White touts student aid proposal

Rebutting criticism, state Superintendent of Education John White said Wednesday that the East Baton Rouge Parish school system and others would see gains in state aid under his proposal to change the way gifted and talented students are funded.

“It allows school systems, if they do the right thing for their kids, to be awarded with more money while at the same time not jeopordizing any student services because those remain in the law,” White said.

Earlier this week, Dannie Garrett III, the president of the Baton Rouge Association for Gifted and Talented Students, said the group wants White’s plan scrapped, in part because parents and others believe the change would mean less money for their children.

But White said that, while the plan is complex, in many cases it would mean more money for schools by generating aid from other high-achieving students, not just those classified as gifted and talented.

The proposed changes are included in the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education’s $3.5 billion funding request for public schools.

The plan will be reviewed by the Legislature, which begins its regular session on April 8.

The modification would only apply to public high school students, including about 10,000 classified as gifted and talented.

Under current rules, state aid for gifted and talented students is 1.6 times what rank-and-file students get.

White wants to trim that aid to 1.3 times what rank-and-file students receive.

However, that extra aid would be expanded to all students who meet certain academic benchmarks, including 10th- and 11th-graders who scored 3 or higher on an Advanced Placement exam, which can be used for college credit.

In addition, gifted and talented students who also meet the new benchmarks would qualify for 1.6 times what rank-and-file students get.

White said any reduction in state dollars for gifted and talented students would, in many cases, be more than offset by additional dollars for the school system generated by other students who do well on advanced coursework.

He said that, in the case of the East Baton Rouge Parish school system, a slight drop in gifted and talented aid would be more than offset by new gains sparked by other students meeting the new academic standards.

White said that, in part, the change is aimed at recognizing that high school AP and other classes are costly but not generating any special state dollars.

The change is supposed to be a pilot project for the 2013-14 school year.

White repeatedly has said that any tweak in state aid would be limited to 10 percent initially, which means that a district in line for an extra $100 would get $10 and one in line to lose $100 would lose $10 instead.

The state is spending about $42 million this year for gifted and talented students.

“We say let’s take that $42 million and just basically carve it up a little differently,” White said.

Garrett said about 70 parents met with BESE President Chas Roemer and others for more than two hours Tuesday night.

In an email, Garrett said his organization will “advocate for retaining the current funding model and oppose the proposed changes from becoming permanent.”

Comments

1) Comment by lgmom - 21/03/2013

@teacherguy: I said I understood it, but that doesn't mean I agree. Lack of oversight on how the money is being spent; the fact that more money for AP courses won't mean more kids will earn the "pay off" score; the lack of funds to cover the $89 fee/student; the nauseating fact that BESE didn't know about the disconnect between gifted and AP; the inability to recoup the talented money; and the fact that those monies were dedicated to one of the few programs that have paid off for Louisiana schools, one of the only things we do well here (football ≠ education), and yes, once you have altered that dedication it's easier to keep chipping away than build it back up. All of these concern me. I wrote several days ago that I was convinced that the money would disappear into the voucher void. But for this year, at least, I don't believe that was the intent or the result. With White and Jindal still here, I'll be looking at future revised MFP formulas like a hawk. (Oh, and the "accountability grades" you mention don't tell much more than how concentrated the poverty is for each school. Another way for Jindal and White to distract the less informed while they steal from our public schools.)

2) Comment by teacherguy - 21/03/2013

@lgmom...it is more money being whittled away...take into account the charter/voucher/online education schemes that are whittling away tax dollars from public schools. You will see more whittling when students begin taking the choice courses...one might say, these kids need/deserve these choice courses, but there is little to no oversight on the attendance or progress of students in these...so the money to pay for it evaporates, and the students signing up for them could very well not take full advantage for them. Now, gifted/talented coffers are being raided...with the illusion that it will be good to put the discretion at the local level, but given time...there will be new "schemes" to deplete the money given to public schools (where at least the general public receives a school "grade" to determine accountability).

3) Comment by lgmom - 21/03/2013

White needed to find a bit extra to encourage districts to graduate college ready students. While the gifted students are usually college ready, it was thought that the .3 taken from their MFP dollars would be earned back with their AP scores. The downsides are 1) many gifted students don't take AP courses every year - a lot move on to dual enrollment in college courses (the quality of which isn't as easy to judge as AP courses) 2) the 1.3 MFP is DEDICATED and must be used for gifted education - the .3 earned back through test scores will be left to the discretion of the district 3) students who are Talented aren't always also gifted, and don't always take AP courses and so aren't able to earn back that .3. As a G/T parent, I don't like it but I understand it and would feel better if they just said "We needed money and couldn't find it anywhere else and at least some of it can be given back." It's imperfect but not as horrible as it originally sounded. I just don't want this to be a slippery slope to more dedicated funding at all levels being whittled away.

4) Comment by Ohsofedup - 21/03/2013

John White is not what Louisiana needs and he must go. He knows nothing about the gifted and Talented programs, and how they are working great right now and do not need his interference at all. He has messed up the entire education of our children due to his arrogance and lack of experience. BESE could make things right by removing this man from his office and putting in someone that has real professional educational experience and know how. Does this list of salaries look like a man that's main concern is the children, hardly but take a look at the following ridiculous salaries for his dynasty: A quick peek indicates that some of the unclassified salaries seem to proliferate in the Department of Education: • John White, Superintendent: $275,000; • Michael Rounds, Deputy Superintendent: $170,000; • Howard Drake and Gayle Sloan, Liaison Officers: $160,000 each; • Kerry Laster, Executive Officer: $155,000; • David Lefkowith, precise title still a mystery: $146,000; • Kunjan Narechania, Chief of Staff to John White: $145,000; • Gary Jones, Executive Officer: $145,000; • Deirdre Finn, part time PR Director (working from home in Tallahassee, FL.): $144,000; • James P. Wilson, Director (of what?): $142,000; • Melissa Stilley, Liaison Officer: $135,000; • Elizabeth Scioneaux, Deputy Superintendent: $132,800; • Debra Schum, Executive Officer: $132,000; • Hannah Dietsch, Assistant Superintendent (someone please explain the difference between an assistant superintendent and a deputy superintendent.): $130,000; • Nicholas Bolt, Deputy Chief of Staff (as opposed to assistant chief of staff): $105,000. Perhaps you may have noticed in that lengthy laundry list of high-paying position, there was not a single name followed by the title “Instructor” or any other title that would indicate classroom experience.

5) Comment by teacherguy - 21/03/2013

You make a VERY good point here Noel, why are we changing the way things work in the districts that are considered "passing"? Make these changes in only the districts that are "failing"....John White said that districts would be able to keep G/T funding the way it is IF THEY WANT TO, but could redistribute "as they see fit"...however, EVERYONE knows that when given access to varying sources of funding...NEEDS will surface to take it away. I think it is a travesty to continue this trend of placing money only where the kids score the "best" as it opens the doors for the "haves" to get more, and the "have nots" to get less! http://www.geauxteacher.net/2013/03/more-mfp- gobbledegook-from-supt-white.html

6) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 21/03/2013

Why do you think that John White doesn't want to "experiment" with this pay-for-performance scheme in his own Recovery School District. He and Chas Roemer have this 10% plan they are touting, let them put this into play in his school district, and prove that it can work. Simple, he controls everything about the RSD, so let's really see how this works!

7) Comment by LawyerDan65 - 21/03/2013

Currently Gifted and Talented programs across the State are the most successful educational programs we have, and any proposal that will harm any of the Gifted and Talented programs in our State should be rejected. The State can incentivize AP without taking funding from G/T.

8) Comment by LawyerDan65 - 21/03/2013

The new proposal seeks to incentivize more AP courses, but does not include any funding for the families that have to pay $89 to the College Board, which administers AP exams. If the State is driving this effort, then the State shoudl pay for the test.

9) Comment by Scrooge - 20/03/2013

we don't need none of them gifted and talented, they skew the test scores and make a mockery of the need for vouchers. This state is scrooed.

10) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 20/03/2013

There is a very easy pilot plan for these changes that Superintendent John White is proposing. Try them in his RSD first. He is so sure they work, so let his schools try it, and if the "pay for performance" (which has no evidence behind it) works, they can release ALL of the detailed data, and everyone can see how it works! In addition, the pay-for-performance for special needs students can be piloted in the RSDZ at the same time, and perhaps it will improve the performance of the RSD which is roughly doing half-as-well as the rest of the state for special education students. In fact, currently, in the RSD special education students are twice as likely to take tests "with accommodations" and half as likely to pass them. So, let's start with piloting these changes in the RSD!

11) Comment by teacherguy - 20/03/2013

I think it is a testament to White's past that so few schools, districts, teachers, etc. don't trust him...what a great superintendent of education!!! a TRUE leader!!! LOL