A convergence of consequences

LFT President Steve Monaghan was pretty much wasting his breath this morning, when he warned the Senate Education Committee about the unintended consequences of unbridled charter school expansion.

The bill in question was HB 519 by Rep. Walt Leger of New Orleans, and it sailed through the committee with nary a dissenting vote. It was filed in response to new federal guidelines forbidding states that want certain grant money from imposing unreasonable caps on charter schools.

State law currently caps the number of charters at 70.

Supporters of the bill cited a new Stanford University study saying that Louisiana is one of a very few states in which some charter schools actually seem to outperform some traditional public schools. That, they said, proves that we should lift the cap and let the charters flow, even without the promise of federal grants.

Except that the Stanford study concluded that one of the virtues of Louisiana's charter school law is that it tightly controls the issuance of charters. Without what the study's author calls "quality control," that advantage is lost. It could be argued that Louisiana's charter school cap is indeed reasonable, and does not violate the federal regulation at all.

But when Monaghan spoke about unintended consequences, he was talking about more than federal guidelines. Check out this story by Advocate reporter Charles Lussiere, about the looming layoffs in the East Baton Rouge Parish school system.

The explosion of school takeovers in the capital city is squeezing teachers out, and not because they lack credentials or are not good at their craft. "The uncertainty, Lussiere writes, "stems from not knowing how many students will enroll in the Recovery School District (charter) schools versus those run by East Baton Rouge Parish public schools."

But couldn't the teachers about to be laid off apply for jobs in the new charter schools?

Well, yes. Except.

Except charter schools aren't required to participate in the state teachers' retirement system. Those who go to work in charter schools can be putting their retirement in jeopardy.

Except charter schools aren't required to provide health insurance for their employees. Or tenure, or any of the other academic freedom protections that most teachers enjoy.

So when Monaghan asked the committee to consider the unintended consequences of unbridled charter expansion, he had a point.

The point is this: before we radically expand the charter experiment, let's look at what happens as a result. Anticipate issues that might arise, and craft legislation to deal with them before they become serious problems.

That goes against the grain of ideologues who are bent on replacing public education with a patchwork system of semi-public, quasi-private enterprises that bring to mind the old axiom: Be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

Senate tries again to fund higher education

The Senate made another run at the excess itemized deductions tax break yesterday, radically amending another bill in an attempt to force the House of Representatives to vote on the issue.

To recap: In order to fund higher education, the Senate previously adopted SB 335, which would suspend an upcoming tax break. The result would be a $118 million cash infusion for higher education.

That bill was stymied in the House when the leadership refused to let it be considered. A majority of House members signed a letter opposing the bill, and Gov. Bobby Jindal promised to veto it if it is passed.

But senators want members of the House to vote on the issue and be on record. So on Wednesday, the Senate gutted a bill that has already been adopted by the House, HB 689 (which would have established a school infrastructure fund), and filled it with the language of SB 335.

The amended bill passed on a 29-6 vote, and will be returned to the House for further action.

Suspension of tax break could save higher education

Tell lawmakers to support SB 335. Please click here.

To the surprise of many, the Senate on Wednesday endorsed a bill that will suspend a tax break to provide $118 million for higher education.

SB 335 by Sen. Lydia Jackson would temporarily suspend a portion of a tax deduction for excess federal itemized personal deductions.

That sounds confusing. What it means is that the excess itemized tax deduction would stay at its current 65% level for three years, instead of increasing to 100%. The result would be a $118 million revenue stream that would offset some of the $200 million slated to be slashed from our universities, colleges and technical schools.

This is not a new tax. It is a temporary suspension of a deduction that has not yet gone into effect.

Without the revenue, our higher education institutions face drastic cuts that will erase the gains made in recent years. Governor Bobby Jindal has vowed to veto the bill if it passes, but it was adopted in the Senate by a veto-proof 29-9 vote.

It now must be approved by the House Ways and Means Committee before it can come before the full House of Representatives for a vote.

This bill may be the last, best chance to avert disastrous cuts to higher education. Please click here to send a message to members of the Ways and Means Committee.

Associated Press reporter Doug Simpson covered the Senate vote for this article.

The Times-Picayune published an editorial in favor of the bill here.