State Supreme Court: no guarantee to adequate education in RI


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

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

zurierFriday was a sad day for the children of Pawtucket and Woonsocket, and for disadvantaged children across the State, when the Supreme Court decided that Rhode Island’s Constitution does not protect them from receiving an inadequate education. These children, whose only failure is to live in the wrong ZIP code, are being denied a quality public education without any realistic chance of relief, even though Rhode Island’s current Constitution contains an education clause.

While the Supreme Court missed an opportunity to interpret that clause to help these innocent children and our state as a whole, the Court’s decision squarely places upon our shoulders the opportunity and the responsibility to amend our Constitution to redress our state’s denial of this fundamental civil right.

This case began in 2010, at a time when the General Assembly debated and approved an education aid funding formula. The formula was enacted amid great fanfare, but the school committees of Pawtucket and Woonsocket knew the hype far exceeded the new formula’s actual merit. Four years into the new formula, the children in Pawtucket and Woonsocket still suffer from inadequate facilities and textbooks, insufficient staffing and personnel, and other deprivations which, as the Supreme Court found, results from a “funding system that prevents municipalities from attaining the resources necessary to meet the requirements” of the State’s educational mandates. In fact, these children’s harm will rise (or sink) to a new level this year, as the state is poised to deprive them of diplomas on the basis of NECAP testing, even as the state deprived their schools of the resources needed to prepare them adequately for the tests.

The Supreme Court was candid about the state’s failures, noting that these children “make a strong case to suggest that the current funding system is not beneficial to students in Pawtucket and Woonsocket, especially when compared to other municipalities.” Despite these deprivations and inequities, however, the Court decided it was powerless to intervene, ruling that “the General Assembly has exclusive authority to regulate the allocation of resources for public education.”

Unfortunately, these children cannot realistically pin their hopes on the General Assembly, which already has been told by the Commissioner of Education that the 2010 funding formula made Rhode Island “the state with the best funding formula in the country.” While accepting the value of positive thinking, the simple fact is that if the Massachusetts border moved a few miles south, the children of Woonsocket would benefit from a funding formula and State support that put Rhode Island’s to shame. That is why the great majority of states (including Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont) have constitutional protections that empower courts to break through political stalemate, to provide our children with what many call the key civil right of the 21st

By hewing to a “strict construction” of the Rhode Island Constitution reminiscent of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision is a valid exercise of a particular school of legal reasoning, but also a massive missed opportunity to move our State forward in the fields of civil rights and economic development.

With that said, the Supreme Court’s decision speaks with admirable candor concerning the specific ways in which the State’s public education program fails the children of Pawtucket and Woonsocket. In this way, the Court’s decision, even as it denies relief for these children under the terms of the State’s current Constitution, helps make an overwhelming case for amending and improving the Constitution to redress this wrong. Currently, there is pending legislation in the House (H7896) and Senate (S2397) to place a question on the ballot permitting voters to approve a Constitutional amendment to establish a right to education that can be enforced in court. In the four years that it has taken for this case to be decided, both the General Assembly and the courts have made it indisputable that such a Constitutional amendment is the only way to protect this vital civil right.

Over the past month, writers on this blog and representatives of the civil rights community have expressed concerns about how a constitutional convention may compromise civil rights that the current Constitution protects. Friday’s Supreme Court decision makes clear that the current Constitution fails to protect a vital civil right that is harming tens of thousands of Rhode Island’s children every day. With this in mind, I wish to offer an invitation to civil rights leaders and progressives statewide. Please join Rhode Island’s children and urban communities in their effort to convince the General Assembly to place a stronger Constitutional right to education on November’s ballot. If the General Assembly allows voters this chance, you can help advance the civil right of education in Rhode Island without the risks you see in a broader Constitutional convention.

Four years ago, Pawtucket and Woonsocket brought their case to the Rhode Island courts. Last Friday, the Supreme Court passed the baton to the General Assembly, the civil rights community, the progressive community and the people of Rhode Island. Please do not miss this opportunity. Rhode Island’s children (and, by extension, Rhode Island’s future) are depending on you.

College profs, conservative activists disagree on tax, migration data


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

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

Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. In Rhode Island politics this has become the case with the idea that people are fleeing the Ocean State because of our uncompetitive tax structure. But a new local “think tank” has come to a decidedly different conclusion than some of the other local “think tanks” on this question.

“The academic literature is mixed on the question of whether tax rates influence where people choose to live, and research suggests that factors like employment opportunities and quality of life are more salient,” reads the report created by professors from Bryant University and Rhode Island College.

Here’s a chart from the report:

tax policy migration study

The report “Rhode Island’s Labor Force and Tax Policy in Perspective” was published by the Collaborative, a non-partisan think tank made up of the 11 colleges and universities in Rhode Island. The Providence Journal profiled the group’s efforts in a front page story today. It’s funded by the Rhode Island Foundation and puts college professors and academics together to research ideas related to politics (the governor, House speaker and Senate president “appointed a panel of policy leaders who are responsible for coming to consensus on research areas of importance to Rhode Island.”)

The Collaborative is investigating several areas of research – others include measuring the economic impacts of tax-free arts districts. You can read all their research briefs here.

The tax policy and migration study is politically significant because it draws very different conclusions than reports done by right-wing think tanks in Rhode Island that often generate much media attention and has become a talking point for local politicians.

Rhode Islanders, it concludes, pay less in income taxes than people in neighboring states, and we generally earn less money. It suggests Rhode Islanders aren’t moving to neighboring states anymore than people from neighboring states are moving to Rhode Island and that we aren’t moving to cheaper states like North Carolina and Florida anymore than people from neighboring states.

About unemployment, it says between 2006 and 2012, Rhode Island lost the most jobs from the construction industry followed by manufacturing and then transportation.

About education, it says, “In terms of educational attainment, the primary measure of a skilled labor force, the state ranks below Massachusetts and Connecticut. Perhaps because of this educational difference, Rhode Island has a greater share of its workforce in lower-paying occupations and a smaller portion of its workforce in higher-paying occupations.”

Clarification: Amber Caulkins said the Collaborative doesn’t vie itself as a think tank.

And here’s more on this research and whether or not people vote with their feet when it comes to tax policy.

The limits of debating anti-science cranks


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

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

In February, Bill Nye the Science Guy, from the PBS science show, debated Ken Ham, a fundamentalist preacher who runs the creationist museum in Kentucky on the topic of Creationism versus Evolution. Bill Nye saw this as an opportunity to defend science against the sillier ideas of biblical creationists who believe the universe is only 6000 years old. Ken Ham saw this as an opportunity to spread his religious beliefs and make bushels of money.

Before the debate, many wondered why Nye decided to participate. Ken Ham’s creationist views are not real scientific theories. His ideas are steeped in mythology so weak that few educated persons in Ancient Greece would have taken them seriously. Ham’s views are anti-scientific nonsense, and for a real scientist to treat them with any degree of seriousness at all seemed like a gigantic waste of time.Worse, it was argued that entering into a debate with Ham was a losing proposition from the get go, because being taken seriously by a scientist gives the appearance that Ham’s religious views are in some way equal to science.

Ken Ham
Ken Ham

Standing on that stage, Ken Ham finally felt that the world was taking his backwards ideas seriously. No scientific point Bill Nye made during the debate mattered because in the minds of Ken Ham and his followers, the fundamentalist preacher was treated as a serious threat to the scientific method and common sense.

Ham won everything he wanted to win before the debate even started. As Michael Schulson writes on The Daily Beast:

You don’t need to be Sun Tzu to realize that, when it comes to guys like Ken Ham, you can’t really win. If you refuse to debate them, they claim to be censored. If you agree to debate them, you give them a public platform on which to argue that, yep, they’re being censored. Better not to engage at all, at least directly. Nye may be the last to understand a point that seems to be circulating more widely these days: creationism is a political issue, not a scientific one, and throwing around scientific facts won’t dissuade those who don’t accept scientific authority in the first place.

This came into my mind Saturday morning as I read “‘Noble Lies’ are damaging environmentalism” an op-ed by Tom Harris in the Providence Journal. Harris is executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, which denies the reality and devastating future impact of climate change. Harris’s group is political, not scientific in nature. As Cameron Spitzer points out, in a comment on the piece:

The International Climate Science Coalition is “the Heartland Institute wearing a party mask. Heartland is one of the “think tank” public relations (PR) and lobbying firms working to undermine public confidence in science. The project began when epidemiologists linked smoking to cancer, and the tobacco companies hired PR firms to smear them. Then it was lead in paint and gasoline, toxicologists. Then clearcut logging, population biologists. Nowadays the smear is aimed at climate scientists. Various PR firms have been involved over the years and some of the biggest have been there for the whole run.

Ed Achorn
Ed Achorn

Harris accomplishes everything he sets out to do just by having his anti-science and frankly idiotic views published in the newspaper. The point of Harris’s piece is not to debate the science but to debate science itself. Just being presented as a serious alternative is a win: the objective is to obfuscate, not educate. Harris does not give two shits about truth, he cares about undermining our confidence in the best tool we have to understand the world, science, so that he and his group can prevent any kind of action on climate change until it is too late.

I’ve written about this before, in response to a similarly idiotic piece in in the ProJo by Steve Goreham, who also heads a science denying institute funded by Heartland.  ProJo editor Ed Achorn seems to revel in printing such drivel in his paper, not because they represent good science, critical thinking or facts, but because they reflect his biased, strongly held religious views about Libertarian economics and politics.

How do you answer this kind of junk polemics? What answer can you give to anti-science, anti-human cranks like Achorn and Harris?

The unfortunate answer is: none. Religion, whether it’s centered on God or the Invisible Hand, can’t be countered with rational, scientific and logical thought. Whereas a reasonable, intelligent and honest person sees science as a tool for determining the truth, science deniers like Harris and Achorn see science as an inconvenience when it stands in their way and as a weapon when it favors their views.

Those who routinely hate and deride science that goes against their worldview, are con artists. They are not out to discover and share the truth, they merely seek to deceive as a first step in taking away something precious.

Stephen-Moore
Stephen Moore

That debating cranks merely empowers them was demonstrated in April, when the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity, a libertarian economic think tank reputedly funded by the Koch Brothers held “The Great Ocean State Debate” at the University of Rhode Island.

Tom Sgouros and Sam Bell debated Stephen Moore from the Heritage Foundation, yet another Libertarian think tank concerned with spreading the Good News about Ayn Rand. Debating with Moore led Sgouros to the following revelation:

…there is a moral dimension to lobbying. Lives are ruined and people die because of bad decisions made at the state house. Advocates have a responsibility to test their hypotheses in an intellectually honest fashion… A responsible advocate will examine as many possibilities as seem reasonable before insisting on a solution. But I didn’t see any of that curiosity on display Saturday.

This is because Moore was not representing an honest, scientific opinion. He was representing a religious, Libertarian point of view that is as immune to facts as Creationism, Astrology or Bigfootery. Justin Katz, writing on his blog, was annoyed by Sgouros’s spot-on analysis, writing:

It’s nearly breathtaking, Tom Sgouros’s audacity in manipulating facts in order to enable his condescending manner of promoting a downright bizarre version of Rhode Island’s political and policy landscape.  Ever the gracious adversary, he takes to RIFuture, today, to insult both his debate opponent on Saturday, Stephen Moore, as well as the organization that put the debate together and gave him a platform for his own point of view.

Tom Sqouros
Tom Sgouros

Katz has framed the debate so as to cast the Center for Freedom and Prosperity as the mainstream and Sgouros as the outsider. This makes sense. Institutions represent power and society, and the RI Center for Freedom and Prosperity bills itself as the state’s “leading free-enterprise public policy think tank.” They held their debate at the University of Rhode Island in an attempt to add an academic gloss to their show. The Center is all flash and theater. As Phil Eil pointed out in the Providence Phoenix:

If you’re picturing some kind of imposing home for the Rhode Island Center for Freedom and Prosperity — a glass cube in Middletown, say, or a concrete bunker in Smithfield with Hulk Hogan’s “I Am a Real American” theme song blasting from outdoor speakers — think again. There is actually is no proper headquarters for the RICFP. The CEO, research director, and outreach coordinator do most of their work from home.

The Center and their guests, Stephen Moore of the Heritage Foundation and Don Watkins of the Ayn Rand institute, represent the fringiest of fringe economics and the economics they routinely espouse is not even classifiable as science in any meaningful way. Though Moore, the Heritage Foundation and the RI Center for Freedom and Prosperity avoid the term, they are all serving up some form of Austrian libertarianism or outright objectivism. As John Case points out, “although [the Austrian School] calls itself economics, [it] is better termed a Utopian philosophy…. Instead of paying any attention to data, it accepts as given from God (or nature) the transcendental ‘organizing’ power of the market price mechanism.”

You can’t scientifically debate ideas that are by their nature not scientific. It is a waste of time, and worse, by pretending these ideas are in some way worthy of serious consideration, you give these crank ideas an undeserved veneer of respectability and importance. It is this undeserved sense of importance that Katz evoked in his criticism of Sgouros. Never mind that Sgouros was better informed than his opponent, Sgouros insulted the Center, and if the Center isn’t an institution worthy of respect, why did Sgouros bother showing up? (Sgouros says he got paid to be there.)

ark-encounter-groundsI want to end by getting back to the Bill Nye and Ken Ham debate. Long before the debate, after Ken Ham built his creationist museum in Kentucky, Ham announced that he was going to build a life sized replica of Noah’s Ark. Unfortunately for Ken Ham, this silly project stalled indefinitely due to the preacher’s inability to gather enough funds. It stalled, that is, until the Bill Nye debate. Publicity for the debate generated all the media attention Ken Ham needed to find people willing to fund his project to completion.

Nye said that he was “heartbroken and sickened for the Commonwealth of Kentucky,” continuing, “If [Ken Ham] builds that ark, it’s my strong opinion [that] it’s bad for the commonwealth of Kentucky and bad for scientists based in Kentucky and bad for the US, and, I’m not joking, bad for the world.”

Bill Nye may be right, but the damage done will not be the fault of Ken Ham alone. Part of that damage done must be owned by the Science Guy, who thought he could fight nonsense with logic when he should have just ignored the nonsense. This is the price we pay for condescending to debate the ideas of cranks. We give them false legitimacy. We give them undeserved power, time, money and status even as we ultimately give up our own.

We need a better plan. We have to learn, like the computer at the end of Matthew Broderick’s War Games, that “The only winning move is not to play.”

Ernie Almonte embraces Colleen Conley, and other signs he’s a DINO


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

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

There are plenty of reasons to assume Ernie Almonte is the conservative in the campaign for general treasurer that features three Democrat and no Republicans. One is that I saw him meeting with Colleen Conley, a tea party activist, in Wickford recently.

They hugged, Almonte gave her a campaign bumper sticker and she put it on her Ford Mustang, which already had a “Don’t Tread On Me” tea party bumper sticker on it.

almonte conley
I was at a coffee shop across the street, and this is the best picture my iPhone captured, but Almonte confirmed that he met with Conley in Wickford.

In Almonte’s defense, he meets with everyone. He also attended the governor’s forum sponsored by the left-leaning Economic Progress Institute and was endorsed last week by the North Kingstown Democratic Party.

But there’s more…

In 2006, he was even briefly a member of the Republican party. He told me he registered to vote in the primary, specifically to vote against then-Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, who was challenging Linc Chafee’s senate seat.

“I saw firsthand that he wasn’t for the citizens, he was for himself,” Almonte said of Laffey, who has since relocated to Colorado to pursue a political career there.

Fair enough. But then there are the things he says – they sometimes sound like the words of a conservative, too. Take this video of him speaking to a group of accountants and actuaries in 2012. Eerily similar to Mitt Romney’s 47-percent comment, Almonte sounds shocked when he says 50 percent of America doesn’t pay taxes (I think he meant income taxes). He also says some people “want something for nothing” and that he doesn’t think making $250,000 a year means your rich.


When I asked Almonte about the video, he said his comments were taken out of context and that the video was spliced together to make him appear more conservative than he is. He said he was giving a speech prepared by the auditor general, for whom he was filling in.

He said he does not believe every American should be taxed on their income, and suggested those who earn less than $30,000 should be exempt. And he said he does not think poor people necessarily want something for nothing. “It’s not a broad brush but there are some elements,” he said, recalling a story of an accountant who wanted to collect unemployment benefits before returning to work.

He also stepped back slightly from saying people aren’t rich who earn $250,000 a year, but not too much.

“I think they are well off,” he told me. “I can’t say I think they are rich because I don’t know what they spend.”

The whole package – hugging Conley, voting Republican, saying poor people want something for nothing, essentially welfare-queening an out-of-work accountant in defense of such comments, it makes me wonder how committed to core Democratic values Almonte is, or if he’s like so many conservative Rhode Islanders who run as a Democrat because it’s the easiest path to victory.

“I don’t put myself in a hole of being a conservative,” he told me. “I’m fiscally responsible.”

So I asked him if he would consider running as a Republican or an independent.

“I won’t run as a Republican, and I’m running as a Democrat,” he said.

Sounds like he’s leaving himself some wiggle room to run as an independent, I told him.

“The chances of me running as an independent are about as close to me running as a Republican,” he said. “I never like to say never, but there is probably no chance.”

Then he added, “Wait, can I say that another way? I’m running as a Democrat and I won’t run as a Republican or independent.”