News and Opinion

In my experience on Beacon Hill, few bills have been more controversial, complicated and consequential than the bill just passed to address the state’s under-performing students and school districts. The complexity and sheer number of issues addressed by this legislation have had me studying, thinking and rethinking for months. My process was all the more complicated for the four radically different versions of the bill that have been before the legislature over the past two months and the wide range of divergent interpretations and opinions expressed along the way.

In the end, I voted for the final version of the bill, although not without some misgivings. I firmly believe that to not have done so would have had serious adverse consequences.

There were two compelling reasons to vote “yes.” The persistent achievement gap – the disturbing and stubbornly large number of poorly educated students in school systems across the Commonwealth - poses a serious threat to both economic vitality and socio-economic justice in our state. That failing schools and failing students are concentrated in areas with the poorest and most disadvantaged among us means that our debate was at the intersection of education policy and social policy. It also meant that old policies and approaches had failed and business as usual was simply not good enough. The new law targets only the worst performing schools, and the lives of students in those schools demanded positive action. It remains for us to deliver on the promise of the new law to better serve those students but a “no” vote would have had us turn our backs on them yet again, and I was not prepared to do that. There was a second, political, reason for voting “yes.” A proposed initiative petition eliminating the cap on the number of charter schools in the Commonwealth was destined to pass in November. While there are compelling arguments for charter schools, many serving the very districts targeted by the new law, the initiative petition threatened to completely undermine public school finances and public school systems in every district. The expansion of charter school options in the targeted districts that is part of the new law means that the initiative petition will not be on the ballot, and for that we should all be very grateful.

My major misgivings were also two in number. First, I believe that the bill could have done a much better job of balancing the need for major reforms with protection of educators’ rights. Both major teachers unions opposed the final version of the bill, and I agree that we could and should have done better. But politics is the art of the possible and I joined a majority of House and Senate members in swallowing hard as we knowingly compromised those rights in the name of student achievement. I take some comfort in the fact that these compromises were limited to a very small number of chronically failing districts, but compromises they were. Earlier in our deliberations, I had voted for amendments, included in the House version of the bill, which better addressed teachers’ rights. I would certainly have preferred if these provisions had been included in the bill that emerged from the Conference Committee that had to reconcile differences between the House- and Senate-passed versions of the bill. Sadly, they were not. Under our rules, Conference Committee actions are not subject to amendment and I was left to weigh the pros and cons of what was before us. Our students needed us to address the shortcomings of some of our school systems, and I cast my vote with them in mind, my disappointment with the bill notwithstanding. Second, the new law empowers local and state education officials to step in to improve student performance in failing schools. We now need to hold those officials to the task. I am not celebrating passage of the new law. I’ll celebrate when the success of governance changes we have made can be measured in terms of student outcomes. If we can finally address some of the nutritional, linguistic, economic and social challenges that are associated with high student failure rates in some of our communities, then we can declare victory. The new law envisions that victory and leaves us newly empowered to achieve it. We now need the persistence, the skill and the will to get there.

To end on a positive note, the new law includes two provisions of enormous importance. One of the most serious problems with charter schools in Massachusetts is how they are funded. Sadly, opening a charter school has entailed further straining and draining the budget of local school districts. While the new law does not solve this problem, it increases state funding to offset the budgetary losses associated with students enrolling in a charter school. More significantly, a provision that I sponsored to address underlying school finance issues was incorporated into the final bill. We have long needed a serious analysis of the true cost of public education in the Commonwealth. There is a court challenge to the way we fund schools and both the law and common sense point to the importance of identifying the financial resources and the real cost of providing good public education in communities across the state. I have been trying for at least six years to start down this road, and am happy to report that, with the passage of the new law, we have taken the first major step. The new law and the process that produced it are far more complicated and nuanced than this brief write-up can cover, and I’d welcome your thoughts both on the issues I’ve addressed and on any other aspects of the many versions of the bill or of the new law. And I’d welcome your vigilance as we monitor the results of this newly-launched effort.

Rep. Kaufman would like to inform his constituents in Lexington that the League of Women Voters will be providing rides to the polls all day on January 19, the date of the special election for United States Senator. For more information, please call 781-862-6498.

Rep. Kaufman would like to bring to his constituents and other interested parties the MBTA Job Lottery, which runs through December 19, 2009:

The Committee on Revenue, chaired by Senator Benjamin Downing (D-Pittsfield) and Representative Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) is about to begin a five-stop listening tour to encourage public conversation about possible revenue reform measures. You will find a schedule below of our sessions across the state. We do not have any specific proposals in mind, but are hoping you’ll join us in listening to each others' thoughts. We will be in listening mode, tapping the deep reservoir of expertise and opinion in the public. As you’ll see from the schedule, while we will invite comments on any aspect of our revenue policy, each event will also have a specific focus in the hope of inviting commentary that is both broad and deep.

We will be opening each session with a brief snapshot of our current revenue structure. We will not, either in the presentation or in the call for comments, encourage a lot of talk about either raising or lowering taxes, but rather try to focus citizens’ remarks on the mix of taxes and/or new ideas about how we ought to be raising revenue if not the present mix.

We hope you’ll be able to join us for one or more of these events across the state.

Worcester- Tax Policy and the Challenges of Local Government

October 7th 4:00pm to 6:00pm

The Academy at Worcester Polytechnic Institute




Framingham- Tax Policy and Vulnerable Populations

October 13th 10:00am to 12:00pm

Framingham Senior Center




Pittsfield- Tax Policy as a Tool for Economic Development

October 21st 10:00am to 12:00pm

Berkshire Community College




Fall River- Tax Policy and the Taxation of Property

October 28th 6:00pm to 8:00pm

Advanced technical and manufacturing Center at UMASS Dartmouth at Fall River
>



Cambridge- Tax Policy and Working Families

November 5th 6:00pm to 8:00pm

Cambridge City Hall -- (PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN LOCATION)

Statement on the Passing of Senator Kennedy (8/26/09):

This is a profoundly sad day for those of us who care deeply about social and economic justice and believe in the power of government to do something about it. We have lost a passionate statesman whose voice and spirit we must honor by continuing his work. I will miss him as a partner and a mentor. His deep caring for both noble causes and ordinary people, his work ethic, his ability to pay attention to the details while simultaneously keeping his eyes on the prize, his mastery of the art of legislating, and his skill in crafting and delivering a powerful and inspiring message have shaped his historic career and made me proud to be a colleague, constituent, and ally.

My heart goes out to his family and to all of us who are part of his public family.







Naturopathy Op-Ed
8/09
By Dr. Maxine Hayes, MD, MPH and Representative Jay Kaufman

Once again, Massachusetts has the opportunity to transform its health care system—this time in the field of alternative and complementary health care. The Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Bill has been reintroduced to the legislature in 2009 and his its first hearing on July 28th in front of the Joint Committee on Public Health. Having passed the Senate and the House in successive legislative sessions, this bill has an excellent chance of reaching the Governor’s desk. Gov. Patrick should add his signature to enact this law to improve the health and safety of Massachusetts residents, and keep the Commonwealth in the forefront of progressive health care policies.

This bill establishes a licensing system for Naturopathic Doctors—ensuring that those using the title are trained experts who have met the highest standards of the profession. Massachusetts need only look to the state of Washington to see how valuable it is to regulate the practice of naturopathic medicine. Washington state (where Dr Hayes is the State Health Officer) has licensed Naturopathic Doctors since 1987. Naturopathic Doctors (ND's) are an important component of the health care system in Washington. ND's are experts in natural medicine and preventative care. They seek to treat the underlying causes of a patient’s symptoms, using natural and alternative therapies to help the body restore itself to wellness. Because of the growing interest in complementary and alternative medicine, Washingtonians increasingly use the services of Naturopathic Doctors.

Washington has stringent licensing and continuing education standards, similar to those proposed in the Massachusetts bill, to ensure that the state’s Naturopathic Doctors have the skills and training to provide their patients with the best quality care. There is strong collaboration between naturopathic and conventional practitioners—ND's refer patients for a wide variety of surgical and other procedures outside their scope of practice, while conventional physicians collaborate with or refer patients to Naturopathic Doctors for less invasive, but effective, natural therapies.

Having access to highly-trained Naturopathic Doctors has been a boon to the health care system in Washington, and has allowed us to meet a growing need for highly trained, competent alternative health care practitioners. It has also led to the award of a number of important federal research grants on complementary and alternative medicine. But regulating naturopathic doctors does more than give patients access to the quality care they seek—it also protects their health and safety.

Fifteen states already have naturopathic licensing laws. However, in states without licensing laws, it is possible for anyone to set up shop as a Naturopathic Doctor, even those with little or no training and who are not qualified to practice medicine. Many unaccredited institutions offer Internet courses or distance education courses in “naturopathic” medicine that are of little educational value, and will award “diplomas” to anyone who will pay their fees. Because the profession is entirely unregulated in Massachusetts, the state is vulnerable to the threat that individuals without the training to practice medicine will call themselves “Naturopathic Doctors.”

Unregulated practitioners of medicine pose a great danger to the public due to their lack of knowledge and promotion of dangerous and ineffective therapies. And patients are left confused and vulnerable—unless they become experts in the naturopathic medical educational system, consumers have little way to evaluate who is a reputable Naturopathic Doctor and who isn’t. In some cases, treatments by unqualified practitioners who use the title Naturopathic Doctor have led to wrongful deaths.

The legislature should pass the Naturopathic Physicians Licensing Bill it because it protects consumer health and safety . and would help fill the growing gap for quality health services, just as it has filled this need in Washington. Patients will finally have peace of mind that, when they seek out naturopathic medicine, they will receive the best care the profession has to offer.

Dr. Maxine Hayes, MD, MPH is the Washington State Health Officer. She’s a member of the Board of Trustees for Bastyr University, a naturopathic medical school. She’s a clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine and is on the faculty in the University of Washington School of Public Health. Dr. Hayes received her MPH from the Harvard School of Public Health.

Representative Jay Kaufman, lead sponsor of the licensure bill, represents Lexington, Arlington and Woburn in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. He chairs the Committee on Revenue.

Representative Kaufman finds this very concerning and will strongly voice his opposition to any reduction in service of the 62 and 76 bus routes. If you are interested in adding your voice, please read the Lexington Minuteman article about this topic and the actions you can take.

Six Arlington students win MWRA poster contest

Fri Jul 17, 2009

ARLINGTON, MASS. - MWRA announced that six Arlington students have won MWRA's annual poster contest.

· Tate Kokubo, second-grader, Peirce School, won first place

· Telden Lopes-Lotufo, second-grader, Peirce School, won second place

· Henry Walters, Ryan Hamilton and Abigail Mooney, all second-graders at Peirce School, and Emma Kuper, grade 7, Ottoson Middle School, won honorable mentions.

This year, students across Massachusetts were asked to create posters about greener alternatives to common household products. The contest winners were honored at an awards ceremony held at MWRA's Deer Island facility on May 22. State Representative Jay R. Kaufman awarded the Arlington students with special citations from the Commonwealth.

Steering Our Way to Safer Driving

July 23, 2009-- Of late, we have been treated to many graphic stories of carnage on the road caused by operators who drive recklessly, negligently, impaired, distracted, or all of the above. In the past two years, we’ve taken some major steps. We had compelling data on the connection between drinking and driving, and we raised the stakes for those who drive drunk and now take the keys away from repeat offenders. We had equally compelling data on the accident rate for inexperienced drivers, and we now require more supervised driving time before granting a license. Now it’s time for the Legislature to follow these important reforms and address problems associated with cell phones and with aging.

More and more of us send and receive calls and text messages while driving. Not surprisingly, traffic accident statistics have tracked the increased use of cell phones.

Let’s start with the obvious. You cannot simultaneously watch the road and be looking at your cell phone screen. You cannot compose or read text messages or look at your phone to dial or see who’s calling and be a safe driver.

What about hands-free and voice-activated cell phones? Every available study shows that cell phone activity while driving compromises driver safety. A 2006 University of Utah study indicates that using a cell phone while driving slows reaction time to that of someone who is legally drunk. A 2008 Carnegie Mellon study found that engaging in a telephone conversation reduced the amount of brain activity used for driving by 37%. Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that the simple task of dialing a cell phone tripled the risk an accident. The National Highway and Transportation Safety Authority’s data indicates that drivers using cell phones are four times more likely to get into accidents and injure themselves.

Police reports link the distraction of cell phones to 25% of reported crashes. If honest, most of us would admit to knowing this not because of some studies but because of our own experience.

Some might offer arguments about personal rights and government intrusion, but the facts are clear. Cell phone use, like alcohol, diminishes your ability to operate a vehicle and react behind the wheel.

Currently, no state bans the use of cell phones while driving. Five states (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Washington) prohibit talking on hand-held phones and fourteen states ban text messaging while driving.

What should we do?

• Ban composing or reading text messages and keeping a focus (even briefly) on a screen rather than the

road while driving.

• Violations should be treated seriously, the equivalent of driving to endanger.

• This should be considered a primary offense; police should have the right to stop you for

texting and watching the screen rather than the road, even if you’re not violating some other

traffic law (e.g. speeding) at the same time.

• Information from your cell provider should be considered admissible evidence in court.

• Make it illegal to use anything other than a hands-free and voice activated cell phone while driving.

• Anyone causing an accident while texting, looking at a screen or talking on a cell phone should be

subject to a separate charge and penalty for being so engaged.

• Immediately suspend the license of anyone driving a bus, train, cab, limo or other vehicle

that serves the public while using a cell phone.

• Initiate and support an aggressive public education campaign to encourage drivers to hang

up while under way.

More complicated and delicate is what to do about drivers as they age. The last time I got into a car with my mother at the wheel, she drove us off the road because she couldn’t react quickly enough to the curve of a highway exit ramp. My father-in-law was driving with a valid license after his ophthalmologist had told him he was legally blind.

There can be no denying that the years take their toll on vision and reflexes. A number of bills have been introduced to require road tests of drivers after age 80 or 85. I’m not smart enough to know whether 80, 85, or even 75 is the right cutoff. I also know that increasing the Registry of Motor Vehicles’ responsibility for administering road tests at precisely the same time as we’re slashing the agency’s budget is setting us up for failure. But here are some ideas for possible policy changes.

• Why not initiate a program of random road tests for drivers of all ages at the time of periodic license renewals? You could increase the number and percentage of drivers so tested with age and as RMV staffing allows.

• Maybe at some point as age or compromised health impacts our driving, we should be required to renew our permits – with eye tests and random road tests - more frequently so as to allow us to catch unsafe drivers before they cause an accident.

• Why not explore easy-to-administer tests of reaction time, much as we now require regular vision checks?

None of this will be easy. We need to change our expectations and our habits, and this is not just the work of government. But we need to begin. If I don’t answer my cell phone next time you call while I’m driving, you’ll know I’m trying to change my habits. What will you do?

(reprinted in several local newspapers)

"The Safer Alternatives bill was drafted by the Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, a coalition of about 160 health, environmental, labor and religious groups. Its primary sponsors are Rep. Jay Kaufman (D-Lexington) and Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Brighton). The bill would expand on the Toxic Use Reduction Act, a 1989 law aimed at preventing pollution by industries that use large amounts of chemicals. Under that law, the Toxic Use Reduction Institute, based at UMass Lowell, works with manufacturers to reduce toxics use and the generation of toxic wastes—for instance, by altering plant processes. The new law would extend those efforts to toxics in consumer products, using the support structures already in place, including TURI."

"State Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, has filed the teachers' bill for a half-dozen years. He said the measure would allow teachers to participate in an existing privilege allowing legislators and state employees to not pay tuition for classes at any public college or university. The existing program only allows them to attend classes tuition-free if there is room, and requires participants to still pay student fees, he said. Teachers in Massachusetts must achieve different levels of licensing, plus they undergo recertification every five years or so, as well as complete professional development that could mean earning a graduate degree. "It makes sense that public school teachers...are entitled to the same privilege," said Kaufman."

"The Volunteer Service award comes with a grant to Minuteman from the MetLife Foundation. Rep. Jay Kaufman, D-Lexington, presented a legislative citation to Judith and Clark Schuler for their 37 years of service to seniors as FISH and Meals On Wheels drivers. The Schulers were honored as Minuteman nominees for the national 2008 Metlife/N4A Volunteer Award. Irving Rothman was presented with a certificate of appreciation for 15 years of service and leadership to the Minuteman Senior Services Board of Directors. The President’s Volunteer Service Award is a prestigious national honor offered in recognition of sustained volunteer service on an annual basis. Lexington residents earned 22 Bronze Presidential Awards."

Previous Topics

Senator Havern's Decision to Leave Office - August 2007 The Music of Politics - January 2007
A Difficult Vote, An Easy Judgement - November 2006
The November 7 Ballot and the Iraq War - October 2006
Deval Patrick for Governor - September 2006
The 2006 Constitutional Convention - July 2006
What's Wrong with Liberals? - June 2006
Local Aid and School Funding Up in House Budget - May 2006
Ensuring True Separation of Church and State - January 2006
A Lost Opportunity to Grant Opportunity - January 2006
The Retroactive Tax - Reversing the Curse - December 2005
A Bold Step Toward Universal Health Care - November 2005
Dispelling the Misinformation about Auto Insurance Reform - October 2005
School Tolerance Community Vigil - September 2005
Stem Cell Bill Passes Into Law - June 2005
Pentagon Recommends Expanding Hanscom - May 2005
The 2006 Budget - May 2005
New Challenges - February 2005
A New Term Begins - January 2005
State House Shockwaves - September 2004
9-11 Reflections - September 2004
Youth's Bright Colors and the Democratic National Convention - August 2004
Marriage at the Crossroads - March 2004
Fees for State House Facilities - September 2003
Resolve for the New Year - January 2003
Question 3 on the November 5 Ballot - October 2002
Our Delicate Democracy - October 2002
Death Penalty