Today I declined a cost of living adjustment increase to my legislative salary, and committed that I will not take a raise until Rhode Island raises the minimum wage for all low-income workers.

I recognize this is an entirely symbolic move, and in fact that it is a particularly tiny symbol, considering how minuscule this legislative salary increase is (it’s real, real small). And I support the COLA on principle – in fact, I think that the (comparatively) low compensation for state legislators in Rhode Island is a significant barrier keeping a lot of Rhode Islanders from serving in elected office, particularly low-income Rhode Islanders whose voices we desperately need in the General Assembly. But as a legislator, I do not personally feel comfortable taking any cost of living adjustment knowing that Rhode Island’s lowest-paid workers have not received any adjustment.

One section of this package, reflecting legislative language I introduced this session, expands Rhode Island’s net metering law to provide residential accounts and low-income and affordable housing residents the capacity to remotely net meter. By creating new opportunities for community renewable energy projects that are open to all Rhode Islanders (not just folks who own a roof that’s perfect for solar), our legislation will spur local renewable production, boost our state’s economic development, and bring the benefits of renewable energy to thousands more Rhode Island families.

This program expansion comes not a moment too soon. Most of us understand that there is a climate catastrophe hurtling towards us that requires urgent action. We also know that the move to renewable energy offers incredible economic potential – in fact, Rhode Island’s 2016 Clean Energy Industry Report found that clean energy employment grew a stunning 40% last year, to 14,000 jobs. So as a state, we have both a moral obligation and an economic imperative to go full steam ahead with a transition to clean energy.

To achieve this, we need to take renewable energy to scale and make sure its benefits are accessible to all Rhode Islanders. Community remote net metering is a critical piece of that puzzle; here’s how it works.

Net metering is a policy that allows Rhode Islanders who install renewable energy systems such as solar panels to connect to the electric grid and receive credit on their bill for the energy they generate. It makes sense (folks should be credited for the energy they’re producing) and creates a major economic incentive to develop these projects.

The problem is that right now, net metering can only apply to installations that are physically on a customer’s property. Yet only 25% of rooftops in Rhode Island are currently optimal for solar systems. Many homes are affected by shading from nearby trees or angling issues. And lots of Rhode Islanders are renters, or live in affordable housing, meaning they’re not able to install projects right on their residency. The way the current program is set up, we’re excluding three quarters of Rhode Islanders from participating in this market right off the bat!

By expanding net metering to include off-site generation and community solar projects, we can ensure that every family has an opportunity to access the benefits of cheap and stable renewable energy, whether or not their direct premises are suitable for a solar or wind system.

That means a lot more demand for these projects, which means more businesses stepping up to fill that demand, which means more jobs, more clean energy, and lower costs for thousands of Rhode Islanders.

It also means more equity. Off-site net metered systems can be designed to serve multiple customers, providing a way for renters and low-income families to join together on community renewable projects that they could never site or afford on their own. As we transition to a clean energy economy, we can’t leave anyone behind, so it is critical that we open net metering to all Rhode Islanders – not just those who can afford to build a full system individually.

We have a responsibility to the next generation of Rhode Islanders to act on climate change by bringing renewable energy to scale. But we shouldn’t fear this clean energy transition. Rather, this should be a revolution to celebrate, for it entails more jobs for working families, enhanced energy security for our state, and – ultimately – reduced energy costs for all Rhode Islanders.

By expanding access to the democratic, open-source energy generation that comes from community remote net metering, we are moving our state forward toward a more prosperous, equitable, and environmentally friendly economy for everyone. And that’s something we can all get behind.

On February 10th, after 7 hours of debate on the House Floor, I voted for legislation to invest in our state’s crumbling infrastructure and establish a sustainable source of revenue to maintain and repair our roads and bridges. As a proud progressive, I am happy to stand by that vote.

We’ve seen some loud opposition to the truck tolling plan, and I understand where some of this hostility is coming from. For example, I get why the rightwing Center for Freedom and Prosperity would seize on this issue – they, like their benefactors the Koch brothers, are philosophically opposed to the whole premise of taxing private property for the public good, so asking truck companies to pay their fair share for infrastructure maintenance is naturally going to rub them the wrong way. Similarly, it makes sense that my friends and colleagues in the Republican Caucus – who have strenuously fought against every policy I’ve put forward to improve wages for low-income workers, to strengthen the social safety net for struggling families, and to create a more progressive tax structure – would argue against a proposal like this, and instead push for more regressive alternatives like privatizing our roads and bridges.

But I have a lot more trouble wrapping my head around the handful of progressive voices who have come out against this public investment and jobs initiative.

To me, the situation seems pretty straightforward: our infrastructure is in disrepair, and the responsibility for that disrepair is not evenly distributed throughout our state. Big trucks do a lot of damage to our roads and bridges. In fact, a government study found that one 40-ton truck causes as much damage as 9,600 cars. Yet the folks who own these trucks are not paying for the consequences of their damage – all of us are. It’s a negative externality on a public good, not so different from a factory polluting a river or a smoker’s second-hand smoke. And in the same way that I support environmental regulations and smoke-free workplaces, I believe it’s completely reasonable to require the businesses who are deteriorating this shared public good to the greatest extent to pay their fair share for our infrastructure’s upkeep and maintenance.

So I stand by my vote to invest in our state’s economic development, to invest in the livelihood of our workers, and to invest in the the future safety of our young people. And while I would never claim to be the final arbiter of what is and is not progressive (that age-old question we love to argue about on the left), I will say that in my personal opinion, RhodeWorks passes that test easily, and those of us who care passionately about economic, social, and racial justice have better targets for our energy and outrage than the placement of a $20 toll on a million dollar truck.

The Providence Student Union (PSU) is a youth organizing and leadership development organization that brings high school aged youth together to build student power and fight for young people to have a fair say in the decisions impacting their education. PSU has school based, citywide, and statewide organizing campaigns, and is recognized as a national leader in the fight against high-stakes testing, among other issues.

PSU seeks a full time Youth Organizer who is skilled, flexible, devoted to PSU’s mission and committed to building student power.

If you know of anyone who should take a look, please share with them. Thanks so much for the help!

Growing up, I learned everything I know about resiliency from my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own and made sure we got a great education and had terrific role models. My grandma, who was an executive director of Planned Parenthood in the years before Roe v. Wade, taught me the importance of empowering people to make choices for themselves. And my grandpa, a refugee of the Holocaust, came to America with the deepest appreciation for our democracy, which I carry with me every day.

I came here six years ago for school, and I stayed for Providence, and Rhode Island. I’ve chosen to make my home here because there is no city with as much beauty, character and diversity on every block as we have in Providence.

We live in an amazing place. But we all know our community faces huge challenges. There are too many people out of work, too many young people who aren’t getting the education they deserve. My family always taught me, when there’s a challenge, you roll up your sleeves and bring the folks impacted together to solve it. That’s why, in 2010 I co-founded a youth-led nonprofit that brings high school students together to push for stronger public schools. I’ve seen passionate young people in the Providence Student Union win healthier school lunches, change transportation policy so hundreds of students have a way of getting to school safely, and fight the misuse of standardized testing.

These students inspired me to run for office, because they’ve shown me what can happen when community voices are actually brought to the table. Too often in our state, decisions get made without the people, whether it’s our students or our small business owners or our neighbors.

I know we can do better. We can have smarter, bottom-up economic development. We can transform schools into places of real, authentic learning. We make our government more ethical and transparent. If our voices are heard.

I have been working hard to build a campaign worthy of your support, knocking on doors, listening to questions and ideas. I am humbled to see the energy and excitement around my candidacy, because – together – I know we can start something new in Rhode Island.

That’s why I want to ask you to join my campaign. Please sign up for updates on my website, let us know if you’d like to volunteer, and consider making a contribution to our campaign and an investment in new, progressive leadership for our state. Thank you. Time to get to work!

The Common Core is becoming increasingly controversial, but for many people the whole issue remains murky and poorly understood, so I was thankful to see Dr. Ravitch lay out the context, rationale, and criticisms of the Common Core in clear language, and I encourage you to download her entire speech here.

For those who don’t want to read the whole thing, here are some parts I found most insightful.

On how the standards were written:

“The Common Core standards were written in 2009 under the aegis of several D.C.-based organizations: the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and Achieve. The development process was led behind closed doors by a small organization called Student Achievement Partners, headed by David Coleman. The writing group of 27 contained few educators, but a significant number of representatives of the testing industry. From the outset, the Common Core standards were marked by the absence of public participation, transparency, or educator participation. In a democracy, transparency is crucial, because transparency and openness builds trust. Those crucial ingredients were lacking.”

On why they were written:

“The advocates of the standards saw them as a way to raise test scores by making sure that students everywhere in every grade were taught using the same standards. They believed that common standards would automatically guarantee equity. Some spoke of the Common Core as a civil rights issue. They emphasized that the Common Core standards would be far more rigorous than most state standards and they predicted that students would improve their academic performance in response to raising the bar…What the advocates ignored is that test scores are heavily influenced by socioeconomic status. Standardized tests are normed on a bell curve. The upper half of the curve has an abundance of those who grew up in favorable circumstances, with educated parents, books in the home, regular medical care, and well-resourced schools. Those who dominate the bottom half of the bell curve are the kids who lack those advantages, whose parents lack basic economic security, whose schools are overcrowded and under-resourced. To expect tougher standards and a renewed emphasis on standardized testing to reduce poverty and inequality is to expect what never was and never will be.”

On who supports Common Core:

“Who supported the standards? Secretary Duncan has been their loudest cheerleader. Governor Jeb Bush of Florida and former DC Chancellor Michelle Rhee urged their rapid adoption. Joel Klein and Condoleeza Rice chaired a commission for the Council on Foreign Relations, which concluded that the Common Core standards were needed to protect national security. Major corporations purchased full-page ads in the New York Times and other newspapers to promote the Common Core. ExxonMobil is especially vociferous in advocating for Common Core, taking out advertisements on television and other news media saying that the standards are needed to prepare our workforce for global competition. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed the standards, saying they were necessary to prepare workers for the global marketplace. The Business Roundtable stated that its #1 priority is the full adoption and implementation of the Common Core standards. All of this excitement was generated despite the fact that no one knows whether the Common Core will fulfill any of these promises. It will take 12 years whether we know what its effects are.”

On the testing component of Common Core:

“The Obama administration awarded $350 million to two groups to create tests for the Common Core standards. The testing consortia jointly decided to use a very high passing mark, which is known as a ‘cut score.’ The Common Core testing consortia decided that the passing mark on their tests would be aligned with the proficient level on the federal tests called NAEP. This is a level typically reached by about 35-40% of students. Massachusetts is the only state in which as many as 50% ever reached the NAEP proficient level. The testing consortia set the bar so high that most students were sure to fail, and they did.

In New York state, which gave the Common Core tests last spring, only 30% of students across the state passed the tests. Only 3% of English language learners passed. Only 5% of students with disabilities passed. Fewer than 20% of African American and Hispanic students passed. By the time the results were reported in August, the students did not have the same teachers; the teachers saw the scores, but did not get any item analysis. They could not use the test results for diagnostic purposes, to help students. Their only value was to rank students.”

On the financial cost of Common Core:

“The financial cost of implementing Common Core has barely been mentioned in the national debates. All Common Core testing will be done online. This is a bonanza for the tech industry and other vendors. Every school district must buy new computers, new teaching materials, and new bandwidth for the testing. At a time when school budgets have been cut in most states and many thousands of teachers have been laid off, school districts across the nation will spend billions to pay for Common Core testing. Los Angeles alone committed to spend $1 billion on iPads for the tests; the money is being taken from a bond issue approved by voters for construction and repair of school facilities. Meanwhile, the district has cut teachers of the arts, class size has increased, and necessary repairs are deferred because the money will be spent on iPads. The iPads will be obsolete in a year or two, and the Pearson content loaded onto the iPads has only a three-year license. The cost of implementing the Common Core and the new tests is likely to run into the billions at a time of deep budget cuts.”

On the standards themselves:

“Early childhood educators are nearly unanimous in saying that no one who wrote the standards had any expertise in the education of very young children. More than 500 early childhood educators signed a joint statement complaining that the standards were developmentally inappropriate for children in the early grades. The standards, they said, emphasize academic skills and leave inadequate time for imaginative play. They also objected to the likelihood that young children would be subjected to standardized testing. And yet proponents of the Common Core insist that children as young as 5 or 6 or 7 should be on track to be college-and-career ready, even though children this age are not likely to think about college, and most think of careers as cowboys, astronauts, or firefighters.”

On the lack of process for revising the standards:

“Another problem presented by the Common Core standards is that there is no one in charge of fixing them. If teachers find legitimate problems and seek remedies, there is no one to turn to. If the demands for students in kindergarten and first grade are developmentally inappropriate, no one can make changes. The original writing committee no longer exists. No organization or agency has the authority to revise the standards. The Common Core standards might as well be written in stone. This makes no sense. They were not handed down on Mount Sinai, they are not an infallible Papal encyclical, why is there no process for improving and revising them?”

So there is some of what Diane Ravitch has to say on the Common Core standards. If you’re interested in reading more, one of my favorite pieces I’ve read is from my friend at EdWeek, Nancy Flanagan, who wrote this gem of common sense in which she warns that “disaggregating the good reasons [to oppose Common Core] from the outright baloney is important. When we join the crazies, we reinforce their craziness and further muddy the discourse.”

In my personal opinion, I think that Common Core – divorced from high-stakes testing – is just another problematic, primarily profit-driven “reform” scheme that won’t do much to improve public education. The main problem – and therefore the main target of our opposition – should be the high-stakes testing that actually represents a danger to the quality of our public schools, the ability of our teachers to engage their students, and the opportunities our students have to develop the love of learning they deserve.

The ability to use data to diagnose and target students’ needs is important. But from a pedagogical or scientific perspective, there is no reason to give threshold students any more focus and assistance than those who scored below them – who may need help even more urgently – or than those who scored a few questions above them but whose skills may be at a very similar level. Certainly, focusing on threshold students does not help establish “high standards” for every child. But given the perverse incentives created by a system of high-stakes testing, in which the outcome that matters is how many students cross a particular cutoff point, it is simply rational resource allocation for administrators and teachers to zero in on those students who are right on the edge of clearing the bar. In the case of the new NECAP graduation requirement, in which the cutoff for a diploma is a line between a score of 1 and 2, we are talking about the students who scored a “high 1.”

On Wednesday night, at a forum focused on the NECAP graduation requirement, a representative of the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE) may have inadvertently admitted that encouragement for these practices can be found even at the highest levels of the system.

Andrea Castaneda, Chief for Accelerated School Performance at RIDE, was defending the new testing policy when she spotlighted the remedial math/college credit program RIDE organized at CCRI for 100 at-risk students this summer. The crux of her comments was that this was a great service that RIDE was able to deliver thanks to the urgency created by placing over 4,000 students at risk of not graduating from high school; in other words, “Look, good things are happening because of this policy.”

We have heard this story before. It seems to be one of RIDE’s main talking points in support of the NECAP graduation requirement, and at the Board of Education’s August retreat it constituted Ms. Castaneda’s closing pitch after a long presentation focused on selling the policy to on-the-fence Board members.

From what I have heard, the CCRI program was a good one. Certainly, a class for 100 students is not a real response to a crisis facing thousands, but it definitely seems like a positive program and we should be glad it was offered.

What I had not heard before, however, was who was targeted to participate in these classes. On Wednesday, Ms. Castaneda let this information slip, explaining that RIDE asked local districts to identify, and I quote directly, “high 1s” to join the CCRI program.

High 1s. The threshold kids.

Clearly, the “high 1s” do need extra supports and assistance to fill gaps in their math skills. But then again, so do the “low 1s,” and so, presumably, do the “low 2s.” What is so worrying about this statement from a high-ranking RIDE official is that it calls into question the basic talking point that the NECAP graduation requirement is ensuring all students have the skills and knowledge they need to succeed. It suggests that instead of helping all students cross the bar of proficiency (which would welcome all 1s, if not 2s as well), RIDE targeted their extra training to those falling just an inch short. To learn that these statistical games may be happening in a program administered at the state level is very concerning.

Of course, when I spoke with Ms. Castaneda after the forum she backtracked. What she had really meant, she said, was that RIDE asked districts to identify students on the higher-performing end of the at-risk population. The really low scorers, she explained, probably did not have enough math skills to be able to learn from the remedial math classes offered at CCRI anyway. But she said all that would have taken too long to explain, so she had simply used the shorthand “high 1s.”

Whatever the case may be, we should take this as a reminder that the distorting effects of high-stakes testing continue to crop up. Education should not be about getting students to jump arbitrary hurdles. RIDE is absolutely right when they say we should be working to ensure every student has the supports they need to succeed, starting in pre-kindergarten and continuing until high school and beyond. But if a policy sets an arbitrary bar as an obstacle to graduation at the eleventh hour, RIDE must be ready to deal with the perverse ways this incentivizes educators to game the system. And RIDE should certainly not be engaging in these practices itself. There are already enough games playing themselves out in Rhode Island classrooms every day because of this policy, and not to the benefit of our students.

This controversy has not, however, sparked a real conversation about the fundamental issue here, which can be boiled down to this question: what is authentic assessment? What does it look like and how can we create systems to support its use and – perhaps most important of all – what are its goals?

To see an example of true, authentic assessment, I urge you to watch “Seeing the Learning,” the 9th segment in a 10-part series of short, beautifully-shot films about the Mission Hill School in Boston, a shining example of what a public school can be.

At Mission Hill, staff hold fast to the original definition of “assessment,” which comes from the Latin, “to sit beside.” Students at Mission Hill take the required standardized tests, but teachers there understand that the best way to see if a student has grasped a lesson is through direct engagement and discussion; the best way to raise expectations for a child is to spark their curiosity and love of learning; and the most important goal of assessment is to better understand individual students so as to improve support, teaching and learning for them.

The Mission Hill School uses a similar assessment system as that used by the New York Performance Standards Consortium, a network of 28 public schools in New York that rely on practitioner-designed and student-focused assessment tasks rather than high-stakes testing. The Consortium schools – which have a higher population of students living at the poverty level, a higher percentage of ELL students, and a higher percentage of students entering school behind pace than regular New York City public schools – have remarkably better student outcomes than the average NYC school, including a dropout rate, at 5.3%, that is half that of the NYC average, and a graduation rate of special needs students (50%) that is double that of the NYC average. These superior results continue after high school, with eighty-five percent of Consortium graduates attending colleges rated competitive or better. And Consortium students’ college persistence to second year at 4-year colleges is 18.6% higher than the national average, while for 2-year colleges, persistence is 30.4% higher.

All this is to say that there are alternatives to standardized testing, and when they’re implemented well, these alternatives are actually far more effective than our current regime of high-stakes testing.

Which brings us back to Rhode Island. At the heart of the campaign against the NECAP graduation requirement that has been waged by parents, teachers and the youth group I work with, the Providence Student Union, is a belief that a simple standardized test gives us a pretty limited amount of data about students. This  data can be valuable in helping us to make certain decisions (although the info becomes more distorted and less valuable as higher stakes are attached to the tests). But despite the fact that these tests cost millions of taxpayer dollars to develop and countless hours of lost teaching and learning time to administer, the data they provide is far from the whole picture, and I would argue that the goals you can achieve from these kinds of assessments are not the goals we should be devoting so much of our collective time, energy and resources towards. If you want to get detailed information about a student to better support him or her, a standardized test is not your best bet. If you want to engage students in an assessment they find challenging and that stretches them to be the best they can be, a standardized test is not your best bet. If you want to better understand how students respond and react in real-life situations, a standardized test is not your best bet.

In other words, if you want an authentic assessment, you can’t take the easy road. Assessment is important, and we should treat it as such. That means not phoning it in. That means doing it right. That means sitting beside our children. By all accounts, it will be worth it.

There are several critiques of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Courts have interpreted CFAA such that a violation of a product or service’s terms of service can trigger criminal penalties. The law also allows prosecution for the sort of small-bore technical workarounds — altering how a program is used for instance — that is standard fare for hackers. And it focuses too heavily on felony penalties, critics say, with little room for misdemeanors.

The story also deals with some of the emotional issues surrounding this campaign, including insights from David Segal, who is one of the people leading the charge on this issue.

Swartz “was chiefly friends with activists,” Segal says.” He dated an activist. Even his parents have an activist instinct. So I think there was immediately a sense that we had to do something — make something positive happen in light of what had befallen all of us.”

That speaks to me a great deal. Personally, I am pretty new to the internet freedom cause (it was always easy for me to say, “It’s the internet, it’ll always be there, what’re they gonna do?”), but the more I learn about it, the more critical it seems to me. And I have learned that Rhode Island’s usually progressive-champion Congressional delegation is actually not very good on this issue, and may not support Aaron’s Law. So the next time you happen to see a member of our delegation (as you probably will at some point in the next couple months, since this is Rhode Island), it might be worth mentioning this issue.

The death of Aaron Swartz hit me like a ton of bricks. I went to high school at the same K-12 school that Aaron grew up going to, and his younger brother is one of my best friends. As terrible as this loss is, however, I continue to be inspired by the positive activism and organizing that has emerged from dark situation. Let’s make sure something good comes out of this.

A decision by teachers in one public high school in Seattle to boycott a standardized test lit a fire that spread to teachers and students in other schools in Seattle. And now, it appears, the fire is spreading to cities across the country.

In just the last week, students in Portland kicked off their own testing boycott and a number of teacher and parent groups in Chicago announced the beginning of Chicago’s “Pencils Down” campaign against high-stakes standardized testing. Meanwhile, the youth-led organization I help coordinate, the Providence Student Union, is organizing a local campaign against RI’s new high-stakes testing graduation requirement, and is also working with a previously unaffiliated group of students at another Providence high school that had extemporaneously organized a small testing boycott of their own three weeks ago.

This is new.

When an idea begins popping up spontaneously across the country, you know something interesting–and possibly very powerful–is happening. Recently, we saw a flash of this at the beginning of the Tea Party backlash, and we saw it briefly again during Occupy. I’m talking about social movements, and I must say, what is happening in education right now is starting to feel more and more like it could, at least potentially, be the start of a new movement.

Much of my thinking about social movements has been shaped by the book The Long Haul, which is an autobiography of Myles Horton (by the way, if you are interested in organizing or education and have not read this book, I would say put it on the very top of your list and read it as soon as possible). Horton founded the Highlander Folk School, which helped train generations of leaders in the fight for social justice and was particularly prominent during the labor movement of the 1930s and ’40s and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and ’60s. Horton had a lot to say on social movements, and I just want to share this one extended passage from The Long Haul that I think could be useful in helping us analyze what may be happening in the world of education today.

“It’s only in a movement that an idea is often made simple enough and direct enough that it can spread rapidly. Then your leadership multiplies very rapidly, because there’s something explosive going on. People see that other people not so different from themselves do things that they thought could never be done. They’re emboldened and challenged by that to step into the water, and once they get in the water, it’s as if they’ve never not been there…

In a social movement we are clearly part of a collective struggle that encourages us to increase our demands. One of the dynamic aspects of a social movement as opposed to an organization is that quite often in the latter, you’ll bargain down to make concessions in order to survive. You have a limited goal, and you might say, ‘Well, we want to get ten street lights,’ and you’ll get together and figure that you won’t get ten, but you probably can get five. So you decide to tell them you want ten in order to get five. In a social movement, the demands escalate, because your success encourages and emboldens you to demand more. I became convinced that the seeds of the civil rights movement lay in the Montgomery bus boycott, because I’d seen the demands for fixed seating escalate to demands for blacks to be able to sit wherever they wanted. And then, when I saw the demands for blacks to be able to sit anywhere they wanted escalate into a demand for black drivers, I said, ‘This is the beginning of a social movement.’ The ante went up and finally escalated into demands that they do away with all public segregation.”

I don’t know if the anti-testing organizing we are beginning to see might be the start of a new movement. Statistically speaking, it probably isn’t–real social movements are not common things. But there is something happening here. Teachers, students, and parents are beginning to escalate their demands. They’re beginning to say, “No! American’s young people deserve creative teaching and learning, deserve relevant and engaging classwork, deserve to practice critical thinking skills. They have a right to a real education, and we’re going to fight for that right.” I have no idea what this spark might end up lighting, but needless to say, I’m excited, and if you’re a student, or a teacher, or a parent reading this, I challenge you to step into the water, because now’s the time.