State Rep. John Ray Clemmons again pursues his anti-lunch shaming bill and you can watch legislators respond thanks to TN Holler:
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.
Dr. Bill Smith of Johnson City writes about the reality of current education policy in his latest piece for the Johnson City Press.
In the 40 years since Anyon’s article was published, accountability measures have standardized public school curricula, and testing pressures have kept teachers from deviating from these standards. Although there has been some effort in recent years to include higher-level learning expectations in mandated curricula, the inherent limitations of standardized testing make it unlikely that many of today’s classrooms — even in the most well-funded schools — can provide the rich, engaging learning experiences children had in the affluent professional and executive elite schools Anyon studied.
However, as Nikhil Goyal wrote in 2016, it’s noteworthy that most of our politicians have enrolled their children “in schools outside the wrath of their own education policies.” Austere budgets and high stakes testing measures that narrow the curriculum and diminish the joy of learning are good enough for our children, but not for theirs.
That’s worth remembering whenever you hear politicians yammering about how they’re going to eliminate the achievement gap with $7,000 vouchers and more incentives to raise test scores.
Smith makes the point that what our leaders have not done so far is actually meaningfully increase investment in schools. Neither a more intense focus on testing nor the offering of vouchers will actually move the needle when it comes to student outcomes.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.
A lawsuit challenging the state’s voucher law has been filed by Nashville and Shelby County. Some highlights from the claim below.
Amendment No. 1 did not apply to Sen. Gresham’s home county of Fayette County or to any of the other six counties in Sen. Gresham’s district, despite Fayette County having two out of seven schools (28.6%) on the 2017 bottom 10% list and one out of seven schools (14.3%) on the 2018 list of priority schools.
Sen. Dickerson expressed concerned about the “unfair” process, noting that House votes were acquired based on promises to exclude certain counties from the bill:
So, for this bill to really be fair, I think it needs to apply to every child in Tennessee. There are members in this chamber who have said that they will vote for this bill because it does not apply to their county. It’s an okay bill, so long as it does not apply to their county. I think if it’s a good bill, we should embrace it for every county. And not to cut with too fine a point here, but in the, our, our chamber down the hall, the 50th vote came with the specific stipulation that this bill would not apply to the 50th vote’s county. It also came with a significant financial reward for that individual’s county, if reports are to be believed. And I really worry that this is very unfair, and this is not the way that we should be doing our business. I think this comes down to a victory at any cost.
Sen. Yarbro (D-Nashville) speaking on the Senate floor on April 25, 2019, called references to a “pilot project” a “false premise.” He noted that the bill, unlike true pilot projects, did not have a “sunset” provision. Rather, he said, the bill created a permanent $110 million state program for 15,000 students in only two counties.
Based on the combined statewide BEP average of $7,593 in 2019-2020, MNPS would lose 2,150 x $7,593 = approximately $16.3 million in funding for that school year. SCS would lose 2,850 x $7,593 = approximately $21.6 million in funding for the first year of implementation. This number likely underestimates the financial impact on MNPS and SCS, since the BEP per-pupil funding for 2020-2021 will likely be higher than the current year.
MNPS’s total funding loss over five years would be at least $163 million over the ESA Program’s first five years and would increase by at least $49 million annually in each succeeding year. The actual funding loss would likely be significantly higher, as the BEP per-pupil funding (whether MNPS’s or the combined statewide average) will undoubtedly increase over time.
SCS’s total funding loss over five years would be at least $216 million over the ESA Program’s first five years and would increase by at least $65 million annually in each succeeding year.
Vouchers are expensive. The program as designed unfairly impacts Nashville and Shelby County. Pro-voucher lawmakers worked to ensure their own counties would NOT be included in the program.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.
Governor Bill Lee’s signature legislative achievement — school vouchers — will face a legal challenge from the City of Nashville, Chalkbeat reports:
Tennessee’s new voucher law is expected to get its first legal challenge this week from Nashville and its school district.
Attorneys for Metropolitan Nashville government were putting the finishing touches on a complaint Wednesday that’s expected to name Gov. Bill Lee and his education commissioner, Penny Schwinn, concerning the controversial 2019 law.
A special called meeting of the school board for Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools is set for Thursday morning, where Mayor John Cooper and his law director, Bob Cooper, are scheduled to deliver an “important announcement,” according to a notice shared Wednesday with news organizati
The vote to authorize vouchers is under separate investigations from both the FBI and TBI.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.
In Monday’s State of the State Address, Governor Bill Lee outlined a proposal for a 4% adjustment to the BEP salary schedule. This will likely mean an actual increase for teachers of 2% or less. In fact, the Associated Press reports that when pressed on the issue, Administration officials admitted that the nature of the BEP means teachers likely won’t receive an actual 4% pay bump.
A day after Gov. Bill Lee boasted he was proposing the largest investment in teacher pay in Tennessee history, top administration officials acknowledged the addition wouldn’t necessarily result in big pay raises for the state’s educators.
Finance and Administration Commissioner Stuart McWhorter told lawmakers Tuesday it was Lee’s “intent” for teachers to receive a 4% raise under the governor’s recently unveiled spending plan for the upcoming fiscal year. However, due to the state’s complicated school funding formula, teachers could get a smaller pay bump.
One way to ensure this “intent” becomes reality is to require the state minimum salary schedule be adjusted by the same 4% that the Governor is proposing and the legislature will hopefully approve. That hasn’t always happened.
Of course, another challenge is that while the amount allotted for salaries is increasing, the BEP formula underestimates teacher need by at least 9000 positions:
In Tennessee, classroom size requirements have forced districts to hire more than 9,000 teachers beyond what the BEP provides to pay for their salaries, according to a statewide analysis presented by the Department of Education in December to the BEP Review Committee.
Lee’s proposal does nothing to address the structural inadequacy of the BEP. This means districts are forced to distribute salary funds in a way that virtually ensures the 4% increase results in a raise that’s half that or less when it comes to teacher paychecks.
Teachers can’t pay their mortgage with an “intended raise.” Actual money is needed to both boost pay and adequately staff schools.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.
Jeremy Mohler of In the Public Interest tells the real story of National School Choice Week:
Last week was “National School Choice Week,” and odds are you’re confused. Why was there a week dedicated to something nobody would argue against? Shouldn’t every child be able to attend a great school?
The answers lie in who paid for the bright yellow scarves and signs on display at last week’s thousands of events.
Surely some well-meaning parents and students celebrated. But they were joined by powerful people who, despite what they say, don’t believe that every child deserves a great school.
Instead, these people believe in a certain kind of choice over all others. In their worldview, market choice is more important than democracy, parents are consumers rather than members of a broader community, and education is a competition between students, with winners and losers.
National School Choice Week was founded in 2011 by the Gleason Family Foundation, the philanthropy arm of a machine tool manufacturing company in Rochester, New York. As of 2017—the most recent year data is publicly available, albeit incomplete—the foundation gave at least $688,000 to organize the self-described “nonpartisan, nonpolitical, independent public awareness effort.” The total is likely higher—in 2014, the foundation’s spending on the week topped $4.3 million.
The Gleason Family Foundation has little public presence, not even a website, but much can be gleaned from who it supports. As of 2016, it had given money to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the Cato Institute, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice (now called EdChoice), and countless other conservative organizations bent on privatizing public education.
So, the “choice” in National School Choice Week clearly means certain educational options, namely private school vouchers and charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately operated.
But it goes further than that. By recklessly pushing vouchers and charter schools at all costs, the privatizers funding the school choice movement actually aim to eliminate choices for parents, students, and teachers.
Shouldn’t parents have the choice to send their child to a well-funded neighborhood public school? Yet, private school vouchers siphon precious funding from public school districts, many of them already struggling to raise revenue.
Additionally, research has shown that each new charter school that opens diverts money from districts. Charter schools cost Oakland, California’s school district $57.3 million per year, meaning $1,500 less in funding for each student who attends a neighborhood school. Last fall, the struggling district moved forward with a plan to begin closing 24 of its 80 schools. Budget pressure caused by unlimited charter school growth surely contributed to this decision.
Simply put, allowing more and more charter schools to open threatens the existence of by-right, neighborhood public schools.
Polling shows that parents prefer neighborhood public schools, as long as those schools receive adequate investment. A majority of Americans also agree that public schools need more money. Yet, the well-funded, conservative members of the school choice movement don’t agree with these choices.
ALEC and think tanks like Cato are staunch advocates for lower taxes on corporations and the wealthy, which has slowly drained money from America’s public education system, especially in the wake of the 2008 recession.
The majority of states continue to spend less on education than they did ten years ago. More than half of the country’s public schools are in need of repairs. In 2018, more than 60 percent of schools didn’t employ a full- or part-time nurse. Nationally, teacher pay is so low, nearly 1 in 5 teachers works a second job.
This all fits squarely with the school choice movement’s worldview that market competition belongs everywhere, even in public education. Instead of investing in all public schools, and especially those where the needs are greatest, the likes of the Gleason Family Foundation want our communities to leave public education up to private markets.
Simply put, the funders of National School Choice Week don’t share the same values as the many parents who just want a great school for their child.
Here’s what school choice should mean: every family should be able to make their neighborhood school their top choice, and every school should be a first choice for somebody.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.
Nashville school board member Amy Frogge takes on the notion of “school choice.” Here’s what she has to say:
Let’s consider for a moment the notion of “school choice.” This phrase is a political term that has been used to promote school privatization (through vouchers and charter schools). We hear the phrase frequently these days because it is spread by political PR machines to pave the way for money-making schemes through public education. This seemingly innocuous term appeals to many parents and citizens who are unaware of education policy debates and just believe that this term means allowing parents to choose great schools for their children. Of course, no one is opposed to giving parents options, but that’s not what “school choice” really means in the context of education discussions now.
As education historian Diane Ravitch documents in her most recent book, “School choice, it should be remembered, was the goal of Southern governors in the decade after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka decision of 1954. For many years, the term ‘school choice’ was stigmatized because most people, familiar with the backlash to the Brown decision, understood that ‘choice’ was a strategy devised by Southern governors to preserve racial segregation. The racist origins of school choice are well documented.”
Because the history of this phrase is largely forgotten, the use of this term from disparate groups makes for some strange bedfellows in the political world. On one hand, there are there are those who support “choice” from the perspective of need. These folks, primarily people of color, live in marginalized communities that have suffered decades of disinvestment. Their schools, which are segregated, underfunded, and often overcrowded, serve the neediest children without adequate support to meet the needs of those children who have experienced trauma and difficult life circumstances. When these families exercise “choice,” they are contributing to greater equity in the school system, and I am sympathetic to their circumstances. Charter schools appeal to these families, who see charters as a way to escape their neglected neighborhood schools.
On the other hand, “school choice” is also promoted by more affluent, white parents who would prefer more segregated public schools. This agenda is being driven by billionaire white men, who like to utilize (paid) people of color as the face of their movement. The white parents supporting the segregation agenda sometimes openly push to keep black children out of classrooms with their own children. In a bizarre twist, these white parents often end up advocating for “choice” alongside disenfranchised African-American parents who have suffered discrimination.
Ultimately, the real “school choice” debate should come down to equity, or in other words, ensuring that every child gets a fair shot at a great education. When children are bussed off to schools outside their zones or when families select schools across the city, the underlying question is whether those “choices” increase or decrease equity in the school district overall. I have long advocated for families on the west side to try their zoned schools, because this increases equity and also because our schools are very good, despite the bad rap they sometimes receive. I have long opposed charter schools because they decrease funding for schools serving the neediest students, because they increase school segregation, and because they are unregulated, which leads to fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars. These, again, are equity issues.
But here’s the underlying problem: MNPS has not undertaken the work necessary to create effective pathways for ALL children to be well served. Opening the door wide to random “choice” may provide good options for some families, but leaves many more- almost always children in poverty- behind. I am hopeful that we will finally begin this work with Dr. Battle, who, having grown up in Nashville, truly understands the disparate needs of different areas of the city. The school system and the city, not parents, should be held responsible for ensuring greater equity across our district, and we should invite parents to help us in our work. The feeding frenzy we have created around the MNPS lottery system and certain schools only serves to decrease equity. The ideal is to have well-resourced schools in every neighborhood that are well supported by parents and their communities.
In the end, it’s really about the common good. “What the best and wisest parent wants for his child, that we must want for all the children of the community. Anything less is unlovely, and left unchecked, destroys our democracy.” (John Dewey) We must welcome all children regardless of their circumstances, provide greater resources for schools serving children with the greatest needs, encourage parent involvement, ensure that all of our schools are safe learning environments, and build community through our neighborhood schools, no matter where they are located. That’s the real secret for success.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.
Last year, Governor Bill Lee doubled the charter school slush fund while only offering a pittance to public school teachers. This year, he’s pulling a similar trick, again doubling the charter school slush fund — from $12 million to $24 million — while offering teachers a paltry 4% increase in the BEP salary number (which means an actual raise of about 2%).
Lee’s 2020-21 budget includes $24 million in funding for charter school facilities. This is a 100% improvement over the 2019-2020 budget. Simultaneously, Lee is touting a 4% increase in BEP funding for teacher salaries. This means an actual raise of less than 2% for most teachers. Even if you assume a net gain of 4%, you get a 70 cent an hour raise.
Let’s be clear: Governor Lee prioritizes charter schools over Tennessee’s public school teachers. His last two budgets make that plain.
It’s also worth noting that Lee has made NO effort to improve BEP funding even as the state’s own Department of Education indicates we are 9000 teachers short of proper funding:
In Tennessee, classroom size requirements have forced districts to hire more than 9,000 teachers beyond what the BEP provides to pay for their salaries, according to a statewide analysis presented by the Department of Education in December to the BEP Review Committee.
So, we’re at a minimum of $500 million short of properly funding our schools and Lee’s proposal is to give the teachers we have a 2% raise. No word on improving the BEP. No word on a significant salary boost for existing teachers. Just 2% for teachers (4% in BEP funds), and another 100% increase for charter schools.
Could Gov. Lee’s priorities be more clear?
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.
Textbook publisher Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) is alleging that the Tennessee Department of Education “unilaterally altered” the textbook adoption process in a way that disadvantaged HMH and possibly benefitted other, preferred vendors.
The complaint, filed in Davidson County Chancery Court, makes the following claims:
However, the Department unilaterally altered the adoption process
when it had already begun and significant steps already had been completed.
The original schedule was suspended when Dr. Lisa Coons became the
Department’s new Assistant Commissioner for Standards and Materials
The Department then proposed various changes to the adoption process,
and the Commission agreed to make certain changes to the re-review process in response thereto.
HMH notes that after the new process was in place, HMH’s Into Reading Tennessee, Grade 3 was failed. While HMH’s materials were failed, HMH suggests competing programs that were failed by the re-reviewers were ultimately awarded passing grades by the Tennessee Department of Education.
The net result: Because HMH’s 3rd grade materials were failed, school districts will be discouraged from adopting the HMH materials as a whole, as the materials build on each other through grade level series.
Here’s the real question: Why was the process changed mid-stream? What was behind Coons’ revamping of the process? Why were some materials that previously failed to meet standards ultimately adopted? Was there a preferred vendor (as was the case in the recent awarding of a contract to ClassWallet)?
So far, the tenure of Commissioner of Education Penny Schwinn has been marked by lots of questions and very few answers.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.
A court order out of North Carolina could have implications for the ongoing school funding lawsuit in Tennessee. Here’s more:
On January 21, Wake County Judge David Lee signed a consent order in North Carolina’s long-running Leandro v. State school funding case adopting the comprehensive findings and recommendations in a study ordered by the court to bring the state’s public school system into constitutional compliance. The study, conducted by the national research organization WestEd and filed with Judge Lee in late 2019, identifies in detail the State’s current failure to provide students with a constitutional sound basic education and recommends major reforms to ensure adequate funding and essential resources for all students.
Shelby County and Nashville have filed suit against the State of Tennessee alleging inadequate funding. More recently, a group of lawmakers has proposed an additional $1.5 billion investment in Tennessee public schools.
Here are the recommendations made by the funding study in North Carolina:
Adequate and equitable funding: The State should increase school funding by $7 billion over the next eight years: $3.2 billion in the short term focused on at-risk students, followed by an additional $3.7 billion. An additional $1.18 billion is recommended to expand high quality preschool. Beyond increased funding, the State should overhaul the school finance system to ensure stability, predictability and progressivity, and target funds to programs for at-risk students, including preschool; support services, such as counselors and social workers; teacher pipeline reforms; and principal preparation. The finance reforms should also require periodic review and adjustment of the funding formula and direct State funding of charter schools.
Qualified, well-prepared and diverse teaching staff: The State should invest in improving the preparation of qualified teachers in high need schools by increasing support for North Carolina Teaching Fellows; State university teacher preparation programs, including at HBCUs; and district grow-your-own programs. Teacher compensation must be increased, especially for teachers in high-poverty districts, along with funding for ongoing professional development, teacher diversity and culturally responsive teaching.
Qualified and well-prepared principals: The State should update licensure and preparation requirements, expand access to high-quality principal preparation programs, and improve principal compensation and supports.
High Quality Preschool: In addition to a recommended $1.18 billion increase to expand high quality preschool, the State should prioritize access for at-risk children, improve the preschool teacher workforce, and work with high-poverty districts to ensure programs serve community needs and use aligned instruction to transition children from preschool to the early grades.
Initiatives for At-Risk Students: Reforms are needed to attract and retain highly qualified teachers in high poverty districts; revise the accountability system to be less punitive; provide whole child supports, such as counselors, nurses and social workers; and address out-of-school barriers, such as hunger and homelessness.
Assessments and accountability: Assessment and accountability reforms are necessary to ensure coherence and alignment to curriculum and learning goals provide a broader picture of school/district performance and progress and use evidence-based support to improve performance.
Low-performing and high-poverty schools: A critical (and often-overlooked) recommendation is to rebuild the State Department of Public Instruction’s capacity to support districts and school improvement and to work with high poverty districts to address out-of-school barriers to academic achievement through a community schools approach.
Continued Court Oversight: Judge Lee should appoint a panel of experts to assist in monitoring State compliance in the implementation of the recommended remedies and require State submission of reports and annual plans, with metrics to measure progress.
While the actual numbers may be different, many of these items could easily be applied to Tennessee. Our state fails to fund initiatives like RTI and continues to underfund counselors, nurses, and other key support staff. Additionally, the Department of Education reports the state is failing to provide funding for 9000 teachers hired by districts.
As Education Law Center notes:
The WestEd report and Judge Lee’s consent order represent a milestone in the long road to ensure the State effectuates the fundamental right of every child in North Carolina to have the opportunity to receive a sound basic education in a public school. The study and the order also provide a solid roadmap to guide advocates and lawyers working to achieve comprehensive school finance reforms in other states across the nation.
Instead of waiting for a court order, Governor Lee and the General Assembly could begin moving this session to adequately fund Tennessee public schools.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — $5 or more today — makes publishing education news possible.