You're still grooving, still connecting, still loving, still turning up, still thriving. You still got it, but your immune system, it weakens as you age. That's where vaccines come in. They help train and strengthen your immune response to fight off respiratory illnesses like flu, pneumococcal pneumonia, RSV, or COVID-19. Ask your doctor or pharmacist which vaccines you need.
Book in minutes at vaccassist.com. Sponsored by Pfizer. It's 5.05 and welcome in to a Thursday edition of the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FMWBT. I'm Nick Craig. Good morning to you.
Well, it is set to be a busy morning in Mecklenburg County as a hearing is scheduled to take place on a petition. This is a legal petition to remove Mecklenburg County Sheriff Gary McFadden from office. State Representative Carla Cunningham, who is a Democrat who represents portions of Mecklenburg County in the North Carolina House, is one of five petitioners that is seeking McFadden's removal. McFadden and Cunningham are both Democrats, and the Republican legislature has called on McFadden to appear before a legislative committee on oversight that is scheduled for January the 20th. Coming up here in just a couple of weeks.
The petition was filed back on January the 5th, and it seeks McFadden's removal for attempted extortion and corruption. Reading directly from the petition: quote: Willful misconduct and maladministration in office and willful and habitual refusal to perform the duties of his office.
Now, under North Carolina law, an elected sheriff in any county can be removed only through a court process and if allegations are proven. That filing arrives this month as Governor Josh Stein, who is also a Democrat, has endorsed Carla Cunningham's opponent, Rodney Sadler. This is going to be playing out in a Democrat primary election, which starts less than a month from now. Early voting begins February the 12th. Election Day for primary day is probably more accurate to say, rolls around March the 3rd.
The endorsement underscores the Democrats. Current intra-party tensions surrounding people like Representative Carla Cunningham, who at times have broken with Democrat leadership, broken with Governor Stein and the rest of the Democrat Party, and voted with Republicans in high-profile votes. In the governor's endorsement, Stein emphasized that he was endorsing Sadler for his support of quote Democratic values, end quote. Among the policy issues on which Cunningham did split with Democratic leadership was voting to override Governor Stein's veto of House Bill 318. That legislation requires North Carolina sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
The reading uh from that legislation to determine the immigration status of those detained for felonies, class A1 misdemeanors, or DUIs r or DUI-related offensives, offenses. McFadden was among the five county sheriffs in North Carolina. And it's important to note we are 100 counties strong.
So a small percentage, just five of the 100 duly elected sheriffs in North Carolina, have been refusing to honor federal ICE detainers. And with that, Cunningham was the sole Democrat in the North Carolina House to both sponsor and vote for its passage. At the time, Cunningham claims in the petition that McFadden threatened her personal safety in connection with her work as a duly elected member of the North Carolina legislature. After Stein vetoed the measure, but before the state house considered a veto override, Cunningham and McFadden spoke on the phone. That happened in July of last year.
According to the petition, McFadden stated that if Representative Cunningham continued down the path she was on and supported House Bill three hundred eighteen, the people of Mecklenburg County would, quote, come after her, end quote. Based on McFadden's tone and the manner of delivery, Rep. Cunningham understood McFadden to be making a prediction that Rep. Cunningham would be physically unsafe, not that she would, for example, lose the support of her constituents or face a highly motivated political opposition. The petition goes on to say: Finally, McFadden told Cunningham, I don't want to see you get hurt.
You live in my county. Representative Cunningham allegedly hung up on the sheriff immediately after that statement as Representative Cunningham reasonably understood, I don't want to see you get hurt. You live in my county as a threat by the Mecklenburg County Sheriff to either physically harm her or to withdraw or refuse her any protection from members of the public who would, in fact, want to physically harm her. Cunningham also considered McFadden's statement a threat because she was aware of his carefully cultivated reputation for retaliation against his perceived enemies within the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office. That has long been news throughout Queen City.
Many investigative pieces and reports over the years highlighting and digging into McFadden's culture or the war culture that he has created within the sheriff's office. The complaint also alleges that McFadden's conduct amounted to extortion as well as attempted bribery and corruption. Representative Cunningham in a press release when this petition was officially filed back in early January reads as follows No sheriff should ever suggest that a legislator's safety depends on how she votes. I was afraid and the intimidation affected me. This process exists for serious situations involving public trust.
And the people of Mecklenburg County deserve transparency. Filing this complaint is part of rebuilding trust, trust in a fair process, trust in our institutions, and trust that concerns will be handled through proper channels such as dialogue and negotiation rather than silence and bullying. Cunningham has also supported state funding for full-time jail inspectors. Another issue that Sheriff Gary McFadden opposes. The petition asks a judge to review sworn allegations from Cunningham and four other individuals that also raised concerns about the operation of the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office.
Separate to all of this, Gary McFadden, the Mecklenburg County Sheriff, has also been asked to testify on January the 29th before a legislative committee, quote, due to gross mismanagement within the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Department. Not to mention the blatant disregard for state law, the House Oversight Committee has invited Sheriff Gary McFadden to testify on his department's failures, wrote Representative Brendan Jones, the Republican from Columbus County. Cunningham is just one of five people to sign on to the removal petition. Another, Marcia Crenshaw-Hill, worked at the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office for 13 years until her position was eliminated back in 2021. From the petition, it reads, Crenshaw-Hill saw how McFadden changed in policies and his non-enforcement of and ad hoc expectations for existing policies, created unsafe conditions in the Mecklenburg County Detention Center and more.
That's according to the document. McFadden blamed Crenshaw Hill for a 2020 incident in which an inmate stabbed her in the neck. Another individual, Kevin Canty, was McFadden's chief. Chief Deputy Sheriff for nine months.
However, he resigned back in November of 2024 due to, quote, repeated clashes with the sheriff. Canty witnessed McFadden intimidate internal investigations into employees who had done nothing wrong simply because McFadden appeared to dislike them or did not view them as personally loyal to the sheriff. The sheriff pressured Canty into recommending the firing of two sheriff's deputy employees, even though Canty believed that they had done nothing wrong. There are other former sheriff's department employees as well, Juan Delgado and Brian Adams, also in the registered complaint about McFadden's actions. The removal petition initiated a judicial review process that is required by state law.
That we will see that process begin today in a Mecklenburg County courtroom. That hearing is scheduled for 10 a.m. It is not immediately clear what is going to go on today. As we talked about yesterday with Mitch Kokai from the John Locke Foundation, we are not going to see a very, very, very small likelihood that we would see any decision or ruling on anything today. Likely to get a schedule in place as to how this hearing will play out and unfold.
What does the calendar and the schedule look like for all of us? Of the parties involved in this case, as this very serious petition for recall, petition to remove, takes place across the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Department against the duly elected sheriff in Gary McFadden. We will be tracking that as it makes its way to a courtroom at 10 o'clock this morning. We'll have continued coverage over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. And I imagine you'll hear a pretty continuous coverage of this throughout the day, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT.
You're still grooving, still connecting, still loving, still turning up, still thriving. You still got it. But your immune system, it weakens as you age. That's where vaccines come in. They help train and strengthen your immune response to fight off respiratory illnesses like flu, pneumococcal pneumonia, RSV, or COVID-19.
Ask your doctor or pharmacist which vaccines you need. Book in minutes at vaxassist.com. Sponsored by Pfizer. 20 minutes past the hour. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM, WBT.
On January the 13th, the North Carolina General Assembly Joint Committee on Health and Human Services heard presentations concerning what it looks like for the state to adopt a SNAP waiver and on nearly $213 million in CMS funding recently allocated to North Carolina. Mike Leahy, the Deputy Secretary for the Opportunity and Well-Being at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, presented to the committee concerns what it would look like for North Carolina to adopt those SNAP waivers, similar to what 18 other states have already applied for, with him telling the committee, quote, Whether North Carolina does this or not, it's not going to affect in any way what North Carolina is going to have to pay in terms of the benefits. We can't cut the benefits. If we adapt a SNAP waiver, it does not change whether the number is that we come up with in the shift in administration costs or the shift in paying for more benefits due to error rates. Since December the 30th, 18 states have adopted for a food restriction waiver on what can and cannot be purchased on SNAP benefits, mainly targeting candy as well as sugar-sweetened beverages.
Five of these states, including Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, and West Virginia, had their waivers go live as early as January the 1st. Many of these states applied for the SNAP waiver because it earns them bonus points in the Rural Health Transformative Program grant program under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, also known as CMS.
Okay. While SNAP was intended to be a federal program, each state has its own definition of what constitutes a candy or sugar-sweetened beverage, causing considerable confusion, as you would imagine, across the United States. In North Carolina, anything not containing flour is deemed to be candy, and any beverage not containing milk is considered to be a soft drink. Pretty interesting definitions there. This complicates things for retailers when consumers can't buy a particular item on SNAP benefits because it is deemed a soft drink or candy, especially because most teenagers' first jobs is in retail, according to state officials.
Retailers are given a 90-day grace period before investigations are conducted. If a retailer has two or more violations within 30 days, that retailer could potentially be removed as a member of the SNAP program and lose the ability to process SNAP here in North Carolina. The committee also heard a presentation concerning the implementation of a recently announced $213 million grant. This has been allocated under the Rural Health Transformation Program, which comes from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicaid Services. According to Deborah Farrington, who is the Deputy Secretary of Health for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, she told the committee, we are excited about North Carolina's award of $213 million to implement the rural health program.
The program's application includes an emphasis on using locally governed regional hubs to help us address health outcomes in rural North Carolina with a focus on integrating behavioral health, addressing the workforce needs of our rural communities, and making sure that we can use technology to improve health outcomes as well. While year one includes the allocation of $213 million from the CMS, the funds to be received in year two through five will be contingent on the success of year one, according to Farrington.
Well, she told the committee: our year one award of $213 million is part of a five-year cooperative agreement with CMS. Year one has specific milestones and metrics that we are expected to achieve, and our year two amount will be determined based on our accomplishments and performances in year one. North Carolina's Rural Health Transformation Initiative is designed to achieve goals that include improving access to care, improving health outcomes for rural citizens, as well as addressing the needs of the workforce, both attracting and retaining the workforce in rural areas. That has been a major problem and a major topic of discussion in North Carolina over the last couple of years, according to Farrington. There is also an emphasis on addressing the financial solvency of rural providers and ensuring their long-term sustainability continues, as well as the effective use of technology in rural health and the application of data-driven solutions to improve health outcomes.
As outlined by Farrington, North Carolina's rural health transformation program application included six different initiatives: building rural care hubs, networks of providers that include local governance by communities to deliver integrated physical and behavioral. Health. That was point one. Number two, expanding primary care, addressing preventative and chronic disease management with a focus on maternal health and addressing mental health outcomes. Number three, expanding and integrating behavioral health, particularly mental health and substance abuse conditions.
Number four, building a resilient workforce that rural communities can leverage to address rural health outcomes. Number five, using data and technology to modernize digital tools to drive outcomes and improve health in rural communities. And six, advancing financial stability as to how we can implement different payment models. Farrington also outlined the expected timeline of the milestones that the program needs to hit in the next calendar year in order for the program to be implemented on the anticipated timeline as some of those changes continue through North Carolina. This is obviously a major amount of money we're talking about, $213 million for rural health across the state, which has been a major topic of debate pretty much across party lines here in North Carolina over the last couple of years, as there have been many rural hospitals, rural health care facilities that have either closed their doors completely or significantly rolled back the level and the amount of care and services that they provide across the state of North Carolina.
That has put lawmakers in an interesting position. Many rural lawmakers have heard from their constituents some of these concerns about the lack of service or lack of quality of service that is being provided at some of those facilities.
So 230. 13 million dollars, obviously, a very significant amount of money. And the fact that the program. Excuse me, the program also has some of these benchmarks and guidelines in there, meaning if the state is not capable of administering that $213 million from CMS in an efficient manner and being able to hit some of those metrics and guidelines, well, unfortunately, the program probably will cease to exist. And of course, some of these discussions on snap waivers and food restrictions and how that's going to play out here in North Carolina.
This is all from a committee meeting that happened on January the 13th. Lawmakers are expected to be back in Raleigh in the coming weeks and months, potentially to vote on some of those snap waivers, make some changes there as well. We'll keep an eye on the legislative calendar. As soon as we get anything hard on the record, we'll pass it to you right here on the Carolina Journal News Hour. Oh!
You're still grooving, still connecting, still loving, still turning up, still thriving. You still got it, but your immune system, it weakens as you age. That's where vaccines come in. They help train and strengthen your immune response to fight off respiratory illnesses like flu, pneumococcal pneumonia, RSV, or COVID-19. Ask your doctor or pharmacist which vaccines you need.
Book in minutes at vaxassist.com. Sponsored by Pfizer. Ah. It's 5:35. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 FM, WBT.
Good Thursday morning to you. The John Locke Foundation's Carolina Liberty Conference is coming to Raleigh February the 27th through 28th at the Starview Hotel. We'd love to see you. The event brings together policymakers, scholars, community leaders, and voters from across the state to explore the challenges and opportunities of advancing freedom in today's political and cultural climate. Again, it takes place February 27th, 28th at the Starview Hotel in Raleigh.
And this year's event, we will be celebrating the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution with guest speakers like State Auditor Dave Bollock and more to be announced. You can register for the 2026 CLC Today at johnlocke.org. That's j-o-h-n-l-o-c-k-e.org. For myself and many of the other people that you hear on the Carolina. Journal News Hour each and every weekday morning.
We will be at CLC in February 27th through the 28th. We'd love to see you tickets. JohnLocke.org. If you have not lived in the state of North Carolina for the last 20 years, you might not be familiar with the North Carolina Education's Lottery's beginning, which actually only happened in between 2005 and 2006. It baked right into the name, the North Carolina Education Lottery.
We've got a new report that we're tracking this morning on the Carolina Journal News Hour out from the state auditor's office that shows that while lottery earnings have gone up, there's been a stagnation in relation to how much money is going towards the public education system here in North Carolina. To walk us through some of those details this morning, it's my pleasure to welcome the president and CEO of the John Locke Foundation, Donald Bryson, to the Carolina Journal News Hour this morning. Donald, again, it's baked right into the name. This report out from the auditor's office should be concerning for everybody across the state. I think it should be, and thanks for having me on, Nick.
It's always fun to be on with this audience. Um yeah, the North Carolina Education Lottery uh i is only 20 years old, passed in 2005 with uh the a tie with the help of a tie boat. In the state senate, a lot of controversy still around that vote for people that were here at the time. And then Lieutenant Governor Beverly Perdue. Uh, cast the tie-breaking vote to make the North Carolina Education Lottery law, and it was sold to taxpayers.
and to lawmakers as a way to increase revenue for public education in North Carolina. And it has done that. It has put money into public education in North Carolina. What the auditors report shows is that as lottery revenues have increased over time, The percentage of money that is actually going back to Public education is lowering, and that's a problem because most of that money then is going into advertising for the lottery and prizes for the lottery. It's not a very transparent way to fund public education.
There are a lot of questions about it. And you have to go back to the origins of why people opposed the lottery in the first place. The opposition to the lottery was a strange marriage of groups of social conservatives who had sort of moral concerns with gambling and the lottery in the first place. And then sort of far left progressives who thought that a lottery system, particularly put out by the government, would simply cater to poor people and prey on poor people in hopes that they would hit it big.
Well, and Donald, you know, you talk about this debate taking place in the early 2000s. We saw that here not that long ago with the addition of electronic sports betting. That came online here a couple of years ago in North Carolina. And then, of course, some major debates in the General Assembly over the couple of past legislative cycles over bringing casinos to the state outside of traditional Indian reservations, which already exist across North Carolina. Seems like that debate is not necessarily new.
No, it's not necessarily new. And you'll see the social conservative groups in North Carolina, like the North Carolina Family Policy Council and the North Carolina Values Coalition that the John Locke Foundation has worked with on other issues, such as school choice, are still very much opposed to gambling in all of its forms and continue to fight it. And I think to a point, they have a point. Let's set aside. Um You know, the free market views on that.
It does change the culture of the state. Any type of gambling does. And casinos in particular, it's not just a casino, you go in, you pull a slight machine, then you walk back out. It is a whole establishment of shows and restaurants and all that, and people view them as economic booms. But the money goes into the casino and it stays within the casino.
It very rarely trickles out to the community. The free market argument is: if we're going to have gambling, whether that's a lottery or casinos or whatever, then let's have a lottery. Let's don't have the government-run lottery. Let's sort of let people do lotteries they own, let the private market take its own risks. Because there is sort of a thing where the government.
His advertising to people In hopes and the people respond to it in hopes that they will hit it big. We know that the odds are small. They even tell you in the advertising, because they legally have to, that it is small. But nonetheless, the rest of the ad is big, about mega billions, and it's gold and castles, and that's all the advertising. And then we're told that the money, even if you don't win, you should feel fine about it because it goes to public education.
And it's not clear that. all that money is necessarily going to education. We are putting about a billion dollars a year into public education based on the lottery. But if we're going to basically tax people through government programs, Through government lottery programs, right? Then we may as well be more transparent about how we're funding it and talk about that through a regular.
process through the legislature rather than relying on you know, somebody hoping that they can have better luck in their life. And I think you talk about that situation again, right in the name, the North Carolina Education Lottery. You go into most bars and restaurants across North Carolina. You may see a little screen in the corner running the keynote machine, any gas station or convenience store. God forbid, Donald, you try and watch any sort of college or pro football.
You'll be laden with these North Carolina Education Lottery ads. And in this auditor's report, revenues haven't just slowly trickled up. They have been booming across the state of North Carolina. I think most people would assume, you and me included, well, that means more money for education. But as you noted, that's not happening.
And in some cases, those trends are even going downwards as it relates to the proportionality of that funding. It is. It is. The proportion is going down. And in some cases, in the latest case, it's year over year, the amount of money has gone down.
Now, we're still talking about over a billion dollars. And if the legislature wanted to replace that now, they would have to find a billion dollars within the budget. And honestly, I think there's enough government waste in North Carolina that the legislature could find it, right? But that's sort of the squeeze that we put legislators in: they hear a billion dollars is coming in non-tax revenue. through the lottery to go to public education.
And so they're making trade-offs in other places. And that's not a good way to continue to govern, that they're going to assume the lottery revenue is going to come in. Uh just based off of people playing the odds. It's not a good way to govern. It's not a good way to try to model what's going to happen economically and how government revenues are going to come in.
It should go through a regular tax and spend uh process and not uh literal gangsmanship. We've got this copy of this auditor's report. You can get those details over at CarolinaJournal.com. Donald, I guess my question for you is more of kind of a political atmosphere question. Where do we go from here?
State Auditor Dave Bullock has shined a lot of spotlights on a lot of different issues over his last 12 months in office. The education lottery being one of the most recent examples that we're talking about this morning. Lawmakers are expected to be back in Raleigh over the next couple of months as the short session begins. Is there an appetite to maybe rein in the education lottery? Where do you kind of see the no pun intended chips falling on all of this?
First, I want to give kudos to Auditor Bollock. It's nice to see a state auditor actually auditing and doing things and shining some light on what these government programs are actually doing. And I'm glad he finally did this. You know, I think it's clear my preference and the John Locke Foundation's preference would be to do away with the lottery altogether. And then go to a regular appropriations process through the state legislature, which is, I think, what the state constitution intended.
But barring that, I think the time is absolutely ripe for Republicans in the General Assembly, and I'm sure a lot of Democrats would sign on to this too, is to put some transparency measures on How much is this revenue? What's it going towards? What's it going to pay for? What school systems does it go to? How do the school systems use it?
We need some transparency reforms on this lottery revenue. And at the very least, I think that's reasonable and the time is very ripe in this legislative short session. I'm not saying my opinion, whether I'm for or against electronic sports betting, but I will say this, Donald: when they set that process up and that debate was going on, to their credit, lawmakers did lay out very explicitly: here are the 13 universities that can get X amount of dollars a year. The rest of the money goes into this fund. They did seem to, I don't know if they learned some lessons from the setup of the education lottery, but they were very explicit as to where this money is going to go.
If there's extra money, if more and more people are betting on college football or other sorts of pro sports, this is where the excess goes. They seem to at least handle that in the right way. Yeah, and and I agree. And I think that that, you know. Even though the lottery came first, that is a great example of how guardrails can be put on these types of programs to at least provide some transparency and not let it run away.
You know, at one point, there were several television and radio executives, not meaning to offend anybody on the program or listening to the program. But when you have people who are going to spend the advertising dollars, determine what the advertising budget is going to be for the lottery, that's a little strange. No question about that. We've got continued coverage of this over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com. You can read the full report from the state auditor's office.
You can also check out the opinion piece from our guest, Donald Bryson. The headline there: revisiting the NC Education Lottery's promise. We appreciate the insight and information this morning. The president and CEO of the John Locke Foundation, Donald Bryson, joins us on the Carolina Journal News Hour. You're still grooving, still connecting, still loving, still turning up, still thriving.
You still got it, but your immune system, it weakens as you age. That's where vaccines come in. They help train and strengthen your immune response to fight off respiratory illnesses like flu, pneumococcal pneumonia, RSV, or COVID-19. Ask your doctor or pharmacist which vaccines you need. Book in minutes at vaccassist.com.
Sponsored by Pfizer. Good morning again. It's 5.51. Welcome back to the Carolina Journal News Hour on Charlotte's FM News Talk 107.9 WBT, a big morning coming ahead in Mecklenburg County as a hearing will be taking place at 10 o'clock this morning. Excuse me, a hearing will be taking place at 10 o'clock this morning to petition to remove Mecklenburg County Sheriff Gary McFadden.
This has been a pretty big news story since January 5th when we first learned about this petition being filed. Representative Carla Cunningham and four other petitioners are seeking to remove the elected sheriff in Mecklenburg County from his post. The allegations in the petition, which will be in front of a judge at 10 o'clock this morning, talk about willful misconduct, maladministration, willful and habitual refusal to perform the duties of the office. And Representative Cunningham details what she calls extortion in certain respects, as to a phone call she had with the Mecklenburg County Sheriff last year with some ongoing legislation in the North Carolina General Assembly. We will track that throughout the day.
Continued coverage over on our website, CarolinaJournal.com, and throughout the day, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk at 107.9 FMWB. In some other statewide news this morning, North Carolina students returning for the spring semester are facing a disconnected classroom environment. This is following a January the 1st state deadline that requires all public school boards to enact strict bans on the use of cell phones and laptops during instructional time. This ban comes under House Bill 959, which is named protecting students in the digital age. It prohibits students from using, displaying, or having a wireless communication device turned on during instructional time unless otherwise instructed by a teacher or educator.
The bill also requires districts to prohibit students' access to social media platforms in the classroom except when expressly directed by a teacher solely for educational purposes. Certain expectations are included into the bill, including the use of electronic devices for teacher-authorized educational activities in emergency situations or for a case where students have individualized educational programs, also known as IEPs or health plans that require the use of wireless communication devices. Additionally, the law extends beyond a ban only and requires schools to teach students about social media. Addiction, misinformation, and other things, things like sex trafficking. The legislation provides school administrators with situations to enforce the new rules, explicitly authorizing disciplinary measures that include the confiscation of devices found in use during instructional time.
Accountability expands beyond the classroom as well. Under the new statute, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, or DPI, is required to report any non-compliant school districts to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee each and every year.
So that will be an annual report provided from DPI to the legislature. Bryce Fielder, who is the director of the Carolina's Academic Leadership Network. Said, we applaud state leaders for taking this step to reduce classroom distractions and safeguard precious learning time. A growing body of research points to academic and social benefits of restricting phones in school exists. Callen, or the Carolina Academic Leadership Network, supports continued efforts to strike a balanced approach to classroom technology, one that limits the excess screen time and encourages pen and paper instruction.
The new law puts North Carolina on a growing list of states that have banned or limited the use of internet-connected devices in the classroom. As of January the 26th, as of January, I should say, 26 states have enacted such protections in the classroom. A total of 38 states have either outright banned or have a statute in place that encourages school districts to adopt such policies, but stops short of an outright mandate. Smartphones have gotten most of the attention, but as has been reported by other media outlets and other research studies, addressing smartphones is only the first step. According to the director, the parents' right director of the Defense of Freedom Institute, she says, we're not done.
We're just beginning to acknowledge what is grabbing kids' attention. It's also noted that test scores have declined since widespread digital adoption. That happened a lot during the at-home learning period during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also argued that constant screen time has eroded basic skills like handwriting and things like reading comprehension. Part of the problem arises because local governments and school districts entered into contracts with technology vendors for tablets and computers to help facilitate at-home learning during COVID-19.
But as time approaches for those contracts to expire, Many of them expiring in 2026, it is noted it could be a pivotal year for softening or even reversing some of these tech-related policies that swarmed into the school system over the last five or six years. You can read some more details on that story by visiting our website this morning, CarolinaJournal.com. That's going to do it for a Thursday edition. WBT News is next, followed by Good Morning BT. We're back with you tomorrow morning, 5 to 6, right here on Charlotte's FM News Talk, 107.9 FM, WBT.
Yeah. You're still grooving, still connecting, still loving, still turning up, still thriving. You still got it, but your immune system, it weakens as you age. That's where vaccines come in. They help train and strengthen your immune response to fight off respiratory illnesses like flu, pneumococcal pneumonia, RSV, or COVID-19.
Ask your doctor or pharmacist which vaccines you need. Book in minutes at vaxassist.com. Sponsored by Pfizer. Mm-hmm.
