Who Is Serving Who?
“There is still, I think, not enough recognition by teachers of the fact that the desire to think--which is fundamentally a moral problem--must be induced before the power is developed. Most people, whether men or women, wish above all else to be comfortable, and thought is a pre-eminently uncomfortable process.”
― Vera Brittain, Testament of Youth
The weeks are winding down on Tennessee's 113th General Assembly. As those weeks tick away, it looks less and less likely that Governor Lee is going to secure his desired signature legislation.
In an effort to expand school choice, Lee has proposed a universal voucher bill that was poorly thought out from the get-go. The proposed legislation remained speculative until over a month into the session, when an actual bill was finally introduced. Actually three bills - the Governor's, the Senate's, and the House.
At their core, all propose universal vouchers, but that is the only similarity the three share.
The Senate version is arguably the closest to Governor Lee's vision but uses the state's existing funding tool TISA to finance vouchers. It also allows for the transference of students to schools outside of their district, and comes with a considerably lower price tag than the House version.
The House version is a comprehensive education reform package that includes fewer teacher evaluations, less testing, lower insurance costs for teachers, an end to the Achievement School District, and a repeal of the fourth-grade retention portion of the state's literacy law. The price tag for the House version is approximately $400 million, and Lee has indicated that were this bill to pass, legislators would have to fund it outside Tennessee's annual state budget.
Both bills are scheduled to be heard in their respective finance committee meeting this week. Something that appears less and less likely as the two bodies continually fail to coalesce around a uniform bill. In the House, there is increasing speculation over whether the votes are there to pass the bill out of the finance sub-committee. Every delay only adds to that speculation.
With maybe two weeks remaining on the calendar, the odds are decreasing that a full vote will be taken on the floor in either body and even if it is, the legislation will pass.
If I was a betting man, I'd put my money on it not passing this year.
Of course, all of that could change on a dime.
The demise of this initiative leaves me with mixed emotions. While Lee's vision is not one I share, school choice options are only going to increase, and we must have a more nuanced conversation about what that looks like.
This year's discussion on vouchers never made the leap from arguing over philosophy and focusing on policy. It remained hopelessly rooted in ideology. Both sides have littered the conversation with disingenuous arguments. Increased school choice is not the silver bullet for either dismantling public education or drastically altering student outcomes.
A glance at state school system rankings shows states that have incorporated vouchers in both the top and bottom tiers.
I've spent over a decade standing in opposition to vouchers, but I have to tell you, each year my opposition becomes less firm.
Public education has become an ever-growing monolith, and with that growth comes an increased sense of entitlement, demanding more money to educate fewer kids every year. Supporters seem to think that any money invested in education must go to the public system or it is theft.
Public education has morphed into a system where self-protection trumps being responsive to those it purports to serve. Teachers, students, and families are regularly treated like chunks of coal designed to feed an all-consuming steam engine.
As it stands, there is no way for any of the aforementioned parties to be heard if they feel dissatisfied, or disenfranchised. Any criticisms are dismissed as a character issue of the critic and not the system.
Defense of this system is cached with phrases like, "They'll be fine", or "My kids went and they enjoyed it." Neither of these should be viewed as a legitimate argument for enrollment.
Maybe some parents are looking for their kids to just do as well as they've done. Maybe they are looking for a place where their kids can go and be content.
Not me.
I want them to do better than me, and not by a small margin.
I want them to have a shot at all of the opportunities I was never given.
I want them to be limited by their talents and not their circumstances.
To get there, there will be times of discomfort. It's been my experience that comfort frequently acts as an antidote for growth.
In short, I want for them what is regularly offered to the children of wealthy parents and often denied to those of lesser means.
For me, this is the first year where the anger at those who reinforce the barriers to greater opportunities, while ensuring that they still exist for their children, has broken the surface.
The hardest thing for a parent to accept is the inability to provide for or protect their children at their desired level.
One pro-public school state legislator defended their choice to send their kids to private school by saying, they only did so because that's where all their peers were going. Exactly my point.
She is providing the opportunity to continue to build relationships with future high earners, ensuring that the doors forever remain open to increasing their own wealth, while demanding that those who can't afford the tuition settle for less.
Not just settle, but embrace.
That's a non-sustainable tenet and the cracks will only grow in the future.
The same holds true with public school defenders in wealthier school districts that continually argue the importance of public education. Yes, a strong public education system is vital to the health of a society, but let's not pretend for one minute that your public education is the same as mine.
You are fighting as hard to preserve your privilege as you are for opportunity for all children. Which is understandable, but just say so.
Please don't mistake my dwindling lack of faith in the public school system for a lack of faith in public school teachers. Nothing could be further from the truth, and in my eyes, they are the one thing that keeps public education viable for all students, despite the best efforts of some administrators.
Public schools have become like a restaurant that invests heavily in location, decor, and menus but forgets about the cooks. Without the cooks, you have no restaurant. Without dedicated and certified teachers, you have no public education.
Everybody publicly provides lip service to that fact, but what consistently transpires behind the scenes is the opposite. We hold lavish banquets to honor select teachers, while rarely acknowledging that successful teaching is a team sport. Without those unheralded peers, there be considerably fewer rock-star teachers.
We talk about the need to retain veteran teachers but promote policies that do the opposite. Teachers who consider teaching more than a profession are routinely run off, to be replaced by those who look at it as just another job. A job that is easy to leave behind when the level of difficulty inherent in the job is realized.
Don't think for a minute that student learning is not disrupted when teachers leave in the middle of a school year. Yet we do little to prevent that from transpiring, and instead, it happens with ever-increasing frequency.
There is a part of me, that believes that if vouchers were readily available, the monolith would be forced into being more responsive and addressing its growing shortfalls.
As it is, as much as we talk about accountability for public schools, none really exists for anyone but teachers and students.
When was the last time a district budget was actually cut?
When was the last time a public school was closed for underperforming?
When was the last time a public school was taken over by the state?
It doesn't happen. About the most that happens Is people talk bad about schools on the internet.
Perhaps the issues I'm raising are exclusive to large urban districts, and things are completely different in smaller urban districts. Maybe, but it is hard to separate when the public conversations we have continually treat public education as being a homologous entity.
Which is just not true.
Maybe there has to be a little pain, in order for the system to reverse direction.
Speaking of pain, if voucher legislation does fail to make it out of this year's session, don't expect it to disappear from the conversation. It's likely to return next year.
Furthermore, if legislation fails to pass, don't think there won't be a price extracted.
House Representative Todd Warner (R-Chappel Hill) has been a fierce critic of vouchers. In response to his opposition, he is being celebrated by those in opposition to vouchers. Bucking his own party has earned him the ire of fellow party members and pro-voucher advocacy groups. Americans for Prosperity vowed to make an example of him but failed to produce a challenger for the upcoming election. Outwardly it appears that Warner is riding back into the House triumphant and untouched.
But is he?
Odds are, he won't be able to pass any legislation over the next two years. Recording private conversations isn't likely to instill trust with fellow party members, so it's fair to predict he'll have few supporters when he bills forward in the future.
Over the next two years, his district will be represented by a legislator who will struggle to bring their needs to the table.
Maybe vouchers were a big enough issue to bear that kind of cost, but maybe that's not a price his district was willing to pay. Ultimately it's a tab that won't be picked up by him, but rather his constituents.
No matter what happens in the coming weeks, the voucher conversation is far from over.
- - -
Like voucher legislation, allowing teachers to carry guns always seems to surface each legislative session. It's an argument that continually fails to recognize that a decision to carry a firearm is a decision to shoot someone. In the case of a teacher, that someone has a high probability of being a student.
As a society, we've had images of gunfighters shooting pistols out of their opponent's hands, and undercover cops sliding across cars firing off accurate shots ingrained in our subconsciousness. Neither is representative of reality.
In reality, combatants rarely strike their intended targets, or if do, the bullets pass through that target and are imbed elsewhere, often in the flesh of an innocent bystander. In the case of teachers, that intended bystander is likely to be a student.
Proponents will often doubt their prowess at the range as evidence of their ability. There is a world of difference between being at the range and being involved in a live event. How you'll perform live is not necessarily how you'll perform in a staged setting. Failure to match the former with the latter means a bystander is likely to be struck. Again, that bystander is likely to be a student.
I'm willing to bet few of us would encourage our children to play in the middle of a seldom-traveled road because the odds of getting hit by a car were low, but that's what this legislation is purporting to do.
Yesterday the bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 26-5. It was another vote straight down party lines.
Before passage, during debate, Lt. Governor Randy McNally was forced to clear the gallery after several spectators verbally interrupted proceedings.
The bill requires that those who wish to carry must first get an enhanced handgun carry permit and complete annual training with law enforcement. Liability in the event of an accidental shooting falls solely on the shoulders of the armed teacher.
Sponsor, State Senator Paul Bailey (R-Sparta), thinks that situation would be unlikely due to three elements in the bill constructed to prevent such a scenario: training for the person carrying the gun, along with a psychiatric evaluation, and a sign-off from local law enforcement.
That wouldn't be enough for me, but then again, I've never seen any success in carrying a handgun.
The bill must be taken up by the House and passed before it heads to the Governor's desk.
- - -
title="04/09/24 MNPS Committee: Governance" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>Last night the Metro Nashville Public Schools board held a governance committee meeting with the sole purpose of revising their public participation policy. The meeting serves as a stark example of what I referenced earlier about the unresponsiveness of the public school system.
The initial conversation took place two weeks ago and proposed limiting the amount of time in a meeting devoted to public participation to 30 minutes, varying the time allotted to speakers based on the number wishing to speak, and requiring participants to write out and submit their comments 48 hours before the board meeting. Several board members raised concerns, and the reforms were tabled until last night.
The finalized bill is much more palpable but clearly serves board members instead of the public. Going forward, participation will be limited to 20 speakers, each given 2 minutes. Prepared remarks need not be submitted before speaking and subject matter will no longer be limited to items on the agenda.
The entire board conversation was framed through the needs of the board, with little shift given to the public. At one point during the discussion, board member Abigail Tylor, who argued that time for public participation be extended to 60 minutes, offered that it was "easy" for a participant to alter their presentation from three to two minutes if necessitated.
That's not necessarily true and fails to acknowledge the challenge to those who wish to speak. For someone unaccustomed to public speaking, addressing the board is a daunting task.
Most rehearse their speeches, timing them out in advance.
Most hit the podium filled with nerves and anxiety that can create a difference in delivery time.
For many, there is nothing easy about the process and they agonize extensively over it.
That needs to bear recognition.
Early in the meeting, Board Member Cheryl Mayes made a public passionate defense of the rule change, claiming that despite public perception it was in no way intended as a means to limit public participation.
This in part. prompted member Sharon Gentry to ask, "What is the problem we are looking to solve with this policy change?"
The question was set aside while board members massaged the language in the new rule. Only after the new language was approved, did Chair Emily Masters answer Gentry's question.
Masters cited the original need to revise the rule that limited speakers to items on the agenda, but also pointed out a need to avoid the potential of a lengthy public participation period that would make it "difficult to do the rest of the work of the board."
Perhaps Mayes and Masters should get on the same page. Because their two statements are not aligned.
During the board discussion, the members admitted that in recent years, because of several reasons, the list of commenters was rarely even close to 20 and usually ran less than half that number. Based on that fact, the board could have just as easily adopted Tylor's proposal of 20 speakers given 3 minutes.
Instead, they chose to limit input by constituents, on a hypothetical justification that public participation would interfere with important board business.
My next question would be, what exactly would that business be?
When District Superintendent Dr. Battle opted to switch benchmark testing from MAP to Fastbridge, was there a lengthy board conversation?
When former board member Christina Buggs resigned mid-term was there any discussion about how the board would proceed in the absence of representation for her district?
When MLK parents voiced concerns about changes in the grades served by their school, was there a lengthy conversation?
The answer to all of the above is no.
What the board prefers to take up at its meetings are items that only paint the district in a positive light.
So in other words, a lengthy public participation period would limit the amount of time devoted to clapping each other on the back, with little time left for giggles and dancing.
Current Board Chair Rachel Anne Elrod, much like her predecessors, loves to use her position to deliver a sermon. Perhaps cutting out those sermons would provide more time for public participation.
Just a thought.
Elrod has often advocated for constituents to email her with concerns. Again, a police that puts board member needs above constituent needs.
Argue whatever you want, but let's be honest, this new policy is all about making sure the board never has to spend too much time listening to people they don't want to hear.
Not much different than the people at the Tennessee General Assembly who they regularly rail against.
- - -
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.