April 12, 2012 – RI Future

April 12, 2012April 12, 2012

Gov. Chafee Makes Case for Muni Relief; Unions Retort

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

grebien chafee — Pawtucket Mayor Don Grebien pleads for the municipal aid package as Gov. Chafee listens.

Governor Chafee, testifying before the Senate Finance Committee, made his plea for his legislative package aimed at helping cities and towns stave off the impacts of the sustained recession and steep state cuts by his predecessor to local municipalities.

The legislation would allow the cities hit hardest by these untimely events and actions – Providence, Pawtucket, Woonsocket and West Warwick – to cut disability pensions, suspend automatic teacher raises and do away with state mandates such as school bus monitors.

According to Chafee, those four communities lost a combined $94.7 million in state aid between 2008 and 2011. Providence lost $54 million, and more than $25 million in 2009 alone. Pawtucket lost almost $20 million, Woonsocket more than $12 million and West Warwick lost $6 million.

Paul Valletta, a union representative for local fire fighters, said given the extreme loss in revenue recently it’s unfair to ask municipal employees to carry so much of the burden as communities attempt to adjust to the situation.

April 12, 2012April 12, 2012

Charter School Takes Issue with RI-CAN Report Cards

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Not everyone is thrilled with RI-CAN’s new report cards on Rhode Island public schools. Most notably, The Learning Community, a Central Falls charter school that serves students from there, Providence and Pawtucket.

“RI-CAN talks about putting kids and parents first, but their report card system seems to be primarily a public relations tool, not a source for accurate school data,” according to a response issued by the charter school to the report cards. “RI-CAN’s system undermines the school performance measures proposed by the Rhode Island Department of Education, and discredits the tremendous effort that Rhode Island students, teachers and administrators are devoting to improving student achievement based on accurate information.”

Kath Connelly, declined to elaborate on their analysis, but did give us permission to reprint their response:

One School’s Views on the RI-CAN Report Card System

As advocates for public education, The Learning Community has grave concerns about the RI-CAN school report cards that evaluate every Rhode Island public school based on faulty methodology. RI-CAN claims that their report cards “are designed to help families in Rhode Island access online information about their local schools” when in truth the report cards spread misinformation to concerned citizens. Instead of providing access to accurate data, RI-CAN summarizes a school’s performance by using only one grade level’s achievement on state standardized tests and mathematically incorrect calculations.

No efforts at holding schools accountable will succeed unless the measures used are fair and accurate. It is worth mentioning that we are expressing our strong opposition to the report cards despite the fact that The Learning Community ranked in the Top 10 schools in Rhode Island on 7 of the 14 indicators.

The methodological deficiencies of the RI-CAN report cards render them at best useless and, at worst, harmful to our state’s efforts to support the education of every child.

Every school’s “overall student performance” score is really based on the scores of only one grade level. For example, RI-CAN’s measure for an elementary school is based on the performance of the 5th grade only. This means that the scores of 40 students might represent a school where 300 students were actually tested. Investors would not judge the success of a business on one quarter of financial data. (Three of RI-CAN’s four report card scores are based on the performance of only one grade level.)

RI-CAN’s approach to measuring school performance is dated and has been discredited nationally as too narrow. RI-CAN’s report cards rely solely on state standardized test data and do nothing to portray the context of each of our state’s schools—even though these data are readily available through the state’s nationally recognized Information Works! system. Recognizing that excellent schools involve more than just a single test score, report card systems in Washington, DC, and New York City, while controversial, at least included a range of data points to evaluate schools.

RI-CAN misuses basic math. RI-CAN’s “student subgroup performance,” “achievement gap,” and “performance gains” measures rely on combining the performance of multiple groups of students into a single score. Instead of doing the basic math to determine an accurate score, RI-CAN took a short cut and averaged a series of averages into a composite score. Consider the following example:

Low-Income Students Black Students Hispanic Students
Number Tested
20 10 40
Proficiency Rate
50 75 25

RI-CAN’s report card simply averages the average proficiency rate of the groups above, for a “student subgroup performance” score of 50% (= (50+75+25)/3). Basic mathematics, however, requires us to weight the scores based on the number of students in each group, resulting in a score of 39% (= (20/70)x50 + (10/70)x75 + (40/70)x25). If 5 students scored 100%, and 50 students scored 15%, the size of those groups makes a big difference.

RI-CAN ranks schools on faulty numbers. When researchers release data, they identify a margin of error. NECAP data includes these ranges, to let us know that a school that scored a 54 might actually be within the same range as a school that scored a 52. RI-CAN, however, chose to rank schools based on a single number—identifying distinctions even when there is no statistically significant difference between the schools’ performance. (In the performance of subgroups, which have even smaller numbers of students, the lack of a margin of error is even more distressing.)

The RI-CAN system is unfair to urban schools. Because the RI-CAN report cards are based on a single grade level, schools with few students in that grade who are low-income or Black or Hispanic will not have a score for those subgroups. Many suburban schools are not given any score for “student subgroup performance,” whereas every urban school is. By contrast, the RI Department of Education, recognizing the unfairness of this approach, is preparing to hold nearly all schools accountable for subgroup performance.

We are also distressed that at a time of limited public resources, RI-CAN has chosen to create its own faulty system instead of working collaboratively with the state and other education advocates to get the real data about the real challenges and successes in our communities in the hands of citizens.

So what can you do to get more useful and accurate information about the public schools in your neighborhood? Here are few sources that are more reliable:
1.   Visit InformationWorks! which includes a range of data on every public school in Rhode Island. http://infoworks.ride.ri.gov/
2.   Read the complete NECAP scores for the schools you care about. More information here: http://www.ride.ri.gov/Assessment/Results.aspx.
3.   Visit the schools in your neighborhood. No score can capture the spirit of a school or the kindness of a teacher. Ask at your local school what you can do to learn more or how you can help.

If you are curious about the RI-CAN system but do not want to sign up to “be a member of RI-CAN,” feel free to log on as:
Username: thesetwohands Password: thesetwohands

RI-CAN talks about putting kids and parents first, but their report card system seems to be primarily a public relations tool, not a source for accurate school data. RI-CAN’s system undermines the school performance measures proposed by the Rhode Island Department of Education, and discredits the tremendous effort that Rhode Island students, teachers and administrators are devoting to improving student achievement based on accurate information.

April 12, 2012April 12, 2012

Bill Would Give Locals Veto on Landfill Capping

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Today’s GoLocalProv has a story about the nearly one hundred abandoned landfill sites in Rhode Island, and if Portsmouth’s Sen. Chris Ottiano (R-11) has his way, capping them could get a lot harder.

On Feb 13, 2012, Sen. Ottiano appeared before the Portsmouth Town Council and promised to introduce (with Sen. DaPonte of East Providence) legislation on landfills which would provide “More gates for the Town Council or municipality or our constituents to have some say and be able to potentially slow or temporarily stop the process if they see the need.” (See 89:40 here)

Here’s the problem: What constitutes “need” — at least in the case of a landfill in the town of Portsmouth — is a group (whose spokesperson is a RISC board member) which has, over the past year, ignored the science, distorted facts on a petition, refused to trust test results or the DEM, and used political pressure to try to halt a project to cap an unquestionably contaminated site. These are the voices that Sen. Ottiano’s torch-and-pitchfork bill would empower.

What follows is a letter I sent to Gov. Chafee, DEM Director Janet Coit, and Sen. Ottiano last week, and which appeared in yesterday’s Newport Daily News:

Stop the protests, baseless complaints against landfill capping

In March, 2011, a group of protestors wearing respirators and Tyvek suits surrounded my 11-year-old son on Park Ave. “If you think the landfill is safe,” they said, “Maybe we should throw you in there.” Although I was just feet away, I couldn’t hear this. I was also surrounded by people shouting and waving signs to keep Channel 10’s Mario Hilario from interviewing me about scientifically established safe levels of arsenic. This, after a Patch reporter caught a protester on video yelling in my face, prompting a call to the Portsmouth police.

Such is the character of the people opposing the landfill capping work in Island Park: they threaten children and shout down those who try to communicate facts. I have a thick skin, but my son was traumatized.

Over the past year, they lobbed dozens of accusations at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) — documented on a RIDEM web site — but none of their paranoid speculations have survived contact with reality.

When you read the RIDEM responses, you find phrases like, “The characterization that the Department chose between the Commission and Dr. Vanderslice is not accurate,” and, “These assumptions are completely inconsistent with the Regulations, the Commission’s recommendations or actual site conditions,” and, pointedly, “As is frequently the case on meetings about controversial topics, recollections and interpretations about what was said, as well as speculation on the motives of the participants, are frequently at odds. At this point, the Department feels it has reached the point where it should simply be recognized that the commenters’ recollection and interpretations of what was said are at odds with the Department’s participants.”

That last one is about as close as a public official ever gets to telling someone they are flat-out lying.

But the opponents have little choice, because the facts are inconvenient. Batches of soil brought in over the past month were tested (see pdf) — and tested again in response to yet another baseless complaint. Levels of arsenic and lead were well below residential limits (see pdf).

I do not blindly trust developers or government agencies, but when a year of evidence accumulates, the burden of proof has shifted to the opponents. The facts show this project reduces the risk to our neighborhood from an uncapped landfill full of documented contaminants (see pdf)

It is time for elected officials to stop pandering to the uninformed and misinformed: This group had a meeting with the Governor arranged, had their questions answered personally by the RIDEM Director, and had state legislators representing their point of view at Town Council meetings. Enough.

It’s time for our legislators to stick up for the facts and the good of our community. And it’s time for them to stick up for my son.

Full disclosure: I live two streets from this landfill. As a citizen journalist, I don’t take DEM’s word — I ran the capping plan, called a Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) past a soil scientist in another New England state, and they confirmed it was sound. And if you don’t believe my assertions about the irrationality of the opponents, take a peek at the comments on this letter when it appeared on Portsmouth Patch.

April 12, 2012April 13, 2012

CRMC To Consider 2nd SK Plan for Matunuck Erosion

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

After its first application was struck down earlier this week, South Kingstown will present a second one to the Coastal Resources Management Council on April 24 to request shoreline reclassification of a section of Matunuck headlands. This one has broad-reaching implications, with the reclassification of benefit to private property owners.

It requests a change in shoreline classification for eleven properties along the Matunuck shoreline east and west of the Ocean Mist.

The application, if approved would change the present coastal designation of “Coastal Headlands, Bluffs and Cliffs” to “Manmade Shoreline” for the portion of shoreline in question. The change in designation would allow business and residential property owners more flexibility in choice of protective vehicles.

The public hearing will be held on April 24, 2012 at 6pm in the South Kingstown High School auditorium.

Amid a standing room-only auditorium earlier this week, CRMC members, town officials, residents and an army of attorneys came out to voice concerns over the continued erosion of a 202 ft. expanse of beach. Cradled between man made structures and at the heart of a decades’ long battle of surf and citizenry, the short stint of shoreline is the hub of much community activity.

After hours of testimony, CRMC ended the meeting denying a special exception needed for the project and subsequently voting the application down.

The project presented by Steve Alfred, Town Manager and Public Safety Director, was submitted through application to CRMC in September 2011. Calling for construction of a sheet pile wall with riprap stone armaments, the steel and concrete construction was limited to a critical 202 ft. span of road threatened by the ocean to the south.

Matunuck Beach Road houses the community water line and provides the only road access in and out of the area.

“Failure of the road is a critical public health and safety concern,” said Alfred. People east of the section in question would be without water, fire and emergency services access should the road and underlying line fail.

The rip-rap structure is generally frowned upon by coastal environmentalists as a beach erosion solution and an invasive means of providing for the needs of property owners.

Representatives of several environmental and coastal agencies came forward to voice opposition to the project. Jane Austin, Special Coalitions Liaison for Save the Bay urged CRMC to deny the application as posed. Speaking to CRMC’s Red Book and shoreline protection laws, Austin called upon the Council to advocate for the coastline.

“CRMC should exercise leadership through its handling of the Matunuck issue. Hardening shorelines results in loss of the natural and dynamic boundary between the land and sea, a boundary important for habitat and marine productivity.” While all parties were in agreement that the need for action had passed, each stood its ground in the ever-present tug of war of personal priorities.

Paul Lemont, CRMC member commending the work of the organization, asked Austin to provide a possible remedy. “Every time we get together, all we hear are the negatives,” said Lemont. “Something needs to be done.”

A measured assault on the Town’s plans came from all sides. At every turn came the phrase “the wall will exacerbate the problem.” The wall as proposed would not provide protection from storm surge and flooding. Floodwaters caught roadside, behind the wall would have to dissipate naturally with no vehicle of return built into the project.

“The waters would exit to the east and west and flow under the Ocean Mist property,” explained Robert Fairbanks, an engineer who designed the bulkhead for the Town. “The return is the Ocean Mist. That is how it is happening today.”

Stephen Reid, Jr., representing the owners of the Ocean Mist and Tara’s Pub, both properties sitting on 675 feet of unprotected shoreline extending east to a man-made abutment, questioned the viability of the Town’s plan and apparent lack of interest in finding suitable alternatives. “They have blinders on – sheet pile blinders. They are going to drive the pile along that 202 feet of Matunuck Beach Road.”

Reid hammered home the absence of plan protection for the private property owners, firing questions at Fairbanks. Affirming the project’s primary purpose in protecting the road, Fairbanks shored up Reid’s arguments. The 200 feet of sheet pile wall would not prevent further beach erosion, provide protection for the adjacent property or prevent flooding of the road. In fact, the wall construction would exacerbate the existing beach erosion problem seaward.

“If there is further erosion, the Ocean Mist and all of those properties are going to have a huge problem,” cautioned Fairbanks.

Reid reminded Council members that any riprap structure in support of the sheet pile wall would have to be placed on property not currently owned by the town. “The property owner where the riprap would have to go is Mary Carpenter. My client is in negotiations to purchase that property from Mary Carpenter. The Town has no place to put the riprap,” said Reid.

A right of first refusal to the parcel where the riprap would be extended is currently held by Kevin Finnegan, owner of the Ocean Mist property. The Town also considered purchasing the two parcels directly west of the Ocean Mist as a means of furthering the project. The question of the Town’s ability to provide for the riprap support brought rebuttal from the Town Manager.

“If the right of first refusal is exercised, [we] are prepared to take it through eminent domain. It is not accurate to say that it could not be accomplished,” noted Alfred.

Anthony Affigne, appointed to CRMC last fall, questioned the project’s merits. “I’ve been down there a lot. It’s clear that something needs to be done. I just don’t think this is the answer. I plan to vote no on the request for special exception.”

The Council in roll call agreed, bringing only two votes in favor of the special exception and application.

More than six months have passed since the Town’s application was filed. During that time, Rhode Island coasted through a mild winter with Matunuck property owners being spared the wrath of significant winter storms. The sheet pile wall project set aside lends no answers for the beach community of Matunuck.

April 12, 2012April 12, 2012

RI Progress Report: Romney, Zimmerman, Kroll and Fenton

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Mitt Romney was in town last night … if you missed him, you can read about the Providence Journal story or Ted Nesi’s.

Romney said it was President Obama, not Republicans, who are waging a war on women. Here’s why that’s untrue.

Then again, as Romney was in Warwick, State House Democrats were testifying on a bill that would mandate ultrasounds before an abortion.

George Zimmerman, the man who killed Trayvon Martin, has been charged with second degree murder.

Charlie Kroll, who founded the wildly successful company Andera in his Brown dorm room back in 2001, has jumped into the Capital City v. Brown fray with an op/ed in today’s Projo.

We’re looking forward to the improvements being planned for the downtown Providence train station.

Congressman Jim Langevin visits the Steelyard today. And speaking of the CD-2 seat, Michael Gardiner formally announced his challenge to Langevin yesterday, making him the second Republican to seek the seat.

While Rick Santorum may have “suspended” his campaign, Rhode Island Republicans will still be able to vote for him on the 24th. not sure why anyone would actually want to do that, even if he was still running for president, but anyways his name will be on the ballot.

Exclusive: PVD vs. GoLocal.

This page may be updated throughout the day. Click HERE for an archive of the RI Progress Report.

April 12, 2012April 11, 2012

Allan Tear, Soren Ryherd Honored By RI Foundation

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Rhode Island Foundation honored the winners and finalists of its first even Innovation Fellowships at an event at the Superman Building Wednesday night. Winners Soren Ryherd, who plans to leverage the power of the internet to help small businesses fill vacant storefronts in Providence and elsewehere, and Allan Tear plans to do for arts and culture what his Betaspring company does for the tech sector, each gave speeches.

Here’s an excerpt from Tear’s speech: