Barry Hinckley might think the polls predicting his political demise are flawed, but according to Occam’s Razor – the theory that the simplest reason is probably the correct one – no conspiracy theory or professional blunder needs to have occurred in order to explain his poor performance among likely voters.
The simplest theory as to why poll respondents didn’t give Hinckley very high marks is because his ideas are out of step with what Rhode Islanders want.
He’s a supporter of Paul Ryan’s draconian budget proposal, which would bleed Medicare dry and privatize social security.
And if that isn’t out-of-step enough for you, consider his recent statement on WJAR’s Sunday morning News Conference show that he “would abolish the Department of Education.”
Rhode Islanders don’t want that to happen!
The state gets about $230 million a year in federal funds from the Department of Education, or about 12 percent of its overall education dollars, according to Elliot Krieger, a spokesman for the state Department of Education. Both Providence and Central Falls get about 20 percent of their public education budgets from the federal government, he added.
“Federal funds pay for many initiatives, most notably Title I (aid to high-poverty schools and districts), Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (funds for students with disabilities, in both public and nonpublic schools), and school nutrition programs (some of which comes from the Dept. of Agriculture),” Krieger said in an email.
Elimination of the Department of Education would be a disaster, though some of Hinckley’s disinterested out-of-state donors who don’t care what happens to Rhode Island might not mind if our children don’t have access to good schools.
And, it should be pointed out, that Barry Hinckley is well within his rights to run for Senate under the mantle of representing the elite rather than the Ocean State.
But he’s applying faulty reasoning when he suggests polls depicting his unpopularity are indicative of anything other than exactly that. Indeed, logical practically dictates that someone who espouses such views wouldn’t poll well here, where we place a high value on retirement security, medical care for the elderly and a quality public education for our kids.
The DOE is also responsible for No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Granted throwing out Title I, Pell Grants, and Head Start doesn’t sound so good. Just saying.
“The state gets about $230 million a year in federal funds from the Department of Education”
And where do you think the Federal Gov’t gets those funds from? Individual taxpayers of course. That means the Federal DOE is essentially a money laundering scheme for the states. I fail to see how its existence is necessary or beneficial.
You don’t need the Dept of Ed to send $230M to Rhode Island. Congress can simply appropriate it if they think that makes sense. Education should be left up to the individual states, not some eggheads in Washington.
There are so many directions you could have taken to put up a rip piece on Hinckley and if this is the best you got, he must be doing ok.
…. “Education should be left up to the individual states…”
Why? All the nations that today outpace the USA in educational achievement have national standards, not 50 jurisdictional subdivisions each doing their own thing. I don’t accept the oft-repeated but unsupported assertion that education “should be left up to the states.” Why should it? Perhaps so that Mississippi can teach creationism while California teaches real science? Seriously, why?
“Why? All the nations that today outpace the USA in educational achievement have national standards, not 50 jurisdictional subdivisions each doing their own thing.”
This is quite a logical leap. All nations that outpace the U.S. have national standards, therefore all standards no matter how wrong headed must be beneficial.
Finland for instance (with educational outcomes to be envied) has national standards but those standards are broad and nonprescriptive. Each school designs it’s own curriculum, which is what was actually being discussed. I think patrick actually didn’t go far enough when he suggested we needed curriculum to be set at a state level. I say each noing their own thing is exactly what we need, but why stop at 50?
As reactionary as Arne Duncan and the US Department of Education is, I think abolishing the DOE would be good for this country. We can still get our appropriations without the negative anti-teacher policies of Duncan et al.
“Why?”
Because education is a local activity. Because there is no “one way” to educate students and top-down management has a way of stifling innovation. Because the DOE has spent hundreds of billions of dollars intervening in local education over the last 30+ years and we’ve not seen any improvement in student outcomes.
I could keep going, but I think you get the idea.
“top-down management has a way of stifling innovation”
Every way of management has a way of stifling innovation.
Plus, what innovation is needed? What is the goal here?
“DOE has spent hundreds of billions of dollars intervening in local education over the last 30+ years and we’ve not seen any improvement in student outcomes”
What improvements do you want?
“Plus, what innovation is needed?”
People are constantly finding new and better ways of doing things. Many times we don’t realize what we want until someone offers it. I’m not sure what innovations are specifically needed… but I bet teachers could tell us.
“What improvements do you want?”
I suppose I’d start with the “improved educational achievements”, as that’s what Portsmouth Citizen says we’re being beaten on, despite the massive amount of tax money our Federal Gov’t has laundered through the DOE.
“I’m not sure what innovations are specifically needed… but I bet teachers could tell us.”
You mean unionized teachers?
“I suppose I’d start with the “improved educational achievements”, as that’s what Portsmouth Citizen says ”
I’m not asking Portsmouth Citizen. I’m asking you.
Both your replies are vague to the point of meaninglessness. You have no idea what educational innovations you want, nor what you want them for.
Education has to have some purpose. Goals must direct innovation. What do you want education to do? Even cribbing from PC gets you nowhere: what good are improved achievements? What happens when we get them?
“the massive amount of tax money our Federal Gov’t has laundered through the DOE”
How massive? Hundreds of billions of dollars over thirty plus years is not a lot of money, considering the size of the American economy. Hell, considering the size of the annual American defense budget.
I mean: say the U.S. has “laundered” $800 billion through the DOE since 1982. That’s roughly what the Department of Defense spends in a year.
During that thirty years, say a hundred million kids got educated, to some basic standard. What’s the problem?
I think all of the carping about the American education system is a bunch of bunk. It’s exceedingly difficult to educate people in a place as big and diverse as the U.S., we haven’t spent much money on the task, and Americans, while not very well-educated, are pretty well able to navigate the Information Age.
It’s true that there remain great disparities among certain groups. Fine. Take a hundred billion from the DOD and let the DOE throw it around–not over decades, but over a single year, targeting underperforming schools.
I mean: what is all this whining even about? It’s not as if we’re even trying very hard to educate ourselves. Or as if we even have some generally accepted idea of how educated we want people to be. Or why.
“I think all of the carping about the American education system is a bunch of bunk.”
I’ll give you credit turbo. You’re the first progressive to admit that there’s nothing wrong with the status quo approach. I disagree but I’ll give you credit for having the courage to say it out loud on a progressive blog. Most progressives will only tell you reform is bad but won’t go as far to admit that they believe there is nothing wrong with our educational system.
Hey! DogDiesel made a comment in a discussion on education without running face first into what is for him the brick wall of the English language!
Good job, buddy!
On the other hand, if you only you had had the stamina to read to the end of my comment, then, perhaps, you wouldn’t have said something so blatantly false.
Oh well. Baby steps!
“You mean unionized teachers?”
I mean teachers… I’m not sure why it matters if they’re in a union or not.
“You have no idea what educational innovations you want, nor what you want them for.”
I don’t have to know. I’m not immersed in the education system on a daily basis. That doesn’t negate my point however, that heavy, top-down management that comes from DC is not known for fostering an environment where those improvements can be made.
The op was calling Hinckley out of touch with RI because he wants to abolish the DOE. PC agrees, claiming the DOE is needed because we’re getting beat by other countries in educational outcomes. If that’s the case, and I have no reason to doubt him, I’m simply questioning then, what benefit has the DOE provided given they’ve spent hundreds of billions of tax dollars ($70B in 2011) and those outcomes are unchanged.
“I don’t have to know”
Actually, if you want to make some kind of convincing argument about reforming education, you need to have some idea of what education is for.
“ what benefit has the DOE provided given they’ve spent hundreds of billions of tax dollars ($70B in 2011)”
The DOE has provided the benefit of educating tens of millions of children under difficult circumstances for less than one-tenth the budget of the Department of Defense.
“and those outcomes are unchanged”
Which means they have not gotten worse.
You do realize that a civilzation must spend on education until said civilization collapses? The U.S. has spent money over time to maintain a certain standard of education among a large and diverse and dynamic population. Again, so what?
Also, again, if you don’t like the status quo, please explain how much money the U.S. should be spending to attain what educational standard and why.
“Actually, if you want to make some kind of convincing argument about reforming education”
Where am I making that argument? Am I sure there are improvements that could be made to our education system? Of course, we’re human and humans aren’t perfect, but that is not a circumstance unique to education.
“Which means they have not gotten worse.”
That’s your barometer? Let’s say that the federal gov’t spent 40+ years and trillions of dollars that we weren’t spending before and the outcomes of our efforts were negligible at best. Should we continue to spend the money in that manner since “things haven’t gotten worse”, or should we reconsider whether we should even be doing what we’re doing?
“You do realize that a civilzation must spend on education until said civilization collapses?”
You do realize I’m not saying we should stop spending money on educating our children, that I’m only questioning the efficacy of having the federal gov’t involved in it?
“Where am I making that argument? ”
Here: “I suppose I’d start with the “improved educational achievements””
Here: “there is no “one way” to educate students ”
Here: ”the DOE has spent hundreds of billions of dollars intervening in local education over the last 30+ years and we’ve not seen any improvement in student outcomes.”
Here: “my point however, that heavy, top-down management that comes from DC is not known for fostering an environment where those improvements can be made”
“Let’s say that the federal gov’t spent 40+ years and trillions of dollars”
You’re asking me to pretend that the U.S. has spent far more money than it actually has, in order to argue that the U.S. should not have spent the amount of money it actually has.
No, thanks.
If you can’t say that the U.S. has actually not met its goals, then you have no argument.
“I’m only questioning the efficacy of having the federal gov’t involved in it?”
Actually, you are not questioning the efficacy of the government’s spending, because you have no standard by which to make any kind of judgment whatsoever.
You are merely making the vague implication that the U.S. should be getting better results at a lower cost. Or even the same results at a lower cost.
Your whole position boils down to ‘things should be better!’.
“You’re asking me to pretend that the U.S. has spent far more money than it actually has, in order to argue that the U.S. should not have spent the amount of money it actually has.”
I was referring to the “War on Drugs” — we’ve spent trillions of dollars and by probably every conceivable measurement it’s been an abject failure. Do we continue to throw good money after bad because “things aren’t getting worse” or do we reconsider whether such a venture is the proper role of the federal gov’t?
“I was referring to the “War on Drugs””
Which is bizarre.
“we’ve spent trillions of dollars and by probably every conceivable measurement it’s been an abject failure”
So? How does this analogize with education? How is American education an abject failure? Be specific.
“Do we continue to throw good money after bad because “things aren’t getting worse””
No. We continue to invest as we have–at a minimum–because we are meeting our goals.
Again and again, you keep trying to insinuate the notion that American education is failing. Yet you cannot explain how exactly American education is failing. This is a big problem for you.
btw, I agree with your questioning of the assertion that public schools are failing. I attended public school. I bet most reading this blog did as well.
That’s imho part of why there is a push to use standardized testing, a model that guarantees 50% of schools will be characterized as under performing. If 100% would meet the standard, that’s only proof the standards are too low (as has happened btw).
“How is American education an abject failure?”
I never said American education is an abject failure. You keep forgetting the frame of reference for this conversation. I’m not talking about public education in general and trying to analogize it to the WoD. The post Bob wrote is about the Federal Dept of Education. I’m analogizing the DOE spending with the WOD spending in the sense that we’ve spent a few decades a ton of money in each program trying to, I assume, improve national test scores as they compare to other countries and, I assume again, reduce the use of or access to specific drugs the gov’t doesn’t like.
In both instances these programs have failed their target objectives. So we circle back to a previous question of mine — if after spending so much time and money and achieving so little, do we not have to reconsider the necessity for a DOE just as we should be reconsidering the necessity for a DEA?
“In both instances these programs have failed their target objectives.”
Of course I’d say these programs have failed because of their target objectives. But you are limiting the conversation here to whether or not testing improves and ignoring that if it did, we’d simply say the test was too easy.
“we’ve spent a few decades a ton of money in each program trying to, I assume, improve national test scores as they compare to other countries ”
Your assumption is incorrect.
Well! Glad we cleared that up!
@turbo
Then do me a favor and educate me.
“Because education is a local activity. Because there is no ‘one way’ to educate students and top-down management has a way of stifling innovation. Because the DOE has spent hundreds of billions of dollars intervening in local education over the last 30+ years and we’ve not seen any improvement in student outcomes.”
I’m totally with you on that and many progressives including Obama are on the wrong side of this issue. See “Why Standardization Fails.”
“I’ll give you credit turbo. You’re the first progressive to admit that there’s nothing wrong with the status quo approach. I disagree but I’ll give you credit for having the courage to say it out loud on a progressive blog. Most progressives will only tell you reform is bad but won’t go as far to admit that they believe there is nothing wrong with our educational system…”
Here you’re absolutely wrong. Progressives like me are not defending the status quo and have lot’s to say about what we’re doing wrong. That’s the irony here. “Reformers” have convinced folks that they doing something different when that couldn’t be farther from the truth. Alfie Kohn nailed this one here… “How to Sell Conservatism: Lesson 1 — Pretend You’re a Reformer” which I’ll quote in length to make sure my point is clear:
*** quote ***
Even before the implementation of what should be called the Many Children Left Behind Act, states and school districts were busy standardizing curricula, imposing more and more tests, and using an array of rewards and punishments to pressure teachers and students to fall in line — with the most extreme version of this effort reserved for the inner cities. Before anyone outside of Texas had heard of George W. Bush, many of us had been calling attention to the fact that these policies were turning schools into glorified test-prep centers, driving some of the most innovative teachers to leave the profession, and increasing the drop-out rate among kids of color.
Yet the so-called reformers have succeeded in convincing people that their top-down, test-driven approach — in effect, the status quo on steroids — is a courageous rejection of what we’ve been doing.
Here’s what would be new: questioning all the stuff that Papert’s early 20th-century visitors would immediately recognize: a regimen of memorizing facts and practicing skills that features lectures, worksheets, quizzes, report cards and homework. But the Gates-Bush-Obama version of “school reform” not only fails to call those things into question; it actually intensifies them, particularly in urban schools. The message, as educator Harvey Daniels observed, consists of saying in effect that “what we’re doing [in the classroom] is OK, we just need to do it harder, longer, stronger, louder, meaner…”
*** end quote ***
That’s would progressives in the educational community actually think.
Oh, and sorry for mixing comments from jgardner and dogdiesel together. Correction noted. Real interesting conversation on this one btw.
The only people who are taken in by this group of merchandizers are the people who want to play mindless, repetitive “Simon Says” games.
Simon says establish an inside game. Cultivate the second raters (Gist, Rhee, Duncan,) who are willing to play along. Let the financiers feed. Oh, and who gets the bus contracts?
(Please, Arne, don’t spit when you utter your boilerplate talking points and your “journalist” friends invoke the mercy rule on your behalf for the umpteenth time.)
Bribe them one way or another, through influence peddling or similar grifty perks. Throw the contracts to the preordained winners that you’ve tipped off– and who really understand you and who value you highly.
After all, they’ve extended you a charter. Report back to the Homeys in the Home Office, even if it is in Boise or the Caymans. The investors want updates.
Then declare bankruptcy or receivership and blame government for the problem–after you’ve borrowed in like some destructive beetle. Among friends.
It’s the privatization shuffle, guaranteed to appeal to spiritual Albanians everywhere.
No, this is NOT a libel directed against Albanians. It’s just that their economy fell officially right after their last national lottery imploded. How else to fund the State??
If only the table games had come in time…
Quoting myself: “Education should be left up to the individual states, not some eggheads in Washington.”
I think at a minimum, it should be left at the state level, but I can see PHL’s argument for going even further down. What works in Cumberland or Tiverton might not work in Johnston or Richmond. So why should people in Providence tell them how and what to teach? Sure, the state redistributes money back to the towns for education (as do the feds to the states) but why are there strings attached to the money, as long as it’s not being used fraudulently? If people in my town want to teach creationism but your town wants evolution, why can’t we do that? I don’t necessarily care about that example, it’s just an example, so I’m not looking to get hammered on that detail. Use anything you want, machine shop vs. auto repair, computer science or foreign languages, have an athletics department or don’t. These are all choices that the individual districts should be allowed to make for themselves.
“These are all choices that the individual districts should be allowed to make for themselves.”
No, they are not.
Towns, cities, and states do not educate children on their own. They educate children with help from the Federal government.
Nor do towns, cities, and states educate children for their own purposes alone. Children in the U.S. receive education for a national purpose.
That national purpose is the continued survival of the United States. In order for the U.S. to survive as a civilization, American chlidren must be educated to a certain degree and in a certain way. Teaching creationism is contrary to the continued survival of the UniteD States. Science is essential to the survival of American civilization, and creationism is in direct conflict with science.
As for your other examples: “machine shop vs. auto repair, computer science or foreign languages, have an athletics department or don’t”–you’re arguing for the status quo. Local governments have lots of control over precisely these areas. I have no idea why you think they do not.
Wow, progessive educators and the righties on the same side. Interesting.
“No, they are not. Towns, cities, and states do not educate children on their own. They educate children with help from the Federal government.”
That’s some logic. Talk about the poison pill. Of course I agree that’s exactly what’s occuring with programs like Race to the Top, which presents cities like Providence with a Hobson’s choice… here’s a truck load of money for high-stakes testing or nothing. Good luck.
“American chlidren must be educated to a certain degree and in a certain way.”
So you think the federal government should determine exactly what is taught or not taught in every classroom? That’s not progressive.
“So you think the federal government should determine exactly what is taught or not taught in every classroom? ”
No, I do not. I think the Federal government should determine minimum educational standards and that the states and towns and cities should be free to meet those standards as they please.
What exactly do you think you are disagreeing with?
“here’s a truck load of money for high-stakes testing or nothing”
The high-stakes testing that plagues schools today came about as a result of conservative education reform.
Again, what do you think you are disagreeing with?
As for federal vs. local control of schools, my opinion is the 10th Amendment gives states the right to tell the feds to butt out. Of course the feds simply say “You want any money? Do what we say!” it works with every federal department. Funding comes with following mandates and rules. But I disagree with it.
“Science is essential to the survival of American civilization, and creationism is in direct conflict with science.”
Essential? Americans cannot survive without learning about evolution? As Jerry Seinfeld likes to say, “Really?”
“Funding comes with following mandates and rules. But I disagree with it. ”
Why? What is it that you want education to do?
“Americans cannot survive without learning about evolution? ”
American civilization cannot, no.
To give just one example: medicine is biology and biology is evolution. No theory of evolution, no modern biology, no modern medicine.
If you don’t think so, go get yourself infected by an anti-biotic resistant bacterium and try healing yourself with creationism.
But my claim was actually larger: “Science is essential to the survival of American civilization, and creationism is in direct conflict with science.”
If you are unhappy that American civilization depends so totally on science, fine. You are welcome to make an argument about education reform and states’ rights from the Luddite position. I suspect you will not find many sympathizers.
Of course some would say American civilization cannot survive without putting God (back?) into public education. I say that’s a bit melodramatic when either side says it.
Where I drawn the line is mandating that teachers must teach creationism, which I think crosses the line on separation of church and state. Ironically turbo is defending those kind of top down mandates with the hope that he’ll always agree with them. I wonder how he’d feel about a federal mandate not to use only selected history books, effectively banning for instance using “A People’s History of the United States” from high school history classes. Not so hard to imagine.
“Ironically turbo is defending those kind of top down mandates ”
I am saying that you either accept that there is a national interest in determining education standards or you don’t.
You do not. That’s fine. I have no idea what it is that you want from education.
“with the hope that he’ll always agree with them”
I live in a democratic republic. Every decision made here rests on that hope.
“I wonder how he’d feel about a federal mandate not to use only selected history books”
Have you seen the standards for history texts in the state of Texas?
“effectively banning for instance using “A People’s History of the United States””
Arguably, because of the measures put into place by No Child Left Behind, this has already happened for practical purposes.
I really don’t see where you’re going with this. You either agree that the U.S. government must set minimum standards and then evaluate whether children are meeting those standards or you are saying that it is unimportant for the country as a whole to receive a certain minimum level and a certain kind of education.
If you agree that the U.S. must set and evaluate certain standards, then the only thing that matters is what those standards are. Creationists and nationalists understand that setting standards is important. Why don’t you?
“I am saying that you either accept that there is a national interest in determining education standards or you don’t.”
Ah, the Hobson’s choice. No wonder you like mandates so much. I actually agree with the Finish model, standards are fine so long as they are broad and nonprescriptive. For instance I didn’t choose to disagree with Bob about the benefit of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“Have you seen the standards for history texts in the state of Texas?”
And that’s supposed to make me support federal intervention in curriculum? Recall I’m the one who suggested patrick didn’t take things far enough when calling for state control (reasonable given his explanation of his belief this is a 10th Amendment issue). If any particular history teacher didn’t want to use the text, I don’t see that as a problem. At least not one that couldn’t be discussed over a coffee.
“Arguably, because of the measures put into place by No Child Left Behind, this has already happened for practical purposes.”
That wouldn’t surprise me, but again that’s hardly a defense of national mandates on curriculum (see my first comment).
“I really don’t see where you’re going with this. You either agree that the U.S. government must set minimum standards and then evaluate whether children are meeting those standards or you are saying that it is unimportant for the country as a whole to receive a certain minimum level and a certain kind of education.”
Again the false framing. National standards, evaluations, forced rankings or nothing. What I want is improvement (something I know something about). Read about education in Finland. Read Deming!
Once again, photos come in handy.
Who, or in this case, what objects does Hinckley want himself to be pictured with in order to add to his snarky social cred?
Decoys, of course. And they’re on the right side of the frame.
One’s named Tripp and the other three are Trappe, Tripe, and Trope.
Let’s play rope-a dope-with a Snope in our state of Hope.