Maura Kelly
In order for our community to thrive, we must invest in the working families who are its core. Our leaders in the State House have forgotten that we are strongest when we empower all people – not just the privileged and connected. This is why I am running to represent District 5 (Armory, Olneyville, Federal Hill, Mount Pleasant, and Elmhurst) in the Rhode Island State Senate.I have worked as a community organizer to empower workers, immigrants and small businesses throughout my professional career.
I have experienced the power of organized people in action while advocating for parent voice in public schools, access to English Language classes for immigrants, and fair housing policies that project families targeted by predatory lenders and unscrupulous banks.
I love this city. The creativity, diversity and underdog spirit of the state make it a wonderful place to live and work. Despite these tremendous qualities, it is all too evident to me that the “Providence Renaissance” has left too many members of our community behind. We have not experienced the economic or educational renaissance that we need to create well-paying jobs in the 21stcentury.
As I campaign across the West Side of Providence, I have met incredible people who are worried about what the future holds and are afraid that their leaders have lost touch with the communities that entrusted them with elected office. I have spoken with recent immigrant families who are struggling to pay the bills, small business owners who feel crushed by the inflated property tax burden, and parents worried that our schools are not providing their children with the same skills and opportunities as those in the wealthier suburbs. At the same time, we all read about the constant barrage of scandals and insider deals at the State House – from 38 Studios to the revolving door between the General Assembly and the judicial system. Too many legislators have forgotten who they were elected to serve.
I note there is no mention of past employment at EngageRI. Is that a problem?
Oddly this isn’t mentioned here either…
“Served as a founding Advisory Board member of the Rhode Island Campaign for Achievement Now”
Ugh, another coporate school avocate in Providence.
Maura, how do you plan to pay for lowering property taxes, which are mostly assessed at the local level? Will you increase state aid to municipalities and pay for it by raising taxes on the rich?
Samuel,
The cuts in state aid to cities and towns over the past few years are unconscionable and restoring this aid will be one of my top priorities. The high property tax burdens that have resulted are restraining small businesses from creating jobs and have led to devastating cuts in municipal services. I regret that my opponent voted ‘yes’ on every budget that included these cuts to state aid. Somebody in the State Senate needs to take a stand and say ‘enough is enough’.
A more progressive tax system could help pay for restoring local aid, and I support making our tax system more progressive. I also remain open to other ideas for funding solutions to restore local aid. Thank you for your question.
Maura,
Thanks for your response! I completely agree with you on restoring aid to cities and towns. But my question was more about how you plan to pay for it. As you know, state budgets are a zero sum game; spending has to be paid for.
I completely agree with you on the need for progressive taxes. Rhode Island’s tax system is extremely regressive. When you add up all the state and local taxes, the bottom 20% of our state pays a rate of 11.9%, and the top 1% only pays a rate of 5.6%. That’s deeply unfair.
But there are multiple ways of raising revenue by making the tax code more progressive. We could eliminate unemployment insurance wage base caps. We could index speeding and parking tickets to income, so they would provide the same incentive for the wealthy as for the rest of us. But most importantly, we could raise income taxes on the rich.
Raising income taxes on the rich has the added benefit of directly stimulating the economy because state income taxes are deductible from federal income taxes. Because the amount of money Rhode Island sends to Washington goes down when state income taxes on the wealthy rise, raising income taxes on the wealthy actually stimulates the economy.
So which proposal do you prefer for raising revenue? Would you have voted for the Cimini-Miller tax bill?
I’ve heard a persistent rumor that you oppose tax equity legislation. If that’s not true, it would be good to clear the record.
Best,
–Sam
Sam,
Thank you for your very thoughtful questions. I need to give some more thought to some of the ideas you have raised, but for now I can tell you this:
I absolutely support tax equity legislation. During tough times like these, everyone in a community must pitch in to help rebuild the economy and that includes the most fortunate among us.
I support making the income tax more progressive by raising rates on high earners, so long as small businesses aren’t further burdened in the process. If small businsses can be protected then I would likely support legislation along the lines of the Cimini-Miller or Metts bills from the last legislative session. I look forward to working with these and other progressive legislators to craft a common sense tax equity bill in the coming year.
“I believe that charter schools should face the same accountability and oversight as any other school.”
Yes, but there’s the rub. In all seriousness, why? And what do you mean by accountability and oversight? Folks like me read that as “I support high-stakes testing.” So buzzwords aside, do you support the ranking of students, teachers, and schools on the basis of standardized test scores? RI-CAN certainly does. And if so, are you familiar with Campbell’s Law?
fwiw, many progressives are not against charter schools as they were originally conceived but with how they have been used by corporate interests to drive privitization.
Just out of curiosity, what charters have progressives supported?
Charters were originally conceived by Albert Shanker (then President of the AFT btw) and by Ray Budde, not so much as a kind of school but as a platform for developing different schools. The idea was that they would target the most at risk kids, those who had dropped out or were failing, and develop techniques that would benefit all at risk kids in the public schools that sponsored them.
Charters were intended to collaborate, not compete, with traditional public schools. When it became apparent the idea was being used by corporate interests to do just that, Shanker and many progressives turned against the idea.
Here’s Ravitch’s take. I think many, many progressives would support charter schools on these terms. How about you, Ms. Kelly?
**** quote ****
First, insist that all new charters are endorsed by the local school district and the union representing teachers.
Second, bar all for-profit management.
Third, insist that all charters recruit and enroll only the lowest-performing students, the students who have dropped out, and the students who are doing poorly in their present public school.
Fourth, require that charters collaborate with the public schools and share whatever they learn.
Fifth, to truly revive the spirit of Shanker’s proposal, bar all corporate-owned charter chains. Authorize only stand-alone charters that are created by teachers and parents in the district to serve the children of that district. No chains, just local charters committed to that community.
**** end quote ****
In other words none?
“First, insist that all new charters are endorsed by the local school district and the union representing teachers.”
Why would you need a union endorsement?
“Third, insist that all charters recruit and enroll only the lowest-performing students, the students who have dropped out, and the students who are doing poorly in their present public school.”
Why? What do you do with exceptional students that have to suffer through, at a minimum if not worse, the mediocrity that a public school class has to offer? It would appear that she’s trying to shed the public school of malcontents and slow learners. Is that the progressive version of public school reform?
“Why would you need a union endorsement?”
Why wouldn’t you? Reform won’t work without the teachers.
“Why? What do you do with exceptional students that have to suffer through, at a minimum if not worse, the mediocrity that a public school class has to offer?”
Exceptional students by definition aren’t ”suffering through;” they’re excelling. I attended public school. Most reading this likely attended public schools.
“It would appear that she’s trying to shed the public school of malcontents and slow learners.”
No, quite the contrary. Most of those kids would in fact stay in the schools they are in. Of course with the focus on high-stakes testing, that’s exactly what many charters do.
Unions are not synonymous with teachers. The interests are not the same. Requiring that any charters be endorsed by the same union special interests that contributed to many of the problems with traditional public schools in the first place would be a corrupting and obstructing influence on any types of school reform efforts, which is exactly what the unions want – maintenance of the status quo. Charter schools are supposed to have flexibility to experiment. The unions will voluntarily allow models that compete with their closed-shop strangehold on public educaiton and CBA ”rights” when hell freezes over.
It didn’t take long for this to descend into union bashing. Never mind the idea for charters was proposed by the AFT.
For some that’s the real agenda and part of why we progressives are suspicious, Ms. Kelly.
“Never mind the idea for charters was proposed by the AFT.”
Beside the fact that it wasn’t (it originated from Ray Budde of UMass in 1974, and Albert Shanker of the AFT embraced the idea 14 years later in 1988), I don’t know why you keep repeating these Ravitch talking points – who first proposed charter schools or why is not the slightest bit relevant to education policy in 2012. The relevant fact is that charter schools have become a popular alternative model to traditional public schools, and parents are jumping at the chance to enroll their children in them. Six-figure public union leaders in “closed shop” states like Rhode Island feel threatened by the model as a challenge to their fiefdom, so they are trying to shut the schools down and eliminate their competition, maintaining the status quo. What one person from the AFT said about the abstract concept 24 years ago isn’t an argument for or against allowing charter schools to continue their experiment.
No union bashing from here. I’ve worked in a union environment but I also know that there are competing agenda’s that aren’t always beneficial to the subject of their work…the children in this case. Of course it would be nice to get a union endorsement but reform shouldn’t be dependent on it.
That’s just Ravitch’s take. I would say that if you had the majority of parents and faculty at the local school on board that would also be sufficient. The point is, you need stakeholder buy in from all parties to effectively do reform.
Maura,
Do you agree with the following?
The NECAP can not be used to measure how effective a school/teacher is for a very simple reason. It does not even try to show how much of a students growth is attributable to the school/teacher. The growth model is the wrong model to be used for this. Educational achievement is determined from many factors.
“- About 60% of a student’s achievement is explained by student and family characteristics; 20% pertains to school (with 10-15% being the teacher); 20% is unexplained (error). This has been confirmed in many studies.
““- About 60% of a student’s achievement is explained by student and family characteristics; 20% pertains to school (with 10-15% being the teacher); 20% is unexplained (error).”
That may explain it but how do you measure it?
“value-added models attempt to estimate the effect of the individual teacher on growth in measured student outcomes. But, these models tend to produce very imprecise estimates with very large error ranges, jumping around a lot from year to year.”
But it is only part of the evaluation!
It does not matter if the weight is 50%,40%, or even 20% of a teachers evaluation if it becomes the tipping point for a bad evaluation.
The weights given for the teachers evaluation will not be the true weights because certain parts of the evaluation will have more variances.
The value added model results will most likely have a larger variance than the other parts of the teachers evaluation. In short, they might over ride the other parts of the evaluation in determining who is an effective teacher or not.
Using the value added model should only be used to see which teachers might need further observations in the classroom.
Source: Bruce D. Baker
Maybe I phrased my question wrong. How do you measure the student’s growth? Don’t we need that measure in order to ensure the student is prepared to advance to post secondary education?
Deming said you don’t because what can be measured isn’t relevant. How do you measure the growth of a student’s joy in learning? The full interview is available here. I admit, it’s a tough concept to get your head around because we are so conditioned to think about schooling in a traditional way. Oddly the continuation and extension of these traditional ideas on education is what’s called “reform.” Alfie Kohn (accurately imho) called this top-down, test-driven approach, “the status quo on steriods.”
Personally I find speaking with my children and with my childrens’ teachers to be the most relevant way of understanding their progress or challenges.
Read Deming. Whatever you can measure is inconsequential.
My only question is why wasn’t that part of your pitch to progressives? I didn’t mention your opponent. Pinkhatlib mentioned another omission. Another curiosity, is all.
Maura – You seem like a reasonable and consciencious person, but you haven’t signed on to 100% of the public union agenda, which makes you an enemy in the eyes of the Saul Alinksky radicals here. It is all or nothing for them. Don’t think Bob “Rothstein” Walsh and Pat “Bugsy” Crowley are done with you. Be on the lookout for e-mails from “Walter Flatus,” and if you start getting anonymous hate letters or signs left in your lawn, you’ll have a pretty good idea of the source.
“Bob “Rothstein” Walsh and Pat “Bugsy” Crowley are done with you.”
What a well-reasoned argument.
“the Saul Alinksky radicals here”
What is it with you Glen Beck types and the Saul Alinsky routine?
“What is it with you Glen Beck types and the Saul Alinsky routine?”
These people have associated themselves with Saul Alinsky in the past, so it isn’t a “routine,” it’s fact, unlike the blanket Glen Beck (sic)/Rush Limbaugh/Tea Party abuse that you trot out to troll anyone libertarian/conservative who posts here. They are proud to be Alinsky disciples and openly push his Rules for Radicals literature and methods within their union circles. If they want to correct me by disavowing him, then you’ll never hear me mention it again, but we all know it’s true. I’ve pointed out to you at least half a dozen times that nobody here cares about what Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh says, and yet you still keep falsely stating that we are their followers.
“These people have associated themselves with Saul Alinsky in the past”
Who? Where? When?
“Walsh is “Rothstein” ” “Pat is “Bugsy””
No. Neither is head of a criminal organization, and it’s offensive to color them in this way. Your rhetoric is beyond the pale.
“if you start getting anonymous hate letters or signs left in your lawn, you’ll have a pretty good idea of the source”
This in particular is way over the line.
“As a bar-mitzvahed “member of the tribe,””
Yeah, sure. You’re as much a Jew as you are a lawyer or an editor.
“Ethnic/religious background is incidental to all of the above.”
Three out of three is uncomfortably coincidental. Pleading anonymous jewishness is no defense for trying to vilify people by associating them with two Jewish criminals and a Jewish activist.
”I’ve pointed out to you at least half a dozen times that nobody here cares about what Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh says”
No, you haven’t. And, every time you bring up Alinsky, you out yourself as a member of that tribe.
“Neither is head of a criminal organization, and it’s offensive to color them in this way.”
Well I guess that depends on what you consider a criminal organization. Is it an organization with criminals in it? Their attorney Liedecker was recently convicted of cyberstalking and intimidating a state legislator, and was promoted directly after. NEARI Secretary Rainone is on tape threatening people with violence in multiple encounters. Ask Crowley how many times he has been arrested. State politicians have filed harassment police reports against all of the above. And there is this extremely curious coincidence of people getting anonymous threats through their mail and e-mail shortly after NEA confrontations. Totally random, I’m sure.
“Yeah, sure. You’re as much a Jew as you are a lawyer or an editor.”
That’s an entirely accurate statement – I am all of the above, and you can’t prove otherwise. You’re again trolling me by accusing me of not being of the religion I say that I am. What relevance to the thread discussion could that *possibly* have?
“Is it an organization with criminals in it?”
Here’s a standard of convenience if I ever saw one. You’ll never apply this standard to any institution, organization, or group you approve of. Totally disingenuous.
“I am all of the above, and you can’t prove otherwise.”
You are none of them, and I don’t have to prove it. You are an anonymous commenter.
“You’re again trolling me by accusing me of not being of the religion I say that I am. What relevance to the thread discussion could that *possibly* have?”
You’re the one who brought it up. I never asked you to pretend to be Jewish. You pretended to be Jewish, in order to excuse your vilification of Walsh and Crowley by associating them with two Jewish criminals and a Jewish activist.
Your behavior in this thread is, simply put, despicable.
And, not for nothin’, but you really had to pick Rothstein and Bugsy Siegel? And then finish out the triumvirate with Alinsky?
Really necessary to pick those three? With all that they have in common?
“Really necessary to pick those three? With all that they have in common?”
Putting aside the obvious fact that you’re trolling me with this comment (how is it at all relevant?), it’s not my fault there were a lot of Jews in organized crime during the first half of the 20th century. As a bar-mitzvahed “member of the tribe,” I’m not particularly ashamed of it. What can I say – every culture and ethnicity has its bad apples, but at least they were successful at what they did!
Walsh is “Rothstein” because he’s the leader of their notorious gang, pulls strings from behind the curtains, is all about the business, and tries to keep it “respectable-like” for the cameras. Pat is “Bugsy” because he’s prone to fits of rage, is essentially paid to intimidate people, and just all-around acts like a maniac in public. Ethnic/religious background is incidental to all of the above.
Pictures reveal quite a bit.
Obviously, Ms. Kelly has framed her visual narrative in an upscale way. Shiny floor, purebred dogs,
chi-chi dress and scarf…the whole upper middle class nine.
Fine.
I guess that she has to do something other than make vague statements about small business, tax burdens, and poor families that deserve better. And, of course, that favorite whipping boy, the public school and its teachers.
So, dress up for the East Side.
Hehe, lay off the cockapoo! (full disclosure – I have one and am entirely not impartial on this matter)
Relevant, and incredibly disturbing, article about how investors are looking to profit from K-12 public education. Maura, what are your thoughts on this piece?
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/private-firms-eyeing-prof_n_1732856.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=1019277,b=facebook