State workers who say they are not obese or do not smoke "may be randomly selected to participate in a tobacco use/weight verification test at their worksite," according to a letter mailed to employees last week.
For those tested, height and weight measurements will be collected in addition to a tobacco-use screening. Exempted are employees participating in programs aimed at quitting smoking or weight loss, or those with medical conditions.
Click here to read the letter.
The Observer's Mark Johnson detailed the changes to the state health plan last week:
"North Carolina is poised to become only the second state to penalize state employees by placing them in a more expensive health insurance plan if they're obese.
Smokers will feel the drag of higher costs, too, as North Carolina and South Carolina state employees who use tobacco are slated to pay more for health insurance next year.
N.C. officials, coping with a steady uptick in health care costs for state employees each year, are aiming to improve state workers' health, which saves money in medical expenses.
"Tobacco use and poor nutrition and inactivity are the leading causes of preventable deaths in our state," said Anne Rogers, director of integrated health management with the N.C. State Employees Health Plan. "We need a healthy workforce in this state. We're trying to encourage individuals to adopt healthy lifestyles."
State workers who don't cut out the Marlboros and Big Macs will end up paying more for health insurance. Tobacco users get placed in a more expensive insurance plan starting in July and, for those who qualify as obese, in July 2011.
Some state employees, though, are criticizing the planned changes. The State Employees Association of North Carolina opposes the tobacco and obesity differentials as invasive steps that could have been avoided if the legislature had fixed the plan.
"It's my understanding they're talking about testing (for tobacco use) in the workplace which, to me, would create a hostile environment," said Kim Martin, a sergeant at Piedmont Correctional Institution in Salisbury. "And it's an invasion of privacy. This is America, the land of the free. I don't think (body mass index is) a very good measure. I know some folks who would have a high body mass index because they're muscular."
The health plan covers more than 600,000 state employees, retirees and teachers at a total cost last year of $2.6 billion. Last spring, the legislature bailed out the plan with an infusion of $250 million to pay the bills after rising costs and inaccurate projections left little money for claims. Over the next two years, the state general fund will pump about $408 million into the health plan.
While officials have not yet estimated any potential savings from the obesity requirement, the higher costs for smokers could save $13 million in the 2010-2011 budget year, Rogers said, emphasizing that the plan's priority is to improve health and save money in the process.
- Doug Miller
Showing posts with label N.C.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label N.C.. Show all posts
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Are retests a waste of $500,000?
CMS Superintendent Peter Gorman says retesting kids who fail state exams may bump up scores for schools, but students aren't really learning much when they cram for a week.
He also estimates the state spent $500,000 in a tight budget year printing and mailing extra tests.
Here's his letter to the N.C. Board of Education urging them to drop the mandatory retesting, which began last school year:
August 24, 2009
NC State Board of Education
c/o William C. Harrison
6302 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Dear State Board of Education,
We would like to share our serious concerns around the use of retesting for accountability purposes in North Carolina. After one year of retesting all students who performed at a Level II on any EOG test or its alternates, we have reviewed the data. We believe it raises serious questions about the process, outcomes and the impact of this testing.
In reviewing our test results, we found that almost two-thirds of our students who passed on the retest originally had scores within one standard error of measurement on the first test administration. We only have 180 instructional days to teach our students. Therefore, the less testing we do for summative assessments (which the state tests are), the more time we have to actually teach students.
We had to suspend generalized instruction after the first EOG test so we could provide a week’s worth of remediation to the students who scored a Level II. Can one week of remediation really advance students in a measurable way? Our percent passing went up around nine percentage points, mostly due to students who scored in the range where they may have actually known enough to pass in the first place. This year, we will need to test earlier to provide more remediation. We would much prefer to spend the time teaching instead of remediating.
Even in an optimal situation, the level of feedback from the state tests does not lend itself to use for remediation. We were left wondering what can we do in one week to move a child from:
“Students performing at this level demonstrate inconsistent mastery of knowledge and skills that are fundamental in this subject area and that are minimally sufficient to be successful at the next grade level.” –SBE policy GCS-C-018
to
“Students performing at this level consistently demonstrate mastery of grade level subject matter and skills and are well prepared for the next grade level.” –SBE policy GCS-C-018
If the point of the retesting is to give a better read on student abilities, we think it makes sense to either use a more accurate test (the 4 points that make up the 1 SEM, is in many cases, over 55% of the Level II range), or simply count the students who score within 1 SEM as proficient so we can focus on teaching instead of preparing for a second test.
Our Exceptional Children educators are concerned about the appropriateness of the NCEXTEND1 for a first administration. This issue is compounded when the state regulations require us to put these students through the ordeal again if they only score a Level II score. Several parents have questioned whether retesting hurts the child.
We are also concerned about the validity of retesting students on the NCCLAS assessment. Since this assessment requires materials collection and review, teachers often were asked to re-enter student scores without any real ability to collect new work samples. While we want to be sure student performance is properly assessed, it is hard to justify requiring teachers to rekey the same score.
Another concern was on NCEXTEND2 and the lack of varying test forms. The students who scored a Level II on the first administration were given the same form of the test about a week later, due to schedules and our attempts to maximize instructional time. This gives retested students an advantage due to previous exposure to the test.
Given the statewide budget issues, we think it would be wiser to save the resources for actual instruction. CMS administered almost 50,000 retests in the 08-09 school year. In 09-10 we expect that number to increase. Using an estimate of $1 per test (as NCDPI did when calculating the cost savings from the elimination of the third grade pretest) the printing and shipping costs across the state would approach $500,000. This does not include the staff effort for delivering, administering, scoring and reporting on these tests. Nor does this count the lost educational value of the time required for additional testing and the remediation process which interrupts school activities.
We prefer a test that measures accurately enough that a week of tutorial will not move a child to proficiency, if that is not an achievable goal, we would suggest that the state use the SEM in measuring proficiency rather than retesting. Our data and experience this year suggest that retesting is expensive and not effective.
Sincerely,
Peter C. Gorman
Superintendent
C: CMS Board of Education
Robert Avossa
Christopher Cobitz
- Ann Doss Helms
He also estimates the state spent $500,000 in a tight budget year printing and mailing extra tests.
Here's his letter to the N.C. Board of Education urging them to drop the mandatory retesting, which began last school year:
August 24, 2009
NC State Board of Education
c/o William C. Harrison
6302 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Dear State Board of Education,
We would like to share our serious concerns around the use of retesting for accountability purposes in North Carolina. After one year of retesting all students who performed at a Level II on any EOG test or its alternates, we have reviewed the data. We believe it raises serious questions about the process, outcomes and the impact of this testing.
In reviewing our test results, we found that almost two-thirds of our students who passed on the retest originally had scores within one standard error of measurement on the first test administration. We only have 180 instructional days to teach our students. Therefore, the less testing we do for summative assessments (which the state tests are), the more time we have to actually teach students.
We had to suspend generalized instruction after the first EOG test so we could provide a week’s worth of remediation to the students who scored a Level II. Can one week of remediation really advance students in a measurable way? Our percent passing went up around nine percentage points, mostly due to students who scored in the range where they may have actually known enough to pass in the first place. This year, we will need to test earlier to provide more remediation. We would much prefer to spend the time teaching instead of remediating.
Even in an optimal situation, the level of feedback from the state tests does not lend itself to use for remediation. We were left wondering what can we do in one week to move a child from:
“Students performing at this level demonstrate inconsistent mastery of knowledge and skills that are fundamental in this subject area and that are minimally sufficient to be successful at the next grade level.” –SBE policy GCS-C-018
to
“Students performing at this level consistently demonstrate mastery of grade level subject matter and skills and are well prepared for the next grade level.” –SBE policy GCS-C-018
If the point of the retesting is to give a better read on student abilities, we think it makes sense to either use a more accurate test (the 4 points that make up the 1 SEM, is in many cases, over 55% of the Level II range), or simply count the students who score within 1 SEM as proficient so we can focus on teaching instead of preparing for a second test.
Our Exceptional Children educators are concerned about the appropriateness of the NCEXTEND1 for a first administration. This issue is compounded when the state regulations require us to put these students through the ordeal again if they only score a Level II score. Several parents have questioned whether retesting hurts the child.
We are also concerned about the validity of retesting students on the NCCLAS assessment. Since this assessment requires materials collection and review, teachers often were asked to re-enter student scores without any real ability to collect new work samples. While we want to be sure student performance is properly assessed, it is hard to justify requiring teachers to rekey the same score.
Another concern was on NCEXTEND2 and the lack of varying test forms. The students who scored a Level II on the first administration were given the same form of the test about a week later, due to schedules and our attempts to maximize instructional time. This gives retested students an advantage due to previous exposure to the test.
Given the statewide budget issues, we think it would be wiser to save the resources for actual instruction. CMS administered almost 50,000 retests in the 08-09 school year. In 09-10 we expect that number to increase. Using an estimate of $1 per test (as NCDPI did when calculating the cost savings from the elimination of the third grade pretest) the printing and shipping costs across the state would approach $500,000. This does not include the staff effort for delivering, administering, scoring and reporting on these tests. Nor does this count the lost educational value of the time required for additional testing and the remediation process which interrupts school activities.
We prefer a test that measures accurately enough that a week of tutorial will not move a child to proficiency, if that is not an achievable goal, we would suggest that the state use the SEM in measuring proficiency rather than retesting. Our data and experience this year suggest that retesting is expensive and not effective.
Sincerely,
Peter C. Gorman
Superintendent
C: CMS Board of Education
Robert Avossa
Christopher Cobitz
- Ann Doss Helms
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Construction money for charter schools?
Charter schools across the state already receive some operating money from traditional K-12 school districts.
But are they also entitled to money for construction and other capital projects?
The N.C. Institute of Constitutional Law believes they might, and could ask the courts to weigh in. But local officials say state law doesn't require or give them authority to share money with the charter schools.
As an article in today's Observer notes, the Raleigh-based advocacy group recently sent a letter to some counties, including Mecklenburg, questioning the lack of capital outlay money given to local charter schools.
Read the institutes's letter here. It is signed by NCICL Executive Director Robert Orr, a retired state Supreme Court justice, and Jason Kay, a senior attorney at the institute who is the lead on the case.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent Peter Gorman already has weighed in, writing to Orr that school boards currently are only required to share money with charter schools from its local current expense fund. Read Gorman's full letter here.
Mecklenburg County also is preparing a response, though County Attorney Marvin Bethune said Wednesday he doesn't believe state law gives counties authority to give charter schools money from the capital fund.
That assertion is backed by a 1998 advisory opinion from the N.C. Attorney General's Office, though it notes that lacking authority doesn't mean that public money can't be used to support the charters. A spokeswoman said Wednesday that is the only opinion the office has issued on the issue and the language quoted in the 1998 opinion still appears in state statutes.
What do you think? Should the county, CMS give charter schools money for capital projects?
- April Bethea
But are they also entitled to money for construction and other capital projects?
The N.C. Institute of Constitutional Law believes they might, and could ask the courts to weigh in. But local officials say state law doesn't require or give them authority to share money with the charter schools.
As an article in today's Observer notes, the Raleigh-based advocacy group recently sent a letter to some counties, including Mecklenburg, questioning the lack of capital outlay money given to local charter schools.
Read the institutes's letter here. It is signed by NCICL Executive Director Robert Orr, a retired state Supreme Court justice, and Jason Kay, a senior attorney at the institute who is the lead on the case.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Superintendent Peter Gorman already has weighed in, writing to Orr that school boards currently are only required to share money with charter schools from its local current expense fund. Read Gorman's full letter here.
Mecklenburg County also is preparing a response, though County Attorney Marvin Bethune said Wednesday he doesn't believe state law gives counties authority to give charter schools money from the capital fund.
That assertion is backed by a 1998 advisory opinion from the N.C. Attorney General's Office, though it notes that lacking authority doesn't mean that public money can't be used to support the charters. A spokeswoman said Wednesday that is the only opinion the office has issued on the issue and the language quoted in the 1998 opinion still appears in state statutes.
What do you think? Should the county, CMS give charter schools money for capital projects?
- April Bethea
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
N.C. budget: Read it for yourself
For those of us who don't speak "budget," the money report summarizes spending and cuts by category.
The budget bill includes a breakdown of what the individual tax increases are projected to raise this year.
* Individual income surcharge: $172.8 million.
* Corporate Income tax $23.1 million.
* 1-cent sales tax increase: $803.5 million.
* Apply sales tax to digital downloads and Internet purchases: $11.8 million.
* Increase excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol: $68.8 million.
Gov. Beverly Perdue this morning expressed satisfaction and relief that North Carolina was on the verge of getting a budget.
"I don't know about you, but I'm glad it's about over," the governor told the Council of State, a body of statewide elected officials, at their monthly meeting.
Perdue said the budget compromise met her two main conditions: no across-the-board income tax hike and no across-the-board increase in class sizes in the public schools.
But she added that there will be "tremendous cuts" as the state moves to close a huge deficit. The budget would raise income taxes on individuals earning $60,000 or couples earning at least $100,000.
The budget would maintain class sizes from kindergarten through the third grade, and would leave it up to local officials whether to cut the higher grades.
- (Raleigh) News & Observer
The budget bill includes a breakdown of what the individual tax increases are projected to raise this year.
* Individual income surcharge: $172.8 million.
* Corporate Income tax $23.1 million.
* 1-cent sales tax increase: $803.5 million.
* Apply sales tax to digital downloads and Internet purchases: $11.8 million.
* Increase excise taxes on tobacco and alcohol: $68.8 million.
Gov. Beverly Perdue this morning expressed satisfaction and relief that North Carolina was on the verge of getting a budget.
"I don't know about you, but I'm glad it's about over," the governor told the Council of State, a body of statewide elected officials, at their monthly meeting.
Perdue said the budget compromise met her two main conditions: no across-the-board income tax hike and no across-the-board increase in class sizes in the public schools.
But she added that there will be "tremendous cuts" as the state moves to close a huge deficit. The budget would raise income taxes on individuals earning $60,000 or couples earning at least $100,000.
The budget would maintain class sizes from kindergarten through the third grade, and would leave it up to local officials whether to cut the higher grades.
- (Raleigh) News & Observer
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Where is the stimulus money going?
Mecklenburg may be the state's largest county, but it ranks third in the amount of federal stimulus dollars allocated so far, according to data from the state agency created to handle distribution of the money.
The N.C. Office of Economic Recovery and Investment recently released this breakdown of stimulus allocations, showing how much was given to counties for a variety of projects like public housing, crime control and school lunch equipment.
(Note: you'll need to zoom in on the PDF to read the report.)
The chart only includes allocations made through the end of June and does not include any direct grants awarded to local governments by federal agencies.
Mecklenburg has received $219 million so far, including $37.3 million for roads and bridges, and $20.8 million to the Charlotte Area Transit System. By comparison, Cumberland County has received more than $255 million, with another $246 million going to Wake County.
Still, an analysis by the Observer shows that, with the exception of Cumberland, urban counties have received less on a per-person basis in stimulus money so far than rural counties. Mecklenburg has received $246 per person in stimulus funds through the end of June, compared with a statewide average of $328 per person, according to the article by reporter Steve Harrison.
That's largely because many of the dollars are being doled out using current state formulas, some of which favor rural communities.
The N.C. Office of Economic Recovery and Investment recently released this breakdown of stimulus allocations, showing how much was given to counties for a variety of projects like public housing, crime control and school lunch equipment.
(Note: you'll need to zoom in on the PDF to read the report.)
The chart only includes allocations made through the end of June and does not include any direct grants awarded to local governments by federal agencies.
Mecklenburg has received $219 million so far, including $37.3 million for roads and bridges, and $20.8 million to the Charlotte Area Transit System. By comparison, Cumberland County has received more than $255 million, with another $246 million going to Wake County.
Still, an analysis by the Observer shows that, with the exception of Cumberland, urban counties have received less on a per-person basis in stimulus money so far than rural counties. Mecklenburg has received $246 per person in stimulus funds through the end of June, compared with a statewide average of $328 per person, according to the article by reporter Steve Harrison.
That's largely because many of the dollars are being doled out using current state formulas, some of which favor rural communities.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Clodfelter: 'Charlotte's an outlier'
That's why Charlotte Democrat Dan Clodfelter, co-chair of the Senate finance committee says his plan to change the state's tax rules would cut city collections so dramatically.Businesses here pay license taxes totaling more than twice the amount collected by the next-biggest city, Raleigh.
“A Wal-Mart in Charlotte may pay a $10,000 tax. Wal-Mart in another city may pay a $50 tax,” he said. “You guys are so far out of the range of everybody else.”
State legislators are considering abolishing the local license fee as part of a group of tax changes tied to a particularly difficult budget.
Opponents of the business tax say it is confusing and levied many different ways across the state. They complain that it leads to double-taxation in some cases.
For most cities, the legislature's proposed tax changes wouldn't be painful, Clodfelter said. He said for those cities, the lost revenues would be offset by substitute taxes under consideration, including the expansion of the sales tax base.
But Charlotte is different.
How different?
The Department of Revenue data for 2006-07 shows Charlotte businesses paid $17,663,113.
Others in the seven-figure range:
Raleigh: $5,962,920
Greensboro: $3,267,431
Durham: $2,585,946
Winston-Salem: $2,308,525
Wilmington: $1,656,746
Cary: $1,463,554
Hickory: $1,110,078
Concord: $1,047,246
Asheville: $1,040,814
- Julia Oliver/Doug Miller
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Perdue: Pass emergency 1-cent sales tax
Gov. Beverly Perdue told legislative leaders today she wants a 1-cent sales tax increase and a total tax hike package of $1.6 billion to balance the budget.
Perdue, a Democrat, met with lawmakers at the Executive Mansion and gave them a list of tax and other revenue options that she would like to see passed. It was an effort to help break the impasse between Democratic Senate and House leaders over what taxes to increase and how much.
Highlights of Perdue's wish list include: an "emergency" 1-cent increase in the sales tax that would expire in October 2010, an emergency income tax surcharge on single taxpayers who earn more than $500,000 and married couples filing jointly making more than $1 million.
Perdue wants a 50-cent-per-pack increase in cigarette taxes, down from the $1-per-pack she requested in March, plus 2-cents-per-can more on beer and a 2 percent increase on alcohol.
The list included several tax increases that would take effect in the fall of next year, including taxes on some services (warranties, installations, repairs) and a tax increase on "luxury services" such as cosmetic surgery, limousines and chartered flights.
Click here to read Perdue's letter to lawmakers and wish list.
- Mark Johnson
Perdue, a Democrat, met with lawmakers at the Executive Mansion and gave them a list of tax and other revenue options that she would like to see passed. It was an effort to help break the impasse between Democratic Senate and House leaders over what taxes to increase and how much.
Highlights of Perdue's wish list include: an "emergency" 1-cent increase in the sales tax that would expire in October 2010, an emergency income tax surcharge on single taxpayers who earn more than $500,000 and married couples filing jointly making more than $1 million.
Perdue wants a 50-cent-per-pack increase in cigarette taxes, down from the $1-per-pack she requested in March, plus 2-cents-per-can more on beer and a 2 percent increase on alcohol.
The list included several tax increases that would take effect in the fall of next year, including taxes on some services (warranties, installations, repairs) and a tax increase on "luxury services" such as cosmetic surgery, limousines and chartered flights.
Click here to read Perdue's letter to lawmakers and wish list.
- Mark Johnson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
