A response to BGR/Cowen

As a former president of the Orleans Parish School Board, a current parent of a child enrolled in public school, and a long-time advocate for quality education, I read with great interest the recently released report on governance co-authored by BGR/Cowen.

In part one of this response, I will offer some observations about the report. In part two, I will offer an alternative recommendation for future public school governance in New Orleans. The observations and recommendation offered are based on extensive research on school governance and analysis of successful school districts around the country. Additionally, the author has been directly involved in the education system as a school social worker, a school board member, and an education advocate.

Part I:
Observations about the report fall into three categories:
1. The issue of innovation in education.
2. The report’s lack of objectivity
3. Virtually all of the governance models highlighted increase rather than decrease the educational bureaucracy and raise greater questions with regard to accountability to the public.

The first observation relates to the issue of innovation. The title of the BGR/Cowen report is Managing Innovation. Surely, innovation is a worthwhile and desirable end; innovation is a value. But innovation, to the extent it has occurred, has come with a price paid by our city’s students. We must also value and be concerned with other mandates.

Innovation, for example, has come at the expense of accountability. Due to the loose nature of our “system,” no one is responsible to ensure all children are successfully admitted to a school without hassle and anxiety. No one is responsible for the children who are “pushed-out” due to undesirable behaviors. A recent report entitled “Pushed Out: Harsh discipline in Louisiana schools denies the right to education” (Sullivan & Morgan, 2010) revealed that the suspension rate in RSD schools is four times the national rate. Expulsions occur in the RSD at ten times the national rate. Furthermore, no one is responsible or accountable for ensuring that the scores of children with special needs have their needs met. Numerous media reports have highlighted concerns with the way in which children with special needs are distributed throughout our city’s schools. The patterns present among several schools are highly suggestive of discriminatory practices and outright violations of federal laws.

Innovation has come at the expense of equity. A review of average expenditures per pupil for 2007-2008 reveal that RSD-run schools spent $20,770 per pupil, while OPSB charters spent $9,671 per pupil (Cowen, 2010). A review of the distribution of experienced versus less experienced teachers shows that for OPSB-run schools 62% of the teachers have over 20 years, in OPSB charters 27% of the teachers have over 20 years. In RSD-charters, only 10% of the teachers have over 20 years whereas 32% of the teachers have less than 1 year of experience (Cowen, 2010). What is important to note is that RSD leadership has consistently stated that they are attempting to educate children who are lagging educationally. Clearly, these students deserve more teachers with more experience. A recent issue brief released by the United Teachers of New Orleans (UTNO) examines this issue in great detail (www.utno.org).

Innovation has come at the expense of public money. In the 2007-2008 school year, New Orleans charters alone spent a total of $6.3 million dollars on transportation. This figure does not include the dozens of direct-run schools. Not only are students being transported across the city, but schools have also been reluctant to work together to produce more efficient bus routes that would save time and money. Also well known is the massive waste on money for security costs in RSD schools. In the 2006-2007 school year, for example, RSD spent an average of $2,100 per student.

Moreover, we now have duplicative educational entities in New Orleans. For example, the Orleans Parish School Board provides special education services. The Recovery School District must provide such services. And there is also the SUNS organization, which attempts to meet the needs of charters. Lastly, there is the issue of salaries. While everyone wants to attract and retain the best talent, the loose nature of our educational landscape makes it difficult to monitor whether salaries paid to high-level staff (principals, CEOs, and administrators) is reasonable rather than exorbitant.

The second issue relates to the lack of objectivity found throughout the report. As an “independent, research organization,” (www.bgr.org) BGR purports to undertake its mission in a nonpartisan and fair manner. Additionally, one would expect that the Cowen Institute, being affiliated with a major research institution, would also abide by minimal standards of academic non-bias. However, evidence of institutional bias is found in several places. On page 9, for example, the report states “In the case of the OPSB, there is no reason to think that consolidating authority under it…would produce different results.” Later, on page 22, the report reiterates this view saying, “Calling on such a body (OPSB) to resume the same role in a drastically changed system, would be prima facie, ill-advised.”

Aside from these obvious, unsupported statements of opinion what is surprising is that no differentiation is made between the OPSB pre-Katrina and post-Katrina. This type of “head in the sand” approach ignores the significant accomplishments of OPSB since Katrina.

Largely unreported or underreported by the Times-Picayune is the fact that since Katrina OPSB has had successive unqualified (meaning good) audits. Since Katrina, the special education department has been cited for exceptional performance. Since Katrina, the OPSB has chartered and annually evaluated its 12 charter schools. Since Katrina, the OPSB has had stability in the ranks of superintendent. Since Katrina, OPSB schools have produced significant growth in the district performance score.

Since Katrina, the OPSB has effectively partnered with the community to fund the renovation of the Mahalia Jackson School and establish the Early Childhood and Family Learning Center, a new community resource based upon a model of best practices around the country. Since Katrina, the OPSB has worked successfully with state education officials towards the successful renewal of vital millages and the development of the Facilities Master Plan, which provides over $700 million dollars towards the construction and renovation of schools citywide.

Also troubling is the report’s uncritical acceptance of the “reform success” touted by the Recovery School District and others in the media. For example, no mention is made in the report of the extensive and enlightening work of the Research on Reforms organization (researchonreforms.org). Provocative articles such as “New Orleans schools decline following state’s ‘double standard’ takeover”(Ferguson, 2010) and “Recovery school district’s myth of ‘educational turnaround’ in New Orleans” (Hatfield, 2010) offer valuable, thoughtful views regarding the current status of reform efforts. The BGR/Cowen report notes the increase in the district performance score (dps) for New Orleans post-Katrina. While it is true that the district performance score did increase 10 points between 2004-2005 to 2007-2008, it does not say that the district performance score also increased 10 points between the years of 2002to 2005.

Further, no mention whatsoever is made of the successive, troubling reports produced by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor (www.lla.state.la.us) which show numerous instances of fiscal mismanagement. Specific issues were raised with regard to the use of millions of dollars in RESTART funds, which were monies given to help restart schools after Katrina, and the disbursement of funds for relocation and retention of teachers in the RSD. Other issues noted in a management letter dated May 13, 2009 were:
Inaccurate and incomplete annual fiscal reports
Inadequate subrecipient monitoring
Untimely completion of payroll
Inadequate fiscal monitoring of federal funds
Inadequate oversight of school activity accounts
Inadequate control over payroll
Theft of computers
Failure to insure warehouse

These instances of bias through omission reflect poorly on the credibility of the entire effort undertaken by BGR/Cowen. While the report is readily critical of the OPSB’s past, it has nothing to say about the current flaws in governance of other entities, including some charter schools, and how that may inform and inspire future discussions about governance models.

The third issue revolves around the fact that virtually all of the governance models highlighted add to the bureaucracy in the educational landscape. With more bureaucracy come more questions about accountability. For example, model numbers two, three and four involve the creation of new entities to serve as either charter authorizers, facility managers/owners or both charter authorizer and facility managers. Such additions would only further complicate educational matters. It would be similar to the head chef of a major restaurant allowing someone else to control his/her access to the ingredients for all the meals while someone else has control of all the kitchen appliances including the oven, the refrigerator, and the microwave. This state of affairs would not work.

A related question is who would occupy the seats on these new entities? How would they be chosen? Who does the choosing? Would it be similar to a bill proposed in the current legislative session such as House bill 1154 (legis.state.la.us) that would create a charter commission? If passed, the commissioners-to-be would all be appointed by powerful politicians such as the speaker of the house, the president of the senate, and the president of the board of elementary and secondary education. The governor would also appoint but only from nominations submitted by well-connected groups such as the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) and the Council for a Better Louisiana (CABL).

In New Orleans, we need less elitism and plutocracy and more grassroots and democracy.