This Trump is about a 34. Maybe even a svelte 32. It’s hysterically funny. These are probably the most creepily totalitarian images of Trump I’ve ever seen, and yes, I understand, that’s a big statement. But even Stalin’s visual hagiographers didn’t try to make him look skinny.

    I digress. Let’s keep our eyes on the real prize here. This May 22 dinner is a high crime and misdemeanor. A president of the United States can’t use the office to enrich himself in this way, from potentially anonymous donors for whom he might do favors. This is as textbook as corruption gets.

    New York Times and Washington Post, put your best investigative reporters on this and place their stories on your front pages. MSNBC, hammer on this—you haven’t been. Democrats, talk about this every day, several times a day. Do not let Trump’s sewer standards jade us. Make sure the people know.



    Source link

  • College clubs becoming just as competitive as getting into college

    College clubs becoming just as competitive as getting into college


    Credit: Larry Gordon / EdSource

    When Nhan Tong, a freshman majoring in computer science at USC, arrived on campus in the fall, he was excited to join social clubs, discover a new passion and make some college friends. 

    A club focused on meetups to make and explore new foods caught Tong’s eye, but he soon learned about the group’s laborious, multistep application process: the submission of several essays, followed by an in-person, structured “vibe check” session, where Tong participated in a group interview with prospective members. 

    Groups of about 10 students filtered through a courtyard in shifts, answering questions like, “Why do you want to join?”, “If you had to choose one flavor that describes you, what would it be?” and “Where does your passion for food come from?”

    A few weeks later, Tong got rejected from the club. He ran over possibilities in his mind, trying to figure out what he’d done wrong — what was off about his “vibe.” The experience frustrated and hardened him to the reality of organized social culture at the University of Southern California, he said.

    “They’re trying to look for these specific people, and they encourage everyone to apply, apply, apply,” Tong said. “The issue is not applying itself. It just makes it kind of an unfair and unfriendly environment to newcomers.”

    Admission rates to California’s most competitive public and private universities decline year after year, nearing or falling below 10% for the 2028 freshman classes at colleges like USC, Stanford, UC Berkeley and UCLA. In an increasingly cutthroat process, 12th graders vie for a limited number of seats in college classrooms across the state. 

    Although gaining admission to a selective university is no easy feat, a shifting social dynamic in many elite institutions now means getting in is only part of the challenge. At colleges where freshman classes boast some of the highest-achieving high schoolers in the country, students have developed their own selective, hierarchical culture in the form of exclusive clubs.

    While college fraternities and sororities have always selected members through a multistep, sometimes laborious process known as “rush,” a competitive club culture separate from Greek life is an emerging phenomenon. 

    Ranging from career-oriented organizations that prime students for prestigious Wall Street internships and six-figure salaries to social groups that organize potlucks, interested students are let in on the open secret among their institutions: Whether a club deliberates Fortune 500 company cases or bonds casually over a shared interest, not just anyone gets in just by showing up.

    While the issue is most visible at the most selective campuses, there are accounts from California State University campuses along with UC schools and private colleges.

    Some universities are beginning to recognize selectivity in student organizations as an issue, but directing clubs to reform their recruiting practices is a tall task. 

    Starting in fall 2024, USC told its clubs they had to accept any interested student applicants. A number of competitive groups, though, have kept their application processes while hosting events for nonmembers that help them bypass the new rule.

    For some student clubs, open invites and welcoming environments are part of an organizational mission amid rising exclusivity.

    UC Berkeley senior Ken McNurney, a shed and equipment manager for Cal Archery, the campus’ recreational archery team, noted the importance of having fun in college.

    At the beginning of the fall semester, McNurney replied to a user on Reddit’s r/berkeley subreddit page who posted in despair following rejections from clubs requiring applications and interviews. McNurney encouraged dejected students to join Cal Archery in his comment, advertising free beginner sessions for all students. 

    “I commented because I understand the appeal of those clubs and organizations from a student professional’s perspective, (but) they wind up unintentionally neglecting just having fun and making friends just for the sake of those things,” McNurney said.

    Julia Wu, president of Cal Archery, immediately found the club warm and welcoming when encouraged to join the club’s beginner training program after emailing the club out of interest during her senior year of high school. Despite Wu’s “newbie” status, Cal Archery’s accepting environment for both archers with and without competition experience took her with open arms. 

    “(I’m) so glad Ken used his humor to advertise our club’s friendliness,” Wu said. “I made several friends from my cohort who became my best friends in college.”

    But some student leaders say selectivity is necessary.

    Christina Mueller, a UC Berkeley junior and co-president of the school’s Model United Nations club, said that the current acceptance rate for new members is around 20%, often receiving around 100 applications every semester. 

    According to Mueller, funding constraints leave UC Berkeley’s Model UN club no choice but to limit available spots.

    “We’d love for (the club) to be larger, especially for a traveling team, but with (Berkeley) being a public institution, we’re limited in how many people the club can support financially,” Mueller said. “We’re very limited in the amount of places we can travel. For other schools, everything is paid for. We are mostly self-funded, meaning people pay out of pocket for their own flights and food. Most people in the club can only afford to travel once a semester to a tournament.”

    Mueller said the club’s extensive vetting process — three rounds of interviews, including a “social round” where prospective members are considered based on their compatibility with current members — is crucial to the success of the club’s performance at conferences.

    “Reading social dynamics, working with people — including people in conversations while still establishing yourself as a leader — is an important part of doing well in conferences. Intelligence and research can only take you so far,” Mueller said. “Success (in this club) is social awareness, which is why we’ve instituted a social round, showing how you do well in competition.”

    Stanford senior Matthew Yekell’s foray into the university’s club scene could be described as a raving success: He got a “yes” from every highly selective group he applied for as a freshman and now serves as vice president of Stanford Consulting, the premier consulting club on campus with a sub-10% acceptance rate.

    One of his takeaways from running the club’s recruitment last year? “It’s needlessly exclusive,” Yekell said. 

    “It’s tragic how selective we have to be, right? I think a lot of club leaders … look at selectivity as a good thing,” said Yekell, pointing to the way some pre-professional clubs wear their low acceptance rates as badges of honor.

    Stanford Consulting is more “job” than club, Yekell said, paying its student members for work with real clients. The group recruits like an employer but works to support its largely inexperienced underclassmen applicants with pre-interview coffee chats and workshops. Successful applicants make use of offered support, do their research, reach out for mentorship and demonstrate a strong interest in what the club can do for them, he said.

    Interested students who don’t make it in can attend talks with consulting firms and case interview trainings that are open to all, Yekell said.

    “We host a lot of programming that’s all-campus,” Yekell said. “We’re cognizant of how  … (unfortunate) it is that we can only serve a certain segment of the population.”

    In a perfect world, no club would be selective, said USC senior Sullivan Barthel. Barthel, who majors in journalism, is part of a group of students running a campus magazine. Though he’d like for the club to accept anyone interested in contributing, a page limit means restrictions on how many students they can bring on.

    “We produce public-facing content in a short amount of time, and it’s really important for our production schedule to have a reasonable number of people on the team,” Barthel said. “The main thing that I talked with the other editorial staff about this summer was just being really intentional with why we are selective.”

    But Barthel sees a greater trend on campus affecting students hoping to get involved in social clubs and, more specifically, community service organizations. Upon coming to USC, he found, much to his surprise, that a number of university-affiliated student service groups ask students to write essays, participate in interviews and take knowledge tests just to volunteer with them.

    “The dangerous combination is when there’s a very mission-driven organization that also has a really heavy social component,” Barthel said. He thinks there’s a belief that a strong, tight-knit community comes from “a really intense recruitment process.”

    On the heels of his food club rejection, USC student Tong sought to disprove the tie between selectivity and community. 

    Despite feeling disheartened and confused by his first foray into campus involvement, Tong went on to join engineering clubs and an open table-tennis group that meets weekly. He even started his own unofficial, open-invite movie club. 

    “What I’d want to see from these (selective) clubs is just a little bit more transparency, maybe about who they’re looking for, what exactly they even want,” Tong said. “There’s no way I have to write an essay just to get into a club for socialization. That just doesn’t make sense. If it was socialization, you would just try to get as many people as possible, right?”

    Christina Chkarboul is a fourth-year earth science, global studies and journalism student at USC and a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.

    Jo Moon is a third-year political economy and gender studies student at UC Berkeley and a member of EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps.





    Source link

  • Why Home Tuition Should Be More Than Just About Grades

    Why Home Tuition Should Be More Than Just About Grades


    In an increasingly competitive academic environment, it’s easy to fall into the trap of equating education with grades alone. While good marks can open doors to opportunities, true education encompasses far more. Home tuition, often viewed as a tool for academic improvement, has the potential to nurture emotional intelligence, self-discipline, and a love for learning. It’s time to reimagine home tuition as a holistic development platform rather than just a grade-boosting machine.

    The Limitations of a Grades-Only Approach

    Grades represent only a narrow aspect of a student’s abilities. They rarely reflect creativity, critical thinking, or emotional intelligence. Focusing solely on marks can create undue pressure and lead students to lose interest in subjects they might otherwise enjoy.

    Why Home Tuition Should Be About More Than Grades

    Here’s why home tuition should go beyond just academic performance:

    • Learning at One’s Own Pace: Home tuition allows for personalized teaching that adapts to the student’s speed and understanding. Tutors can clarify doubts, revisit tough topics, and accelerate lessons as needed. This builds confidence and mastery over memorization.
    • Developing Critical Thinking Skills: A good home tutor incorporates real-world examples, encourages discussions, and promotes logical reasoning. These practices help develop problem-solving and analytical thinking.
    • Encouraging Curiosity and Independent Learning: The right tutor acts as a mentor, sparking curiosity and a love for learning by encouraging questions and deep exploration of topics.
    • Building Self-Esteem and Motivation: Personalized attention allows tutors to motivate students and turn mistakes into learning opportunities, helping build confidence and resilience.
    • Enhancing Communication Skills: One-on-one sessions allow students to express themselves more freely and build effective communication habits that benefit them in academic and professional settings.
    • Teaching Life Skills: Home tuition can be a platform for teaching important life skills like time management, accountability, and goal setting.
    • Parental Involvement: Regular feedback from home tutors allows parents to stay updated on both academic and personal development.

    How TheTuitionTeacher Goes Beyond Grades

    TheTuitionTeacher is a home tuition platform that understands the value of holistic education. Here’s how they stand out:

    • Personalized Tutor Matching: Students are matched with tutors who suit their learning style, academic needs, and personality.
    • Emphasis on Conceptual Clarity: TheTuitionTeacher promotes understanding rather than rote learning, helping students build strong conceptual foundations.
    • Progress Tracking: Parents receive regular feedback and reports to track academic and personal growth.
    • Empowered Tutors: Tutors aren’t just educators—they are mentors trained to support emotional and intellectual development.
    • Flexible Learning Options: With online and offline classes available, TheTuitionTeacher adapts to each student’s schedule and preferences.

    Conclusion: Redefining the Role of Home Tuition

    While grades are important, they are not the sole measure of a student’s potential. Home tuition should foster a well-rounded individual by nurturing curiosity, resilience, emotional intelligence, and communication skills. TheTuitionTeacher is pioneering this shift by offering personalized, supportive, and holistic tutoring that puts the child’s overall development at the center.



    Source link