Sabrina Stevens wanted to tell the ALEC education task force what she thought of their plans to privatize American education and destroy unions. At first, she planned to protest. Instead, she walked right in, sat quietly, fumed, and then spoke out.
Archives for category: Vouchers
Stephanie Simon of Reuters continues to be the most industrious investigative education journalist in the nation.
Here she reveals the outline of the free-market model of school, where students learn what they want, where they want, when they want, and pay for it with taxpayer dollars.
She calls it “a la carte” schooling.
It eliminates public schools as we have known them. It opens the door to private, for-profit vendors and anyone who hangs out a shingle.
Remember the old Hollywood movies where Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland said, “Hey, kids, let’s put on a show?”
Now, it’s “Hey, kids, let’s open a school and make money.”
The Louisiana state board of education approved contracts for 45 private vendors, many of them for-profit online companies that had made campaign contributions to some state board members.
The board acted despite the court decision last week declaring that it was unconstitutional to take money dedicated specifically for public elementary and secondary schools and spend it on vouchers or other providers.
Two board members asked for a delay–Lottie Beebe and Carolyn Hill–but the board approved the vendors without funding. Both Beebe and Hill are on our honor roll as heroes of public education.
The state board is controlled by allies of Governor Jindal, who is committed to privatization.
Beebe said that five members of the board should have recused themselves because they received campaign contributions from some of the providers. Here is her Facebook comment on the board meeting:
“Lottie Polozola Beebe (Facebook)
BESE adjourned its meeting at 9:00 P. M. last night with a record time-wise—the longest meeting of my tenure on BESE. BESE approved 45 Course Providers despite my objections and Ms. Hill’s. Our objection was due to Judge Kelley’s ruling that public dollars should support public schools. Recognizing some have vowed to appeal this ruling, I pointed out BESE’s approval of Course Choice Providers would be irresponsible. Nevertheless, Mr. White was successful in communicating we are merely putting a process in place. I pointed out that I would be remiss if I did not point out that at least 5 BESE members should consider recusing themselves from the vote, particularly, if they received political contributions from any. Well, that recommendation yielded “fireworks”! I received an earful from Chas Roemer and Ms. Boffy defending their campaign contributions and the perceived conflict of interest. I wonder why this would be such a sensitive issue. Despite my attempt to encourage them to do the honorable thing, they voted favorably regarding the choice providers. For the record, one approved entity’s PAC contributed approximately $50,000 to five BESE members. (And to think, public school employees are mandated by law to participate in one hour of Ethics training annually.”
A spokesperson for the state ethics board saw no conflict if a board member votes to award a contract to a campaign contributor:
“State ethics laws mandate that political candidates publish a list of contributors to their campaigns; both Boffy and Garvey did so:
The Pelican Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors Inc., one of the groups the state board approved as a course provider, gave $5,000 to board member Holly Boffy’s campaign in 2011.
Boffy got $1,000 from K12 Inc. and $1,000 from Acadian Companies, two other approved providers.
James Garvey, who represents parts of New Orleans, also got $5,000 from the Pelican Chapter.
Boffy, who represents District 7 (which includes Calcasieu, Vermilion and six other parishes), responded to Hill’s accusations, saying that she makes decisions in the best interest of students. Garvey was not at the meeting.
“Anyone can contribute to my campaign if I decide to run,” she said. “I just want you to know, that I act with integrity, and when someone on the board questions that, I find that very troubling.”
Louisiana Board of Ethics spokeswoman Alainna Giacone said that it’s not improper for Boffy and Garvey to vote on the issue. “It’s not an issue because it’s a campaign contribution,” she said. It would become a legal issue, however, if Boffy or Garvey were employed by one of the course providers, and then voted on the contract with the course provider, Giacone advised.”
Charlie Crist, former governor of Florida, switched from Republican to independent to Democrat.
It is rumored that he may run for governor as a Democrat.
In an interview recently, he said he was wrong for supporting vouchers.
Angry conservatives don’t like his change of mind.
I don’t question his motives. I applaud anyone who is willing to stand up and say he or she was wrong.
As governor, he vetoed a particularly obnoxious bill to take tenure away from teachers and do a bunch of other harmful things. He was under a lot of pressure from his party to sign the bill but he didn’t.
So, I say, welcome home, Charlie Crist and good luck.
Help to educate the public and stop the attacks on public education and teachers in Florida.
Governor Haslam of Tennessee has been studying the voucher issue and intends to bring forward a proposal.
He doesn’t want to limit vouchers to any particular jurisdiction but to make them available statewide.
He is working closely with his state Commissioner of Education Kevin Huffman, TFA alum, to craft his voucher plan.
Vouchers will be called “opportunity scholarships,” because Republicans understand that the public doesn’t like the word “vouchers.”
“Opportunity scholarship” sounds so warm and fuzzy. That’s what vouchers in other places are called.
But a rose by any other name is still a rose.
And a voucher is a voucher.
And if Tennessee’s law looks anything like Louisiana’s, the legislature will have to come up with a funding mechanism that doesn’t take money away from public schools.
Haslam can put forward a voucher plan because in the recent election, Tennessee Republicans won a super-majority in the legislature. They were able to accomplish this with the generous support of campaign funding for Republican candidates supplied by StudentsFirst.
In the just concluded trial about vouchers in Louisiana, a state education department official said that a student with a voucher is a public school student, no matter what school she attends. The judge could not follow the logic. He ruled that the state could not take funds away from public schools to pay for vouchers.
Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters in New York City noticed that charter advocates pull the same trick, with the same logic. They change their rationale to fit the need of the moment.
At first, the charters were to save minority kids from failing schools. But now they are moving into relatively affluent areas in New York City where schools are not failing.
She writes, referring to the gentrified portions of districts 2, 3 and 15:
“The reason DOE is putting charter elementary schools in high schools in D2, the lower part of D3 and in the Cobble Hill section of D15 is that their public elementary schools are already so overcrowded so that there is NO space for them, even by DOE standards.”
“The charter school lobby first explained the rationale for their schools as based on providing more “options” to students in low-performing districts, then moved on to justifying them by saying they would create more “diverse” schools in mixed or gentrifying areas, and also now argue that they create more options for middle class parents who are potentially shut out of their zoned schools because of overcrowding, that there are waiting lists for Kindergarten.”
“The rationales keep expanding….”
The decision to declare illegal the funding of the voucher program is very important. Vouchers were to be funded by taking money that was dedicated to public elementary and secondary schools. The decision was about the funding mechanism. If the politicians want a voucher program, they can’t take money out of the minimum foundation funding for public schools. Like, they could raise taxes to pay for kids to go to religious schools and learn about creationism.
A Louisiana judge ruled against the state’s new voucher program, agreeing with the plaintiffs that it violated the state constitution by diverting public funds to private schools.
The state will appeal.
The attorney for the Louisiana Federation of Teachers explains here why the teachers are suing to block Governor Jindal’s Act 2.
It’s not because the law is “illegal,” but because it expressly violates the state constitution.
It’s not because it spends public money for vouchers but because it takes money expressly reserved for public elementary and secondary schools and gives it to private, religious and online schools, as well as post-secondary institutions, that are clearly not public elementary and secondary schools.
By Larry Samuel, LFT General Counsel
It’s time to set the record straight…and correct the inaccurate media reports as to what our Act 2 lawsuit is all about.
First, we are not claiming that the Act is “illegal.” We are claiming that it is unconstitutional. There is a difference. The constitution is the supreme law. Without it, the legislature has no power. The Constitution contains requirements that must be met.
Second, we are not challenging the use of “taxpayer money” for vouchers. Taxpayer money has been used for vouchers for 4 years in Louisiana, and we never challenged it. Why are we lodging this challenge? Because the source of the money are funds contained in the Minimum Foundation Program. Why does this matter? Because Article VIII, Section 13(b) of the Constitution states that the formula “shall be used to determine the cost of a minimum foundation program of education in all public elementary and secondary schools as well as to equitably allocate the funds to parish and city school systems.”
MFP money is going to online course providers, many of which are private (not public), out of state, and are by no stretch of the imagination “ elementary and secondary public school systems.” MFP money is going to post-secondary schools, which is clearly prohibited. Money is going to private and sectarian schools.
Also, local funds are being allocated to online course providers, post-secondary schools, and non-public schools. These are funds that voters approved at the ballot box, that specifically state that the funds shall be used for public elementary and secondary schools. The Constitution prohibits these local funds from going to private schools.
Third, in this lawsuit we are not challenging whether as a matter of policy, taxpayer money should or should not go to private schools. We fought that battle in the legislature (which is the appropriate place to raise policy issues) and we lost. This lawsuit challenges whether the constitution allows MFP money to be allocated to persons and entities that aren’t public elementary and secondary school systems.
Fourth, this lawsuit has nothing to do with a religious challenge to vouchers. We have not raised the issue of whether voucher money going to religious schools is a violation of constitutional “separation of church and state” mandates.
We are asking the Court to rule whether the MFP Resolution is a matter that is “intended to have the force and effect of law,” and if so, whether Act 2 violates other provisions in the Constitution, such as:
The provision in the Louisiana Constitution that states that matters “intended to have the force and effect of law” must be filed in the legislature prior to a fixed deadline. We contend that because the legislature missed the deadline, the law has no force and effect.
The provision in the Louisiana Constitution that states that matters “intended to have the force and effect of law” must be considered in the legislature prior to a fixed deadline. We contend that because the legislature missed the deadline, the law has no force and effect.
The provision in the Constitution that states that matters “intended to have the effect of law” must receive a majority vote of the elected members of the House (which would be 53 votes). The MFP Resolution received 53 votes. Thus, it never passed.
The provision in the Louisiana Constitution that requires a bill to have a “single object.” This provision is important because it recognizes that when a legislator casts a vote on a bill, he or she should not be faced with the dilemma of having to vote either for or against a bill that has many objects to it. We contend that the Bill that became Act 2 has a multitude of objects.
The lawsuit asks the Court to rule solely on Constitutional matters. Not policy matters. Some call us the “Coalition of the Status Quo.” We prefer to be called the “Protectors of the Constitution.”
Jeb Bush recognized at his summit meeting that the policies he champions were soundly rebuffed by voters in Indiana (and did he mention Idaho?).
But he assures his rightwing allies that testing, evaluating teachers by student scores, vouchers and charters are the right course, even if educators, parents, and other citizens don’t agree. He apparently compared himself to Lyndon Baines Johnson, fighting to push civil rights legislation when it was unpopular.
Someone should inform him that he is fighting to preserve a failed status quo, not a struggling dissident movement. Someone should tell him that NCLB is federal law and that its ugly step-child Race to the Top bribed the states to double down on the punitive strategies of NCLB.
His lament of “stay the course” is very good news indeed. It is a public admission that the privatizers know they have no popular base.
Their strategies have failed for more than a decade.
When do they admit to themselves that it’s over?
At some point, they will stop pouring money into a losing and unpopular cause.
That’s the day when we can begin to build a genuine movement to improve our schools.
A Federal judge in Louisiana put a halt to the state voucher program and the new teacher hiring laws in one parish, saying they was likely to undercut the desegregation program.
The State Department of Education will appeal. TFA Commissioner John White believes that choice and privatization matter more than desegregation.
