(Link to original)
Wakefield, RI.
By Mark N. Schieldrop/Independent Staff Writer
KINGSTON — Republican Jim Haldeman and Democrat Michael Rice, who are vying for the House District 35 seat vacated by John Patrick “Pat” Shanley this election, met for an informal debate at the University of Rhode Island Tuesday to talk about their views on education.
The candidates, who addressed questions posed by a group of about 10 graduate students, offered starkly different styles and often divergent philosophies on education. Haldeman, a Marine, Iraq War veteran and commercial airline pilot, sprinkled humor into his answers and worked the room like a veteran campaigner.
Rice, a professor in the Department of Fisheries, Animal and Veterinary Science at URI, chairman of the South Kingstown Conservation Commission and chairman of the URI faculty senate, also seemed comfortable in the debate environment of a conference room on the URI campus, although this is his first try at public office.
The debate topics ranged from school choice and vouchers, to standardized testing and privatization of schools.
Perhaps the most striking contrast in the candidates’ philosophies was apparent during a discussion about privatization of public schools.
Haldeman, who lost a bid for the District 35 seat to Shanley in 2006, said he believes the public school system is failing, parents should have the ability to obtain vouchers to send their children to any school they want and the system should be privatized.
“Did you all bring your cell phones today?” Haldeman asked. The question prompted several students to place their phones on the conference table.
“Everybody has got one that is different, and that is what competition does – ladies and gentlemen,” Haldeman said. “It instills competition. That’s the bottom line.”
Haldeman said that school voucher programs in New Orleans and Washington, D.C., have been successful. In failing school districts where achievement is low, facilities are in poor condition and educational standards pale in comparison to more successful districts, parents have taken advantage of voucher programs to send their children to better schools. This has forced failing schools to take a hard look at their problems and make changes, he said, and created an opportunity for lower income families to send their children to schools that would ordinarily be out of reach.
“The vouchers lottery for school choice was so successful,” Haldeman said. “I watched a TV special in which parents were crying because they lost out on the lottery to take children to another school. There’s no reason the poor, the middle class should not be given the option to go to another school just like wealthy people do.”
Rice, on the other hand, said he strongly disagrees with privatization and school vouchers and said such a change would favor wealthier families. He said the issue is a “non-starter” for him because it would be like a regression to the 1870s, when all schools “were the province for people who could pay.”
“The public school system is supposedly the great equalizer,” Rice said. “Any sort of privatization move by necessity basically restricts education to those who have the means to pay. If people want to send their children to private school, the public shouldn’t be subsidizing those things.”
Both men agreed, however, that standardized testing can have drawbacks, especially when used to determine proficiency levels and accreditation for schools. They also seemed to share similar viewpoints on whether the scores of special needs students should be counted in the assessment of yearly progress that calculate whether schools are showing proficiency gains from year to year.
Haldeman said that when special needs students are counted, it can artificially raise a school’s yearly progress total if “borderline” students are classified as special needs students. It also creates an environment, he said, in which schools might feel pressure to label students as special needs when they ordinarily would be grouped with the wider school population.
“If you label students as special needs, and they shouldn’t be, that raises your AYP report and I do believe that would be an unfair advantage,” Haldeman said. “They might label children who are not special needs to begin with, and that’s what they did to my daughter when she was in first grade at West Kingston Elementary School. She immediately left public school and went to private school and went on to score a 1,250 on a two-part SAT as a freshman in high school, thank you very much.”
Haldeman said that schools have to take into account the uniqueness of each student and develop creative programs for each individual.
Rice said that there has been an “upswing” in recent years on an emphasis on education testing and assessment to determine progress. A lot of it comes from the urgings of the federal government, he said.
“The states are obliged to go along with this,” Rice said. “There is federal money coming down and it’s not a question of choice that people get into these things, rather, it’s something that is a rather onerous mandate on a lot of states.”
Rice said that a “one-size-fits-all” approach to assessment is unfair, especially for schools that have special needs students starting their education at different levels.
“Having some sort of proficiency goal is a fairly noble thing, and I don’t mind any sort of standardized academic testing as long as it isn’t taken too terribly seriously,” Rice said.
Rice said that standardized tests, if taken “too seriously,” could create a situation in which teachers are teaching to the test in lieu of developing strong, one-on-one connections with their students.
The candidates disagreed sharply when asked if a $1 million bill sponsored by Shanley in the last legislative session to provide mental health and substance abuse services to parolees was an appropriate use of state funds. The bill was approved by the House and incorporated into next year’s budget.
Rice said that he believes in universal health care and that mental health should be treated just the same as physical health issues. The $1 million to fund substance abuse and mental health services for parolees was a “good use of funds,” and he said that society has a responsibility to help people trying to re-enter society.
“There may be better ways to spend public funds, particularly at a time when we don’t have much money, so I put the caveat out there that before looking at this, we should take a look in the context of the entire budget,” Rice said. “Are there populations in the state whose mental health needs are not being served? Definitely. But those with mental health needs are those most likely to end up homeless, on the streets. We don’t have a society that places some sort of value on extended families taking care of their own people – that system has largely broken down in this country for whatever reason. I think that society does have a need to take care of those that need the help.”
Haldeman said that he believes the $1 million bill is a “pathetic” waste of money at a time when the state budget is nearing a $500 million deficit. Although mental health services are important, bills that increase spending during the ongoing fiscal crisis are irresponsible, he said.
“You can throw all these bills at me and I will say no. I will not fund any of these bills until we figure out a way to change the one-party system that has put us $500 million into debt,” Haldeman said. “Ladies and gentlemen, we have no money.”
Haldeman said that he thinks the bill was a “farewell” the legislature “gave to Mr. Shanley before he decided to leave” and he finds it very disappointing. Shanley is a retired parole officer.
“Our business climate in Rhode Island is the worst in the country. When businesses forecast where they want to go, they completely bypass our state. We’re dying on the vine here,” Haldeman said. “This is a pathetic million dollars gone to waste.”