A Latin Phrase That Tennesseans Can Embrace
“For who can say which is the more empowered, them or us, if we can speak to each other successfully across the chasm of time and difference? Do we ourselves not become wiser and stronger every time we grasp the perspective of people whom we once dismissed?”
― Camilla Townsend
Well, it's all over but the crying.
Sine Die.
Yesterday, Tennessee's General Assembly came to a conclusion. Many breathed a sigh of relief, while there were few tears shed.
Mostly, it was more sound and fury, signifying... maybe nothing.
In the area of education legislation, there was really nothing that would have a significant impact on teachers, students, and families. Despite all the noise around certain bills, many failed or were significantly defanged.
A bill was passed allowing charter schools the right of first refusal for district buildings that are either vacant or significantly underutilized. In the Senate, the only no vote came from State Senator Heidi Campbell (D-Nashville).
The State Senator cast her vote out of concern for taxpayers.
“I worry that the problem here is that this would put taxpayers at a significant disadvantage because we are basically limiting the ability for the public to get market value,” said Campbell.
The bill's sponsor, Senator John Stevens (R-Huntingdon) had a different take.
“These are school buildings that are already owned, that used to be operated as a school more than likely for public school students, just like a charter school is a public school. And so the intent of the bill is to put those buildings back into utilization for educational purposes for educating students,” said Stevens.
Which is right?
Time will tell, but I throw this one in the category of adults fighting over possessions.
Lawmakers waited until the last minute to provide relief for the state's fourth-graders at risk for retention by the state's literacy law. House sponsor Representative Gary Hicks was attempting to include a state-sponsored screener as an additional measurement for student progress while making changes to the law permanent. The Senate did want an additional measurement included and wanted changes to sunset after two years.
In the end, the Senate capitulated on the latter but not the former.
State law provides several pathways to advancement for third-graders who fail to score proficient on the TCAP literacy portion. However, any student who utilizes one of those pathways must show adequate progress to advance to fifth grade. Around 6K fourth-graders are currently considered at risk.
The Tennessee Department of Education has devised a formula to define adequate progress. It is a formula not readily understandable by common people and requires a touch of newt along with three coins from Ponce De Leon's Fountain of Youth.
The new bill allows for family members to convene with school officials to make the retention decision.
I particularly love the idea that the new version requires tutoring during fifth grade for those students not retained. In other words, since it didn't work last year, we are going to demand that you do it again this year.
That makes sense, right?
I suspect this is the first step in making the whole retention policy moot.
State Representative Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood) and Senator Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald) pushed a bill limiting flags teachers could display in classrooms.
This bill was perceived as being directed at the gay pride flag, but the stated goal was to prohibit the display of any flag that “represents a political viewpoint, including but not limited to, a partisan, racial, sexual orientation, gender, or other ideological viewpoint.”
The bill failed this week on the Senate floor.
While I take no exception to the display of the Pride flag, the failure to acknowledge that it, along with Black Lives Matter flags and others, have a definite political bent is a bit disingenuous. I can't help but wonder what the response would be if I proudly displayed the Israeli flag or the Gadsden flag in a classroom.
I am pretty sure that at minimum, I would earn a week's worth of sensitivity training. Everybody is against censorship unless it's banning something we don't like.
Don't believe me? Try putting up posters featuring quotes by Donald Trump in the classroom. You couldn't even microwave a cup of coffee in the time it would take for the calls of removal to arrive. I'm talking about yours, not the posters.
Regardless, I throw the failure of this bill in the win column. Some things just don't need to be legislated.
There was a bill that would allow certain teachers the ability to carry a gun in the school. It passed.
Even though I'm not a fan of increasing the presence of guns, the hyperbole around this one was frustrating.
Opponents of the bill framed it as an effort to arm teachers. If you didn't read it closely, you'd think schools would be putting the purchase of weapons into their budgets, and then at the beginning of the year, they'd hand them out like backpacks to kids.
This was not even a remotely accurate portrayal. It was an effort to address SRO shortages in rural communities.
I saw countless arguments from opponents arguing that the bill demanded teachers assume a responsibility they were not trained for. Again not true,
Nobody was being forced to carry a weapon. Nobody.
Many teachers are drawn from the ranks of former military and law enforcement agents. Most of these individuals are well-versed in the care and use of firearms, having received extensive training during their previous careers.
Is it an optimal solution? No.
Unfortunately, the threat of violence by firearms is on the rise. Gun control advocates would have you believe that this is an issue unique to the United States, but it is not. Even countries like Sweden and Finland, which have strong gun laws have seen increased incidents over the last decade.
Larger municipalities have access to more qualified people in which to hire SROs, so they don't need to have teachers carry. Smaller, poorer, districts might not have that luxury.
In the wake of the passage, many districts issued statements that signified that they would not grant their teachers permission to carry. MNPS was one of the fastest out of the gate, and I'm happy about it.
A provision of the bill was that parents would not be informed of which teachers would participate. While intellectually I understand the premise. my heart would want to know who in the school building has a gun.
Over the next month, you'll likely hear a fair amount of rhetoric over this new law, and then it'll just fade into the background.
Ultimately we'll never know how many districts participate, and to what level. While that is a bit disturbing, policy variations exist from district to district across the state. The assumption is that local residents are best qualified to make local decisions.
I don't disagree, and will always support the right of locals to make local decisions.
I'll give this one a rating of being troubling, but unlikely to make a huge impact.
Two laws did pass that seems to fly in the face of Republicans' voiced fidelity to parental rights.
Starting in the next school year, students will be required to take a "politically neutral" gun safety class. Good luck with that. When it comes to guns, there is no such thing as politically neutral.
Furthermore, students will be required to watch a three-minute animated video depicting fetal development.
Neither law provides parents with an option to opt out. Let me get this straight.
I'm qualified to make a choice about my child's mode of schooling, but I'm not competent to decide whether I want them to be exposed to state-generated propaganda? So much for parental rights.
As for the three-minute video, what kind of impact do you foresee that having?
Knowing teenagers like I do, I see it as a source for unlimited inappropriate jokes. Come to think of it, a good amendment would have required anyone who voted for the law to sit through a viewing with the kids. I guarantee you, adult participation won't be for the week of heart, because teenage humor runs hard and loose, while having no sacred cows.
If you suffer under the illusion that a three-minute video will work as any kind of behavior modifier, let's talk about that bridge I've been trying to unload.
I label both of these laws as a colossal waste of time.
State Representative Antonio Parkinson (D-Memphis) had a bill that would have finally done away with the state's Achievement District. While it passed in the State Senate, but attempts at modification in the House led him to withdraw it. Parkinson has long been critical of ASD.
The state has failed miserably in running schools and the state should not be in the business of being a school district, period,” Parkinson once said. “The Achievement School District came in and aggressively divided these communities and took over these schools, and then they performed worse than the schools they actually took over.”
Lawmakers did increase k-12 funding by $ 261 million. That funding will continue the push Governor Lee's commitment to increasing the minimum starting salary of teachers to $50 K by 2026. Important to remember though, that by putting in $261 million they are also increasing the bill for local districts. Some need to start thinking about property tax increases as a means to keep up with costs.
Then there was the voucher, or Educational Freedom Account, legislation that never made it to the floor for a vote in either chamber. Just another example of the inept leadership of Governor Bill Lee.
While opponents danced in the street, proponents tried to paint a picture of an ongoing initiative progressing in incremental steps. That position's veracity is dependent on the results of upcoming elections.
While the defeat of the voucher program doesn't break my heart, the loss of the benefits included in the House amendments might. Several things were included that would make a substantial difference in teachers' and students' lives, That opportunity is now gone.
Instead the ability of wealthier districts serving fewer students to preserve their exclusivity under the flag of "public education" was preserved. In other words, one monied interest won over another monied interest.
Other than that right, I'm hard-pressed to discern what else was won.
There is an interesting comment from Dustin Park, a parent of kids who go to school in Maryville, Tennessee. He's opposed to the universal school voucher plan because he said it excludes students with disabilities.
"The only thing that protects kids with disabilities is that federal law," Parks said. "A bedrock of our public schools is that they accept everybody."
Hmmm...interesting...even though he lives in a wealthy district, he believes that without Federal intervention, his kids would be denied services. OK, but I'm not sure how a voucher law puts an end to Federal intervention.
The requirement to provide adequate services is placed by the Feds on states, so Tennessee would still be required to show services regardless of where those services were delivered.
A member of the home school community wrote:
"Regarding your question as to what was won in the voucher legislation not passing, I refer to your daughter’s answer about looking toward the future. She sounds very mature. Those of us who oppose vouchers are doing just that. If vouchers become part of private education, eventually, those in charge of public education will want to regulate those receiving the vouchers. In fact, we’ve already seen this desire in Rep Powell's amendment to HB390, which was withdrawn, but still shows intent. The amendment was to make voucher recipients have to take TCAPs, make teachers and admin of voucher recipients be evaluated on the same schedules/standards as public school teachers, and make schools receiving vouchers follow all the rules that public schools do. Essentially, private schools will be turned in to public schools. And since homeschoolers are considered private schoolers because most operate under Cat IV religious umbrella schools, that means even our homeschools would be subject to this. We know that what the government funds it runs. The only way to have true educational freedom is to have an option that the government doesn’t control. That’s what we believe was won. Even if those regulations didn’t come for a few years, we know they are coming, so we will oppose vouchers every time they come up. Because we want future generations to have the freedom in education that we have now and more."
That's a thoughtful answer. While I don't necessarily agree with it, it is a definable victory by people who fought hard against Lee's plan.
I'm not alone in questioning what was won. In an opinion piece written for The Tennessean Andrea Williams writes:
"Certainly, it was a victory for the families who are happy with their zoned schools, whose children attend Lipscomb Elementary and Ravenwood High in Williamson County, for example.
But there are other Tennesseans, in other districts, whose conditions won’t change because of this “win.” Already, they were on the losing side of Tennessee’s public schools, and if history is to serve as our guide, that is where they will remain."
it's a legitimate concern. Devoid from the entire fight were parents represent the minority or poor children who either be saved or damned by the proposed legislation. It seems like this is just another instance of lawmakers proposing to do things for or to you, as opposed to with you.
The battle over vouchers was one fought with disingenuous arguments from both sides.
There is little evidence that vouchers would greatly alter the outcome for the majority of students, but I'd also argue that there is equally little evidence that the plan would severely alter public education as we know it if adopted.
This morning I read a Diane Ravitch shared article that made familiar arguments.
The article was about Iowa increasing funds for its voucher program. She writes:
"There are some things we know for sure about voucher programs after three decades of experience. First, the actual cost always outstrips the projected cost. Two, whatever the eligibility requirements are in the first year, they will be stripped away so that eventually all students will be eligible for vouchers. Third, vouchers may be initially targeted to needy groups, like students with disabilities, but there is no assurance that these children will be admitted to voucher schools. Fourth, most students who apply for and use vouchers are already enrolled in private and religious schools. Fifth, students who transfer from public schools to voucher schools will fall behind academically. Sixth, many voucher schools will discriminate on any grounds—keeping out children because of their religion or because they are LGBT or because they are simply “not what the school wants.”
Ravitch closes her article by saying:
"This article in the Gazette shows the negative effects of vouchers on Iowa City, a school district with some 14,400 students. Property taxes are going up, the teaching staff will shrink by attrition, and an elementary school will be closed. The vast majority of students will be harmed by a program that subsidizes the few."
I open and read the article. A couple phrases leaped out at me that seemed to counter Ravitch's argument.
First, is the claim that "most students who apply for and use vouchers are already enrolled in private and religious schools."The article says something different, "Adam Kurth, the district’s chief financial officer, estimates the district is losing $1.3 million in revenue and spending authority because about 140 students enrolled in the district last year are now attending private school."
I'd say that's a substantial number, and I'd be curious as to why that number of students were dissatisfied enough to take advantage of the program. But that's a question that public school districts never seem to reflect on. It's much easier to pin the blame on parents or outside influences instead of self-reflecting and accepting responsibility when applicable.
I guarantee you that any family who leaves MNPS as a result of the district's unpopular realignment of MLK Academic Magnet school will be labeled as racist, elitist, or not understanding the district's mission.
The Iowa City School District further argues, that without the Education Savings Account program assisting families with private school tuition and school supplies, they would have another 70 - 80 students enrolled. That still leaves 70 leaving. Why?
To offset losses Iowa provides districts with $1200 for every student within their district who uses a voucher. Even those students who have never attended the public schools.
While the loss in revenue is not significant enough to mitigate loss, there is still revenue coming in for kids who don't attend public schools.
Ravitch leads the reader to believe that the negative consequences are all a result of increased state investment in vouchers. The article reveals a different picture.
The revenue lost because of families using taxpayer-funded tuition assistance to attend private schools is just one factor in cuts the Iowa City Community School District is making in its budget.
The end of federal pandemic funding also figures in, as does per-student state aid that’s not keeping up with inflation, officials said.
Ravitch also puts forth an argument that was prevalent during this year's legislative session - students who transfer from public schools to voucher schools will fall behind academically.
I'm not sure I'd publicize that too much. What you are saying, in essence, is that students had fallen so far behind in public schools that remained behind even with greater resources. If you look at their previous performance levels, there is no evidence that they would have scored any higher had they remained in the public school.
This is also an instance of using student failure as a means to argue for advancing a political ideology. That should be distasteful to everyone.
All of these arguments will be revisited this summer on the campaign trail, and possibly - depending on outcomes - during next year's General Assembly.
Perhaps those questions will be a little more honest and student-focused.
Because this year it was all about one group protecting their pot of money from another.
- - -
New Memphis school superintendent Marie Feagins has named her transition team, and there are a couple faces familiar to Nashville residents included.
Sharon Contreras, a former superintend of Guilford County Schools in North Carolina, is an old friend of former MNPS director Shawn Joseph. Contreras took the Guilford job after Joseph turned it down to come to Nashville.
Carol Johnson Dean, was considered for the superintendent job in Nashville before it was awarded to Dr. Battle. Her resume is a lengthy one that includes director jobs in Boston and Minneapolis.
Also included is the current MNPS Director of Schools, Dr. Adrienne Battle.
Dr. Michael Casserly is the former leader of the Council of the Great City Schools. He was a strong supporter of Dr. Joseph.
Dr. Barbara Jenkins is a former director of Orange County Schools, where in 2014 the district won the Broad Prize for Urban Education. She serves on the executive board of directors of the Council of the Great City Schools, Chiefs for Change, and the Florida Council of 100, and is a board member for Educational Testing Service, New Teacher Center, Strategic Education Research Partnership, The Source for Learning and the SAT Suite Committee.
She is joined by another former Orange County Superintendent - Dr Aleesia Johnson. Johnson is currently the superintendent of Indianapolis Public Schools, which is engaged in a massive reimagining. She is a former Teach For America educator in New Jersey, Johnson led the KIPP Indy College Prep Middle School before joining the Indianapolis district in 2015 to head the Innovation Network Schools, a set of district-supported autonomous schools developed by the state.
Dr. Michael Hinojosa is the former Superintendent of the Dallas Independent School District. he is recognized as the longest-serving DISD superintendent of the post-1980s period, though that tenure was not without controversy.
Lastly is the Executive Director at Council of the Great City Schools, Raymond Hart. Hart never led a district but he does have extensive experience in research and development.
Before joining the Council, Hart was a Fellow at ICF International. He also served as Executive Director in the Atlanta Public Schools, where he led the redesign of the research and assessment division. Hart has a bachelor’s degree in Industrial and Systems Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, a master’s degree in curriculum and instruction from Cleveland State University, and a PhD in research, measurement, and statistics from Kent State University.
Should be interesting to watch.
Nothing like hiring the same old characters to help facilitate change.
I have a feeling old Dr. Joesph's probably going to show up in Memphis at some point. After all, all of his old friends are there.
- - -
From a Facebook post.
MNPS currently has about 20 TSU scholarships available looking to attend in the Fall. They require a 20 on the ACT and a 3.3 GPA.
There are also 3 full-tuition scholarships to Fisk available. Those require a 3.3 GPA and 21 on the ACT.
Applicants must come from one of the MNPS-zoned High Schools.
That means none of you Valor or KIPP students.
If interested, you can contact Cordarrell.Cobb@mnps.org
- - -
Per usual, I need to rattle the cup a little bit before I head out the door.
If you could help a brother out…and you think this blog has value, your support would be greatly appreciated. This time of year money gets really tight, while the blogging workload increases exponentially. that can’t be overstated.
To those who’ve thrown some coins in the basket, I am eternally grateful for your generosity. It allows me to keep doing what I do and without you, I would have been forced to quit long ago. It is truly appreciated and keeps the bill collectors semi-happy. Now more than ever your continued support is vital.
If you are interested, I also share posts via email through Substack. I offer both free and paid subscriptions, but I sure would appreciate it if you chose the latter. Your support would be greatly appreciated.