It’s a hard fight: Trying to educate generations that are becoming increasingly dependent upon having technology constantly in ears and at fingertips.
Constantly.
Constantly.
According to federal law, use of cell signal jamming devices is against the law in the United States, as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reports:
The use of a phone jammer, GPS blocker, or other signal jamming device designed to intentionally block, jam, or interfere with authorized radio communications is a violation of federal law. There are no exemptions for use within a business, classroom, residence, or vehicle. Local law enforcement agencies do not have independent authority to use jamming equipment; in certain limited exceptions use by Federal law enforcement agencies is authorized in accordance with applicable statutes.
It is also unlawful to advertise, sell, distribute, import, or otherwise market jamming devices to consumers in the United States.
So, how might K12 school officials help combat the invasion of cellular technologies into the classroom learning environment?
Well, this is interesting: One Las Vegas school district is instituting signal-blocking pouches into its school day routine beginning in 2024-25. From the March 21, 2024, WBTV.com:
The Clark County School District said starting in the 2024–2025 school year, it will require students in grades 6-12 to use non-locking, signal-blocking pouches for their phones.
According to a statement from CCSD, the process began in February with a pilot program comprised of approximately 10% of district schools. The remainder will begin using them in August.
“These new devices prevent and reduce distractions in the classroom, allowing for a productive learning environment and increasing student focus on instruction. These non-locking pouches will be placed in classroom areas for student accessibility in emergencies,” CCSD said.
In a letter to parents this week, Green Valley High School Principal Kent Roberts called the rollout “an innovative solution that will significantly contribute to the safety and wellbeing of students in our school.”
Roberts said each student will place their phone in a pouch during class time. They will have access to their phones between classes and at lunch.
The phones will be placed in “a safe location in close proximity to the student within the classroom” and can be used in emergencies.
Roberts also cited specific benefits of the pouches, including “minimizing academic dishonesty, reducing distractions, and encouraging responsible device use and limiting concerns with social media accounts.”
As the years pass, generations are becoming less and less accustomed to being comfortable without constant access to electronic devices. About fifteen years ago– when the big draw was still flip-phones and texting during class sans internet– I took a student’s flip phone from her for her habit of texting during class, and she told me that she experienced the anxiety of withdrawal for the mere hours that she was without her phone.
That was in 2008– pre-internet, pre-Snapchat, pre-Tiktok– and already teens were being primed for phone addiction.
The year 2008 was also pre-earbud– the easily-hidden device that exacerbates the challenge of harnessing student attention and focusing said attention on the critical work of teaching and learning.
I wonder what price today’s teens will be paying when they are my age (mid-fifties) for having experienced decades of daily use of those little stereo speakers incessantly plugging their ears, including damaged hearing and even possibly rewiring the brain in ways that make willfully focusing one’s attention more challenging that it would otherwise be.
I haven’t even touched on the use of iPhones for cheating and cyberbullying.
Don’t get me wrong: I appreciate technology, including the computer and wireless enabling me to compose this post with ease and making it instantly available via a single click to readers around the globe. However, as is true for living life in general, balance is key, and that balance necessitates creative solutions for combating the ever-present classroom interruption presented by modern personal, mobile, communication technology.
To this end, the likes of signal-blocking cell phone pouches might just become the norm in school districts nationwide.
According to his “about” page, the author of the meal requirement repeal, Rep. Roger Wilder, owns 19 Smoothie King stores.
Easy enough to see the writing on the Smoothie King wall.
Roger Wilder
Regarding employers providing required meal breaks for Louisiana minors, the current law reads as follows:
No minor under the age of 18 years may be employed, permitted, or suffered to work for any five hour period without one interval of at least thirty minutes within such period for meals. Such interval shall not be included as part of the working hours of the day.
Wilder’s proposed law, HB 156, is a one-page document that simply “Repeals the provision of law relative to recreation or meal periods for minors.” There is nothing in the wording of the replacement law tor ensure that minors who do want a meal break will get one.
And yet, ironically, the author of the bill, La. Rep. Roger Wilder, flippantly expects “a break” from public reaction to his proposed bill, as WWLTV.com reports:
“This bill is about maximizing employment and providing employers with the workforce they need,” Rep. Wilder said Friday while presenting his bill to the committee.
Wilder says the break shouldn’t be a requirement, instead, he says children should be able to choose to take a break, both because they should be treated as adults and because they are losing wages.
“The wording here is we’re here to harm children that’s the wording. Give me a break they’re young adults,” Wilder said. “The emancipation age is 16, you’re allowed to marry at 16, you’re allowed to drive at 16. Those are all adult actions.”
I haven’t been 16 for 40 years, and still, my employer is required to provide me with a lunch break. Whether I choose to eat, or even whether I decide not to take the break and catch up on work instead, is my choice. My usage of the break notwithstanding, the break is scheduled.
Nothing in Wilder’s repeal guaratees that a Louisiana minor who wishes to have a meal break after working 5 hours will get one. If the current law is repealed, the requirement disappears, and Louisiana employers– especially those whose businesses depend upon teen labor, like, say, those who own and operate Smoothie King stores– and who want to force minors to work for more than 5 hours without a scheduled meal break would therefore be fine to do so since there would literally be no law to stop them.
Bigger Than Just Louisiana
A number of Republican-led states have taken to rolling back child labor laws. It seems that one nonprofit in particular has been actively promoting such repeals: Florida-based Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA). FGA has been a nonprofit since 2011. Its CEO, Tarren Bragdon, is a former Maine legislator who was also once CEO of the ultra-right-wing Maine Heritage Policy Center (now the Maine Policy Institute).
In March 2023, Arkansas governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, signed into law a bill eliminating work certificates for 16-year-olds. From CBS:
The Arkansas law, called the Youth Hiring Act, eliminates a requirement that children under 16 obtain an employment certificate before getting hired — a document that proves the child’s age, describes the work they will undertake, and gives written consent from the child’s parent or guardian, according to CBS affiliate KNOE.
Cut to April 2024, when Bragdon congratulates Sanders on Twitter/X for being chosen as FGA’s 2023 Governor of the Year:
The futures of both Arkansas and America burn brighter because of Gov. @SarahHuckabee's leadership!
We are honored to present her with @TheFGA's Governor of the Year award for exemplifying vision, grit, and tenacity to deliver results for Arkansans. https://t.co/RoBaTbE6ab
In 2023, the Working Economics Blog of the Economic Policy Institute published this piece regarding FGA as catalyst for systematically undoing child labor restrictions in numerous states. Some excerpts:
Updated November 14, 2023
This post has been updated to reflect confirmation of the Foundation for Government Accountability’s role in drafting the proposal to roll back child labor protections in Florida. Previously, the post indicated the group’s support for similar bills in other states and the likelihood of their involvement in Florida.
Last week, Florida became at least the 16th state to introduce legislation rolling back child labor protections in the past two years, and the 13th state to introduce such legislation in 2023. Florida’s bill proposes eliminating all guidelines on hours employers can schedule youth ages 16 or 17 to work, allowing employers to schedule teens to work unlimited hours per day or per week—including overnight shifts on school days. The bill was drafted by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA)—a Florida-based right-wing dark money group that has lobbied for similar proposals in multiple states.
At a time when violations of child labor laws are on the rise nationally—and amid reports of serious violations in Florida—lawmakers must act to strengthen standards, not erode existing minimal standards designed to keep youth safe at work and guarantee all children equal access to education.
…
Florida-based “Foundation for Government Accountability” has led national push for state legislation to weaken child labor laws and increase economic desperation of poor children and families
As documented in our earlier report, multiple business and industry lobby groups continue to support rolling back state child labor laws in the interest of maintaining or expanding their access to low-wage labor. Recent reporting has further emphasized the role of the right-wing think tank and dark money group the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) and its lobbying arm Opportunity Solutions Project in using funding from billionaire donors to accelerate state legislative action on child labor laws in 2023. FGA’s efforts have focused especially on extending youth hours of work and eliminating youth work permits, which inform parents of a child’s rights at work, facilitate compliance with child labor laws, and can be used to aid in investigations of potential violations of the laws. Now, FGA is working to roll back child labor laws in its home state. According to documents obtained via an open records request filed by nonprofit news organization More Perfect Union, the language in House Bill 49 is nearly identical to language drafted by FGA’s lobbying arm just weeks earlier.
FGA has over 100 lobbyists in 22 states. When FGA has lobbied for the erosion of child labor protections in states like Arkansas, Iowa, and Missouri, they have simultaneously prioritized state law changes to limit access to anti-poverty programs like SNAP and Medicaid, cut unemployment insurance benefits, and support defunding public education through expansion of school vouchers in the samestates.
In this context, dismantling child labor laws is just one prong of a broad agenda FGA promotes to weaken and eventually demolish the role of government and public institutions (including public schools), reduce and privatize the provision of public services (especially those most needed by poor children and families), and suppress the democratic process. Taken together, FGA’s priorities represent a radical, multilayered assault on low-income families and on a consensus embedded in U.S. federal and state laws for over a century that all children deserve equal access to economic opportunity and education.
Global advocates against exploitative child labor have long documented that family poverty is the root cause of oppressive child labor. Increasing the economic desperation of poor families in the U.S. will inevitably increase the number of children driven into oppressive child labor—defined in the FLSA since 1938 as employment of youth that interferes with a child’s schooling, is “particularly hazardous,” or is “detrimental to their health or well-being.”
For an organization pushing for “accountability” from government, to seems that FGA is not quick to disclose its donors. For example, FGA’s 2022 annual report includes zero mention of its funders. In its 2022 tax filing, regarding its decison to conceal its donors, on Schedule O, FGA states, “The organization declines to provide specific identifying information on its donors on the grounds that such disclosure may chill the donors’ First Amendment right to associate in private with the organization.”
Privacy and the First Amendment sounds lofty; however, no explanation was needed since the IRS notes that “A tax-exempt organization is generally not required to disclose publicly the names or addresses of its contributors set forth on its annual return” except for “private foundations ” or “political organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.” FGA is neither of these.
Even though FGA does not need to disclose its funders, the flip side is that nonprofits must disclose grant recipients if those grants are $5k or more. Therefore, one way of knowing FGA’s donors is to find out which nonprofits reported disbursing grant money to FGA.
In this case, ProPublica’s full-text search engine (keyword “foundation for governmental accountability” including quotation marks) offers pages of FGA donors from 2012 to 2022, including 28 hits for 2022, such as Morgan Stanley Global Impact Fund Trust, Schwab Charitable Fund, and Vanguard Charitable Endowment Program, Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund, Chase Foundation, State Policy Network, Amazonsmile Foundation, and Donors Trust.
If these donor names become more publicly connected to legislative efforts to treat children as workhorses, perhaps they will rethink supporting the likes of FGA and the self-serving willingness for anyone to promote policies that exploit minors in the work force.
In February 2023, former Louisiana state superintendent John White’s wife, Katherine Westerhold, was in the news because their home security system captured audio of a New Orleans shooting at the Krewe of Bacchus parade. Fifteen-year-old Roderick Tobias died as a result. He was one of five individuals shot during the incident.
Roderick Tobias
I remembered reading the above news story in 2023 as I read Westerhold’s March 25, 2024, letter to the editor in Nola.com:
Letters: The statistics show Louisiana doesn’t need constitutional carry
Louisiana has the second-highest gun death rate in the country. In 2021, Louisiana had just over 28 gun deaths per 100,000 residents. The national average was just under 15. Massachusetts had 3.5. Mississippi is the only state with a worse gun death rate than us. If Louisiana were a country, it would rank third in the world for gun death rates, following closely behind El Salvador and Venezuela and leading Colombia and Honduras.
New Orleans is worse with 38 gun deaths per 100,000 residents. Still, in our rural parishes, the rates are not much better with many parishes, including Madison, Concordia and Evangeline, ranging from 25 to 28.
Worse than that, Louisiana leads the nation in juvenile firearm deaths with 17 gun deaths per 100,000 people. None of our children are immune to these statistics. These problems cross geographic lines, racial lines and socio-economic lines. Young Black children in our community have been disproportionately harmed by these trends, but children across our state are affected and deaths by firearms.
As a concerned Louisiana mom, education policy expert and engaged citizen, I am here to say this: We can fix this problem, and it starts with the decisions we make in Baton Rouge. Elected officials like state Sen. Blake Miguez believe that dropping the minimum age of concealed carry from 21 to 18 years old amid a gun violence epidemic will make us all safer. His bill dropped longstanding training requirements that cover topics like how to ensure your firearm does not end up in the hands of a child. We need leaders who will stand up, push back and reject radical policies that make you, me and our children less safe.
KATHERINE WESTERHOLD
New Orleans
After being signed into law by Louisiana governor Jeff Landry on March 05, 2024, Miguez’s SB 1, now Act 1, “Provides relative to the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns lawfully without a permit,” goes into effect on July 4th, 2024.
According to Act 1, the age to carry a concealed handgun is indeed lowered to 18 years of age, no permit needed. However, on the honor system, the concealed weapon toter is supposed to not bring the gun to places where carrying a gun is “banned by state or federal law” (like, say, to a public school), and the gun toter is supposed to let homeowners know, “Hey, I am carrying a handgun” and procure their permission to bring the gun into the residence before entering.
There is not much that finds me on the same side of issues even loosely connected with John White. However, on this issue, I’m with Katherine Westerhold.
When many teachers retire, they become eligible for retirement benefits that are paid in installements for the remainder of the retiree’s life. However, as I noted in my previous post on the subject, sometimes retirement systems assume a retiree has died when the retiree is still very much alive, and sometimes, for years after the retiree dies, family members who are ineligible to receive the now-deceased retirees benefits decide to partake of those dollars anyway. Both extremes fix the focus on the retirement system’s apparent inability to efficently and correctly disburse benefits to those to whom the benefits belong and who, incidentally, remain among the living.
All of the above had me questioning how my system, the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL), ensures that once a recipient dies, the payout efficiently ends or, as the case may be, transitions to correctly-identified beneficiaries of the deceased.
Enter the TRSL “death audit,” an idea I was made aware of from Louisiana Federation of Teachers and School Employees (LFT) legislative and political director, Cynthia Posey, following my April 02, 2024, post.
Posey alerted me that the very topic of TRSL tracking of beneficiary deaths ad been discussed during the Louisiana Joint Legislative Committee of the Budget (JLCB) meeting on Monday, March 22, 2024.
“Death Audit” Explained
As promised in my previous post, I have transcribed the pertinent discussion.
Around 33:15 minutes in, the agenda item is FY24-25 review and approval of operating budgets for state retirement systems.
Rep. Beryl Amedee begins speaking around 37:50, and begins with her “death audit” query:
***
Amedee: First of all, this is a term I hadn’t seen before. What’s a “death audit”?
Chas Nichols, La. Senate Fiscal Services Division: I’m sure they’ll be able to explain that better than I, but, it’s really intriguing. It’s fascinating.
Amedee: Well, um, my questions, whenever we get to it, would be: What is a “death audit”? Um, is it done on a regular basis, or is this something we do periodically, and why does it cost so much?
Nichols: So, I’ll, I’ll let you guys explain it [turning to two other officials seated at the table] because you were the ones that explained it to me, but, in, in an overall, it, it may, the cost may be there, but the alternative is having folks that are deceased still drawing retirement in some form or fashion, which probably [would] cost us a lot more. But others will go into the different mechanisms.
Amedee: So, are they, are their names only removed from the system after an audit? Is there not a simpler process?
Katherine Whitney: We can address that now if you like. I’m Katherine Whitney. I’m the director of the Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL). [Turns to left] This is, I’ll let Jeff introduce himself because he may be answering some of these questions, as well.
Jeff LaCour: Jeff LaCour, assistant director of TRSL.
Amedee: Good morning.
Whitney: So, the death audit increase: So, as Chas said, it’s important that when members die, we are aware of that immediately. So that, there are multiple, it’s called “audit,” but there are multiple service providers, um, that provide services to us such that we can reconcile and check on a very regular basis [turns to LaCour] is it, is it, we run those weekly [LaCour nods] and it’s two different services?
LaCour: Some are weekly, and some are monthly.
Whitney: Right. Different services so that when we receive that information, we will immediately stop the benefit and take actions thereafter, which include, um, reclaims from the bank, and then moving into collection if we have to. Sometimes we have beneficiaries that are going to be receiving a benefit, so we will work it out with them in the event aht we can’t stop that benefit. But it saves us a tremendous amount of money, as Chas said, in catching that right away and using the best of the best in terms of those services. And those are the, those are the market prices. The providers we use are what most retirement systems throughout the country use.
Amedee: Okay. So it seems by what you’re describing, what’s labeled here as a “death audit” is not what I’m thinking of as a periodic check of the bookkeeping.
Whitney: No, ma’am.
Amedee: It’s actually the whole process you’re using to be sure that your records and your accounts are up to date, correct?
Whitney: Yes, ma’am.
Amedee: Okay. Well, that’s good. (Amedee then moves on to another topic, investment management fees.)
***
So, TRSL does have a plan in place for regularly and systematically tracking the deaths of its recipients, and that plan consists of layers of investigation and contingency plans to recoup money by working with both financial institutions and survivors of the deceased, and that in a timely manner.
TRSL has also published a document (revised March 2023), “Death and Survivor Benefits Through TRSL,” which includes a straightforward statement about disbursement recovery following death of the beneficiary (page 4):
The TRSL document above also includes succint yet detailed information on beneficiary eligibility and benefits useful to TRSL members who may not as of yet be aware.
Keeping track of teacher pension disbursement to the living can be (here comes the pun) taxing for some retirement systems.
On one hand, there’s the UK teacher pension office, which in its undersophisticated hypervigilance to halt pension payments to deceased recipients actually halted disbursement four times to one retired teacher “because her pension provider repeatedly refuses to accept that she is not dead,” as the January 2024 Guardian reports:
Eileen McGrath, 85, was left without income over Christmas when Teachers’ Pensions, which administers payments on behalf of the UK government, wrongly matched her with a deceased stranger.
“In November I had received two letters from Teachers’ Pensions asking me euphemistically if I was dead,” she said. “I immediately called to make it clear that I was very much alive. Nevertheless, a week later two more letters arrived asking the same thing, so I wrote back to reiterate that I had still not died.”
Eileen McGrath
Four days before Christmas, McGrath discovered that her pension had not been paid. Despite a further call to Teachers’ Pensions the widow’s pension payment she also receives from the scheme was also stopped. (Schneider’s note to her American readers: a “scheme” is simply a plan or program.) Both payments were eventually made on 2 January after she complained.
McGrath said that she has been repeatedly asked to prove her existence since 2020 and faces losing her income each time. …
She had fallen victim to a vetting procedure that regularly checks pension beneficiaries against the death register to prevent ineligible payments. According to the Department for Education (DfE), which oversees Teachers’ Pensions, death register entries may be matched to scheme members even if personal details differ.
On the other hand, we have the New York Teachers Retirement System (TRS) in December 2023 suing to recover $120K, or two-years’ worth of payments, to the spouse of a deceased teacher, only to make bigger news two months later, in February 2024, as the same pension system was discovered trying to recover the hefty payout total of $781K that another spouse of a deceased teacher had bilked outof the pension system for 18 years.
It seems that New York TRS has no solid procedure in place to ensure that pension disbursement is actually happening for only living recipients, instead apparently choosing to assume that spouses of deceased teachers will unfailingly contact TRS about the death– an “honor system” assumption that cost TRS almost $1M in just these two cases.
Furthermore, TRS only found out about the 18-year scam because of “unidentified whistleblowers.” From the February 2024 New York Post:
A Queens widower pocketed more than $781,000 in pension payments meant for his dead schoolteacher wife for 18 years before city officials got wise to the theft, a probe found.
The eye-popping sum – which the heavily taxpayer-funded Teachers’ Retirement System, TRS, has been unable to recover – is perhaps the most egregious case of an individual collecting undeserved payments that the $100 billion pension fund has ever seen, experts said. …
When former teacher Lenora Burgess died in Queens in February 2002 at age 57, her husband Owen was responsible for notifying TRS of his wife’s death, the Special Commissioner of Investigation for city schools said in a newly released report. …
Lenora had elected the “maximum retirement allowance” option. That meant an annual pension of $42,419 a year – and no further payments to her heirs after her death.
But Owen Burgess, then 54 and living in Flushing, never told the agency of his wife’s demise.
So her pension checks kept coming in electronic payments of $3,535 a month for the next 221 months.
It was not until August 2020 that unidentified whistleblowers finally told TRS that the teacher had died 18 years before. …
When questioned by investigators, TRS officials described what amounts to an honor system for removing dead pensioners from its rolls.
“The responsibility to report a death to TRS lies with the pensioner’s family,” they told the SCI.
They also claimed to “periodically” run retiree names through outside databases, “but these databases did not always produce the names of all deceased members,” the report says.
Ex-pension chief Murphy called the excuses flimsy.
I seems that in both NY cases, the pension did not transfer to the spouses. However, even if the pension did transfer, the issue of potential erroneous payout beyond the life of a spouse still exists in the absence of reliable auditing of payment disbursement.
Apparently, a better auditing mechanism that the honor system or hapahzard combing of obits is needed. I asked St. Tammany (LA) Federation of Teachers president, Brant Osborn, about the mechanisms in place for accurately tracking of Louisiana teacher pension payments to living recipients, and he responded, “Hm. Good question.” He agreed to share my query with Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana (TRSL) board member, Mark Curry-Theriot. When I learn more, I will address the info in a subsequent post.
COMMENTER UPDATE:
I received the following from Louisiana Federation of Teachers (LFT) legislative director, Cynthia Posey:
Hi Mercedes-
Saw your post. TRSL gave a great explanation of the “death audit” during Joint Budget. Starts about 36 minutes in (actual time, 37:56) with Rep Amedee’s question (“This is a term I hadn’t seen before. What’s a ‘death audit’?”).
Nothing speaks to genuine Christianity like Donald Trump (“grab ’em by the p*ssy” Donald Trump, found-liable-for-rape Donald Trump, “If you do something bad, never, ever blame yourself” Donald Trump…) peddling his own bible, which includes a Constitution that he is willing to divorce (and perhaps even bury on the grounds of one of his golf courses for a tax break).
Though the March 26, 2024, New York Times billed this bible as Trump’s “newest venture,” the “God Bless the USA” bible pre-Trump-hawk has been around (and swirling in controversy) since HarperCollins pulled out from publishing it in May 2021:
The “God Bless the USA Bible” is still happening even though HarperCollins Christian Publishing passed on serving as the manufacturer for the project inspired by country music singer Lee Greenwood’s patriotic hit.
The “God Bless the USA Bible,” announced earlier this month, has received some pushback for sandwiching the sacred text and America’s founding documents between two covers.
Hugh Kirkpatrick, who leads the Tennessee company behind the new custom Bible backed by Greenwood, said he could not disclose just yet who they are working with now, but Elite Source Pro is lining up another business to print and bind the tome. …
The specialty Bible, which can be pre-ordered for $49.99, will still include copies of the Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Pledge of Allegiance and the chorus “God Bless the USA.” …
HarperCollins Christian Publishing, which includes Zondervan and Thomas Nelson publishing groups, is the North American licensor for the NIV (New International Version) translation. Zondervan decided not to move forward with the project and Thomas Nelson is not involved either. …
Kirkpatrick said he’s fielded about 70 emails since the Bible’s announcement and roughly 60% have been critical of the project. He did not expect the “God Bless the USA Bible” to draw such frustrated and aggravated responses.
Then, it seems the effort went quiet for a couple of years, until Trump attached himself to yet another merchandise item in his desperation for cash, cash and more cash.
In 2024, one can purchase the “God Bless the USA” bible for $10 more than its 2021 pre-order, pre-Trump price (even though the version has been changed from the licensed NIV to the unlicensed King James version, which is in the public domain).
MSNBC host Joy Reid has a lot to say about Trump’s bible hawking, including a brief but accurate description of the Easter story, which is far more than the hawker could say about his selling his “favorite book, ” one that he “has many” of just laying around the house:
More about the sale from 12 News Now– a Youtube ad which when I first watched it, began with an appeal from Trump for help paying his legal bills:
So, where’s the money going?
On Lee Greenwoood’s site, where one can purchase the “God Bless the USA” bible, among the Frequently Asked Questions is the following:
CIC Ventures, LLC, uses Trump’s name, license, and image, which means that a way for Trump to make money from bible sales is to receive a portion of proceeds from each sale. According to Trump’s 2023 financial disclosures as a candidate for President of the United States, Donald Trump is the “manager, president, secretary, and treasurer” from “02/21 to present.”
On the Dispatch newsletter, Boiling Frogs, staff writer Nick Catoggio offers this sentiment in his March 27, 2024, piece, “The True Faith”:
The “Trump Bible” plays like a parody of the dichotomy. It’s obviously being marketed to political radicals, the sort of Christians who’ll relish the word of God just a little bit more knowing that this version of it has been blessed by Donald Trump. And it’s just as obviously mercenary to a ludicrous degree, a remorseless cash grab even by the usual Trump standards. If he’s going to hawk nationalist Bibles to his evangelical fans at 60 bucks a pop, he might as well go for the big money and start selling MAGA-branded golden calves.
Louisiana HB 745, “LA GATOR Scholarship Program; Creation and Administration,” is on the La. senate education committee‘s legislative agenda for Tuesday, March 26, 2024, at 9 a.m.
Contact: Dr. Janet Pope – jpope@lsba.com Louisiana School Boards Association
THE LA GATOR SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM USES TAXPAYER DOLLARS WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY, STANDARDS, OR SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICES
Baton Rouge, LA – The proposed LA GATOR Scholarship Program, as created in HB 745, provides for universal education savings accounts (ESAs) and will spend taxpayer dollars without the accountability demanded of public schools, without any requirement to teach the state content standards demanded of public schools, and without providing special education services to students who need and are entitled to those services under federal law.
ACCOUNTABILITY Public school students must take state-mandated standardized tests in Math, English, Science and Social Studies every year in grades 3-8; must pass six end-of-course exams in English I, English II, Algebra, Geometry, Civics, and Biology; and must take the ACT. All of these test results are factored into public school accountability scores and letter grades. LA GATOR students will not be required to take any of these mandated standardized tests and will be judged on a yet to be determined standard, which will prevent any valid comparison between the quality of public education and LA GATOR funded education.
STATE CONTENT STANDARDS Public schools are required to teach state content standards adopted by BESE for every core academic subject in every grade. LA GATOR schools and providers are not obligated to teach the state content standards and are to be provided “maximum freedom to provide for the educational needs of participating student without government control”. State content standards are BESE approved public policy, setting the bar for what students should learn and know. However, that public policy shall not be applied to LA GATOR funded students.
SPECIAL EDUCATION Public schools are required under federal and state law to provide necessary special education services and accommodations to special education students and are subject to federal court orders and state sanctions if those services and accommodations are not provided. LA GATOR schools and providers will not be required to provide special education services and parents will be mandated to formally waive the services to which their children are entitled as a condition of their child’s eligibility to receive a LA GATOR ESA. Students who need special education services will effectively be excluded from the LA GATOR program.
It is wrong to spend public taxpayer dollars for nonpublic education without valid accountability. It is wrong to spend public taxpayer dollars without requiring the teaching of state-mandated educational content standards. It is wrong to exclude special education students by forcing them to waive the services they need and to which they are entitled in order to participate in a publicly-funded educational program.
# # #
ABOUT LSBA Formed in 1938, the LSBA is a non-profit organization that serves as a resource for public school boards across Louisiana. Our mission is leadership, service, and support for school boards and advocating for all students with a collective voice.
Principals from LAP recently attended the National Advocacy Conference where we had time to visit with Principals from other states. We spoke with Arizona principals specifically about how ESA’s are affecting their schools. ESA’s (Educational Savings Accounts) are being brought to the legislature in the form of a bill by Senator Rick Edmonds (R). The bill creates the LA GATOR Program. It would allow MFP money to follow the student from their zone school to any non-public, private, charter, or home school with no accountability to follow the money. LAP is asking you to copy and paste the email below to send to your local representatives and senators.
The Louisiana Association of Principals takes the following stand on the LA GATOR Program. We believe that any ESA’s (Educational Savings Accounts) should include the following:
· There needs to be a cap on the amount of income a family makes before they can accept an ESA. Arizona and many other states have found that over 80% of ESA’s are going to parents who already have their children at non-public schools.
· Schools and parents that accept ESA’s should provide assessment tools to students to show growth. These assessments need to be BESE approved, be consistent across all schools, and provide an accurate amount of growth as the child attends the school.
· Money should be allocated properly to fund these ESA’s. Arizona has found in the last two years they have not done this. Originally the Arizona legislation provided for $200,000,000 to fund ESA’s. It has cost them over $1 Billion dollars in two years. We should plan for this cost in the budget.
-There is concern if students will be allowed to leave their zone public school to attend another public school. How will this affect athletics and LHSAA rules on participation in athletic events?
· Finally there should be a plan for part of the money to return to the zone school if the child should return. Prorated amounts could be determined monthly for the students’ return to public school.
On March 04, 2024, I wrote about Ohio’s school voucher program, expanded grossly beyond its funding– $15M over budget by November 2023– and providing an opportunity for private school officials to pressure private school parents to apply for (and rake in) as much taxpayer money as possible.
School vouchers steer public money away from public schools even as the private schools receiving public money are not required to meet the same standards or offer services to serve all students.
Louisiana school vouchers have been around– and have been a flop— for years. Even still, the most conservative politicians just can’t seem to shake the desire to move public funds away from public education.
In recent months, almost daily I see the following commercial or another similar to it aired for a program called “No Kid Hungry.” Actor Jeff Bridges is the spokesperson:
Every time I see the above donor plea to help feed children in a school setting, my first thought is, “What about the federal free school lunch and breakfast program?” In fact, until 2025-26, schools and school districts serving low-income students can actually offer breakfast and lunch “at no cost to all enrolled students without collecting household applications” through the USDA Food and Nutrition Service’s Community Eligibility Provision.
Why don’t the school(s) in the commercial offer free meals to their students?
I’ll go one better: What school is actually being represented in the above No Kid Hungry commercial? In the version featured in this post, two adults are interviewed, each given a vague title– “teacher” and “principal.”
Teacher of what and where? Principal where?
The first individual is “Sonia Shaw, school principal”:
Meals, foods and beverages sold or served at schools meet state and federal requirements based on the USDA Dietary Guidelines. All meals, foods and beverages are prepared and served by qualified child nutrition professionals. We provide students with access to a variety of affordable and appealing foods that meet the health and nutrition needs of students.
All students are eligible to receive a healthy breakfast and lunch at no charge each day of the school year. No further action is required of you. Your children will be able to participate in these meal programs without having to pay a fee or submit an application.
In the No Child Hungry video, Shaw simply states, “If we want to take care of our children, then we have to feed them.”
True. But these kids are already being fed at school, so why, exactly, this commercial plea for money?
No Kid Hungry offers “Principal Sonia Shaw of Richmond, VA,” “a big thank you” on its Facebook page:
By using Shaw in its commercial and not fully identifying her association to a Title I school already offering free breakfast and lunch to its students, No Kid Hungry is deceiving the viewing public in its quest to solicit donations (“Your gift of just 63 cents a day– only 19 dollars a month… will help provide healthy meals and hope…”).
In this commercial, No Kid Hungry also uses a child and her brother to entice donors. Without mentioning Title I school ability to offer free breakfast and lunch to all students, the producers of the No Kid Hungry commercial use these words, spoken by a child identified as “Victoria, 9 years old”: “Like if these programs didn’t exist, me and AJ, we wouldn’t probably get lunch at all.”
If Victoria and her brother AJ attend Miles J. Jones Elementary in Richmond, VA, the same school as “Sonia Shaw, school principal,” then these children are already being fed breakfast and lunch every school day compliments of the taxpayer-funded, federal school breakfast and lunch program’s Community Eligibility Provision.
In the No Kid Hungry ad, as viewers watch children eat, Miller says the following: “If you’re coming in hungry, there’s no way you can listen to me teach, do this activity, work with this group. So, starting their day with breakfast and ending their day with this big, beautiful snack is pretty incredible.”
A big, beautiful snack at the end of a school day is incredible. And if No Kid Hungry wants to advertise that it supplies end-of-day snacks, that’s great. (By the way, our Title I high school offers to provide students attending after-school clubs a free snack provided the number of students is more than just a handful.) However, for No Kid Hungry to use Miller’s words to lead viewers to believe that her Title I school isn’t already feeding its students twice a day at no cost to students or their families is grossly misleading.
Let us now take a gander at the FY2021 tax form for the nonprofit that operates the No Kid Hungry program, Share Our Strength. (Even though its website address ends in “org,” No Kid Hungry is not its own organization.)
The Share Our Strength leadership are definitely not going hungry.
In FY2021 (July 2021 to June 2022), Share Our Strength reported receiving $85M in contributions and grants, down from $144M in FY2020. Share Our Strength ended FY2021 with net assets/fund balances of $97M.
As for Share our Strength’s numerous leadership making a rather comfortable living off of misleading commercials, FY2021 total compensation was as follows:
Jennifer Dirksen, national director, champion engagement: $176K
Andrea Hoefling, managing director, development: $194K
Laura Washburn, managing director, strategic communications: $193K
Tracee Sanders, MD (managing director), human resources: $197K
The 22 individuals listed above were paid $6M in total compensation to lead an organization of 338 employees.
Note also that at the bottom of the No Kid Hungry donation page is the disclaimer that donors cannot earmark their donations specifically for the No Kid Hungry program and instead are actually funding “Share Our Strength’s comprehensive strategies and initiatives….”
Among Share Our Strength’s “strategies and initiatives” is to offer itself as a middleman between schools and communities and those federally-funded meal programs that it cannot bring itself to feature in its misleading No Kid Hungry commercials. Some excerpts from the “program accomplishments” section of the Share Our Strength FY2021 tax form (sorry for the caps; this is straight from the doc):
WE PROVIDED FREE EXPERTISE AND RESOURCES ON HOW TO HARNESS FEDERAL WAIVERS AND EMERGING REGULATIONS AND NAVIGATE PANDEMIC-RELATED CHALLENGES LIKE SUPPLY ISSUES AND RISING FOOD COSTS. …
WE SUCCESSFULLY ADVOCATED FOR PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION WHICH ALLOWED FOR THE EXTENSION OF NATIONWIDE CHILD NUTRITION WAIVERS THROUGH THE SUMMER OF 2022 AND THE 2022-2023 SCHOOL YEAR, AND WE WORKED TO BRING THE THRIFTY FOOD PLAN, THE MECHANISM USED TO CALCULATE A TYPICAL FAMILY’S “FOOD BASKET” SNAP BENEFITS, IN LINE WITH TODAY’S REAL FOOD COSTS. …
WE ALSO CONTINUED TO GROW OUR EFFORTS FOCUSED ON CONNECTING KIDS AND FAMILIES WITH FOOD AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL. WE PROVIDED GRANTS TO CHILDCARE CENTERS, HEALTH CARE CENTERS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS WORKING TO ENSURE MORE CAREGIVERS OF CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 6 HAD ACCESS TO FEDERAL NUTRITION PROGRAMS AND OTHER FOOD RESOURCES. …
WE ESTABLISHED A PARTNERSHIP WITH THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS (AAP) AND SUPPORTED 7 STATE AAP CHAPTERS AND THEIR EFFORTS TO HELP PEDIATRICIANS SCREEN FAMILIES FOR FOOD SECURITY DURING WELLNESS VISITS AND CONNECT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WITH WIC, SNAP, AND COMMUNITY NUTRITION RESOURCES. …
WE PARTNERED WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HUMAN SERVICES ASSOCIATION AND SUPPORTED THE EFFORTS OF SIX STATES AND LOCALITIES TO STREAMLINE DATA SYSTEMS WITH THE GOAL OF INCREASING ENROLLMENT IN BENEFIT PROGRAMS LIKE SNAP AND WIC. TO TACKLE THE ROOT CAUSES OF POVERTY, WE LAUNCHED WORK CENTERED ON HELPING ELIGIBLE FAMILIES RECEIVE CHILD TAX CREDIT BENEFITS BY LEADING TARGETED OUTREACH….
I suppose it is hard to justify being a nonprofit that pays a slew of senior VPs and others $6M in annual compensation if notable portions of “program service accomplishments” involve connecting others to (and advocating for) existing federal programs.
But No Kid Hungry/Share Our Strength, do feel free to call my bluff and focus commercial ads on connecting schools with those existing federal programs instead of shaping a misleading narrative that children are attending school without food unless No Kid Hungry donors provide it.
School voucher programs allow public money to be used to cover private school tuition. Perhaps “cover” is not quite right in even most instances; “subsidize” is the better word, and that right there presents an equity problem: If the school voucher does not fully cover tuition, then the program automatically advantages those families that can cover any balance after accounting for supplemental financial assistance offered by some private schools.
Of course, there is also the challenge of paying for auxiliary expenses, which, again, leverages the “haves” over the ‘have nots” when it comes to attending a private school using public money.
Many proponents of school vouchers speak of choice for lower-income students and their families (see here and here, for example). However, regarding college enrollment and degree attainment, even pro-reform Education Next acknowledges that lower income students with some resources fare better than those severely disadvantaged:
The voucher intervention we study did have its intended effects—but only for students from disadvantaged families that nonetheless had a certain amount of material and cultural capital. Our findings point to the limitations of half-tuition vouchers to promote college enrollment and graduation among the least-advantaged students, as well as their potential value for those with access to greater fiscal and cultural resources.
Most school voucher programs cannot alleviate the reality that “a certain amount of material and cultural capital” matters when it comes to school vouchers for private education.
But what about school voucher programs that pull out the stops regarding low-income requirements and just make voucher money available to virtually all households to some degree, say, like Ohio did with its EdChoice program in June 2023?
Well, first of all, it should come as no surprise that by November 2023, the Ohio school voucher program was $15M over budget, as WOSU reports:
The expanded EdChoice Voucher program not only expanded eligibility to every Ohio child to receive at least some money to pay for a private school tuition, but it also increased the amounts available to scholarship recipients.
Any family making up to 450% of the federal poverty level – or $135,000 for a family of four – can get an EdChoice expansion voucher for private school, with families making more money getting less. EdChoice vouchers for students in kindergarten through 8th grade increased from $5,500 to $6,165. For high school students, vouchers went from $7,500 to $8,407.
In other words, Ohio school voucher finances are being stretched to stair-step-incorporate more families not lower-income and certainly with “material and cultural capital” that outdoes that of families of four who cannot touch $135K a year.
What a boon for the Ohio private schools, many of which are now encouraging (and even requiring) their applicants to tap into Ohio’s EdChoice funding, as the January 2024 Propublica reports:
For years the program, EdChoice, targeted mostly lower-income students in struggling school districts. Now it is an entitlement available to all, with its value decreasing for families with higher incomes but still providing more than $7,000 annually for high school students in solidly middle-class families and close to $1,000 for ones in the wealthiest families. Demand for EdChoice vouchers has nearly doubled this year, at a cost to Ohio taxpayers of several hundred million additional dollars, the final tally of which won’t be known for months.
That surge has been propelled by private school leaders, who have an obvious interest: The more voucher money families receive, the less schools have to offer in financial aid. The voucher revenue also makes it easier to raise tuition.
“The Board has voted to require all families receiving financial assistance … to apply for the EdChoice Program. We also encourage all families paying full tuition to apply for this funding,” read the email from the Columbus Jewish Day School board president. …
For decades, Republicans have pushed, with mixed success, for school voucher programs in the name of parental choice and encouraging free-market competition among schools. But in just the past couple of years, vouchers have expanded to become available to most or all children in 10 states: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah and West Virginia. … Many of the expanded programs are experiencing high demand, which voucher advocates are taking as affirmation of their argument: that families would greatly prefer to send their children to private schools, if only they could afford them.
… But much of the demand for the expanded voucher programs is in fact coming from families, many quite affluent, whose children were already attending private schools. …
In Ohio, the effects of the move toward looser eligibility in recent years was clear even prior to last summer’s big expansion: Whereas in 2018, fewer than a tenth of the students who were newly receiving vouchers that year had not attended a public school the year before, by 2022, more than half of students who were new to EdChoice were already in private schools.
Don’t miss the pressure on Ohio’s private school families to access EdChoice money:
At St. Brendan’s the Navigator, on the other side of the Columbus beltway from the Jewish Day School, the missive arrived on the last day of July. The letter, signed by the Rev. Bob Penhallurick, called the expanded vouchers a “tremendous boon to our school families and Catholic education across Ohio” and said that all families were “strongly encouraged to apply for and receive the EdChoice scholarship.” He noted that, depending on their income level, families could receive up to $6,165 for each child — nearly covering the $6,975 tuition. “Even a small scholarship is a major blessing for you, the school, and the parish,” he wrote.
And then he added, in italics, that if a family did not apply for the vouchers, “we will respect that decision,” but that “supplemental financial aid from the parish in this case will require a meeting” with either himself or another pastor at the school.
The message to St. Brendan the Navigator parents: In order to be considered for other financial aid, one cannot automatically choose to forego tapping into the state’s taxpayer money, even on principle.
At Holy Family School near Youngstown, the directive arrived a few days later, on Aug. 3. “As you are aware, ALL students attending Holy Family School will be eligible for the EdChoice Scholarship. We are requesting that all families register their child/ren for this scholarship as soon as possible,” wrote the school’s leadership. And then it added in bold: “It is imperative that you register for EdChoice for each of your students. We are waiting to send invoices until your EdChoice Scholarship has been awarded.”
In an interview at the school, Holy Family principal Laura Parise said the push to apply for EdChoice had succeeded. “One hundred percent of our students are on it,” she said. “We made it that way — we made our families fill out the form, and we’re going from there.”
Parise said that some families had been reluctant to apply, but that the school told them that if they did not do so, they could not qualify for any of the school’s discounts from its $5,900 tuition, such as the ones Holy Family offers to second and third children from the same family. If parents still needed additional help beyond the vouchers, they could request it.
So, there’s the choice for parents whose children may have even already attended Holy Family: You must apply for state money before any other discounts will be offered, even multiple-child discounts.
On its face, it looked to me as if Ohio’s private school parents were of their own volition driving up the numbers of EdChoice applicants already attending private schools. According to Propublica, this is not the case.
It is Ohio’s private school administrators pressuring their students’ parents to run for the money– money, mind you, which is over budget and surely benefiting Ohio parents and students who have financial and cultural leverage at the expense of those who do not.
In June 2020, Yale University temporarily suspended its ACT or SAT score requirement for first-year admissions:
In response to the widespread disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Yale Office of Undergraduate Admissions will temporarily suspend its requirement that first-year applicants submit results from the ACT or SAT.
The change will be in effect during the 2020-2021 admissions cycle for applicants to the Class of 2025.
Yale continued its test-optional admissions policy for the Classes of 2026 and 2027, with the latter admission process yielding the largest applicant pool in Yale history, as reported in March 2023:
Yale’s Office of Undergraduate Admissions has completed its review of first-year applications and offered admission to 2,275 of the 52,250 students who applied for the Class of 2027. The newly admitted applicants will be joined by an additional 54 students who were admitted during the 2021-22 admissions cycle but opted to postpone their matriculation for one year.
…
Students admitted to the Class of 2027 represent 50 states, the District of Columbia, four U.S. territories, and 78 countries. They will arrive at Yale as graduates of more than 1,500 secondary schools, and their intended majors include 82 of Yale’s undergraduate academic programs.
This year’s pool of applicants for first-year admission was the largest in the college’s history — nearly 5% larger than the previous year, said Jeremiah Quinlan, dean of undergraduate admissions and financial aid. Since 2020, the first-year applicant pool has grown by nearly 50%, a shift Quinlan attributed to Yale adopting a test-optional policy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
As for the incoming Class of 2028, on February 22, 2024, Yale announced that it will once again require standardized test scores for first-year admissions; however, in addition to ACT or SAT scores, Yale admissions will accept other standardized test scores, including the Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) scores. Quinlan notes that reinstating the test score requirement could help combat admissions bias against lower income students since such students are also more likely to attend schools that lack the perks of schools in higher-income areas, including advanced courses and “enrichment opportunities” that only further serve to, as Quinlan notes, have “the effect of advantaging the advantaged”:
Yes, students with greater resources earn higher scores on average, but they also benefit from advantages in every other element of the application. Our whole person review process allows us to consider every piece of the application, including testing, in the context of a student’s high school, neighborhood, and household.
Our research and experience with tens of thousands of applications over the past four years have demonstrated that when an application lacks testing, admissions officers place greater emphasis on other elements of the file. For students attending well-resourced high schools, substitutes for standardized tests are relatively easy to find: transcripts brim with advanced courses, teachers are accustomed to praising students’ unique classroom contributions, and activities lists are full of enrichment opportunities. A policy that results in increased emphasis on these elements, we found, has the effect of advantaging the advantaged.
For students attending high schools with fewer resources, applications without scores can inadvertently leave admissions officers with scant evidence of their readiness for Yale. When students attending these high schools include a score with their application — even a score below Yale’s median range — they give the committee greater confidence that they are likely to achieve academic success in college. Our research strongly suggests that requiring scores of all applicants serves to benefit and not disadvantage students from under-resourced backgrounds.
As for the decision not to simply return to ACT and SAT scores as the only standardized scores accepted for admission, Quinlan notes,
During our four years of considering roughly half of our applicants without ACT or SAT scores, we found that subject-based exams such as AP and IB can add valuable evidence to our committee discussions, just as ACT and SAT do. We also have new data from the Office of Institutional Research on the predictive power of these exams.
The second reason is simply that the world has changed, and the ACT and SAT are now less central to many students’ college application processes. Most selective colleges remain test optional, and some — including the entire University of California system — are now “test-blind.” We do not want to disadvantage or disqualify applicants who have not had the ACT or SAT as part of their planning for college.
Finally, we are in a dynamic moment for standardized testing. There are efforts to design and roll out new tests, and there is more energy for developing alternatives to the SAT or ACT than ever before. Although our research on the predictive power of the four tests we will accept next cycle is compelling, I like that our policy is flexible by design and can easily accommodate future additions to the list of required scores.
deutsch29: Mercedes Schneider's Blog 