Connect with us


Ira, Stan & Much Ado About DBEs



On my honor, I swear to make a mockery of the Orleans Parish School Board

On my honor, I swear to make a mockery of the Orleans Parish School Board…

Orleans Parish School Board President Ira Thomas is playing racially-charged, self-serving political games on the school board and the target of his machinations is once again OPSB Superintendent Stan Smith.

On Thursday, the Times-Picayune reported that Thomas was trying to schedule an emergency meeting aimed at demoting Smith and possibly installing Armand Devezin as superintendent. However, Thomas was unable to secure the quorum needed to hold the meeting because, as board member Sarah Usdin bluntly put it, “There’s not an emergency.”

Unfortunately for Stan Smith (and those of us who subscribe to the crazy idea that elected officials actually serve the public interest) it’s unlikely that this setback will deter Thomas’ effort to replace him [In fact, Thomas announced this morning (6/25/13) that he plans to address the superintendency issue in the next two days]. It all started at OPSB’s first full post-election meeting in February, when Thomas filed a last-minute item to the agenda seeking to nullify Smith’s superintendent contract. Thomas’ attempted coup de main almost immediately fell apart, however, when board members balked at his suggestion that Smith’s contract was never actually approved by the board. Instead, they passed a substitute motion put forward by Seth Bloom asking Thomas and Vice-President Leslie Ellison to revise the contract and bring it back for ratification at a later date [As of 6/25/13, the board has yet to receive a revised contract from Thomas and Ellison].

While one would expect that Thomas would give up this crusade after its spectacular failure in February, his behind-the-scenes maneuvers over the past week indicate otherwise. So why is Ira Thomas so hellbent on replacing Stan Smith? Have schools fallen into disrepair? Are the district’s finances in shambles? Has student performance plummeted? Nope. In fact, to Smith’s credit, things in the district have hummed right along under his leadership. Rather, Thomas is seeking to oust Smith over an issue that has nothing to do with the actual educational mission of OPSB: district construction contracts.

Board member Cynthia Cade, the Robin to Ira Thomas' Batman

Don’t let the smile fool you: Cynthia Cade has strongly supported Thomas’ effort to sack Stan Smith

As noted in a recent article in the The Advocate, both Thomas and board ally Cynthia Cade have focused much of their energy over the past year on “ensuring that district contractors hire minority-owned businesses for construction work.” Last summer, Thomas and Cade successfully pushed a resolution requiring that 35% of the value of each district contract be directed toward toward minority-owned contractors, certified as Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs). In spite of this success, Thomas and Cade again raised the issue at OPSB’s September meeting, when they hijacked board’s agenda to interrogate Smith and comptroller Wayne DeLarge (video: starts at 26:40 here and continues here) about the decision to allocate additional funding and staff to the district’s charter school office rather than the DBE office. When Smith attempted to offer an explanation, Thomas simply ignored him and instead insinuated that prejudice somehow played a role in the Superintendent’s decision.

Ensuring that DBEs receive a fair share of district contract work should be a priority for OPSB’s administration and although they have sought to portray the Superintendent as an opponent of the program, neither Thomas nor Cade have produced a shred of evidence indicating that Smith has sought to undermine it. Ultimately, it’s become clear that the motives behind these attacks have more to do with power than with the fair allocation of OPSB contracts. Thomas has seized upon the DBE program, intended to promote inclusivity in the district’s business practices, and twisted it into a divisive issue to strengthen his position on the board and install one of his own in the district’s top post.

One issue that has not been explored in the course of this ongoing drama is who stands to possibly benefit from Thomas’ bullying over the DBE program. Interestingly enough, a review of Thomas’ 2012 campaign finance reports surface a number of individuals and entities that are directly or indirectly connected to DBEs:

To be clear, the mere fact that so many supporters of Ira Thomas’ reelection campaign have connections to DBE contracts in no way constitutes evidence of wrongdoing by either the donors or by Thomas. But, it certainly is a coincidence, isn’t it?

In the end, Thomas’ campaign against Stan Smith is ultimately self-defeating because his unscrupulous behavior on this issue, especially since becoming OPSB President, is so reminiscent of the board’s troubled pre-Katrina past. It’s clear that New Orleanians oppose a return to the days when our schools suffered while board members engaged in infighting and corruption. Yet, Thomas’ example undermines any notion that the Orleans Parish School Board, as currently structured, is capable of governing in a way that puts the needs of its students first. When the issue of local control is raised in the future, hopefully we’ll keep this lesson in mind.

For reference, here are links to the Candidate Reports filed by Ira Thomas and referenced above:

In addition, here are the lists of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) in both Orleans and Jefferson Parishes:

Pete became involved in education reform as a 2002 Teach For America corps member in New Orleans Public Schools and has worked in various capacities at Teach For America, KIPP, TNTP, and the Recovery School District. As a consultant, he developed teacher evaluation systems and served as a strategic advisor to school district leaders in Cleveland, Nashville, Chattanooga, and Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. He now writes about education policy and politics and lives in New Orleans.



Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Thank You, Stan | PE + CO

Thank You, Stan | PE + CO mentioned this Article on

Peter Cook

Peter Cook mentioned this Article on


[…] discussed previously [see: "Ira, Stan & Much Ado About DBEs"], much of the recent controversy on the board stems from OPSB President Ira Thomas’ ongoing […]



A Victory For Pettiness Over Progress Why Did The Governor Veto A Common Sense Education Bill?



On Friday, Louisiana lawmakers voted to cancel a veto session to override Governor John Bel Edwards’ rejection of a number of bills passed by the legislature during this year’s regular session. The move was expected even though many Republican legislators accused the Governor of using his veto power to punish lawmakers who have consistently opposed his agenda.

Although the Governor’s line-item vetoes of construction projects in the state budget aroused the most controversy, the press largely overlooked his rejection of House Bill 568, a proposal from State Rep. Nancy Landry which would have revised the state’s student data privacy law.

Some background on H.B. 568

The story of House Bill 568 has its origins in a conversation I had last spring with a friend who works at the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University. For years, CREDO has produced highly regarded studies on the effectiveness of the state’s charter schools using data provided by the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE). However, in 2015, LDOE officials informed CREDO they could no longer provide access to that information due to changes in the state’s student data privacy law, passed by the legislature in 2014, which prohibited the department from sharing data with research institutions outside of Louisiana.

The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford has published highly regarded studies on the effectiveness of charter schools.

Without access to student performance data, CREDO’s research on Louisiana’s charter schools would grind to a halt and education policymakers would lose an objective, in-depth assessment of the health of the state’s charter sector. Moreover, the refusal to share data with out-of-state researchers would mean that Louisiana’s influence on the national education policy debate would be significantly diminished.

Seeking to avoid that outcome, my friend at CREDO reached out to see if I had any ideas on how they should proceed. I connected her with State Rep. Nancy Landry, who serves as chair of the House Education Committee, to explain the situation and see if she could help. Their subsequent discussions resulted in H.B. 568, which Landry filed during this year’s regular legislative session.

State Rep. Nancy Landry (R – Lafayette), is chair of House Education Committee and has clashed with the Governor over education policy.

The bill sought to carve out an exception to the overly broad changes lawmakers made in 2014 by allowing data to be shared (in accordance with standard data privacy protection procedures) with researchers at any college or university in the United States accredited and recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. In short, H.B. 568 was limited in scope and non-controversial, as evidenced by the fact that it passed by large margins in both the House (95-3) and Senate (27-7).

Read more about how researchers use student data:

Student data privacy and education research must be balanced

Last week, the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on data privacy protections for students. Michael Hansen highlights the gravity of the debate around how Congress will update the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) for use in the modern age where big data is king.

So what’s with the veto?

Which brings us to the question of why Governor Edwards vetoed the legislation, especially when it had broad bipartisan support. Let’s start with the “official” rationale provided by the Governor in his veto message:

“The legislation requires LDOE to enter into a memorandum of understanding in which the person conducting such academic research agrees to be civilly liable for any fine imposed as a violation of authorized uses of the student information. Under current law, a person who violates authorized uses of the student information is subject to both criminal and civil penalties. House Bill 568 references civil penalties only relative to the memorandum of understanding. However, it does not create an exception to the criminal liability provisions in current law. Because of these drafting concerns, I have vetoed House Bill 568.”

The contention that the Governor felt compelled to veto the bill over a technicality – i.e., it didn’t create an explicit exception to the criminal liability provision in the current law – is unconvincing. Even though H.B. 568 didn’t specifically address criminal liability, it’s not at all clear that it necessarily needed to do so. In any case, from a practical standpoint, it is highly unlikely that a prosecutor would pursue a misdemeanor conviction – as opposed to a civil fine – against an employee of an out-of-state research institution. In fact, to my knowledge, no one has ever faced criminal charges in Louisiana for violating the state’s student data privacy law. It’s also worth noting that the Governor’s Office never raised this concern as H.B. 568 was winding its way through the legislature and could have been amended.

The Governor’s Office never raised concerns about H.B. 568 as it was making its way through the legislature.

When taken together, the facts suggest that the decision to veto House Bill 568 had little to do with the content of the legislation and more to do with its author. Rep. Landry has clashed with the Governor repeatedly over education policy in recent years and several of the Governor’s school-related proposals have died in the House Education Committee, which Landry chairs. Although Edwards would not be the first governor to use his veto pen to punish lawmakers who opposed his agenda, it makes no sense to apply it to a bill as innocuous and apolitical as H.B. 568, especially seeing that Rep. Landry had nothing to gain by sponsoring the legislation.

Nevertheless, Governor Edwards did just that. Thanks to his veto, Louisiana’s overly broad and mind-numbingly parochial student data privacy law remains in force. Out-of-state academics who want to study our public schools will be told to look elsewhere. And as a result, our public education system won’t be able to benefit from the knowledge and insights their research would provide.

Read House Bill 568:

Read the Governor’s Veto Message:

Continue Reading


All About The Kids? Calcasieu Teacher Plays Politics At The Expense Of Students, Taxpayers



For more than a year, Calcasieu Parish special education teacher Ganey Arsement has been on a self-appointed crusade against education reform in Louisiana. He has blasted charters, standardized testing, Common Core, teacher evaluation, and yours truly on his blog, as well as on social media. He has worked to coordinate his attacks with the state’s teachers unions, particularly the Louisiana Association of Educators, and has sought to ingratiate himself with anti-reform politicians like Gov. John Bel Edwards and former State Rep. Brett Geymann.

Arsement with Gov. John Bel Edwards and former State Rep. Brett Geymann.

Arsement has also become an increasingly visible presence in Baton Rouge, where he has spent untold hours attending meetings of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) and lobbying in the hallways of the State Capitol. In recent months, Arsement has turned his guns on State Superintendent of Education John White – the bête noire of Louisiana’s reform opponents – whom he wants replaced. After failing to convince legislators that the law required them to reconfirm White (who has been on a month-to-month contract since the beginning of 2016), Arsement filed a petition in state court late last month that seeks to remove him from office.

Through it all, Arsement has portrayed himself as a selfless defender of public education who is fighting the nefarious schemes of greedy “corporate” reformers. However, a closer examination reveals that his political adventures have instead come at the expense of students and taxpayers.

Unethical and possibly worse

Official attendance records provided to me by Calcasieu Parish Schools Superintendent Karl Bruchhaus show that Arsement missed 16.5 days of work – more than three weeks of school – over the course of the 2016-17 school year.


Arsement's absences and Calcasieu Parish School Board holidays.

According to Bruchhaus, all but one of these days (May 9, 2017) were recorded as sick leave. State law permits teachers to take two days of personal leave per year without loss of pay. The law also allows teachers to take ten days of sick leave per year due to illness or other emergencies without loss of pay. Unused sick leave can be carried over from one year to the next.

In Arsement’s case, it is clear that he took paid sick leave on many days when he was actually playing politics in Baton Rouge. Moreover, you don’t have to take my word for it, as he admits as much several times on his blog. Here are just a few examples…

What this means is that Arsement was off doing political advocacy while his special needs students were left with a substitute (who also had to be paid) and taxpayers foot the bill. I would venture to guess that most people would find that unacceptable, especially the parents of his students.

Missing absences?

If that’s not bad enough, I’ve also identified at least one day – and possibly two days – where his attendance record says he was working, but he was actually in Baton Rouge.

Several sources have confirmed that Arsement was at the Capitol during school hours on May 2nd. Nevertheless, his attendance record does not mark him absent on that date. Why that absence is missing is unclear, but since teachers verify their timesheets, the error should have been corrected.

The second day in question is May 8th when, by his own admission, he proudly delivered a petition calling for the removal of John White to the office of Senate President John Alario. Although he does not indicate when he made that delivery, one assumes he didn’t hop in his car immediately when school ended at 3:10pm to drive two hours to Baton Rouge to drop it off. In any case, Arsement is not marked absent on May 8th, either.

Exactly why reform is needed

When Arsement claims education reform supporters “demonize” teachers, what he means is that they actually expect teachers to do the work they’re paid to do. While this may seem draconian to someone who can apparently skip entire days of work and get away with it, this is not a radical concept to most of us. When taxpayers hand over their hard-earned money to pay for public education, they expect teachers to teach. When parents send their children off to school, they expect their kids will actually spend the day learning. When Arsement instead takes a bunch of sick days to lobby lawmakers for lower standards and less accountability, he’s breaking that social contract and possibly the law. Worst of all, he’s doing a tremendous disservice to the young people in his classroom – kids who need the most help.

In his effort to rollback Louisiana’s education reform policies, Arsement has inadvertently provided a real-life illustration of why they are so desperately needed. For that at least, I thank him.

Continue Reading





Send this to a friend