White ordered to court

At issue is funding provisions for vouchers in Tangipahoa

A federal judge in New Orleans has ordered state Superintendent of Education John White to appear in court Tuesday to explain why the funding provisions of the state’s new voucher program should not be halted in Tangipahoa Parish.

The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle, comes in response to the Tangipahoa Parish School Board’s request for an injunction in its decades-old desegregation suit.

The School Board argued in a Sept. 24 motion that the state’s diversion of Minimum Foundation Program funds from the school district to voucher program enrollees frustrates the district’s ability to build new schools, improve existing facilities and maintain magnet programs as required under court orders in the case.

Lemelle ordered White, the Louisiana Department of Education and the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to appear in court to respond to the School Board’s contentions.

The Education Department had not yet been served with the order by Tuesday evening, spokesman Barry Landry said. The department is not otherwise a party to the lawsuit.

Lemelle signed the order Oct. 17, but writs were not issued until Monday, according to court records.

The Education Department maintains that local funds are not used to support the voucher program.

“The law is clear that there are no local dollars going to the scholarship program and these local communities are not required to pay a single penny to fund the scholarship program,” Landry said in an email.

The law at issue is Act 2 of the 2012 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, which allows students enrolled in schools the state Education Department has graded C, D or F to attend private or other public schools, be home-schooled or enroll in other classes offered by certain course providers.

Under the act, when a student leaves a low-performing public school for another program, the state Minimum Foundation Program funds that would have gone to the public school district for that student are instead forwarded to the school or program in which the student enrolls.

The School Board asked the court to issue an injunction against those provisions of state law and to order the state to restore any previously diverted funding if a voucher student re-enrolls in the district’s schools.

More than 16,600 students in the district attended schools rated C, D or F in 2011-12, the School Board said in its motion.

In addition, the district’s general fund deficit for 2012-13 is about $1.3 million and is projected to be more than $8 million next year, the board argued.

“Given the financial position of the school system and its obligations under (the court’s) order, the absence of such funds will preclude the school system from faithfully implementing court orders or will require that essential maintenance to school facilities not be made when required,” the board argued.

The court on Tuesday will also address concerns the School Board raised in an Oct. 16 motion for a status conference, regarding possible modifications to the court’s orders.

Comments

1) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 24/10/2012

@LawyerDan65: Great point! The costs of the vouchers are apportioned exactly the same way as the Minimum Foundation Program dollars. If the state decided that a student in EBR (and it is different for each district) requires $8315 for a "minimum" education funding level, and then decides that because of the "wealth" factor in their formula that EBR needs to bear 51% of the costs for each student, then that is how the money is divided up for every regular education student. For vouchers students, EBR is simply "docked" the 51% of the cost for each voucher out of money that would otherwise go to the district. So, ultimately, local funds are paying 51% of the costs of each voucher for a regular education student from EBR. Hope that is clear enough.

2) Comment by Crafty1 - 24/10/2012

Did anyone happen to see the 10/23 article in the Baton Rouge Business Report where John White allegedly perjured himself during his May 30th confirmation hearing? If he keeps this up he's really going to have a reason to go before a judge......The story was originally carried by the News-Star paper out of Monroe. It would be nice for the Advocate to start digging. I'm sure that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

3) Comment by LawyerDan65 - 24/10/2012

Local school systems are apportioned a share of the vocuher costs under the law and thus local funds are indirectly funding the vouchers.

4) Comment by janiea - 24/10/2012

My only comment is to read an article in THE NATION..Why Do Some Of America's Wealthiest Individuals Have Fingers In LA. Education System?Article # 170649. I would love to see some comments from You all. Mr. Hammett especially.

5) Comment by zealer99 - 24/10/2012

According to the Louisiana State Constitution ARTICLE VIII. EDUCATION, §8 Section 13.B "The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, or its successor, shall annually develop and adopt a formula which shall be used to determine the cost of a minimum foundation program of education in all public elementary and secondary schools as well as to equitably allocate the funds to parish and city school systems. " The Governor's Office seems to think that any school that educates the public serves as a public school and I am not evaluating his position. The language in the Louisiana State Constitution has proven to be flexible, so who knows. The Federal Court's role in this matter stems from its enforcement of school desegregation and not political philosophy, a ruling in this instance is limited in scope.

6) Comment by Jack_Cause - 24/10/2012

Darn spell check. In the first question from John Bel Edwards, "funds ability" should be "fungibility."

7) Comment by Jack_Cause - 24/10/2012

I wonder if Superintendent John White will explain the funding provisions of the state’s new voucher program the same way he explained it in his testimony before the house education committee? Representative John Bel Edwards: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Superintendent White, getting back to representative Schroder's question about money, it's just the principal of the funds ability, right? I mean the state would be sending more dollars to the local district and they're gonna put that amount, in order to make that local contribution of tax dollars follow that child to the proper parochial school that participates in the scholarship program. I mean, that's really all that this question is about, right? Liz Murrill: I'd like to respond to that. Representative Steve Carter: Please Identify yourself. Murrill: I'm Liz Murrill, the governor's executive council. I think the questions about local money, what that question really is asking is whether it's constitutional for the local funds to follow the child, that's what these questions get to is...(cut off by John Bell Edwards) Edwards: No ma'am. Murrill:... the use of the local money and whether the local funds can follow with the child. Edwards: Ms Chairman that wasn't my question and that's not the person that I asked my question to. Carter: Ma'am stick to the subject and when he asks the question. Answer the question please without assuming what the question is. Could you rephrase your question again please representative Edwards? Edwards: I just wanted to make sure I was clear on the funding mechanism whereby local dollars will follow the scholarship recipient to the private or parochial school, who may or may not be in the same parish, and it's just a demonstration of the principal that money is fungible so you don't have to have the local district to write a check to go with that child to the private or parochial school, the state will send fewer dollars to the district than they otherwise would have in order to make the local contribute their portion of the pro rata funding for that that child that is participating in the scholarship program. That's all, I wanted to make sure that I'm clear, and if what I just explained is not right, I want you to tell me where I'm wrong. White: No, I think it's fair. I might change some of the wording around the idea of making the district. I think we're speaking the same terms. It then becomes a representation of what the district would have sent to the public school and as you say representative, the state then sends fewer dollars because they have already represented the local share in the private school. Edwards: You're not going give them an option, are you? White: Sir? Edwards: You're not going to give the local an option as to whether the local dollars go to the private or parochial school participating in the scholarship program. White: The MFP decides that formula and that process and that's been voted on already. Edwards: Right, but it doesn't give the local an option. White: If the child chooses, and the child is eligible, and the school is eligible, it does not in that case get an option. Edwards: So it's fair to say that the local district is made to put up, a pro rata share, just not by writing a check but in receiving less money from the state through the MFP than they otherwise would have. White: That's correct. Edwards: Thank you.

8) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 24/10/2012

“The law is clear that there are no local dollars going to the scholarship program and these local communities are not required to pay a single penny to fund the scholarship program,” Landry said in an email. This is one of the biggest lies yet! Even @albermarle52 ought to care about the public being lied to by paid public propagandists. In EBR, 51% of the cost of the voucher is paid for by funds raised here in Baton ROuge, not state funds. They are playing a giant shell game with tax dollars, and it matters not whether one is liberal, conservative, independent or whatever, we have a right not to be lied to. If you believe the garbage about unions and school boards, then you have already been a victim of lies.

9) Comment by spqr - 24/10/2012

@albermarle..if it is about the children then the charter schools would be closed, the inexperienced six-figure salaried children running education would be fired, and the comments from the people below would not be construed as being part of a "racket." Do you work for Albermarle? Profit does not matter there?

10) Comment by albermarle52 - 24/10/2012

Funny how everybody comes out of the woodwork to complain when their money gets taken away. It's not about the children. The unions and school boards have a racket going.

11) Comment by 1ryben - 24/10/2012

Very few comments because people do not understand the MFP. Where does the MFP money come from? How is it legally required to be used? I'm trying to find some of these answers, but its tough trying to follow some of the legalese. So far, I've figured out that the Louisiana Constitution states that MFP funds are to be used for public schools only. The legislature has changed the MFP funding formula so that the funds can follow the child but nowhere in the state CONSTITUTION is that stated as a possibility. Unless I am incorrect, the legislature can not change the constitution through passage of a resolution. Only a statewide vote can change the constitution. As for local dollars being used, it seems as though local tax dollars are used to create the MFP funds, therefore it seems to reason that YES,milo cal funds are being used to fund the voucher program.

12) Comment by Warp7 - 23/10/2012

Yep, John Boy will have to finally give some straight answers. And to Jeffsadow the wrong, this is not judicial activisim. Where is Jindal, he sure has been quiet lately. He must be out of state as usual hoping that Romney will forget that he endorsed the Tex Governor!

13) Comment by 8point6 - 23/10/2012

Only SEVEN comments?! I'm surprised there weren't about 30-40 comments from my six or seven "progressive" friends on this. C'mon teacher union members! You can do better than that!

14) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 23/10/2012

@jeffsadow: Really, you are back> Have you not tired of being wrong all the time? Imagine how silly it is to ask our government to tell the truth. But then, perhaps Dr. Sadow wouldn't recognize that. What a shame. One wonders what he is teaching his students! @jedleland: You are probably correct... he only wishes.

15) Comment by jedleland - 23/10/2012

nah, no point jeff only wishes he could get that close

16) Comment by jedleland - 23/10/2012

now you gotta wonder Jindal is over 40 so when it comes time for his proctologist to take a look at his prostate, does he bother the governor who is probably out of state job hunting or does he just ask jeff sadow?

17) Comment by twinkie1cat - 23/10/2012

It's a start and Tangipahoa has the money to see it through. Eventually the vouchers will be shot down, hopefully before a whole generation of children is ruined in these charters and the RSD. By the way, why hasn't the RSD been shut down? They still have the lowest scores in the state!

18) Comment by jeffsadow - 23/10/2012

More accurately, no shield against illogical judicial activism.

19) Comment by mcBR - 23/10/2012

Finally someone who is shielded from Jindal's reign of terror -- a federal judge.

20) Comment by Frustrated - 23/10/2012

John Boy called to the principal's office.