This post by one of Louisiana’s great bloggers reports that the state’s voucher program undermines federal desegregation orders. Pesky things, the Constitution, the law, and court orders.
Cenlamar writes:
Yesterday, the United States Department of Justice asked Judge Ivan Lemelle to issue an injunction preventing the State of Louisiana from providing taxpayer-subsidized school vouchers in 2014 to students residing in any of the thirty-four parishes currently subjected to federal desegregation orders. In simple terms, Governor Bobby Jindal, Superintendent John White, and the Louisiana Department of Education have been completely unable and unwilling to provide the federal government with sufficient evidence that their controversial school voucher program complies with the law. Because Superintendent John White and his team at the Louisiana Department of Education could not or would not provide the federal government with documentation demonstrating their compliance, the Department of Justice was, essentially, forced to go to court. Quoting from the lawsuit (bold mine):
Only after filing multiple motions in this case and receiving an order of this Court (see Record Docs. No. 109-202), did the United States finally receive, in March of 2013, the information and data it requested from the State. After analyzing the data, the United States determined that the State’s voucher awards appeared to impede the desegregation process in 34 schools in 13 districts. On May 17, 2013, the United States sent a letter to the State… requesting that the State cease its practice of awarding vouchers to students attending school districts operating under federal desegregation orders unless and until it receives approval from the presiding federal court. The State has not responded to that letter and, on information and belief of the United States, has already awarded vouchers for the 2013-2014 school year to students attending school districts operating under desegregation orders.
….
To date, the State has awarded vouchers for 2013-2014 to students in 22 of the 34 school districts with pending federal desegregation orders. See supra at notes 3-4 and Exhibit E. Upon information and belief, the State did not seek the approval of the appropriate federal court prior to awarding the vouchers to students in these districts. Further, the State did not contact the parties to the federal desegregation cases prior to awarding vouchers. Upon information and belief of the United States, the State did not evaluate the impact the vouchers would have on the desegregation process in any of the school districts operating under a federal desegregation order.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Goodness! This just gets better and better. Alabama, Virginia, Louisiana…facing litigation. “Forced to go to court”? We should have been there long ago but at least this could be a start. Thurgood Marshall would remind us that there was a legal strategy behind the Civil Rights Movement.
I’m sure they’ll say it’s racist to let students stay in failing schools….after all this is the “civil rights movement of our time”…seems the courts don’t agree with that though…
What if they are failing schools. Is your view “M”, that kids should just stay in public schools no matter how bad they are. BTW, the “UNITED STATES” did not determine anything. Eric Holder did and he can only say “appeared to impede”.
We don’t have a Department of Justice. We have a department of political motives without logic or understanding of the constitution as written.
He can only say they “appeared to impede” because the state did not give them the information they requested – repeatedly.
There is ample evidence both in this state, and in others, that schemes like this lead to increased segregation especially if they’re not done thoughtfully.
I am of the opinion we should try to improve public schools no matter what students go to them rather than declare them failing and pretend there are plenty of “good schools” waiting to take our students who have had the hardest paths in life.
It has not been shown thus far that continuing to churn the charters will eventually lead to better schools for all, or even better schools for most. It has definitely not been shown that state takeover resolves a district’s problems (if anyone can name one case where that worked, by all means).
So far, what we see over and over is increased racial segregation, and, increased segregation according to ability level where “poor” kids get lumped into an underfunded public school that will then fail, and, higher performing kids get accepted to a cheaper charter that performs better because of their admissions policies.
All we’ve seen in LA so far is that there are plenty of entrepreneurs waiting to feed at the trough of the district – but no discernible improvement in outcomes.
M
I was lucky enough to have a choice of where my kids went to public schools. What do you say to those poor parents that do not have such a choice?
Barack Obama kill the Opportunity Scholarships in Washington DC that was a proven success. Parents and kids actively involved had a choice. Would you deny them that choice?
Let us focus on the Washington, DC, Opportunity Scholarships and why @BarackObama stopped them. Should those kids be confined to schools where gangs rule?
I think not.
That’s code for vouchers, yes? I thought DC had miracle charters.
Does choice automatically mean that you have good choices? I’m glad that your kids had a “good” choice.
However, most of the charters out there are mediocre or downright bad, and, are doing a worse job than the public schools with more money with the “easier” kids.
I don’t see how your proclamation of choice “dooms” some kids when the reality is that those kids who sincerely have “choice” are simply not those who would otherwise be “doomed” to their local public school.
As to those with the opportunity scholarships – please link your information that they were a “proven” success – to me – a proven success is one that lifts the entire district and not select schools.
And your intonement of kids who had “parents who were actively involved” – that speaks volumes about who benefits from such programs. Denying those who do not have strong parental units a strong school by giving those with better parents a choice is to effectively say to hell with those students who don’t have anyone to stand up for them.
Choices don’t make better schools, it just makes it so that your better achieving students are more concentrated and your poorer achieving students are more concentrated and you have more schools that will fail more horribly – it solves nothing.
If I read you correctly, your view would keep all kids at the level of “average” or whatever a local (failing) school could provide.
You would also recommend policies that would improve my school — policies that have failed 90+% of the time in the past. How does that help me as a parent this school year?
How would you address a middle school of 800 kids where gangs dominate? “My kid is there today, September, 2013. How would you help me and my kid avoid the gangs that dominate our public middle school?”
I am in a middle school weekly. I want you and/or Diane to help me solve this problem.
Why must some have “excellent” choices while your crime ridden school that accepts only those kids who didn’t have a choice anywhere else, is now better than if those kids were focused geographically instead of by lack of advocates? At least geographically you’d have some mix rather than almost completely academic underachievers with poor parental supports whose teachers are all overwhelmed by their needs.
What is wrong with public schools all having strong schools and in that sense all become “excellently average”.
Your pessimistic approach to being willing to condemn many if not most students to poor schools rather than trying to raise all smacks of something I can’t touch.
So the RSD portfolio disaster is better ED? Little White lies (as in John)
New Orleans education reform: a guide for cities or a warning for communities: a grassroots lesson learned (2005-2012)
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3dd2726h#page-1
Thank you to Mercedes for the next two:
The NOLA miracle that wasn’t:
New Orleans’ Recovery School District: The Lie Unveiled
The school- and district-level data presented in this post unequivocally demonstrates that the state-run RSD is hardly a miracle. It should be an embarrassment to any reformer insisting otherwise. And it should come as no wonder why RSD doesn’t even mention school letter grades on its website.
The history of the state-run RSD in New Orleans is one of opportunism and deceit, of information twisting and concealing, in order to promote a slick, corporate-benefitting, financially-motivated agenda. It is certainly not “for the children.”
To other districts around the nation who are considering adopting “the New Orleans miracle”:
Reread this post, and truly consider what it is that you would be getting: A lie packaged to only look appealing from afar.
Thanks to Crazy Crawfish for this one:
Zesty Louisiana Education Politics
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics and RSD AP
When “reforms” make matters worse they’re not reforms:
The problem with the Paul Vallas brand of school reform
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/08/04/the-problem-with-the-paul-vallas-brand-of-school-reform/
And check out all comments
@Ed Bradford: ‘What if they are failing schools. Is your view “M”, that kids should just stay in public schools no matter how bad they are.” If a school is supposedly failing, you should find out why, examine what is going on and then recommend corrective actions, not close the school based on test scores and graduation rates alone. A school could be failing even with the teachers and staff working their butts off and doing their best. Sometimes the problem may not be the school but the problems in the given community. Gee, what a coincidence, so-called failing schools seem to be in poverty stricken, crime ridden, violence stricken cities with high unemployment and gang problems. How about closing down poverty, income inequality and violent crime? If there’s too much crime in a given city, then close down the police departments and set up charter police departments or give vouchers to private goon squads, like the Pinkertons, to enforce the law. Competition between local competing police departments in a given city is a guaranteed cure for crime prevention, cough, cough.
“Failing schools” holds no meaning for me. What does that mean? If the answer is they failed to lift kids out of poverty then someone was asking an awful lot from a school.
Besides, the reform solutions offered up make universals out of particulars and a market out of something not intended to be a market.
I simply can’t hear beyond the phrase “failing schools.” It has become a buzz word for me to quit listening (kind of like the buzz words you figure out are pickup lines from men in bars; once uttered, no chance of them getting a telephone number). It takes time to figure that sort of thing out, and those of us who are paying attention to what is going on around the country have learned the buzz words for sure.
Abandoned schools, abandoned communities, abandoned children.
NC must join this fight! Before any public dollars leave our schools for private schools. Public Schools First NC needs help and guidance in this fight. Any thoughts or suggestions? Yevonne Brannon, Chair, PSFNC
Yevonne, maybe figure out which cities have integration court orders. I think Asheville does (the city); does Greensboro?
And I know a couple good education lawyers if you need their names.
Reformers don’t have to follow the law, Diane. Laws are for little people- like middle class public school teachers, local leaders, parents and students.
Besides, I think you’re stifling innovation with all this pesky “regulation”.
Completely deregulated publicly-funded private schools with opaque funding mechanisms and no transparency, oversight or controls will lead straight to excellence.
Check your Milton Friedman. It’s all in there.
My question is what is the remedy the our Federal government should impose and what penalty should be given to those who violate Federal law? By their own admission, most Charters in the RSD received D or F grades (they invented the grading system). Since Brown v. BOE 1954, Louisiana always had defacto segregation but, to me, Charter and Vouchers are recreating a de jiure segregated system and thus should be illegal, unconstitutional and disbanded.
Didn’t Arne Duncan endorse Bobby Jindal’s assault on “government schools”?
Ooops. I guess Duncan forgot to check if it was lawful. Does the Department of Education not have a lawyer Duncan can consult before he rubber-stamps another reform scheme?
Arne Duncan not only operates above the law, he IS the law.
Question: Will wealthy parents be allowed to take advantage of vouchers so they can enroll their children in super elite private schools with tuitions of $30k and above?
In NC there is a cap on how high your income can be to qualify for a voucher, I am fairly certain. So, no vouchers there. But there might be a tax break for those utilizing private schools (not sure).
Thank goodness for the independent court system. Soon the fraud underlying “reform” will be exposed for what it is: a mad grab for school tax money.
NC legislators need to pay attention!
Yes . . . quick, a new Chapter in the ALEC play book, right? Because I don’t get the feeling any of this was actually thought through very well in Raleigh—just rushed in according to the script they follow.
Do they fall under the category of “whitlings” who “defame her (NC)”? You have to wonder when you sing the State song. Do they know the State song, I wonder? What songs do they know? (We are what we sing, afterall).
I can’t wait for Arne Duncan to come out in favor of states’ rights.
Maybe school reformers can join the hard Right on the Commerce Clause, too.
M
Re: Washington DC Opportunity Scholarships:
I confess, I don’t understand or know about all the details. Here is what I have heard:
Black mom’s were given the option to take their kids out of gang dominated schools and put them in “private” charter schools. To me that sounds like an excellent thing that “government” did for those parents that were actively and lovingly involved in their children’s lives.
I see no reason why such options should not be offered to all parents of kids forced to attend failing public schools.
This is not even a federal government issue. Why is Eric Holder involved unless he has ulterior motives. I suspect he does, but don’t know what they are.
It only applied to “black moms”? Obama administration with ulterior motives? What do you think Arne’s ulterior motives are? I thought charters were public of at least they take taxpayer $$$, so are they public or private? You can’t be both once you take public money.
Ulterior motive is Government control.
Obama and progressives want government control of everything.
That, apparently, is the only way they feel safe.
They are so very wrong.
“Obama and progressives”
Are you saying Obama is a progressive?
Stop, stop, my sides are splitting.
Mine are too. However, over the past 4.6 years, Obama has been managed by operating politicians and progressives. Your sides split because only lately he is managed by people who have no clue.
SUMMARY:
Obama takes zero responsibility for anything happing in America today.
He has solved zero problems in 4.6 years.
ZERO!
Also consider that gangs and failing schools are not the same thing. They might influence each other, but the term “failing schools” is too broad a term to be used in any policy.
I am glad children were given the option to get away from gangs. But the issue of gangs is a separate issue. It is a problem for schools (some places), but does not mean a solution in dealing with them in relation to more motivated students should suddenly breed sweeping policies about public school.
I have taught in gang areas. I know that can be hard on kids. Maybe, again, the root of gangs is poverty? And maybe it also needs to addressed. I would consider getting kids out of a gang infiltrated school to be a life boat away from a sinking ship. But if gangs are prevalent in a school and so it is “failing ” it seems the gang has won.
Wow. This part is over my head at the moment.
egbegb: Real progressives adamantly disagree with Obama’s educational policies. I consider myself a liberal and progressive and I think that Obama’s educational policies are an abomination, the same for Bush’s NCLB. Bush’s education policies were also horrible and destructive. Oh wait, I guess Bush must be a progressive, too, for wanting to control everything. I consider Obama to be mostly a centrist, he is liberal on some social issues.
And in other news…
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/24/3133568/nc-lawmakers-to-learn-about-colorado.html
I think it’s a welcome change that reformers are now openly advocating complete privatization. It’s a shame they’re still using “public school system”, however, which is misleading. Hopefully the public can navigate around the marketing language.
The honest term would be “publicly funded private system”, because the only thing “public” about this plan is the funding. They’ve redefined “public” to mean “government contractor”.
Love how the language of reform has changed, too.
Originally we were told they were working to improve public schools. Then we were told they were working to provide competition for public schools, which would provide an “indirect market benefit” to public schools. Now, we don’t need public schools at all.
From working to improve public schools to no public schools in a decade of reform. The dishonesty is breathtaking.
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to start introducing bills in state legislatures to secure a “public option” in K-12 education. It would be an uphill fight (an army of lobbyists beat the public option in healthcare) but it might frame the debate for the public in a more direct way; public versus private. Our health care system is a disaster, and it’s a (partly) publicly-funded private system, much like reformers plan for K-12 education. It’s also brutally inequitable, ridiculously expensive and we have poor outcomes.
I would challenge your analogy of the health care system to education, and your characterization of it as a “disaster,” because it is a “(partly) publicly-funded private system.” I would characterize the health care system as the glory of the western world in the quality of care it can provide. I’m not sure I quite understand what you think is wrong with the health care system.
If my claim is correct, perhaps education would be better run on that model, with many small, publicly funded, private institutions competing with each other to maintain a standard of excellence of care.
I realize that’s all the usual reformist cliche, but it might be true What I truly worry about is the effects of government intervention in the market place through Obama care. Health care is moving in the opposite direction from education, into a government monopoly system. Costs will increase from the bureaucratic demands, and the only way to recoup the costs will be deciding some should be excluded from expensive treatment.
That is the same consequence, where the middle class and wealthy get great education, but a sub class of students are left to drift. With education the “denied” are left to flounder because of their poverty. With Obama care the ones left to die will be the old and expensive.
It seems to me that one ought to be consistent, and want to avoid in health care what we have accepted in education, or vice versa.
You may be working in a private school whether you want to be or not, down there in NC. I was very happy in private education all my life. At least it wasn’t under the thumb of the politicians.