State: Voucher program halt would uproot students

Show caption
/

Fifty voucher students may be required to change schools before the end of the semester if a federal judge’s order halting implementation of the voucher program in Tangipahoa Parish is not put on hold pending an appeal, state Superintendent of Education John White said.

White’s attorneys filed a motion Wednesday in the parish’s federal desegregation case requesting a stay until Dec. 15 of U.S. District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle’s order, pending the Education Department’s appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Lemelle found after a hearing Monday that the state voucher or scholarship program, course provider laws and new school personnel regulations conflict with standing orders in the parish’s 47-year-old desegregation lawsuit, and issued an injunction against those provisions.

Education Department attorneys now say if that ruling is not stayed, “These children (who) have been attending various schools under the scholarship program in Act 2 ... may be required to relocate only weeks before the end of the semester.”

The superintendent of the Catholic Diocese of Baton Rouge schools, which oversees the four Tangipahoa Parish Catholic schools enrolling voucher students, could not be reached for comment Thursday.

School Board attorneys dispute the contention that students would be ousted before semester’s end.

“The order is prospective and only applies to payments going forward,” School Board lead attorney Charles Patin said Thursday. “The injunction can’t take money away that’s already been spent.”

The state’s next monthly payment to the schools is scheduled for Dec. 17, according to White’s motion.

The last day of the fall semester for St. Joseph School in Ponchatoula and Holy Ghost in Hammond is Dec. 20. Mater Dolorosa in Independence and St. Thomas Aquinas in Hammond will dismiss students after a half day Dec. 21.

White’s argument assumes either that the schools will not allow the students to remain enrolled the few days between the payment-due date and semester’s end or that the students’ parents will be unable or unwilling to pay the difference, Patin said in a brief opposing White’s motion for a stay.

Patin also suggested in his brief that the Education Department could request permission from the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget to reallocate department funds from a source other than the Minimum Foundation Program to make the payment.

The enjoined voucher laws specifically designate MFP funds as the source from which the state is to make such payments.

The School Board had argued that the diversion of MFP funds, including a local contribution share, from the district to voucher-participant schools prevented the district from financially complying with court orders to build new schools, improve existing facilities and maintain magnet programs in the parish.

The board asked for an injunction specifically as to the local contribution off-set provisions of the program.

However, plaintiffs’ attorney Nelson Taylor argued that the voucher program as a whole should be enjoined because it effectively encourages “white flight” from the parish’s struggling schools.

The court’s order, drafted by Patin and signed by Lemelle on Wednesday, reflects an adoption of Taylor’s arguments and enjoins the entire legislative framework for the voucher program.

If the intent of the judge’s order was to halt the entire operation of the voucher program within the parish, shifting Education Department funds to continue supporting the program may fun afoul of the order, Patin conceded in an interview Thursday.

“In a way, I guess you could argue it wouldn’t technically violate the order,” Patin said. “But it would definitely violate the spirit of the order.”

White’s attorneys said the state has “numerous objections,” which were not specified, to the court’s order as drafted by the School Board.

“The parties disagree about the terms of the order,” and the state will submit its own proposed order based on its understanding of the court’s ruling, Education Department attorneys said.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (12)


1) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 30/11/2012

@Whatchange: I taught middle and high school social studies here in BR. Taught mapping in the Military. Taught at LSU for 20 years.

2) Comment by Concerned_Parent - 30/11/2012

Being_Stupid.....Why must anyone who disagrees wtih Jindal and White be a teacher or union member? I happen to be a young professional with 2 kids in the public school system. I have seen the changes occuring in my childrens' schools, and I'm not happy with what I see. And this is at one of the top schools in the state, not a failing school. I'm tired of seeing all the handouts to the lazy while others are working their tales off. I was a Jindal backer, I voted for him, but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with him. And if you go look at the latest headlines....the courts disagree also!

3) Comment by Being_Stupid - 30/11/2012

The Greedy Teachers Union Bosses and Democrat Party Elites do not care about these kids. They could care less. All they care about is their monopoly on taxpayer money.

4) Comment by Whatchange - 30/11/2012

@Noel Hammatt; you are or were a teacher correct? maybe I'm wrong.

5) Comment by Buck - 30/11/2012

Hello! is this typical of the current Governor, "If you don't like my game, I'm going to take my ball and go home." My kids attended public and private schools in Tangi and the bottom line is my son who attended private schools, he actually went to Brown w/Jindal, is now a university professor and my daughter who went to public schools, Geaux Tigers, is an attorney. I.e. regardless of public or private education they both have done fine. Now for this current crop of plantation managers to think they can control our educational system, the only thing I can reference is to look at the great job they have done for our economy. Subject to check I think we still rank close too the bottom in economic well being. Do I smell a scam?

6) Comment by Being_Stupid - 30/11/2012

Concerned_Parent sounds more like a Concerned_Teacher Union Boss or Concerned_Teach with Tenure and Nice Pension worried about losing her/his job.

7) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 30/11/2012

@Whatchange... apparently you have bought into the rhetoric about "failing schools" for whatever reason. You apparently have not read much about the truth. Every major study examining and comparing the academic performance of students in public AND PRIVATE schools has found the following. The best predictor of a school's overall measured performance is the economic demographics of the school. Yes, for private AND parochial AND public. There is little to no statistical difference in performance by students from similar socio-economic backgrounds between public and private/parochial schools. In reading private/parochial schools lead by a small amount in the upper grades. In math, public schools get the advantage at all levels,. But basically... the real advantage of private/parochial schools is that they get to pick and choose students! Fact.

8) Comment by Whatchange - 30/11/2012

Gotta love it, keep em dumb downed in the public school system instead of finding another solution. Concern_Parent; after reading your comments, I do believe your name nowhere fits your beliefs. Going by your comments, its better to throw the baby out with the bath water.

9) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 30/11/2012

This is an absurd argument by the Superintendent. His takeovers of local schools have uprooted tens of thousands of students, and the students in the Recovery School District schools may as well be on a merry-go-round. Their is no logic in the arguments by the state, at all! They used the courts to block choice in St. Helena, since said choice would actually allow parents to choose to bail out of the state Recovery School District-run middle school in St. Helena. Somehow, choice doesn't seem to work in the RSD. In the voucher lawsuit currently in progress, the state claims that a woman's child was "trapped" in a failing RSD school with no options other than a parochial school. Really? The Recovery School District operates so many schools, and has open enrollment, and she had NO CHOICE? Sounds like a failed recovery school district. Not surprising, since every school taken over by the Recovery School District in Baton Rouge went down!

10) Comment by Concerned_Parent - 30/11/2012

Everyone knew going into the school year that these lawsuits would take place, and that there was a chance the vouchers could get overturned. As a parent and a school, you took the risk of signing up for the program anyway. Now you must deal with the rulings of the courts. The courts can't say, "Well, the students are already there so we'll just have to ignore the law." It should be up to the parents and the schools to figure out how to deal with the tuition owed. This is just another reason why rail-roading this deal through the legislature was a bad idea. There was not enough thought put into all the what ifs. Just get it done and then we'll fight about it later. Meanwhile, the students will be the ones that suffer.

11) Comment by LawyerDan65 - 30/11/2012

Another option is that the Catholic Diocese could step up and give these kids financial aid and let them stay all year. During the Legislative Session the Catholic Church took the position that its mission included educating children of all economic backgrounds.

12) Comment by albermarle52 - 30/11/2012

****Comment Removed for Violation of Terms of Use****