Outrage!

Our state Department of Education keeps finding new ways of insulting the teaching profession in Louisiana. First our Superintendent and Governor claimed that education credentials mean nothing and changed the law so that persons without education certification will be allowed to teach in Louisiana charter schools. Then while public school teachers are being laid off because of loss of state and local funding to voucher schools, the State Superintendent started spending 12 thousand dollars per month to hire an additional public relations specialist.

But the action that demonstrates the most contempt for professional educators is the recent appointment of a TFA Corps member to manage the evaluation of 60,000 public school teachers and administrators. It turns out this person has never served as a principal, or evaluator. In fact she has no real teacher credentials, and taught for 2 years in a school that was considered by the Department to be a failing school. As far as we know, she has never demonstrated the ability to improve the education of students. Yet she will rule over a system that will evaluate persons with Masters and PhD's in Education and decades of teaching experience. She will have the power to order the firing and destruction of the careers (even terminate the certification) of thousands of qualified teachers. The person who held the position over the Act 54 evaluation system before her also had no teacher credentials, and never taught a day in the classroom yet was allowed to train principals in the new VAM and COMPASS systems. Educators who have put up with numerous attacks on the profession by Jindal and White are now expressing outrage over these latest humiliations of the teaching profession.

Please click on this link to The Advocate story about the credentials (or lack thereof) of the state director of the teacher evaluation system. Take the time to read some of the many comments at the end of the article by present and former teachers and by members of the public. One of the commenters pointed out that this is like letting an intern rule on the employment of experienced physicians. Would Doctors stand for this? There is not one positive comment on this issue and no defenders of this action. Educators have a right to be outraged!

Superintendent White keeps saying in his speeches that he wants to “empower” teachers and school administrators, but his actions are only “empowering” amateurs to make decisions that affect the careers of the real educators. I just heard a description of one of the evaluator training sessions last week where this amateur teacher (state director of COMPASS) took it upon herself to fuss at highly experienced and qualified administrators. What an insult!

But what is the point of the outrage if we don't channel it into productive action? Why not communicate our outrage to BESE and to the Legislature who created this mess? Our elected representatives could stop this insanity. But it will not happen until they hear from their constituents! There are 60,000 teachers in the state that are subject to humiliation and possible career destruction by this ill conceived evaluation system that is being run by amateurs receiving obscene salaries. Principals who have demonstrated many years of effective management of employees are being subjected to the humiliation of being “trained” and lectured to by neophytes with no education credentials. Please consider taking one or all of the following actions now.

1. Sponsor a petition at your school. The following is a sample petition to BESE:
The undersigned professional educators are acutely aware that the new educator evaluation system mandated by Act 54 of 2010 and Act 1 or 2012 could have a great impact on the careers and welfare of many public school educators. We believe that proper credentials and educational experience are important requirements for any managers at the Louisiana Department of Education level who are charged with the implementation of this program. We therefore respectfully request that BESE require that all managers of the evaluation program have proper education credentials. In addition, only persons with extensive classroom and supervision experience should be allowed to administer the teacher and principal evaluation programs. Any lesser requirements will amount to disrespect for the education profession in Louisiana and will discredit the entire evaluation program.
Mail the petition to Ms Penny Dastugue, President, BESE, P. O. Box 94064, Baton Rouge, LA 70804.

2. The following is a sample email to BESE and to our legislators:
Dear BESE or ( Legislative member): Teachers and principals in our school are outraged that the new educator evaluation system mandated by Act 54 of 2010 and Act 1 of 2012 is being managed by persons with no valid education credentials. We refuse to be humiliated by having our careers put in jeopardy by persons who are not qualified to judge our work. Please take all necessary actions to correct this unfair situation. Get the BESE email addresses by clicking on this link. Get your legislator email by looking him/her up by clicking on this link.

3. Email to Governor Jindal: (same as above) Send to; www.gov.la.us or go to the following web site: http://www.gov.la.gov/index.cfm?md=form&tmp=email_governor

I appeal to all educators. Please do something to show your pride and support for your profession.Don't let the enemies of public education beat you down or push you into early retirement. The children of Louisiana need real educators.

Thanks for all you do as an educator,
Michael Deshotels
 

Harmful Salary Schedule Mandate

Just as teachers and principals begin grappling with the new Value Added Model of teacher evaluation, school boards will be forced by law to develop possibly radical new salary schedules for teachers in all our public school systems. This is another classic case of an effort by those outside the education business to force the practitioners to adopt a solution to a problem that does not exist! School boards according to a provision in Jindal's  ALEC inspired Act 1 must revise their local teacher salary schedules to add a performance or merit pay component. According to the new law, the revised salary schedules should consider (1) effectiveness as measured by the new evaluation system, (2) job demand/area of certification, and (3) experience, yet no one factor of the three may account for more than 50% of the final formula. This means that results of the new teacher evaluations using VAM data may affect teacher's salaries as a form of merit pay. At the same time some teachers (10% of those evaluated using VAM) will find their salaries frozen based on the new evaluation.

Act I also requires that a new teacher layoff priority list be created for 2013-14 with the teachers that were rated as ineffective by the new evaluation system being first to be laid off without considering their previous evaluations or experience. Seniority of teachers is absolutely banned by Act 1 in the making of employment decisions. Effectiveness as measured by the new VAM system is “king” in the employment and layoff of teachers. As we saw in the editorial by the American Press this week, some schools that are top performers in the state may have disproportionate numbers of teachers classified as ineffective using this new flawed system. Those same evaluations may also cause major changes in the salary schedule for teachers.

So we have a brand new teacher evaluation system whose validity is being seriously questioned by numerous education professionals and now a major Louisiana newspaper, that also may soon have a major impact on teacher salaries. Teachers and school boards will now be forced into possibly adversarial positions just to comply with a law they never needed nor asked for. This is another example of non-educator ideologues dictating new problems for our public school systems. Will such new rules apply to the voucher schools or to the new course choice course providers? Of course not! These unproven competitors with public education as usual are exempted from the heavy handed approach of our ALEC influenced legislature.

According to the new law, a teacher's present salary may not be reduced by the new salary mandate, but a teacher who had looked forward to regular step raises based on experience may no longer receive those incentives to stay in the profession here in Louisiana. Also, some educators who have spent precious dollars and time pursuing higher degrees in expectation of a higher salary rewarding this additional education may now find their plans quashed by the new rules.

One of the perverse incentives to school boards to drop or reduce step increases for experience or advanced degrees are the projected deficits to many school board budgets caused by freezes in the MFP, unfunded mandates by the legislature, and the new drain on the MFP caused by vouchers and Course Choices. School boards may be forced to choose between teacher salaries that were used in the past to attract  and retain experienced and educated teachers or increasing class size. Many Charter schools in Louisiana have already chosen cheap TFA corps members over experienced teachers partly so they could pay their administrators obscene salaries. You see TFA recruits only expect to do this “public service” for just a couple of years, get their college loans paid and then move on to their real careers. Or they may get high paying jobs in our State Department of Education. The Advocate points out today that the Director of the new teacher evaluation program is a two year TFA teacher with no training in education other than the 5 week crash course. You see in our Brave New World of Louisiana education, the advantage goes to persons with no professional training in education but who buy into all the latest reform fads.

If you want to get a good idea about the destructive effects of these mandates take a look at the recent blog by Diane Ravitch about the chaos that has resulted from a similar program implemented in the Washington DC public school system by Michelle Rhea. The main difference is that the DC system had much more funding with which to implement this monstrosity! Louisiana will be attempting to do it at the same time that most school systems are faced with crippling budget shortfalls. Many of my teacher readers have sent me emails confiding that they believe these programs may finally drive them out of the profession or at least cause them to look for employment in another state. Louisiana may soon be faced with a shortage of experienced competent teachers.

Will educators and school boards along with innocent students continue to be helpless victims of our misguided corporate styled reforms?

Why not fight back? Why not have teachers and school boards present a united front to our common enemy; the privatizers of public education? I am suggesting that school boards and teachers propose amendments to these unneeded laws before they are mandated to take effect in the next school year. Teachers and school boards are on the same side in opposing these unprecedented attacks on public education. I hope we can find new hope in cooperation as a united front.

Editorial Blasts VAM

Thank you to the Lake Charles American Press for an excellent editorial and for being willing to take an independent stand on this critical issue!

___________________________________

http://www.americanpress.com/AP-Editorial-9-26-12

State superintendent of Education John White. (Donna Price / American Press)

Editorial: Value-added model rating system unfair to teachers

Last Modified: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 8:59 PM

Contemplate this scenario: The CEO of the company you work for decides to implement an employee evaluation system in which only about 10 percent of the total employees will receive annually the highest level of evaluation possible. Job security and some employee compensation is based on that rating system.

Do you think that’s fair? Neither do we.

Yet that is the prospect that public school teachers in Louisiana face with the fledgling value-added model rating system.

Amazingly, state Superintendent of Education John White defends the system.

The rating system for teachers provides four levels: highly effective, effective proficient, effective emerging and ineffective.

For value-added teachers, the system uses a bell curve that projects that about 10 percent of the teachers in the state will earn the highly effective status in a given year; 80 percent will earn the effective proficient and effective emerging ratings; and 10 percent will be labeled as ineffective.

Teachers in grades 3-8 who teach core subjects, as well as high school Algebra I and geometry teachers, will be evaluated under the value-added model.

This bell curve will make up 50 percent of their total evaluation score.

A rating system that has either predictable results or outcomes has not 1 ounce of credibility. How can an evaluation system that projects the end numbers be taken seriously?

Additional statistics expose other flaws in the evaluation system.

Less than 6 percent of the fourth- through ninth-grade teachers in Beauregard, Calcasieu, Cameron and Jeff Davis parishes evaluated by the VAM system received a highly effective rating last year.

Traditionally, those four school districts have been ranked in the top 25 percent of all districts in the state. In fact, Jeff Davis Parish, where only 3.06 percent of the evaluated teachers were rated highly effective, has routinely ranked in the top eight districts in the state.

Low-performing school districts have, on average, a higher percentage of highly effective-rated teachers than high-performing school districts.

The numbers don’t jibe with reality.

‘‘It isn’t like if you achieve this, then you will get this rating. It’s where you stand in the overall state rank,’’ said Jeff Davis Parish Superintendent David Clayton. ‘‘What is the concrete standard for teachers?’’

Under the VAM system, those standards are nebulous at best.

Additionally, to earn tenure, a nontenured teacher must receive a highly effective rating for five out of six years. Based on trials, that appears to be simply unattainable for most teachers.

In 2009-2010, 715 teachers in the trial received a highly effective rating. In 2010-2011, only 277 of those teachers maintained the highly effective rating. And last year, that number fell to 149.

Under this new system, the rating system factors into teachers’ compensation.

White is correct when he says the former tenure status was too easily attained. But the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction.

If White and Gov. Bobby Jindal wanted to abolish tenure, they should have had the political courage to accomplish it through legislation, not through this sham of an evaluation.

We submit that any evaluation system that has per-conceived or intended results is not only unprofessional, it borders on immoral.

Such evaluations challenge the very issue of fairness and the motives of White, Jindal and the state Department of Education.

•••

This editorial was written by a member of the American Press Editorial Board. Its content reflects the collaborative opinion of the Board, whose members include Bobby Dower, Ken Stickney, Jim Beam, Crystal Stevenson and Donna Price.

___________________________________________

Comments made about this article - 4 Total

Posted By: Zach On: 9/26/2012

Title: Most teachers don't use this grading scale

What may work in the business world doesn't always work for everything else. I don't see how it's fair that even if all the teachers in the state work at a high level that 10% will still fail no matter what. This doesn't work in classes with grades. I never had this type of grading scale in K-12 and in my college years I never had a professor use this type of grading scale. In fact I had more than one professor say how much they do not like this scale.

In today's world it is very difficult just to become a teacher. College students in education go through a lot and have to deal with a lot of crap just to graduate. The process to be certified to be a teacher helps weed out most bad teachers. They don't do it for the money or incentives like that like they do in the business world, they do it because they have a passion for teaching otherwise they would not take the time and effort to become a certified teacher. And then the stress involved with teaching usually weeds out any bad ones that make it through being certified because once you start teaching if you don't have a passion for it you won't stay in it long. If the state wants to revise things fine but don't let a dictator strong arm everyone and ruin public education. Let the teachers be involved in the process as well. I'm willing to bet that in the next several years there will be a shortage of teachers in the state or even if not the quality of education will be less because a lot of good teachers will not want to teach here.

Posted By: Glenn Gordon On: 9/26/2012

Title: School is not the real world Kyle

Kyle (above) said that this how he is rated in the "real world"....Well, I too was rated this way in the corporate world before becoming a teacher. Here is why he is wrong. When I was rated this way, I was 100% responsible for all inputs into my product line. There was no part of my evaluation that was not in my hands. In education this is not true. We have these students less than 1/3 of their day. We have no control over any aspect of their lives other than the 1 hour a day we see them. Holding someone 100% responsible for a child's education ignores the reality of real life. Or, as Kyle said..."the Real world"...Absent parents, drug addiction, alcohol abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse, and homelessness are all problems that my "products" (my students) have had in the time I have been teaching these young people. I invite Kyle to try teaching for a few years or better yet....let me have access to his inputs and after I screw them up really well....he can see how his evaluations look.

Posted By: Kyle On: 9/26/2012

Title: Welcome To The Real World

There are no new concepts here. This sort of system is how major corporations manage thier employee evaluations. The objective is to reward high performers and weed out under performers. I have worked under this sort of system for 20 years, evaluating staff and being evaluated by my management. My salary and bonus calculations are closely tied to this system. It drives performance! The key to the process is setting clear goals in the beginning of each year and meeting or exceeding (the 10%) those goals. It's usualy those who do not set or strive to meet thier goals that are the complainers about the system.

Posted By: Anne Farrar On: 9/26/2012

Title: Thank you!

As a teacher, I'm so relieved to see that someone other than teachers gets the unfairness of the system. John White doesn't even understand that the scores the teachers worry about are not the levels students achieve on the iLEAP/LEAP tests. It's about the scaled scores. I so appreciate the support for teachers who stood against this system in Baton Rouge last spring. Thank you SO much!

Score One Point for The Advocate

The Advocate finally got it right with this editorial about Supt. White AND BESE adding more expensive PR staff at a time when teachers are being laid off! http://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/3977561-123/our-views-pr-additions-oddhttp://theadvocate.com/news/opinion/3977561-123/our-views-pr-additions-odd

Chicken Processors Preferred to Teachers

Why would the state of Louisiana spend millions of taxpayer dollars to keep a chicken processing plant in North Louisiana from closing, yet next year the state will allow local school systems to lose teaching jobs to out of state providers? The reason the Governor and his staff gave for awarding a chicken processing plant a large subsidy a couple of years ago was to protect local jobs from being sent out of state because of the closing of a Louisiana facility. The jobs to be saved by subsidizing the chicken plant were by all accounts low paying minimal skills jobs. In the case of the Course Choice program which allows Louisiana teachers to be laid off so that students can get almost unlimited classes from out of state instructors, tax monies will be used to send college trained jobs out of state!

In many of our rural parishes, education is one of the biggest industries. Governor Jindal has often pointed out that his administration works hard to attract and retain jobs that require college trained workers. Why would Louisiana want to ship college educated jobs out of state particularly in rural parishes where education workers help to boost the local economy because of the economic impact of their spending on local goods and services? When our local tax monies are sent out of state the local economy suffers.

Will Louisiana children get a higher level of education by having them sit in front of computer monitors and watch lectures by out of state teachers? Will students scores on LEAP and end of course tests improve? Will students be better motivated by these long distance instructors? Will these remote control teachers be able to reach out and get to know our students better so that instruction can be individualized to the unique learning styles of each student? The LAE reported recently that the new Louisiana virtual for profit charter schools run by K12 and Connections Academy were producing below average results on state testing. There is no evidence whatsoever that virtual teaching is in any way better than on site instruction. In fact the news media has uncovered that in Colorado and Iowa, the results for virtual instruction were significantly poorer than for on site instruction. In fact the reporters found that many students quit their online instruction early in the school year and returned to their local schools even though the local funding had already been committed to the for-profit virtual providers.

In Louisiana these long distance teachers will not be evaluated by the value added system that is supposed to relate evaluations to the progress of the students. K12 and other online for-profit providers have been severely criticized for producing inferior instructional results in several states. See the linked article. In Florida, there is a story about a pupil teacher ratio in some online k12 classes of as many as 275 students to one teacher. There are other investigations of alleged wrongdoing by K12 in Florida. Some of these for profit online schools will do just about anything to maximize profits.

So in the Louisiana Course Choice plan, out of state providers will certainly be held accountable for poor results. Right? Wrong! According to the Choice Course law in Act 2 of 2012, the local home school will be held responsible for the accountability testing results of students taking courses from Course Choice providers. Even in cases where local school authorities believe that students have not learned the material provided by a Choice Course, the local school will be prohibited from questioning the credits awarded by an online school. (See my post of Sept. 16) Also according to state law, local school officials are prohibited from discouraging students from taking Course Choice Courses by BESE approved providers, yet for the first 3 years of the program all the accountability for successful results falls on the shoulders of the local school. After 3 years the outside providers will be evaluated and may be denied further participation in the Choice Course program.

By the way, I wonder if that chicken processing plant in North Louisiana is still in business? Just wondering.

Fight Back Against Phony Destructive Reforms

A couple of months ago I requested that educators, particularly those that had signed up for our “Defenders of Public Education” data base make it a point to meet with the legislators in their home districts to point out why Governor Jindal's reform legislation which was so hastily rammed through the legislature was already revealing its obvious flaws. Our concern was that many of the legislators who voted for this package may not have been fully aware (although they should have) about how subversive and damaging this legislation was at the time they voted for it. Many educators had warned that some of the new vouchers may go to schools run by persons who had selfish motives and would subject our students an inferior level of education compared to what they would have received in the public schools. At the same time this system results in crippling raids on MFP funding that is vital to our public schools. Since then we have seen the approval of a voucher school run by a guy who calls himself the “prophet”, other schools that do not have the bare minimum of classrooms and instructional materials and many who will teach various forms of creationism instead of Science. Some of our “Defenders” sent me emails describing the meetings with their legislators and giving me vital feedback which I intend to share with lobbyists for the Coalition for Public Education so they can be better prepared for the next legislative session.

Probably the most revealing insight on legislators' thinking when they voted for this garbage reform package came from one legislator who said he voted for the legislation because at least it was an attempt to do somethingabout our failing education system. He claims he voted for the Governor's proposals because the teacher unions and the school boards had not offered any significant alternatives for reform. I would like to discuss with you why I think this reasoning is not only a weak cop-out for voting for the ALEC inspired destruction of education package, but mainly because it is totally wrong in its assumptions and remedies.

Point # 1: Those who claim that public education in Louisiana is broken or failing are dead wrong. Last year I linked two spreadsheets with data from the Louisiana Department of Education to produce a comparison of our almost 1300 Louisiana public schools that were assigned letter grades with the level of poverty of the students attending each school. You can access the resulting spreadsheet by clicking on this link. You will find as I did that schools with low poverty (10% to 20% of students on free or reduced lunch) all received an “A” rating from the state, except for one charter school. The next group (20% to 30% free or reduced lunch) had a grade point average of 3.5 on a 4 point scale. As you look at schools in higher poverty communities, the grade average goes down steadily until we get to schools with 90% or more free and reduced lunch who got a grade point average of .9 Poverty was such a powerful factor that 5 times as many schools in the 90-100% free or reduced lunch category got F as did the schools in the 80-90% free or reduced lunch category. From this analysis I determined that our education system is far from broken when it deals with kids who do not come from a high poverty background. They are all rated as A or B. Our only real problem is in properly educating the students who come from a very high poverty community.Yet the Governor and his big business supporters have condemned the entire public education system. But when the state allowed some high poverty students in New Orleans to attend private (voucher) schools they performed on average lower than the New Orleans Recovery District which was the second lowest performing school system in the state. So allowing high poverty kids to get vouchers was certainly not the answer to producing better achievement. The point is nobody has come up with a school reform solution that magically boosts the achievement of all high poverty students.

Point # 2: Our new State Superintendent and other reformers have concluded that the reason some of our students perform poorly must be because we have a large number of ineffective or incompetent or just plain lazy teachers. All we have to do according to the reformers is to fire and replace the bottom performing teachers and we will soon have all of our students doing just great! Again their assumptions and conclusions are completely wrong. There was an easy way the reformers could have checked out the theory that poor student performance was directly related to poor teaching. They could have taken the teachers in one of our highest rated schools (an A school) and switched them with the teachers in one of our lowest rated schools (an F school) and monitored the results for a couple or three years to see how performance would change. I believe there would be very little change in the performance of students at the two test schools because the controlling factor was not poor teaching or excellent teaching but instead was the socioeconomic level of the children. Good teaching always makes a positive difference but it is not enough to overcome the negative influence of poverty. To add insult to injury for teachers, the new evaluation system in the Governor's plan is set up to find at least 10% of Louisiana teachers to be ineffective based on value added formulas. I must point out that this 10% is not a scientific finding. It is a preset requirement before a single teacher is evaluated. Analysis of the data coming from a similar system in New York (see Gary Rubinstein's blog) found that the ineffective rating is so extremely volatile from year to year as to be useless. Also in the Louisiana plan it is not true that the value added score only counts for 50% of a teacher's evaluation as was promised in the legislation. In our system the state has put a provision in the plan that if a teacher falls in the bottom 10% of value added, that score totally overrules the principal's evaluation and the teacher must be rated ineffective.

Point # 3: Louisiana school boards and local administrators and teachers were already making significant improvements in student performance in our lowest performing schools before these “reforms” were enacted. In fact since the Legislature created the so called Recovery District, a much larger percentage of low performing schools managed by local school boards have moved up to better ratings than have those managed by the Recovery District. In fact all of the schools that were taken over by the Recovery District outside of New Orleans are now performing more poorly than before they were taken over! And the ones taken over in New Orleans are still the second lowest performers in the state. The reformers at the State Department have failed miserably compared to the efforts of local school systems. So why is the State Department of Education still in charge of the current reforms? In answer to my questions in my previous post, the State Department has proposed basically no accountability for the new choice courses. We have already seen what a fiasco they have made of the voucher school approval process.

Point #4: I have found that in some local school systems the State Department micromanagement of local disciplinary policies has become a major obstacle to improving the school environment. In East Baton Rouge, the State Department has appointed a special master that can overrule local administrators in the application of discipline. The special master often ignores or overrules teacher disciplinary rights specified in state law. One principal told me recently that often the school is not allowed to discipline students who routinely start fights and who threaten the safety of other students. This is one of the main reasons some parents are afraid to enroll their students in some public schools. On the other hand, charter schools in some parts of the state are allowed to routinely remove or counsel out students who are guilty of relatively minor discipline infractions especially if they are expected to be low performers on the state tests.

This is what I have to say to that legislator who felt he had to vote for something. First of all you should not have voted for laws that you did not have evidence would make any improvement. Second, you had no business blaming teachers for the effects of poverty on student performance. Our students who come to public school ready to learn are learning and teachers are already working as hard as possible to help bring up those who come to us with disadvantages. Finally, why don't you act to get the State Department to stop interfering with sound educational practices in locally run schools?

I would recommend that the legislature put a moratorium on adding any new voucher schools until we have time to assess the effectiveness of the ones already operating. The LEAP scores for every student participating in the voucher program this year should be aggregated and a letter grade assigned to the whole program using the same factors now being used to grade public schools. If the average is below the average for public schools there should be no new vouchers approved.

Also, the only choice courses that should be allowed are special vocational and career courses that are not now available because of lack of facilities or certified trainers in the public schools. Minimum hours of attendance for all choice courses should be required and the program regularly evaluated by evaluators outside the State Dept. of Education.

Finally, the first two years of the new value added teacher evaluation system should not count against any teacher. Outside experts should be asked to evaluate the consistency and validity of the new teacher evaluation system and after the second year of results, a complete review of the program should be made based on this independent evaluation.

Follow Up on Choice Course Program

Note to readers: the following is a second letter to BESE in response to an email by the Executive Director of BESE explaining the policy of the Board for the implementation of Choice Courses for the 2013-14 school year. The email from the Executive Director is reprinted below my letter. Ms Dastuge has recently informed me that the email was actually prepared by the DOE team that is charged with implementing the Course Choice Program. 
Dear Ms Dastugue and BESE Members:

I have received the responses to my questions to BESE about choice course regulations. It is my understanding that President Dastugue directed Ms Pozniak (BESE Executive Director) to answer my questions according to BESE policy as it will be applied to choice courses for the 2013-14 school year.

I was disappointed by the lack of substance and accountability of BESE policy on choice courses as interpreted by Ms Pozniak in her answers to the questions. My major concern is that the application of BESE policy described does not seem to require students to attend a minimum number of hours of instruction in order to receive credit for a choice course. While Ms Pozniak states at the beginning of her response that the choice courses will emphasize achievement over attendance, her answers reveal that students may get full credit and the provider may get full payment for a choice course even if there is no evidence presented at the end of a choice course that adequate learning has taken place.

At the beginning of her response to my questions Ms Pozniak characterizes seat time or class time as archaic. I do not believe Ms Pozniak is qualified to dismiss school seat time as “archaic”. She states that choice courses will emphasize learning outcomes over length of instruction. If seat time were archaic, we would not need the mandatory school attendance law. If seat time were archaic BESE would not have a policy that denies course credit to students who have more than the minimum number of allowed unexcused absences. If seat time were archaic, our district attorneys and judges could call off all efforts to require parents to send students to school on a regular basis. The fact is that the lack of accountability by some parents and poor student attendance is one of the greatest root causes of under-performance by many of our students. There is a direct relationship between students who miss many days of school and the low performance of such students. In addition, Act 2 specifies that quality course providers in their application to BESE must specify the length of each course. That implies that students are expected to attend or participate for a particular number of hours specified for a course.

I believe the interpretation of BESE policy relative to choice courses by Ms Pozniak if implemented in the way she described will result in a lowering of standards and a decline in student performance by many students who participate in such courses. I believe such a policy will encourage fraud and abuse in the use of MFP funds by some of the choice course providers. Such abuse could dwarf the abuses seen recently in the chaotically implemented voucher program this school year. I respectfully request that BESE carefully consider the issues raised in my questions on choice courses and adopt policies that will insure safeguards of taxpayer dollars and insure that students receive adequate instruction from each choice course.

In her response Ms Pozniak seems to assume that BESE will not require minimal instructional time for any of the choice courses. Apparently BESE will simply take the provider's word that students have completed their assignments for the course as adequate evidence to award credit for a course. Since the law allows course providers to receive the remaining 50% of their funding based on students completing a course on time, taxpayers can expect that many students may not be held to minimal standards for completion. If regular attendance or participation for a certain number of hours will not be required, who in the Department of Education will check to see if a student who has sporadically participated in a choice course has actually completed the required assignments of a choice course?

Ms Pozniak's responses verify my fears that the course provider can stipulate that a student has completed a course and receive full payment even if the student cannot demonstrate reasonable knowledge of the course or even if the student fails to pass the end of course exam. How would such a system reward achievement over attendance? In such a case, how can BESE justify full payment for the course? How does this system emphasize learning outcomes over length of instruction?

In addition, Ms Pozniak's responses gives no assurance that any part of the 50% initial course payment will be refunded to the state and the local school system even if the student drops out or is expelled soon after enrollment in a choice course. This creates an incentive for choice course providers to use aggressive promotions to get students to register for such courses even if the student may drop out with minimal participation in the course.

Ms Pozniak indicates that if a student takes a choice course for which end of course testing is required by BESE and then fails the end of course test, the state will still make full payment to the provider based upon the provider's claim that the student has completed the course. Does this system reward achievement? BESE should not waive minimum course attendance and also waive minimal performance.

I must recommend that BESE, consider adopting a strict policy relative to choice courses that require the standard number of hours of instruction in order for the student to receive course credit and for the provider to receive full payment for a choice course. This rule is particularly important if the student does not pass the end of course test required by BESE. Otherwise there is insufficient accountability for use of our taxes.

Ms Pozniak dismisses the question about choice course providers being required to document attendance or participation of students by simply stating that choice courses comply with the objectives of the compulsory attendance law. I believe this is an incorrect interpretation of the law and is not acceptable to me as a taxpayer. Since Act 2 stipulates that each choice course must have a length, BESE should have a firm policy that requires choice course providers to actually document the number of hours of student attendance or participation for each choice course whether it be an on-site course or a virtual course. I believe that even in the case of a virtual course delivered over the Internet, it is possible for the provider to monitor the participation time of students.

Ms Pozniak also states that when a student takes a credit recovery course from a choice provider and that provider reports to the student's home school that he/she has passed the course, the home school must grant the student credit even if the student does not pass the end of course test for that course. This is not acceptable. What is the point of taking a credit recovery course if the student still does not have satisfactory knowledge? How does this reward learning outcomes? BESE should not award full payment to a choice course provider for a credit recovery course if the student cannot pass an approved end of course test.

I believe that any lesser requirements by BESE will result in the raiding of critical MFP funds allocated to local school districts and will make a mockery of accountability. I will be happy to appear before BESE and further clarify my concerns and recommendations on the issue of choice course regulations.

Sincerely,

Michael Deshotels

Zachary, Louisiana

The response to my questions from Ms Pozniak are reprinted below.

Mr. Deshotels,

I am sending this response on behalf of Penny Dastugue.

Sincerely,

Catherine Pozniak
Executive Director
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education


Course Choice will provide families with unprecedented choices – down to the
course – to prepare students to succeed in college and careers. Courses will be
aligned to the expectations of post-secondary education and the jobs that await
students after high school. Under the program, the measure of quality will be
student achievement, not just attendance.

* Will choice course providers be required to deliver a certain number of
clock hours of instruction in order for a student to receive one Carnegie unit
of credit and for the provider to receive the agreed upon tuition for one
Carnegie unit?
* Could choice course providers offer courses that require different amounts
of instruction time for different courses that earn one Carnegie unit of credit?
* Will there be a certain number of hours the student in a virtual class
must participate in order to receive credit for the course?
* Could a virtual choice course provider substitute an end of course test as
validation that a student has completed a virtual choice course instead of
requiring the student to “attend” or participate in a certain number of hours of
instruction?
Course Choice uses a performance-based funding model and providers have the
option to implement a competency-based model to award credit. Course Choice
moves beyond the archaic “seat-time” model, which rewards attendance over
achievement, to a new model which emphasizes learning outcomes over length of
instruction. School districts also have the opportunity to waive
“seat-time/clock hours” (Bulletin 741--Louisiana Handbook for School
Administrators with the exception of §907, Secondary--Class Times and Carnegie
Credit).

To earn credit, students must demonstrate mastery of the grade-level
expectations, just like traditional schools. Also like traditional schools,
students can demonstrate mastery by earning a passing score on a standardized
statewide assessment or end-of-course exam, providing a portfolio of work or
completing the required assignments of the course.

Students who are behind in credits can accelerate their progress toward
graduation by completing blended courses, which combine online and face-to-face
instruction. Students will be able to progress through a course at their own
pace, moving through the content as they master standards grouped into modules,
clusters, or units. Providers can use multiple conventional methods, including
assessments, research projects, and presentations, to demonstrate mastery of
course standards or competencies to earn credit toward graduation,

Unlike traditional schools, providers are only paid when a student completes a
course. Providers are paid 50% upon enrollment of the student and 50% upon
completion of the course by the student.

* Could a choice course provider be approved for accelerated choice courses
where students who can demonstrate mastery of a course by taking a test would be
allowed to complete the course in a shorter period of time than what is normally
required for a Carnegie unit of instruction? If the answer to this question is
“yes”, would the Choice course provider still receive the same tuition as if the
course required a standard number of hours of instruction.
The same funding model applies to Course Choice providers and school districts.
Both Course Choice providers and school districts earn funding when a student
demonstrates mastery in an accelerated course.

* Suppose a student taking a choice course drops out soon after starting the
course and no longer participates in a choice course. Will the choice course
provider be required to reimburse the state for any of the initial funding?
* Suppose a choice provider expels or otherwise terminates a student enrolled
in a choice course soon after the course begins, will there be provision for
return of any portion of the tuition?
Under the law, Course Choice providers will receive 50% of funding for the
course upon successful enrollment and 50% of funding upon successful, on-time
completion of the course. Course Choice providers are penalized 10% if a
student completes the course late, receiving just 40% of the second installment.

Course Choice policy will allow an introductory period which allows students to
register for the class, review course materials and start initial coursework.

* Suppose a student takes and completes the required number of hours of
participation in a choice course and receives a failing grade from the choice
provider, will there be any provision for refund of any of the tuition?
* Suppose a student takes and receives a passing grade for a choice course
for which the state requires end of course testing and the student fails to
receive a passing score on the state test. Will there be any provision for any
refund of tuition?
The same policy applies to Course Choice providers and school districts. Like
school districts, Course Choice providers receive funding when a student
completes a course. Also like school districts, students do not have to earn a
passing score on a standardized end-of-course exam to receive full funding for
the course.

* Suppose a student takes and passes a credit recovery course from a choice
provider, and the student is tested on the course by his home school following
the completion of the course and fails to make a score that is acceptable to his
local school system for receiving credit for this course. Is the student's local
school system still required to give the student credit for such a course? Will
the choice course provider be allowed to keep the tuition?
Under state law, school districts must award credit for courses completed by
students through Course Choice and those credits must count toward the
requirements of a diploma.

* Will choice course providers be required to take attendance roll for
students attending choice courses, particularly when the student is attending a
course provided at a site provided by the course provider? If roll is taken and
the student is found to be absent without excuse for more than the minimum
number of days required by BESE for public school attendance, will the student
still be allowed to receive a passing grade on the choice course?
* In the case where a choice course provider is providing a virtual or
internet delivered course so that the student participates in a choice course
from his/her home, will the choice provider be required to take a participation
roll each day the student is supposed to be receiving instruction?
Course Choice complies with the objectives of Louisiana’s compulsory attendance
law.

* What action would the DOE take in a case where there is no evidence
provided by the virtual provider that the student actually participated in a
minimum number of hours of instruction in a virtual course?

Under state law, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will conduct a
thorough review of the Course Choice providers after one year in the program.
If the academic performance of students enrolled in a provider’s course does not
meet rigorous standards, the provider will face consequences, including
probation and/or removal from the program.

* Are choice course providers allowed to refuse admission of any students to
a choice course when the enrollment limit has not been reached who have been
classified by their local school system as eligible to take the choice course in
question?
Course Choice providers must accept students who meet the pre-requisites for the
course (such as, Latin I before Latin II). Providers cannot refuse eligible
students if space is available in the course.

* Would a choice course provider be allowed to test a student wanting to
enroll in a choice course and by that means find that the student is not
qualified for or prepared to take the choice course in question and thereby deny
the student admission even if the student has met all other prerequisites for
admission to a course?
Course Choice providers must accept students who meet the pre-requisites for the
course (such as, Latin I before Latin II).

September 4, 2012
Questions about new choice courses:

Potential Abuse of Choice Course Program

My readers are certainly aware by now that I believe there is much potential for abuse of taxpayer funding of the Choice Course Program included in ACT 2 of the 2012 legislative session. I am so concerned about this that on September 4, I sent the email below to all BESE members. I have received a response from BESE president Penny Dastuge promising that answers to my questions will be forthcoming. I am encouraging all my readers to study these issues carefully and share your concerns not only with BESE but with your legislators.

Questions about new choice courses:
Dear BESE member:
The State Department of Education is now receiving proposals for quality choice courses for the 2013-14 school year as stipulated in Act 2 of 2012. It is my understanding that BESE must approve all ChoiceCourse Providers by January 1, 2013. I have reviewed the information on the LDOE web site for Choice Courses
and Choice Course Providers and I have several questions and concerns about the implementation of this program. I would suggest that BESE adopt proper guidelines for this program to insure that our students get good solid instruction and that tax money is used wisely. My questions are as follows:

1. Will choice course providers be required to deliver a certain number of clock hours of instruction in order for a student to receive one Carnegie unit of credit and for the provider to receive the agreed upon tuition for one Carnegie unit? Could choice course providers offer courses that require different amounts of instruction time for different courses that earn one Carnegie unit of credit?
2. Could a choice course provider be approved for accelerated choice courses where students who can demonstrate mastery of a course by taking a test would be allowed to complete the course in a shorter period of time than what is normally required for a Carnegie unit of instruction? If the answer to this question is “yes”, would the Choice course provider still receive the same tuition as if the course required a standard number of hours of instruction.

Act 2 stipulates that choice course providers will receive 50% of the agreed upon tuition for each course immediately following the enrollment of students in such courses. The remainder of the tuition is to be paid to the provider at the end of the course. I have the following questions about funding issues:

1. Suppose a student taking a choice course drops out soon after starting the course and no longer participates in a choice course. Will the choice course provider be required to reimburse the state for any of the initial funding?
2. Suppose a choice provider expels or otherwise terminates a student enrolled in a choice course soon after the course begins, will there be provision for return of any portion of the tuition?
3. Suppose a student takes and completes the required number of hours of participation in a choice course and receives a failing grade from the choice provider, will there be any provision for refund of any of the tuition?
4. Suppose a student takes and receives a passing grade for a choice course for which the state requires end of course testing and the student fails to receive a passing score on the state test. Will there be any provision for any refund of tuition?
5. Suppose a student takes and passes a credit recovery course from a choice provider, and the student is tested on the course by his home school following the completion of the course and fails to make a score that is acceptable to his local school system for receiving credit for this course. Is the student's local school system still required to give the student credit for such a course? Will the choice course provider be allowed to keep the tuition?
6. Will choice course providers be required to take attendance roll for students attending choice courses, particularly when the student is attending a course provided at a site provided by the course provider? If roll is taken and the student is found to be absent without excuse for more than the minimum number of days required by BESE for public school attendance, will the student still be allowed to receive a passing grade on the choice course?
7. In the case where a choice course provider is providing a virtual or Internet delivered course so that the student participates in a choice course from his/her home, will the choice provider be required to take a participation roll each day the student is supposed to be receiving instruction? Will there be a certain number of hours the student in a virtual class must participate in order to receive credit for the course?
8. What action would the DOE take in a case where there is no evidence provided by the virtual provider that the student actually participated in a minimum number of hours of instruction in a virtual course?
9. Could a virtual choice course provider substitute an end of course test as validation that a student has completed a virtual choice course instead of requiring the student to “attend” or participate in a certain number of hours of instruction?
10. Are choice course providers allowed to refuse admission of any students to a choice course when the enrollment limit has not been reached and who have been classified by their local school system as eligible to take the choice course in question?
11. Would a choice course provider be allowed to test a student wanting to enroll in a choice course and by that means find that the student is not qualified for or prepared to take the choice course in question and thereby deny the student admission even if the student has met all other prerequisites for admission to a course?

I offer the above questions as a taxpayer who is concerned that my tax dollars for education are not wasted or otherwise used by unscrupulous individuals for personal profit without providing proper services to our students. I would very much appreciate a response from BESE on all of the questions above as soon as
possible.

Sincerely,
Michael Deshotels