The Education Article of the Louisiana Constitution

• Author: Jackie Ducote
• Position: Jacklyn Ducote & Associates, Empowerment Resources

Jacklyn Ducote & Associates, Empowerment Resources, Owner; President, Public Affairs Research Council (retired, 1999); M.S., Louisiana State University, 1965; B.S., Louisiana State University, 1964.

In preparation for this article, I conducted extensive interviews with and/or obtained information from the following individuals whom I would like to acknowledge in some way: Dr. William Arceneaux, the first commissioner of higher education; Ponder Jones, a school finance expert; Marlyn Langley, deputy superintendent in the Louisiana State Department of education; Weegie Peabody, executive director of the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Edward J. Steimel, former head of the Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana; Kirby J. Ducote, executive director of Citizens for Educational Freedom; Robert Aertker, a retired school superintendent who chaired the Committee on Education and Welfare in the constitutional convention of 1973; Carol Coltharp, executive assistant to the president and director of public and governmental relations for the Louisiana Community and Technical College System, who previously served on the staff of both the constitutional convention of 1973 and the Board of Regents; and Andy Kopplin, assistant chief of staff and director of policy and planning in the Governor's Office; Ty Keller, senior research associate, Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana.

In 1973, Louisiana was in the midst of drafting its eleventh, and most recent, constitution, and debate over several constitutional provisions proved to be very heated. One of these provisions was the education article or, more specifically, the structure of the educational system in Louisiana. In fact, the debate over the education article1 was so bifurcated that the delegates decided to punt and let the voters decide. The education article was the only one for which two alternate proposals were put on the ballot. The following issues surrounding the education article proved most controversial: (1) the governing structure of education and the number of boards that should be created, as well as minority representation on those boards; (2) whether the state superintendent of education should continue to be elected or be appointed; and (3) state aid to, and approval of, nonpublic schools. During both committee and floor debates at the constitutional convention, delegates changed their minds several times on these issues under pressure from special interests on both sides. The convention eventually approved two different versions2 of the education article for consideration by the voters, Alternate A and Alternate B. Alternate A, which was adopted by the voters as part of the new constitution in 1974, substantially reduced the length of the education article and created a new governance structure. This new structure separated responsibility for higher education from elementary, secondary and vocational-technical education and included five constitutionally created education boards instead of the two under the 1921 Constitution. The five boards consisted of the Board of Regents, three management boards dealing with higher education, and a Board of Elementary and Secondary Education ("BESE") dealing with elementary, secondary, special schools, and vocational-technical training. The Board of Regents basically succeeded the Coordinating Council for Higher Education which had been statutorily created in the late 1960s to plan and coordinate all higher education. The Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University (which had existed under the 1921 constitution) was retained as one of the three management boards in higher education, and two others were added: the Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities (now the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System) and the Board of Supervisors of Southern University. The institutions placed under these two boards had previously been under the old State Board of Education.

Alternate A also continued the election of the state superintendent of education, but included a provision for making it an appointive position in the future with a two-thirds vote of the legislature. Under this provision, BESE would make the appointment and the superintendent would head the Department of Education and implement BESE policies and laws affecting schools under BESE's jurisdiction. Finally, although Alternate A made few changes in the structure and operation of public elementary and secondary education, it did eliminate the constitutional prohibition against state aid to private and sectarian schools.

Alternate B, ultimately rejected by the voters, differed from Alternate A only in the number of education boards and the powers and duties of the state superintendent of education.

Although it is impossible to determine whether or not the education article of the new constitution turned out as the delegates to the constitutional convention intended, since they were undecided, a review of subsequent amendments and major legal challenges over the past twenty-five years provide some indication of whether the article adopted by the people has withstood the test of time. The following analysis looks at the three areas of controversy identified above, as well as the provision dealing with the Minimum Foundation Program for elementary and secondary education, which has been substantially amended since 1974.

I Governing Structures And Boards

During the constitutional convention of 1973, the push for a new governance structure for education grew out of a general concern about the lack of coordination and planning and the duplication of programs in higher education, as well as the need for more equitable distribution of funds. The debate was also fueled by some higher education institutions which wanted to preserve the status they had under the existing constitution and others which wanted to be elevated to a more equal footing.

The Committee on Education and Welfare and its subcommittees heard many competing proposals from organizations, institutions, officials, and interest groups regarding the governance structure of education in Louisiana. These proposals ranged from having no boards created in the constitution and, thus, leaving the decision to the legislature, to having as many as four and potentially five boards as proposed under the "Hood Plan."³ This plan called for (i) a Board of Regents to plan and coordinate all higher education but not to "govern and administer"; (ii) the LSU Board for the LSU system; (iii) a new Board of Trustees for all colleges and universities outside the LSU system; and (iv) an elected State Board of Education for primary, elementary and secondary education through 12th grade. Post-secondary vocational-technical schools would have been under the Board of Trustees unless the legislature created a separate board.⁴

After hearing a myriad of proposals and considerable debate, the subcommittees on elementary, secondary, and higher education met jointly on April 17, 1973, and generally adopted the board structure outlined in the Hood Plan⁵ as the constitutional framework for governance of education in Louisiana, with the understanding that the Board of Regents would also have planning and coordination responsibility with respect to elementary and secondary curricula.

The joint subcommittees subsequently adopted amendments to make it clear that "powers of management" of institutions were not given to Regents and to change the description of the LSU Board of Supervisors and the Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities from "governing" boards to "managing boards." In addition, references to their powers of "supervision and control" were changed to "supervision and management." In fact, the words "govern, direct and control" were deleted from the description of the powers of the LSU Board.⁶ The sections of the education article dealing with the board structure were finally approved by the full Committee on Education and Welfare and became part of Committee Proposal No. 7 for consideration by the convention.⁷

When the full convention debated the education proposal in November 1973, it was amended to delete the Board of Regents' coordination responsibility as it related to public elementary and secondary curricula, and simply required the Board of Regents to meet twice a year with BESE to coordinate programs of elementary and secondary, vocational-technical, career, and higher education.⁸ In addition, another board, the Board of Supervisors of Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, was added to supervise and manage institutions in the Southern University system.9 Furthermore, an amendment to create a separate board for vocational- technical education was rejected, and the education article was "finally passed" and enrolled by the convention on November 17, 1973.¹⁰

However, in the final days of the convention, the rules were suspended to allow amendments that put vocational-technical training under the control of BESE, deleted the Board of Regents' coordination and planning authority over vocational-technical schools (except for the required twice-a-year meetings with BESE), and deleted all responsibility of the Board of Trustees for State Colleges and Universities for vocational-technical education.¹¹

This proposal, as finally amended and adopted, was designated as "Alternative A," and another version of the proposed education article, which the convention also adopted...