 |
|
|
|||||
Back-to-school season is in full swing, and with it comes the excitement of new teachers, new friends, and fresh beginnings. But for millions of children, this time of year also brings reliefbecause for the first time in months, they once again have consistent access to the food they need to concentrate, participate, and succeed. While summer conjures images of vacations and play for many children, it can be a time of increased hunger and skipped meals for families working hard to make ends meet. When schools close, so do their cafeterias, meal programs, and pantries, resulting in more than 20 million kids losing their most reliable source of daily nutrition. And with rising food costs and a worsening job market, parents are finding it harder than ever to put nutritious meals on the table. Of the parents surveyed, more than 1 in 3 said they worried about running out of food this past summer, while 70% said inflation and rising food prices made it harder to afford groceries. And nearly 2 in 3 parents expect food costs to continue rising this year, adding to the stress of already strained budgets. The result is a season that, for too many families, is less about carefree childhood and more about hard choices between food, rent, and gas. Investing in Nutrition Is Investing in the Future The costs of hunger extends far beyond the dinner table, demonstrating that hunger isnt only a moral crisis; its an educational and economic crisis as well. Studies confirm that children experiencing food insecurity are sick more often, hospitalized more frequently, and may face developmental deficiencies that alter the architecture of their brains. They may also struggle to concentrate in classrooms, with 83% of parents surveyed by No Kid Hungry saying their children cant focus when hungry, and 88% reporting that school meals directly improve learning. The costs of a child missing a meal doesnt end with childhood. It is linked to lower academic performance, behavioral challenges, and reduced lifetime earnings. Children who grow up food insecure often enter the workforce with fewer opportunities and greater barriers to success. But the impact doesnt stop there. Childhood hunger reverberates across societycontributing to higher healthcare costs, increased demand for special education services, and diminished economic productivity. In fact, research shows that child hunger costs the U.S. economy $160 billion annually in lost potential and increased public spending. Closing the hunger gap together Hunger isnt a supply problemits a systems problem. With more than enough food in the U.S., hunger is a solvable issue when we all work together, especially through innovative community and business partnerships. People facing hunger have told us that they dont want charity; they want lasting solutions. Increasingly, companies across industries are stepping up, not only through food donations, cash grants, and volunteers, but by using their size and influence to advocate for stronger policies that protect families. In addition, some are launching large-scale programssuch as PepsiCos Food for Goodthat leverage corporate capabilities to source, pack, and deliver millions of cost-effective, nutritious meals each year, demonstrating how business can directly help close the hunger gap. Federal nutrition programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Summer EBT, and school meals are among the most effective solutions we have. Every dollar invested generates up to $2 in economic returnincluding healthier kids, better school performance, and stronger earning potential over a lifetime. These programs have already reduced child hunger by 33% and eased stress for working parents, with two-thirds noting school meals lower their familys anxiety. Rolling them back would not just hurt families today, but undercut Americas workforce and economic competitiveness tomorrow. Thats why corporate leadership is essential. When business voices join community leaders in calling for stronger nutrition programsand pair that advocacy with innovation like mobile meal hubs or public-private partnershipsthe impact multiples. The choice is clear: Cutbacks carry devastating costs while investment in child nutrition pays dividends for generations. Without collective action, reductions in nutrition spending will carry devastating costs for years to come. Feeding potential and fueling growth The return on investing in childhood food access is both immediate and generational. Every meal served to a child today protects their health, boosts their learning, and fuels their potential to contribute to tomorrows economy. Eleven-year-old Elijah, who receives free breakfast and lunch at school, put it simply: When Im hungry, I get tired or Ill get distracted. But when Im not, Im on-task and I can focus. With consistent meals, Elijah isnt just able to concentrate, hes thriving in his passion for robotics. If Im full, Im ready for whatever happens, he said. Elijahs story is one of millions. Summer programs that provide meals to children who rely on free or reduced-price meals during the school year are especially critical and have been shown to decrease food insecurity and mitigate summer learning loss. Partnerships are already proving whats possible. Since 2009, PepsiCo and the PepsiCo Foundation have invested over $75 million in Food for Good, expanding access to nutritious meals for children after school, on weekends, and during the summer. Through this investment, Food for Good partners with food banksincluding the Feeding America network, which provided 30 million meals to children last summer. Together, these efforts demonstrate the power of public-private collaboration to reach children at scale, ease family budgets, and build healthier, more resilient communities. Nourishment now is prosperity later Ensuring kids have year-round access to food is one of the smartest investments we can make in human capital. It reduces costs, boosts productivity, and strengthens the workforce. Every nourished child is healthier today and better prepared to become the innovators and leaders who will shape a more prosperous tomorrow.
Category:
E-Commerce
Want more housing market stories from Lance Lamberts ResiClub in your inbox? Subscribe to the ResiClub newsletter. When assessing home price momentum, ResiClub believes it’s important to monitor active listings and months of supply. If active listings start to rapidly increase as homes remain on the market for longer periods, it may indicate pricing softness or weakness. Conversely, a rapid decline in active listings could suggest a market that is tightening or heating up. Since the national Pandemic Housing Boom fizzled out in 2022, the national power dynamic has slowly been shifting directionally from sellers to buyers. Of course, across the country that shift has varied significantly. Generally speaking, local housing markets where active inventory has jumped above pre-pandemic 2019 levels have experienced softer home price growth (or outright price declines) over the past 36 months. Conversely, local housing markets where active inventory remains far below pre-pandemic 2019 levels have, generally speaking, experienced more resilient home price growth over the past 36 months. Where is national active inventory headed? National active listings as tracked by Realtor.com are on the rise on a year-over-year basis (+17% between September 2024 and September 2025). This indicates that homebuyers have gained some leverage in many parts of the country over the past year. Some sellers markets have turned into balanced markets, and more balanced markets have turned into buyers markets. Nationally, were still below pre-pandemic 2019 inventory levels (-10% below September 2019) and some resale markets, in particular chunks of the Midwest and Northeast, still remain tight-ish. While national active inventory is still up year-over-year, the pace of growth has slowed in recent monthsmore than typical seasonality would suggestas some sellers have thrown in the towel and delisted (more on that in another piece). These are the past September inventory/active listings totals, according to Realtor.com: September 2017 -> 1,308,607 September 2018 -> 1,301,922 September 2019 -> 1,224,868 September 2020 -> 749,395 September 2021 -> 578,070 (overheating during the Pandemic Housing Boom) September 2022 -> 731,496 September 2023 -> 702,430 September 2024 -> 940,980 September 2025 -> 1,100,407 If we maintain the current year-over-year pace of inventory growth (+159,427 homes for sale), we’d have 1,259,834 active inventory come September 2026. Below is the year-over-year percentage change by state: !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}(); While active housing inventory is rising in most markets on a year-over-year basis, some markets still remain tight-ish (although it’s loosening in those places, too). As ResiClub has been documenting, both active resale and new homes for sale remain the most limited across huge swaths of the Midwest and Northeast. Thats where home sellers this spring had, relatively speaking, more power. In contrast, active housing inventory for sale has neared or surpassed pre-pandemic 2019 levels in many parts of the Sunbelt and Mountain West, including metro area housing markets such as Punta Gorda and Austin. Many of these areas saw major price surges during the Pandemic Housing Boom, with home prices getting stretched compared to local incomes. As pandemic-driven domestic migration slowed and mortgage rates rose, markets like Tampa and Austin faced challenges, relying on local income levels to support frothy home prices. This softening trend was accelerated further by an abundance of new home supply in the Sunbelt. Builders are often willing to lower prices or offer affordability incentives (if they have the margins to do so) to maintain sales in a shifted market, which also has a cooling effect on the resale market: Some buyers, who would have previously considered existing homes, are now opting for new homes with more favorable deals. That puts additional upward pressure on resale inventory. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}(); At the end of September 2025, 15 states were above pre-pandemic 2019 active inventory levels: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Washington. (The District of Columbiawhich we left out of this analysisis also back above pre-pandemic 2019 active inventory levels. Softness in D.C. proper predates the current administrations job cuts.) !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}(); Big picture: Over the past few years, weve observed a softening across many housing markets as strained affordability tempers the fervor of a market that was unsustainably hot during the Pandemic Housing Boom. While home prices are falling some in pockets of the Sunbelt, a big chunk of Northeast and Midwest markets still eked out a little price appreciation this spring. Nationally aggregated home prices have been pretty close to flat in 2025. Click to expand. Below is another version of the table abovebut this one includes every month since January 2017. (Click the link to see an interactive version.) !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}();
Category:
E-Commerce
Across the U.S., more schools are implementing policies restricting cellphones as concerns about digital distraction, mental health, and academic performance rise. The scale of the issue is significant. According to a 2023 report from Common Sense Media, 97% of students between the ages of 11 and 17 use their cellphones at least once during the school day. These students spend a median of 43 minutes online each day during school hours. Social media, YouTube, and gaming were the students top cellphone uses. Schools have already begun taking action. Data from the National Center for Education Statistics published in 2025 shows that 77% of public schools ban cellphones during classes. Some 38% of schools have cellphone policies that restrict use outside of class as wellincluding during free periods, between classes, or during extracurricular activities. Policymakers in different states and educators in school districts across the country are putting into place a variety of solutions. Some rely on partial restrictions, while others enforce complete bans. Many are still searching for the balance between technology access and minimizing distraction. What is clear, however, is that cellphones have become one of the central issues shaping todays classroom environment. The role of technology in the classroom As researchers and professors who study the integration of technology for teaching and learningand who are also parents of school-age childrenwe firmly believe that digital technologies are no longer optional add-ons. They have become indispensable in modern classrooms, acting as versatile instruments for instruction, collaboration, and student engagement. Take, for example, the ongoing shift from traditional paper textbooks to digital ones. This transformation has broadened access and created new opportunities for interactive, personalized learning. Abundant evidence demonstrates the positive effects of technology in supporting students engagement in class and their academic performance. Students access to digital devices has improved significantly as schools across the United States continue investing in technology infrastructure. A 2023 report from the National Center for Education Statisitics indicates that 94% to 95% of public schools now provide devices to students who need them, although disparities exist between states. A growing number of districts are adopting 1:1 initiatives, ensuring that every student has access to a personal device such as a laptop or tablet. These initiatives accelerated after the COVID-19 pandemic made clear the need for reliable access to learning technologies in schools for all students. They highlight the central role technology now plays in shaping everyday classroom instruction. These technologies hold great educational potential. Yet, when not integrated thoughtfully and regulated effectively, they can inadvertently reduce focus and undermine learning. Our recent systematic review on digital distraction in classrooms, which synthesized 26 empirical studies, finds three main drivers of distraction among students: Technology-related factors included constant social networking, texting, and cellphone addiction. These accounted for over half of the reported distractions. Personal needs, such as entertainment, made up more than one-third. Instructional environment, including classroom instruction that isnt engaging, poor classroom management, and difficult course content, accounted for the rest. To address these challenges, the authors of the papers we reviewed suggested strategies such as teaching students how to control their own behavior and focus, silencing notifications, issuing clear device policies, or banning devices. The studies in our review also drew a clear distinction between school-provided and personally owned mobile devices. Devices provided by schools are typically equipped for instructional purposes, enhanced with stronger security and designed to restrict distracting uses. Personal devices are far less regulated and more prone to off-task use. As schools increasingly provide devices designed for learning, the role of personal cellphones in classrooms becomes harder to justify as they present more risks of distraction than educational benefits. Laws and policies regarding cellphone use Several states in the U.S. have passed laws banning or restricting cellphone use in schools, with some notable differences. States vary in how they define wireless communication devices. In Michigan, Senate Bill 234, passed in May 2025, describes a wireless communication device as an electronic device capable of, but not limited to, text messaging, voice communication, entertainment, navigation, accessing the internet, or producing email. While most of the states have several technology types listed under wireless communication devices, a Colorado bill passed in May 2025 clearly identified that laptops and tablets did not fall under the list of restricted wireless communication devices. Most state laws dont specify whether the bans apply to both personally owned devices and school-owned devices. One exception is the bill Missouri passed in July 2025, which clearly specifies its ban refers only to personal devices. North Carolina made exceptions in a bill approved in July 2025, allowing students to use wireless communication devices for instructional purposes. Other exceptions in the North Carolina bill include an emergency, when students individual education programs call for it, and a documented medical condition. In their bills, most states provide recommendations for school districts to create cellphone use policy for their students. To take one typical example, the policy for Wake County in North Carolina, one of the states largest school districts, specifically refers to personal wireless communication devices. For elementary and middle school students, they must be silenced and put away between morning and afternoon bells, either in a backpack or locker. For high school students, teaches may allow them to be used for lessons, but they must otherwise be silenced and put away during instructional time. They can be used on school buses with low volume and headphones. Kui Xie is the dean of the College of Education and Human Development at the University of Missouri-Columbia. Florence Martin is a professor of learning, design, and technology at North Carolina State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||