Jonathan Kantrowitz

Political activist, health nut

Archive for November, 2011

League of Conservation Voters Endorses Chris Murphy for Senate

by:

National environmental non-profit with 3,600 Connecticut members cites Murphy’s leadership and commitment to environmental issues

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) Action Fund today announced its endorsement of Chris Murphy for U.S. Senate. LCV is a national non-profit organization that works to turn environmental values into national priorities and works to elect candidates who will implement sound environmental policies.

“LCV Action Fund is proud to endorse Chris Murphy for U.S. Senate because he understands that the policies needed to grow Connecticut’s economy and keep America’s competitive edge are the same policies that will reduce our dependence on oil and curb harmful pollution,” said LCV Action Fund President Gene Karpinski. “We are confident that as Senator, Chris Murphy will push for common-sense energy policies that create jobs in Connecticut while working to eliminate the stranglehold that rich oil companies have on our nation’s energy economy.”

“We have an obligation to the next generation of Americans to work for a cleaner, healthier future for our country and our planet,” said Murphy. “Whether it’s heading up the Land Conversation Caucus or championing clean energy legislation, I have made environmental protection a centerpiece of my public service in Congress. With 3,600 members in Connecticut, LCV’s endorsement is an incredible boost for our growing grassroots campaign and I’m honored to have their strong support.”

Since announcing his candidacy 11 months ago, Murphy has built a grassroots team that continues to grow and gather momentum. He has received the endorsement of Connecticut’s entire Congressional House delegation, Attorney General George Jepsen, Comptroller Kevin Lembo, Secretary of the State Denise Merrill, dozens of state Senators and state Representatives and over 6,000 Democratic and progressive activists from all across Connecticut. In addition to grassroots support, Murphy has built a clear fundraising advantage by outpacing his opponents 2-1 in the first year of the campaign.

Abstinence-only education does not lead to abstinent behavior

by:

States that prescribe abstinence-only sex education programs in public schools have significantly higher teenage pregnancy and birth rates than states with more comprehensive sex education programs, researchers from the University of Georgia have determined.

The researchers looked at teen pregnancy and birth data from 48 U.S. states to evaluate the effectiveness of those states’ approaches to sex education, as prescribed by local laws and policies.

“Our analysis adds to the overwhelming evidence indicating that abstinence-only education does not reduce teen pregnancy rates,” said Kathrin Stanger-Hall, assistant professor of plant biology and biological sciences in the Franklin College of Arts and Sciences.

Hall is first author on the resulting paper, which has been published online in the journal PLoS ONE.

The study is the first large-scale evidence that the type of sex education provided in public schools has a significant effect on teen pregnancy rates, Hall said.

“This clearly shows that prescribed abstinence-only education in public schools does not lead to abstinent behavior,” said David Hall, second author and assistant professor of genetics in the Franklin College. “It may even contribute to the high teen pregnancy rates in the U.S. compared to other industrialized countries.”

Along with teen pregnancy rates and sex education methods, Hall and Stanger-Hall looked at the influence of socioeconomic status, education level, access to Medicaid waivers and ethnicity of each state’s teen population.

Even when accounting for these factors, which could potentially impact teen pregnancy rates, the significant relationship between sex education methods and teen pregnancy remained: the more strongly abstinence education is emphasized in state laws and policies, the higher the average teenage pregnancy and birth rates.

“Because correlation does not imply causation, our analysis cannot demonstrate that emphasizing abstinence causes increased teen pregnancy. However, if abstinence education reduced teen pregnancy as proponents claim, the correlation would be in the opposite direction,” said Stanger-Hall.

The paper indicates that states with the lowest teen pregnancy rates were those that prescribed comprehensive sex and/or HIV education, covering abstinence alongside proper contraception and condom use. States whose laws stressed the teaching of abstinence until marriage were significantly less successful in preventing teen pregnancies.

These results come at an important time for legislators. A new evidence-based Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative was signed into federal law in December 2009 and awarded $114 million for implementation. However, federal abstinence-only funding was renewed for 2010 and beyond by including $250 million of mandatory abstinence-only funding as part of an amendment to the Senate Finance Committee’s health-reform legislation.

With two types of federal funding programs available, legislators of individual states now have the opportunity to decide which type of sex education—and which funding option—to choose for their state and possibly reconsider their state’s sex education policies for public schools, while pursuing the ultimate goal of reducing teen pregnancy rates.

Stanger-Hall and Hall conducted this large-scale analysis to provide scientific evidence to inform this decision.

“Advocates for continued abstinence-only education need to ask themselves: If teens don’t learn about human reproduction, including safe sexual health practices to prevent unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases, as well as how to plan their reproductive adult life in school, then when should they learn it and from whom?” said Stanger-Hall.

Romney Rebuked

by:

Connecticut’s Major Charter Schools Face More Questions

by:

by Jon Pelto, Wait, What

Despite their rhetoric, not only are most of Connecticut’s charter schools actually increasing racial isolation, they are naively or knowingly overlooking key factors in their ongoing claims that they provide better educational outcomes.

A review of Connecticut’s School Profile Reports raises even more serious questions and concerns are about some of Connecticut’s largest charter schools.

Meanwhile, advocates and lobbyists are engaged in a major effort to persuade policymakers to adopt a concept called “Money Follows the Child” in the upcoming 2012 Legislative Session.

The policy change would move scarce resources away from the public schools systems that presently educate about 99% of Connecticut public school students.

Instead of trying to expand the pot of money that is provided for primary and secondary education in Connecticut, thereby helping all public school children, some charter school supporters have changed their strategy and are now pushing to modify the state’s school funding system so that when a child shifts from a public school to a charter school all of the state money associated with the education of that student would shift as well.

This approach would leave more and more of Connecticut’s public schools without the money needed to provide comprehensive education programs and would, in the end, threaten the quality of education in our public schools while leading to higher local property taxes as towns are forced to rely even more heavily on regressive property taxes.

At stake are both the issue of racial segregation and the quality of education in Connecticut.

At the core of the debate is the fundamental principle that federal and state laws prohibit the use of public funds to promote racial and ethnic segregation. However, virtually every one of Connecticut’s major charter schools, all of whom receive major state subsidies, are not only failing to reduce racial isolation but are, in fact, significantly less racially diverse than the public schools in the same communities.

While some charter schools, like the Odyssey School in Manchester are successfully meeting the diversity challenge, others, especially those run by Achievement First, a major charter school operator with charter schools in New York, Connecticut and Rhode Island is not.

For example, Achievement First’s Bridgeport Academy, Achievement First’s Hartford Academy, Achievement First’s Amistad Academy and Achievement First’s Elm City Preparatory are all significantly more racially isolated than are the school systems in which they are based – Bridgeport, Hartford and New Haven.

As the state spends literally hundreds of millions of dollars to address its moral, legal and constitutional responsibility to make our schools less racially isolated, Connecticut’s charter schools are moving Connecticut in exactly the wrong direction.

What makes this issue particularly troubling is that Connecticut’s new State Commissioner of Education has repeatedly said he will work to expand charter schools in Connecticut even though it is clear from the evidence that most charter schools are unwilling or unable to be a part of the overall effort to reduce racial isolation in our state.

While conveniently overlooking the growing racial isolation in charter schools, Achievement First and other major urban charter schools base their demand for more public funds by claiming that their standardized test scores prove that their charter schools are providing students with a superior education.

However, there is a fundamental flaw in the argument these charter school advocates are putting forward

Putting aside the broader problems associated with using standardized mastery tests to measure educational outcomes; there is overwhelming evidence that test scores are impacted by a number of factors beyond simply what is going on in the classroom.

Study after study has indicated that poverty and standardized test scores (like the mastery test) are closely correlated. More poverty means lower school test scores; less poverty means higher school test scores.

What policymakers are not regularly told is that although poverty level in all urban schools are high (both at charter and at traditional public schools), the students at many of Connecticut’s urban charter schools are significantly “less poor” than the students who attend the public schools in those same communities.

In Bridgeport, where 99% of the city’s public school students qualify for free or reduced lunches, according to the data provided to the State Department of Education, the number of students who meet that standard at Achievement First’s Bridgeport Academy is more than 30 points percentage points lower.

The percentage of students at the other two major Bridgeport charters (The Bridge Academy and Park City Preparatory) who qualify for free or reduced lunches are also significantly lower than in the Bridgeport school system.

There is a similar pattern in Hartford, where 93% of public schools students qualify for free or reduced lunches compared to 68% at Achievement First’s Harford Academy and 72% at the Jumoke Academy charter school.

And it is the same in New Haven, where 81% of all New Haven public school students qualify for free or reduced lunches, while at the Amistad Academy 66% meet that poverty standard. At Achievement First’s other New Haven charter school, Elm City College Prep charter school, the number of students getting free or reduced lunches is 69%.

Considering these schools are more racially isolated these statistics indicate that charter schools have the effect of leaving the poorer students in each city’s public schools systems.

According to their marketing materials and testimony at legislative hearings, charter schools claim that their students score 10 to 30 percent better on master tests than do students in the nearby public schools.

However, a portion of that difference may be due to the poverty level of the students served in those schools.

An even greater impact may come from the language barriers students bring with them to school.

When it comes to the Connecticut Mastery Tests (3-8 grades), 84% of all Connecticut students score at the proficient or better level in math. However, for English Language Learners (ELL students) that is, “students who lack sufficient mastery of English,” the percent of students who achieve a proficient or better score drops all the way down to 57%.

The language barrier has an even more stunning impact on the test results for the reading portion of the Connecticut Mastery Test. While 78% of all Connecticut students score at the proficient level or better, only 37% of ELL (those not proficient in the English Language) test at the proficient level or better.

These numbers mean that schools that have more ELL students do significantly worse than schools that don’t have as many non-English proficient students.

So, back to the data on charter schools:

In Bridgeport, 13% of the public school students are ELL students. At Achievement First’s Bridgeport Academy the number is just 6%.

Less than ½ of 1% of the students at The Bridge Academy charter school are ELL students, while only 2.5% of the students at Park City Prep charter school are ELL.

In Hartford, where over 17% of public school students are non-English proficient (ELL), the percent of ELL students at Achievement First’s Harford Academy is less than 5% and there are literally no ELL students at the Jumoke Academy charter school.

In New Haven, the disparity is less prevalent. 12% of New Haven public school students are ELL, which is similar to the percent at the Amistad Academy charter school, but at Elm City College Prep charter school only 9% of the students are ELL.

While the impact of these statistics has yet to be fully documented, the fact remains that Connecticut’s charter schools are simply not in a position to claim that the quality of their education programs are substantially better than the education in the public schools.

Charter schools may claim that they utilize an “open lottery system and that allows every child to have access to their schools, but the facts simply don’t back up the charter schools’ claim that their student populations represent the full spectrum of students that attend public schools. Therefore their claim of educational superiority doesn’t add up.

Before Connecticut policy makers shift additional resources from Connecticut’s public schools to the charter schools they have an obligation to address these fundamental issues.

Achievement First and a number of the other urban charter schools are more racially isolated, they educate a student population that is less poor and they fail to take on their fair share of non-English proficient (ELL) students.

While CMT test scores in charter schools may be marginally higher than public school scores, the evidence suggests that their teaching methods may not fully explain those results.

The Governor and the Legislature should be seeking answers to these questions before turning over any more of the taxpayers’ money to these schools.

The Entire Iranian Banking Sector: Terrorist Financing Risks

by:

By: David S. Cohen

David S. Cohen is Under Secretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.

As part of a series of actions announced by Secretary Geithner and Secretary Clinton to ratchet up pressure on Iran, Treasury yesterday issued a finding under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act that identified Iran as a jurisdiction of “primary money laundering concern” and proposed in a rulemaking process the strengthening of the rules prohibiting Iran from accessing the U.S. financial system.

What is most significant about yesterday’s action is that for the first time, Treasury is calling out the entire Iranian banking sector, including the Central Bank of Iran, as posing terrorist financing, proliferation financing, and money laundering risks for the global financial system. We have assembled a thick dossier of evidence detailing Iran’s illicit activities and the threat that Iran’s banking sector poses to the international financial system. Dealing with Iran’s financial sector has become such a serious risk that an action against the entire jurisdiction was necessary.

As Secretary Geithner said, “Any and every financial transaction with Iran poses grave risk of supporting those activities,” and we believe that the best way for the international community to protect itself from that risk is to disassociate from the Iranian banking sector, including the Central Bank of Iran.

We were joined by the United Kingdom and Canada who took similar actions to cut off Iran from their financial systems – and our collective action today is consistent with calls from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to strengthen existing safeguards to protect the international financial system from the terrorist financing risk emanating from Iran, and further demonstrates our commitment to these efforts.

Our action, along with those taken by the U.K and Canada, should have a chilling effect on the willingness of foreign financial institutions to do business with Iranian banking institutions. Foreign banks in jurisdictions where there may not be comprehensive sanctions on Iran are now much more likely to make the judgment that Iran is an increasingly risky place to do business. And each time a bank decides to protect itself by backing out of business with Iran, it puts additional stress on the Iranian economy and sends a clear signal to Iran’s leadership that they need to live up to their international obligations or they will face increasing consequences.

By highlighting the Central Bank of Iran’s complicity in the illicit and deceptive conduct detailed in the finding, we expect that our partners and allies around the world will think long and hard about any transactions associated with Iran’s Central Bank and other Iranian banks, and take forceful steps to protect themselves and their financial sectors.

President Obama has called on his Administration to impose tough sanctions on Iran in order to pressure its government to adhere to its international obligations with respect to its nuclear program. Last night he said:

“Since taking office, I have made it clear that the United States is prepared to begin a new chapter with the Islamic Republic of Iran, offering the Iranian government a clear choice. It can fulfill its international obligations and reap the benefits of greater economic and political integration with countries around the world, or it can continue to defy its responsibilities and face even more pressure and isolation. Iran has chosen the path of international isolation. As long as Iran continues down this dangerous path, the United States will continue to find ways, both in concert with our partners and through our own actions to isolate and increase the pressure upon the Iranian regime.”

We will continue to use tough, innovative ways to increase the severe economic pressure on Iran’s leadership and will continue to move forcefully to protect the international financial system from Iran’s illicit activities.

Must Watch Video

by:

It’s all about free speech and the right to peacefully assemble:

The economy Is going to hell in a handbasket

by:

and no one is doing anything about it.

The supercommittee failed – no surprise there. The Fed is refusing to do any more. Unemployment benefits are running out. Payroll tax reductions are about to expire. Europe is about to collapse financially.

The “recovery” hasn’t touched unemployment, and was only 2% last quarter, not the highly praised albeit anemic 2.5% previously reported. Poverty is on the rise.

Is there any hope at all? Not unless Democrats win big in 2012 – big enough to outvote not only Republicans, but Blue Dog Democrats, New Democrats, and other deficit hawk Democrats.

The chances of that? Not much.

One In Three Americans In Or Near Poverty

by:

The U.S. Census Bureau has announced that in 2010, median household income declined, the poverty rate increased and the percentage without health insurance coverage was not statistically different from the previous year.

Real median household income in the United States in 2010 was $49,445, a 2.3 percent decline from the 2009 median.

The nation’s official poverty rate in 2010 was 15.1 percent, up from 14.3 percent in 2009 ─ the third consecutive annual increase in the poverty rate. There were 46.2 million people in poverty in 2010, up from 43.6 million in 2009 ─ the fourth consecutive annual increase and the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty estimates have been published.

The number of people without health insurance coverage rose from 49.0 million in 2009 to 49.9 million in 2010, while the percentage without coverage −16.3 percent – was not statistically different from the rate in 2009.

These findings are contained in the report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010.

The following results for the nation were compiled from information collected in the 2011 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC):

* The poverty rate in 2010 was the highest since 1993. Since 2007, the poverty rate has increased by 2.6 percentage points.

* In 2010, the family poverty rate and the number of families in poverty were 11.7 percent and 9.2 million, respectively, up from 11.1 percent and 8.8 million in 2009.

* The poverty rate and the number in poverty increased for both married-couple families (6.2 percent and 3.6 million in 2010 from 5.8 percent and 3.4 million in 2009) and female-householder-with-no-husband-present families (31.6 percent and 4.7 million in 2010 from 29.9 percent and 4.4 million in 2009). For families with a male householder no wife present, the poverty rate and the number in poverty were not statistically different from 2009 (15.8 percent and 880,000 in 2010).

However, the National Academy of Sciences has identified several major weaknesses in the current poverty measure:

- The current income measure does not reflect the effects of key government
policies that alter the disposable income available to families and, hence, their poverty status. Examples include payroll taxes, which reduce disposable income, and in-kind public benefit programs such as the Food Stamp Program/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that free up resources to spend on nonfood items.

- The current poverty thresholds do not adjust for rising levels and standards of living that have occurred since 1965. The official thresholds were approximately equal to half of median income in 1963–64. By 1992, one half median income had increased to more than 120 percent of the official threshold.

- The current measure does not take into account variation in expenses that are necessary to hold a job and to earn income—expenses that reduce disposable income. These expenses include transportation costs for getting to work and the increasing costs of child care for working families resulting from increased labor force participation of mothers.

- The current measure does not take into account variation in medical costs across population groups depending on differences in health status and insurance coverage and does not account for rising health care costs as a share of family budgets.

- The current poverty thresholds use family size adjustments that are U.S. Census Bureau
anomalous and do not take into account important changes in family situations, including
payments made for child support and increasing cohabitation among unmarried couples.

-The current poverty thresholds do not adjust for geographic differences in prices across
the nation, although there are significant variations in prices across geographic areas.

Taking these factors in mind, the census bureau has calculated a Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM).

There were 49.1 million poor using the SPM definition of poverty, more than the 46.6 million using the official definition of poverty with our universe. For most groups, SPM rates are higher than official poverty rates. The most striking difference is in the over-65 population, with a SPM poverty rate almost twice as high as the official rate.

In a follow-up to the release of the supplemental poverty measure report, the New York Times commissioned the Census Bureau to create a special tabulation based on the measure, and as a service to other users the Census Bureaupostied this tabulation online. The statistics focus on the characteristics of the population just above the poverty line (100 to 150 percent of the poverty threshold). The supplemental poverty measure does not replace the official poverty measure but is intended to better reflect contemporary social and economic realities and government policy effects and thus provide a further understanding of economic conditions and trends.

And what does that new report show:

A new measure of poverty released by the U.S. Census Bureau meant to better count disposable income shows that some 51 million Americans — one in three — are either living in poverty or just barely above it.

The new report shows 51 million Americans with incomes less than 50 percent above the poverty line, 76 percent more than the official account published in September.

All told, that places 100 million people — one in three Americans — either in poverty or in the highly worrisome place just above it.

But that’s not a problem, right. It’s the deficit that driving up interest rates, right? Oh, wait, interest rates aren’t going anywhere!

Page 1 of 41234