Everything Needn't Be a Fight
“I've seen how easy it is for people to be manipulated, Emeka,' I say sadly. 'All it takes is careful observation of trends and behavioural patterns and it can be pretty easy to make people do what you want them to do. Especially in a group.”
― Femi Kayode, Lightseekers
This continues to be a season for the bizarre regarding education policy politics in Tennessee.
This morning I watched the Tennessee House Education Instruction Committee take up a bill requiring district and charter schools to provide age-appropriate and grade-appropriate firearm safety instruction. That was the sole item on the agenda.
My thought was, this should take but a minute or two and be done. I figured I'd tune in just to make sure nothing else would pop out of the hopper unannounced. I should have known better.
little did I realize that would spend 30 minutes of my life that I would never get back.
What ensued was a discussion about the appropriateness of teaching gun safety to kids.
Mind you, not how to shoot.
Not how to handle a gun.
Not how to buy.
But rather how to be safe around guns.
It was a bill devoid of advocacy, branding, or political affiliation.
Of course like everything, opposition was still split down party lines.
As best I can tell, the Democrat's argument came down to, It would be hard, teachers have enough to do, and it may make some kids uncomfortable.
I'm continually baffled how as a society we've gotten to a place where we believe the world should never make us uncomfortable. Our comfort and happiness predicate everything.
That somehow we go through life never confronted with things that upset us. It is as ludicrous a concept as telling kids that they can be whatever want when they grow up.
Not trying to downplay trauma, but efforts should be increased in mitigation as opposed to avoidance.
The danger here is that we risk raising a generation of kids who are incapable of living life on life's terms.
One of the hardest truths I ever had to face was when a couple years ago I realized I couldn't protect my kids the way that I had always envisioned. It about crushed me.
That is until one day my then 13-year-old daughter told me, "That's stupid." She said, "What makes you think I need you to protect me? You raised me to be able to defend myself. So why would you have to do that?"
Out of the mouths of babes.
Do I wish that America wasn't as eaten up with guns as it is?
Yes.
But I also wish that people didn't drive drunk.
That marijuana wasn't as pervasive in our culture as it is.
That underage drinking wasn't viewed as a rite of passage.
That people's families didn't get sick, and parents didn't die while kids were still young.
I wish that the internet was a lot safer than it is.
There are a lot of things that I wish for, and I can fight to eliminate the risk while giving my child the tools to stay safe.
Maybe it's because I'm an older parent, with an acute awareness of my declining mortality, but shielding my children from things that may upset them, isn't nearly as important as providing tools for self-protection.
I laughed aloud when State Representative Gloria Johnson (D-Knoxville) argued that teachers were just too busy to teach gun safety. I would love to hear that argument put forth by her should the proposal be a class on protecting and recognizing the usage of pronouns for asexual Palestinians.
We have time for what we think is important, and to masquerade it otherwise, is dishonest.
What I'd prefer to see is a class that forces children to talk to people different from themselves every day.
A class where they learned phrases like, "I see how you might think that but I disagree. Wanna get lunch?"
Or, "That's not historically accurate. Let's take a look at it together."
Or, "part of your argument is relevant, but let's talk about this other part."
Ultimately, I wish there was no need to learn about gun safety, but it's a real threat.
Gun law advocates like to present common sense guns - I'm not even sure what that means, other than a political ploy designed to limit dissent - as a means to eradicate any gun violence. Sign the laws and the senseless shootings end. That's just not realistic.
Look at Sweden of late. Despite rigorous gun control laws they are now seeing a large growth in gun violence.
Sweden now has one of the highest gun death rates per capita of any European country for which there are figures, according to the most recent data from the United Nations Office on drugs and crime (UNODC).
In recent years, the country has overtaken Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia in terms of deaths per 100,000 population.
If it was simply a matter of passing laws, there would be no drunk drivers or dope slingers. Still plenty of those around.
Ultimately the gun safety bill passed out of committee by a vote of 12-3 and moved on.
I'm sure the discussions will be just as interesting as it proceeds to passage.
- - -
Rumor on the street is that the fight over vouchers will get a little more real this week. Remember we still don't have an actual bill to debate yet.
Current arguments are all philosophical.
That changes this week.
At some point, we'll get a look at possibly three bills - the House, The Senate, and the Governors.
The three are anticipated to be very different.
The House bill is rumored to be laden with incentives. Things bandied about are limitations on testing, increases in teacher pay, eligibility caps, and the possibility of relaxed accountability measurements for traditional schools.
If scuttlebutt can be believed, the Senate version has fewer extra initiatives, and skewers closer to solely focusing on education saving accounts. It may forego the separate funding pot and instead utilize the Governor's recently passed school funding formula, Tennessee Investing in Student Outcomes (TISA). There will be some accountability for students who take a voucher, and an enrollment cap will be in place in the early years.
Several State Senators have indicated which schools are chosen is less important to them than increasing options for parents.
Hypothetically, a student who lives in Davidson County could choose to attend a school in Williamson or Sumner County. If the voucher funding runs through TISA, the value of the voucher would be the amount of the state portion of the per-student funding calculation based on the district where the student resides. Any difference would have to be made up by the student's family.
it is an interesting proposition, one that negates some of the arguments of vouchers being solely a tool for privatization efforts. At the very least, it will force the restructuring of the opposition's argument.
The Governor's version is anybody's guess but will likely include many of the details he's already revealed. it will also likely be heavily influenced by social media agitator Corey DeAngelis and his boss at the American Federation of Children, Betsy DeVos.
Last year, amid national legislative battles over education freedom accounts, DeAngelis told NBC News, “We’re doing a lot of winning — I’m almost getting tired of winning so much because we’re winning all across the country.”
Unfortunately for the alleged UNESCO advisor, Texas put a stop to his string of victories by defeating Governor Abbott's voucher plan. Ouch.
At the root of Abbott's defeat is a caveat that probably holds true in Tennessee.
"The school choice movement is gaining momentum, but one obstacle continues to be Republicans in the suburbs and some rural areas who are allied with the teachers unions," The Wall Street Journal editorial board noted at the time. "They mistakenly figure their schools are fine and they've already exercised choice by where they live."
It's an important consideration. One that I'm pretty sure the House and Senate have taken into consideration, but I doubt the Governor has. After all his advisors don't live in Tennessee.
Once the bills are actually released, questions will also change.
Will the House version include enough bells and whistles to entice reluctant House members to vote in support? Currently, estimates are that Education Saving Accounts fall short of passage - predictions are it's a 60-40 vote against.
If both the Senate version and the House pass their bills, what does reconciliation look like? What gets stricken? And how does it impact House members who only signed on for the benefits?
Yep...this one still has a long way to go and a short time to get there.
- - -
I touched on it briefly Friday, but last week's State Board of Education meeting deserves more dissection.
Friday, the SBE considered two rules related to Tennessee's new third-grade retention law. During the discussion of the proposed rules, the board took on a role they don't often play - that of advocate.
By considering the addition of a rule allowing third-graders who failed to score proficient to advance if they scored 40% or better on a district universal screener, all vested parties - school and family - are on board with the student moving to fourth grade. Additionally, the student has to agree to a full year of tutoring.
The law puts the threshold at 50%, so the lowering of the bar by the SBE would put the rule outside the boundaries dictated by the law. The board's attorney raised this point and board members withdrew the proposal for further study. Even in withdrawal, it was clear that board members took issue with portions of the law.
Board member Ryan Holt indicated that he plans to bring several resolutions to the board's next special meeting in March. Holt is proposing a re-evaluation of the literacy law and a call for lawmakers to create more pathways for students to advance to the next grade with support instead of retention. The board is further considering advocating for a move to a shift in focus from third and fourth grade to first and second grade.
The role of advocacy is not one often taken on by the SBE, but it is one outlined in their Masterplan,
T.C.A. § 49-1-302 charges the State Board with developing and maintaining a master plan for public education, kindergarten through grade twelve, and providing recommendations to the executive branch, the general assembly and the local boards of education and directors of schools regarding the use of public funds for education.
How effective they will be, remains to be determined.
When it comes to a shift in focus for retention, several lawmakers believe that the General Assembly has established a backstop, and if districts feel they would be better served by focusing on first and second grade, they are free to do so. It is a local decision up until the point it becomes a state decision.
In talking with the state legislature, none took issue with the board assuming its advisory role, and all felt that everybody remained on the same page.
Senate House Education Committee Chair State Senator Jon Lundberg did say that he would have preferred a simpler definition for how adequate growth is calculated for at-risk fourth graders. One that is clear to both parents and lawmakers.
According to The Tennessean, "Out of the roughly 75,000 students who were third graders in the 2022-23 school year, 8-9% of them could be held back by the end of this school year. That number includes the initial 1.2% along with the projected 5,000-6,000 more at risk in fourth grade."
- - -
A long-standing lawsuit filed by several long-term Metro Nashville Public School administrators is getting closer to going to trial, barring any settlement agreement between parties.
The plaintiffs allege that MNPS, and specifically Director of Schools Adrienne Battle, retaliated against them for speaking up against wrongdoing. They also allege race, sex, and age discrimination claims. Finally, they claim the District violated their tenure rights.
In December, the Sixth Circuit agreed that the charges have merit for trial, and in some cases reversed the decisions of a lower district court who dismissed some charges.
In the case of former Whites Creek Principal James Baily, it reinstated his First Amendment retaliation claim.
According to the ruling:
James Bailey was a local high school principal that the District removed during the reorganization. Why? The District claimed his school underperformed.
But Bailey suspected otherwise. Two years earlier, a basketball coach at Bailey’s school assaulted a parent and mishandled program funds. That coach was Battle’s brother. Bailey investigated the incident, recommended discipline, and testified as a fact witness at the coach’s appeal hearing. At Bailey’s recommendation, the District chose not to renew the coach’s employment.
Then Battle became Director of Schools. And less than two months later, Bailey lost his position. Bailey claims the District (through Battle) removed him because he testified against Battle’s brother—and that this retaliation violated his First Amendment rights. The district court, however, held that the First Amendment didn’t protect Bailey’s testimony. We disagree.
The First Amendment protects public employees’ right to speak as citizens. Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 568 (1968). At the same time, when government hires an employee “to speak on the government’s behalf and convey its intended messages,” it can discipline Nos. 23-5027/5075, Hayes v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty.
employee for failing to comply. Kennedy v. Bremerton Sch. Dist., 142 S. Ct. 2407, 2423 (2022). That’s because speech “pursuant to . . . official duties” is considered “the government’s own speech.” Id.
Three factors guide our analysis of whether a government employee’s speech is private and protected. First, the employee must speak as a private citizen, not “pursuant to” his official duties. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410, 419, 421 (2006). Second, the speech must be on a matter of public concern. Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 146–47 (1983). Third, the government’s interests can’t outweigh the employee’s speech rights. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568.
Bailey’s testimony checks all three boxes.
Not a pretty look. The judgment is riddled with several equally bad looks.
No trial date has been set, but ultimately, the jury could award millions to the plaintiffs.
- - -
Staying with MNPS, this year's school board race has only one contested district.
MNPS is made up of 7 districts. Candidates are elected to 4-year terms, with odd and even districts running on alternate 2-year timelines. This year it is the odd districts where candidates are competing. Unfortunatly, there is a death of candidates.
Districts 3 and 5 do not have an incumbent seeking re-election, and each has one uncontested candidate — former Metro Councilmember Zach Young in District 3 and TK Fayne in District 5. Incumbents Freda Player (District 7) and Abigail Tylor (District 9) are also running uncontested.
District 5 is currently unoccupied. Board member Christine Buggs resigned last month to assume a leadership role with the Pencil Foundation. Plans for the remainder of term remain unclear and it appears constituents in her district, the largest in the city, will go unrepresented until September.
District 1 is the only contested race. Incumbent Sharon Gentry is not pursuing re-election.
Kelsey Beyeler does a good job of outing the qualifications of all four candidates.
While all are highly qualified, my preference continues to lie with Robert Taylor. Per the Nashville Scene,
"Robert Taylor has run for the seat before. An educator at Meharry Medical College, Taylor has also worked as a family involvement specialist for Whites Creek Cluster schools. In his experience as a former board member at charter school Smithson Craighead Academy, Taylor says he has learned the importance of supporting leadership and turning struggling schools around. Regarding charters, Taylor says the district currently has enough to meet the goals of a charter model."
While District 1 is certainly a beneficiary of the democratic process, the lack of candidates in the other races has to be concerning. In the past School Board elections were contested in nearly every race. Ironically, Buggs was the only candidate to run opposed the last time these seats were open.
A few years ago, MsBuggs founded an organization dedicated to increasing voter rolls across the state, a worthy pursuit. However, if elections are already predetermined before those voters get to the polls, that doesn't benefit anyone.
- - -
Time 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 real tight, while the blogging workload increases exponentially.
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’m sharing posts via email through Substack. This has proven to be an effective way to increase coverage. Readers have the option of either free or paid subscriptions. Paid subscriptions will potentially receive additional materials as they become available. Your support would be greatly appreciated.
If you wish to join the rank of donors but are not interested in Substack, you can still head over to Patreon and help a brother out. Or you can hit up my Venmo account which is Thomas-Weber-10. I don’t need much – even $5 would help – but if you think what I do has value, a little help is always greatly appreciated. Not begging, just saying,