Connect with us

International

Shippers Are Back In The Driver’s Seat On Rates

Shippers Are Back In The Driver’s Seat On Rates

By Michael Rudolph of FreightWaves.com

This past week marked the first interruption of consecutive…

Published

on

Shippers Are Back In The Driver's Seat On Rates

By Michael Rudolph of FreightWaves.com

This past week marked the first interruption of consecutive declines in the Outbound Tender Volume Index (OTVI) since early March.

It is still too early to dance around the maypole, however, as this bounce has not yet erased the significant contraction seen in freight demand.

Tender volumes contract early in Q2: SONAR: OTVI.USA: 2021-22 (blue), 2020-21 (green) and 2019-20 (orange);To learn more about FreightWaves SONAR, click here.

Though OTVI climbed 6.6% over the past week, it faced easy comps as volumes were depressed in the week following Easter Sunday. On a year-over-year (y/y) basis, OTVI is down 16.75%. Comparisons on a y/y basis can be thorny because OTVI can be inflated by an uptick in tender rejections. At this time last year, OTVI was greatly inflated by rising tender rejections, whereas rejection rates have since nosedived to incredible lows.

Looking at accepted tender volumes, which is OTVI adjusted by the Outbound Tender Reject Index (OTRI), we see growth of only 0.3% y/y as well as growth by 8.3% on week-over-week (w/w) basis — the latter w/w growth, again, came against easy comps. The y/y picture for accepted volume may not appear grim, but the overall freight market is historically strong during the run-up to summer. The current limping state of the market, on the other hand, should concern carriers.

The Chinese government appears to be gearing up for extended COVID lockdowns in Shanghai and, given recent school closings, possibly Beijing. The Port of Shanghai is the busiest container port in the world; any disruptions to its operations would have severe ripple effects on global supply chains. At first glance, the Port of Shanghai does not seem to be majorly impacted by the ongoing lockdowns — average dwell times for exports are currently at a little more than two days, well below the average of three days over the past year.

Part of these low dwell times can be explained by the lack of goods flowing into the port, as productivity at manufacturing plants and the movement of truck drivers are both heavily restricted by the lockdowns. There is a likely accumulation of goods that are languishing in nearby warehouses or that have yet to be produced by factories in Shanghai. This accumulation is a ticking time bomb: Once it is able to be delivered to the terminals, the port will be inundated with excess cargo and will then be unable to operate efficiently.

Another cause for concern will be the limited supply of empty containers caused by restricted freight flow at Chinese ports. Shipments from China to Europe are already being delayed, inhibiting the gross number of containers that can be delivered, unloaded and, in turn, reloaded and shipped to the United States. Any curb on trade between Europe and the U.S. is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, a reduction in new vessel arrivals will allow East Coast seaports to tackle the backlog of cargo that is currently congesting them. On the other, this reduction could kick the can further down the line, as exporters on the East Coast would eventually have a limited supply of empty containers themselves. Whatever the case, the lockdowns in China are threatening to extend well into the summer.

Volumes rise across the board: SONAR: Outbound Tender Volume Index – Weekly Change (OTVIW).

Of the 135 total markets, 100 reported weekly increases after volumes recovered from the Easter lull.

Since last week was quite barren, freight demand this week faced favorable comps on a w/w basis. Volumes returned to the ports: Charleston, South Carolina, was up 23.4%; Los Angeles was up 7.77%; and Houston was up 4.96%. Volumes also returned to the largest markets: Atlanta was up 10.2%; Ontario, California, was up 6.63%; and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, was up 6.41%.

There were, however, a few markets to which this bounty of freight volume was not extended. Lakeland, Florida — the state’s largest market by outbound volume — was the only market in the state to experience contraction this week, with volumes falling nearly 2% w/w. The Indianapolis market, a Midwestern hub for manufacturing, saw volumes decline 2.14% w/w after a recent survey expressed Hoosier manufacturers’ concerns about their ability to overcome supply chain disruptions and to contend with the rising costs of material inputs.

By mode: Reefer volume took a tumble this week as the Reefer Outbound Tender Volume Index (ROTVI) fell 6.7% w/w. Lakeland, Florida — the nation’s largest outbound market for reefer freight — saw its own ROTVI decline 3.1% w/w after a sharp rise and fall early in the week. Dry van volumes, however, bounced back and the Van Outbound Tender Volume Index (VOTVI) rose 6.9% w/w accordingly. In produce-heavy markets, such as those in the Southeast, reefer volumes should be sustained by seasonal patterns — after all, demand for food is fairly inelastic.

Tender rejections finally fall to sub-10% levels and show no signs of slowing

Although treading water above 10% at the beginning of the week, OTRI quickly fell into single-digit percentages before the week’s end. Excepting the onset of the 2020 pandemic, OTRI’s current trend marks both the steepest and longest decline in a non-holiday-affected period.

Rejection rates sink into the single digits: SONAR: OTRI.USA: 2021-22 (blue), 2020-21 (green) and 2019-20 (orange)

Over the past week, OTRI, which measures relative capacity in the market, fell to 8.82%, a change of 138 basis points (bps) from the week prior. OTRI is now 1,634 bps below year-ago levels as it is decidedly established in single-digit percentages.

One of the biggest pressures facing carriers is the uninterrupted rise of diesel prices. Carriers playing primarily within the spot market already are exposed to volatile rate swings and reduced demand for spot freight, but to make matters worse, they typically have to eat the cost of fuel as part of their all-in rate. Yet even carriers running contracted loads still face the pressure of diesel hikes, since they normally pay for fuel at the point of sale while fuel surcharges can take months to reimburse them. That period of waiting for reimbursement can be crucial, since other monthly costs cannot be deferred so easily: insurance expenses, maintenance costs and, if the carrier’s equipment is not paid off, debt servicing.

Larger carriers often buy fuel at discount, wholesale prices and then charge elevated retail prices for their surcharges, but the trucking industry as a whole is dominated by smaller carriers. As of February 2021, of all the carriers registered with the FMCSA, a mere 2.6% operated fleets with 20 or more trucking units. Almost 92% had fleets of six or fewer trucks. So, while larger carriers might experience some insularity from diesel price hikes, the truckload market is altogether exposed to these fluctuations.

Capacity loosens in Southern California and the Southeast. SONAR: WRI (color)

The map above shows the Weighted Rejection Index (WRI), the product of the Outbound Tender Reject Index — Weekly Change and Outbound Tender Market Share, as a way to prioritize rejection rate changes. As capacity is finding freight, there are currently no blue markets that would normally be objects of attention.

Of the 135 markets, only 24 reported higher rejection rates over the past week as carriers compete for loads amid quieter freight demand.

By and large, capacity came back online during this week with only a few notable exceptions. As volume surged through the East Coast seaports, rejection rates rose as capacity did not meet demand. After a dramatic fall in tender rejections the week prior, Savannah, Georgia, saw rejections rebound by 159 bps to 6.73%. Similarly, the market of Charleston posted a rejection rate of 7.08% this week, up 82 bps from the previous week. These two markets host two of the fastest-growing container ports in the U.S., since they are increasingly an attractive alternative to congested seaports in Southern California.

SONAR: VOTRI.USA (blue); ROTRI.USA (orange); FOTRI.USA (green)

By mode: Despite falling 315 bps this past week, the Flatbed Outbound Tender Reject Index (FOTRI) shows clearer demand for flatbeds than its dry van and reefer counterparts. FOTRI currently sits at 29.22%, 304 bps higher on a y/y basis. In Illinois (and probably elsewhere), it was commonly joked that there were two seasons: winter and construction. Construction season is already well underway, with new residential and nonresidential construction heating up to levels not seen since 2006. Moreover, high crude prices are driving investment into oil drilling. Accordingly, flatbeds will be in great demand for the foreseeable future.

Rejection rates in the other two modes, dry van and reefer, have continued along a protracted decline that began in early March. The Van Outbound Tender Reject Index (VOTRI) is now at 8.7%, 124 bps lower on a w/w basis and 1,642 bps lower y/y. Following the trend in ROTVI, the Reefer Outbound Tender Reject Index (ROTRI) is down 479 bps this week to 11.43%, a whopping 3,307 bps below year-ago levels. 

Contract rates show signs of following spot rate trend, declining rapidly w/w

The spot rate data available in SONAR from Truckstop.com is updated every Tuesday with the previous week’s data.

Contract rates are hit hard by Q2 repricing: SONAR: Truckstop.com’s national spot rate (blue, right axis) and dry van contract rate (green, left axis).

The bottom has yet to be found on dry van spot rates. To borrow yet another analogy from roller coasters, any carrier wearing a waterproof poncho is painfully dry as it waits for the Splash at the end of the Mountain. Truckstop.com’s national all-in dry van spot rate, which is based on the top 100 lanes from Truckstop.com’s load board, fell 8 cents per mile this week to $2.94 per mile, including fuel surcharges and other accessorials. 

This week marks the first time that the rate has fallen below $3 a mile since February 2021. For context, the national rate averaged around $2.10 a mile prior to the pandemic, almost 30% lower than the current rate. While the gap between then and now might seem insurmountable, keep in mind that spot rates have already fallen 23% from their peak in early January. Diesel prices will, however, continue to provide upward pressure on spot rates. In short, spot rates are unlikely to return to $2.10 a mile, but they might soon be moving into the same neighborhood.

Of the 102 lanes from Truckstop.com’s load board, only 19 reported weekly increases, up from last week’s 13 lanes but not up enough to provide relief to carriers. The most drastic increases were found on peripheral lanes in New England: For example, Syracuse, New York, to Hartford, Connecticut, jumped 25 cents per mile to $4.39 a mile, well above the national average.

Ever since the supply chain disruptions early in the pandemic, shippers have been increasingly shifting their contract bid cycles to shorter periods so as to keep better pace with a volatile market. Now that data has come in from the Q2 renegotiations, it is clear that shippers have realized their newfound pricing power. Contract rates, which are the base linehaul rate excluding fuel surcharges and other accessorials that are included in spot rates, fell 9 cents per mile to $2.81 a mile. This decline bodes ill for those carriers hoping that contract rates would insulate them from the rapid decline seen in the spot market. Nevertheless, contract rates are still up 16.1% y/y, so all is not yet lost for those carriers.

There are also the backhaul lanes to consider, many of which have hit their floor on rates and are now steadily increasing. Of these lanes, Dallas to Los Angeles is one of the most interesting, since it shares some characteristics with a backhaul lane but not others. Dallas is currently the third-largest outbound market in the country, yet carriers are covering loads from it to Los Angeles at rates near their operational cost. Because of that razor-thin margin, spot rates (which include fuel surcharges) on this lane are mainly affected by shifting diesel prices. 

As a result, FreightWaves’ Trusted Rate Assessment Consortium (TRAC) spot rate from Dallas to Los Angeles has risen only 2 cents per mile over the past week to $1.90 but has spiked by 52 cents per mile over the past six months. These increases translate to a 1.1% gain w/w and a 37.7% gain over a six-month period. Meanwhile, diesel prices have risen by a comparable 1.2% w/w and by 38.4% over a six-month period.

SONAR: FreightWaves TRAC rate from Dallas to Los Angeles

The opposite is true for rates along headhaul lanes, where carriers had a comfortable margin above their operating costs. For example, the FreightWaves TRAC spot rate along the extremely dense lane from Los Angeles to Dallas has fallen 7 cents per mile over the past week to $2.71 a mile and has plummeted a staggering $1.38 per mile over the past six months. 

SONAR: FreightWaves TRAC rate from Los Angeles to Dallas.

With rejection rates continuing to fall as they have been, shippers have no incentive to keep increasing or even maintaining those contract rates set in previous quarters. Instead, shippers have firm possession of pricing power for the moment and, from the looks of it, will exercise it to the best of their ability. Except on lanes in which fuel cost is a significant factor, neither contract nor spot rates should be expected to reverse course anytime soon.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/30/2022 - 17:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

The Grinch Who Stole Freedom

The Grinch Who Stole Freedom

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Before President Joe Biden’s State of the…

Published

on

The Grinch Who Stole Freedom

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Before President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address, the pundit class was predicting that he would deliver a message of unity and calm, if only to attract undecided voters to his side.

President Joe Biden delivers the State of the Union address in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on March 7, 2024. (Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images)

He did the opposite. The speech revealed a loud, cranky, angry, bitter side of the man that people don’t usually see. It seemed like the real Joe Biden I remember from the old days, full of venom, sarcasm, disdain, threats, and extreme partisanship.

The base might have loved it except that he made reference to an “illegal” alien, which is apparently a trigger word for the left. He failed their purity test.

The speech was stunning in its bile and bitterness. It’s beyond belief that he began with a pitch for more funds for the Ukraine war, which has killed 10,000 civilians and some 200,000 troops on both sides. It’s a bloody mess that could have been resolved early on but for U.S. tax funding of the conflict.

Despite the push from the higher ends of conservative commentary, average Republicans have turned hard against this war. The United States is in a fiscal crisis and every manner of domestic crisis, and the U.S. president opens his speech with a pitch to protect the border in Ukraine? It was completely bizarre, and lent some weight to the darkest conspiracies about why the Biden administration cares so much about this issue.

From there, he pivoted to wildly overblown rhetoric about the most hysterically exaggerated event of our times: the legendary Jan. 6 protests on Capitol Hill. Arrests for daring to protest the government on that day are growing.

The media and the Biden administration continue to describe it as the worst crisis since the War of the Roses, or something. It’s all a wild stretch, but it set the tone of the whole speech, complete with unrelenting attacks on former President Donald Trump. He would use the speech not to unite or make a pitch that he is president of the entire country but rather intensify his fundamental attack on everything America is supposed to be.

Hard to isolate the most alarming part, but one aspect really stood out to me. He glared directly at the Supreme Court Justices sitting there and threatened them with political power. He said that they were awful for getting rid of nationwide abortion rights and returning the issue to the states where it belongs, very obviously. But President Biden whipped up his base to exact some kind of retribution against the court.

Looking this up, we have a few historical examples of presidents criticizing the court but none to their faces in a State of the Union address. This comes two weeks after President Biden directly bragged about defying the Supreme Court over the issue of student loan forgiveness. The court said he could not do this on his own, but President Biden did it anyway.

Here we have an issue of civic decorum that you cannot legislate or legally codify. Essentially, under the U.S. system, the president has to agree to defer to the highest court in its rulings even if he doesn’t like them. President Biden is now aggressively defying the court and adding direct threats on top of that. In other words, this president is plunging us straight into lawlessness and dictatorship.

In the background here, you must understand, is the most important free speech case in U.S. history. The Supreme Court on March 18 will hear arguments over an injunction against President Biden’s administrative agencies as issued by the Fifth Circuit. The injunction would forbid government agencies from imposing themselves on media and social media companies to curate content and censor contrary opinions, either directly or indirectly through so-called “switchboarding.”

A ruling for the plaintiffs in the case would force the dismantling of a growing and massive industry that has come to be called the censorship-industrial complex. It involves dozens or even more than 100 government agencies, including quasi-intelligence agencies such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which was set up only in 2018 but managed information flow, labor force designations, and absentee voting during the COVID-19 response.

A good ruling here will protect free speech or at least intend to. But, of course, the Biden administration could directly defy it. That seems to be where this administration is headed. It’s extremely dangerous.

A ruling for the defense and against the injunction would be a catastrophe. It would invite every government agency to exercise direct control over all media and social media in the country, effectively abolishing the First Amendment.

Close watchers of the court have no clear idea of how this will turn out. But watching President Biden glare at court members at the address, one does wonder. Did they sense the threats he was making against them? Will they stand up for the independence of the judicial branch?

Maybe his intimidation tactics will end up backfiring. After all, does the Supreme Court really think it is wise to license this administration with the power to control all information flows in the United States?

The deeper issue here is a pressing battle that is roiling American life today. It concerns the future and power of the administrative state versus the elected one. The Constitution contains no reference to a fourth branch of government, but that is what has been allowed to form and entrench itself, in complete violation of the Founders’ intentions. Only the Supreme Court can stop it, if they are brave enough to take it on.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, and surely you have, President Biden is nothing but a marionette of deep-state interests. He is there to pretend to be the people’s representative, but everything that he does is about entrenching the fourth branch of government, the permanent bureaucracy that goes on its merry way without any real civilian oversight.

We know this for a fact by virtue of one of his first acts as president, to repeal an executive order by President Trump that would have reclassified some (or many) federal employees as directly under the control of the elected president rather than have independent power. The elites in Washington absolutely panicked about President Trump’s executive order. They plotted to make sure that he didn’t get a second term, and quickly scratched that brilliant act by President Trump from the historical record.

This epic battle is the subtext behind nearly everything taking place in Washington today.

Aside from the vicious moment of directly attacking the Supreme Court, President Biden set himself up as some kind of economic central planner, promising to abolish hidden fees and bags of chips that weren’t full enough, as if he has the power to do this, which he does not. He was up there just muttering gibberish. If he is serious, he believes that the U.S. president has the power to dictate the prices of every candy bar and hotel room in the United States—an absolutely terrifying exercise of power that compares only to Stalin and Mao. And yet there he was promising to do just that.

Aside from demonizing the opposition, wildly exaggerating about Jan. 6, whipping up war frenzy, swearing to end climate change, which will make the “green energy” industry rich, threatening more taxes on business enterprise, promising to cure cancer (again!), and parading as the master of candy bar prices, what else did he do? Well, he took credit for the supposedly growing economy even as a vast number of Americans are deeply suffering from his awful policies.

It’s hard to imagine that this speech could be considered a success. The optics alone made him look like the Grinch who stole freedom, except the Grinch was far more articulate and clever. He’s a mean one, Mr. Biden.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/11/2024 - 12:00

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Chinese migration to US is nothing new – but the reasons for recent surge at Southern border are

A gloomier economic outlook in China and tightening state control have combined with the influence of social media in encouraging migration.

Published

on

By

Chinese migrants wait for a boat after having walked across the Darien Gap from Colombia to Panama. AP Photo/Natacha Pisarenko

The brief closure of the Darien Gap – a perilous 66-mile jungle journey linking South American and Central America – in February 2024 temporarily halted one of the Western Hemisphere’s busiest migration routes. It also highlighted its importance to a small but growing group of people that depend on that pass to make it to the U.S.: Chinese migrants.

While a record 2.5 million migrants were detained at the United States’ southwestern land border in 2023, only about 37,000 were from China.

I’m a scholar of migration and China. What I find most remarkable in these figures is the speed with which the number of Chinese migrants is growing. Nearly 10 times as many Chinese migrants crossed the southern border in 2023 as in 2022. In December 2023 alone, U.S. Border Patrol officials reported encounters with about 6,000 Chinese migrants, in contrast to the 900 they reported a year earlier in December 2022.

The dramatic uptick is the result of a confluence of factors that range from a slowing Chinese economy and tightening political control by President Xi Jinping to the easy access to online information on Chinese social media about how to make the trip.

Middle-class migrants

Journalists reporting from the border have generalized that Chinese migrants come largely from the self-employed middle class. They are not rich enough to use education or work opportunities as a means of entry, but they can afford to fly across the world.

According to a report from Reuters, in many cases those attempting to make the crossing are small-business owners who saw irreparable damage to their primary or sole source of income due to China’s “zero COVID” policies. The migrants are women, men and, in some cases, children accompanying parents from all over China.

Chinese nationals have long made the journey to the United States seeking economic opportunity or political freedom. Based on recent media interviews with migrants coming by way of South America and the U.S.’s southern border, the increase in numbers seems driven by two factors.

First, the most common path for immigration for Chinese nationals is through a student visa or H1-B visa for skilled workers. But travel restrictions during the early months of the pandemic temporarily stalled migration from China. Immigrant visas are out of reach for many Chinese nationals without family or vocation-based preferences, and tourist visas require a personal interview with a U.S. consulate to gauge the likelihood of the traveler returning to China.

Social media tutorials

Second, with the legal routes for immigration difficult to follow, social media accounts have outlined alternatives for Chinese who feel an urgent need to emigrate. Accounts on Douyin, the TikTok clone available in mainland China, document locations open for visa-free travel by Chinese passport holders. On TikTok itself, migrants could find information on where to cross the border, as well as information about transportation and smugglers, commonly known as “snakeheads,” who are experienced with bringing migrants on the journey north.

With virtual private networks, immigrants can also gather information from U.S. apps such as X, YouTube, Facebook and other sites that are otherwise blocked by Chinese censors.

Inspired by social media posts that both offer practical guides and celebrate the journey, thousands of Chinese migrants have been flying to Ecuador, which allows visa-free travel for Chinese citizens, and then making their way over land to the U.S.-Mexican border.

This journey involves trekking through the Darien Gap, which despite its notoriety as a dangerous crossing has become an increasingly common route for migrants from Venezuela, Colombia and all over the world.

In addition to information about crossing the Darien Gap, these social media posts highlight the best places to cross the border. This has led to a large share of Chinese asylum seekers following the same path to Mexico’s Baja California to cross the border near San Diego.

Chinese migration to US is nothing new

The rapid increase in numbers and the ease of accessing information via social media on their smartphones are new innovations. But there is a longer history of Chinese migration to the U.S. over the southern border – and at the hands of smugglers.

From 1882 to 1943, the United States banned all immigration by male Chinese laborers and most Chinese women. A combination of economic competition and racist concerns about Chinese culture and assimilability ensured that the Chinese would be the first ethnic group to enter the United States illegally.

With legal options for arrival eliminated, some Chinese migrants took advantage of the relative ease of movement between the U.S. and Mexico during those years. While some migrants adopted Mexican names and spoke enough Spanish to pass as migrant workers, others used borrowed identities or paperwork from Chinese people with a right of entry, like U.S.-born citizens. Similarly to what we are seeing today, it was middle- and working-class Chinese who more frequently turned to illegal means. Those with money and education were able to circumvent the law by arriving as students or members of the merchant class, both exceptions to the exclusion law.

Though these Chinese exclusion laws officially ended in 1943, restrictions on migration from Asia continued until Congress revised U.S. immigration law in the Hart-Celler Act in 1965. New priorities for immigrant visas that stressed vocational skills as well as family reunification, alongside then Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping’s policies of “reform and opening,” helped many Chinese migrants make their way legally to the U.S. in the 1980s and 1990s.

Even after the restrictive immigration laws ended, Chinese migrants without the education or family connections often needed for U.S. visas continued to take dangerous routes with the help of “snakeheads.”

One notorious incident occurred in 1993, when a ship called the Golden Venture ran aground near New York, resulting in the drowning deaths of 10 Chinese migrants and the arrest and conviction of the snakeheads attempting to smuggle hundreds of Chinese migrants into the United States.

Existing tensions

Though there is plenty of precedent for Chinese migrants arriving without documentation, Chinese asylum seekers have better odds of success than many of the other migrants making the dangerous journey north.

An estimated 55% of Chinese asylum seekers are successful in making their claims, often citing political oppression and lack of religious freedom in China as motivations. By contrast, only 29% of Venezuelans seeking asylum in the U.S. have their claim granted, and the number is even lower for Colombians, at 19%.

The new halt on the migratory highway from the south has affected thousands of new migrants seeking refuge in the U.S. But the mix of push factors from their home country and encouragement on social media means that Chinese migrants will continue to seek routes to America.

And with both migration and the perceived threat from China likely to be features of the upcoming U.S. election, there is a risk that increased Chinese migration could become politicized, leaning further into existing tensions between Washington and Beijing.

Meredith Oyen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Is the National Guard a solution to school violence?

School board members in one Massachusetts district have called for the National Guard to address student misbehavior. Does their request have merit? A…

Published

on

By

Every now and then, an elected official will suggest bringing in the National Guard to deal with violence that seems out of control.

A city council member in Washington suggested doing so in 2023 to combat the city’s rising violence. So did a Pennsylvania representative concerned about violence in Philadelphia in 2022.

In February 2024, officials in Massachusetts requested the National Guard be deployed to a more unexpected location – to a high school.

Brockton High School has been struggling with student fights, drug use and disrespect toward staff. One school staffer said she was trampled by a crowd rushing to see a fight. Many teachers call in sick to work each day, leaving the school understaffed.

As a researcher who studies school discipline, I know Brockton’s situation is part of a national trend of principals and teachers who have been struggling to deal with perceived increases in student misbehavior since the pandemic.

A review of how the National Guard has been deployed to schools in the past shows the guard can provide service to schools in cases of exceptional need. Yet, doing so does not always end well.

How have schools used the National Guard before?

In 1957, the National Guard blocked nine Black students’ attempts to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. While the governor claimed this was for safety, the National Guard effectively delayed desegregation of the school – as did the mobs of white individuals outside. Ironically, weeks later, the National Guard and the U.S. Army would enforce integration and the safety of the “Little Rock Nine” on orders from President Dwight Eisenhower.

Three men from the mob around Little Rock’s Central High School are driven from the area at bayonet-point by soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division on Sept. 25, 1957. The presence of the troops permitted the nine Black students to enter the school with only minor background incidents. Bettmann via Getty Images

One of the most tragic cases of the National Guard in an educational setting came in 1970 at Kent State University. The National Guard was brought to campus to respond to protests over American involvement in the Vietnam War. The guardsmen fatally shot four students.

In 2012, then-Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat from California, proposed funding to use the National Guard to provide school security in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting. The bill was not passed.

More recently, the National Guard filled teacher shortages in New Mexico’s K-12 schools during the quarantines and sickness of the pandemic. While the idea did not catch on nationally, teachers and school personnel in New Mexico generally reported positive experiences.

Can the National Guard address school discipline?

The National Guard’s mission includes responding to domestic emergencies. Members of the guard are part-time service members who maintain civilian lives. Some are students themselves in colleges and universities. Does this mission and training position the National Guard to respond to incidents of student misbehavior and school violence?

On the one hand, New Mexico’s pandemic experience shows the National Guard could be a stopgap to staffing shortages in unusual circumstances. Similarly, the guards’ eventual role in ensuring student safety during school desegregation in Arkansas demonstrates their potential to address exceptional cases in schools, such as racially motivated mob violence. And, of course, many schools have had military personnel teaching and mentoring through Junior ROTC programs for years.

Those seeking to bring the National Guard to Brockton High School have made similar arguments. They note that staffing shortages have contributed to behavior problems.

One school board member stated: “I know that the first thought that comes to mind when you hear ‘National Guard’ is uniform and arms, and that’s not the case. They’re people like us. They’re educated. They’re trained, and we just need their assistance right now. … We need more staff to support our staff and help the students learn (and) have a safe environment.”

Yet, there are reasons to question whether calls for the National Guard are the best way to address school misconduct and behavior. First, the National Guard is a temporary measure that does little to address the underlying causes of student misbehavior and school violence.

Research has shown that students benefit from effective teaching, meaningful and sustained relationships with school personnel and positive school environments. Such educative and supportive environments have been linked to safer schools. National Guard members are not trained as educators or counselors and, as a temporary measure, would not remain in the school to establish durable relationships with students.

What is more, a military presence – particularly if uniformed or armed – may make students feel less welcome at school or escalate situations.

Schools have already seen an increase in militarization. For example, school police departments have gone so far as to acquire grenade launchers and mine-resistant armored vehicles.

Research has found that school police make students more likely to be suspended and to be arrested. Similarly, while a National Guard presence may address misbehavior temporarily, their presence could similarly result in students experiencing punitive or exclusionary responses to behavior.

Students deserve a solution other than the guard

School violence and disruptions are serious problems that can harm students. Unfortunately, schools and educators have increasingly viewed student misbehavior as a problem to be dealt with through suspensions and police involvement.

A number of people – from the NAACP to the local mayor and other members of the school board – have criticized Brockton’s request for the National Guard. Governor Maura Healey has said she will not deploy the guard to the school.

However, the case of Brockton High School points to real needs. Educators there, like in other schools nationally, are facing a tough situation and perceive a lack of support and resources.

Many schools need more teachers and staff. Students need access to mentors and counselors. With these resources, schools can better ensure educators are able to do their jobs without military intervention.

F. Chris Curran has received funding from the US Department of Justice, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and the American Civil Liberties Union for work on school safety and discipline.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending