Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘BESE’ Category

Paul Pastorek’s rant: leadership or vindictiveness?

Posted in BESE, Education on April 21, 2011| 4 Comments »

The following is by guest columnist Don Whittinghill. Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek’s response to the Coalition for Louisiana Public Education follows.

The Voice of a Leader?

The self-styled White Knight of Louisiana education reform accuses the newly formed Coalition for Louisiana Public Education stakeholders of presenting nothing new except for seeking more money.

Apparently he fails to look into the mirror at his own greedy grasping for money for his favored schools. The Recovery School District has been spending at least 30 percent more per student than the average locally-run school system in Louisiana. Over the past five years RSD students have been funded by a combination of special federal grants, state department of education picking up some major expenses like insurance, free use of buildings built by the Orleans Parish School Board, and the largess of national foundations. While RSD per pupil funding has trended downward from in excess of $20,000 per student per year in the early days, to its current level of more than $13,000, RSD funding is still lavish by comparison.

Pastorek preaches that local education stakeholders’ pleas for equitable funding flies in the face of “a nearly $2 billion budget deficit.” It doesn’t take a CPA to challenge his distorted deficit claim. His boss, Gov. Bobby Jindal doesn’t see the same number. It is not likely that the Louisiana legislature will deal with such a number either. He continues to close his eyes to state revenue collections that are increasing above state estimates; and he pretends the error rate of those state estimates historically underestimate state income by hundreds of millions.

Pastorek habitually tends to over-react and to throw numbers largely unconnected to reality into his pronouncements. He still claims the RSD has made “unprecedented gains in student achievement.” His own web site reveals that the RSD schools remain the lowest performing in the state. His own web site reveals that the few RSD schools that seem to be progressing are really special cases whose core student data statistics are manipulated to make their performance look better than is real. And most of the RSD schools which practice selective enrollment and capped enrollment.

The non-educator Superintendent apparently can’t recognize an educator when he sees one. He claims the burgeoning coalition of public education stakeholders is “made up of staff and board members from these various groups”. Does he really assume that leaders of the superintendents association, the school boards association, the teachers and principals associations, and the parent teachers associations are so bold as to take a coalition public without broadly based support and authorization?

It is, perhaps, not so widely recognized that Paul Pastorek often acts first and then tells his hiring directors at the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. His most recent was a totally undercover recruitment of a new RSD superintendent. BESE members openly expressed disappointment that they had to come to Baton Rouge to find the search completed. No mention was made…even now…about his pay grade. One thing was certain it would likely make his new man the second highest paid staffer among the 45 DOE staff members earning in excess of $100,000 per year. Many of those high pay rates were set by Pastorek before BESE was informed.

The “extraordinary things taking place in K-12 public education” to which Pastorek refers in his news release are most often taking place because of the efforts of people represented in the new coalition. The growing list of national Blue Ribbon schools in Louisiana is largely governed by local school superintendents and school boards. Pastorek brags about the accelerated growth of high-performing/high-poverty schools showing outstanding growth in student achievement. He never acknowledges that none of those schools are RSD operated schools.

With sufficient funding to pay for extended day, extended week, and extended year schedules, Pastorek’s RSD still is incapable of breaking from the bottom of the list of school performance scores. Yet he challenges the 69 local districts right to demand equality of spending for their underperforming schools.

The Superintendent apparently believes that only he, and a small coterie of highly-paid associates, is motivated to “continue doing the right thing for kids.” His vision of the right thing includes bringing in a host of private companies to manage schools and to provide a varied menu of professional services that have one thing in common: They pull money out of the classroom.

The multi-millions in contracts that cause State Treasurer John Kennedy to stump the state, is largely subject to after the fact approval by the whole of BESE. An elite composed of the BESE president, finance chairman, and Pastorek substitute for transparent contract evaluation. But, when one looks at contracts for operation of RSD charter schools one finds that most skim 12.5 percent from all school funds into corporate profits out of state and away from Louisiana classroom use.

Contrived criticism, in Pastorek’s mind, seems to be that which questions his version of “truth.” His claims of progress in the RSD have been clearly challenged by education researchers. Even the Stanford CREDO finding that New Orleans charters did relatively better than charters nationwide was based upon two characteristics that Pastorek does not want discussed: 1. The CREDO results lumped RSD and Orleans Public School Board operated charters together and nine of the OPSB charters are far superior; and 2. The charters in New Orleans are largely selective-enrollment schools that choose students rather than welcome all.

One thing that Pastorek can rationally expect is that the new coalition is sending a message: “You haven’t seen anything yet!”

Don Whittinghill
LSBA Consultant

Here is Pastorek’s diatribe:

STATEMENT FROM STATE SUPERINTENDENT
OF EDUCATION PAUL PASTOREK
Reference: Coalition for Louisiana Public Education

“This Coalition — made up of staff and board members from these various groups — professes to speak for teachers, administrators, local school boards and others in its opposition to these reforms. And they only express dissatisfaction and disapproval — and present us with no alternative solutions to improve our schools – except to request more funding. The reality is that Louisiana is facing a nearly $2 billion budget deficit, and while funding to other programs has been reduced by 26 percent over the last three years, funding for the state’s MFP – the state’s largest allocation of education funding – has increased by 6.2 percent, from $3.12 billion in Fiscal Year 2008 to $3.31 billion in Fiscal Year 2011. Clearly some districts are facing difficult circumstances. But this situation emphasizes the need for all of us to analyze how we’re allocating our education dollars and to make necessary adjustments in policies, programs and expenditures to achieve the best outcomes for our students and provide necessary support to educators.

And these statements of defiance around reform are unfortunate for the thousands of educators, hundreds of local leaders, and the many communities across our state who have not only accepted change – but who are actually leading and pushing for reforms that are in the best interest of students.

We have some extraordinary things taking place in K-12 public education across Louisiana, including the work taking place in the Recovery School District. In the past three or four years, we’ve made unprecedented gains in student achievement in the RSD and statewide. But this kind of dramatic improvement is only possible when individuals and groups work smarter and make better decisions in classrooms, school buildings and board rooms. There is no doubt in my mind that’s happening. And we believe those who are making a difference and matter most in the lives of students are motivated to continue doing the right thing for kids – even in the face of this kind of contrived criticism.

Fortunately, for our students, the majority of our educators, policymakers and citizens recognize that despite our state’s remarkable progress, too many of our students are still behind in school. They know we can do better, and they’re serious about this work. They share our determination to move forward with a compelling sense of urgency and to ignore the grumbling of those who are unwilling to be inspired by our undeniable progress and the promise these changes represent for our children.”

Read Full Post »

Conflict? What conflict? The charter school blitzkrieg

Posted in BESE, Charters, Education, Ethics, Transparency, Uncategorized, Vouchers on April 17, 2011| 6 Comments »

Chas Roemer could be in violation of state ethics laws governing conflicts of interest every time he votes on any matter coming before the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) pertaining to any of the state’s charter schools.

Roemer, the son of former Gov. Buddy Roemer, represents BESE District 8 which includes all or parts of the parishes of Avoyelles, Evangeline, Lafayette, St. Landry, Pointe Coupee, East and West Feliciana, East and West Baton Rouge, Iberville, Ascension, St. James, and St. John the Baptist parishes.

He is the former co-chair of the School Innovation & Turnaround Committee which addresses charter school performance and oversight and which also manages the Recovery School District (RSD) in New Orleans.

Louisiana’s Charter School Law was enacted as Act 192 of 1995 as a pilot program to allow up to eight school districts to participate on a voluntary basis. The law was expanded in 1997 by Act 477 to establish BESE and local school board as charter authorizers. Act 477 defined four types of charter schools: Type 1, a charter with local school boards (new start-up); Type 2, charter with BESE (new start-up or conversion:; Type 3, charter with local school board (conversion); Type 4, school board charter with BESE (new start-up or conversion), and Type 5, charter with BESE (pre-existing public school under the jurisdiction of RSD).

In 2003, ACT 9 created a new type of charter for the operation of pre-existing schools that were transferred to the jurisdiction of RSD.

RSD was charged to take underperforming schools and transform them into charter schools. Since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the number of public schools in New Orleans has dropped from 123 to four while the number of charter schools has ballooned from seven to 31.

Charter schools operate as independent public schools under five-year contracts granted by BESE or a local school board.

Caroline Roemer Shirley, Chas Roemer’s sister is executive director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools and therein lies the potential for a conflict of interest and possible ethics violations.

Almost a year ago, on April 21, 2010, the Louisiana Board of Ethics issued an opinion at the request of attorney Richard Easterling of the law firm Adams and Reese of Baton Rouge that said Shirley was prohibited from appearing before BESE and from representing the associations in matters before BESE.

A partial text of the opinion reads as follows:

The Louisiana Board of Ethics, at its April 16, 2010 meeting, considered your request concerning Caroline Roemer Shirley’s employment with the Louisiana Charter School Association while her brother Charles Roemer, IV serves as an elected member of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE). Caroline Roemer Shirley is the Executive Director of the Association.

In 2000, the board concluded that Section 1113A of the code would prohibit Ms. Shirley from discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association and that the Code would prohibit Ms. Shirley from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

With respect to the following specific questions raised, the Board concluded and instructed me to inform you of the following:

• If the Association and the Louisiana State Director of Charter Schools partner to host a meeting pertaining to the future of the Recovery School District, may the director and Ms. Shirley speak to one another to discuss the date, time, location, invitees, agenda, etc. for this event? May Ms. Shirley speak at such a meeting?

The Code prohibits Ms. Shirley from 1) appearing before BESE; 2) representing the Association in matters before BESE; 3) discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association, and; 4) from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE. However, Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from discussing with individual members of BESE or the staff of the Department of Education issues that do not involve matters or positions of the Association on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE such as those items involving the incidentals of a planned event.

• When legislation is pending that will have an impact on charter schools, may Ms. Shirley bring charter school leaders together for discussions with BESE and/or the Louisiana Department of Education (LDE) on these matters?

Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from contacting charter school leaders for discussions with BESE and/or LDE on pending legislation. However, she is prohibited from discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association involving the proposed legislation and from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on issues involving legislation on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

• May Ms. Shirley be a member of and participate in a Charter Advisory Board created to work with and provide the Superintendent of Education, the Louisiana Recovery School District Superintendent and/or the Louisiana State Director of Charter Schools information on matters involving charter schools? This Advisory Board would be a volunteer group of charter leaders representing all five types of charter schools that would meet every other month.

Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from being a member of a Charter Advisory Board created to work with and provide the Superintendent of Education, the RSD Superintendent and/or the Louisiana State Director of Charter Schools information on matters involving charter schools. However, she is prohibited from discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association involving those matters and from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on issues involving matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

• As Executive Director, may Ms. Shirley organize and participate in charter school meetings, bringing together the principals and board members of the charter schools to hear from the Superintendent of Education, the Louisiana Recovery School District Superintendent and the Louisiana State Director of Charter Schools? Such meetings would serve as a means for the charter schools to be both better informed about policies and regulations, as well as having the opportunity to discuss other related issues.

Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from organizing and participating in charter school meetings as long as she does not discuss with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association and does not interact with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

• If Ms. Shirley is invited by the LDE, BESE or the RSD to attend workshops, meetings, discussions, etc. that pertain to charter schools, may she attend and participate in these meetings, such as a meeting with the RSD hosted for principals and board members of the charter schools and the staff from BESE to discuss Bulletins that outline policies regulating charter schools.

Ms. Shirley is not prohibited from attending workshops, meetings, discussions, etc. that pertain to charter schools. However, she is prohibited from participating in the discussion and her participation in those events are restricted by the Board’s conclusions in BD 2008-122 prohibiting her from 1) appearing before BESE 2) representing the Association in matters before BESE 3) discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association, and 4) from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE.

• As one of the leading advocates for charter schools in the state, Ms. Shirley is often called by the Superintendent of Education, the Louisiana Recovery School District Superintendent, BESE members, BESE staff, and LDE staff to provide information about charter schools, contact information for national charter leaders, best practices of other states, etc. May she respond to these requests?

Ms. Shirley is prohibited from discussing with individual members of BESE matters or positions of the Association and from interacting with the staff of the Department of Education on matters that are under the jurisdiction of BESE. It is the conclusion of the Board that Ms. Shirley is prohibited from handling these type of requests for information.

While that opinion addressed only Caroline Shirley’s interaction with BESE members, there have been numerous opinions by the Ethics Board that cite Section 1112B(1) which specifically addresses the participation of a public service or elected official in a vote on any matter “in which a member of his immediate family has a substantial economic interest. Section 1120 of the code provides that an elected official shall recuse himself when the vote would be a violation of Section 112 of the code.

A review of minutes of BESE meetings over the past year reveal that Chas Roemer consistently made motions on agenda items dealing with charter schools and then voted on each one.

In December of 2010 alone, he made motions to approve charter school contracts of $50,000 and under, made motions to approve Crescent City School, the NET Charter High School, the Collegiate Academy Charter School, the Sarah T. Reed Charter Middle School, the ReNEW K-8 Charter School, the ReNEW Alternative High School, and in one case, made the motion to deny an application to commence operation of Joseph A. Craig charter school in New Orleans.

Read Full Post »

Nero Jindal fiddles at San Antonio fundraiser even as Legislature crashes and burns, state employees smolder

Posted in BESE, Campaign Contributions, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Prison, Privatization, Transparency on April 8, 2011| 4 Comments »

Events in Baton Rouge appear to be spinning out of control these days with legislative efforts at mandated reapportionment appearing to crater coupled with growing discontent among state employees over the proposed privatization of the Office of Group Benefits and three state prisons.

Probably the most appropriate metaphor would be that Emperor Nero (Gov. Bobby Jindal) fiddled (attended yet another out-of-state fundraiser) while Rome (the Legislature) burned.

On Thursday, both houses of the Louisiana Legislature abruptly and simultaneously said to heck with it and adjourned until Monday as the deadline loomed for reapportioning the House, Senate, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Public Service Commission, and redrawing the state’s congressional districts from seven to six to accommodate the state’s loss of population from 2000 to 2010.

When they return, they will have only three days to agree on all of those issues, a virtual impossibility in the eyes of some observers. They’ve been in special session, after all, since March 20 and now must try to accomplish in three days what they haven’t been able to do in the past three weeks.

In all probability a second special session will have to be wedged in between Wednesday’s adjournment and the April 25 start of the 2011 regular session. If that occurs, the first order of business should be that the 39 Senators and the 105 House members pass by unanimous vote a resolution that will not accept one penny of per diem. Legislators currently are paid $159 per day for each day they are in Baton Rouge. That’s over and above their regular salary, so a second special session of, say 10 days would cost the state almost $230,000 for doing what it should accomplish in the current special session.

So at a time when a steady hand was desperately needed to steer the ship, when some semblance of leadership and guidance was sorely needed, where was Gov. Bobby Jindal?

Why in San Antonio trying to raise still more funds to get him re-elected to the job he wants, of course.

Jindal, who already has upwards of $12 million in his campaign coffers and no opposition in sight, appears focused on just two things (we know, the governor usually begins his responses to questions with, “Three things….): his re-election and his obsession with privatizing everything he possibly can in state government.

Edwin Edwards, his legal shenanigans notwithstanding, and despite his weakness for women and gambling, would never have let what happened on Thursday occur on his watch. You can take that to the bank.

Smooth Eddie would have taken Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) and Joel Chaisson (D-Destrehan) to the woodshed that is the fourth floor of the Capitol and given them an attitude adjustment. He would have said something like, “If you want to remain Speaker of the House and President of the Senate, you better get back down to chambers and get this thing resolved.”

And Tucker and Chaisson would have left the governor’s office with their tails between their legs and would have proceeded to follow the governor’s directions to the letter. That’s real leadership.

And therein lies the rub, as ol’ Billy Wayne Shakespeare once said. There was, is no governor around who commanded that kind of respect. Heck, the governor wasn’t even around, respect or no respect. And the legislature wasn’t about to take its marching orders from Timmy Teepell.

The only thing one can find in abundance on the fourth floor is the abyss that is a gaping leadership void. The current situation makes the title of Jindal’s book, Leadership and Crisis, nothing more than a cruel, very unfunny joke.

On another front, Jindal appears oblivious to growing discontent among employees of three prisons, the Office of Group Benefits (OGB), and state retirees who have brought about a resurgence of the Gray Panthers of a few decades ago.

Reports surfaced Friday that at least two and perhaps three separate groups are considering class action lawsuits against Jindal, OGB, and the Legislature to halt the proposed sale of OGB. One of those groups is the Retired State Employees Association of Louisiana.

Meanwhile, Jindal is plunging ahead with his plans to privatize the two agencies despite the appearance at the House Appropriations Committee Thursday of more than 100 corrections employees from Avoyelles Parish, a former congressman, and a former commissioner of administration during the Edwards administration, all of whom were vehemently opposed to the sale of state prisons in Allen, Winn, and Avoyelles parishes.

As regards OGB, a letter has started making its rounds among state employees and retirees.

It is not known who authored the letter but whoever wrote it urges others to send copies to legislators to remind them that R.S. 42:854.5(A) says quite clearly that revenue under control of OGB “shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes,” precisely the intent of Gov. Jindal.

Under his plan, if OGB is sold, the state would get $150 million to $200 million of OGB’s $500 million surplus with the purchaser getting the balance.

The trick for Jindal would be to remove the $500 million surplus from OGB’s control. That would require cunning and guile, diabolical characteristics that should never be confused with leadership.

Here is the full text of that letter:

As a state retiree I would like to make it known in the strongest possible language my dissatisfaction with Governor Jindal’s plan to privatize the Office of Group Benefits. This includes any plan he has to “outsource” the PPO. Either of those actions will cost the state much more money than it now pays, not to mention the horrible financial hit it would mean for state retirees.

It is an open secret that he hopes to simply GIVE most of OGB’s $500 million surplus to whichever of his rich cronies end up buying OGB. Not all of it, of course. He hopes to confiscate a portion of the $500 million for budgetary reasons. This money is, by law*, for OGB’s use in properly administering the plan. GIVING away money obtained from the state’s employees and taxpayers is reprehensible and is entirely politically motivated. It is only in a love-the-rich and hate-the-poor universe that such a thing could be considered moral.

The sale of OGB, resulting in a one-time monetary benefit, or the outsourcing of the PPO, will not save the state one penny. Either action would, in fact, end up costing the state more money. The reason for this lies in the fact that OGB’s administrative costs (which includes all aspects of running the agency, including premium increases) is an incredibly low 4% (compare this to the for-profit industry average). If another company, of necessity a for-profit company, takes over the operation of the PPO, this cost will rise by a minimum of 10%. This translates into higher premiums for both the state (since it is the state’s responsibility to contribute up to 75% of the cost of the premiums for state retirees) and the state’s retirees. Would someone please tell me HOW increasing premiums will save either the state or its retirees any money? Whatever money is made (the figure bandied about is $125 million) by a one-time sale of OGB will quickly be lost in increased state expenditures. If the PPO is outsourced, the increase in premiums for the replacement plan will land the state in even more dire financial straits.

*Louisiana State Law La. R.S. 42:854.5(A)
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, any money received by or under the control of the Office of Group Benefits shall not be used, loaned, or borrowed by the state for cash flow purposes or any other purpose inconsistent with the purposes of or the proper administration of the Office of Group Benefits. – Acts 2001, No. 1178,§ 5, eff. June 29, 2001.

Read Full Post »

Education MFP funding is elaborate legislative shell game

Posted in BESE, Education, House, Senate, Layoffs, Legislature, Legislators, Politicians, Revenue, Taxes, Transparency on March 8, 2011| 1 Comment »

Public school teachers at the bottom of the seniority ladder are being called in by their principals in parish school systems across the state to hear the bad news: because of budgetary cutbacks, their contracts will not be renewed next school year.

It’s bad enough when State Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek insists that poor grades are the fault of the teachers and schools, not poverty or the lack of public support of education. The mindset in Pastorek’s office is not more funding, but more charter schools.

Teacher layoffs are something that should never happen in any society that pretends to make education a priority. But it is happening right now so perhaps we should take a quick refresher course in Louisiana history or civics or what some might prefer to call the Big Lie.

Think back for a moment to a campaign that took place 21 years ago. It was 1990 and Louisianans were being told that legalized gaming (that’s gaming, not gambling; gaming was the nice way to say gambling which, of course, was illegal and carried bad connotations) was the panacea for all the state’s fiscal problems.

We once thought the same thing about oil and gas but that myth was exploded in the eighties when the oil patches dried up with six-dollar-a-barrel oil (remember those days?). So legislators began looking around for other sources of revenue. Never mind computer technology, Fortune 500 businesses, or some other livelihoods with an emphasis on education and some modicum of intelligence. No, it had to be something that could be fed to the masses, something that would be in keeping with Louisiana’s third-world, banana republic image.

Presto! The idea of legalized gambling, er, gaming was born and the politicians nurtured the concept and they were oh, so slick in the way they did it. Casino gambling was too much to throw at their constituents from the get-go, so first came the Louisiana Lottery, approved in 1990 with the first scratch-off games going on sale in 1991. Skeptics immediately dubbed the Lottery as a tax for those who were not good at math.

The legislature passed riverboat gambling in 1991 once the Lottery was up and running and the following year approved a bill to allow New Orleans to build a land-based casino.

And just how did lawmakers sell the hard-nosed Baptists of north Louisiana on gambling? Why, education, of course. In December of 1986, The Louisiana Association of Educators agreed to support and work for the lottery, provided at least 75 percent of the proceeds are dedicated to education, a stipulation to which Gov. Edwin Edwards quickly agreed. That number now hovers somewhere around 35 percent, less than half of what was originally sought.

Politicians from the governor all the way down to local school board members were busy touting the financial windfall for education that was sure to come from gaming revenue. After all, hadn’t the Support Education in Louisiana First Fund been a good thing for state education?

The Support Education in Louisiana First Fund had its origins in September 1986 with a proposed amendment that would dedicate about $540 million from oil and gas leasing production in the outer continental shelf lands in the Gulf of Mexico. Known as the 8(g) fund, it has pumped more than $500 million into the state’s general fund for education since 1986. Or has it? In 2010, the Louisiana Legislature allocated $109.1 million in 8(g) funds to the Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) to fund public education in Louisiana. Or did it?

Since its inception, the Louisiana Lottery has transferred almost $2.3 billion to the state treasury but it wasn’t until 2003 that the legislature got around to passing a bill calling for a constitutional amendment dedicating lottery proceeds to the MFP. That law became effective on July 1, 2004. Last year, the legislature allocated $137.4 million in State Lottery proceeds to the MFP. Or did it?

And then there’s the $10 billion Education Jobs Fund passed by Congress last year. Also known as EduJobs, Louisiana’s share was $147 million and was supposed to be added to the MFP. But was it? Remember, this is Louisiana.

Even as many of the state’s local school boards had already factored their share of that $147 million into their budgets, Gov. Bobby Jindal on Nov. 11 announced plans to redirect the money. Just that quickly, at the whim of a “reform” politician, it was gone.

It turns out that the Support Education in Louisiana First Fund, the State Lottery proceeds allocated to education in Louisiana, and the EduJobs fund are nothing but part of an elaborate shell game and skullduggery, the political equivalent of a stage magician’s misdirection tactic. Smoke and mirrors.

Instead of allocating the full $3.3 billion to the MFP from the state’s General Fund as it had before the existence of 8(g), the State Lottery, or EduJobs funds and then adding those allocations to produce the education windfall Louisiana voters had expected, they were first subtracted from the General Fund. Only then were the combined $393.5 million in 8(g) funds, State Lottery proceeds, and EduJobs funding added back to the legislative appropriation which by that time, had shrunk to less than $3.1 billion.

The net gain to education from 8(g), EduJobs, and the lottery?

Zero. It was all a big con. Mission accomplished. Politicians 3, Louisiana 0.

So now, after the 2010 legislature gave top priority to pet projects, appropriating more than $500 million on non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as councils on aging, golf courses, tennis courts, and community centers, and projects that should have been financed by local governments, the state has run out of money and teachers are being laid off.

And instead of budget cuts, Superintendent of Education Paul Pastorek sees the problem as bad teachers and failing schools. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Read Full Post »

Education Department cries ‘foul’ on contracts story

Posted in BESE, Contract, Contracts, Education, Transparency, tagged on January 25, 2011| 2 Comments »

The Louisiana Department of Education has responded to recent criticism and news reports of what has been perceived to be a glut of professional service contracts, claiming that it was unfair to use outdated contract lists as a basis of that criticism or to include federally-required contractual spending.

Department public information officer René Greer responded to a news story by LouisianaVoice that cited contracts such as one for $94,000 for a contractor to teach children how to play at recess and dozens of contracts to church organizations to take care of children after school.

The story cited data from a printout of department contracts for fiscal years 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009, the latest documents available. Those documents were provided by Treasury Secretary John Kennedy’s office. Kennedy has been a vocal critic of professional service contracts for several years.

State Rep. Jim Fannin (D-Jonesboro), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, told LouisianaVoice that one of his biggest concerns is in the area of professional contracts awarded by the state, particularly by the Department of Education. “It’s absurd to have so many professional service contracts out there,” he said. “Kennedy has been raising this as an issue. Many agencies get around the requirement to obtain approval of contracts of $50,000 or more by awarding a lot of contracts for just under the required reporting level. There’s a tremendous amount of waste in those contracts.”

Greer said the department is equally determined to cut waste. “We’re deeply committed to the same principle expressed by Treasurer Kennedy and Representative Fannin– to ensure that every tax dollar dedicated to education is spent thoughtfully to achieve the best outcomes for our students,” she said. “But we’re disappointed by the continued focus on contracts that are no longer current and haven’t been for several years. In many cases, the criticism centers on contracts issued five or six years ago, to community organizations and churches for the federally funded afterschool programs. And the process that awards these contracts was revised by BESE and the current administration more than two years ago, as it now requires grant applicants to provide students with a high quality academic component in order to be eligible for these federal dollars, and the Department monitors and measures the effectiveness of grant recipients to ensure only successful providers are funded.”

For example, this year alone, the agency will dispense an estimated $32 million for the federal 21st Century Grant Program which funds after-school tutoring programs for at-risk students, she said. Greer says on the surface it might be tempting to label these professional service contracts as bad. But she said that until the state is successful at resolving some of the critical needs that are supported by these funds and contracts, ending these programs and services would be a setback to the education community, and most importantly to students.

“It’s oversimplifying the issue to decide the number or amount of contracts issued by the department is a gauge on our commitment to fiscal responsibility,” Greer said. “We need to put this into context. First, most of the contracts are supported by federal dollars. And federal dollars that flow to districts and communities, such as FEMA, TANF and USDOE grants must first flow to state agencies prior to being distributed through a contractual process. These dollars are based on measures of a state’s needs, which are determined by federal regulations. And while it might sound good to say we need to decrease the number of contracts and the amount of money the Department is allocating for contracts, in actuality that would mean that districts and schools would not receive critical funding for rebuilding projects, after-school programs and other very vital needs. The question we should be asking ourselves – regardless of whether the funds are local, state or federal – is whether we’re making the biggest impact we can make for students, and if not, what spending reforms should we put in place to achieve better outcomes? That’s the aim of Superintendent Pastorek and the Department.”

Greer also pointed out that the State General Fund budget for the agency’s direct activities, which is about $57 million, is shrinking.

“From Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2011, contractual allocations are expected to decrease by more than $5 million or 15 percent. The largest contractual expenditure for the agency, the testing contract, accounts for nearly half the agency’s total annual budget. So there is very little left in the way of discretionary funds for the department to spend. Regardless, total State General Fund expenditures for the agency’s direct activities have declined by $6.8 million, or 10.7%, from Fiscal Year 2008-2009 to Fiscal Year 2010-2011. In fact, the number of employees employed by the agency, including the Special School District, has drastically declined from 857 during the 2007-2008 Fiscal Year to 682 during the 2010-2011 Fiscal Year, which is a 21% decrease.”

Greer last week pledged to provide LouisianaVoice with an updated contract printout and on Tuesday did provide a partial list that contained printing and copier lease contracts. The professional service contract printout, however, was not included among those documents.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »