Connect with us

Louisiana

The Supes Who Cried Wolf Why Are District Leaders Trying To Make A Mess Outta ESSA?

Published

on

Last week’s meeting of the Superintendents’ Advisory Council turned into a three-hour long soap opera as several school district leaders used the opportunity to attack State Superintendent John White over his plan to comply with the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

For the past nine months, White and the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) have been developing a plan to revise the state’s accountability policies to align with the mandates of the new federal education law, which Congress passed in December 2015 to replace the No Child Left Behind Act.

The latest draft of White’s ESSA proposal retains key elements of the current accountability system (such as school and district letter grades and performance scores) and establishes ambitious new achievement objectives for Louisiana’s students.

The most controversial change proposed by White would make student growth a much bigger factor in the formula used to grade schools: 25% of the overall score, up from 7% in the current model. Some education advocates argue that an increased emphasis on growth will distort school letter grades, making some schools appear higher performing than they would be based on proficiency alone.

Under White’s ESSA proposal, student growth would count for 25% of a school’s overall performance score

Nevertheless, the Louisiana Accountability Commission, which advises the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), approved the new growth measure earlier this month. White now wants BESE to sign off on the proposal at its March meeting so the plan can be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education for approval before the start of the 2017-18 school year.

Supes’ criticism a delaying tactic

However, as Will Sentell of The Advocate reported, the dustup at the superintendents’ meeting had little to do with the details in White’s proposal and more to do with the personal agendas of a few district leaders who oppose the reforms embraced by the State Superintendent.

One of them is Central Superintendent Michael Faulk, a frequent critic of the state’s accountability policies, who pushed for a moratorium on school letter grades in the aftermath of last year’s floods. Faulk criticized White’s ESSA implementation timeline, claiming it would cause “Common Core-style upheaval” across the state – a statement which makes absolutely no sense. Unlike Common Core, White’s ESSA proposal doesn’t require a wholesale shift in how schools and districts operate; instead, it outlines how state officials intend to assess and support public schools.


Superintendent Michael Faulk and Superintendent Kelli Joseph

St. Helena Superintendent Kelli Joseph joined Faulk in criticizing the timeline, offering vacuous reasons like, “There are still a lot of questions out there,” and “We don’t know where we are going.” While Joseph may not know where she’s going, it’s easy to understand why she might want to delay the new accountability policies, since St. Helena has long been one of the lowest-performing districts in the state. Although things have improved somewhat during her tenure, the district still has a low “D” rating and unless things improve the school board could be forced to find a new leader. That might also explain why Joseph wrote a “white paper” last year arguing that poor, rural school systems like St. Helena shouldn’t be held to the same standards as other districts.



Things even got nasty when St. James Parish Schools head Ed Cancienne accused White of disregarding input from district leaders and manipulating them to achieve his policy goals, saying: “I know you have done a good job of dividing and conquering superintendents in this state.” It’s an ironic statement coming from Cancienne, whose imperious attitude and penchant for dirty tricks has landed him in hot water on several occasions. In any case, Cancienne never offered a coherent rational for why the ESSA plan should be delayed, much like the other critics who were making a fuss at the meeting.

St. James Parish Superintendent Ed Cancienne

At the end of the day, the objections raised at last week’s Superintendents’ Advisory Council lacked any real merit. In reality, a handful of district leaders are trying to create controversy in the hope that it might convince BESE to delay its adoption of the new accountability framework. That would be a mistake. While Louisiana has made big gains in student achievement over the past decade, we still have a long way to go. Without a strong accountability system, we can’t ensure that schools and districts continue on the path of improvement.

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.

21 Comments

LEAVE A COMMENT

avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
wpDiscuz

Louisiana

AFT On The Bayou Union Spends Less In Louisiana, But More On Charter Organizing in New Orleans

Published

on

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) spent less overall in Louisiana in the past fiscal year than it did in F.Y. 2016, but the union boosted its funding for charter school organizing efforts in New Orleans by more than forty percent.

An analysis of expenditure data from AFT’s 2017 annual report to U.S. Department of Labor shows that the union spent $2,326,573 in Louisiana during the fiscal year that ended June 30th, a slight decrease from the from $2.49 million it spent in the state in 2016.

About a quarter of AFT’s spending went to political activities, which included nearly $125,000 in payments to the political action committee of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, as well as a $15,000 contribution to Defend Louisiana, a super PAC behind Foster Campbell’s unsuccessful bid for the U.S. Senate last fall. In addition, AFT spent nearly $370,000 to influence last year’s Orleans Parish School Board elections, as I exposed in a previous blog post in January.

A diagram showing the distribution of AFT’s F.Y. 2017 spending in Louisiana.

AFT also invested heavily in organizing activities across the Bayou State. It gave nearly $192,000 to Red River United to support recruitment in Bossier, Caddo, and Red River Parishes. AFT spent another $184,000 on organizing in Monroe and $147,000 in Jefferson Parish.

Furthermore, AFT’s most recent annual report suggests that the union is stepping up its efforts to organize charter schools in the Big Easy. In F.Y 2017, AFT national poured $412,926 into its New Orleans Charter Organizing Project, a significant increase from the $292,000 it allocated in 2016. In all, AFT spent more than $850,000 on its New Orleans-based activities in the past year.

Although their recruitment efforts in the city have had mixed success, AFT’s willingness to spend substantial sums of money in New Orleans makes clear they still pose a serious threat. Over the past four years, AFT has steered more than $1.6 million to organize New Orleans charter schools and roll back the city’s reforms.

We need to remain vigilant to ensure that never happens.


Explore the data:


Read AFT’s 2017 annual report:

Continue Reading

LaLege

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

Published

on

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

Twitter

Subscribe

RSS Feed

Subscribe to my RSS feed to get updates in your news reader. Follow

Facebook

Trending

 

Send this to a friend