ANSI’s 2025/2026 Student Paper Competition challenges high school & college students to investigate the invisible standards that keep our world running—from smartphone compatibility to food safety.
For nearly twenty years now, the American National Standards Institute Committee on Education administers a student paper competition intended to encourage understanding of the global standards system that also provides a solid prize — in the $1000 to $5000 range. The topic of the 2024 Student Paper Competition will be What Role Do or Could Standards Play in Safe and Effective Implementation of Artificial Intelligence Applications/Systems?
For the past six years Standards Michigan has hosted Saturday morning workshops to help students (and faculty) interested in entering the contest. We will soon post those dates on our CALENDER. We typically host them — three sessions ahead of the deadline — on Saturday mornings.
We provide links to previous paper winners and refer you to Lisa Rajchel: lrajchel@ansi.org for all other details.
16yrs married to this RockStar today! Something like 25+ years together… 3 awesome wild kids and whole whack of crazy experiences together! I’ve Bullshitted my way to a lot of successes but Sarah’s been the best yet!… pic.twitter.com/BLBHTtwjSC
Educated at Yale College, Somerville College, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard Medical School and Columbia Law School, Amy Wax speaks to the Buckley Institute, founded by William F. Buckley (Yale 1950). Links to National Centers at Bowling Green State University, the University of Virginia and the University of Nebraska.
People grow up in a web of relationships that is already in place, supporting them as they grow. From the inside out, it includes parents, extended family and clan, neighborhood groups and civic associations, church, local and provincial governments and finally national government.
The most important decision and life’s biggest hack is picking the right partner. pic.twitter.com/MeLu5it3rn
US academia has increasingly mirrored the dystopian control mechanisms in George Orwell’s 1984, particularly through the lens of Critical Race Theory (CRT) and its extensions into Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks.
In Orwell’s novel, the Party enforces ideological conformity via Newspeak (a restricted language that limits thought), doublethink (holding contradictory beliefs), thoughtcrime (punishing unapproved ideas), and the rewriting of history to serve power.
CRT posits that racism is embedded in the structure of Western institutions. It rejects colorblindness and meritocracy as tools of “white supremacy,” framing individuals primarily by racial identity — oppressors versus the oppressed. In universities, this has evolved into mandatory trainings, curricula, and loyalty tests that prioritize “equity” (equal outcomes by group) over equality of opportunity.
Key Orwellian parallels include:
Language control resembling Newspeak: terms like “systemic racism,” “white fragility,” “microaggressions,” and “anti-racism” redefine reality so that disagreement signals complicity in oppression.
Doublethink: universities champion “diversity” while enforcing ideological uniformity, claiming to fight oppression while stigmatizing dissent as violence.
Thoughtcrime via cancel culture: surveys show high rates of self-censorship, with dissenting scholars facing social ostracism, investigations, or professional consequences.
History is reframed — America’s founding reduced to perpetual racial hierarchy — echoing the Ministry of Truth. Standpoint epistemology elevates “lived experience” of favored groups over empirical evidence and universal reason.
This agenda undermines academia’s core purpose: the pursuit of truth through open debate and evidence. Instead of rigorous inquiry, power — framed as “punching up” — dictates acceptable thought, eroding liberal education’s commitment to individualism and free expression.
…”Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself. They come through you but not from you, And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts, For they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow,
Outdoor play facilities for school children are governed by several key codes and standards to ensure safety and accessibility. The European Standard EN 1176 outlines safety requirements for playground equipment, covering design, installation, and maintenance to minimize risks like entrapment and falls.
The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 mandates risk assessments and safe environments, while the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (revised 1984) ensures playgrounds are reasonably safe for users.
The Consumer Protection Act 1987 holds manufacturers liable for defective equipment. The Children Act 1989 requires facilities to be suitable and safe. Ofsted emphasizes stimulating, inclusive, and varied play environments that promote physical and mental health, encouraging year-round outdoor learning. Compliance with these standards, alongside regular inspections (e.g., TÜV certification), ensures safe, durable, and engaging playgrounds that foster children’s development while minimizing injury risks.
Today at the usual hour we update our understanding of the technical literature that supports making these facilities safe, sustainable and enjoyable. Use the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
Size: The schoolyard is 46,000 square feet (roughly 1.05 acres). That’s a large area serving nearly 1,000 students from PS 306X and MS 331 (Bronx School of Young Leaders), plus community access outside school hours.
Features installed (full transformation from cracked asphalt):
Turf field (for soccer/football)
Running track
Full basketball court
Volleyball court
Play equipment for younger kids
Fitness equipment for older students/community
Outdoor classroom
Gazebo
Game tables, benches, etc.
Partners: Fordham University (fundraising/design support via its Center for Educational Partnerships), Trust for Public Land, NYC Department of Environmental Protection (oversaw design/construction), city council funding, and student input on the design.
Timeline: Partnership started ~2015; groundbreaking ~2021 (initially reported around $2–2.2 million); opened October 2024.
This wasn’t just slapping in some swings — it was a comprehensive green infrastructure + multi-use recreational space upgrade in an urban area with high construction/labor costs.Cost Context in NYC
Per square foot: Roughly $62 per sq ft ($2.85M ÷ 46,000 sq ft). This includes demolition of old asphalt, new drainage/green elements (often tied to flood resilience via DEP), high-quality synthetic turf, safety surfacing, site prep, permitting, and oversight in a dense city.
Comparable NYC examples:
A similar South Bronx school playground makeover was announced at $2.4 million (recent, 2025).
Other Bronx schoolyard conversions have been funded in the $2 million range for substantial upgrades.
Broader NYC school construction/renovation costs run high (hundreds of dollars per sq ft for buildings; playgrounds are cheaper but still elevated due to union labor, regulations, and urban logistics).
National benchmarks for commercial/school playgrounds are often $15–35+ per sq ft for equipment + surfacing alone, but that excludes full-site work, turf fields, tracks, and NYC-specific premiums (permits, environmental compliance, inflation from 2021–2024).
Public projects like this frequently include soft costs (design, community engagement, fundraising overhead) and aim for durability + multi-purpose use (recess, PE, after-school, neighborhood park). The involvement of Trust for Public Land often adds green/climate-resilient elements that increase upfront cost but provide long-term benefits (e.g., heat island reduction, stormwater management).Was it “extremely high”?It’s toward the higher end for schoolyard revitalizations, and NYC public spending is notoriously expensive overall. Early reports pegged it closer to $2–2.2M, so the final $2.85M reflects scope creep, inflation, or added features during planning. However, there’s no public reporting of controversy, audits, or criticism labeling it as wasteful or overrun in a scandalous way — coverage focused on the positive community impact.
Seems high. Factors like NYC’s high cost of living/labor, bureaucratic layers, and turning a barren lot into a genuine community asset drive it up. Simpler asphalt repairs or basic equipment would cost far less, but this was a full redesign.
While the students have been enjoying the playground since school began, it was a celebration getting to recognize everyone who made it happen. Thank you to Play! at Pierce, our donors, Rep. Stava-Murray, and the entire community for all of their efforts! #WEarePD58#DG58Pridepic.twitter.com/eNZdPmjaI2
In the soft light of a Notting Hill afternoon in 1958, the playground of a local day nursery becomes something closer to a sanctuary. Rows of small camp beds and folded rugs are neatly arranged beneath the open sky, each one cradling a sleeping child. The air carries the scent of… pic.twitter.com/L6i0HmcMmI
Notice the product orientation. ASTM’s business model is built upon conformity and compliance activity, supported by market incumbents such as manufacturer and insurance interests; but — as an ANSI accredited standards developer — it opens its standards-setting process to all stakeholders; including in one of the largest markets for these products.
We are happy to represent any user-interest at any of the ASTM International meetings; assuming our costs are covered. Feel free to contact Sanne Anthony either by email or phone for more information. In the intervening time, we will track action in the ASTM catalog an maintain relevant titles in this product category on several standing agendas — Sports, Kindergarten and Recreation. See our CALENDAR for the next online meeting.
ASTM has released two documents for public review — one a new standard, the other a revision of an existing standard — that should interest K-12 school systems which are stewards of recreational facilities :
Comments are due April 23rd. You may obtain a free review copy by setting up a (free) stakeholder account at ASTM Technical Committee page or by communicating with Corice Leonard, (610) 832-9744, cleonard@astm.org or accreditation@astm.org. Send comments to Corice (with a copy to psa@ansi.org).
The ASTM International Committee F08 on Sports Equipment, Playing Surfaces, and Facilities also meets again May 21-24th in San Diego. We keep all ASTM documents that affect the revenue and cost structure of the education industry on the standing agenda of our weekly Open Door teleconferences to which everyone is welcomed.
1 pound dried split peas, rinsed and picked over 1 ham hock, ham bone, or 1 pound diced ham 1 onion, chopped 2 carrots, chopped 2 celery stalks, chopped 2 cloves garlic, minced 8 cups chicken or vegetable broth 2 bay leaves Salt and pepper to taste Optional: thyme, parsley, or other herbs for flavor
Instructions:
Prepare the ingredients: Rinse the split peas under cold water and pick out any debris. Chop the onion, carrots, and celery. Mince the garlic.
Sauté aromatic vegetables: In a large pot or Dutch oven, heat some olive oil over medium heat. Add the chopped onion, carrots, celery, and garlic. Sauté until softened, about 5-7 minutes.
Add split peas and broth: Add the rinsed split peas to the pot, along with the ham hock, ham bone, or diced ham. Pour in the chicken or vegetable broth. Add bay leaves and any other herbs you’re using.
Simmer the soup: Bring the soup to a boil, then reduce the heat to low. Let it simmer, uncovered, stirring occasionally, until the split peas are tender and the soup has thickened, about 1 to 1.5 hours. If using a ham hock or bone, remove it from the soup once the meat is falling off the bone; shred the meat and return it to the pot.
Season to taste: Taste the soup and season with salt and pepper as needed. Adjust any other seasonings to your liking.
Serve: Remove the bay leaves before serving. Ladle the soup into bowls and enjoy hot. Optionally, you can garnish with chopped fresh parsley or a drizzle of olive oil.
Tips: You can customize the soup by adding other vegetables like potatoes or leeks. For a vegetarian version, omit the ham and use vegetable broth instead of chicken broth. Split pea soup tends to thicken as it sits, so you may need to add more broth or water when reheating leftovers.
Energy 400: Codes and standards for energy systems between campus buildings. (District energy systems including interdependence with electrical and water supply)
A different “flavor of money” runs through each of these domains and this condition is reflected in best practice discovery and promulgation. Energy 200 is less informed by tax-free (bonded) money than Energy 400 titles.
Some titles cover safety and sustainability in both interior and exterior energy domains so we simply list them below:
There are other ad hoc and open-source consortia that occupy at least a niche in this domain. All of the fifty United States and the Washington DC-based US Federal Government throw off public consultations routinely and, of course, a great deal of faculty interest lies in research funding.
Please join our daily colloquia using the login credentials at the upper right of our home page.
ICYMI – here is our 50th anniversary lecture from Professor Helen Thompson on the 1970s energy crises and what we can learn from it, with some great questions from our audience! https://t.co/9XUqc3fx5fpic.twitter.com/zHvqY8HYL1
New update alert! The 2022 update to the Trademark Assignment Dataset is now available online. Find 1.29 million trademark assignments, involving 2.28 million unique trademark properties issued by the USPTO between March 1952 and January 2023: https://t.co/njrDAbSpwBpic.twitter.com/GkAXrHoQ9T