La. high court to hear voucher case

Louisiana’s top court next month will hear the state’s appeal of a Baton Rouge judge’s ruling that Louisiana’s expanded voucher program, along with another key legislatively approved piece of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s public school overhaul plan, unconstitutionally divert public funds to private and parochial schools.

The state Supreme Court is scheduled to entertain oral arguments at 2 p.m. March 19 in New Orleans.

State District Judge Tim Kelley’s Nov. 30 ruling came at the end of a three-day trial of consolidated lawsuits, filed by Louisiana’s two largest teacher unions and the state’s school boards association, challenging the legality of Act 2 and Senate Concurrent Resolution 99 — both of the 2012 legislative session.

Act 2 is the so-called voucher bill, and SCR 99 is the Minimum Foundation Program resolution.

Public school aid in Louisiana goes through the MFP formula. This year, it provides some $3.4 billion in basic state aid for school operations and students statewide.

Under Act 2, students who attend public schools rated C, D or F under the state accountability system and who meet income rules can apply for state aid to attend private or parochial schools. The vouchers provide aid to cover tuition and mandatory fees at private and parochial schools. Those schools collect an average of $5,300 per student from the state.

The new expanded program began with the start of the school year in August. Before the new law, the state offered vouchers only to certain students in New Orleans.

Jimmy Faircloth, an attorney who represents the state in the case, said the state is asking the Supreme Court to find Act 2 and the 2011-12 MFP constitutional “in all respects.”

“The trial court correctly found that Act 2 was properly enacted and that the MFP was properly approved, but mistakenly interpreted the constitutional article providing for the MFP,” Faircloth said.

“The constitution gives (the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education) broad authority to develop a formula that shall provide for a minimum foundation for public education and the fair allocation of funding to the public school districts,” he added. “This MFP accomplishes that mandate, while factoring the cost of other publicly supported programs into the formula. This is clearly constitutional, and it is good policy. When BESE and the Legislature debate public funding of educational programs, all programs should be on the table at the same time.”

The Virginia-based Institute for Justice, which represents the families using the voucher program, also is defending the program in court.

“Our goal with the (high) court will be to focus on the simple fact of the case: The state’s effort to bring a lifeline to kids in failing schools through the Minimum Foundation Program is absolutely consistent with the Louisiana Constitution,” said Bill Maurer, an attorney with the Institute for Justice.

“So long as the state provides the minimum foundation to public schools, it can bring all state educational spending into one mechanism so the state can address the needs of all Louisiana kids in one place,” he said.

Kelley agreed with the Louisiana Federation of Teachers, the Louisiana Association of Educators and the Louisiana School Boards Association and ruled that Act 2 and SCR 99 unconstitutionally divert to nonpublic entities “MFP funds that are constitutionally mandated to be allocated to public elementary and secondary schools.”

The judge also said the act and concurrent resolution unconstitutionally divert to nonpublic entities “local funds included in the MFP that are constitutionally mandated to be allocated” to public schools. Local funds refers to tax dollars.

“We move forward knowing that we are working towards protecting the 98 percent of Louisiana families who opted not to take part in the voucher program,” LAE President Joyce Haynes said. “We need to ensure that the funds in question are used to improve students’ educational experiences in the public school system. It’s really unfortunate that the state continues to spend money on something that’s already been declared unconstitutional.”

Scott Richard, executive director of the LSBA, said the association “certainly feels as if Judge Kelley was right on target with the ruling on the MFP funding issue.”

“It was created to address funding to public education, and never intended to provide for taxpayer dollars for non-public schools or programs,” he said. “Judge Kelley’s 30-plus page opinion was very well-reasoned, clear and concise on the funding concerns, and we are hopeful that the Supreme Court will be as fair, objective and thorough in their consideration of the matter.”

Kelley has said his ruling “does not propose to foreclose the State from establishing educational programs that are funded outside the constitutional limitations of the Minimum Foundation Program.”

Attorneys for the state and school-choice advocates have said his decision will not have an effect this school year on the nearly 5,000 public school students statewide who qualified for vouchers to attend private or parochial schools.

Jindal has called Kelley’s ruling “a travesty for parents across Louisiana who want nothing more than for their children to have an equal opportunity at receiving a great education.” The governor said the decision “sadly ignores the rights of families who do not have the means necessary to escape failing schools.”

The lawsuits by the LFT, LAE and LSBA were filed against the state Department of Education and the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The LFT, LAE and LSBA also claim state lawmakers did not follow the constitutional requirements for filing and passing the education programs and their funding.

Lawmakers agreed to the voucher program and other education changes pushed by Jindal in their 2012 regular session as a way to improve student achievement. Teachers repeatedly protested at the State Capitol, but the measures were fast-tracked through the Legislature by Jindal allies.

Education Superintendent John White has said the department strongly disagrees with Kelley’s ruling and is optimistic it will be reversed.

Jindal and White contend the voucher program is helping thousands of children get a better education than they would have received in the public schools they left.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (9)


1) Comment by Crafty1 - 10/02/2013

My family is already reaping the benefits of vouchers and other reforms. My kids private school does not accept vouchers and their school is receiving top applicants from the experienced teachers fleeing the public system. Before you know it we'll be back to a segregated system.

2) Comment by morellok2 - 10/02/2013

Scrooge, because that is the only way they can support such policies. As a product of EBRPSS, I support public education and will forever be grateful for the education it provided me. My parents never had to worry about my education. I have spent my adult life in private education because the public schools were no longer the system I knew and appreciated. Bottom line, fix the public schools- do not destroy them by deflecting tax money to private schools and private charter schools. That is the best way to serve ALL our children.

3) Comment by Scrooge - 10/02/2013

" If you want to improve public schools, you will want the voucher program" . Is that contention or verifiable research? lets repeat, there is a world of difference between contention and evidence, one would think a Ph.D. might be aware of that. There is much literature "proving" the effectiveness of vouchers by institutions such as the 'Friedman Foundation for Education Choice" but little in the way of substantive peer reviewed literature with no discernible interest in bias supports those assertions . Why is it necessary to support much of these "new world order" policies on half-truths and biased research?

4) Comment by jeffsadow - 10/02/2013

"Just fix the public schools..." School choice does so by introducing meaningful competition to the government school monopoly that it available to all regardless of income level trapped in underperforming schools. This will create greater incentive for public schools to shape up, by streamlining bureaucracy, having lower tolerance for inferior teaching, and by their paying less attention to non-merit considerations in hiring and promotions. If you want to improve public schools, you will want the voucher program.

5) Comment by Scrooge - 10/02/2013

A fool and his money are soon parted

6) Comment by Scrooge - 10/02/2013

Where is the accountability for the money? Certainly, if private educations are better for educating disadvantaged children, the proponents would be eager to provide the evidence. There is a world of difference between contention and evidence, between education for education's sake and education for profit. .

7) Comment by phil - 10/02/2013

The statement - "Jindal and White contend the voucher program is helping thousands of children get a better education than they would have received in the public schools they left", indicates to me a large flaw. What about the majority of the students who get left behind? Are we going to a system of no child left behind to a system of a majority of children left behind? I personally think this entire school choice issue is an issue that has been created by some brilliant people to just confuse the real issue. The real issue is the fact that public schools need to be fixed. When I was young there was NO choice. You were assigned a public school and you went to it Matter of fact I know people who never moved and had to change schools because the district boundary was changed. Gee, can I sue now because I was treated unfairly many years ago and not given a choice? Just fix the public schools and quit all of these made up distractions (possibly for profits?), in my opinion.

8) Comment by TommyRucker - 10/02/2013

We are fixing to see if OUR supreme court will join the forces of massive socialism dominating and destroying the country. This voucher system is an attempt to allow some disadvantaged parents and their children to escape being trapped in a destructive cesspool called the public educational system. It is really that bad in many areas and these parents are being given a chance to remove their children from the cesspool. We have and have had for decades many examples of government aiding citizens by joining in, cooperating with private companies, schools, individuals, etc. This is no different. These parents and children will actually be DISCRIMINATED against if the supreme court rules against the voucher system. In our present society and with our present state of government, it apparently depends on who you are and what you believe, who you politically support if you are going to get support from government. The teachers union are against this voucher system purely for self serving and selfish reasons. Hopefully we have a supreme court that will not allow these parents and their children to be discriminated against because they lack the political power and political connections.

9) Comment by morellok2 - 10/02/2013

Hopefully the surpreme court justices will actually make their ruling based on the constitution and not on their desire to please the governor! Anyone who reads that part of the constitution can see that this is clearly unconstitutional.