Okay, don’t call it a comeback.
But the “little things” seem tighter since the Gov shook up his leadership team.
Solid response from Gov’s Kyle Sullivan to Rep Scaccia’s salvo. Right on. Lege shouldn’t micromanage unless (as with Alberto Gonzalez) Executive is simply carrying out political hits.
Gov cuts abstinence-only programs once definitive study shows they don’t change behavior. Right on.
Herald finds an Ameriquest victim, and instead of ducking the Herald’s call, Gov tries to help. Right on.
Handling the little stuff buys some time. Certainly the Gov can run through the whole budget process just playing small hands well…ultimately they’ll split the difference on tax hikes, so his goal is to get the right loopholes closed. No issue will arise in near term that’s worth pushing in all his chips vs. the Lege.
A real gem would be figuring out what the “big signature venture” is that he ultimately wants (after the budget), and map backwards politically on who he needs to make it into law.
I had thought the signature venture might be something big in K-12, but now I’m not so sure it’ll be in that arena. Admin interest seems to lie more in technocratic governance change (ie, how pre-K connects with K-12 connects with higher ed in terms of state decision making), not a big “Spitzer-like” increased-funding-combined-with-tough-reform package.
In any case, handling the little things slowly builds credibly for a “big thing” later.
shawn-a says
It seems that the point of this blog is to “cheerlead” Patrick, rather than join in and act as the 4th branch.. that of public oversight (the original reason for the “freedom of the press” that was created in the first amendment.. something that had never existed before).
<
p>
“It’s been a good month.” tends to taint you as someone who will always be seen to twist facts to a positive perception of Patrick.
<
p>
Hypthetically, will you ever accept that he could do something wrong?
<
p>
noternie says
I don’t think anyone ever claimed this site to be a vehicle for traditional news gathering/distribution. There is no claim of bipartisanship, “fairness” or objectivity.
<
p>
This is a message board/blog. It’s called BLUE Mass Group for a reason. It leans heavily democratic.
<
p>
But it’s up front about that. It’s a place for like-minded individuals to discuss issues, events and opinions. So rather than freedom of the press, this is more a place for the excercise of freedom of speech or free assembly.
<
p>
Do you feel you’ve been duped somehow?
goldsteingonewild says
<
p>
And inherent in my post is the notion that Gov Patrick did plenty wrong in his first few months.
<
p>
2. Take your own medicine:
<
p>
Rate Patrick’s political performance in January, versus February, versus March, versus April.
<
p>
You don’t think April > the other months? You just think they’re all F-?
peter-porcupine says
goldsteingonewild says
where is harwich? isn’t that near nova scotia?
bob-neer says
Apologies.
sabutai says
“In any case, handling the little things slowly builds credibly for a ‘big thing’ later.”
<
p>
This state has been lacking any kind of leadership for at least two years. Glad to see Patrick getting his feet under him as manager of the state before trying to be a visionary.
<
p>
(Given that Patrick’s conceptualization of public education — raising the dropout age, building a student testing database, pro-charter, pro-MCAS — is essentially conservative/Republican, I’m fine with him finding someplace else to apply his signature.)
gary says
Hate to be so redundant, but the Definitive study doesn’t say, what the administration says it says.
<
p>
And, some reputable people say, it’s not definitive.
goldsteingonewild says
gary, you’re a numbers guy. really look at the mathematica study. i mean it’s one of the few truly randomized studies ever done in the area of behavior-change education.
<
p>
i won’t go thru the lady’s objections one by one. do you really buy her objection to the methodology? or her besides-the-point “well at least 4% more kids knew the limitations of condoms”…..even though that had a measurable zero effect on their behavior.
<
p>
but i will say that behavior-change “comprehensive” sex ed programs (that LIBERALS tend to like) ALSO don’t work, according to a fair reading of the data.
same with the “tolerance” and the “violence reduction” and the “anti-bullying.” almost always, when there is a randomized trial (seldom), the gold standard of evaluation, we find that we’re simply not good at changing teen behavior through school programs.
<
p>
surely as a libertarian you’d lean towards that conclusion, not away…..
laurel says
this isn’t a criticism, just an observation your comment sparked.
<
p>
i will take your word that tolerance, anti-bullying etc programs don’t change the behavior of the intolerant and the bullies – i have not looked at any studies (although i would hope those studies would follow offenders into young adulthood, where any change might manifest itself…).
<
p>
but there is a completely different way of measuring success in such programs: do the bullied kids feel safer and supported by teachers and faculty (and maybe students), even if the behavior of the bullies doesn’t change? if yes, then the programs are a resounding success. protecting a cohort of kids from mental anguish and a feeling of judgment and exclusion by “authority” (teachers, etc) is a valid goal in and of itself.
goldsteingonewild says
….are very hard to pull off, since it means a control group and often, as you suggest, longitudinal data collection.
<
p>
a common scenario, both with programs favored by left and right, is a behavior-change program that says fund us and “we’ll accomplish X….” say to cut down on actual bullying, or to reduce teen consumption of alcohol, or whatever.
<
p>
despite perfectly reasonable efforts, the program fails, as measured by one fo these rare really statistically powerful studies.
<
p>
then the adherents come back and argue that a DIFFERENT change happened — ie, kids still drink the same amount, but at least they a higher percentage know that booze leads to liver problems, or at least a higher percentage “feel supported,” as you suggest.
<
p>
by the way, i’ve never seen a study that posed a question like this:
<
p>
“Listen, despite our anti-bullying program, we had the same number of incidents as last year. So anyway. How do you feel about the program?”
<
p>
instead the group which provides the intervention asks
<
p>
“How do you feel about the program?” (Great, good, okay, bad).
<
p>
And of course the kids are pleased that, hell, at least someone realized that there was a PROBLEM. But nobody poses them a fairer question, like “To what extent do you think that school leaders should crack down on the bullies?”
<
p>
Know what I mean?
laurel says
realistic evaluation is important in any experiment.
<
p>
however, you are quite unkind to “adherents”. not every supporter of program XYZ is a bush type who just keeps moving the goal posts until they find something marginally positive to report. further, some people will admit that they don’t know if there will be any positive outcome from program XYZ, but are willing to give a reasonable-looking plan a try and see what happens, because the situation is so desperate.
gary says
When I first read that “government funded program doesn’t work” my reaction was: “Duh, no kidding”.
<
p>
But then, I actually read the Administration release and I actually read the study. Note the difference in what the administration said versus what the study concluded.
<
p>
Administration says:
1: study shows that program to educate 7th graders shows no effect on those 7th graders when they get to high school.
2: study shows program may confuse high school students on birth control methods.
<
p>
Study says:
1: program to educate 7th graders shows no effect on those 7th graders when they get to high school.
2: study says nothing of the sort about ‘confusion’ and in fact shows that the program students have a marginally better understanding of condom use. (didn’t see that in the Administration press release did you?)
<
p>
Reading the study, I think the study says two things: First, that early teen sex education isn’t very effective for late teen behavior. (it’s the peer pressure stupid). And second, 7th graders don’t necessarily remember lessons learned as 7th graders once they’re in high school, hormonally reflecting on life’s lessons in the parking lot by the dashboard lights.
<
p>
Administration holds up the “definitive study” as definitive proof that the ‘abstinence only’ programs don’t work and Administration rejects the money. I presume, to teach its own local ciriculum to the early teen at local tax expense.
<
p>
I think it should instead, use the Federal money (it’s free), teach the ‘abstinence only’ because the study shows it has marginal benefits and no downside, and instead use the local tax money to continue sex-ed into high school.
laurel says
oh really! do explain!
gary says
Q: Does the federal money grant cost the government of Massachusetts anything?
<
p>
A: No
<
p>
Therefore, “It’s free”.
laurel says
ever sold used cars? đŸ˜‰
gary says
State takes the Federal grant, spends on a program. No State budget funds used.
<
p>
State doesn’t take the Federal grant. Must replace program–that is, if it intends to initiate any sort of early teen state sex program–from some other local revenue source.
<
p>
Isn’t that straight forward?
<
p>
I guess it’s kinda tangential, but I don’t see your point.
sabutai says
It’s not free, it’s ours. Considering that Massachusetts gets back 77 cents for each dollar sent to Washington, DC, I’m all for grabbing the cash.
<
p>
As someone pointed out, the money is for abstinence only education, with no mention of other options. Also previously reported that ito works out to some $700 per district. Fine, buy $700 worth of pencils that say “it’s okay to say no” or show an abstinence movie through your new $700 sound system in the auditorium. Buy the kids snacks before MCAS, and wrap them in a napkin that says “Abstience works”. Where’s the vision and creativity I was told to expect from this administration?
goldsteingonewild says
this?
<
p>
or this?
sabutai says
Troy McLure explains sex to the kids.
sco says
But I was under the impression that due to increased restrictions, you’re basically obligated to use the money for those programs or not at all. I don’t think pencils or soundsystems are acceptible uses, according to the federal rules.
goldsteingonewild says
wait a minute — YOU of all people buy into the “it’s federal money, it’s free” approach?
<
p>
i don’t believe you are REALLY gary. i think you are gary’s niece or something, posing. đŸ™‚