February 22, 2012 at 3:41 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
February 22, 2012 at 1:36 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
from What What, by Jon Pelto
In June, June 2009 the Connecticut State Board Department of Education wrote in a report “The pattern of employing non-certified teachers at Amistad Academy [and Elm City Prep – both AF schools] is a significant cause of concern. The Connecticut State Department of Education has worked with [Achievement First] for a considerable period of time to resolve its teacher certification violations. Despite ongoing discussions with the school on the vital importance of upholding the state law on teacher certification, the issues had not been completely corrected. The Connecticut charter school accountability process is designed to ensure compliance with state and federal law and administrative regulations. Amistad Academy’s [and AF’s Elm City Prep] chronic noncompliance on teacher certification compromises the principles of charter school accountability.”
Why hasn’t Achievement First’s unwillingness to meet Connecticut law become more of an issue?
Because the following year Achievement First got the law changed. Connecticut law required that every school ensure that every teacher we certified to teach within one year of joining the state. It was – and is – a law that applies to every public school in Connecticut – except for Charter Schools who had an amendment adopted that said they – and they alone – can have 30% of the staff non-certified.
February 22, 2012 at 9:17 am by Jonathan Kantrowitz
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials are unhappy with cuts to public housing and Section 8 in President Obama’s proposed budget:
The Administration’s attempt in their FY2013 budget proposal to address the nation’s most critical housing and community development (HCD) needs in the face of a fragile economic recovery is to be commended. With a healthy respect for the need to attack the federal deficit, President Obama has proposed a budget that is designed to stimulate economic growth while addressing the debilitating effects of an 8.5% unemployment rate. We commend the President for these efforts, including his proposal to fund the National Housing Trust Fund.
We do take serious exception to a number of the “difficult decisions” made in the HUD budget request for three reasons.
First, these decisions fly in the face of the reality shared by millions of low- and very-low-income families, who need a strong social safety net and a vigorous, empowered HUD to help them through these difficult times.
Second, several of the cuts suggested continue a pattern of disinvestment, particularly with regard to the nation’s public housing, which faces a backlog of over $26 billion in deferred maintenance.
Third, making these cuts in the HUD budget squanders the opportunity to create jobs and address the nation’s vulnerable affordable housing infrastructure.
We specifically regret that the progress made in the Recovery Act proposed by this Administration and so successfully implemented by our members through the provision and use of $4 billion in Capital Fund dollars has all but been superseded by approved reductions in the Public Housing Capital Fund since FY 2010.
On this point, we note that the Administration’s Rental Assistance Demonstration proposal (RAD), presented as an unfunded 60, 000 unit continuation of the demonstration approved by appropriators in 2012, is included in this year’s budget request. The conversion of public housing to a more stable funding stream under the Section 8 program makes sense and is in many ways supportable if properly administered by the Department. RAD is not a panacea and it is not, in its current form, a replacement for or reason to inadequately resource the Public Housing Capital Fund.
Merging the Operating and Capital Funds as the proposal recommends is yet another recommendation that could, if approved, undermine the long-term stability and preservation of public housing inventory. We fear that acceptance of this proposal could make both Capital and Operating Funds needed by the majority of the inventory that cannot or will not convert under RAD vulnerable to Congressional attempts to “block and cut.”
We also see a mixed message in the proposed funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investments Partnership Program. The good news is that the Administration has called for level funding of both programs comparable to FY 2012. The bad news is that the final FY 2012 agreement represents a 12% and 61% reduction for CDBG and HOME from FY 2011 approved levels. Here again the opportunity to create jobs and stimulate local economies by way of the creation of new affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization will be lost if Congress agrees with the President’s request.
But we are heartened to hear Secretary Donovan say what NAHRO has been saying for several years: that the failure to adequately fund the administration of the Section 8 voucher program will lead to fewer families served. We commend HUD for requesting additional dollars for voucher administration. Unfortunately, even with the increased funding proposed, the budget request still represents an 81% proration compared to what is actually needed to prudently and competently administer this invaluable assistance to millions of families and a growing number of our nation’s homeless veterans.
In sum, despite what we believe to be the best of intentions as noted above, this budget request does not, taken together, meet the needs that our members see and experience everyday in their communities. We will work with Congress and the Administration to find a more reasoned course for 2013 that more effectively addresses the needs of deserving families and seniors and preserves that part of our affordable housing inventory we can least afford to lose in these troubled times.
February 21, 2012 at 4:52 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
From Wait, What by Jon Pelto
In his “historic” call for “education reform”, an end to teacher tenure and a disproportionate transfer of public dollars to charter schools the Governor failed to point out that (1) Connecticut already has one of the longest probationary periods for teachers in the country – four years – which gives school administrators more opportunity to judge a teacher’s capability than do those in most other states and that (2) in 2010 the Legislature adopted major revisions to the teacher evaluation process that already gives Malloy’s Department of Education the power to revamp how teachers are evaluated and require school administrators to actually conduct appropriate evaluations. They only have to properly implement that new evaluation process.
Finally, the only missing piece is to limit the time-frame and costs associated with the teacher dismissal process – a step that both teacher unions have already endorsed.
One piece of the puzzle is the role that Achievement First, the charter school management company, that will receive millions of new taxpayer funds under Malloy’s plan is playing.
At the same time, Connecticut’s resource starved urban district schools are slated to get virtually none of the funds they need to tackle the extraordinary problems that they face and most of Connecticut’s other public schools will get nothing more than crumbs – if anything at all.
To review, Achievement First, the organization that Stefan Pryor helped create and served as a Director for until he quit last year to become Malloy’s Commissioner of Education, is scheduled to grow from 20 school to 35 schools over the next few years at which point it claims that it will be larger than 95% of all school districts in the country.
Under Malloy’s “education reform” plan Achievement First will get in excess of $6 million dollars – $2,600 more per student – while Hartford will get $178 dollars more per student and Bridgeport will get $156 more per student.
All in all, Connecticut’ 6,000 charter schools students will get that extra $2,600 each while the 222,000 students in Connecticut’s thirty poorest and lowest performing school districts will get an average of $150 each.
Put another way, Pryor’s former company with its 2,600 or so students will get more money than the total amount given to 123 towns serving 279,000 Connecticut students.
February 21, 2012 at 3:32 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
by Liam Burke
Most people know that Rick Santorum is extremely socially conservative. So where does Santorum stand on other issues?
ON GLOBAL WARMING & THE EPA
Called Global Warming a “hoax” as opposed to most Republican candidates who say it is unproven or the connection between our activities and global warming are unproven. [In doing so, he denies the evidence of record setting annual temperatures, melting glaciers, coral bleaching, new seed planting zones and raising water tables.] He wants to close the EPA in its entirety.
http://coloradoindependent.com/111924/santorum-and-gingrich-dismiss-climate-change-vow-to-dismantle-the-epa
ON THE WAR IN IRAQ
“Senator Santorum…remained supportive of the war in Iraq from it’s beginning until he left office after [he lost in] the 2006 elections. … When pressed in an interview as to the purpose and goal in Iraq, in 2006 Senator Santorum … [compared] the war in Iraq to the Lord of the Rings. … He compared this [war] to drawing the attention of the eye of Sauron from the path of the hobbits.”
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/Views/The_War_in_Iraq/
HOW SANTORUM VOTED WHILE IN CONGRESS:
To confirm John Bolton (the neocon with the weird mustache) as Ambassador to the UN and Alberto Gonzalez as Atty. General but
Against Confirming Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense.
The only other Senator to vote against Secty. Gates was Jim Bunning who was a great baseball player, but such a bad senator that he he could not raise campaign funds for reelection AS AN INCUMBENT SENATOR and decided not to run again. Maybe Senator Santorum voted against Bob Gates because Gates was more up on actual security issues instead of spending his time reading about the plight of the hobbits. http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27054/rick-santorum
Against the Brady Bill (HR 1025)
http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27054/rick-santorum
For Earmarks and more earmarks especially when they lead to campaign cash for him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/us/politics/as-rick-santorum-secured-earmarks-2006-donations-flowed-in.html?pagewanted=all
LOBBYISTS
Brunched weekly with lobbyists while in Congress, and if not trading votes for hires, coming pretty close. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/rick-santorum-lobbyists-k-street-project_n_1186606.html
Post Congress “Stealth Lobbyist” greatly increasing his assets http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/rick-santorum-stealth-lobbyist/story?id=15298204#.TzvAJlF0XJw
HOW OTHER REPUBLICANS SEE HIM:
Romney spokeswoman … in an email:
“Rick Santorum has a history of making statements that aren’t grounded in the truth.”
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/13/424493/romney-campaign-santorum-is-a-serial-liar/
Sen. Santorum claimed that former POW, torture survivor and now Sen. John McCain simply didn’t understand how torture works. McCain’s response when told of his then colleague’s statement “Who?” http://www.salon.com/2011/05/17/santorum_mccain_enhanced_interrogation/
HOW HIS HOMESTATE VOTERS SEE HIM
He lost his last election by 18 points. In fact, he only got above a majority of the vote in one of his 3 races. (He did win twice.) http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Pennsylvania/Rick_Santorum/ElectionResults/
February 21, 2012 at 12:55 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
He says President Obama has a “phony theology” that’s not “based on the Bible”:
When you have a worldview that elevates the Earth above man and says that we can’t take those resources because we’re going to harm the Earth; by things that frankly are just not scientifically proven, for example, the politicization of the whole global warming debate — this is all an attempt to, you know, to centralize power and to give more power to the government.
February 21, 2012 at 8:43 am by Jonathan Kantrowitz
I eat a lot of carbs: fruits, vegetables, beans and whole grains mostly. I need them to feel full. Some of my friends (and my wife) advocate a low carb, high protein diet, but I have chosen to eat very little meat, cheese and eggs for health reasons. If I give up carbs, that pretty much leaves only fish, of which I eat a lot, but that brings its own health issues.
I ‘m clearly not going to lose weight on my chosen regimen, but how bad are carbs really?
The same article I quoted on the dangers of fructose was actually mostly about the dangers of carbs:
Overconsumption of carbs is the primary driving factor for insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes. Unfortunately, the conventional medical wisdom has unwisely been extolling the virtues of carbohydrates for years, even placing them as the “foundation” of the highly flawed food pyramid.
If you are seeking to lose weight and optimize your health, foods like bread, rice and pasta should comprise very low percentages of your diet. Virtually anyone who bought into these high-carb, low-fat dietary recommendations has likely struggled with their weight and health, wondering what they’re doing wrong.
The problem is that overeating carbohydrates can prevent a higher percentage of fats from being used for energy, and lead to an increase in fat production and storage. It also raises your insulin levels, which in short order can cause insulin resistance, followed by diabetes. Insulin resistance is also at the heart of virtually every chronic disease known to modern man.
Your Body Stores Excess Carbs as Fat
Your body has a limited capacity to store excess carbohydrates. This is one of the reasons why elevated blood sugar follows their overconsumption. One of the ways your body avoids dangerously elevated blood sugar is through converting those excess carbohydrates into excess body fat primarily in your belly. The way it works is that any carbohydrates not immediately used by your body are stored in the form of glycogen (a long string of glucose molecules linked together). Your body has two storage sites for glycogen: your liver and your muscles. Once the glycogen levels are filled in both your liver and muscles, excess carbohydrates are converted into fat and stored in your adipose, that is, fatty, tissue.
So, although carbohydrates are “fat-free,” this is misleading because excess carbohydrates end up as excess fat. Puffed rice, in fact, is capable of making your blood sweeter than white sugar, due to the fact that it is higher on the glycemic index – all the more reason why refined grains are “hidden sugar,” and sugar is in many ways “hidden fat.”
But that’s not the worst of it. Any meal or snack high in carbohydrates will also generate a rapid rise in blood glucose. To adjust for this rapid rise, your pancreas secretes insulin into your bloodstream, which then lowers your levels of blood glucose. The problem is that insulin is essentially a storage hormone, evolved to put aside excess carbohydrate calories in the form of fat in case of future famine. So the insulin that’s stimulated by excess carbohydrates aggressively promotes the accumulation of body fat!
In other words, when you eat too much sugar, bread, pasta, and any other grain products, you’re essentially sending a hormonal message, via insulin, to your body that says “store more fat.” This is actually a highly beneficial response in certain scenarios such as when calories are very scarce. This provides a major survival advantage — but for nearly everyone reading this, having insufficient calories is not an issue, so this protective mechanism actually sabotages your health.
Additionally, increased insulin levels also:
* Make it virtually impossible for you to use your own stored body fat for energy.
* Suppress two important hormones: glucagon and growth hormone. Glucagon promotes the burning of fat and sugar. Growth hormone is used for muscle development and building new muscle mass.
* Increases hunger: As blood sugar increases following a carbohydrate meal, insulin rises with the eventual result of lower blood sugar. This results in hunger, often only a couple of hours (or less) after the meal, in a vicious endocrine rollercoaster that takes us from meal to compulsive meal without ever feeling satisfied.
So, all in all, the excess carbohydrates in your diet can not only make you fat, they can make sure you stay fat. Cravings, usually for sweets, are frequently part of this cycle, leading you to resort to snacking, often on more carbohydrates. Not eating can make you feel ravenous shaky, moody and ready to “crash.” If the problem is chronic, you never get rid of that extra stored fat, and your energy and overall health is adversely affected.
I’ve cut out rice (except on sushi), potatoes and white bread (mostly.) I’ve cut back on pastry (although I need to do even better there.) So how am I doing carb wise? Not bad, according to the Harvard School of Public Health:
Don’t be misled by fad diets that make blanket pronouncements on the dangers of carbohydrates. They provide the body with fuel it needs for physical activity and for proper organ function, and they are an important part of a healthy diet. But some kinds of carbohydrates are far better than others.
Choose the best sources of carbohydrates—whole grains (the less processed, the better), vegetables, fruits and beans—since they promote good health by delivering vitamins, minerals, fiber, and a host of important phytonutrients. Skip the easily digested refined carbohydrates from refined grains—white bread, white rice, and the like— as well as pastries.
They are pretty positive on fruits as well:
Eating whole grain carbs may actually be good for me:
Study Confirms Health Benefits of Whole Grains
A diet high in whole grain foods is associated with a significantly lower risk of developing cardiovascular disease, including heart disease and stroke, according to an analysis conducted by researchers at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
“Consuming an average of 2.5 servings of whole grains each day is associated with a 21 percent lower risk of cardiovascular disease compared to consuming only 0.2 servings,” said Philip Mellen, M.D., lead author and an assistant professor of internal medicine. “These findings suggest that we should redouble our efforts to encourage patients to include more of these foods in their diets.”
These results were published on line in Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases and will appear in a future print issue.
The findings are based on an analysis of seven studies involving more than 285,000 people. By combining the data from these seven studies, researchers were able to detect effects that may not have shown up in each individual study. The studies were conducted between 1966 and April 2006.
Mellen said the findings are consistent with earlier research, but that despite abundant evidence about the health benefits of whole grains, intake remains low. A nutrition survey conducted between 1999 and 2000 found that only 8 percent of U.S. adults consumed three or more servings of whole grain per day and that 42 percent of adults ate no whole grains on a given day.
“Many consumers and health professionals are unaware of the health benefits of whole grains,” said Mellen.
A grain is “whole” when the entire grain seed is retained: the bran, germ and the endosperm. The bran and germ components are rich in fiber, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and healthy fats. These are the parts removed in the refining process, leaving behind the energy-dense but nutrient-poor endosperm portion of the grain. Examples of whole grain foods include wild rice, popcorn, oatmeal, brown rice, barley, wheat berries and flours such as whole wheat.
In addition to protecting against cardiovascular disease, which accounts for one-third of deaths worldwide, there is evidence that whole grains also project against diabetes and other chronic conditions.
“Years ago, scientists hypothesized that the higher rates of chronic diseases we have in the West, including heart disease, are due, in part, to a diet full of processed foods,” Mellen said. “Subsequent studies have born that out – especially with whole grains. Greater whole grain intake is associated with less obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol – major factors that increase the risk for heart disease and stroke.”
According to nutritionists, consumers should look for “100 percent whole grain” on food labels or look for specific types of whole-grain flour as the main ingredient, such as “whole wheat.”
Also:
Cardiovascular Disease
Eating whole instead of refined grains substantially lowers total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL, or bad) cholesterol, triglycerides, and insulin levels. Any of these changes would be expected to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease. In the Harvard-based Nurses’ Health Study, women who ate 2 to 3 servings of whole-grain products (mostly bread and breakfast cereals) each day were 30 percent less likely to have a heart attack or die from heart disease over a 10-year period than women who ate less than 1 serving per week (1). A recent meta-analysis of seven major studies showed that cardiovascular disease (heart attack, stroke, or the need for a procedure to bypass or open a clogged artery) was 21 percent less likely in people who ate 2.5 or more servings of whole-grain foods a day compared with those who ate less than 2 servings a week (2).
Type 2 Diabetes
In a study of more than 160,000 women whose health and dietary habits were followed for up to 18 years, those who averaged 2 to 3 servings of whole grains a day were 30 percent less likely to have developed type 2 diabetes than those who rarely ate whole grains (3). When the researchers combined these results with those of several other large studies, they found that eating an extra 2 servings of whole grains a day decreased the risk of type 2 diabetes by 21 percent.
Cancer
The data on cancer are mixed, with some studies showing a protective effect and others showing none (4). A large, five-year study among nearly 500,000 men and women suggests that eating whole grains, but not dietary fiber, offers modest protection against colorectal cancer (5, 6).
Digestive Health
By keeping the stool soft and bulky, the fiber in whole grains helps prevent constipation, a common, costly, and aggravating problem. It also helps prevent diverticular disease (the development of tiny pouches inside the colon that are easily irritated and inflamed) by decreasing pressure in the intestines.
Staying Alive
An intriguing report from the Iowa Women’s Health Study linked whole-grain consumption with fewer deaths from noncardiac, noncancer causes. Compared with women who rarely or never ate whole-grain foods, those who had at least two or more servings a day were 30 percent less likely to have died from an inflammation-related condition over a 17-year period (7).
and specifically:
1. Brown Rice
2. Oatmeal
My conclusion – I will try even harder to avoid refined grains, but not worry at all about consuming high fiber carbs.
February 20, 2012 at 12:09 pm by Jonathan Kantrowitz
I eat a lot of fruit: raisins, grapes, blueberries, apples, strawberries, bananas, orange juice and tomatoes (yes, tomatoes are a fruit.) I always thought they were good for me (well orange juice in great moderation, only to enhance the benefits of green/white tea.)
Lots of research highlights the benefits:
Here are just a few examples:
1. Apples
2. Blueberries
Blueberries Help Build Strong Bones
Blueberries may inhibit development of fat cells
Blueberries: a Cup a Day May Keep Cancer Away
Blueberry’s positive effects on cholesterol
3. Strawberries
Strawberries Boost Red Blood Cells
Strawberries Fight Diabetes and Nervous System Diseases
Strawberries may slow precancerous growth
Strawberries Protect the Stomach from Alcohol
Even the government says fruits are good:
Almost Everyone Needs to Eat More Fruits and Vegetables
A growing body of research shows that fruits and vegetables are critical to promoting good health. To get the amount that’s recommended, most people need to increase the amount of fruits and vegetables they currently eat every day. How Many Fruits and Vegetables Do You Need?
Fruits and Vegetables Can Protect Your Health
Fruits and vegetables contain essential vitamins, minerals, and fiber that may help protect you from chronic diseases. Compared with people who consume a diet with only small amounts of fruits and vegetables, those who eat more generous amounts as part of a healthful diet are likely to have reduced risk of chronic diseases, including stroke and perhaps other cardiovascular diseases, and certain cancers.
But a recent article sent to me by a reader/friend says quite the opposite:
A Word about Fructose (a Common Sugar in Soda, Fruit Juice and More) …
You will want to be very careful about the amount of fructose you consume as part of your carb intake, as it is by far the worst type of sugar there is in terms of both your health and your weight:
* After eating fructose, virtually all of the metabolic burden rests on your liver.
*Fructose is turned into free fatty acids (FFAs), VLDL (the damaging form of cholesterol), and triglycerides, which get stored as fat.
* The fatty acids created during fructose metabolism accumulate as fat droplets in your liver and skeletal muscle tissues, causing insulin resistance and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Insulin resistance progresses to metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.
* Fructose is the most lipophilic carbohydrate. In other words, fructose converts to activated glycerol (g-3-p), which is directly used to turn FFAs into triglycerides. The more g-3-p you have, the more fat you store. Glucose simply does not do this.
* Consuming fructose is essentially consuming fat!
* The metabolism of fructose by your liver creates a long list of waste products and toxins, including a large amount of uric acid, which drives up blood pressure and can cause gout.
* Fructose has no effect on the hunger hormone ghrelin and by interfering with your brain’s ability to use leptin, results in overeating.
If you want to shed excess pounds, maintain a healthy weight long-term, and RADICALLY reduce (and in many cases virtually eliminate) your risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer, then get serious about restricting your consumption of fructose to no more than 25 grams per day, with a maximum of 15 grams a day from fresh fruit. If you’re already overweight, or have any of these diseases or are at high risk of any of them, then you’re probably better off cutting that down to 10-15 grams per day — fruit included.
If you believe you are an exception to this rule then you can measure your uric acid level. If it is below 5 when you are eating loads of fruit then you are metabolically ok with it, as elevated uric acid levels are a strong indication of fructose toxicity.
So what should I do?
Well this article, Fructose: Sweet, But Dangerous, suggests that fruit isn’t really so bad:
Fruits and vegetables have relatively small, “normal” amounts of fructose that most bodies can handle quite well… For example, a cup of chopped tomatoes has 2.5 grams of fructose, a can of regular (non-diet) soda supplies 23 grams, and a super-size soda has about 62 grams.
But this table tells me apples, grapes, and especially raisins, are particularly bad.
My conclusion – I’m going to go right on eating most of my fruits but will cut down on raisins, which I use to sweeten my daily oat meal ( the subject of my next, similar, post).
Page 1 of 25612345Next »...Last »
|
Note: The blog is written by a reader and is not edited by the Connecticut Media Group. The blogger is solely responsible for content.
|
