Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Q: Paragraph: Unions and professional groups for such employees say those jobs often are lower priority when budgets are tight, but their absence can have profound effects on student learning and teachers’ work. They contend support staff is vital to properly address everyday student issues such as physical and mental health problems or homelessness. In Chicago, the nation’s third-largest school district, the teachers who have been out on strike since last Thursday are seeking commitments for support staff hiring alongside other demands including higher pay and affordable housing citywide. The demands are part of the union’s “social justice” agenda. Bridget Nelson, a social sciences teacher at a magnet high school in Chicago, said her school is lucky to have a nurse most days but a social worker still is responsible for more than 2,000 students. “Adolescence is a challenging time, and we worry about depression and stress like a lot of educators,” Nelson said. “Some students have support at home, but others don’t. They should have support at school to help give them what they need.” The support-staff issue has come up elsewhere in spring protests by thousands of educators in North Carolina and South Carolina; in Minnesota, where a state survey recently found an increase in students’ mental and emotional health concerns; and in strikes in California, where teachers won promises for hundreds of additional nurses and more counselors in Los Angeles schools and more psychologists and special education instructors in Oakland. Shortages are causing problems in schools across the country, said Melissa Cropper, president of the Ohio Federation of Teachers. While discussing labor unions on a visit this month to a government class in an urban Ohio high school, Cropper said she asked the students what they would want prioritized in negotiations. A girl who had attempted suicide answered first: a counselor. Another student wanted a nurse. “We’ve got kids who are dealing with thinking about committing suicide or coming to school hungry or watched a domestic abuse situation over the weekend,” Cropper said. “We can’t possibly begin to think that we’re going to teach them something that’s going to stick with them until we’ve dealt with these other issues.” Most teachers don’t have specific training to tackle those sorts of concerns, so they’re advocating for schools to add more colleagues who do, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said. The American School Counselor Association recommends one counselor for every 250 students but has found the average ratio to be nearly double that. The National School Nurses Association’s most recent estimates, from a study published early last year, indicated less than 40% of schools had a full-time nurse and about a quarter didn’t employ one at all. In those cases, teachers may have to assess and address issues such as gym class injuries, and preventive care can dwindle, said Donna Mazyck, the executive director of the nurses association. At John Tartan Elementary School in North Las Vegas, an assistant trained in basic first aid often handles minor injuries and distributes basic medications because the nurse splits duty at multiple schools, said Marie Neisess, a veteran teacher and reading specialist there. The school of 400-plus students also has a counselor, a social worker and a psychologist, but they struggle to keep up with the needs of the student body, which includes children facing challenges such as severe behavioral problems, foster care or a parent’s incarceration, she said. “We’re all kind of putting Band-Aids on the very big problem that we have here,” Neisess said. In Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot had campaigned with an education plan that included staffing schools with full-time nurses, social workers and librarians, and enabling students to get mental health services. The district has committed to hiring more nurses, social workers and support staff but objected to making that part of the teachers’ contract. The union also has expressed concern about the various roles counselors are expected to fill, including as substitute teachers and lunchroom help, and asked for contract language that spells out that people will only be asked to do the jobs for which they are hired. Pushing for something enforceable in writing makes sense to Matt Mandel, a middle-school English teacher in the Philadelphia School District, who said the local union there has fought to have a nurse and counselor at each school. “In these urban districts like Philadelphia and Chicago, our kids need more,” Mandel said, “and we always find ways to justify giving them less.” ___ Associated Press reporter Kathleen Foody in Chicago contributed to this report. Claim: Chicago teachers’ strike highlights support staff shortages.

A: Demands by striking Chicago teachers for more nurses, librarians and social workers are highlighting concerns that resonate in high-poverty school districts nationwide, where shortages of support staff leave educators feeling stretched.
****
Q: Paragraph: Voters in both Western states approved ballot initiatives in 2012 allowing personal possession and use of marijuana by anyone aged 21 and or older for purposes of just getting high, though public consumption of pot remains illegal. In January the world’s first state-licensed retail marijuana outlets opened for business in Colorado, and stores in Washington are set to follow suit later this year. Both states are among 20 that have already removed criminal sanctions for medical use of marijuana. The federal government still classifies marijuana as an illegal narcotic, but the Obama administration has given states new leeway to experiment with legalized cannabis. In Denver’s Civic Center Park near the state capitol, revelers on Sunday gathered to hear music and listened to speakers during a weekend event that organizers billed as the “world’s largest 4/20 rally.”  The date of April 20, or 4/20, corresponds to the numerical code widely recognized within the cannabis subculture as a symbol for all things marijuana. Police officers standing by on the fringes of the Denver festival issued 63 citations on Sunday, most for smoking pot in public - a ticket that carries a fine of $150. About half as many were cited on Saturday, police said. At least eight individuals were taken to a detoxification facility for treatment during the two days, police said. Denver police spokesman Sonny Jackson said officers have refrained from wading into the crowd to arrest violators, but instead were citing people who openly defied the public consumption ban. “Those ticketed were blatantly in violation of state law and city ordinances,” Jackson said. Organizers of the rally and city officials beefed up security at the event after three people were wounded by gunfire at last year’s rally. Separately, the Cannabis Cup, a trade show sponsored by High Times magazine, drew sold-out crowds over the weekend at a Denver convention venue. The two-day event featured marijuana sampling and workshops, such as how to open a pot shop, cultivation tips, and how to talk to children about weed, according to the event’s website. Rachel O’Bryan, spokeswoman for Smart Colorado, an organization that advocates for stricter enforcement of marijuana laws, said the cannabis industry needs to do more to police its own. “People are flouting the law by openly consuming,” she said. “We’re concerned about the message that sends to our kids.”  In Seattle, several hundred people who paid $15 a head crowded the cavernous interior of a former brewery where Rainier Beer was made for decades to attend a 4/20 gathering organized by sponsors of the city’s annual Hempfest rally. Reggae music played over loudspeakers and the air inside was thick with the sweet, skunky odor of cannabis. But no police were visible at the event, which organizers deliberately held on private space leased from the brewery owners in an industrial section of the city south of downtown. The gathering featured a workshop on how to roll a joint with an entire ounce (28 grams) of marijuana - the legal limit for personal possession in the state - as well as vendors selling pipes and other paraphernalia, and a blind-toke test in which participants tried to distinguish between different strains of pot by sampling them. Attendees ranged from middle-aged baby boomers to a younger crowd from the so-called millennial generation. A cheer from the crowd went up at precisely 4:20 p.m. local time, as many attendees milling about outside lit joints and pipes simultaneously, sending puffs of smoke into the air followed by raucous fits of coughing. One woman in the crowd accepted a joint handed her from a bearded bystander. “You look just like Jesus,” she exclaimed in an apparent reference to the event coinciding with Easter Sunday. “How does it feel to be risen?”  Doug Medina, 54, said he traveled hundreds of miles with his wife and daughter from Billings, Montana, to Seattle for the 4/20 weekend celebrations there. “It feels a little more open than it did five or 10 years ago,” he said while smoking a joint outside the brewery. Claim: Marijuana fans pack 4/20 events in Colorado, Washington state.

A: Thousands of marijuana enthusiasts gathered in Colorado and Washington state over the weekend for an annual celebration of cannabis culture with rallies, concerts and trade shows in the first two U.S. states to legalize recreational marijuana.
****
Q: Paragraph: The story does a good job of explaining how the USPSTF recommendations may affect insurance coverage of mammography screening — which is laudable, given the complexity of the issue. However, the story does not tell readers the bottom line: how much would a mammogram cost if it were not covered by insurance? While we found varying estimates, a 2011 paper stated that the overall cost of a mammogram was $266 — a considerable sum, and likely out of reach for many women. This was a shortcoming of both the New York Times and Washington Post stories. The story does a good job of articulating the benefits of mammography screening for different age groups. For example, it notes that “For every 10,000 women screened repeatedly over 10 years, four lives are saved in women 40 to 49; eight in women 50 to 59; 21 in women 60 to 69; and 13 in women 70 to 74, the task force found.” However, the story does not explain what it means to be “screened repeatedly” — does that mean every year, or could it mean every other year? Still, we’re very happy to see the story include numbers rather than referring solely to a general increase or decrease in benefits. The story also notes that the recommendations apply only to women with average risk of breast cancer. The story would have been significantly stronger if it had explained what “average risk” means — most readers probably don’t know. The quote from the Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation demonstrates the importance of reinforcing that these guidelines apply to average risk patients – they express concern that “a lack of coverage would hit ‘high risk and underserved’ women hardest” – high risk women are not affected by these recommendations. A discussion on risk assessment is absent from most stories covering screening mammography, and has led to much confusion. One issue is that there are a variety of risk assessment models, and their use in particular patient populations is not always well understood by physicians. However, a brief discussion about how risk is assessed would be helpful for patients and others reading these stories. This is really a strong point for the story. The story devotes several paragraphs to explaining — and quantifying — the potential harms of false positives and overdiagnosis. It then spends an additional two paragraphs trying to place these harms in context. For example, citing a cancer expert’s position that the potential harms are significantly outweighed by the potential benefits. The story also made clear that there was an emphasis in the recommendations that women be able to decide for themselves on when to begin screening, and how often to be screened. That’s an important point — women should know that they have a role to play in weighing risks against potential benefits and — ultimately — making decisions about their health. The story does not offer a detailed description of the USPSTF review process, but it does make clear that the task force looks only at the scientific evidence, rather than at potential costs or insurance coverage. That’s enough for a satisfactory rating in a story like this one. However, the story would have been stronger if it had explicitly stated that the USPSTF bases its recommendations on an evaluation of all the available research literature on mammography and breast cancer screening. No disease mongering here. The story says nothing that isn’t backed up by the numbers. The story did a good job of incorporating input from multiple independent sources. The alternatives in a story like this one are the recommendations from other organizations, and the story does a good job of explaining the varying recommendations from the USPSTF and three other groups: the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Cancer Society. Well done. The story makes clear that the use of mammograms as breast cancer screening tools is longstanding and well established. The story also discusses insurance coverage issues that would affect availability for many women. The story states, “The recommendations are not immediately expected to affect insurance coverage. In December, Congress passed a bill requiring private insurers to pay for screening mammograms for women 40 and over every one to two years without copays, coinsurance or deductibles, through 2017.” The story does a nice job of placing the new recommendations in context, discussing its similarities (and differences) to the USPSTF’s 2009 recommendations on mammograms and breast cancer screening — and how it fits into a broader, ongoing debate on the subject. The story goes well beyond whatever could be found in a news release on the recommendations. Claim: Panel Reasserts Mammogram Advice That Triggered Breast Cancer Debate

A:
The story provides an excellent overview of new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on when, and how often, women should receive mammograms to screen for breast cancer. The story discusses the long-running debate over mammogram recommendations, as well as the differing advice that various organizations provide on when women at average risk of breast cancer should begin mammogram screening and how often they should have the tests, though the story would have been stronger if it had explained what “average risk” means (something that a competing Washington Post story on the recommendations explains well). The story also offers a good discussion of issues related to what the USPSTF recommendations may mean for insurance coverage of mammograms, though it does not tell readers how expensive mammograms may be without insurance. Breast cancer screening is a big deal. As the CDC notes, “Not counting some kinds of skin cancer, breast cancer in the United States is the most common cancer in women, no matter your race or ethnicity.” In 2012 alone, 41,150 women died of the disease. Breast cancer also has a profound impact on the economy, with researchers estimating that it costs the U.S. billions of dollars each year. In other words, it affects the health and well-being of millions of patients and their loved ones, as well as having an adverse impact on the economy. News that relates to the early detection and treatment of breast cancer is clearly news worth covering, particularly when it could inform the decision-making of women and health professionals — and have an effect on women’s access to screening.
****