Public education was subjected to more
insanity this week from the Jindal and the ALEC controlled BESE. BESE, at
the request of Superintendent John White, voted to approve 45 Choice
Course providers to offer MFP funded private courses in the 2013-14
school year. Tom Aswell writes in the Blog, Louisiana Voice,
that not only is this action in conflict with the recent State and
Federal court decisions outlawing MFP funded vouchers, but several of
the BESE members voting for this windfall for private providers may
have a serious conflict of interest. BESE members Lottie Beebie and
Carolyn Hill were the only members who voted against the
authorization. Ms Beebie suggested that at least 5 members of BESE
should have recused themselves from voting on the Choice Course
authorizations. It seems that some of the BESE members expressing
enthusiasm for the privately sponsored courses had received hefty
campaign contributions from some of the Course providers or their
owners. I hope you will read the Louisiana Voice story (see the post dated Dec. 5)
linked here which details the campaign contributions to BESE members
by some of the Choice Providers.
In addition to the two court rulings against MFP funding and violation of deseg. requirements for Choice Courses,
there are other important reasons for not approving Choice Courses as
they are presently structured. I received a very disturbing answer
from the BESE president to a letter I sent in September questioning
the guidelines for Choice Courses. Following the response from
Dastigue, I requested and received a meeting with Superintendent John
White to discuss my concerns about the guidelines for Choice Courses. ( click here to read the Reuters story about Louisiana A la carte courses)
The meeting I had with White was very
cordial and he seemed to be interested in my concerns about potential
abuse or even fraud in the implementation of choice courses by some
providers. I presented my concerns to White in writing in the form of
the letter I had sent to BESE. He promised to review my concerns and
get back to me with a response. To date there has been no response
from White. Now BESE has approved the choice course program with no real safeguards for our tax dollars.
My major concern about Choice courses
that is not adequately addressed in the BESE guidelines is that there
is no guarantee that choice providers will deliver any level of value
for our tax dollars. That's because the compulsory attendance law is
basically waived for most choice courses. The problem is that there
is no provision in BESE guidelines for taking roll for students
attending choice courses. Also in the case of virtual courses
delivered over the internet, students are exempted from a minimum
number of hours of instruction. According to present BESE and DOE
policy, students don't really have to attend choice courses in order
for the provider to be paid. All that is needed for payment of the
fee is for the provider to report to the DOE that the student has
completed the course. Completion could be taking the provider's word
that the student has passed the provider's tests, or it could be
simply a statement by the provider that the student has completed all
assignments required by the course. In other words, the provider has
every incentive to claim that the student has completed a course even
if he/she has done almost nothing. This was confirmed in my reply
from Dastigue indicating that a student taking a “choice” credit
recovery course or a high school course that requires end of course
testing does not have to pass any such test for the provider to
receive full payment!
None of the above shenanigans could happen in a regular public school
setting. That's because there is real accountability for students, parents
and schools in a regular public school provided course. By law,
attendance is taken every day and if a student misses ten or more
days, he/she cannot get credit for a course. In addition school
systems are required by law to track down all truant or tardy
students. Parents who do not send their children regularly to school
can be found to be negligent by local judges and can be fined and
required to send their children to school. But according to BESE
rules for choice courses, students, parents and choice providers get
a free pass and permission to misuse our taxes. This is what passes as education reform in Louisiana.
Jindal and White have stated that
parents are the best judge of the value of a school or course
provider and that parents should have every right to spend their
child's MFP funding at any approved school or with any approved
choice provider. But here is my objection to that claim. That MFP
money does not belong to the parent or the child. In some cases the
parent may not have paid any taxes that go to the MFP. That money
belongs to all Louisiana taxpayers, even those who have no children
in school. We all pay our taxes to provide for the common good of all
citizens. That's why we all deserve accountability for all public
funds spent to educate children. That's why choice course providers
should not be allowed to write their own check for any services given
to public school students. All of this is in addition to the
fact that so far the courts have ruled that choice courses provided
though the MFP are unconstitutional!http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/06/us-education-customize-idUSBRE8B50LE20121206