Tuesday’s ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court that taking money from the state’s Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) is unconstitutional has thrown a monkey wrench into the plans by the Jindal administration to suck state funding from local school districts to pay for vouchers for private and virtual schools.
The ruling, by a convincing 6-1 majority, also may send more than 40 course providers in the proposed Course Choice program scurrying to find new ways to attract students (read dollars) now that the carrot of free admission may have been removed.
Anyone who still believes that the Louisiana Department of Education’s (DOE) Course Choice program is about educating Louisiana’s school children, and not about the money might wish to take a look at three advertisements currently running on Craigslist.
Actually, only one ad is necessary because the three are identical except for the locations of employment—Central Louisiana, Baton Rouge and Lafayette.
Despite a state district court ruling that found the funding method for Course Choice unconstitutional, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Superintendent of Education John White plunged ahead by allowing more than 40 course choice providers to begin marketing campaigns to attract students.
Forty-two course providers were approved to offer some 1500 online, blended and face-to-face courses through the Course Choice program. Providers included K-12, Inc., Florida Virtual School, Sylvan, five public school districts and every public college and university in Louisiana.
That shouldn’t be too difficult considering there is no cost to the student and students get a free iPad, provided White and Jindal can devise some plan to get past that pesky court ruling last Nov. 30 that said Minimum Foundation Program funds could not be taken from local school districts to finance state-approved vouchers.
An online blurb by Evergreen Education Group of Durango, Colo., a private consulting firm, says that as of March 2013, eligible Louisiana students “now have the opportunity to select their own online and face-to-face courses from a wide range of private providers through the Course Choice program.”
“Act 2 (of the 2012 Legislature) presents a shift in direction for virtual schooling in Louisiana, whose Department of Education has offered supplemental online courses through its Louisiana Virtual School (LVS),” the Evergreen posting says.
Another approved provider is SmartStart Virtual Academy (SVA), a division of SmartStart Education of Raleigh, N.C., the organization that placed the Craigslist ads for sales reps for its course choice curriculum.
That’s right; sales reps, not teachers.
You won’t find the word “teachers” anywhere in the ad and the only reference to education is the line that reads: “Help change the landscape of public education in Louisiana.”
Change the landscape. Nothing about improving education. That wasn’t even an afterthought. It’s all about the money.
“…SVA has been authorized to offer FREE (emphasis theirs) courses to high school students in the state of Louisiana for graduation credit.
“SmartStart Virtual Academy is hiring outside sales representatives to sell these FREE courses to high school students and their parents,” it says.
So, how do you sell something that’s free and how does SVA profit from something that’s free?
Because (drum roll, please)…it’s not free. You, the taxpayers of Louisiana were in line to pay for the courses. Local school boards were in line to take a financial hit of $1200 per student that was to have been taken from the local MFP allocation. That’s your tax money, folks.
It was to be a win-win situation, of course, for all those course choice providers because they were to get one-half their tuition up front, no matter whether the student finished or not (and most do not). The remaining 50 percent would be paid upon the student’s successful completion of the course.
And the determination of “successful completion” would have been left entirely to the discretion of the providers, who are not required to keep attendance records.
Until Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling, that is.
“A motivated candidate (sales rep) could easily make $75,000 (or more) within the next six months,” the pie-in-the-sky ad says. “This is not an exaggeration, but rather a realistic target for the right candidate.”
The “right candidates” must have a tablet (iPad, Kindle Fire, etc.) with a data plan (which would be reimbursed after sales quotas are met).
The “right candidates” must be 18 years of age or older and must have reliable transportation so that they might be able to go door-to-door in high-poverty areas and sell parents on the concept of free courses, free internet, and a free iPad for their children.
And, oh yes, the “right candidates” must be able to pass a background check (no felonies within the past seven years). Felony convictions of eight or more years before apparently will be disregarded when hiring such highly skilled professionals.
But now, with Tuesday’s State Supreme Court ruling, Jindal, White, et al, are going to have to find another way to fund these vouchers for virtual schools, etc.
And it’s going to be interesting to see how many “course providers” become “ex-course providers” when they cut and run after seeing the Golden Goose slain by the state high court.
White, ever the loyal Broad Academy and Teach for America alumnus, kept a stiff upper lip in the wake of the ruling which in reality is a devastating setback for the administration.
“On the most important aspect of the law, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of families,” he said in a prepared statement. “The Scholarship Program will continue, and thousands of Louisiana families will continue to have the final say in where to send their children to school.”
“Nearly 93 percent of Scholarship families report that they love their school.”
We can only hope that 93 percent is not representative of the supporters who turned out at one recent rally in support of vouchers. One of the supporters who identified herself as the mother of a voucher student and who was holding a sign of support for the vouchers was in reality a DOE student worker recruited for the purpose of drumming up support for the department.
Yes, Mr. White, the voucher program may well continue. The Supreme Court, after all, did not address the constitutionality of vouchers. That was never the issue; robbing local school districts to pay for the vouchers was the only issue in question and the Supreme Court certainly made its position clear on that.
“We will work with the legislature to find another funding source to keep parents and kids in these schools.”
“Work with the legislature?”
Right now, the legislature does not appear to be in the mood to work with the administration. As one legislator said to Department of Revenue executive counsel Tim Barfield when he complained on Monday that lawmakers left the administration “out of the loop” after coming up with its own tax reform package: “Now you know how we’ve been feeling.”
“Another funding source?”
We know you’re from New York, Mr. White, so we’ll assume that you may not know that down here in the Deep South, we refer to such pseudo-bravado as whistling past the graveyard.
Oh, and by the way, don’t bother trying to blow smoke up our togas. We still remember the brash statements of this administration after the state district court ruling of last November: “A wrong-headed decision.” “We will prevail on appeal.”
I am very glad for the court’s ruling, but I can’t help but think the “reforms” proposed by this administration would not have gotten very far with students and families if they were more satisfied with what the public schools are offering. The public schools must make improvements to engage effectively in partnerships with students AND their families for student achievement.
You’re right, Kay, but public schools cannot improve if they are strangled financially while their very existence is being threatened by the zealots who want to privatize everything with the primary goal of profit, not education.
I agree, Stephen, public funds should not be taken from public schools to support non-public education. However, there are significant improvements that schools can make that costs very little, if anything. I’m speaking of being welcoming and creative in engaging with ALL parents and students. Having worked with schools/educators concerning “family engagement” for almost 8 yrs., I know that there are some schools that have been less than welcoming to students and families that present certain challenges (behavior, language barriers, cultural differences). Bottom line is families felt the school/educators did not care about their child. That perception (real or not) coupled with being given an opportunity to try something different (almost anything) is likely to result in a parent opting for a change; even if that change is unproven to be better. On the other hand if a parent feels that their child and themselves are valued partners in a school it is unlikely they will want to change schools and the state’s unconstitutional voucher program would have been less popular with parents.
Ms. Marcel
Are charter schools “welcoming to students and families that present certain challenges (behavior, language barriers, cultural differences)”? From what I understand they are not and in fact are loath to introduce these students into their schools. I can understand that any school might be apprehensive for at least two reasons these days, 1 – it is hard enough to try and educate the “best fit/able” students without additional burdens of “behavior, language barriers, cultural differences” particularly as funding gets squeezed and 2 – given the education “improvements” of the last two legislative sessions who would want to welcome with open arms the very students that might cause them to wind up being labeled as failing schools because they were unable to provide the necessary programs to fully assist these students. The third issue which Mr. Forbes discussed (a copy of his letter is below) points to what may really be the greatest and probably the most intractable issue, which is getting those students and their parents, who do not really want or care about an education involved and engaged. It does not take many of these to ruin an educational environment for everyone else. I do not have the answers and frankly I cannot understand why this situation exists. I was not raised that way. If I got into mischief at school you can bet the first thing my parents asked was “What did you do/” They did not assume that the teachers were “mistreating/singling out” their precious little child for no reason.
Most charter schools are not welcoming students that present challenges but my point was parents that have become disenfranchised with their child’s public school won’t necessarily realize that until it is too late. They want out of the public school and they believe the voucher is their “ticket” to a better learning environment. It is only after the fact that they realize they haven’t really improved their lot all that much, if any. Regarding students with disabilities the “school choice” program has really not been a choice for them since most, if not all, of the charter and private schools will not accept them for the reasons you cite. If a private school does accept them, they are not being required to provide services that student is entitled to under the federal special education law (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act – IDEA). This is the fundamental flaw with the “school choice” program – the private schools are NOT held to the same standards as the public schools to serve ALL students. The charters and private schools “cream” and then tout themselves as doing a better job of educating students. Regarding parents that don’t engage with their child’s school/education and don’t appear to care or value education—it has been my experience that those parents do care about their children and their lack of involvement can be for various and very complex reasons. When school leadership and personnel invest the time and effort to understand those complexities and reach those families through atypical strategies the results can be astounding. I’v seen it happen in public schools where the educators fully embrace that ALL means ALL and adopt the mantra of “no excuses”.
Amen to the LA Supreme Court, for stepping up for the taxpayers of this state. 6 – 1 is impressive. My only concern is could these course choice programs go around the Supreme court and have students still take their courses with out of state qualification, certification and then bill the state? Would that be constitutional? Many on line college courses are offered from other states, and are paid by student loans/grants, but then that is college. Could they circumvent the state with graduation out of state certificates, but have LA taxpayers still pay? Just speculating, questioning?
I pretty much think that Mr. Forbes said it very well. Though I am saddened by his final comment…..
Letter: Teachers aren’t the problem
May 06, 2013
19 Comments
As a current high school senior, one of my top career choices was to become a history teacher because I enjoy working with children in educational development. I enjoy making a positive impact on children and the community, and history is my passion. I adore all history: Louisiana history, American history and world history.
Throughout my high school career I witnessed some of the hardships teachers go through on a daily basis. Besides managing over 100 children five days out of the week, they grade papers, create assignments and lesson plans, go to teacher meetings, administrative meetings, parent conferences, deal with principals, assistant principals, guidance counselors, professional development meetings, standardized testing, mid-term tests, final exams, School Board, test scores, evaluations and student behavior.
Teachers also have to manage their personal lives. Many teachers are mothers, fathers, grandparents, or wives or husbands, and could be dealing with a personal issue. Teachers deal with students, parents, and administrators firsthand and take most of the blame when a school does poorly Yet they get little to no recognition when a school does well. Educators are passed over as some of the hardest-working people in the country. For a job that has to be done so efficiently, teachers are underpaid, undermined and are severely penalized for something they have no control over.
I disagree with Gov. Bobby Jindal, who believes that if students fail, teachers’ livelihoods are affected. I feel if a teacher presents the information in an effective way and thoroughly explains the information, they have done their jobs. It is now the student’s responsibility to receive the information. If a student still does not understand a concept, it is the student’s responsibility to set up an arrangement for further explanation. What is school without work? There should be an equal amount of effort.
I personally cannot speak for all the teachers in America, but I can say, all of my teachers, from as far back as I can remember up to my senior year, have gone out of their way to make sure every student was helped and encouraged to pass. Teachers are responsible for teaching students, not passing tests, not studying for a quiz and not “giving” students grades. We students, of all levels, need to stop being lazy. The teachers have done their part. It’s up to us to make sure we do what we need to do to get a good grade and be successful. The preceding factors are some of the reasons why I have decided not to become a teacher.
D’Marqus Jamal Forbes
McKinley Senior High School graduating senior
Baton Rouge
“We’ll work with the Legislature to appropriate that money,” he said during a press conference at the State Capitol. “So it’s a fairly simple fix.”
This is Jindal’s statement in the Advocate. Jindal still thinks that he can just tell the Legislature how things will be and they will make his wish come true. Now’s the time for the Legislators to show Jindal that they have courage and a sense of what’s right. So I encourage all Legislators to oppose financing vouchers and Course Choice programs with funds that rightfully belong to the local school districts. Restore funding to our Public Education system and stop catering to Jindal’s out-of-state political handlers.
Legislators – It’s time to show Mr. Lame Duck that the party is over! Stop giving tax-payer money to out-of-town kingmakers to satisfy Piyush’s ridiculous delusions of national political viability. He will be lucky to get a job as dog catcher after his gubernatorial stint. Stop giving even more tax-payer money to lawyers defending obviously unconstitutional laws.
I am in the position of having an insiders view of the effects of course choice on our students and programs. I have taught online for 23 years and online through Louisiana Virtual School at the DOE and through LSMSA telelearning which predated Louisiana virtual school. This year due to Course Choice, Louisiana Virtual School run through the Department of Education and LSMSA was zero budgeted by BESE. Our 6000 students across the state in public and private school who took our AP, Dual, and regular courses for $150 each are now out in the cold with no choice. We have shifted our courses back to Louisiana School for Math, Science, and the Arts and are one of the approved Course Choice providers for next year. How the schools will afford to pay for students to take our courses at $700 a course is unclear. I feel the ruling by the Supreme Court was correct and hopefully will make citizens wake up. We should not be sending our state tax dollars out of our state to for-profit providers. Especially when there is an in-state provider with years of experience and meets and exceeds the recommended standards for the courses.
As for the iPad…that is bit ridiculous. Giving a student an iPad does not make him or her a better student and if there is no internet service at home, the thing is useless for online courses.
Voucher ruling is a plus for public education! I have been in education for over 20 years. I am heartbroken by all the changes and very concerned for our children and their future!
1st- Since the voucher ruling of funds is unconstitutional who will pay back the $25,000,000 used this year to provide vouchers for 5,000 students??? Private schools, Jindal….
2nd – 5,000 students were giving a voucher this year to go to private school. 5,000 students only make up 1% of the students who went to D or F schools. Who is helping the other 99% of the students/families in the D or F schools?
Here we go again with the 99% vs the 1% rule!
3rd – What % of those 5,000 students given a voucher where students with disability? Families of students with disabilies are being discriminated again. Most of these private schools will not take students with disabilities and if they did take them….the families had to sign away their rights. These rights are FEDERAL rights. A public school could NEVER do this to students and families of students with disabilities. Private schools taking public funds have different rules and don’t have to follow federal policy????
4th – Families are making choices without enough information about these private schools. Families don’t know the letter grade of these private schools…no one does. A family could be making a decision that is harming their child. They could be taking their child from a “D” public school and sending them to an academically “F” private school.
5th – course choice! Businesses/provides offering these classes do not have to be certified??? Public schools must have certified teacher and these teachers have to go through COMPASS evaluation. The providers of course choice do have to go through any evaluation. They get 1/2 money per student up front whether the student finishes the class or not. Sounds like a huge lack of accountability of public funds. Never mind, ACT 2 was ruled it unconstitutional …so MFP can not be use to fund there classes.
Schools are non-profit organizations….let’s stop treating schools ike a for-profit business and focus on the students first!
Excellent questions and final comment about schools and “focus on students first!”
Stop looking through those rose colored glasses! Privatization is the key to discrimination among our students, present and future. There will only be money for the wealthy, as is those students who receive the “special” funding necessary to further their education. Special needs, slow, mentally challenged, problematic students will not be guaranteed an education. That is discrimination. As evidenced by the above comments, these voucher programs, and virtual programs, are only afforded to those “best” students. No longer will there be enough money left to educate those without the means to pay for private schooling. They will simply be left by the wayside, kicked out. Only those superior students will be as presently accepted for chances at better education, and further education. That is not what our tax dollars should be paying for. True, some students excel in any environment, most do not. You will have a generation of challenged students living how? In the end the state will most likely take up the slack, and the taxpayers will pick up the bill. Why not educate all? That was the mission of public schools, soon to be a thing of the past. Their parents will have to accept responsibility for their children. Who will pay when the parents are no longer financially able to care for these children? The state will. Without federal funding, the taxpayers will pick up the total sum forever. Leave public schooling alone, and help support all students. Give every child a chance. Student debt has overburdened the federal govt by not collecting monies owed. Should we overburden ourselves twice over by not offering every child a chance for education, not just the wealthy? As it stands now, only the wealthy will be able to afford a chance at college, trade school. What will become of “those” others, less fortunate. Ah, yes, private prisons.
[…] enrollment in my courses. I can go into neighborhoods and sign students up on my computer. I can run ads on Craigslist for “sales reps” to sell courses. And I can offer enrollees a free computer as incentive to […]
[…] In May 2013, the Louisiana Supreme Court declared use of Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) funding– intended for Louisiana public schools– unconstitutional for either vouchers or Course Choice. […]
[…] In May 2013, the Louisiana Supreme Court declared use of Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) funding– intended for Louisiana public schools– unconstitutional for either vouchers or Course Choice. […]