Jonathan Kantrowitz

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) sent the following letter to Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell yesterday following news reports that the state may reverse its previous decision to run a Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). In the letter, Dodd expressed concern about the state’s abrupt decision to potentially change its plans and the impact that would have on Connecticut residents’ access to the PCIP program.

Connecticut originally chose to run its own pre-existing condition insurance plan, as opposed to joining the national plan. Just yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that the national PCIP would be open to applicants in the 21 states which have opted not to run state-based programs. Dodd raised his concerns with the Governor that reversing course now – a day after HHS announced put its national plan in place – could jeopardize the health insurance of thousands of Connecticut residents.

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—the health insurance reform legislation that Dodd played a key role in writing and passing—the state is eligible to receive $50 million in federal funds, if they chose to continue with the plan to run their own pre-existing condition insurance program.

Dodd’s letter to Governor Rell:

July 2, 2010

Dear Governor Rell:

I am writing to express my deep concern about news reports that Connecticut may reverse its previous decision to run a Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP). I am even more concerned that you may not be making this determination until after July 15. Just yesterday, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the national PCIP is open to applicants in the 21 states which have opted not to run state-based programs. Because of the state’s previous application to HHS to run a state-based PCIP, Connecticut was not among the 21 states announced by HHS. The timing of these actions by the state are cause for great concern and I would like to better understand what the state’s plans are to ensure that no residents of Connecticut, who would otherwise be eligible, will be denied access to this new federal insurance program.

As one of its first tasks upon enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the Obama Administration began setting up the PCIP program and yesterday’s announcement by HHS was consistent with the timeframe established in the law. HHS has held numerous informational calls with Governors and state officials and provided technical assistance to any number of states. Previously, HHS announced that Connecticut would be eligible for up to $50 million in federal funding for the PCIP program and unlike other health programs, the state is not required to contribute any state funding for this federal program. Every day the state delays implementation of this program is another day uninsured residents of Connecticut who have been unable to obtain health coverage because of a pre-existing health condition must go without this newly-created federal benefit.

The state’s late announcement raises several questions about its true intentions. Why would the state wait until the day after the deadline for the establishment of the national PCIP to make this announcement? Is the state aware that residents in states participating in the national PCIP can already sign up for this program? When did the state begin the process of determining the rates in this federal program? When did the state know about the rates projected by Milliman, Inc., the actuarial consultant? And lastly, when did the state communicate this information to HHS?

My understanding is that the state has not officially made a decision about whether it will run a PCIP but that you are awaiting recommendations from various state officials by July 15. A delay in making this determination until July 15th is cause for great concern, as individuals in the 21 states relying on HHS to run the PCIP are already able to apply as of July 1st. Individuals enrolled in this plan by July 15th will begin receiving coverage by August 1, 2010. Therefore, in my view, it is critical that you make a final decision prior to July 15.

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Christopher J. Dodd
United States Senator

Dan Malloy has released his plans for education.

Here are the key pieces of the plan:

…What can we do to help make sure our children have the best possible teachers? First, let’s give teachers the resources they need in the classroom. Second, the overly burdensome requirements of the traditional routes to the profession create roadblocks that turn away too many talented, capable people who desperately want to teach. Let’s change that to ensure that successful alternate certification programs can genuinely thrive and place highly competent new teachers and principals in schools that need them most. Third, let’s be smart about how we evaluate teachers. A strong teacher evaluation system, like the system New Haven recently began, includes multiple measures of student progress to achieve a complete, accurate snapshot of teacher effectiveness. The New Haven system, developed collaboratively by the school district and the teachers’ union, will assess teachers’ performance based on multiple components, including: student performance growth and classroom observations of teacher instructional practice and professional values….

One of the biggest problems with primary and secondary education in Connecticut is the way it’s funded. Put simply, the state has not kept its end of the bargain to provide 50% of the cost of local education. Many of us local officials got tired of begging the Legislature and Governor to meet the state’s obligation, so we helped put together a coalition — the Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) — to bring a lawsuit against the state.
In March, 2010, the State Supreme Court validated our claim. Though the case has been sent back to Superior Court, the state Supreme Court’s ruling was clear: the state has failed to maintain a suitable and substantially equal education system. That ruling noted in a pointed fashion that, in many school districts, the state provides inadequate resources and conditions that set students up for failure.

That’s got to change. That’s one of the reasons I’d like to examine the feasibility of transitioning toward a new, smarter system of funding for all of our public schools where money follows children based on their needs. I’d also look to refocus state school funding by indexing foundation aid to rising costs, adding measures of essential classroom resource equalization, and weighting more for pre-school and elementary grades where the greatest educational gains can be made.

We can pay for this in part by limiting school district administrative expenditures and instead offering incentives to retain and recruit classroom teachers in the face of cutbacks and a growing teacher shortage, but that won’t get us all of the way there. We’re going to have to find savings in other parts of the budget, and we’re going to have to tackle tax reform…

Providing an opportunity for every child to have access to early childhood education and to attend pre-Kindergarten programs is critical to Connecticut’s future….

Pre-schools are becoming a necessary extension of our traditional elementary schools. Studies have long shown that children who receive pre-kindergarten education are more likely to graduate from high school, less likely to repeat a grade or need special education classes, and less likely to be disruptive in the classroom and hinder teaching. The investment we make in pre-K education pay us back dramatically. Cost savings from reduced education expenditures later in life, fewer social service costs, and higher economic earning capacity are significant…

As Governor, my administration will recognize the increasing pressures placed on classroom teachers and school administrators who are asked to do more with less. It would recognize the increasing concerns of parents that with too heavy an emphasis on testing (resulting from the No Child Left Behind — NCLB — law), we risk too many needs of our children falling through the cracks. But it would also balance those concerns with a look across the country, where high quality, standards-based assessments are an integral part of any state effort to improve schools. These tests are a means to an end, not the end itself. These test results provide crucial data without which we cannot identify achievement gaps, point to success stories, or direct resources to schools that need them and reform efforts that will work.

So the answer is not to stop using these tests to measure student achievement, but rather to start doing a whole lot of other things based on the information that these tests provide us–and that’s exactly the direction that the Obama administration is seeking to go, both with the Race to the Top competition, and with their proposals for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (previously known as NCLB). Closer to home, these are the principles embodied in the Hartford and New Haven district reform plans–both of which use measurement of student achievement growth as a starting point for a much more ambitious set of interventions and supports designed to genuinely help struggling schools turn things around.

Currently, the federal government is infusing states with funds to promote innovation through its Race to The Top grant. Many believe that this grant program will serve as the replacement to the No Child Left Behind law enacted 8 years ago. Connecticut failed in Round 1 to win any funding; let’s hope the recently-submitted Round 2 application is better received. When I’m Governor, failure to win funding because we’re not innovative enough will not happen. Period…

The predominant path to higher education in Connecticut is a local one. Almost 40% of CT public high school graduates enroll two months later in a nearby community college or the Connecticut State University system. Unfortunately, the vast majority will arrive not ready for college level math or English and must take remedial courses. Even worse, fewer than half will earn a college degree by 24 years of age.

That’s why I am proposing a voluntary testing program which high school students could choose to participate in during their junior year, which would ascertain how prepared they are for basic college level math and English. Where needed, the student’s 12th grade curriculum would be adjusted to help them better prepare for their freshman year of college…

Summary:

Early Childhood Education
# Expand access to pre-Kindergarten programs across Connecticut, the goal being to make it universal within 4 years

Primary and Secondary Education
# Innovate in learning

* Encourage local school districts to restore a broader and deeper curriculum for all students that include hands-on science, history, civics, foreign languages and arts

* Allow districts to self-fund new charter schools

* End the “seat time” later years of high school by allowing successful seniors to graduate early for higher education

* Better fund adult education for those unlikely ever to graduate

* Create a community college “grade 13″ option for those not quite prepared for college level education.

* Promote high-quality, standard-based assessments

# Innovate in teaching

* Expand access to alternative teaching programs

* Enhance teacher evaluation systems

# Involve parents

* Champion employee release time for school-time activities (volunteering, parent conferences, etc.)

* Establish a parental involvement challenge grant to promote innovation and adoption of effective parental involvement strategies.

* Require local school boards to adopt policies that ensure parents can access homework assignments and their children’s attendance and available grades in real time. Many districts are doing this already, all should.

# Funding

* Examine feasibility of transitioning toward a new, smarter system of funding for all of our public schools where money follows children based on their needs

* Refocus state school funding by indexing foundation aid to rising costs, adding measures of essential classroom resource equalization, and weighting more for pre-school and elementary grades where the greatest educational gains can be made

* Limit school district administrative expenditures and instead offering incentives to retain and recruit classroom teachers in the face of cutbacks and a growing teacher shortage

Higher Education
# Move some of the existing community colleges to four year degree granting programs
# Build regional partnerships to increase student success
# Allow optional testing in high school to gauge college preparedness levels in math and English, and tailor senior year curriculum accordingly
# Maintain our commitment to financial aid
# Focus higher education spending on students and learning, not administration
# Build a world class research and development sector

Workforce Development & Job training
# Provide more opportunities for high school students to participate in apprenticeship training, earn community-college credit, or gain real workplace experience
# Increase the commitment in our teacher education programs to meeting the needs of our local K-12 schools
# Create a more responsive and integrated rapid reemployment and job training infrastructure that focuses on emergency services for displaced workers
# Enhance economic security by expanding customized and incumbent-worker job training to help workers enhance their skills and better protect against more jobs being lured from our state

Everyone’s outraged!

President Obama announced yesterday new government investments in 66 projects to expand broadband connections in rural and poor areas across the country. According to the White House, the $795 million in grants and loans funded by the 2009 economic stimulus act will create 5,000 jobs and generate $200 million in associated private investment.

Providing money, jobs and the invaluable tool of high speed Internet access to communities and people who truly need it, is fantastic news. This is a phenomenal first step toward achieving the goal of universal broadband, and will certainly make our country better and stronger in the process. But there is an overwhelming need that remains and that must also be addressed.

I hope that the Administration will weigh in and discourage any policies that would hinder affordable access to broadband – specifically plans to reclassify broadband providers as common carrier services – for broadband infrastructure is the gateway to success for future generations.

Julius H. Hollis, Chairman of the Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE), said “I applaud President Obama for his effort to help those who need it most. Expanding broadband to poor and rural areas will give these communities opportunities that they have never had, finally allowing them to compete on a level playing field, and to better compete in the global economy. This is a proud day.”

The Alliance for Digital Equality (ADE) is a non-profit consumer advocacy organization that works to facilitate and ensure equal access to technology in under-served and unserved communities.

Last week the Connecticut State Employees Retirement System’s (SERS) independent actuaries projected that under current methods, the pension fund’s assets will increase by more than 45% over the next 10 years.

Cavanaugh MacDonald Consulting’s actuaries project Connecticut’s retirement system will be fully funded by 2040.

The Administration of Governor M. Jodi Rell and others are pushing “defined contribution plans” or 401(k) savings accounts over real pension protection for working families.

But studies show that the cost to provide the same level of retirement benefits by a real defined benefit pension plan is 12.5% of payroll versus a comparable 401(k) at a cost of 22.9%. And while real pension plans are “counter-cyclical” — they help moderate downward turns in the economy by providing stable income to retirees during a recession — 401(k) type plans actually help pull the economy further down.

The reality is that dropping less costly pensions in favor of risky savings accounts does not make economic sense.

“As a member of the Governor’s OPEB (State Post-Employment Benefits Commission) Panel, I have seen the Administration’s push for a defined contribution plan for State employees,” said Sal Luciano, Executive Director of Council 4 AFSCME. “But we know that when taxpayers pay into a pension fund, they get a four to one return back into the economy as retirement income. Pensions are good for workers and they are good for the economy. Pensions are not the problem.”

The State Employees Bargaining Agent Coalition (SEBAC) continues to advocate for real solutions to Connecticut’s fiscal problems, not phony solutions that scapegoat hard-working state employees. The current state pension plan costs less than 4.7% of payroll for the typical employee, much less than many large corporations pay. Connecticut needs responsible leadership committed to making payments to unfunded liabilities and to the retirements of public service workers.

Carol Thomas, a member of the State Treasurer’s Investment Advisory Council who retired from the Department of Mental Retardation after more than 30 years of public service in 2003, said “Retirees who rely on a 401(k) have no recourse for looking over corporate executives’ shoulders to make sure they are being responsible. These CEOs think public pension funds are a nuisance because we’re looking for secure and cost-effective investments and controlling run-away executive pay,” said Thomas, who is also a member of CSEA/SEIU Local 2001′s retiree council.