Why have the Common Core standards become a divisive issue within the conservative movement? Should doctors consider the cost of treatment when they make medical decisions? Later, how would driverless cares influence your decision to buy a car?
Why is the Common Core curriculum splitting conservatives?
The Common Core standards, which were introduced four years ago in 44 states and D.C. with the backing of Republicans and business groups, have become a divisive issue within the conservative movement.
The standards were adopted by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers to raise in 2010 students’ math and English proficiency. But of late, many Republicans who had backed the program have switched course. Indiana became the first state in the nation to opt out of Common Core after adopting it. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has said he wants his state to come up with its own educational goals. New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has been questioning whether teachers should be evaluated through these new standards. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is also having a change of mind. Ted Cruz of Texas, Kentucky’s Rand Paul and Florida’s Marco Rubio all oppose the new curriculum. The conservative faction supporting the standards, which has quickly dwindled in size, include former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
In 2009, the Obama Administration linked the adoption of Common Core to “Race to the Top” grant money, fueling criticism that this is another yet instance of government overreach. Do you support Common Core?
Guests:
Charles Sahm, the deputy director of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for State and Local Leadership, where he directs the Institute’s education reform efforts. His piece, “The Incredibly Stupid War On The Common Core” is in today’s Daily Beast
Lindsey Burke, Will Skillman Fellow in Education, The Heritage Foundation
Should doctors consider the cost of treatment when they make medical decisions?
Medical groups nationwide are beginning to consider the cost of treatment alongside effectiveness in making healthcare decisions. Though it’s controversial for doctors to broaden their roles beyond the realm of care, some see it as a necessity as healthcare costs rise.
The American College of Cardiology recently announced their intent to use cost data to rate the value of treatments, and across the country, taskforces are popping up to examine how to allocate resource and weigh cost as part of medical decisions.
Should doctors consider cost as part of medicine? As cost transparency becomes a larger part of healthcare, should primary caregivers be the ones to make financial recommendations, or should those decisions come from a separate group within a hospital or practice? Would you like your doctor to consider the cost of treatment?
Guest:
Dr. Paul Heidenreich, Chair of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measurement, professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, co-chair of the writing committee for the cost methodology paper
Does the FDA’s food waste proposal jeopardize recycling?
Each year, billions of pounds of food waste are diverted from landfills to help feed livestock. But a proposal from a 2011 FDA food safety overhaul could limit the way reusable food resources are used, sending that food back to landfills.
The proposal is intended to keep animals and people safer, and would require stricter sanitation and record-keeping in feed production. Critics argue that the requirements would be cost prohibitive, and warn that many business would be unable to keep recycling.
Food companies in particular have vocalized unhappiness with the feed regulation, saying it would be bad for the environment and provide little to no safety benefit.
What kind of food safety overhaul is appropriate and cost effective? How can the U.S. utilize the billions of pounds of reusable food waste that goes into landfills? Would the benefits of the FDA’s proposed regulations on feed outweigh the costs?
"Getting Wasted: L.A.'s Food Excess" provides a closer look at food waste in Los Angeles and some efforts to curb food waste in the L.A. area.
Guests:
Caroline Smith DeWaal, director of food safety at Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
Gail Tavill, vice president of sustainable development for ConAgra Foods
Should detained immigrants be granted bond hearings?
Immigrants facing deportation could be granted bond hearings in a move that could release several thousand people from jails and slow the pace of deportations. The Obama administration is considering a proposal to allow judges to grant bond in the cases of immigrants in prolonged detention. Immigrant rights groups say the bond hearings could slow the pace of deportations because the cases of detained immigrants are often expedited. Activists say that granting bond hearings will make the deportation process more fair by allowing detained immigrants to see a judge and have their day in court.
A California court decision now requires immigration agents to involve a judge only when a person has been detained for longer than six months. Obama has been criticized heavily by immigrant rights groups for overseeing a record number of deportations. Many of those deported, activists say, would be eligible for legal status under the immigration bill that passed the Senate but stalled in the Republican-led House of Representatives.
Since hope of bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform seems to be dimming, the administration is looking to make small administrative changes that would reduce the number of deportations in the short term. The Department of Homeland Security is also looking at deportation policies to make them more humane.
Will granting bond hearings make the deportation process more fair or will it only slow the pace of deportations that would have been granted anyway? How will the system track those facing deportation while they are out on bond? Should the Obama administration make changes to the deportation process without the approval of Congress?
Guests:
Claudia Valenzuela, associate director of litigation for the National Immigrant Justice Center. She represents non-citizens before the Department of Homeland Security.
Mark Krikorian, Executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies
Airlines try to squeeze even more seats into your plane
You might think that air travel can't possibly get more uncomfortable but, ladies and gentlemen, it just might get worse.
Airlines and aircraft interior design companies gathered this month at the Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hamburg, Germany, to show off the latest and greatest ways to squeeze even more passengers into the already-overcrowded planes.
More than 500 exhibitors were at the expo showing off everything from lightweight seat belts to save on fuel costs to flip up, stadium-style seating that would make it easier to board and exit the rows. Some of the more popular proposals made major changes to the standard airplane interior.
One company showed off a staggered, diagonal layout that would give you some extra space away from your neighbor but could make traveling with families difficult.
How far will airlines go to squeeze in even more passengers? And how much more discomfort will travelers put up with for a cheap ticket? How uncomfortable would an airplane seat have to be to get you to shell out more money for an upgrade?
Guest:
Seth Miller, author of the Wandering Aramean blog, which focuses on travel, frequent-flier news and the experience of airline passengers
Driverless cars, ehail services, car share programs: Enough to rethink owning a car?
The past few years have brought big changes to car use and ownership. E-hail services like Lyft and Uber and car share programs like Zipcar have transformed the concept of mobility. Millennials have stopped buying cars, public transportation use is on the rise, e-hail services and car shares are growing exponentially.
It may be easy to flag down a ride on a smartphone or to share a car for only a few hours a week, but are these programs enough to make people rethink car ownership? Are cars a utility, or a pleasure?
For those who enjoy cruising along the freeway with the top down, or strapping a surfboard to the roof and chasing the best waves down PCH, Lyft and Zipcar may never content with car ownership. But for eco-conscious city dwellers with e-resources and viable public transportation or bike services, a car might be less and less important.
Who needs and loves their cars the most? Are e-hail services and car share programs enough to make you reconsider your ride?
Guest:
Mimi Sheller, Director, Center for Mobilities Research and Policy; Professor of Sociology at Drexel University
To listen to this AirTalk segment in its entirety, click on "Listen Now" in the upper left.