The Biggest Losers

Grace Tatter over at Chalkbeat has a breakdown of Governor Haslam’s BEP changes. While this year’s budget includes an influx of dollars, it also freezes BEP 2.0.

Tatter explains:

Though the governor’s plan nixes BEP 2.0, it permanently increases the state’s spending on English language learners (funding ELL teachers at a 1:20 student ratio and translators at a 1:200 student ratio), and special education students, technology and teacher pay, especially when it comes to teachers insurance. For years, the state only paid for teachers to have 10 months of health insurance. Last year, the General Assembly mandated that the state provide for 11 months of insurance. Haslam’s proposal this year finally gives teachers’ year-round insurance.

It’s important to note here that districts are already paying for year-round insurance for teachers, now they will receive some funding for it. The state funds teacher insurance at 45% of the projected cost for a district’s BEP-generated teaching positions. Until last year, it funded 45% of this cost for only 10 months, now it will shift to 12 months. It’s also worth noting that every single district in the state hires teachers beyond the BEP-generated number. Typically, around 12-15% more than what the BEP formula generates. Districts cover the full cost of salary and insurance for all teachers hired beyond the BEP number.

If districts only hired the BEP number of teachers, they could reduce local costs, but they’d also likely have some pretty unhappy parents on their hands. So, yes, the Governor’s proposed changes do direct additional funds to districts. But the changes do not address the underlying problem with the BEP. Doing so would cost another $250 to $300 million. That would be the cost of adjusting the ratios by 10-15% for teachers. That’s not to mention nurses, counselors, and other positions. And it doesn’t include capital funding.

The BEP Review Committee has been highlighting these deficiencies for years to no avail.

Additionally, Tatter mentions:

Another carryover from BEP 2.0 is the eventual elimination of a “cost differential factor,” known as CDF, that 16 districts in five counties receive to address a higher cost of living. Reducing the CDF would cut state spending by about $34.7 million. Almost half of that money would have gone to Shelby County Schools and the municipal districts in Shelby County. Other counties that would be impacted are Davidson, Anderson, Williamson and Sullivan.

While BEP 2.0 envisioned elimination of the CDF, it also envisioned the state covering 75% of teacher salaries for BEP-generated teachers. The Haslam changes makes the current 70% permanent.

Here are the districts losing money under the CDF elimination. The CDF is cut in half for the upcoming year and then completely eliminated in 2017-18.

Shelby
             30,873,136
Davidson
             17,570,727
Williamson
             11,073,924
Bartlett
                2,111,966
Collierville
                2,007,525
Germantown
                1,411,972
Franklin SSD
                1,260,978
Arlington
                1,169,503
Millington
                   672,030
Anderson
                   473,867
Oak Ridge
                   320,368
Lakeland
                   243,331
Sullivan
                      78,161
Clinton City
                      72,903
Kingsport
                      54,638
Bristol City
                      30,682
Total
69,425,713

It’s not clear whether these changes will impact the current lawsuits regarding funding adequacy. And the additional funds still don’t address the unfunded RTI mandate.

The ultimate impact of the changes will take a few years to determine. However, without significant structural changes, it is difficult to see this “new BEP” adequately meeting the needs of Tennessee’s schools.

More on the BEP:

Bill Dunn Wrong

They Noticed

Clay County and the Broken BEP

Why is TN 40th?

About BEP 2.0

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Just Like Mississippi

This letter to the editor about the current school funding crisis in Mississippi reminded me of the funding issues faced in Tennessee as a result of a Governor and legislature so far unwilling to properly fund our public schools.

Of particular interest was this note:

Every citizen of Mississippi pays taxes; income tax, sales tax and others; and a portion of that tax is required to be used to fund public education in this state. Again, the law is known as MAEP. When the legislature fails to obey this law, two things happen: First, the legislature gets to use the money it did not spend for pubic education for other purposes, even for funding private education with public money. Second, the local school districts, because the functions of running a school district must continue, have to request more local funding from the boards of supervisors. This, in turn, causes the supervisors to have to raise local millage rates.

This is effectively double taxation to fund education.

Except for the fact that Tennessee does not have an income tax, this is exactly what is happening in our state. Citizens are paying state taxes, the state is underfunding schools, and local governments are raising property taxes in order to address the shortfall.

In fact, because of revenue issues, Clay County’s School Board recently voted to delay the re-opening of schools following Fall Break.

And, Tennessee’s school funding challenge can be met without raising taxes. Yes, we have a $600 million surplus for 2015 fiscal year. Are legislative leaders talking about using that money to invest in schools?

No.

Instead, they are talking about more tax breaks for the investor class or building roads.

When the state fails to adequately support public schools and then passes down expensive, unfunded mandates, local taxpayers end up footing the bill.

Let me say this again: Tennessee taxpayers paid more than $600 million more than was projected just last year. Revenue is up above projections again this year. And legislators are talking about using the extra money for roads and tax breaks, but not schools.

That means taxpayers will likely see local tax increases or that local schools will go without needed resources — or, in some cases, both.

The BEP — the state’s funding formula for schools, is broken. But, the legislature is not yet poised to fix it.

When it comes to support for schools, Tennessee’s General Assembly is a lot like Mississippi’s.

For more on education politics and policy, follow @TNEdReport

Money for Roads but Not Schools?

House Speaker Beth Harwell is talking about using the state’s revenue surplus to fund road projects — but has made no mention yet of how the General Assembly might begin to fund the $500 million+ being sought by school systems across the state in a lawsuit over funding adequacy.

According to the Tennessean:

The Nashville Republican noted that state tax collections continue to exceed expectations, estimating the state could receive $400 million more than anticipated. With talk of a potential gas tax increase floating around the state, Harwell said that extra one-time tax money should fund some of the many shelved state road projects.

Certainly, investing in infrastructure is wise. But, so is investing in schools.

And since the state’s BEP Review Committee says Tennessee is about $500 million behind in funding its schools and since school systems are suing demanding adequacy in light of unfunded mandates like Response to Intervention (RTI2), it would make sense to use some of the new money to begin investing in schools.

Of course, Harwell’s #2, Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, has already expressed his displeasure with school systems seeking proper funding.

The point is this: There’s money to fund some infrastructure projects AND to begin investing in schools — and it can be started without a tax increase.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

Why is he so angry?

Gerald McCormick is pissed.

The House Majority Leader apparently doesn’t like it very much when the school system in the county he represents sues the state alleging inadequate school funding.

So, now he’s going to teach them a lesson. He’s supporting a measure that is nothing more than a blatant attempt to keep school boards from asking for the adequate school funding they need.

Andrea Zelinski has the story:

Legislators are baking into one of several budget bills a ban on local school districts using state money for attorney’s fees, court costs or other expenses to sue the state, state agency or state official.

“I know you don’t want your own dog to bite you, I understand that part of it. But still, it seems a little unfair if you have a just cause against the state and you can’t have the ability to sue them,” said House Minority Leader Craig Fitzhugh, D-Ripley, in a Finance Committee meeting Wednesday night before lawmakers approved the change on a voice vote.

If the state were to prevail in a legal challenge, the legislation would give the state power to recoup its own legal costs by pulling money out the school district’s education funding, also known as the Basic Education Program, BEP, funding formula. The language would also apply to county and municipal governing bodies suing the state, and would pull from its state-shared taxes if the local government lost.

McCormick is on record this legislative session as saying Tennessee’s public schools have adequate funding. And he’s clearly not happy with his home county suing and asking him to work a little harder at his job.

Note that I bolded that words: If the state were to prevail in a legal challenge.

That’s because every time the State of Tennessee has been sued over school funding, the state has lost. So, local boards probably have nothing to worry about.

In fact, funding now is nearing the levels deemed constitutionally inequitable in the Small Schools III lawsuit.

Of course, the current lawsuit by Hamilton County and six other districts is actually claiming funding is inadequate. That’s a fair claim, at least if you read the reports from the state’s own BEP Review Committee.

And, despite McCormick’s claims to the contrary, the state isn’t even funding its mandates. For example, the Response to Intervention and Instruction (RTI2) program is mandated, but there are no state funds to support it.

Here’s why that’s especially troubling:

…those districts with higher concentrations of poverty (and likely to have higher numbers of students needing intervention) also have the least resources available to assist students.  The poorest districts, then, are left further behind as a result of a well-intentioned unfunded state mandate.

The unfunded RTI mandate is clear evidence of inadequacy and also sets the stage for further inequity in Tennessee schools.

Rather than dig deep and find some solutions, Gerald McCormick and his legislative buddies appear willing to attempt to punish school boards. Here’s some advice: If you don’t want to be sued for inadequately and inequitably funding Tennessee schools, get to work finding the resources to support them and a funding formula that distributes those resources fairly.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

RTI Rollout Rushed?

Grace Tatter over at Chalkbeat has a story about Tennessee’s RTI2 program implementation in which she notes that the program’s mandates have come largely unfunded by the State of Tennessee.

The Response to Intervention and Instruction program is designed to identify students who are struggling and get them extra assistance before they fall too far behind.

In practice, the program means many students miss related arts or even social studies and science in order to spend extra time in remediation for math and reading, the two subjects tested on the state’s TCAP test.

Additionally, many districts report they lack the funding to provide subject-matter teachers and so individuals not certified in math or reading may be in charge of certain remediation classrooms.

Tatter notes:

Districts have had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on assessments, and don’t have the money to hire educators with the expertise required to work with the highest needs students. Some schools are using their general education teachers, already stretched thin, and others are using computer programs.

The state’s RTI2 policy identifies the intervention levels for students:

According to the state RTI2 policy, students should be divided into three groups: the majority, on grade level, are in Tier 1, students in the bottom 25th percentile of students across the country  are in Tier 2, and students in the bottom 10th percentile are in Tier 3.

All students, regardless of tier, get an hour of intervention time a day. For Tier 2 and Tier 3, intervention time is spent in small groups, ideally of fewer than five students, working on specific skills, while for kids in Tier 1 it might be enrichment activities.

Tatter notes that Metro Nashville Public Schools is among the districts taking advantage of the flexibility offered by the state to serve a smaller pool of students.

Essentially, if a district feels it lacks adequate resources to provide services to the bottom 25 perfcent of students, it can shift down to a smaller number, 16% in Tier 2 in MNPS for example, and the bottom 7% in Tier 3.

The shift at MNPS means they can focus on a smaller pool, but it also highlights the challenge faced by districts across the state. That is, those districts with higher concentrations of poverty (and likely to have higher numbers of students needing intervention) also have the least resources available to assist students.  The poorest districts, then, are left further behind as a result of a well-intentioned unfunded state mandate.

Tatter notes that education researchers and practitioners believe RTI2 can work and work well, but without proper support, many districts are struggling to make that happen.

More on RTI2 from our friends over at Bluff City Ed

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

 

Mandated to Death

That’s how Sewanee Elementary School teacher Rachel Reavis says she feels when it comes to the amount of testing going on in her school these days.

Reavis made the remarks at a forum with a local school board member hosted by the school’s PTO.

The Sewanee Mountain Messenger has the full story of the meeting, where parents and teachers alike expressed frustration at the amount of testing being done, even at the pre-k level.

Nine Tests in Pre-K?

Parent Janna McClain, a former academic interventionist in Murfreesboro, said her son will take nine mandated tests this year in pre-K. “Who thought that was a good idea? As a parent it would be helpful to know what it is our teachers are being forced to do,” McClain said. “I think the rationale is to prepare for these tests that are connected to dollars, so we have to do more and more tests,” she added. “I understand mandated testing, but I don’t want my child tested nonstop.”

Principal Agrees: Testing is Excessive

“The pendulum has swung to excessive testing,” said SES principal Mike Maxon. “There needs to be a balance.” Certain programs that involve mandated testing also require additional interventions in specific areas, which can be detrimental because it draws students away from other core subjects and creative learning.

Maxon went on to note that the interventions, a part of the Response to Intervention program (RTI2), are being conducted by related arts teachers and guidance counselors because financial support is not provided by the state to pay for the required interventions.

For his part, school board member Adam Tucker said he understands parent and teacher concerns about excessive testing and wants to explore options to reduce testing so students can focus on related arts and other areas that enrich the educational experience.

More on Testing

A Tennessee Teacher Challenges Arne Duncan

Toward a New Model of Testing in Tennessee?

Parents, Educators Challenge Over-Reliance on Testing

Amy Frogge vs. Testing

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport