Mike Stenhouse, Thomas Jefferson and a ‘functioning democracy’


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

TJ“A properly functioning democracy depends on an informed electorate,” said Thomas Jefferson.

Well, at least that’s what Mike Stenhouse of the RI Center for Freedom & Prosperity tells us. Problem is, that doesn’t sound at all like Jefferson, and I can’t find any reference with a primary source attributed to that quote.* If Rhody’s Littlest Think Tank can’t get a simple quote straight, what’s that say about the level of fact checking that goes on, outside of “I found it on the Internets?”

So what’s got Stenhouse pulling spurious quotations from the Internet anyway? At issue are proposed IRS regulations that might prevent “research organizations,” such as his own, from producing partisan hit pieces or at least prevent them from continuing to pretend these reports are not political activity, distributed under the guise of educating the public. Here’s how Stenhouse describes it:

The Freedom Index is intended as a tool to educate the people of Rhode Island about the activities of their government. However, under many circumstances, the proposed IRS regulations would redefine the publishing of legislator names on any kind of scorecard — such as our Freedom Index — as “political activity.”

Stenhouse frames this as an issue of free speech. But what’s at issue is not his ability to say whatever he likes but rather his organization’s ability to avoiding paying taxes while doing so. And what better way to make that point than to wrap one’s opinions in the “words” of Jefferson? Of course, Jefferson did believe in the importance of an informed electorate and often wrote about the issue. Here’s how Jefferson put it, albeit less concisely:

Whereas it appeareth that however certain forms of government are better calculated than others to protect individuals in the free exercise of their natural rights, and are at the same time themselves better guarded against degeneracy, yet experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms, those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny; and it is believed that the most effectual means of preventing this would be, to illuminate, as far as practicable, the minds of the people at large, and more especially to give them knowledge of those facts, which history exhibiteth, that, possessed thereby of the experience of other ages and countries, they may be enabled to know ambition under all its shapes, and prompt to exert their natural powers to defeat its purposes.

So what did Jefferson mean by that? He certainly wasn’t envisioning Republican front-groups masquerading as 501(c)(3)s. What Jefferson was actually proposing was the creation of public schools, one of his lifelong passions.

I think by far the most important bill in our whole code is that for the diffusion of knowledge among the people. No other sure foundation can be devised, for the preservation of freedom and happiness…Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance; establish & improve the law for educating the common people. Let our countrymen know that the people alone can protect us against these evils [tyranny, oppression, etc.] and that the tax which will be paid for this purpose is not more than the thousandth part of what will be paid to kings, priests and nobles who will rise up among us if we leave the people in ignorance.
1786 August 13. (to George Wythe)

That’s right, Jefferson was in a sense the Founding Father of the public school system and actually proposed increasing taxes to pay for their creation and support, exactly the kind of activity that would have damaged his ranking as a state legislator in this so-called “Freedom Index.” Wahoowa!

 

————————————————–

* I searched as best I could for the source of that quote, but I only found it in blog posts and always without mention of the original source. Also sometimes as “the cornerstone of democracy rests on the foundation of an educated electorate” or as “an educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.” Monticello lists that as a spurious quotation:

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/educated-citizenry-vital-requisite-our-survival-free-people-quotation

Here is the closest quote (mentioned by Monticello’s reference librarian). Stenhouse probably should have used this one:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information.

As I mentioned, the “problem” with that is that Jefferson was writing about public schools. The sentence before that reads (uh, oh!):

If the legislature would add to that a perpetual tax of a cent a head on the population of the State, it would set agoing at once, and forever maintain, a system of primary or ward schools, and an university where might be taught, in its highest degree, every branch of science useful in our time and country; and it would rescue us from the tax of toryism, fanaticism, and indifferentism to their own State, which we now send our youth to bring from those of New England.

I also searched…

‘Uproar’ Grows Over New Graduation Requirement


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 more than 4,000 local high school students in danger on not graduating because they didn’t do so well on those standardized tests that kids have historically used to hone their art skills by filling in column of multiple choice bubbles for aesthetics rather than accuracy.

If you think it’s a bad idea to base a 16-year-old’s entire educational career on just one test, you aren’t alone. An editorial in today’s Providence Journal said there is an “uproar” over the new requirement. It even went so far as to say the uproar was “a good thing.”

On this point, RI Future concurs.

Part of that uproar will be at Pilgrim High School today at 1pm “to call attention to the fact that 4,200 Rhode Island students are in jeopardy of not graduating from high school due to low NECAP scores,” according to a press release.

Starting with the class of 2014, the test will be used to determine whether or not students will receive high school diplomas. The recently released results for the state’s 11th graders showcase that this is not just an issue for the inner cities, but an issue for low, middle and upper income communities across the state, including the state’s second largest city of Warwick.

The uproar hopes to General Assembly will repeal the new graduation requirement before it’s too late. (Programming note for reporters and politicos: this will be a super hot issue at the State House as the session and the school year wind down.)

The ProJo editorial concedes the uproar has a good point.

…critics argue that NECAP testing fails to measure how good an education a student has achieved, and that such a regimen forces teachers to “teach to the test” rather than provide a rounded education. Fair enough. Is there a better, more practical means of measuring a student’s educational attainment? If so, let us move to that superior testing system. Meanwhile, however, having no standards would only hurt students.

Everyone knows what that better system looks like: it’s one in which urban and suburban students have equal access to a high-quality education. Once Rhode Island can implement such a system, then we can consider pass/fail final exams for teenagers. But to do so in the interim is to effectively punish the poor and reward the rich.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legal, Moral, Fiscal Issues for Barrington Tuition Idea


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, at least, three major conundrums that need to be addressed before Barrington can move forward with its proposal to offer out-of-district students to attend the high-performing school district if they can afford to pay tuition.

The most obvious are the legal issues, and we detailed them yesterday. The public school system will need to devise either a formula or an admissions process by which it can demonstrate it is not discriminating against students with special needs – or, in other words, students that cost more money to educate than the average student. And, as of yesterday, Barrington had yet to even consult a lawyer, though Patrick Guida, both the chair of the local school committee and the vice chair of the state board of regents, told me the idea has been kicking around since January.

The second issue that must be addressed are moral and/or political and concern selling off the commons. By default, the government of Barrington will be offering up the fruits of its local tax base to a select group of citizens: those who can afford it. Maryellen Butke, the executive director of RI-CAN summed this up well, saying:

“What we need to work towards is ensuring all our students in every community, regardless of their income level or background, have access to a ‘Barrington’ education. Those who don’t have the means to move to a high performing community like Barrington or pay the $12,800 in tuition deserve access to a high quality public education as well.”

But there’s also a potential budget problem. In Rhode Island, don’t forget, the money follows the student. So not only would Barrington get a tuition check from the private sector parents, it would also get a check for the same amount from the state of Rhode Island. And if that student came from Providence, that school district would lose $16,600, its average cost per pupil.

It’s likely that the preponderance of students who apply to pay tuition to go to Barrington will be from the East Side, Rumford or Bristol (and why not Swansea?). If even just four of the 10 students selected are from just one district, that town just lost the price of a teacher but probably not enough students to downsize accordingly.

RI Progress Report: Chafee and Political Principles, Paying for Public Education, Gemma on Marriage Equality


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

In a surprising move that really shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows him, Gov Chafee has decided to take the Jason Pleau case all the way to the US Supreme Court, if they will hear it. While talk radio, and even the Pleau family, may not agree with this decision, taking a case to the SCOTUS is not about either politics or individuals – it’s about interpreting the law, and in this case the relationship between states and the federal government. We love the way this case has right wing talk radio hosts arguing against state’s rights … so much for the conservative principles of our on air personalities. Chafee, on the other hand, has such principles in spades, and often to his political detriment.

By the way, the New York Times editorial board, far superior constitutional scholars than this state’s on air shock jocks, argues Chafee has a strong case in a piece titled Rhode Island’s Principled Stand.

With state budget season just around the corner (legislators are starting to talk about how certain bills are serving as tea leaves for the impending spending proposal) Ted Nesi posts on the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities guidelines for state budget during a down economy. Many good ideas in there.

The line of the day comes from Linda Borg, of the Projo, who writes: “Now you can buy a Barrington education.” (Though you always could, if you could afford real estate there) Her article is about how the town with the best test scores in the state will now allow a small amount of students to pay tuition to go to school there. This will prove to be disastrous public policy for Rhode Island. Instead of allowing the affluent to pay for a top tier public education, the state should step in to ensure that all students get a good education regardless of how much money their parent’s home costs.

Like Senator Reed, Anthony Gemma now supports marriage equality, too. Even more so than Reed, Gemma’s announcement reeks of political opportunism -he’s a socially conservative Catholic who happens to be running against an openly gay incumbent. But we enjoyed his statement: “This is not a question of being a liberal, a progressive, or a conservative.” Well, yes it is, but as the old saying goes, where you stand depends on where you sit.

Charter School Takes Issue with RI-CAN Report Cards


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Every school’s “overall student performance” score is really based on the scores of only one grade level. For example, RI-CAN’s measure for an elementary school is based on the performance of the 5th grade only. This means that the scores of 40 students might represent a school where 300 students were actually tested. Investors would not judge the success of a business on one quarter of financial data. (Three of RI-CAN’s four report card scores are based on the performance of only one grade level.)
  • RI-CAN’s approach to measuring school performance is dated and has been discredited nationally as too narrow. RI-CAN’s report cards rely solely on state standardized test data and do nothing to portray the context of each of our state’s schools—even though these data are readily available through the state’s nationally recognized Information Works! system. Recognizing that excellent schools involve more than just a single test score, report card systems in Washington, DC, and New York City, while controversial, at least included a range of data points to evaluate schools.
  • RI-CAN misuses basic math. RI-CAN’s “student subgroup performance,” “achievement gap,” and “performance gains” measures rely on combining the performance of multiple groups of students into a single score. Instead of doing the basic math to determine an accurate score, RI-CAN took a short cut and averaged a series of averages into a composite score. Consider the following example:

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

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

  • RI-CAN ranks schools on faulty numbers. When researchers release data, they identify a margin of error. NECAP data includes these ranges, to let us know that a school that scored a 54 might actually be within the same range as a school that scored a 52. RI-CAN, however, chose to rank schools based on a single number—identifying distinctions even when there is no statistically significant difference between the schools’ performance. (In the performance of subgroups, which have even smaller numbers of students, the lack of a margin of error is even more distressing.)
  • The RI-CAN system is unfair to urban schools. Because the RI-CAN report cards are based on a single grade level, schools with few students in that grade who are low-income or Black or Hispanic will not have a score for those subgroups. Many suburban schools are not given any score for “student subgroup performance,” whereas every urban school is. By contrast, the RI Department of Education, recognizing the unfairness of this approach, is preparing to hold nearly all schools accountable for subgroup performance.

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

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

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

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

Education Funding vs. the Restaurant Industry


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

Who needs the government’s help more: restaurants or public schools? Which do we value more as a society? The answer to these questions is likely to play out as Rhode Island debates Gov. Chafee’s proposed increase to the meals tax.

While Tea Party activists and restauranteurs rally against the 2 percentage point increase – which, just so we are clear about the kind of increase Chafee is suggesting, would amount to four dimes on a $20 lunch or less than $2 on an $80 dinner – they are effectively lobbying against a $40 million to boon to public schools.

That’s because Chafee proposed the slight increase as a way to better fund public schools in Rhode Island.

“This is a way that the governor could accelerate the education funding formula,” said Chafee spokesperson Chris Hunsinger.”You can talk to almost any mayor who was in the municipal strategy session up here and accelerating the funding formula was one of the ways that was talked about at length that the governor can help cities and towns.”

She mentioned Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and Cranston Mayor Allan Fung by name.

Public school funding is one of Rhode Island’s biggest problems, as evidenced by Woonsocket’s inability to pay for its schools and the state take-over in the 1990’s of the Central Falls school district. And a recent report, as reported by RINPR, shows that graduation rates in Rhode Island are falling.

The restaurant industry, on the other hand, is one of the state’s most successful sectors. Whenever almost anyone talks about what’s right with Rhode Island its world class cuisine is almost always mentioned. Chafee told me recently that as we’ve seen unemployment skyrocket and schools, cities and towns fall into further economic morass, the local restaurant industry has stayed level.

You’ll have a hard time convincing me that people are going to stop going out for an $80 dinner because it’s going to cost $82 instead. Similarly, I think most Rhode Islanders would be happy to pay an extra quarter for a pizza if it means more money for our struggling schools.

Conversely, if the state doesn’t find a better way to fund public education, more and more of our children will be looking for jobs in restaurants rather than looking to spend money in them.