Archives for category: Jindal, Bobby

A reader tells me that Mitt Romney will be speaking at the Press Club in Baton Rouge on Monday.

I hope that journalists in Louisiana are ready to ask him some tough questions.

Ask him if he approves of using taxpayer dollars to send children to religious schools.

Ask him if he approves of spending public money to send kids to schools that teach creationism, not evolution.

Ask him if he knows that New Orleans is the next to the lowest scoring district in the state.

Ask him if he knows that 79% of the charters in New Orleans were graded either with a D or an F by the state.

Ask him if he knows that online for-profit charter schools get terrible test scores, low graduation rates, and have a high dropout rate.

Ask him if he thinks that the funding for vouchers and charters and online schools and for-profit vendors should come right out of the minimum funding for public schools.

Ask him if he has any ideas about how to help public schools, where the vast majority of children are students, because Governor Jindal does not.

And while you are at it, ask him if he knows that the NAEP test scores in reading and math for American children are the highest in American history, for every group, white, black, Hispanic, and Asian.

And be sure to ask him what he plans to do to help reduce the high cost of college (his answer: nothing, other than to hand student loans over to private banks).

Judge Tim Kelly turned down a request to block the implementation of Governor Bobby Jindal’s voucher plan.

The judge said that Commissioner John White and Commissioner of Administration both said in affidavits that an injection would blow a $3.4 billion deficit in the state budget. So the case will proceed as will the vouchers, charters, cyber charters and every other kind of raid on the minimum foundation funding for Louisiana public schools.

According to local sources, Judge Kelly just happens to be the spouse of the former Commissioner of Administration (Angele Davis) in the Jindal administration.

Lucky break for the Governor!

A blogger in Louisiana calls out State Rep. Valerie Hodges for expressing shock about the possibility that voucher funds might go to Islamic schools.

I have already done that in an earlier post and won’t do it again here.

I repost this commentary because it lists many of the Christian academies that will be getting vouchers from the state of Louisiana in September. It is a reminder that the state is sending children from schools with a low grade (a grade established by the state of Louisiana) to religious schools that have NO grade. Are they better schools than the schools the children are leaving? These are schools that teach a specific religious doctrine; many will not teach modern science or history.

These schools are free to teach whatever they want, but let’s be clear. The state of Louisiana is sending students to religious schools of unknown quality and taking the funding out of the minimum foundation budget for public schools. The state constitution says that public funds must be used to support public education. Education in religious schools is not public education.

Lest we forget, Governor Jindal’s regressive legislation was hailed by the conservative group called Chiefs for Change, which includes the state education commissioners of Rhode Island and Indiana.

We will learn in the months to come whether Louisiana has an independent judiciary.

Whenever vouchers have been put to a state referendum, they have lost. The American public does not want to cross the line that separates church and state. They want to protect both public schools and religious freedom.

Governor Jindal doesn’t understand that basic tenet of American education. He may end up destroying both in Louisiana.

A Louisiana legislator who voted for Governor Bobby Jindal’s “reform” legislation is shocked to learn that students will be able to take their state vouchers to Muslim schools. She voted for the voucher plan on the assumption that students could take them only to Christian schools. Now, she is worried. She had “no idea” that taxpayer dollars would go to non-Christian schools. She wanted to help children learn about the religion of the Founding Fathers.

Meanwhile, twenty school districts are suing to overturn the law, saying that it violates the state constitution. The state constitution says that “state funding for public education shall be equitably allocated to public school systems.” Of 125 schools that have been okayed to receive vouchers, 124 apparently are religious schools.

UPDATE: although the article says that 124 of the 125 voucher schools are faith-based, friends in Louisiana tell me that it is more likely 118 of the 125 that are religious schools.

When John White was appointed to run the Recovery School District in New Orleans, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan called him a “visionary school leader.”

Now John White is doing the bidding of a Tea Party governor and leading the most reactionary drive in the nation to dismantle public education; to take money away from the minimum foundation budget for public schools and give it to voucher schools and charter schools; to give public money to small religious schools that don’t teach evolution; to strip teachers of all protection of their academic freedom; to allow anyone to teach, without any credentials, in charter schools; to welcome for-profit vendors of education to take their slice out of the funding for public schools.

I wonder if Arne Duncan still considers him a “visionary leader”?

I wonder what Arne Duncan thinks of the Louisiana legislation. I wonder why he has not spoken out against any part of it. I wonder why he is silent when Tea Party governors like Chris Christie attack the teachers of their state and try to take away whatever rights they may have won over the years. I wonder if he agreed or disagreed with the Chiefs for Change–the rightwing state superintendents–when they saluted Louisiana’s regressive legislation to take money from public schools and hand it over to private sector interests.

I wonder why he never went to Madison, Wisconsin, to speak out for public sector workers there when it mattered. I wonder what he thinks of the emergency manager legislation in Michigan, where state-appointed emergency managers have closed down public education in two districts and handed it off to charter operators. I wonder what he thinks about the Boston Consulting Group’s plan in Memphis to increase the proportion of students in privately managed charters from 4% to 19%. I wonder what he thinks about the Boston Consulting Group’s plan to privatize up to 40% of Philadelphia’s schools. I wonder what he thinks about the rollback of collective bargaining rights in various states or the removal of job protections for teachers. I wonder what he thinks about ALEC’s coordinated plan to destroy public education. I wonder what he thinks of the emerging for-profit industry that is moving into K-12 education.

He has many opportunities to express his views about the escalation of the war against public education and the ongoing attacks on teachers and their unions.

Why is he silent?

Just wondering.

This parent in Louisiana noticed that the state insists that only trained professionals can trim his shrubs.

And only licensed florists can sell flowers to him.

But under Bobby Jindal, the children of Louisiana can be taught by anyone who wants to teach, even if they have less training than a shrub technician or a licensed florist.

And that’s why Louisiana is now an international joke.

We don’t have to wonder what Mitt Romney’s education plan would look like if he is elected. It would look like the Jindal legislation passed this spring in Louisiana.

The Louisiana “reforms” represent the purest distillation of the rightwing agenda for education.

First, they create a marketplace of competition, with publicly funded vouchers and many new charter schools under private management.

Second, more than half the children in the state (400,000+) are eligible for vouchers, even though only about 5,000 seats have been offered, some in tiny church schools that don’t actually have the seats or facilities or teachers.

Third, the charter authorities will collect a commission for every student that enrolls in a charter, a windfall for them. And of course, there is a “parent trigger” to encourage the creation of more charters as parents become discouraged by neglected, underfunded public schools.

Fourth, the money for the vouchers and charters will come right out of the minimum funding allocated for the public schools, guaranteeing that the remaining public schools will have less money, more crowded classes, and suffer major budget cuts.

Fifth, the law authorizes public money for online instruction, for online for-profit schools, and for instruction offered by private businesses, universities, tutors, and anyone else who wants to claim a share of the state’s money for public education.

Sixth, teacher evaluation will be tied to student test scores and teachers can be easily fired, assuring that no one will ever dare teach anything controversial or disagree with their principal. Teachers in charter schools, the biggest growth sector, will not need certification.

Rather than go on, I here link to a blog I wrote at Bridging Differences (hosted by Education Week). My blog links to an article written by a Louisiana teacher who happens to have been a professional journalist. You should read what she wrote.

The Jindal plan is sweeping and it seeks to dismantle public education. It is a plan to privatize public education. It is not conservative. Conservatives don’t destroy essential democratic institutions. Conservatives build on tradition, they don’t heedlessly cast them aside. Conservatives are conservative because they take incremental steps, to fix what’s broken, not to sweep away an entire institution. Jindal’s plan is not conservative. It is reactionary.

And it is a template for what Romney promises to do.

Diane

A reader sent in a comment about holding teachers accountable for test scores.

He attended a “question and answer” luncheon hosted by the Lafayette, Louisiana, Chamber of Commerce, where Governor Bobby Jindal was the speaker. Jindal came late, spoke fast, and left without answering any questions.

The reader, possibly the only educator in the audience, turned to the CEO of a hospital sitting next to him and asked “if he ever pondered posting his hospital’s mortality rate outside its door.” The reader was “a little surprised at how firmly his ‘no’ response was—-it was as if I asked him to jump off of a bridge.   I was merely trying to make a comparison to cohort grad rates and letter grading systems in our state to the business community.” The reader concluded that “accountability as educators know it will  never be applied to any other type of profession much less within the business community despite their unwavering support of accountability for public schools.    That CEO’s firm ‘no’ response was all the proof I needed that accountability the way we know it will not make anything better….and the business world knows this.”

Another reader liked that comment and added: “had the CEO offered more than his terse response, I suspect his explanation would include that although doctors play a role in a patient’s health, there are a number of other factors that doctors have no control over–patient’s genetics, prior medical history, willingness to follow the doctor’s prescriptions, environment, how far an illness has progressed before the doctor sees the patient, etc. And, of course, his explanation is perfectly valid. For some reason, though, when teachers make the same point regarding students’ test scores, corporate ed reformers are quick to accuse them of making excuses.

Why do doctors refuse to post their results on their front door? When you visit a cardiac surgeon, ask him or her how many of their patients survived their surgery?

When you go to the dentist, ask how many of their patients continued to get cavities?

Why do they make excuses and tell us that if patients don’t follow orders, don’t blame them? Or if patients arrive with pre-existing conditions, don’t blame them?

Diane

Last spring, Louisiana held a crucial election that determined who would control the state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Governor Bobby Jindal–the uber-conservative education reformer with a plan to replace public education with vouchers and charters–wanted to take control.

He rallied his friends and allies to win the decisive seat on the board, which was held by a local attorney, Louella Givens. Jindal’s candidate was Kira Orange Jones, the director of TFA in New Orleans.

According to Education Week, Orange Jones collected nearly $500,000 for her campaign.  She raised large sums of money from the business community and from out-of-state donors, including Mayor Bloomberg, who sent a last-minute contribution of $100,000. Orange Jones also received campaign funds from Democrats for Education Reform, the pro-charter Wall Street hedge-fund managers organization.

Educators rallied to support Givens, but she raised only $9,000. In a runoff, Orange Jones won.

Now questions have been raised about the propriety of having a member of the state board who works for an organization that receives contracts from the State Department of Education. Orange Jones says there is no conflict because TFA gets its contracts from the state education department, not the state board.

The potential for conflict of interest goes well beyond the contracts that are written specifically for TFA. Every time the state board of education approves charter schools, it is implicitly expanding the number of jobs available for members of TFA. Every expansion of charters across Louisiana will benefit TFA teachers and alums who run charters.

Don’t expect Governor Jindal to launch an investigation. The question in Louisiana is whether there is anyone independent of the Jindal machine (or TFA–the state superintendent is a TFA alum).

Diane

An editorial writer for the New Orleans Times-Picayune wrote a scathing critique of Governor Bobby Jindal’s reform legislation: the haste with which it was adopted, the lack of forethought, the approval of schools to receive voucher students even though they had no facilities, the diversion of public money to private schools, the lack of accountability for private schools getting public money, and Jindal’s refusal to allow tax breaks for those who make donations to public schools (he supports tax breaks only for contributions to private schools). The editorial expressed appreciation for the fact that legislators were starting to ask tough questions, but concluded it would have been better had they asked tough questions before they voted approval for the legislation, rather than afterwards.

Not brooking any dissent, the Governor’s communication director responded with an email. His defense to every question raised: Look how terrible the academic performance of students in public schools is. Look how many received a D or an F last year (44 percent). Look how terrible the American education system is. Look how many nations got higher test scores than the U.S. in the latest international test. Companies that move to Louisiana can’t find skilled workers. Children get only one chance. We can’t wait.

Translated, his response means: We don’t know how to fix the public schools so we will hand out public money to anyone who wants it. Academic performance is so low that we will try anything, without any evidence, even if it means destroying the public school system and giving funds to tiny evangelical schools that have no resources or track record. We will give public money to anyone who wants to open a charter school, even though the charters we now have are no better than the public schools. Our public schools are so bad that we have no obligation to improve them. We will try anything even if the outcome for children is likely to be even worse than what we are doing now. Unspoken but implied: When you are the governor and you control the Legislature and the state board of education, you can do any thing you want, even something as wacky as sending children to religious schools that have no facilities and no evidence of a better academic program than the local public school.

Diane