1. No great surprise that the majority of French teachers decided to rid themselves of intimidation, humiliation, and fear tactics suffered at LFNO are now moving on to a more harmonious teaching environment elsewhere. There is an old song, “Be careful what you wish for because you might get it” seems quite appropriate after reading this latest article in regard to the on-going saga of weekly crisis at Lycee Francais. I use this song title because a few months back a board member and some of her parent supporters attended a parent meeting at Tulane publicly pitching the notion that LFNO does not need teachers from France, and American ones would suffice. That contempt showed little regard for the school’s mission, and the original intent for Lycee’s creation. That is what happens when arrogance and personal agendas dominate the conversation. Some parents posted uncivil and mean-spirited comments about the French teachers on the Lycee Facebook page. Where is your common sense parents? Clearly you have none. You did insult the teachers by posting that dribble, but more importantly, damaged the school and hurt all of its children, not just yours.

   The French teacher corps disagreed with John White, Caroline Roemer Shirley, Raphael Gang, and Hunnewell that the school had a CEO problem, otherwise there would be no mass exodus. For those of us who have followed the LFNO board antics, staying on top of each new crisis, the truth is that only the teachers know what is happening at the school daily. We hear our information sometimes third hand. It is the French teachers who are on the front line, not us. I hope we will stop and think about what has transpired at this school for the past eighteen months. No one individual is to blame – we all are. We should have stepped up to the plate, and demanded accountability in October of 2010 when the chaos began. I also blame BESE, as they chartered LFNO. The State Department of Education has the responsibility to provide oversight for this school. It is not acceptable for Raphael Gang to state that decisions made by a state chartered school board are a local issue. Poor board leadership is a state issue since LFNO is funded under the Minimum Foundation Program generated by taxpayer dollars. I am disgusted with White’s “shoot from the hip” decision making. It is clear that he never tried to glean all the facts, accepting hear say in regard to the root cause of this on-going debacle. White did not bother to find out what precipitated the addition of the second grade this year at LFNO, “blowing off” a sound policy that prohibited new charter schools from adding other grade levels outside of the charter’s original grade configuration. LFNO was in its fifth month of operation when the request was granted. Paul Pastorek, the former state superintendent, contended a charter school must sustain and grow its student body, provide a good school environment, demonstrate sound academic achievement, and display good fiscal management for at least two years before a school could request additional grades. Now we see the wisdom of that policy.

   I imagine a lot of arm twisting will take place in the next few weeks to keep at least 10 French teachers at LFNO. Unfortunately, given what has transpired it will be difficult for teachers to believe that the environment will change. This school has a history, and intelligent individuals cannot be hoodwinked especially in light of the Hunnewell report. I wonder if Roemer Shirley, Gang, White, and Hunnewell actually believed that this misguided and flimsy report would be the charm to solve LFNO’s problems? Hunnewell delivered what his boss required. He made the LFNO board and its parent supporters happy, but where is the meat Mr. Hunnewell? Did the children attending Lycee Francais get what they needed?

2. I think they are done.

3. It seems that some pre-k parents will lose the opportunity of placement for their children next year at LFNO if Madame feels that the parents have not pledged fealty to her, have been critical of her, yada, yada, yada. And some parents believe that is justified. You parents that believe such need to understand that this is a public school, not a private school run by a dictatorship. What madness is this? Each day the leadership keeps upping the ante, adding insult to injury, and parents wonder why teachers are leaving? So much for Hunnewell, Roemer Shirely et al. So much for all that “top drawer” board training and new administrative leadership. Enough is enough. Now the Feds need to get involved.

4. EMH just presented its review on Monday, six weeks ahead of schedule. The review was accelerated to meet the time urgency of the situation. Let the recommended search committee find candidates to fulfill the Principal / CEO position. Present those candidates to community at large. And let’s get a Principal / CEO in place. Let the governance committee find new board members. At last Monday’s board meeting Mr. Hunnewell stated that he had recommended actions for the new CEO to deal with once he is hired. There is a process in place that should bring about needed change and improve our school. You know from experience that none of this happens overnight and is going to take some time and some hard work.

   The teachers have some real concerns. As this academic year unfolded the school community knew that the teacher’s commitment to stay for the next academic year would be due in the February March time frame. Apparently not enough time to assuage these concerns. The fact that this is coming to ahead now is no big surprise. A press will be on to encourage additional teachers to stay but there will be no hoodwinking or deception. How could there be with coverage Lycee receives here on the Lens or UPTM. I heard one teacher say how he taught this year differed from last year based on his experience. As CODIFIL stated in their opening that institutional knowledge is a key factor for success.

   Joy people, including you, need to let go and move forward. I say this with respect, not sarcasm or harshness, but with sincere respect. Yes your name is on the charter, you have a personal interest in this school. We can point fingers and blame. We can write inciting remarks of dictatorships. Or work within the construct of the charter and make things happen.

5. As a long time supporter of Cajun and French culture and language in Louisiana, and (unfortunately) as a current parent at Lycee, I’m proud that CODOFIL is standing up for its values and attempting to stop the unstable and self-serving LFNO administration/board. CODOFIL doesn’t have a lot of state money or power so this is a brave step for them. I’m taking my child out of that crazy school next year and giving all my donations and volunteer time to a stable French curriculum/immersion school that has a good relationship with CODOFIL. I will continue to donate to the organization and have great appreciation and respect for Louisiana’s agreement with France (link below). I’ve little tolerance for the arrogant, ignorant, and dismissive language I’ve been hearing from Lycee’s administration/board regarding the education profession as a whole, and the economic and cultural significance of this:

   Cooperation Accords Between France and Louisiana 2012-2016, signed October 17, 2012: http://www.consulfrance-nouvelleorleans.org/IMG/pdf/Accords%20Franco%20Louisianais%20version%20anglaise.pdf

6. WOW, this is worse than I’d imagined. I had hoped that the problems had already come to a head and this storm would begin to settle.

   Josh, from what I’ve read here, it seems you’ve assumed a position on the board. Thank you. What a difficult and thankless position to be placed into. It seems also you have a good understanding of the law. First, regarding the teacher that was terminated for her alleged criminal acts. I notice that most mention of her also mentions her “organizing against the board.” It is my understanding that organizing labor is a protected activity. Is there yet another shoe to drop here as the NLRB investigates this as an unfair firing? This article lays bare the fact that these teachers needed no agent provocateur Employment conditions are clearly unacceptable.

   Joy, Josh’s comments merit your consideration. It becomes increasingly clear that this school is genuinely at risk of being lost, which would be a tragedy. Despite the fact that I agree with you on so many points, I’ve begun to tune out your lengthy posts. I imagine those who might be swayed have long since ceased reading them, and you’re vitrol towards the board members that are driving this school towards extinction, while possibly well placed, is counterproductive to our shared goal of saving this school.

   If this were a corporation wildly heading for a cliff, heads would roll and the board would be sacked. Clearly something must be done with great urgency to regain the faith of the staff and retain these teachers. Of the “old” board members, only Catherine McPhaille has maintained her poise and demonstrated that she is worthy of the trust of the public and of the staff. It is time for this board to be renewed, and there is no time to waste.

7. Clark, I am just a parent not a board member. I don’t know the specifics of case in question only tidbits that may be rumor or fact. I believe just presenting one side skews the debate and speculation of the other side of the story leads to misunderstanding.

8. Josh, I agree, more transparency might also engender more faith from the staff.

   This board is clearly in need of level headed leadership and good communication. Both are traits you exhibit in your writing here and on UM. I hope you will accept if you are called upon to serve.

9. Josh and Clark,

   I have read what you both have said. I have no response other to say that I am sorry that my comments in regard to the board are seen as vitriolic. They were meant to provoke the LFNO board to conduct business according to state law, public policy and abide by the charter. Although it is apparent that many do not feel as strongly as I, it has been my mission to ensure that LFNO has the best leadership possible, as that what makes a school successful. While you and others can turn your heads at improper handling of business, I find it difficult for me to do so. You are both right in this regard. I have been spinning my wheels to try to get people to understand how important being forthright in conducting business is essential to providing an exemplary environment for faculty, staff, and children. That has apparently fallen on deaf ears. In the end, people get the leadership they deserve. I had hoped for better in regard to this school. This school was destined for greatness, and had it the right board leadership, this school might have been accredited in the pre-k, k grouping next year. That was our vision. That vision has been side tracked. I have be doing my level best to get it back on track. Now the ball is in your court. Good luck.

10. Forget charter constructs and let the board (members, Adams and Reese attorneys), the State (White, Gang, BESE), and others (Roemer Shirley, Hunnewell) pay attention to exactly what is written in the charter and the specifics under which the school was created and intended to operate. This is a weakness (not paying attention to charter specifics – i.e., what is written, reinventing the wheel) which shows up repeatedly in BESE & RSD-authorized and Orleans Parish-authorized charters. Financial mistakes are swept under the rug and/or explained by auditors so that these charter boards are excused and told “don’t do that again” while millions of public dollars are going down the drain and taking students and educators with it.

11. Clark,

    No more parents who have children attending LFNO should be voting members of the board. That is one major reason for the problems the school is facing. That should be prohibited in the charter, and in state law. It is a conflict of interest. Several board trainers have echoed my sentiment. LFNO has been there and done that. it is my hope that the school will lift itself out of a morally bankrupt environment to one of transparency and trust. That will only happen when everyone works together keeping sight of the most important goal – providing a quality education for its children – all children including those who have been excluded at-risk kids. They have always been a part of the spirit of LFNO’s mission. My biggest regret is that most, parents and administrators, choose to ignore the nobility of that mission, and requirement in state law. In the years to come when LFNO test scores are released, unless the school population includes the required at-risk population those scores will be meaningless in comparison to traditional, and other charter schools. They will designate LFNO as a private, public school. Those scores will not legitimize the strength of teaching the French National curriculum, as the authors of the charter so wanted to demonstrate. I have no hope that any of you will ever understand how important this concept is to the school.

12. Joy all good points. I don’t think anybody is turning a blind eye. I believe we are trying to work within the framework of the charter. Our problems have been and continue to be leadership issues, identified in The Lens, UPTM, blogs, Facebook, and the consultants. A process of improvement has just been laid out and we need to allow that to run its course. We currently have a vacant board seat. Ms. Roemer, Mr. Gang and Mr. Hunnewell (RGH) have all asked for nominees. Here is your opportunity to push those nominees if you have not done so already. Regardless of opinions of who is on the Board, the Board has a responsibility to act and the community needs to work with them while offering up new candidates. If we were to have replace any more board members then we won’t be able to execute the CEO search.

    A lot of people say “Why would anyone want to take the CEO job at Lycee?” It is going to be a challenge no doubt but they will have an energized community to help them succeed. RGH has recommended to the Board and the Board has accepted the recommendation to vet the CEO candidate in front of the Lycee community. This is the way it should be done, the way the community would like to see it done. No better way to get buy in from the community.

    People are engaged and spun up. We don’t need any more amplification. We need just the opposite, we need calming influences and to believe in the change afoot. The call to arms is probably doing more harm and scaring people away, old parents, new parents and the teachers. Distracting from the critical capital campaign. We don’t need fear we need optimism. I have plenty to share if anybody ever wants to talk over coffee, jsreyher@yahoo.com

13. Josh,
    Joyous is correct. Josh, are you willing to stand up and demand that your Board and new CEO recommit to the Mcmillian first steps community and other head start programs. Will you and other parents actively help recruit black children from these day care centers or do you really like the school’s current status quo. Does you ever bother to look around the room at Lycee board and PTO meetings and see the faces of an overwhelmingly white school? Does that raise a red flag to you? Does it make you sad or embarrassed? If Lycee continues to be inclusive and white or public/private, I am not sure it deserves any respect or a bailout. The French system of education does not deserve this, your teachers do not deserve this and neither does New Orleans.

14. Frenchfriend is so right! Every time anyone brings up the at risk children that are left behind,
    the violation of the charter with regard to community outreach, and the suspicious lack of african American faces in the parent and student body, the peanut gallery is oddly silent. Josh and others, what is it that you want for your child’s school? Does it matter that it is not attracting a diverse parent body? Does it bother you
    that the demographic of your school is so different from the demographic of the other public schools in the community? If it does not, it should. You are not embracing public schools in New Orleans if you are not embracing the full community and striving to have your school mirror that community. This especially holds true given that the school is not following the charter. When each of you say with pride, to friends, families and acquaintances that you are choosing a New Orleans public school for your children, you should stop and think. LFNO is not and will not be a true New Orleans public school until it recruits from, embraces, and supports a representative sample of the New Orleans community.

15. Joy, I spoke with a friend last night who explained to me those sort of “best practices” for a school board. I do understand now that the board should not be populated with parents. We have seen what that gets us. So Josh, I’ll stand by my comment that you seem quite level headed and your intent is good, but probably not a good idea for you to serve on the board. And Joy, you are quite right that the promise of LFNO has been quite corrupted by the actions and inactions (in the case of First Steps) of the leaders of this school. It’s not too late to make this right.

    But the crisis de jour is teacher retention, and a strong leader will be required to bring the staff and parents into line without bullying. They will have to be pretty spectacular to turn around the decisions of another 10 teachers and to calm the differences among the parents group. Such individuals do exist. I share Josh’s hope that this committee can find that individual. It’s clear there is a great deal of passion among the parents. This energy if directed competently WILL make this school flourish.

16. 18 hours and silence on the subject of diversity….hmmm.

17. when your definition is strictly African American count vs. Caucasian count then there is nothing else to post. diversity is more than color & race. and as far as embracing the NOLA community this is a state charter and is open to any child that is a resident of LA so don’t judge people that attend this school when you have no idea where they come from or what they bring to the table.

18. Joel Vilmenay was absent from all of these last meetings because he resigned from this board. This leaves only five current board members. This is a problem when it comes to voting! Why are the good members leaving and the bad ones staying? How will this school function next year with their entire English department leaving and 90% of all of their French teachers? Disfunction!! Are students really even signed up for this school for next year?

19. Just curious – does the board and/or the public know what the bylaws say about how many board members it should have? And how it (the board) is supposed to fill vacancies? Does the board president have the power to appoint? That’s scary, but Adams and Reese LLP attorneys (like Lee C. Reid) love to write bylaws like that. It makes it so easy for the board and “looks” legal. It seems to me that people who should know (i.e., board members) rarely know what is written in the charter or in the bylaws, budgets, etc. Just saying!

20. Bingo. you got it nicklndime. Corruption, greed, destruction, and twisting the law. This board and their lawyers are hoping that you are not looking.

21. Lycee racial diversity does not match the state.

22. Nickelndime,
    The board is required to have at least 7 members and no more than 11. If you go to lfno.org, click onto About Lycee, then click on charter, you will find term limits, etc in the board bylaws. I think p 58, in the Appendix. Go to the Governance section, and you will see that the Chair serves as an ex officio member of all committees, and the vice- chair sits on all committees, and board treasurer sits on Finance committee. There are four committees created in the charter – the Executive Committee which only board members can serve on as they act on behalf of the board, and are the officers; the Nominating Committee – that is the committee that reviews resumes, etc. for the appointment of new board members; the Finance committee; and the Development – fund raising- committee. All four committees should have been up and running 18 months ago. Appointees from the PTO, the faculty/staff, and community members who have a vested interest in the school should have served along with board members on those committees. Good boards operate through their committees. The other missing component that the board was required to set up was a Board policy and procedure manual which identifies how the board conducts business. Each board must create its own. It is this manual that guides boards in business decisions, along with policies associated with the hiring and termination of the CEO, and its evaluation process. The CEO evaluation process is identified in the Governance section of the charter. Policies should have been written to identify all of the requirements to uphold the “open meetings” law, public bid law, etc. Identified policies and procedures protect board members from themselves. Sounds stupid, but true. Written policies provide transparency, and no one has to guess what is required. Board members are required to know the law, state policy, and their charters. You probably have learned more than you had wished, but you seem curious, and it is clear that you understand the nature of charters, and know of their importance in the running of a school. I wish everyone understood.

23. FF & NOLA going forward I would ask you use your real name. If I am willing to place my name and reputation out there then I would ask you give me the same courtesy. I am only a parent and don’t speak for the administration or the board.

    As I understand it At Risk and Diversity are related but also different. I don’t know numbers but I would not be surprised to see high numbers of African Americans meeting At Risk criteria. There are also Hispanics, Asian and Caucasian populations that meet At Risk criteria. There are only At Risk goals. Lycee has answered this at BESE, maybe not to your liking but I believe the school is doing that. Diversity is important no doubt but is no mandate for that, every body in the city has the opportunity to attend any school. Parents drive their children from the West Bank, Marigny Bywater, Mid City, Central City.

    McMillan was part of the application not the final contract. The school operates under the contract. When we get a new CEO, their strategy for encouraging “at risk” enrollment will be their strategy. The new CEO will have to determine that. I don’t know if what was outlined in the application is feasible under current conditions. If any Mcmillian family wants to know about my family’s Lycee experience my email is jsreyher@yahoo.com. I am always happy to talk.

    Engaging Lycee with an attack, attack, attack strategy has run its course. I encourage you to consider a strategy collaborate, collaborate, collaborate.

24. Please see comments below in FF, just a busy day yesterday.

25. Josh, sadly, I cannot use my name because I do not trust
    members of your board not to retaliate. This is the sad truth of the
    matter. You may have noticed what happens to the people that cross them.

    Conversationally, I want to point out the following:

    1. Not all parents can drive, so not everyone has the
    opportunity to attend schools that do not offer bus service.

    2. The LFNO charter was approved because of the outreach
    commitments in the application. If the contract left those commitments
    out…that is an inappropriate loophole for you to support.

    3. Maybe you should take it on yourself to take applications
    to MacMillan

26. Nola and josh,
    I too, know very the well the wrath of your Three board members ( the ones with children in the school), so I cannot use my name. Josh, The Mcmillian componant is one of the main reasons this charter was granted. What kind of character/ integrity does this show as a school when it refuses to honor its charter application and intentionally forgets to put this very important piece in the contract? This school made a promise to the state and the children of mcmillian to send them a teacher and recruit them for kindergarten. The first lycee charter application was turned down because it did not have an at risk/ diversity plan. The Mcmillian plan is why lycee was granted its charter the next year. You owe your charter to mcmillian, but won’t do out reach to them at all!!!! Joyous correct me if I am wrong. Maybe the reason this school keeps having so much trouble with lycee is that their core values are messed up. NO black children in a New Orleans public school (or should I say Louisiana) means something is so very wrong. All of your other problems are an extension of this. Schools that don’t stand up with honor will always have problems because the don’t have anything to stand on. Your charter was strong, but you don’t follow it.

27. frenchfriend,

    It is true that the Macmillan partnership was a primary reason this charter was adopted. All entities, the initial NACSA team that vetted the first charter attempt, and BESE members wanted for all New Orleans’ children schools that would lift them out of failing programs, and present them with the education tools to become successive citizens. Those individuals feared that an exclusive program such as a French National School would not attract at-risk children’s families to apply. They were right. That is why we worked so hard to get a workable partnership to prove that we could. At-risk does not refer to race, but to children that are impoverished falling below a certain socioeconomic level. The at-risk population in New Orleans is at 68% or thereabouts. LFNO claims to have 50% at-risk children, but that is far from accurate, more like 18 to 22%, if that. Some attending designated as at-risk are not, but one does not have to prove income when filing application. It so happens that in New Orleans most of that percentage (68) of at-risk children happen to be African American. Charter schools are required to reflect the at-risk percentage designated in each respective school system. That requirement is found in the Charter School legislation. Why? Because Senator Cecil Picard wanted to make sure when traditional and charter schools were compared, it was an apt and reliable comparison. Although I disagreed with him because Charters are out from under most state laws and traditional school are not, those comparisons are lost with selective admissions in today’s charter schools. No one can compare selective charters with traditional public schools and truthfully state that they provide a better education for at-risk children as they have creamed their student body. Selective charters fall far short of at-risk children when admission testing is applied. I would suggest you read some of Diane Ravitch’s studies on how successful charters are in this country. Only about 18% of charters do a better job than that of traditional public schools. It is so easy to hoodwink the public today, as they are so desperate to hear good news about our public schools’ performance.

28. joyous,

    Thank you for explaining. What happens to a charter when they dont report the correct number of “at Risk”? What happens when a school like Mcmillian is used to get a charter approved and then it is not followed up in the charter contract because that charter school really does not want the “at risk” kids? How does being this selective help New Orleans when we need good schools for everyone and not a select few? Do you think this school will ever honor this mission? I am not a great reader, but will look up your recomendation and try to understand it. Thank you again. I learn so much from your posts.

29. frenchfriend,

    As far as I know, nothing happens when inaccurate at-risk numbers are reported to SDE. It relies upon honorable people to report accurate numbers. Although I read Josh’s comment that MacMillan was not part of the charter application, and so from his standpoint, it does not apply, I would have to ask him why the SDE thought it was important to bring the MacMillans and LFNO together to resolve the situation. I do not know if there was any resolution, but the charter requires the partnership, and I do not believe that the charter application can change that aspect of the charter, unless it us amended out. The charter is state law.

    i cannot predict if LFNO will honor its mission in regard to the Outreach Program. That will be up to the new CEO and the caliber of board members selected to serve the school. Only they will determine if that mission will be fulfilled. If the administration, the board, and the parents decide they do not want a partnership with MacMillan or any other outreach program, then the charter must be amended. Maybe there is no desire on behalf of some to follow through and extend opportunities to all children in New Orleans et al. I have given up on individuals associated with the school to do the right thing, as the environment there is so morally bankrupt, and it now becomes survival of the fittest. Gone are the days when we looked out for one another. The “me” generation has arrived at LFNO at all levels.

Comments are closed.