Good morning everyone and welcome. Uh glorious day out and in. Um and in recognition uh we will not have another meeting before July 5th in recognition of our nation's 250th birthday, I would
invite us all today to do the pledge of allegiance as we start this meeting. So please stand. I pledge allegiance to >> All right. Well, thank you. And also prior to um beginning the
committee meeting, um if you notice to my left, that is not Dr. Brumley, but um Ken Bradford, the chief of staff, Dr. Brumley is in Washington DC representing all of us. Um the
two cabinet secretaries has asked him to appear. One's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant and to be on a panel uh with regards to education in the big beautiful bill. uh and then also Secretary Linda McMahon uh with regards
to the presidential 1776 awards. He will be back with us tomorrow. Um but we are in very capable hands. So Ken, thank you for being here. And now I will open the board administration and education
finance committee. Uh call it to order and ask for the roll call, please. >> Mr. Appel Mr. Appel is present. Dr. Mr. Armstrong. Dr. Armstrong is present. Mr. Berkin >> here. >> Mr. Burkin is present. Mr. Cow. Mr. Cow
is not present. Mr. Castile >> here. >> Mr. Castile is present. Miss Shampon. Miss Shampon is present. Dr. Clark. Dr. Clark is present. Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris is not present. Miss Holloway. He's He's here. He's just
There's Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris is present. Miss Holloway. Miss Holloway is present. Miss Melerin, Miss Meer is not present. Mr. Morris here. Mr. Morris is present. You have a quorum. >> Thank you. First item, please.
>> The consent agenda is ready for approval. Adding item 5.1. >> Uh motion, Miss Holloway, Miss Champine for the consent agenda. Any um objections being none, that motion
passes. Next, please. >> The first item is on page 14, item 3.1, consideration of an update report regarding LEAs and non-compliance with the 70% instructional requirements for fiscal year 24 2024 2025. The
recommendation is to receive. >> Motion, please. Mr. Harris, Dr. Armstrong. Any discussion? Any objections? Seeing none, that passes. Next, please. Your next item is on page 18, item 3.2,
consideration of a report from the LDOE on the implementation plan process of the governor's executive order uh 26 uh 047. The recommendation is to receive. >> Motion, Mr. Morris, Miss
Holloway. Um so we will um ask that um Miss Amanda Lru from the DA um attorney general's office and Mr. Tony Liji from the department just to give us
an overview um of the executive order from the governor and then we will have a presentation from Miss Besono uh and then we also have some people who want to talk about it. So, uh, proceed. Thank
you, uh, Miss and Tony for being here. Floor is yours. >> Thank you. Uh, Amanda Lru, Assistant Attorney General. Um, so pursuant to Louisiana Constitution Article 8, Section 13, the governor may reduce
appropriations to the MFP. um it provided in the act which that any reduction must be um in concurrence with twothirds of the members of the house of the legisl of the legislature. So this executive order does that. Um the
governor is reducing the MFP with the concurrence of twothirds of the elected members of the house of the legislature. And then this executive order directs Department of Education in in consultation with Bessie to identify the
allocations from where the reduction shall be made. Um, and then this executive order also advises all entities that are subject to it to take ne all necessary action to carry out the provisions of the order and I'm happy to
answer any questions. >> Tony Liji, executive counsel for the department. Uh, I think Miss LRU summed up summed it up very accurately. Uh, I do understand that the ballot has gone out to the House and Senate uh, this past Monday. um believe it's a 15-day
wait period for the ballots to come back two and it's a a twoth3 bot. I'm sorry, I'm looking at Mr. Balker. Uh and a twothird yes, affirmative vote is necessary. Um just the way I see the role of the DOE in this process is to to
basically issue guidance as necessary in consultation with Bessie uh to make sure that the systems are operating within the four corners of the executive order. >> Okay. Any questions before we proceed to
Miss Yo's u Yes sir. Just real quick, just to clarify, there's no uh action required of Bessie to modify the MFP uh resolution. It's already on the it's already on the books from 2019. So,
whatever happens will happen kind of automatically as a result of the appropriation change. Correct. >> Right. So, this executive order directs LDOE to identify the funds where um the reduction will come from, but Bessie's role is that it must consult with LDOE to do that. So this satisfies that
requirement, >> but it doesn't require a special meeting or a new resolution or anything else. It's just automatic if you will. >> Right. So your role is just consult with LDOE on um the where the reduction of the funds shall occur. They've identified them. You're consulting. So this meeting satisfies that.
>> Correct. Thank you very much. >> And this is all subject to the affirmative vote of 23. >> Correct. >> Correct. Correct. >> Everything we're doing here. Yes. Dr. So, just to be clear, today Bessie's role is just to receive the report. >> That's correct.
>> Correct. Okay. >> Anyone else proceed then? Thank you uh both. I appreciate that. Uh we'll proceed into Miss Shono's um PowerPoint. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, that's Sienna with the Department
of Education. The first thing I'll just recount so you can see the language is that um the executive order does contain the directives specifically that the MP appropriation contained in the fiscal year 2627 in house bill one uh of this
legislature is hereby reduced by $168 million from non-instructional dollars. The department of education in consultation with the state board of elementary and secondary education shall identify the allocations from which the reduction shall be made made.
The department bessie should assist school districts so that the areas of security transportation and food services remain intact and where feasible school system should utilize unassigned fund balances to replace reduced allocations.
So let me stop right there for a minute and explain that um first of all the uh areas of security, transportation and food service are considered to be non-instructional and the language in the executive order does require that
these remain intact. Uh the reference to unassigned fund balances is uh unassigned fund balance is an accounting term. It is in the accounting standards the national accounting standards. It refers to um
the part of the fund balances of which there are four that are to be categorized in accounting records and reported in single audits. The unassigned fund balance is that which has not been committed to any particular expenditure yet. The other three
categories of fund balances have all taken um gotten in those amounts in those fund balances by some action of the board or the superintendent reserve for specific expenditures. But this definition is meant to be that which has
not been assigned yet. Now it is a good thing to have a fund balance. In fact, in the fiscal risk assessment, we do say that the best practice is that entities have a fund balance of about 7 and a half%. Most of the time, these uh fund balances
under signs are things that districts are anticipating uh maybe having expenditures on. As we all know, there needs to be funds available for a hurricane, for disaster recovery, unexpected reductions of equipment in
the um in the school systems. So, a fund balance is a good thing. It's just that this particular fund balance designation has not been um actually voted on or set aside by the superintendent yet for anything specific. Mission
on that the fund balances are is there a state requirement or a local requirement that their fund balances must be a certain amount or a certain percentage or anything like that. Uh the best practice which we actually
um have within our fiscal risk assessment measurement criteria is that a 7 and 12% fund balance is a best practice to maintain. And so in the fiscal risk assessment we actually score school systems who have um you know that
amount or less. There may be a tiny bit less maybe uh you know a little bit smaller grade but um best practice is about a seven and a half percent >> 7 and a half% of what >> of total >> of their total budget
>> uh it's yes that's how your fund balance is is uh calculated 7 and a half% of of your total budget should be in your fund balance Um the executive order also speaks to the money for the stipen for the classroom teachers and support staff
should be drawn from the overcolction fund once funds are sufficient to pay for the stipen. What that means is that there is language in um in the bills that have passed right now that moves uh that if this should go forth uh and be
agreed to by twothirds of the voting members of the legislature, the treasurer will move um $168 million from the department appropriation. There's actually an agency called MFP. the treasurer will remove $168 million from
that appropriation and move it over to a special fund called the over collections fund. At that point, the department loses access to that money and we will have to proceed with um standard procedures to get access to cash through
what they call a BA7. It's a budget adjustment form that is laid out in budgeting statutes and procedures for the state. And we'll have to bring that BA7 over to the joint legislative committee on the budget to get permission to actually access that cash
and authority to access the cash. At which time we would then have uh the ability to make payments back to the school systems for the amount of the stipens. uh the department uh the division would
determine uh if there is money uh right now the estimate is around $168 million. If something were to change and we were to have a little bit of money left over then we could do another BA7 to put that uh small amount of money back into the
MFP appropriation should that occur. um voting will take place uh via ballot which um Mr. Liji spoke to and I already spoke to the fact that we believe the ballots have gone out. Um
so the first joint budget I mentioned that it would take us having to go to the joint budget committee. They have specific meeting dates throughout the year. The first one this year is August the 13th. Um it's unclear right now if that would be the one that we would go
through go to to present the BA7 but that is the beginning of the meetings. They start in August. Um and we would the date for the payment of the stipen is not specified yet. Um historically we have been distributing the cash for the stipens that have been appropriated in
the last few years in the early fall timeline. So um we would work with that a similar um procedure if in fact this goes through. So the executive order specifies that it is a $2,000 classroom teacher stipen
$1,000 support staff stipen plus their employer retirement contributions. Um and that's what's equaling approximately the $168 million. We are using the fall 25 staffing data which is customary. That's what we already use in the 2627
formula to allocate um the pay raises that are within the formula. And the retirement contribution allocations are those in effect for 2627 which the TRSL rate went down slightly to 19.11%
and the elers's rate went down to 19.5%. This gives you a view of the um categorization of the staff that are included in the pay raise. Um there is standard accounting terms that dictate
and have always dictated who is eligible for payraises andor stipens that have been historically released. The numbers that you see to the left of the descriptions are what we call the object codes. There are then in addition to that there are what we call function
codes that are associated with these positions and should this go through we'll be giving very specific details on those function codes. The function codes dictate what part of either instruction or non-instruction these positions report to. For example, one function
code would be instruction regular instruction or it could be special education. Things like that are considered the functions. So the teachers um are always coded as a 112 and they're in function 1000 which is
instruction. And then support staff um would be included would be support supervisors, clerical, secretarial positions, aids, service workers, skilled craftsmen, degree professionals and other personnel. Some examples of
that is going to be in addition to aids and clerical secretarial which is explanatory service workers may be your maintenance people that work in your garage or your um your warehousing things like that. Uh skilled craftsman
would be those who may do other repairs to um facilities or equipment or things like that. Degree professionals in the support category are often the business managers who work in the business office. Uh other personnel is going to
be rare. Um it will be just unique situations. Sometime the larger school districts have very unique positions that they code in there. But all those are according to our laugh accounting guide um that that is been in place. And so they keep their accounting records
based on this and they report their staffing data based on these similar codes. The positions that are not included in this particular stipen include some of the um the positions that deal with uh
therapy specialists and counselors across um all areas uh of the school system. It was the principles, the assistant principles and other school administrators, the central office certificated administrators,
school nurses, and any sbaticals. These are all also reported through our data um staffing data collection, but in this case, stipens um for these individuals were not included in the executive order. They have historically been included in the stipens and they are
included in the payraises that are within the formula. But in this case um they would not be included. Uh we provided statistics um with regards to these cost and these individuals the cost would go up from
168 million by about another 30 um million. Um and so that that is not the cost that's being uh actually provided through this executive order. So the executive order highlights that the reduction should be applied to
non-instructional expenditures. As you know, there is no uh mention in the HCR that governs the current formula of what is non-instruction. It is not part of any calculations in the formula. Non-instruction and instruction is a expenditure. It does
not refer to revenues. And so those non-instructional expenditures are at the local level. That is that are the things that I will go over in a minute and you'll see what those in particular might be. Um there is the expectation
because it is in the resolution and we're not changing anything in the formula that the 70% compliance would remain. So what we the reduction methodology includes is that we would add up as we always do levels one, two, three and
four for each individual entity in the formula. Um and we would then at the end of that calculation remove their associated cost of a stipen from their allocation. um the school systems will need to make
budget adjustments based on this particular reduction to their MFP. Um on average, it's it's about a 5% reduction across the state. This just depicts the math. As you can see, it's just adding all the levels
together. Once we get to that total, we reduce it by the cost of the stipen for each individual entity. And then what we're going to do is we're going to um if if this is approved in time, we would distribute that cost to them or that
reduction across all 12 months, making it a little bit easier for them to accommodate that reduction. Um right now the payments go out on the 25th of every month. And so we would hope that we could have timing to incorporate it
beginning in July. So they would have again some of the smaller districts it's a little more um a little more difficult because they depend on those monthly payments. A lot of them are the smaller entities have their payroll um you know scheduled around that MFP payment
because that's the biggest chunk of cash that they get every month. Um so those monthly payments being reduced rather than taking it uh in bigger chunks is much more manageable for cash uh management. One thing that is exempt, you know, we do have a couple of special allocations
in level four that have their own methodologies that require individual payments. They do not go out on the 25th of every month. They were designed to go out at certain specific times of the year based on maybe the availability of data. And so there are four that will be
unaffected by the reduction. They will be allocated beyond the point where we actually remove the reduction and come up with a net. And those include the international associate teacher stipens. We have three of those. One of those is a one for firstear teachers that helps
the teachers get settled and we distribute that one in the fall uh outside of that 25th of the month payment. We also have career development fund that we distribute um in specific payments. We also have high-cost services which you know is an
application that we get the data um usually towards the end of the calendar year early in the January time frame. Um and so we actually distribute that in two phases um individually and then the mentor stipens we have to collect and
wait on specific data in order to give those out as well. So those are paid separately. The executive order states that the systems uh make decisions on budget adjustments um on those three particular areas of security, transportation, and
food services to so that those remain intact. And so to give you a list of the non-instructional expenditures that they will be reviewing, we'll we'll uh show those. Now, first of those, we call that section general administration in the
accounting guide. That could be your board of education cost as well as your superintendent's office. School administration is also considered non-instruction which would be the principles and assistant principal's office and other school administrators.
Business services is non-instructional and that can be anything with related to your fiscal or business office operations. Uh anything with warehousing or distribution for your school system. um and any other business services like procurement or reporting things like
that that you have those are all considered non-instructional areas operation and maintenance of plan is also non-instructional and that can be maintenance for buildings or grounds or equipment uh or vehicles here I'll note that the safety and security category is
excluded in executive order uh and that's one of the ones that the executive order says shall remain intact and then student transportation is a non-instructional and that does include regular and special needs instruction. Again, that one is excluded per the
executive order. Central services includes things like evaluation or information IT related services uh HR any other data processing or data u reporting and any other central services
categories. Lastly, food service operations is excluded. We do know that mo majority of food service operations are funded with federal dollars. There is a a match that has to be made for your um federal dollars that that will have to be
maintained. Otherwise, it is a small amount of general fund dollars that generally go into food service operations, enterprise operations, and community service operations. There's a few school systems that have those, but those are also included in the noninstructional category. And then of
facility acquisition and construction is the final category that's in non-instruction. Just for your reference, some of the laws and bills that play into the executive order include first here's a language for the constitution that um the attorneys referred to where it
actually talks about um that neither the governor nor the legislature may reduce such appropriation except that the governor may reduce such appropriation using means provided in the act containing the appropriation. The act is managing the cash and so in this case that would be h house bill one of the
2026 session. um provided that any such reduction is consented to in writing by twothirds of the elected members. Also in play here is House Bill one. Actually, if you go to page 148 in House Bill 1, there is actually language under
what we the MFP appropriation agency 695 that speaks to that in accordance with article 8 section 13B which we just we just read um the governor may reduce the MFP um contained in this act provided that any such reduction again is
consented to in writing. The third piece of this is actually House Bill 313. 313 we refer to as the funds bill. This is the one that actually uh provides the mechanism for moving cash into the overcolctions fund. It states that um
whereas House Bill 313 authorizes and directs the state treasur to deposit into the over collections fund from the revenues in the state general fund an amount equal to the amount of the state general fund direct for each appropriation that has an appropriation that is
reduced by the governor uh and is consented to in writing by twothirds of elected members. So this language actually creates the receptacle for the cash that will be moved from the MFP appropriation into the overcolction funds that will then afford the ability
to make a payment back to the school systems for the cost of the stipens. All right. And with that um available for any questions. Thank you so much. >> Thank you Miss Mr. Castillo. >> Thank you Miss I appreciate the
presentation. Just wanted to get a little clarification on a few things that gotten some phone calls um with respect to the health of the K12 uh education system financially. We've got bond investors, bond markets watching what we're doing and other investors
outside of the state of Louisiana. And and sort of my take on this is that there hasn't been an overall reduction in support of K12 education because that $168 million while there is a reduction
in dollar amount that that dollar amount is actually being reallocated toward teachers and support staff. So those dollars are remaining in the the education system. Is that accurate to say >> that? That is true. Yes, it would remain within the total.
>> So for any external investors who may be looking at uh the state of Louisiana and the strength of the of the education system from a financial standpoint, nothing has really changed from last year to this year with respect to the overall support. I understand that
there's a been a redistribution reallocation, but overall state support remains pretty much where it was before. That fairly accurate to say >> yes. Uh you just won't be able to see it within House Bill one. You know,
normally people would go to that page where the MFP appropriation is. It just takes a little bit of layering the different actions together to come up with the same total. >> Yeah. And and so again, because investors are watching from around the
the country, um I know we've got our acting uh superintendent, Mr. Bradford, here today. Uh so I'm not going to really put you on the spot except to to ask that uh from your perspective speaking on behalf of the of the department. Do you believe that from an
academic standpoint um the the state education system at the K12 level will will suffer uh as a result of of these changes with respect to funding? Look, I think that final determination
will be made when Miss CNO generates the report, generates all the numbers, shares of school systems, and they have time to reconcile their budgets. >> Great. Thank you, Mr. B. Dr. Clark. >> So, for the 2728 school year, will the
MFP funds the 168 million remain in the MFP formula for 2728? because this is a is this a one-time act? >> Uh the executive order speaks specifically to 2627. I think that um
that there would be need to be some determination by department and Bessie as to what formula would be presented and the cost associated with it for 2728 as you already have that authority. >> Okay. And on the practical side, just to be clear, the reduction, the funds and
the the amounts that will are being allocated to us will start from July through June. So, it'll be spread over a 12-month period instead of the 10-month period. I think we spoke about that, >> right? uh we we hope to be able to get all the if it passes, you know, and we
are notified that it goes into effect, we're hoping that all the mechanisms necessary to get the authorization to begin that process will begin in time for the um for the July payment. And so then it would be spread over the 12 months, >> which I think a lot of schools and
school districts, espec especially smaller districts would appreciate that. And my last question is going back again to that practical side. I know in the past the guidance has come from LDOE and how the stipens are paid out. Will that guidance come back from LDOE and instead
of us being given the December 15th deadline as we did last year, can that deadline be extended? >> Um I think we're taking that under advisement after speaking to some, you know, some of the school systems. Um last year the December 15th um date was
put into house appropriations so we had to comply with that. >> In the past prior to that there was no date in mid December. I think there was a little bit of rumbling that caused some concern by legislators who actually enacted that December 15th date. Um in
the past we've known we've really given dates like before May you know a date in May to get it out. Um, so I think we're taking that under advisement, you know, if this should go forward. We'll definitely take all the concerns under advisement and we will give out guidance
specifically on all the details. You know, right now we have about a three or four page guidance on stipens and we'll definitely issue something similar should this go forward. >> Thank you, B. >> Mr. Morris. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had two questions. One, following up on Mr.
Castile's comment. Um this, as I understand it, the school systems will uh return total of $168 million back to the state, which will be dedicated to teacher raises. But the school systems are also returning, I think about $50
million back due to reduced enrollment. What happens to those funds? >> Uh those funds, we had two times that those funds were returned. So in 2526 once we did the midyear adjustments and the reduction in students was recognized
there was about a 50 52 million return to the state that was then captured during the legislative session through the budget process and was spent um in various ways by the legislature. Um, also as we transfer that same lower
student count into 2627, we ended up having um about a $42 million uh less cost. So, what was in the budget in the executive budget versus what the formula we sent over cost, it was about
a $42 million, it was $42 million less. That also was captured during the legislative session um through the budget process. and then spent on on various other things. >> So between last year and this year's it was $95 million that uh the department
has given back to the state >> has it. >> Right. The formula gave back. Yeah. >> Right. The formula gave back. Um it once the budget process is approved and we and um there hasn't been a new MFP
since 2019. So every year it's been going back to the same MFP as 2019. Has there been years prior to um 25 26 that we've sent money back? Because you cannot once the budget is approved, you
can't go back and ask for more money. So um has there been money given back like say 23 24 25? >> Right. the decline in students over the last few years has uh you know contributed to some money being returned
each year. Um so it has been a pattern not not to the degree that we experienced at this point in in time but um there was a sizable decrease in students which caused this. >> Okay, >> Mr. Chair. Um Mr. Chair, I had some questions. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Yeah, my second question. Uh, in addition to the executive order we've been discussing, the governor also formed a review committee to review the the MFP. And I understand there are also a couple of other independent efforts along those same lines. Can somebody give us a little bit more detail around
the governor's review committee, what Bessie's level of engagement would be, what the scope of that or the charge to that committee is, and and then just, you know, what the uh what the outlook is going forward with regard to addressing concerns around MFP. Miss Champine,
>> thank you. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mars. Great question. Well, the governor's executive budget does allow Bessie to make an appointment to the MFP task force. That task force has not been formed yet and should, I'm thinking, fairly shortly. Uh, there should be some
type of meeting or we have not gotten a letter from the governor's office or the senate yet to see how we going to make that appointment. But we do have an appointment. Bessie does. And I believe LDOE also. >> No. No, but Dr. Brumley is going to participate. Yeah, Dr. Brumley will
participate. >> So, do do we have any sense of what the timeline looks like? Um, anything like that? >> Well, the timeline in the executive budget and, uh, listening to the governor's reports, uh, states that by
December 31st, the MFP task force should have some type of resolution. >> Mr. You have sent out to each district their cuts with regards to this 668 million. Correct.
>> Yes. We released something on Friday to each individual entity. >> And speaking on behalf of the districts, they appreciate that to getting it out so quick and we also appreciate you getting it out so quickly. Uh is there
about an average reduction per district >> um >> percentage? >> Yeah, looking across all of them as we um it it ranges. On average, it's a little bit less than a 5% cut. Some have obviously less than that. There are some
that have maybe three three and a half%. Some have a little greater percent. So that averages a little bit less than a 5% reduction to their MFP allocation. Yep. Mr. Harris,
>> just just a followup to uh Mr. Morris's question on the task force. I think it'd be it uh for those watching um the task force is making recommendations to Bessie. It is not a
force of law what they come up with. So whatever they come up with, it will be up to us to either adopt it or some of it or any of it uh in a new Bessie uh excuse me MFP formula. So I think that
needs to be made clear so the public watching know >> that that's my understanding uh if we if Beth wants to comment or Amanda but that's my understanding. Okay. Thank you. >> Good point Mr. C.
Um I've been uh receiving um letters from uh superintendent uh in my districts uh in connection with uh the reduction um in the money that they will receive. I I know that I've been hearing a lot of
complaints from schools about the increase in insurance costs, the increase in um maintenance costs uh and other uh costs uh related to running a a a school. Uh how will this reduction
um would this reduction exasperate exacerbate those concerns or will it affect uh their ability to have enough sufficient money to run their schools? >> I I think that uh is an individual, you
know, school system issue. Um, I do know that some of the smaller school systems that we already know have some challenges with their funds. Uh, this will just add to their challenges. Um, so I I think it's an individual issue.
Um, and they're all developing their budgets right now. They have to have an adopted budget by September 15th that is voted on by their boards. It has to be a balanced budget by law. Um and so they um are in those final stages of making
those decisions right now and we'll be addressing that in the coming weeks should this go into effect. >> Anyone else? Mr. I've got a a a question from some that um some of the rural districts that you
know we know are in some financial uh bind, how will they make up the difference when they don't have enough to make the contribution for the teachers? You know what I'm saying? if you cut it and they can't give the money back or
their budgets don't allow, is there have have you seen anything when when you're looking at the districts that that might be a problem? >> Well, I I will use Madison as an example. Madison already has a fiscal administrator in place because of their
challenges with their finances. They actually reported a zero fund balance in their unassigned category in their last audit. So, we um I can expect that they will have some challenges, you know, just paying their bills. Um I know that
the fiscal administrator is working very hard, you know, to help them get in place, but it was obviously not a short-term issue that they were assigned a fiscal administrator. And that's the fiscal administrator that was assigned not by us, but by the treasurer, the
legislative auditor and the attorney general's office through the legislative audit advisory council. Um so there there is an expectation that some of the systems you know who we already know had low fund balances because they either
had experienced um some you know tragedy or challenge they already had. It could be that they've also dedicated a lot of money to buildings and maybe have some big projects that are ongoing and most of their cash is in those other categories of reserve fund balances. So
it varies as much as we've quickly looked across the school systems and also the data that's available right now in their single audits is from last July and so things could have changed in their business um you know and their cash between last July and now. So it
will be unique and as this moves forward we'll continue to to study that part of your responsibility um as we report to you on the fiscal risk assessment is our monitoring of that and should we have a situation where we think a school system
um is going to be on the verge of bankruptcy. That's what the law says that you are to monitor and we do that through the fiscal risk assessment. um should a district be on their way to to possibly um you know being bankrupt, uh
we would come to you and report that because then it's your responsibility to then share that information with the three person committee um that then makes the decision about a fiscal administrator. So we will be monitoring very closely. We already have this
process in place. >> Okay. just to go. um in determining um how much money uh each district would be reduced. uh what criteria are we are we or or you using to to
determine uh how much uh money uh each >> that's I think that's what she had uh spoke to earlier in this chart with regards to so they take the the number of employees uh and reduce that by the
2,000 and the 1,000 and then that goes back to them. >> Correct? >> Yes. It's based on staffing, >> Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. >> Yes. >> Over here. >> Oh, Mr. Marsh. >> Yeah. Thank you. Just following up on Mr. Harris's uh comments. Uh and
earlier, Miss Yiano, you mentioned that the best practice for the contingency fund is 7 and a half%. Once you make these uh deductions district by district, could you reply back to us and let us know what the uh impact is uh relative to that best practice for each
district? Uh that will take some time because we don't collect fiscal data again until the fall for 2526. Um but >> that would give us some indication right of >> um >> uh we can >> any concerns about insolveny or that
sort of thing right that would be an early flag. Uh yes, and that's what we'll be looking at in later the uh in the calendar year later this year once we have all the fiscal data in and they report to us their fund balances. That'll come through our own fiscal report and then through their audits
that are due December 31st, but we won't know about their fund balances until they actually report that information out. uh looking across their allocations right now, we can see that the cost of the of the stipen is on average a little
less than 5% impact to their cash. That's what information we have right now. >> Okay. But with regard to the contingency fund, this board wouldn't get that information until maybe December. >> Uh it'll be probably beyond beyond December because their audits aren't due. We get uh fiscal data reported in
the fall to us and then their audits are due to the legislative auditor at December 31st. We don't actually get access to those. Uh it's when the legislative auditor publishes those on their website, usually starting around March. So their fund balances for 2526
will not be available in their reports until next spring. >> So is there any concern that the school system could be in financial trouble between now and then? and this board wouldn't be aware of it. >> Uh I am sure that through this process we will be having communications uh
pretty regularly with those that we already know maybe have an issue. Um and so um as we move throughout the you know start into the 26 27 year um we can certainly try to come back with some kind of report to you based on maybe uh
discussions that we have. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Miss Fiona. There has been a chart, highly publicized chart where it shows the
enrollment declining but the cost per student increasing. What are your thoughts? Could you speak to those reasonings, possible reasonings behind the uh cost per child going up
and then enrollment coming down? >> Oh yeah, we're talking about the um expenditure per pupil. That is a term that is calculated nationally to compare states and school systems. Uh it's usually managed by the National Center for Education Statistics. I will say
that that chart includes all funds. So, it's going to include not only um state funds, which can be more than just MFP. It could be their EVE dollars, anything they received for early childhood, things like that. Um it also includes
their local dollars and it includes the federal dollars. And as you know in Louisiana, because of the degree of poverty we have in Louisiana, we get a tremendous amount of federal dollars. And so, um, the years that are publicly available right now contain the data
that was, um, the federal influx of ESSER dollars. And so, what people could be looking at is the fact that expenditures went up because we had all of those federal dollars. I do expect as we get more data for example the 2526
information or even the 24 25 that we are just now analyzing will go down slightly because of the removal of all those er dollars um you know that some of those were one-time expenditures um but you know costs go up I think someone mentioned that anecdotally um
you know there's cost increases for insurance or for fuel or for anything like that electricity um that incorp that are incorporated in what you're seeing. Usually, it's the current expenditures that are reported, which means it's absent of any facility
acquisition and construction. So, that expenditure includes everything that it costs to run a school or school system. >> When was the last time the MFP was adopted, voted on? >> Uh HCR23
is the last one uh that was adopted. Um and it was adopted in 20 22 I think 22 I think it's Mr. Harris's when he was there. So we're still living under that structure. That's how the
money is being given out. >> So since 2022 there has been no increases in the MFP. >> There's been no increases in the base per pupil. The cost of the MFP has gone up and that's driven by the students.
And as we might have mentioned before, there's been a shift in the number of special ed students um counted in the formula that qualify to be counted and that has contributed um mainly to the increased cost of the formula.
>> Yes. Mr. >> Thank you. Uh a few things. First of all, it's I think it's really important that we emphasize this is as far as we know, the one-year uh happen stance that this change that we're faced with today is not a
recurring issue. Could be, but right now it's just for one year. I just just wanted to make that point. Um, number two, uh, I think it's fully appropriate on behalf of a legislature to review spending and funding in general for
education periodically. It's part of their responsibilities, but they also have a responsibility to ensure the u education of the children of the state. They can't be separated. They're they're two parallel responsibilities that
depend upon each other. Uh so I think the committee that the president has been talking about uh becomes extremely important because that's going that's going to be going forward. Whatever comes out of that committee and whatever
as Mr. Harris points out uh we adopt as an MFP pro uh proposal uh goes forward for many many years. Um there are issues that people I've spoken with in the legislature have cited. One of which was
the the growth per pupil. Some of that and and I've asked this many many times and I've never really gotten a good answer is when you're comparing Louisiana spending per pupil it it used to include and I still think it does the extraordinary expense uh related to the
pension fund that was never funded back many years ago and other states may not have that in that in their formulation of that pupil spending. So I think we have to be guarded uh that we don't compare apples to oranges when we look
at per pupil spending. Uh that's that that's just something that has always been a problem. Uh the other thing there's another chart floating around uh that shows the number of students versus the number of employees staff employees in the home
office uh of districts. Not all districts just maybe half of the districts or so. and it has shown some extraordinary growth over the last couple of years. The number of people employed uh versus the number of students in the district. Um some of
that I believe fundamentally comes from mandates from the state whether they be legislative mandates, Bessie mandates, department of education rules and of course we have federal mandates that we can't really control. So my suggestion
is that Bessie in in working with the legislature on this committee, Bessie also do another study. I hate studies but unfortunately I think we have to um by getting cooperation from the districts from the
superintendents and school boards and we look at the cost to those districts uh of statemandated um requirements uh and also of Bessie mandated requirements
uh so that we can see not only where um costs are going kind of in the big picture form, but also in a microeconomic form. So that we can see that yeah, we we passed this piece of legislation and we said it
didn't have a fiscal note, but it really meant they had to hire three or four new people to implement. So my suggestion is that we run in parallel with um the the legislative committee another
study that can kind of link to the spending side. And maybe there's a bunch of stuff we could do by proposing legislation next year or the year after uh to get rid of some of this superolous uh requirements that cost a lot of
money, require a lot of hiring of staff uh and are just kind of invisible in the process but don't really contribute to the effectiveness or the efficiency of the education process. as I keep going back to that same two requirements
uh that the state has as obligations. has an obligation to control the fiscal uh nature of spending but it also has an obligation to control the uh education of its students and I don't think you can divorce them uh in any way shape or
form and I would hate for the committee to be a committee focusing only on the spending side and not on the efficacy and efficiency uh of the education process. So my recommendation to the president would be that there be some kind of a structure in which we could
look at um all the costs related to legislation, rules and regulations and so forth. Uh that maybe we could get rid of some of this stuff and then reapply those funds toward teacher pay. Um we we had a a
process up until a couple years ago where we had two pots of money that were spending on education. One was the MFP obviously and the other was um outside appropriations, the things like uh tutoring and and things that Bessie in
particular was interested in. Now we have three pots. We have Gator added to the pot. So, um, if we can find a way to do exactly what we've been doing, which is improving outcomes,
but at the same time streamline our spending processes, then I think it's a good thing and I think it's appropriate that the legislature looks at it and Bessie looks at it. So, that's all I want to say. Thank you. >> Just I think Mr. Harris was next. Did you? And and then Mr. Interesting.
>> Just real quick on uh a couple of things. Um the unclassified funds we we saw during the press conference and I I saw this in the legislature many times. people would
hold up a a piece of paper and say, "These school districts have all this money sitting in bank accounts, you know, that they could use for this uh stipen or whatever. But can you give
a a clearer picture of what those funds are set aside for? Such as hurricane if a hurricane hits or you know they may have already been assigned to a u a capital improvement and they just put
the money in that account uh to wait until it was time to pay for that improvement. Can you just expound on that a bit for the public so that we don't get the perception that the school districts especially in my district are
just sitting on piles of money. >> So according to the county standards there are four categories of fund balances and so each category or at least three of the four categories require some sort of action by either the board or the
superintendent or even the business manager. There's only one category that is sitting there waiting to be have the determination. So the the first category would take a a motion by the board and that might be for something like
building a building or replacing some big piece of equipment like a chiller or an AC system. Um the second category is something that the superintendent can uh or the executive director of the entity can make the decision on. maybe they
think they're going to need to replace an AC unit, which is very expensive, and so they categorize it according to the accounting guide and they record it in the accounting records this this way um as an amount that they're going to set aside in anticipation. The same could be
true for the anticipation of hurricane season and those that have really struggled after they've been devastated by some uh some weather event. The third category is the is a lesser. It may also be an anticipation of just some one-time
bills that will come in. Um, and so it's the fourth category that has just not been made. Uh, decisions have not been made yet by the board. Um, and most school systems try to minimize that because they do try to work with their boards and make sure everybody's aware
where the money is being spent. um you'll see you know various amounts of percentages sitting that when you review all of the audit reports. So >> thank you for that clarity. >> Mr. Kes I I just wanted to offer perhaps
a a measure of caution. I I listened to Mr. uh Appel's comments and then Mr. Morris's um you know what's happening in the state of Louisiana over the last few years has been quite extraordinary in
terms of our academic success. We know that Dr. Brumley's in Washington DC now because of the great success of the state. So I want to be a little cautious in in our tinkering. So to the legislature that will have to deal with
these issues in the future, uh be a little bit cautious about something that is not working very well in the state to to be a little bit careful about that. And then the other is Mr. Morris raised a a great point about uh as enrollment has declined and and that money is being
recouped that it's being recaptured broadly by the state of Louisiana for other purposes that we may have opportunities to invest along the way and we shouldn't lose uh track of those dollars. I I certainly agree with Mr. appel that we want to look for best ways
to uh reinvest those funds but but because we are on a good you know track record now of success that we take those dollars and look for ways to to support the education system when when we have that and so I I think it's an important
balancing act that that we should look into but but also be careful that now that we're having success um don't fix what's not broken we have a lot of challenges in the state and certainly K12 has been a bright spot over the last few years.
>> Well put Mr. Mars. >> Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on Senator Pel's comment on the uh cost estimate. Micho, when was the last time Louisiana did a cost estimate for for uh K through2 education? What does it cost to educate a child in the state? Last
time there was a formal uh assessment. Uh it would have been like in around 2000 maybe around that time at the expectation >> 26 years. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Miss Champlin.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh very good suggestions and I wholeheartedly agree with uh Mr. Appel. Uh does the department have any of the data on the uh cost of mandated uh cost to districts individually?
Do y'all have any of that data? >> No, we do not collect um in you know the cost of each of the requirements that are implemented. We just have accounting data you know with regards to categories and things like that. So there would be
um I I'm not quite clear how we would go about collecting information on each cost. We have salaries, we have, you know, support costs, things like that. I >> I would assume that if we ask the districts, and I do see some our superintendents here today, if we ask
the districts for those costs that they should be able to come up with those to give us that data. So, uh I'm committed to to uh Bessie asking for that information. Uh Mr. chair. >> Good. >> Thank
and and delivering that to the task force also. >> Okay. >> Not only Bessie. >> As they say, the board is clear. Miss Yono, thank you very much. Um we do have some people who would like to speak and so I will call their four I will call
all up at uh the same time. Dr. Ken Ortling from schoolboard uh school superintendent association, Miss Caroline Romer, Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools, Mr. Larry Carter, Louisiana Federation of Teachers
and School Employees, and Miss Marggo Marx. So as per the rules of uh this committee uh if you are a member of representing
an association you have five minutes and Miss Markx um representing yourself you have three minutes. So Miss Marks why don't you begin? >> Oh great.
Oh, >> it's louder. >> Testing, testing. Um, okay. Good morning, board members. Um, my name is Marggo Marx. I am a former teacher. I taught 10 years in the New Orleans charter system. Nine of those were in Bessie authorized schools. Um I'm here
um well I stepped away from teaching partially because it's an exhausting job and it takes a lot from teachers and one of the ways it takes is and doesn't benefit us as in teacher pay. And so before I say what I'm want to say next I I want to say that I obviously support
teacher pay raise. I think it should be an increase in budget but I know that that's not where the decision is being made currently. So within the context of what we are discussing now, I wanted to speak to the 70% um requirement uh minimum requirement for instructional expenditures
at the last board meeting this came up concerning uh specific schools. In the next item, I think there'll be a list of schools that do not meet that 70% minimum and um it was stated that that is um that is an expectation of schools. However, for charter schools that have
are high performing, this minimum is being waved and they are an exception to that. And so my question for y'all is you're looking at where we cut funding. It's schools that are high performing, which means that it's students that are performing wells on well on tests and
teachers who are teaching those students um successfully. What does it look like to hold the schools where um that uh minimum is waved? What does it look like to hold those schools accountable and ensure that they are not in this process
cutting the funding from teachers in other ways increasing their workload cutting from instructional um needs in order to accommodate this stipend therefore creating like a null um null
situation. Um I'm speaking I'm thinking specifically to um sorry I lost where I was. Um I'm you know if you look at I know for one school specifically um at the halfway mark in December they
had spent 80% of their budget on um executive salaries by halfway through the fiscal year. We know that executives have contracts that are protected. So in that case where do they start cutting funding? Um, and so I just I'm here to
ask how you um can ensure that those schools are being held to the same standards as the schools that are not at A or high performing ratings. That's it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh we also have uh Tommy Ber for the
schoolboard associations would like to speak. Mr. Ber if you would like to sit. So I'll leave it up to you. Maybe ladies first. Caroline >> wasn't ready. Sorry. >> So, I'm going to have Max here whenever
it gets to 30 seconds left. Max, you just raise your hand or something. Okay. He's our official timekeeper. >> Uh, good morning. My name is Caroline Romer. I'm the executive director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools. I usually just speak off the
cuff and let my mouth just run too much. I'm actually going to read today to avoid any bombs and trouble that it might get me into. Um, let me begin with what I believe is a shared priority for everyone in this room. Louisiana
teachers deserve to be paid more. Teachers are the heart of a great school. They are the adults who greet our children every morning, help them to learn to read, help them recover from setbacks, and help them believe in their
own futures. So the question before us should not be whether teachers deserve better compensation. They absolutely do. The question is how Louisiana builds a funding system that can support better teacher pay, meet the real needs of
students, and give schools the stability they need to plan responsibly. This is why we believe this moment should be used to begin a serious, transparent review of the MFP formula. Louisiana has operated under the same
basic school funding structure for more than three decades. During that time, the cost of educating students has changed dramatically. The needs of students have changed. The cost of insurance, facilities,
transportation, technology, student supports, spe special education, and employee benefits have changed drastically, but the formula has not kept pace with the reality schools face every day.
At LAPCS, we began our own review of the MFP earlier this year because we believe Louisiana needs a clearer, more modern, student centered formula, one that helps policymakers understand the true cost of
educating a child in Louisiana today. That work is not about protecting one type of school over another. It's about asking a basic but important question. What does it actually cost to provide
students with the education, support, and opportunities we expect schools to deliver? That is the conversation we hope you, Bessie, will lean into. We recognize and appreciate the focus on
teacher pay. We also recognize the need for a broader conversation about whether Louisiana's currently funding formula, excuse me, Louisiana's current funding formula is aligned to today's cost and today's students needs. Bessie is
uniquely positioned to lead that conversation. The constitution gives this board a central role in developing and adopting the MFP formula. That role matters. It gives Bessie the opportunity
and the responsibility to lead a thoughtful dataininformed review of the formula after more than three decades. So today, we respectfully ask this board to use this moment not only to respond to an immediate budget question, but to
begin the deeper work Louisiana has needed for a long time. Let's study the formula. Let's identify the true cost of educating a child in Louisiana. Let's look honestly at what schools are being asked to provide and whether the funding
structure supports those expectations. Louisiana teachers deserve s sustainable pay. Louisiana students deserve schools with resources to meet their needs. and Louisiana school leaders deserve a
funding system that is transparent, predictable, and grounding in the real cost of doing the work. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Carter. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.
>> Just real quick. There's an issue that we seem to be skirting around and I think it's extremely important in this conversation and that who are the who are the employers of teachers? It's not the state of Louisiana, it's your charter
school board. it's a local LEA and and I think um when we're talking about funding it seems to con that conversation gets convoluted and people in the in the the real world seem to
think that there is a uh requirement on behalf of the state to specifically fund pay for teachers and I'm just curious you you're you have chart you know with your charter schools if they want to increase the pay for teachers, how do they do that?
>> Um, >> they vote to do it, don't they? >> So, I'll speak as charter schools, >> right? >> We exist with the idea that you tell us what the standard and the priorities are. What you expect us to do as it relates to preparing students for the
future. We expect you all to set what you think is that that minimum amount of money to do that work. and then let us go do it. Don't tell us how, don't tell us when, don't tell us. We want as much
flexibility around those dollars. And when we don't do it well, whether that is how we educate students or how we are fiscally responsible for those public dollars, then we lose that privilege. So in our opinion for public schools in
general, it should be you have created an accountability system that has set what you believe to be the top priorities. You have a funding formula that should be rooted in what we think it costs to do those things and then frankly get out of the way and let
schools do it but create consequences when you don't. Well, I think you and I are on the same page about to get out the way stuff, but the key point is that there there's a a foundational amount of money included in the MFP for teacher pay, but it's not the full it's not
expected to be the full amount for teacher pay. In the CA in the case of a school district, they can go to the people of the district and request an additional tax. >> Agreed. >> Uh to supplement what the state gives
them. So if we put these restrictions on as you point out on or requirements let me say on what the LEA or the you know the charter school or the district does that increases their expense part but
they could still go out potentially to the voters and request additional funding in the form of a tax >> potentially but I don't think all all districts are not created equal in their ability to collect more dollars from their local tax base. Thus, why the
constitution sets out that that formula is to be equitable. It doesn't say equal, but equitable. So that no so a child isn't punished per se on their per student amount based on their geography and what the ability of the
>> no requirement anywhere in the constitution or the statutes for the state of Louisiana to appropriate the full amount of a teacher's salary in the NMFP formula. It just doesn't exist. >> No, it doesn't. But I would also put on the table, >> sir too, you've got a
teacher pension system >> with a UAL that this is how we got here. A constitutional amendment failed twice that was actually trying to solve for a huge amount of money that districts and
some charters are having to pay on. And it actually says in the constitution in the law that's an obligation of the state not of district >> expectation that the MFP includes some funding for that. >> But again that is not what the the constitution of the law says. I'm just
saying that part that is one of the elephants in the room. It is eating the lunch of districts and charters that have that UL there and that is what put us here today. So, not only have we not solved for that, we are now coming in
and doing a cut of 168 million plus declining enrollment. And it's all starting to cave in. >> That's why I ask I constantly ask and I never get an answer on what is the actual cost that we're spending without the UAL contribution. Compare us to
Alabama and Georgia and Florida and places like that. I'm my numbers may be wrong, but I I have seen data that shows for every dollar we spend in a public classroom that is part of TRSL, you were spending from 20 to 25 cents on pass
sins, the UL that was out there. >> I would love to know that number because we're constantly being told that we're spending way more than other states and yet you're not comparing apples to apples. >> Agreed. So, thank you,
>> Mr. Co. >> Mr. Roma, I know you don't need any help. Uh, you can defend yourself quite well, but I I think the point is is that, you know, we have not had um great support for funding K12 uh education at
a higher level and the and the formula hasn't been changed for quite some time, but I think the challenges continue to become more difficult. I I think what I'm hearing from um school leaders and schools across the state is that as the
the climate change as the the job of trying to educate students gets more difficult and school districts have to figure it out with how they aortion their dollars that it's not quite so easy to say let's just pay teachers with
what we already have. And I think what school districts are saying and and charter schools is that we need more help to be able to to to do that. And that is if we just keep pulling away from what is already limited with more
challenges. And the reality is is that, you know, particularly in my district, there are some very poor districts that frankly we can't tax anymore. I've got a few districts that just went through attempts to to increase more tax dollars and the the local public just said we
can't afford that. Uh we know that there is a need, but you just can't tax us to death and we don't have the capacity because we're already a a relatively a very poor school district. So I I do think to the point of having the the
newly constituted task force to take into consideration that I think school districts and schools are doing their their level best, but I think that we need more help, not not less. >> I there's so many things to unpack here,
including I've heard, for example, about fund balances. We have some districts and charters that have larger fund balances because they're always one step away from a hurricane disaster and what you need for the dollars to to improve there. But I would also say as we make
this cut, we're celebrating the outcomes that schools have created over the last few years. And I think that's a combination of not only your policies and your priorities that you've set in the accountability system, but you have
to admit that when we had all of that COVID money came come in, that's when we've seen some of the biggest results. So I think it's actually this combination of increasing what we were spending per student as well as
realigning our priorities on what we wanted for kids. That's what's gotten you great results on the backs of teachers and kids. And so now your answer is to cut all of that. It just I get it. I understand. And it is what it
is. We are now as an association, we are leaning in on 2728 and the opportunity to review the MFP and get that right. But I do applaud Mr. Appel. We have for years asked the legislature to stop
piling on the mandates. So it's a combination. It is not just one simple thing you can point to. Um, so again, we look forward to being part of the task force as a we are not on it, but we are are heavily invested with consultants to
review that MFP and we are here to serve Bessie and the rest of the public school community on creating a tool and a resource that people can use. Thank you. >> Thank you. Nothing else for M. Ron or Mr. Carter? >> All right. Good morning. Um, I'm Larry
Cer, president of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers and School Employees. I'm speaking on behalf of over 18,000 teachers and school employees. Teachers and school employees cannot afford a pay cut. We appreciate the effort to continue a stipen for the 2627 school year, but we are concerned
that not every educator who supports student success appears to be included in the stipen plan. Louisiana's recent academic progress is a result of a whole school effort. Teachers, support staff, counselors, nurses, specialists,
principles, and other school employees all contribute to safe, stable, successful schools. That is a pay cut for people who also help move Louisiana forward. Districts are being asked to manage a reduction to their MFP
allocations. According to information provided, the MFP formula does not contain an allocation labeled non-instructional. The concept of non-instructional spending is applied at the local level. That means local school systems will
have to determine how to absorb absorb the reduction in their own budgets. The raises that raises serious practical questions for districts, employees, parents, and taxpayers. School systems have already been working on their budgets for months. Before this plan
moves forward, they need to know the specific impact on their districts. And we think u we heard today that that has been, you know, submitted to them on Friday. But we respectfully ask best in the LDOE to provide a public district by district impact analysis before this
plan moves forward. The public should know how each school systems MFP allocations will be reduced and how instructional materials, classroom supports, student services, food services, and security will be
protected. A one-time stipen bridge and a permanent salary solutions are not the same thing. A one-time bridge can be funded with one-time money. And under the constitution, the revenue stabilization trust fund can be used in
an emergency at any time for any purpose if twothirds of the elected members of each house approve it. When the legislature is not in session, state law allows that approval to be obtained through a written ballot sent to legislators. So, even after the session
ended, there is still a process available to seek approval for a one-year bridge stipen from the revenue stabilization trust fund. That approach would not solve the long-term compensation problem, but it could have
been pursued without reducing the MFP. Teachers and school employees should not lose this stipen, but preventing a pay cut should not require reduction in education funding when another one-time bridge option is and was available.
Again, we appreciate the efforts to continue the stipen for the 2627 school year. And we thank the governor for recognizing that teachers and school employees cannot afford a pay cut. At the same time, districts, employees,
parents, and taxpayers need transparency about how this plan would affect each school system. Louisiana needs a plan that protects compensation, protects students, protects funding, and move us toward a permanent salary solution for
all employees. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Any questions, Mr. Carter? >> Okay. Uh, Dr. Hartling. Good morning members of Bessie. Thank you for allowing this opportunity to speak. Uh Dr. Ken Orling, superintendent of St. Charles Parish public schools as
well as the previous past president of the Louisiana Association of School Superintendent. Uh this is the first opportunity we've had to to communicate in a public setting relative to the governor's executive order. Uh so thank you providing this opportunity for us. uh Louisiana superintendents across the
board support uh compensation for teachers and support employees like many of the educators in this room, including you. And of course, our concern is not with the goal of providing that additional compensation. is is basically with the funding mechanism reducing
approximately $168 million from the minimum foundation program uh which is a primary funding source for many of our school systems in the state especially the rural ones that cannot generate local revenue to support compensation for teachers and support employees or
who have quit receiving funds from uh revenue sources such as the co funds that many of our school systems uh had as a result of that time period. um and how the reduction will impact different school systems differently. Also concerning, as you all mentioned this
morning, is is just the public narrative surrounding school fund balances. Uh as though they represent excessive cash balances that schools are just sitting on. Uh and as Miss Cino so eloquently mentioned, that is just not how school
system finances work. School systems operate on annual cash flow cycles and those cash flows are different depending on what parish you operate your school system in andor charter. School systems operate on annual cash flow. They serve
as these fund balances serve as working capital that allows districts to meet payroll sometimes when your revenue sources are lower than others to pay insurance premiums. Mind you, in the 1980s our medical insurance in St. Charles Parish public schools was around
$400,000. It's over $40 million now. So when you consider employee benefits and salaries that represent in most school systems between 70 and 80% of a school's operating budget, reducing $168 million
in MFP will impact staffing. It will impact programs. It will impact processes. Uh these are not idle dollars. uh they fund retirement obligations uh and they actually help systems like mine who depend on local
revenue to cover operating expenses midfiscal year in St. Charles Parish public schools 70% of our budget comes from local advalor and sales tax 30% comes from the other buckets including about 10% 11% from the state another 9
or 10% from federal funding and other grants. So when you consider the major source of revenue for us in our investment in public education our school system that big check comes in December. So from June to December we're operating on a very low cash flow uh
perspective. Therefore, we have a significant amount of general fund balance from accounting means at the end of a fiscal year to cover us for the next 6 months. Many systems operate on different capacities such as that. When you consider the minimum foundation
program which was established or reestablished in the early 2000s, the original intent as you know was to increase that funding mechanism by 2.75% every year. That happened until about 2008 and it's only occurred three times since fully. that minimum foundation
program, right? If with the intent to increase would basically allow those systems, especially to operate in rural communities that are unable to pass the taxes necessary to increase compensation. We may not be in a position we're in now. And I know we have a plan moving forward to look at the MFP, which we all strongly
encourage, but in part the inequity in our state has occurred because of the lack of continuous investment in the MFP year over year over year. As mentioned earlier as well, while our student population has decreased, the special populations that we are servicing in
Louisiana has increased significantly. In the last three years in St. Charles Parish, our special needs population has increased by almost 30%. The number of students identified as de developmentally delayed, which are your earliest learners, 35%
a 30% in the last three years increase in autism. When you talk about our special populations, whether it's our English is uh secondary language, three minutes. Thank you. Or or special populations, those populations of students need and deserve special
support and additional staffing to support those students. So yes, in some ways our staffing has increased, but when you look at the special populations that we talked about and some of the other things uh that you also mentioned that are included oftent times when Louisiana's compared to other states,
it's just not fair. is just not a a a good representation of what we experience in in our school systems. Uh the minimum found foundation program, I want to make sure I hit just a few more points, uh was designed to provide a minimum foundation to support public ed
education and actually obviously originally included that 2.75% yearly increase. Uh that just has not happened. And with the continued growth of our school system through national rankings we continue to celebrate which is awesome as a credit to this board as a
credit to the leadership at the LOE and the partnership with our LDOE and school system leaders. We have seen the significant growth and we would not want to to take any step backwards based on this what would be considered a a slight
reduction. permanent compensation increase should be supported by permanent recurring state and local revenue. That's where the difference is. When when Mr. Propel talked about how do you provide the compensation? There are systems that have the ability to because
they can generate the taxes and they can include it in the compensation where these other systems that operate in rural communities throughout this state number one and number two highest uh concentration of poverty in the public school systems in the entire country cannot afford increase in compensation
because they can't pass the taxes. So when you look across the state at those systems that can generate taxes and can increase compensation, typically those student benchmarks continue to increase at a higher level. So with that said, thank you for having uh for giving me the opportunity. For that reason, I
respectfully request Bessie to work towards sustainable solutions that strengthen public education while supporting the entire educational workforce. >> Thank you, M. Dr. Mr. Pel first and quick. I love your comment. I mentioned this chart that's floating around
>> uh which is plotting u uh school population versus home office staff. I don't know. I I just tried to find it and the internet's terrible here so I couldn't get it but I don't know if your your school district was on that but there some of these were had extraordinary growth in staffing home
office staffing. What's your comment on that? So my comment is is a couple ways on what you what you actually designate as home staffing. Correct. So like in the last few years both legislation and Bessie has required additional policies and procedures to be put in place. Let's
just say for for tutoring right for tutoring purposes um andor coaches relative to literacy instruction. Those positions may be stationed right at central office but four out of the five days during a week they're in the schools. They're working with teachers.
They are not sitting at central office. How many I to that question because I also saw our ours on there where we had a decline in student population about 8% and increase in staff population. I can tell you I just referenced the stat 30% of our our special population for one
developmentally delayed child okay which is a prek student that has been identified with with disabilities they need at least two teachers right and additional support staff. When you talk about those students with significant disabilities that that we're receiving,
it requires quite a few additional staff. And remember from the federal government, you only receive about 30% of special ed funding, right? You also supplement it through the MFP, but a lot of that cost still is on the shoulders of of school systems. So, you're maintaining that that a lot of what's on
that chart is not uh what I'll call overhead. It's more uh direct educationally involved uh personnel. It is and and look at how and you all >> can can you all that that gets back to
my point earlier. Can you all define that so that we know we're talking about apples to apples? >> Yes, we could if the if we ask the correct question right instead of just assuming this blanket these are >> instruction legislators are looking at a simple chart that shows extraordinary
growth of staffing in the home office. my words, versus a declining student population. And they naturally raise a red it raises a red flag and and they say, "Wait a minute, they're just building up their, you know, they're just they got a rubber room over there
and they're moving people into it that don't need to be working there anymore." And all those kind of things. I'd like to add to that too because I've heard from people about the when we look on PE school's websites and it says the
class size the ratio is 16 to1 or 20 to1 and I think the misconception because I want I'm like take it all off because the misconception is we're again we're trying to advertise to make sure kids and parents want to come to our schools but at the same time that 16 to1 is the average classroom teachers across your
school but you may have three teachers designated to one sped kid and that's federal federally regulated that you have to have and it makes that average classroom ratio look smaller than what it actually is. So you might have a couple special ed classes with 9 to one but then you have a whole lot of 35 to
ones and 33 to1's. So I think there is a lot there are a lot of misconceptions and I'm not sure if the coding can be changed um when we look at coding teachers because we followed the uniform lab guide for coding but there needs to be a category of 100.1
that is district central office but these people are actually in schools in classrooms daily even when we talked about attendance you know I thought about the fact that some of us got the attendance grant right so we added another personnel persons to every five schools that made our overhead and our
central offices look larger for a problem that's nationwide right now. And so it it continues to make sure it makes it makes it look like that back office, that central office that it's growing. But the problems across the states and the nations are also growing and we're making sure that those things are taken
care of with the social emotional, etc. That's another big one that we're being pushed to fund because kids are having major issues in schools that the public may not see that we're just trying to make sure it happens. That's going to increase your central back office staff again. So there maybe the coding needs
to be done differently where we show that these are instructional people in classes and schools on a daily basis and not sitting drinking coffee in central office because that doesn't actually happen like that. >> Thank you. Thank you Dr. Hartling. Mr.
Ber >> Tommy Tommy Ber superintendent of Vermillion Parish Schools also serve as the vice president of the Louisiana Association of School Superintendent Administrators become the president next week. Mr. Appel, I really just want to whatever you need. Let us know. Our
conference is next week and we will start that process because I absolutely believe what you are saying is 100% true. I I didn't write it down but Miss Roma wrote it down very well for all of us. Um 100% agree. We've had meetings over the last week, but our 71 school
system superintendent and the and the the situations vary. I mean, for some school districts, they're not stressing about it. Some are going to be under that 7%. It's not even going to be close. Um so I think it's a wide variety depending on where you're located. Answer some of the questions that you
know you guys are getting from your school systems. um we've had those conversations, but I think the longer term solution for all of us is what's going to happen because if this is not a one-time thing, then we're all going to be in situations where and and the
conversation on our call yesterday and I'm going to sit here in front of Bessie who I've sitting on this side and argued accountability and argued literacy and but they all work. And so I'm going to stand up here and tell you that the scores you're seeing and the growth you're seeing are because we're putting
the resources into our schools. We have more uncertified teachers in my district than we've ever had, but have a 15-point growth in reading because of those instructional coaches who are housed at central office, but who are at schools 5 days a week, are putting extra Paris because we have social and emotional
needs and prek teachers that have never seen before. Those are decisions that we make as districts to do what's best for our kids. You know, those prek teachers that we talk about are not in that executive order, by the way. They don't get that $2,000. the prek teachers and the prek parish nor the counselors who
are dealing with more mental health issues than we've ever seen before in our campuses. And so we're going to do what we have to do. We all made that decision. Um but Mr. We will 100% I would like to start working with you and Mr. Birkin on what questions we need to get so I can have that list ready for
them to go next week uh to provide exactly those numbers because it is important to our organization that when we presented the MFB task force for presenting real numbers because we are making decisions that are going to affect the future of public education uh
not only our public school systems our charter school systems u you guys have made some great decisions moving forward we we have changed some curriculum standards we've changed reading we we've The science of reading has been one of the greatest things we've ever done. And Mr. Mars, I'll give you credit on that
one. You saw the scores yesterday, 16.3% growth. And those are real numbers. You know, I know people say sometimes and data is manipulated. I will stand here and tell you that I 100% agree with those numbers for my own individual school system. We stand ready as an organization to support whatever we need
to do. Um, we are against the executive order as an organization as written. Um, we're not against teacher payraises, but we do think there's some fundamental changes for the long-term solutions for public education. So, I don't have a whole lot more to add, but uh, thank you
for the opportunity to speak and I'll answer any questions if anybody has >> Mr. B. >> So, Mr. Ber um yesterday I had the opportunity to visit with seven different school districts of which you attended as part of my school district
and I rely heavily on Mr. Ber for his expertise in all of these areas. I didn't hear anything yesterday that suggested that uh this was going to be easy for any of you guys. What I heard yesterday from you and the rest is
that uh there's going to we're not cutting fat, we're cutting meat. We're getting and that you have been cutting over the last several years because as I said the MFP hasn't increased the per student basis since 2019. Your
operational dollars hasn't increased since 2008. Um, and despite the fact that we have returned $95 million last year and this year, uh, it's still the total 168 is coming out of that MFP that's going to
all of yours. So, um I appreciate all of the help and work that uh you've done to educate us and me and um if there's anything else that you and I talked earlier about all of those questionnaires and that we think that
would be beneficial to the uh committee that's being set up and we're going to probably work on that together. You one of the things this we have CFOs yesterday and I go back to your point about 7% they talked about as Misso talked about their their their audit their own
personal audit that where they're being told that they've got to find $2 million to pay for raises. They got to cut $2 million somewhere else or they're they're going to be out of line in their budget and they get they get dinged in two or three years in a row for that. There's there's
implications. And so the CFOs sitting on that meeting were were were really stressing out because of that that that number. Um you know and so we've talked about those things. Uh but I I think Mr. Harris you might have asked earlier that the num I mean if we we lost $2 million
so I have an option of either I'm cutting two million somewhere. I'm going into the reserve fund and I'm going to tell my board and convince my board that we're going to just take the $2 million loss. Um, but it's actually about 2.7 because I'm not going to not pay a prek
teacher and a pre-K parah and a counselor. Um, I'm just not in a collective bargaining district. It's not going to happen. And so, but that's going to be a decision that our boards will have to make. You know, to Mr. Appel's point, it's not fall fully on the state, but but there's some numbers. We we just want to make sure that the
accurate numbers get out there as we move forward with the MFP task force. >> That's Mick. >> Thank you. Thank you, Superintendent Ber. I just want to say how much I appreciate the Louisiana Association of
uh superintendent and administrators and you're coming up as vice president and uh superintendent Erling, you were former past and of course now today we have Jeff Powell, superintendent. Thank you for that letter that was sent to us.
I felt that it was very professionally done. You have stepped forward and you have been for the last few years, last four or five years of being professional, having hard discussions, helping me understand a lot of the inner workings
even though I've had past experience, but things have changed and um thank you and we're grateful for you coming to the table to work with us. We appreciate that. >> Yeah, Dr. Armstrong. So, I really want
to echo a lot of what uh Senator Appel has said because I think it's important when you said you've had a 30% increase in special needs children, but when we send out our teacher pupil ratios, it's
all blended together. But I think for the public, for the MFP, for everything, number one, we need to know what are those true traditional without, you know, not necessarily the appropriate term for that. and our special ed numbers and our pupil teacher ratio. But
I also agree with um Dr. Clark, we have so many things that are added on that we have to take care of schools and uh with the counselors are being needed to do so that I'd like to see what are we Bessie
and the state legislature requiring of you that's been on that add-on for the last 26 years since we've revisited and studied the formula because we've made requirements of you. We will do our best to get you what you need. Mr. Bradford,
we may need some historical perspective because you've been around for 26 years since that 25. So definitely use you as a resource. Thank you, Mr. Ber. No more um notice of reading. I want to
before we move on to the next item though, all of you know this, but I I think it bears um just revisiting. A year ago, this past February, the National Association Progress had moved us from number 49
five years ago to number 32 overall. They were top five in the nation for fourth grade math growth. Fourth graders led the nation in reading growth for the second consecutive cycle. Students with disabilities outpaced the nation in
achievement and growth. Economically disadvantaged students outpaced the nation in achievement and growth. And that wasn't just an outlier. US News and World Report that a couple months later, about a year ago, had us at number 36 in
the nation. Just a few weeks ago, we were here in Baton Rouge to celebrate the fact that Harvard, Stanford, and Dartmouth had done a study over the last two years where uh Louisiana ranked number one in the nation in reading growth and number two in the nation in
math growth. And just yesterday, it came out our K through three, as Mr. Ber was just explaining went up 16.3% improvement in reading a 40 point increase from the beginning of the year
to the end of the year. These things didn't just happen as they had expressed. It takes a commitment takes a commitment by all of you out here our teachers principles the superintendent
everyone on this day it's everyone who are sitting over here to my right and which can and Dr. Bramley is in Washington. It takes a commitment to to understand and to know that we can and will continue to move forward because of the programs that have been put in place
and because you believe. I told the radio station just last week when we were in New Orleans for 7,400 teachers were there improving their craft and trying to make Louisiana better. And
they were there because they want Louisiana to be better. And whenever I stated this Harvard and Stanford and Dortmund study that we were number one in breeding growth and the sentiment out there is that
yeah, but whenever you come from the bottom uh it's really easy to hit that mark. Well, no, it's not. And you all remember what it was like that we never thought that the New Orleans Saints would ever win a Super Bowl in our lifetime.
It's time to start believing that Louisiana's education can and will be number one. And I want all of you teachers, all you superintendents, all you out there to know this board, I know is very grateful
for what you all have done. and we will do whatever we can to help you get there to that next level. So, thank you all for uh coming up here and to giving your testimony. Next item, please.
Your next item is on page 48, item 4.1, consideration of a report from education finance staff concerning Bessie authorized charter school budgets and expenditure reports, including irregularities or concerns. The recommendation is to receive
>> motion. Mr. Harris, Mr. Castile, any discussion, any comments? We have a couple people would like to comment on this. Um, 4.1. Uh,
Miss Tippy, I can't read the first name. Harmon from Step Up, Louisiana. would like to uh wish us to speak and give information both.
>> So, Miss Tippy here, that's you. >> That's me. >> Okay. And Miss Harmon, >> I I believe she had to leave. >> She had to leave. Okay. Very good. >> So, you have um three minutes. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh good morning board members. My name is Colette from the IA teachers of New
Orleans. Um the matter before you today is a report on the compliance with the 70% instructional requirements by Bessie authorized charter schools. This report includes eight charter schools who are who spent under 70% of their budget on instruction. Um some of those schools
have SPS scores as low as as a D. As I was reviewing this agenda and the differences between this report and the report which appears to only include parish parish school uh systems from item 3.1, I wanted to ask about the differences between those two reports.
Uh the report on the parish school systems has corrective action for every school system which did not meet instructional requirements, including those parish school systems that have SPS scores of B. Furthermore, the district report includes that of Orleans Parish and
specifies that NOLA PS is working with their authorized charter schools on recoding to more accurately reflect the information. The report before you on this item does not reflect any work that's being done with the charter schools in this report who are not repeat uh not meeting the
70% instructional requirement. Neither does it report the report or reflect what caused the school to not meet the requirement as it does not as it does in the report on the parish school systems. So my question based on the differences I noted in these reports is why does it
appear that Bessie which is the authorizer of the charter schools listed in this report does not appear to be holding those schools to the same standards as the parish school boards or the charter schools which are authorized by the Orleans Parish School Board. Thank you. >> Thank you ma'am.
Okay. Um, any objections to that motion? Hearing none. Next item, please. >> Your next item is on page 55, item 4.2, consideration of LDOE contracts greater than $50,000. The recommendation is to approve.
>> So, uh, Mr. Morris, Miss Shampine, uh, seconds. Um, so we'll have, uh, Mr. Bradford give us because there are so many, um, over 50,000 this go around. uh ask uh Mr. Bradford if he would go ahead and give us uh uh some
information on that. >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, just just to note, there's 22 contracts this month that are uh above the $50,000 threshold. That's common for us in a month of June because most of our contracts run on a fiscal year cycle, meaning they start July 1. So, this is
when we would bring those here in this batch of of 22 contracts. uh most of them either fall under the umbrella of a child care resource and referral contract which are which provides the coaching technical assistance and training to our early childare centers
or their sped resolution contracts. Any questions of the board? We do have a couple of people who would like to uh speak on this topic. Sonia Joseph
from Clara's Little Lamb and Miss Tut Kenny wants to speak herself on this. Are you here? Oh, Mr. Kenny. Okay.
And comments. I'm Tuck Kenny and I have some more comments, but I'll I'm primarily directed to the $5 million that you're giving to Lane, but I'll wait to learn more information and I'll reserve all of my comments for 4.3. Thank you for
allowing me to be here. >> Yes, sir. >> I'm going to wave speaking. I support everything. So, >> okay. That was 4.2. Are there any objections to that motion? Next item.
>> Your next item is on page 124, item 4.3, consideration of federal state grants and allocations to LEAs, type two charters, type five charters, approved non-public schools, and community-based organizations, competitive and other.
The recommendation is to approve. >> Mr. Cast you recused. Yeah. Um so Mr. Pel motions Mr. Cal second. >> Okay.
All right. Um Mr. Bre. >> Yeah. Just just point out that of this set of allocations today, the $45 million, $30 million of those allocations are out of the early childhood early childhood fund. Uh the
early childhood fund was established in the legislature in 2017. It was funded in 2019. The early childhood education fund is intended to incentivize local investment in fundraising for early child care education and providing a dollar fordoll
state match for locally generated funds. These funds uh we give these out annually. We do it at at this board meeting. And just know that these entities that receive these dollars, they provide us documentation that they are receiving the match and that once
the funds are awarded, they submit back to us detailed documentation for any re reimbursement requests. Any questions of the board? Okay. Now, we'll have Mr. Kenny and Miss Joseph would like to speak on these
topic. Mr. Kenny, you have three minutes, sir. >> Thank you. My name is Tuck Kenny. I'm a 53y year old 53y year lawyer who's been retired for two years, who's devoted the last couple of years to doing public
service litigation issues. In the connection with that, I have been studying since December the agenda for children. You're awarding twothirds of this money, $21 million to the agenda for children. I can tell you right now
that after studying their finances and studying the alleged source of the match money, there is no match money. So, I'm going to uh say to you that in the end, you have a couple of things. You have
the state statute that requires, as Mr. Bradford said, Mr. Bradford said a dollar fordoll match. I can tell you in seven months of examining the funds for the agenda, there is no $21 million
match. Okay? So, let's just assume that that's the case. There's three things that could be wrong. One, I could be dead wrong. two, the staff just hasn't worked as hard as possible to verify the
matching funds, or three, somebody submitted something that's not active. I'm asking to, and I uh renewed my uh request with Mr. to lead you today to sit down with the staff and go over the
total award. Twothirds of the early childhood education fund is going to one entity that I believe has not had the proper scrutiny from the staff turn according to the matching
funds. I hope we'll have a chance to look at this. I hope if the staff realizes there's some problems, we can deal with it. The fiscal year is a couple of weeks away. So, I think we have some time to look at it.
But it really does concern me that in Mr. Castile's district, it's getting $1 million. $1 million. Now, that may be our fault for not coming up with enough matching funds, but to come with the agenda for
children getting $21 million, disproportionate amount of money, twothirds of every dollar, be repetitious, is going to one agency that I believe will not withstand the scrutiny of matching dollar for dollar.
Thank you so much and I look forward to dealing with the staff Mle Loe and this board at some point uh that we can go over this. I will also just to follow up in two seconds giving two lane
$5 million. I don't know where that came from out of the blue that you're giving two lane five that you're giving $5 million for some kind of early childhood deal. Boy, that Somebody's not I shouldn't say asleep at
the switch. Maybe there's a good reason for it, but it doesn't show up when I look at your paperwork. Thank you all so much. I appreciate you. >> Thank you. Thank you, sir. >> Thanks, Mr. Chair. >> Yes, sir. >> Question. Uh the concerns the gentleman just raised, uh that's an auditable
item. >> Yes. The department verifies that each of the entities that receive this particular funding have the matching funding in place. >> Thank you. >> Any other question? Thank you, sir. Miss Joseph,
>> good morning everyone. My name is Sonia Joseph. I am owner and executive director of Claris Little Lambs Preschool. I'm also a member of four providers by providers and on the board of Agenda for Children. I've been operating for 40 years now and I first
of all want to highlight what Mr. Berkin said about the improved scores um particularly for kindergarteners that is a direct result of the support from this board to early care and education including those matching funds. We now have the ability in New Orleans to serve
almost 2,000 children based on the state matching funds because the city of New Orleans smartly passed a millillage that provides the $21 million to support the matching funds. So, we want to say thank you and we want you to continue to support us so that we can continue to
support our children so that we can eventually be number one when it comes to education. and we are a leader in the country when it comes to supporting early care and education and that's based on the state mil state match and the millillage that was passed in New Orleans. Thank you.
>> Well, thank you and thank you for your good work. Any question? Thank you, ma'am. >> Thank you. >> There's also a couple of more who would like to speak. Michelle Wilcox from Will Cox Academy and Asia Howitt from the
Louisiana Policy Institute for Children. Good morning. >> Your your your name for the record, please. >> Uh my name is Asia Howlette. I'm the chief of staff for the Louisiana Policy Institute for Children. Uh my background is education. So I am grateful to be
back in front of this board. Um, and prior to serving for the Louisiana Policy Institute for Children, I worked for uh the city of New Orleans where I also supported the administration of uh the Early Education Village. And so I say all of those things to give background on my context for this
conversation. Um, but more importantly, I'm the mother of a three-year-old. And so that is actually the reason that I'm excited to have this moment. Um, one thing that I want to say in particular about the millillage, this is not only a moment for the city of New Orleans and the great work that's happened, but it's
also something that puts the state of Louisiana on the map. It's something that lets the rest of the country know that Louisiana is ready to compete because we are one of the first or one of the first countries, ha, one of the first states to make sure that we had this infrastructure put in place. I
think this is also a great opportunity to remind us all that we lose $1.3 billion every year because we don't have the full infrastructure that could be because of early ed early childhood education. So the fact that this does take up twothirds of this particular bucket, I would actually argue that it's
too small a bucket for what we actually need to get done. And so, um, I'm excited that this is a a conversation where we can talk about what's next for the state of Louisiana and also talk about how it feeds into our K12 system because the winds that we have seen in our K12 system. As uh were previously
mentioned um don't happen in isolation, but I think it's also a space where we know that families are excited to say Louisiana represents a quality of life that's sustainable when we have this type of infrastructure put in place. So, um I want to commend the work of Agenda
for Children. Not only um are they prepared to always um share the records that exist for this millillage, but also we stand up the New Orleans Early Education Network, which is the governing body that makes sure that we stay in compliance for this millillage,
and it is an open meeting that meets monthly so that way we can have those conversations in a public forum on the record. So, thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am. Yes, Mr. Pel. >> Um, I'm looking at the list of districts
and without addressing what Mr. Kenny's talking about, um, the city of New Orleans, how much a year does it generate from the millillage? >> About 21 million. >> 21 million. And I see there's about maybe a dozen other parishes and so forth. So here, are those local
millages? Do you know the the funds that are shown on this chart? >> I was about to say I have I don't know which part you're referring to, so I don't want to say anything off the record. Yeah, I'm just curious how many parishes in Louisiana or districts >> um locally generate funds to capture the match.
>> Um Rochelle just mentioned that there's 13 and I know it is a growing number because uh we've seen across the state um a bunch of infrastructure being put in place. >> It's growing. Yeah, it's >> Yeah, it seems like a a no-brainer, but anyway, thank you. Yeah, >> of course.
>> Anyone else? Okay, next. Miss Wilcox. Um good morning Relle Wilcox, Wilcox Academy of Early Learning also um um with for providers by providers. Um Sonia and um Asia said all of the things. I just want to maybe answer some
of the questions around there are 13 parishes across the state that currently are um using um the state matching funds. In addition to that um they are different funding sources. So every every parish does not have a millillage.
So it might be um whatever way that they have thought about to support their community. This has been groundbreaking for the state of Louisiana specifically in how many children that we've been able to serve in New Orleans. It not only serves in about 2,000 children, but
the wraparound services we heard from um K12 leaders that are saying that they're seeing children come in with mental health issues, with behavioral health issues. What we have been able to do is provide wraparound services that we that two-lane supports and other agency
supports around wraparound services, professional development as well as making sure that the families are whole, dental screenings, health screenings that when these little people go to K12 or there's they're school ready and we can catch early intervention or make the early intervention early. So, this has
been a gamecher for not only the city of New Orleans but the state of Louisiana. As the chair of the knowing steering committee, we have a open forum. You can come in, you can make public comment. All of the information is listed on the agenda for children website. It is
transparent. In addition to that, agenda is held accountable by the city of New Orleans. They fil they put out a full report um for the city of New Orleans on these dollars. Thank you. >> Thank you, ma'am.
Um, anything else? >> Next item. >> Your agenda. >> Well, I finally know how Mr. Appel feels being up here for two hours. So, we're going to go into the next committee. Thank you all for everything
you do and and uh we are adjourned for this committee. We'll begin the meeting uh the next committee in five minutes.