Berko Panders to DIPs

A few days ago the Anchorage Dispatch News stated that, “the Berkowitz administration recommends using the surplus for a combination of property tax relief and bolstering the city’s savings.” There was no mention of the SAP debacle. There was no mention of the fact that few in Anchorage make any net payment for any State or Local service (as it turns out, the money paid to Alaskan households by the State in the form of the Permanent Fund Dividend typically exceeds the total tax paid by Anchorage households, which was modest to begin with.)

The bottom line is that the people who do make a net payment are those who do not need tax relief.  They are households of 2 or fewer persons residing in homes valued in excess of $350,000 (and to secure a mortgage of that size we are talking a household income of over $150,000/yr.) Yes, there could be some single parents in that crowd, but we are REALLY talking about DINKs (dual income- no kids) — I prefer dual income professionals…

Give us a break, Ethan….


Champs (or Chumps?)

Contrary to the claims of success made in this March 22nd Press Release  no programming implemented by anyone has been demonstrated to have a direct impact on childhood obesity in Anchorage. In fact, as the CDC Report data (such as they are revealed) indicate, during the target window obesity actually increased and any changes were likely random and insignificant.

I suppose the niggling bit is how ASD and the State expects to retain the respect of its students when it is publishing such nonsense. Here we are, telling students they need to be critical thinkers, while we peddle porridge suitable for Little Effie and the Hollow Men.

On the other hand, I was very impressed with the work Trey Coker did with NANA. Granted that it was a corporate attempt to buy “hearts and minds”, but it also dramatically impacted obesity by simply radically increasing activity. In comparison, the policy initiatives engaged in by the State and District had the actual effect of increasing caloric density at the vending machines and eventually reducing the funds available for increasing activity.

I am certainly concerned about childhood obesity, but I would have rather seen a press release that told the truth about where we are, than engage in such shallow attempted manipulation of data to argue success of dubious programs (and that heralded “success” means that we won’t change tactics!) Any high school Stats student could run down why the conclusions in this paper (let alone the press release based upon it) are laughable, and yet they are peddled to the public much like we were sold “Mission Accomplished”.

Yes, the reliance on p values has been decried in the academic literature. Yes, the confidence intervals render the results almost laughable. Yes, the variation makes Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 8.13.35 AMany trend line likely an artifact. Yes, the text descriptions, looking at percentage change over base, as opposed to percentage no longer obese, is misleading. Yes, BMI is not an accurate gauge of obesity. And yes, there is no evidence that ANY of the strategies applauded was in fact causally related to any change in the weight of any student.

But, how could anyone engage in selling this hooey to students with a straight face? Do we really think our kids don’t know this is make-believe, or are we in such dire straits that in fact, our kids are just as foolish as their parents?