How John White Will Use His Own Failures to Sink Governor Elect John Bel Edwards (If he stays on)

I have been writing for years about the numerous ways John White has been lying about the “progress” his agenda has brought the state of Louisiana.  White has inflated the graduate rate, inflated the matriculation rate, depressed the dropout counts, flipped the LEAP and End of Course test scores to show Louisiana students are doing better,  while they are actually doing much worse, sheltered RSD and charter schools from investigations, wiped out the Special Education department and forced his employees to commit fraud to keep their jobs on a routine basis and violated federal laws and policies in regards to funding allocations, shared data illegally with third party vendors and researchers that only favor his agenda while withholding data from independent researchers (for years) costing the state many thousands of dollars in litigation fees.  These are just a few of the underhanded and unethical practices John White has engaged in on a regular basis.  White even has one of his former lieutenants in place on the State’s board of Elementary and Secondary Education.  All of this bodes ill for John Bel if he is not able to remove John White promptly, and properly audit, recalculate and re-report the previous years’ fraudulently prepared education data.

John White has quietly amassed an enormous power base in Louisiana.  He has legislators, superintendents, super Pacs, LABI (Louisiana Association of Business and Industry run by a Grigsby figurehead), APEL  a pseudo teachers union run by a LABI/Grigsby promoted figurehead, The Times Picayune editorial board, The Advocate editorial board and management, Teach for America (who also has a BESE member, Kira Orange Jones that will support White unquestioningly), Stand for Children (run by a former White/LDOE staffer) ,CABL, BAEO (run by a former White/LDOE staffer), DFER (Democrats for Education Reform), and Lane Grigsby in his back pocket. That’s just to name of few of his instate supporter power players and organizations.

White also has the ability to draw down millions of dollars from out of state ed reform minded billionaires to wage war on John Bel Edwards on his behalf.  Billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, Eli Broad, Jim and Alice Walton, that spent millions defaming BESE candidates across the state (for unpaid positions) in the recent elections.  Unless John Bel wants to turn his entire education agenda over to these groups, he will be unendingly assailed by them throughout his term.  He will probably be attacked even then because:

  • LABI would like to find a way to remove him and put someone loyal to them on every issue.
  • John Bel have to renege on his promises to do something about John White, Common Core, and the corruptions and malfeasance at LDOE.

The latter would alienate many of the folks  I rallied to support him based on the belief JBE would have our backs.

LABI and these other groups would still angle to remove John Bel with outrageous lies and misrepresentations, like they did for so many of the BESE candidates in the last elections.

The most diabolical aspect of this is; John White could simply agree to everything John Bel asks him to do, he could cooperate in every way, and he could even release the actual data starting from day one of John Bel’s term.  Unfortunately, this would prove disastrous.

John White has built an enormous and unfounded success data bubble.  If this pops only during John Bel’s term in office, and the scores are not properly recalculated for previous years, it will be an easy claim to make and support, that:

  • John Bel ruined education in Louisiana.

I expect White and his staff, along with Lane Grigsby and Bridgette Nieland with LABI, are working on some plan like this right now at LDOE to propose to John Bel and his leadership team.

This will be a poisoned olive branch, much like the Common Core compromise turned out to be for actual anti-Common Core BESE candidates this fall.  LABI’s candidates also claimed to be against Common Core, and for Louisiana Standards.  They sent out mailers proudly proclaiming their disdain for Common Core, support for high standards, and embracement of the Common Core compromise.  Some BESE candidates, like the re-elected Holly Boffy, even ludicrously claimed to have led the fight against Common Core, while actually getting paid by CCSSO to support and promote it as a paid consultant.

Truth has no meaning to these people.  Lane Grigsby actually met with me and told me he was tired of all the education politics and was going to be sitting out getting heavily involved this year.  Instead he raised millions of dollars to launch misleading, continuous, and deceitful attack ads on his opponents while also donating and having all of his friends and family donate the maximum allowable amount to the candidates he supported.  Based on the similarity of all the produced commercials and mailouts for all 9 candidates he supported it is very likely he had a hand in running both candidates actual campaigns as well as the Super Pac that also promoted them.  This type of coordination is theoretically a no-no, but I have yet to hear of anyone ever sanctioned in any way for doing this.

I would recommend getting knowledgable and outspoken critics of John White and Common Core placed on the board as his appointees – from different political parties.  Fortunately there are quite a few great candidates for these jobs available – still sore from the lies John White and his allies used to assail them.  Motivation for counter-attacking and applying pressure to John White should not be an issue for these folks, as they already have lengthy track records in putting  students, teachers and parents before corporations and firsthand experience at how these shady folks work. I would also recommend putting someone like me in charge of education policy or LDOE’s IT department, which is now a division of DOA and not beholden to John White – thanks to Jindal’s statewide IT reorganization.  The governor has complete authority over DOA.  Once John White is removed, most of his unclassified executive staff should be jettisoned as well.  I would also recommend putting someone in charge of RSD who is not Patrick Dobard or his second in command.  I have had reports that Dobard’s mission is to acquire as many schools from as many districts as quickly as possible so they can be turned over to charter operators.  He has even expressed dismay when traditional public schools run by local school districts improve, because that puts a wrench in his plan to acquire them.  John White’s and Patrick Dobard’s mission is to eventually take over all public schools in Louisiana and run them from a statewide agency as a charter portfolio.

Baton Rouge is actually slated to be their next target for mass charter invasion and takeover.  It has been reported to me that before Edwards assumes office, on the December 2nd 2015 agenda, BESE is expected to vote to approve New Schools for Baton Rouge (run by a former LDOE executive staffer) as a type B1 charter authorizer.  This means the state board will vote to completely bypass local EBR school board authority in charter decisions and hand it over to a private, unelected organization to approve as many charter schools as they want, anywhere in the city, as New Schools for New Orleans does in New Orleans.  Next up will be New Schools for Lafayette, New Schools for Lake Charles, New Schools for Shreveport, and finally New Schools for Louisiana as they finally bypass local school boards entirely.

These folks never sleep.  It is important to get ground game going as soon as possible, because 4 years will go by before you know it.


The Seabaugh Solution Apology and Explanation

VAM (Valued Added Modeling) is garbage.  It does not work. Louisiana’s system is especially flawed. The underlying premise behind VAM is also flawed, and no VAM assessment (good or bad) should be trusted.  Before I wrote about the Seabaugh Solution I wrote numerous articles about this.

I probably have have dozens of articles where I discuss the fallacies of VAM.  Others around our state have written dozens more.  As a data analyst by trade myself, this misuse and misapplication of data is especially infuriating.

Recently, a series of articles I wrote about an Louisiana Department of Education conspiracy to adjust the entire VAM system to benefit 3 teachers in Caddo was rediscovered, and made popular, but without all the backstory and context.  (I hope those that are promoting that story will also promote this one.)

This conspiracy was actually named the Seabaugh Solution by John White’s staff.  John White, and several of his executive TFA staffers recruited from out of state, carried out this deception after discovering it was flagging our best teachers as our worst teachers.  Please let this sink in.  They understood that VAM was identifying our best teachers as our worst teachers, and they have continued to promote this charade to this day.  Their behavior is well into the loathsome territory here, folks.

A number of native Louisiana citizens working at the department at the time were outraged by this perversion of the VAM system. They could not have disclosed it without jeopardizing their jobs and careers.  Nevertheless, at great personal risk to themselves, they notified me and fellow blogger Tom Aswell, at Louisiana Voice, so we could alert the public to this travesty being perpetrated against our teachers.  Please read Tom’s story for more specific details and background.

My intent was never to involve the specific teachers.  (VAM only has a 25% accuracy rate at best.)  Internally these teachers were sometimes referred to as ineffective by VAM calculations, and by other less flattering terms.  However the truth is in fact the exact opposite.  I was trying to make an ironic point by referring to them as “crappy” when both John White and Alan Seabaugh knew, or claimed to know, the exact opposite was true. The students of these teachers scored consistently at the top – for the entire state.  These teachers initially labels as “ineffective” were in actuality some our best teachers. VAM had classified them as our worst.

Legislators need to understand this and ban VAM from being used in the future for any punitive purpose.  They are knowingly persecuting and hanging innocent teachers in a politically motivated witch hunt that is none of their business in the first place.  LDOE is a state agency and not them employer of these teachers. LDOE should not be making judgments about them from afar; especially based solely on a  few pieces of data that were never meant for the purpose they are being used.

Sadly, these truly outstanding teachers were not alone.  Many teachers across the state are classified as ineffective because their students scored so well it was impossible for them to improve.  Others were classified as horrible because they were teaching some of our most disabled, neglected, homeless, limited English, and poverty stricken kids and learning and improvement is not always linear. VAM assumes all kids will improve at a completely linear rate regardless of teacher or circumstances and teachers are responsible for any and all deviation from that rate.  That’s just ridiculous assumption.  Furthermore, for a child to contribute the maximum points to each teacher ever your would require exponential improvement; which is impossible.  These tests have a finite range.  You can’t improve beyond 100%.  As illustrated by the need for the Seabaugh Solution, for VAM to work for teachers with students performing in the upper ranges, the tests would need to have no upper boundary, they would have to be worth an infinite amount of points.

Teachers have resigned in shame and have even committed suicide  across the nation after being unjustly defined by VAM systems as inferior.

LOS ANGELES — Colleagues of Rigoberto Ruelas were alarmed when he failed to show up for work one day in September. They described him as a devoted teacher who tutored students before school, stayed with them after and, on weekends, took students from his South Los Angeles elementary school to the beach.

When his body was found in a ravine in the Angeles National Forest, and the coroner ruled it a suicide, Mr. Ruelas’s death became a flash point, drawing the city’s largest newspaper into the middle of the debate over reforming the nation’s second-largest school district.

When The Los Angeles Times released a database of “value-added analysis” of every teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District in August, Mr. Ruelas was rated “less effective than average.” Colleagues said he became noticeably depressed, and family members have guessed that the rating contributed to his death.

I was actually trying to highlight a real problem for out teachers across the state.  I am trying to prevent more, Rigoberto Ruelas tragedies, in our state.  Great teachers labeled have been and continue to be labeled as terrible by a terribly inaccurate and unjust data system.

Part of the problem is how the state has expanded its reach into places it has no business being in.  The state needs to get out of our local classrooms.  It is not helping.  John White’s department of Education is tearing our teachers and students down while claiming it is building them up.  As your teachers what they think about the LDOE’s involvement in their classrooms.  As the Seabaugh Solution shows, even LDOE can’t trust LDOE’s own data.  John White even said this in his conversation with Alan Seabaugh.

I beg you, please do not refer to these teachers as crappy, inferior, ineffective, or anything other than mistreated by a system I was trying to expose as outrageously unfair, dehumanizing and debasing.  The legislature may not have understood this at the time, but they should understand this now.  Anyone who supports VAM is attacking our teachers and children for political points.  It’s not a coincidence that a psychologist, and not a professor of mathematics, designed and endorses this system.  It’s not just that VAM is “a little off”, it’s actually completely backwards and entirely unreliable.

The outrage here is that John White and his executive staff fully understood the implications of what they were told.  Top teachers were being lambasted and shamed by an unjust data system.   John White knew his staff tried dozens of ways to calculate the VAM numbers and could not find a credible way to prevent some of our greatest teachers from being classified as “crappy” so White gave these teachers “bonus points” as he often does for charter schools he’s trying to save from his accountability system, which is also flawed.

Initial supporters of VAM may have had the best of intentions, but VAM is not the answer and never will be because the underlying premise is flawed.  VAM is victimizing our teachers.

Instead of conceding this, LDOE and John White simply added bonus points to certain teachers and shifted the curve downward to classify a new set of teachers as ineffective.  This new set of teachers might have been outstanding too, but they did not have an Alan Seabaugh willing or able to speak for them.

The State needs to discard VAM once and for all.  Not only is evaluating teachers none of their business, LDOE and John White are knowingly doing a horrible job, and playing favorites in the process.

My deepest apologies to the teachers involved.  My intention was to highlight the flaws in VAM to prevent what happened to you from happening to others.

Jindal scrutinizes micro-contracts

I’ll be honest.  When i piggybacked ( )on Mercedes  Schneider’s post about John White seeking to stealthily contract out PARCC like questions on the sly last week, (and recommended someone notify the Jindal administration I didn’t really think that anyone would do it, and if they did I didn’t think it would amount to much.) 

Then i saw this article:

This situation bares watching.  This could get interesting.  Jindal is now public about knowing about this, and John White is running out of time to build or buy some tests for the Spring.

You guess is as good as mine as to how this will turn out.  Get some popcorn though, this cluster might be fun to watch pop.

Nice tip, sources who will remain anonymous.  :)

LDOE has not audited themselves since Katrina

According to a new article written by Jessica Williams at the Times Picayune, the LDOE has not performed an internal risk assessment since 2006, the same year the state was impacted by Katrina.  They could also not show how they were auditing any programs internally.

The Louisiana Department of Education did not effectively audit its $5 billion operation in the 2014 fiscal year, state auditors said. According to a legislative audit released Monday (Dec. 1), state education officials had an internal audit plan for that year, but could not show that they had actually audited any programs.

This information jives with what I learned when I was investigating some payroll fraud claims by current and former employees of LDOE. When Paul Pastorek and then John White took over management of LDOE, they did not want anyone snooping in their business (legislatively required or not.)  They allowed the audit department to dwindle to zero supervised employees (as employees left or retired they reallocated those audit positions to their own executive staff) and just a single audit manager responsible for auditing the disbursement of over 5 billion dollars annually as well as the oversight of all day to day operations of the 500-700 or so LDOE employees and their paper timesheets.

I tipped Daryl off to LDOE’s inability to perform even the most basic of audits, the lack of personnel, and the rampant abuse by John White’s executive staff of “working” from home (as reported by numerous time keeping staff), over the summer.  We discussed the issues with proving payroll fraud with a complicit boss covering for them, as well as the possibly of performance audits.

I learned from internal staff that the auditors from Darryl’s team had stumbled across rampant disregard for rules and abuse and were aggressively auditing LDOE –  for the first time in at least a decade.  LDOE is responsible for one of the largest chunks of our 25 billion dollar annual budget (if not the largest) and for years had been escaping any oversight whatsoever.  Most of their metrics for evaluating themselves are flawed, their conclusions are biased and often quite absurd non sequiturs –  as pointed our recently by a professor from Harvard.

Are you happy with the current BESE rubberstampers that approves expenditures like this?

The report also highlights the misdeeds of an embattled eastern New Orleans non-profit director, as previously outlined in a June audit. Former Open World Family Services Inc. executive director Kim Cassell spent $307,500 in public education funding on travel, pet-grooming supplies and other personal expenses, state Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera noted.

The state Education Department distributed nearly $1.6 million in federal grants that Cassell’s organization used to operate. She now faces three felony criminal charges.

The education department’s failure to effectively audit increases “the risk that errors and/or fraud could occur and remain undetected,” Purpera added. The department managed $5.1 billion in public revenue in 2014.

The audit reveals that 5.1 billion dollars of your tax dollars may be going anywhere as far as John White and 8 of the 11 BESE members may care.  Daryl could not audit all of the programs, he was only able to audit the auditors and their audits (or lack thereof).  Most fraud and abuse should be detected by the department long before Purpera’s team needs to get involved.

That means there are many more dog grooming expenditures out there yet to be discovered, and which probably never will be.

Special thanks to BESE member Jane Smith for putting me in contact with Darryl and fighting so valiantly for the cause she has recently joined.  I am also very thankful for BESE member Lottie Bebee for being a fierce and tireless defender of our state and children and BESE member Carolyn Hill for fighting alongside them.

LDOE’s statistical methods and reports are beyond useless according to Harvard professor

(Provided by Mary K. Bellisario)


Question: Have press releases issued by the LA Dept. of Education been accurate,especially regarding specific analysis ofresults of student AP tests, possibly ACT tests,  PARCC preparation, and the VAM– Value-added Method for teacher evaluations? 


Further:  Should legislators base their decisions, and vote their support, oninformation contained in state press releases about public education whichcould be inaccurate?


An independent, nationally-recognized data analyst, Dr. A. J. Guarino, is doubtful that data from the LA Dept. of Education is being analyzed or presented accurately.  He gives his reasons below. He calls into serious question analysisprocedures and “selective” reporting in three specific areas:  AP test results (and possibly ACT results), PARCC preparation, and the VAM method of teacher evaluation.


Attached above and below is an unsolicited critical analysis of information that has recently come from the LA Dept. of Education, describing Louisiana’s purported progress in public education.  The analyst, Dr. A. J. Guarino,is a professor of biostatistics at the Harvard University teaching hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital of Health Professions. He and his graduate students routinely collect and analyze media reports from around the U.S. for their accuracy.   Dr. Guarino has ties to Louisiana, where he formerly served as president of the Louisiana Education Research Association (LERA). 


If you have further questions, or want to verify his credentials, Dr. Guarino can be reached at:


Among Dr. Guarino’s conclusions are: 

“When looked at collectively, there is a troubling trend of either the misrepresentation of statistical outcomes or the incorrect application of statistical principles.”


Further, Dr. Guarino concludes: 

“Based upon my professional experience, I believe the Department of Education and Superintendent White have created both of these scenarios.  My intent is to bring attention to these problems so that legislators and policy makers can make informed decisions moving forward.”


Teaching, learning, and assessment: The closed circle

A. J. Guarino*

I certify that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organizationregarding the content of this letter.

The intent of this posting is to report on findings and policies that are based uponincomplete information or misapplication of statistical principles.

        I am a professor of biostatistics at the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute of Health Professions in Boston (teaching hospital for Harvard) where I teach basic and advanced quantitative methods to graduate students in the health sciences. To document the need to be “statistically literate,” I present reports from media sources purporting major findings while failing to provide essential information, which often contradicts their “major findings.” As the former president of the Louisiana Education Research Association (LERA), I continue to follow the educational developments in Louisiana.  Over the past weeks and months, I noticed “press releases” and other media containing only selective information, which made the reported findings suspicious. After securing the full information, my analyses did not replicate those of the press-releases.

        Decisions must never be derived from findings that fail to provide complete information. At this stage of my career, my community-service is to report possible data misrepresentations that appear in the media. I would never seek nor accept compensation to provide statistical consultation.   

1.      Reporting of AP Test Scores

A recent press-release by Superintendent White noted that AP passing rates increased 24.6%, the highest in the nation, from 5,144 in 2013 to 6,407 in 2014. What is conspicuously missing is the ratio between successful tests and unsuccessful tests for each year.  The first number (5,144) represents a reported 5.3% passing rate while the second number (6,407) represents a 4.1% passing; in other words, the AP passing rate actually Decreased 22.64% from 2013 to 2014.

(5.3 – 4.1) /5.3 = 1.2/5.3 = .2264 (22.64%)

The failure to provide the essential information grossly distorts the interpretation. In order to review the actual passing rates for the latest round of tests, I had to obtain that information from a newspaper article the next day.  Here is the summary:  Of the 55,000 or so additional tests in 2014, only 1,263 (approximately 2.2%) passed. These data were never mentioned in the press release. 

Calculating the percent increase from the raw data without taking into consideration the contexts of those numbers is complicity. This is like saying more people finished the Boston Marathon this year than last year only because more people entered the race.  Given the ever increasing monies expended by the state to provide for students to take AP exams, it would be appropriate for those holding the data to inform those who need the data to make informed decisions that, last year, approximately 156,000 total AP tests were given and around 6,407 passed (i.e., 4.1%).

6407/156000 = .0410 (4.1%)

One final note on this matter: It appears that the ACT results have been reported in a similar fashion to the AP scores.  If that is the case, and the increases in the number of tests that were scored at 18 or higher are due to increased numbers of students taking the tests then those results are equally distorted.

2.      Preparation for PARCC Exams

A recent press release from the Superintendent of the State Department of Education states: Since 2010, teachers and state assessment staff in more than a dozen states and the District of Columbia have developed questions, accommodations, and policies that make for an improved blueprint for standardized testing.

At first glance, the statement appears to be quite informative. However, my graduate students were quick to notice the missing essential information, i.e.,Curriculum. It is significant to note that a “Test” is a type of assessment that evaluates academic achievement. Downing & Yudkowsky (2009) explain, “…assessment and instruction are intimately related. Teaching, learning and assessment form a closed circle, with each entity tightly bound to the other” (p. 9) .

Superintendent White broke the “closed circle” by suggesting that neither Eureka Math nor any other curriculum is favored for state testing.  In a note to a high level government official who was expressing concerns about Eureka Math, Superintendent White replied:  “We will also continue to insist, as you urge, that state tests be aligned to high expectations for our students’ skills and not to any particular curriculum (emphasis added).” 

In other words, Superintendent White is suggesting that Louisiana should give high-stakes exams to studentsirrespective of the fact that students, teachers, and stakeholders have not been given a clear curriculum on the first day of school.  How do you test what you are supposed to know at the end of the year if you haven’t communicated those expectations at the beginning of the year?  Lack of clarity for curriculum guarantees that profit-driven entities will provide their own curriculum, all of which purportedly provide the best means of preparing students to meet expectations laid out by high-stakes exams.  This guarantees a process that is costly, inefficient, and ill-defined.

The DOE discreetly recognizes this unfortunate reality by designating certain curriculum derived by outside sources as “Tier 1.”   However, no outside entity can provide to parents and teachers on the first day of school what students should know and how they will be expected to demonstrate that knowledge; this responsibility falls squarely to the DOEand to this point in time it is a responsibility that has not been met. TheDOE tacitly acknowledges its failure to generate curriculum when it continues to insist that school systems are free to use whatever curriculum they choose. 

The lack of a state generated curriculum that is available on the first day of school short circuits end-of-course exams..Results are tainted since there has been no defined path presented to articulate the criteria, much less communicate how the criteria will be met. 

3.  The Evaluation of Teachers via a Value-Added Model (VAM)

The Louisiana Department of Education has implemented the Value Added Measures (VAM) as part of a teacher’s performance evaluation. However, implementation of any educational interventions must be supported by the best available research results (evidence) or more formally known as Evidence-Based Practice (EBP). For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) require that schools use programs, curricula, and practices based on “scientifically-based research” “to the extent practicable.” The best available research from the American Educational Research Association (AERA)  reports the following, “…weak to nonexistent relationships between state-administered value-added model (VAM) measures of teacher performance and the content or quality of teachers’ instruction.” Implications of these resultsfail to support the utility of VAM data for teacher evaluations. Concurring with the AERA findings is the American Statistical Association , the largest organization in America that represents statisticians and related fields.  The Louisiana Department of Education’s implementation of theValue Added Measures (VAM) as part of a teacher’s performance evaluation is in conflict with Evidence-Based Practice (EBP).


When looked at collectively, there is a troubling trend of either the misrepresentation of statistical outcomes or the incorrect application of statistical principles.  If the results aremisrepresented, you do not have all the necessary data to make an informed decision (#1 above).  If the statistical principles are incorrectly applied, you have created a fundamentally flawed process that provides no meaningful interpretations (#2 and 3 above). 

Based upon my professional experience, I believe the Department of Education and Superintendent White have created both of these scenarios. 

My intent is to bring attention to these problems so that legislators and policy makers can make informed decisions moving forward.


Bio:  Dr. A.J. Guarino

*A. J. Guarino presently teaches biostatistics at the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute of Health Professions in Boston. In 2011, Dr. Guarino was awarded the 2011 Nancy T. Watts Award for Excellence in Teaching – the highest prize given to a faculty member at Boston’s health sciences graduate school.  He received his bachelor’s degree from UC Berkeley and his doctorate in Educational Psychology with an emphasis in statistics and psychometrics. He has published over 50 refereed research articles in a variety of fields in health, education, psychology, assessment, and statistics and presented nearly one-hundred papers at national and regional conferences. Dr. Guarino has also coauthored five graduate level statistics textbooks.  A partial list of recent scholarship is provided below.  Dr. Guarino has also served as president of the Louisiana Education Research Association (LERA). 

He can be reached at: 

Recent Scholarship


Meyers, L., Gamst, G. & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Performing Data Analysis: Using IBM SPSS. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Meyers, L., Gamst, G. & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Applied Multivariate Research Design and Interpretation Second Ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Meyers, L., Gamst, G. & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Applied Multivariate Research Design and Interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gamst, G., Meyers, L., & Guarino, A. J. (2008). Analysis of Variance Designs. New York: Cambridge Press.

Meyers, L., Gamst, G. & Guarino, A. J. (2009). Data Analysis Using SAS Enterprise Guide. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publication.

Refereed Articles and Presentations

Matthews, L. T., Ghebremichael, M., Giddy, J., Hampton, J., Guarino, A. J., Ewusi, A., Carver, E., Axten, K., Geary, M., Gandhi, R. T., Bangsberg, D. R. (2011). A Risk Factor-Based Approach to Reducing the Likelihood of Lactic Acidosis and Hyperlactatemia in Patients on Antiretroviral Therapy. PLoS ONE 6(4), 1-7.

Nahas, S. J., Young, W.B., Terry, R., Kim, A., Van, D. T., Guarino, A.J., & Silberstein SD. (2010). Right-to-left shunt is common in chronic migraine. Cephalalgia 30(5), 535-42.

Chesser, S., Forbes, S. A., & Guarino, A. J. (November, 2011).  Investigation of intra-individual response of the stress hormone cortisol to varying educational environments (single vs. mixed sex groupings). Poster presentation at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, Washington DC.

Lopez, R. P., & Guarino, A. J. (2013). Psychometric Evaluation of the Surrogate Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale. Research in Gerontological Nursing 6(1), 71-76.DOI: 10.3928/19404921-20121203-02

Certain, L., Guarino, A. J., & Greenwald, J. (2011). Effective Multilevel Teaching Techniques on Attending Rounds: a Pilot Survey and Systematic Review of the Literature. Medical Teacher, 33, 644-650.

Hastie, P., & Guarino, A.J. (2013). The Development of Skill and Knowledge during a Season of Track and Field Athletics. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sports.

Lopez, R.P., & Guarino, A.J. (May, 2011). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Surrogate Decision Making Self-Efficacy Scale (SDM-SES). Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington DC.

Eaves, R.C. & Guarino, A. J. (2006). Dunn’s multiple comparison test. Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics, 293-296.

Is Opposition to Eureka Math and Common Core really limited to a few isolated troublemakers, like John White told the American Press?

Recently John White made the claim that only a few isolated pockets of parents in a few parishes are upset about Common Core and Eureka Math.

Small groups of people in several isolated areas of Louisiana, including Calcasieu Parish, are voicing loud opposition to Common Core State Standards, said state Superintendent of Education John White.

“They tend to show up at school boards in numbers that are not large relative to the size of the parish,” White told the American Press editorial board Tuesday. “But they’re large relative to the size of the room where the school board meeting is held.”

I’ve been getting reports from folks from across the state since that statement was made. I would like to put together a spreadsheet/inventory of just how widespread opposition truly is, but I need your help. Please provide information so I can counter John White’s claim that only a few folks from a few isolated communities are upset about Common Core and Eureka Math. My pastor actually made an offhand reference about Common Core Math during one of his sermons a few weeks back and was met with a room full of groans of disgust and frustration. What was remarkable was most of the folks in this service were not parents, but just grandparents, and they had had enough of Common Core. This was not an assembly of gathered for any other reason except to worship, but Common Core, and the math associated is so dreadful it provokes groans of disgust from an entire congregation. I attend church in the middle of Baton Rouge. I’m pretty sure this hatred is thorough and not the least bit isolated.

To help me document this for mainstream media types which don’t have the time or inclination to do this research themselves, please provide what curriculum you use in your parish. If there is organized resistance to it, let me know. If there is a contact person or name you would like to provide, please let me know that as well. I will update this list/post periodically as information comes in. I hope this post will also help connect groups in different “isolated areas of Louisiana” feel less isolated and work together going forward.


Please provide your feedback in the comments below. I will transfer summarized data to this spreadsheet. If you wish to be contacted by folks that might research this topic please leave your contact information in your comment as well. if you wish to provide an anonymous update please send your info to



Curriculum Used by School District for the 2014-2015 School Year (as reported by parents) 

Last updated: 10/25/14

Produced by Jason France 




Math Curriculum 

ELA Curriculum 

Notes & Contacts (official and Anti-CC)


Acadia Parish





Allen Parish 





Ascension Parish 


Core Knowledge 

 Board members staunchly in favor of CC and Eureka

Lorraine Wimberly (opposed?)


Assumption Parish 





Avoyelles Parish 



 Avoyelles Against Common Core


Beauregard Parish 

 Go Math (HMH)

Treasures (MMH)



Bienville Parish 





Bossier Parish 





Caddo Parish 





Calcasieu Parish 



multiple forums, parades,SB meetings against Common Core and Eureka 


Caldwell Parish





Cameron Parish 





Catahoula Parish 





Claiborne Parish 





Concordia Parish 





DeSoto Parish 





East Baton Rouge Parish 

 Go Math (HMH) + EngageNY




East Carroll Parish 





East Feliciana Parish





Evangeline Parish 





Franklin Parish 





Grant Parish 





Iberia Parish 



Iberia Asst. Supt of Instruction: Carey Laviolette 337-364-7641


Iberville Parish 





Jackson Parish 





Jefferson Parish 


Core Knowledge 



Jefferson Davis Parish 

My Math (SMH)




Lafayette Parish 



Numerous groups opposed to Common Core


Lafourche Parish 





LaSalle Parish 



 LaSalle Parish Against Common Core


Lincoln Parish 



Lincoln Chief Academic Officer: Mike Milstead


Livingston Parish 



Anti-CC forum being held 10/16/14

Livingston SB contact Director of Curriculum: Dawn Rush


Madison Parish 





Morehouse Parish 





Natchitoches Parish 





Orleans Parish





Ouachita Parish 





Plaquemines Parish 





Pointe Coupee Parish 





Rapides Parish 


Journeys (HMH)

anti-CC forum/townhall 10/21/14

SB agenda item Nov 5th

Opposition contact: Stephanie Hooke Riley parent of 2

petition to remove over 700 names


Red River Parish 





Richland Parish 





Sabine Parish 





St. Bernard Parish





St. Charles Parish 





St. Helena Parish 





St. James Parish 





St. John the Baptist Parish 





St. Landry Parish 

 Go Math (HMH)




St. Martin Parish 





St. Mary Parish 





St. Tammany Parish


 Core Knowledge

multiple SB meetings resulting in removal of Eureka before end of 2014-2015 School year

Anti-CC townhalls Oct 22 and 27


Tangipahoa Parish 



Opposition leader: Terra Orgeron


Tensas Parish 





Terrebonne Parish 

Eureka + Envision


 Some stirring of org, no formal anti-CC


Union Parish 





Vermilion Parish 



Vernon Parish 



Facebook activity/groups (staunch opposition)


Washington Parish 





Webster Parish 



P Susan Willis Addington (pulled grandson out of public and put in private school)


West Baton Rouge Parish 



 Parents are complaining on Facebook

Crystal Bass Bell, parent

Nov 1,anti-CC townhall


West Carroll Parish 





West Feliciana Parish 





Winn Parish 





City of Monroe School District 





City of Bogalusa School District 





Zachary Community School District 





City of Baker School District





Central Community School District 





Special School District 





RSD-UNO New Beginnings Schools Foundation 





Louisiana School For Math Science & the Arts 





LA Schools for the Deaf and the Visually Impaired





Louisiana Special Education Center 





LSU Laboratory School 





Southern University Lab School 





New Vision Learning Academy 





V. B. Glencoe Charter School 





International School of Louisiana





Avoyelles Public Charter School 





Delhi Charter School 





Belle Chasse Academy, Inc. 





Milestone SABIS Academy of New Orleans 





The MAX Charter School 





D’Arbonne Woods Charter School 





School For A New Millennium, Inc. 





Community School for Apprenticeship Learning, Inc. 





Voices for International Business & Education 





RSD-Lagniappe Academies of New Orleans 





RSD-Spirit of Excellence Academy 





RSD-Morris Jeff Community School 





RSD-ReNEW Schools 





RSD-Shreveport Charter School, Inc. 





RSD-Crestworth Learning Academy, Inc. 





RSD-Arise Academy 





RSD-Success Preparatory Academy 





RSD-Benjamin E. Mays Preparatory School





RSD-Pride College Preparatory Academy 





RSD-ADVANCE Baton Rouge 





RSD-100 Black Men Capitol Charter Initiative 





RSD-Advocacy for the Arts & Tech in N.O., Inc. 





RSD-Intercultural Charter School Board, Inc.





RSD-Akili Academy of New Orleans 





RSD-Advocacy for Science and Math Education 





RSD-Sojourner Truth Academy, Inc. 





RSD-Miller-McCoy Academy for Math and Business 





RSD-New Orleans College Preparatory Academies










RSD-Broadmoor Charter School Board 





RSD-Pelican Educational Foundation 





RSD-Dryades YMCA 





RSD-Friends of King 





RSD-New Orleans Charter Schools Foundation





RSD-Choice Foundation 





RSD-Treme Charter Schools Association 





RSD-Algiers Charter Schools Association (ACSA) 





Recovery School District-LDE 





RSD-SUNO Institute for Academic Excellence 





RSD-Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) N.O.





RSD-FirstLine Schools, Inc. 





Office of Juvenile Justice 




Eureka Math. . . (I can think of another expletive to describe it.)

Eureka Math. . . (I can think of another expletive to describe it.)

This is an update to a story I’ve been meaning to get back to for a while on Louisiana’s textbook selection and adoption process. According to my sources Louisiana required most vendors to pay 500 dollars per book to evaluate each grade level of each subject. I have no details of where those dollars went. I was told this was the first year the department ever charged to review books. I was also told the only two first tier (best according to LDOE) vendors that were selected (Eureka for Math and Core Knowledge for ELA) did not have to pay this fee, but I have not been able to confirm this. I received some information from sources that were able to acquire the lists of all external reviewers of textbooks. I have been able to contact some of these folks to confirm this, and have confirmed their participation through some of their own online postings. I will not be turning over all of the research files as yet, but I will be publishing the names of the Math reviewers. There were only 7 reviewers for the Math curriculum selected for the entire state (15 reviewers were used for the ELA evaluation.) I have tried interviewing and questioning these folks either on or off the record, but none have agreed to comment on the selection process – even after replying to me initially. I would like to know how they were compensated, whether their instructions involved assessing the quality of the materials (which is particularly lacking with the first tier Eureka materials) among other things.

Louisiana Textbook Reviewers by Review Area

Review Area Fname Lname
Math K-5 Brittany Bush (K-5)
Math K-5 Katie Dunn (K-5)
Math K-5 Laci Maniscalco (K-5)
Math K-5 Kristina Morris (K-5)
Math 6-8, 9-12 Aquanetta Archangel
Math 6-8, 9-12 Tamara Whittington
Math 6-8, 9-12 Jessica Hunter


My earlier story can be found here:

It appears John White, Superintendent of Education, has links to the only two tier one options selected, including one which is run by his former employers, Joel Klein, now the head of Amplify – a Rupert Murdoch (NewsCorp) subsidiary and sole provider of Core Knowledge published products. If this situation sounds familiar, you aren’t wrong. Jindal’s former head of the Department of Health and Hospitals, Bruce Greenstein, was just indicted on numerous counts of perjury related to tampering with the theoretically unbiased selection process or a 200+ million dollar Medicaid contract with Bruce Greenstein’s former employer, CNSI. I wonder if there is not some unsavory influences at work here as well. I really find it hard to believe Eureka is far and away the best Math product on the market and I’ve had firsthand experience with them and a tier 2 product that while not awesome, is much better than Eureka in my opinion (and my daughter throws fewer tantrums with this new one so I think she’s having an easier time of it too.)

I was provided this preliminary research by my source although you can find much more in LinkedIn, YouTube, Pinterest, school websites, Stand For Children materials, LDOE’s website (lauding the choices with quotes without mentioning they were part of the selection committee), Facebook, etc.

  General Information 225-343-9364 5th grade teacher Capitol Elem
  charter school teacher New Beginnings Charter New Orleans Broadmoor Elem 3rd gr Received $$ stipend and from publisher “LearnZillion” Curr: went to SF, CA been teaching for 2 years and 3 months “GOOGLE” Nette Archangel I.A. Lewis School in Ruston LA, graduate of LA Tech teaching maybe 5 years Hammond Jr HS Magnet
no info Sterlington HS, Ouchita Schools
James Ward Elem in Jennings LA


I think my inquiries were pretty non-threatening although I am a stranger. . .

I was given a list of all the folks who reviewed the various textbooks last year and assigned them to various “tiers”.  Only 1 math option and one ELA option made it into tier one.  I am trying to learn more about the process, instructions you were given, and how it came to be that in your case only one math provider, Eureka, made it into Tier one.  We can converse on or off the record.  I have sent or am sending e-mails to all math reviewers.

My children are also in public elementary schools and our LEA chose Eureka after going with a related version, EngageNY last year.  I see some assignments that are interesting, but many that seem overly cumbersome, and with very poor quality in the instructions and examples departments.  I was wondering how closely you and your teammates reviewed these materials, whether you were able to take into account quality and accuracy or materials, whether you really felt these were a solid choice, the best choice, or the best of available bad choices perhaps?  Parents send me examples of their assignments and i see various ones posted different places.

Some teachers firmly embrace Common Core and some have significant problems with it.  From reviewing the profiles of the reviewers i feel pretty sure everyone really embraces Common Core that was on the selection team so i am seeking some perspective and insight from that side of the debate.  Sometimes when we like something, especially more than the alternative, we tend to overlook the flaws or measure them against our past experiences and options.  I was wondering if you think that might have occurred, perhaps in retrospect?  Any insight you can provide will be appreciated.


Perhaps coworkers can get more out of these folks?

I’m not really interested in calling their motivations into question, but I just want some answers to my questions. However, I do wonder if this set of teachers has all the necessary qualifications to evaluate materials for the entire state. I think it is important for school districts to understand who exactly made these evaluative decisions when factoring how they will invest their limited resources. I know firsthand that EngageNY was terrible, and first tier Eureka (as defined by these reviewers) is just EngageNY that costs money fraught with many of the same issues. Thankfully EBR ditched EngageNY/Eureka this year (they tried it out last year and found it very lacking) and went with a tier 2 product this year which while still perplexing and strangely worded at times, is much less error prone and confusing (or just plain wrong) than EngageNY/Eureka. Many parents are discovering this the hard way. I think the department and these evaluators should answer whether they felt comfortable evaluating this curriculum for the entire state. Several teachers only had a few years of teaching experience under their belts, yet they were responsible for evaluating 6 or more grade levels of content.

What are your thoughts on the math materials/curriculum your school district has adopted? It seems St Tammany and Calcasieu parents are pretty dissatisfied with Eureka based on the school board meetings I’ve seen reviewed in the news (and from parents on Facebook) . . .

Did the state really identify the best curriculum available by selecting Eureka, or do you think they really dropped the ball here?

Is this the test-tube creation of John White?