Bill Lee has had his eye on the privatizing of Tennessee public schools long before he became Governor. However, when he announced his “Education Savings Account” plan along with a state charter authorizer that would undermine local school boards, many predicted he’d face some difficulty this legislative session. Turns out, Lee may have a Byrd in the hand by way of a clever move to gain a vote for his ill-designed plan.
Recently, Governor Lee met with one of the women who has accused state representative David Byrd of inappropriate sexual conduct when he was her high school basketball coach. Byrd apologized directly and has not denied the conduct. Lee refused to condemn Byrd or suggest he resign. This despite former House Speaker Beth Harwell calling on Byrd to resign and current Lt. Governor Randy McNally have called for Byrd’s resignation in 2018 and more recently, suggesting an ethics investigation might be in order.
Why is Bill Lee reluctant to make a strong statement on Byrd? Well, Erik Schelzig of Tennessee Journal may have the answer:
The charter authorizer bill advanced out of that committee on a 13-9 vote, but only after House Speaker Glen Casada (R-Franklin) came to the panel to personally intervene. Casada was able to get several freshman Republican who voiced concerns about the measure to get on board.
The bill also got the support of embattled Rep. David Byrd (R-Waynesboro), whom school choice advocates have tried for years to to defeat because of his support for traditional public schools.
By all accounts, Lee is working overtime to get the votes he needs to pass his voucher plan. With Byrd’s support, Lee may be able to move the plan one step closer to final passage. Some have suggested Lee won’t criticize Byrd as long as Byrd goes along with a plan to devastate the state’s public school systems.
The next vote on vouchers is Wednesday at 8:00 AM in the full House Education Committee. David Byrd sits on that committee and his vote could be pivotal. Does Bill Lee really have a Byrd in the hand?
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support — a one-time or ongoing contribution — makes reporting education news sustainable.
Nashville school board member Amy Frogge talks about a key vote on Governor Bill Lee’s voucher plan — a vote scheduled for Wednesday, March 27th.
HEADS UP, everyone! THIS IS IT. Vouchers will be up for a key vote this coming Wednesday, March 27th, at 8 am in the full House Education Committee, and this is our best chance to stop them in Tennessee. IT IS SUPER IMPORTANT THAT WE ACT NOW.
Here’s information on the bill: HB 939/SB 795 would create a new form of vouchers in Tennessee called Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). ESAs have been described as “vouchers on steroids.” This proposed legislation is targeted not toward “children trapped in failing schools,” but toward wealthier families, with virtually no regulation or public accountability. Vouchers would be available in any district containing at least three schools in the bottom 10% of schools in the state, but vouchers would be made available to ALL students in that district, including those enrolled in high-performing schools and private schools. Families making up to around $100,000 per year would be eligible for the voucher, and private schools would not be required to accept the voucher as payment in full. This means that more affluent families with children already enrolled in private schools could use the voucher to help offset their current payments for private school. It will also allow students to cross county lines with their vouchers, which could wreak havoc on many rural school districts.
Local school districts will have to pay for the bulk of these vouchers. (For example, in Davidson County, the state would pay only about $3,600 toward the cost of the voucher, while Davidson County would be required to pay about $8,100 per voucher.) On top of this, the state would withhold a 6% management fee for the voucher program. The governor has claimed that a limited amount of funding will be available to school districts to help offset the cost of the vouchers for three years, but this money could be revoked at any time- and worse, vouchers will create ongoing recurring costs that school districts will be unable to cover for an indefinite period of time.
Once the door to vouchers has been opened, it cannot be shut. Under this legislation, vouchers would become an entitlement for upper middle class private school parents and homeschool parents.
HERE’S HOW YOU CAN HELP:
1. We need as many people as possible to attend the hearing. It will be in House Hearing Room 1 of the Cordell Hull Building.
2. Contact members of the committee NOW, and encourage your friends to do so. (Obviously, constituents of these members will make the greatest impact.)
Mark White, Chair 615-741-4415 rep.mark.white@capitol.tn.gov
As Governor Lee’s school voucher proposal begins its legislative journey today, the Tennessee School Boards Association (TSBA) is out with some key facts about the bill as it is currently constructed. These facts expose the plan for what it is: A large scale transfer of public money to fund unaccountable private schools. The plan fails to significantly address fraud and fails to hold schools receiving taxpayer dollars to the same standard as our state’s traditional public schools must meet.
Here’s more from TSBA:
EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (ESA)
This week, the the Administration filed Amendment 005240 to HB939/SB795 by Lamberth/Johnson, a caption bill, which is the Governor’s Education Savings Accounts (ESA) proposal. Click here to view the Amendment. There has been much speculation and reporting over the last several weeks about the details of the bill and we finally have the specific language. Some noteworthy provisions of the ESA bill are as follows:
Accountability. The accountability of participating ESA providers was a point of emphasis for many legislators. The Governor’s proposal only requires the ESA student to participate in annually administered TCAP tests for math and English language arts. There is no requirement for standardized or end-of-course testing in science, social studies, the Governor’s civics program, or the ACT, which is required in 11th grade. Public dollars will pay for education that is inconsistent with what the General Assembly has mandated of public schools. Recent emphasis on accountability has made Tennessee one of the fastest improving states in education. This ESA proposal abandons those efforts.
Zoning. An eligible student must be zoned to attend an LEA with 3 or more schools among the bottom 10%. However, there is no requisite time period for the student to have been zoned in that LEA. It appears a student could move to a qualifying LEA and immediately be eligible for the ESA program.
Postsecondary Funding. The bill defines a “legacy student” as a student who had graduated high school and has funds remaining in their ESA account. A legacy student can utilize the remaining funds for approved postsecondary expenses. This may create an unintended incentive for participants to minimize early education costs in order to save the funds for college.
Approved Expenses. Among the approved expenditures for ESA funds are contributions to a § 529 college savings educational investment trust account. However, there is nothing in the bill that requires the student/parent to actually use the fund for college or that prohibits withdrawal from the college savings account. In theory, a parent could apply all ESA funds from K-12 (approximately $100,000) to a § 529 account, then decide not use the funds for college and pocket the money, subject to withdrawal penalties.
Return to the LEA. A participating student may return to the LEA at any time, at which point, the ESA would be closed and any remaining funds returned to the state. However, there is no requirement that any balance remain in the ESA at the time of return. An ESA participant could use all disbursements up to that point (e.g. approved computer hardware or other technological devices) and return to the LEA without penalty, at which point the LEA bears the entire financial burden of educating the child for the remainder of the school year.
Enrollment Limit. Enrollment is capped at 5,000 in the first year, but will triple to 15,000 by the fifth year and grow by 1,000 each year thereafter, assuming sufficient applications are submitted. The Governor plans to budget $25 million in each of the next three years to fund the anticipated first year of implementation in 2021-2022. It is difficult to image how this ESA program with a maximum enrollment could be funded in five years without significantly reducing the funds available for public education.
LEA Reimbursement. The Governor’s proposal was reported to include a reimbursement model to compensate LEAs for loss of funds associated with ESAs. While the bill creates an annual grant to reimburse LEAs in the amount of BEP funds diverted to ESAs, it limits the reimbursement period to 3 years and restricts the use to school improvements. Following that 3 year period, the grant funding will go exclusively to priority schools. This begs the question, how are LEAs supposed to compensate for the loss of funding due to ESAs? There is no indication that any funding will be provided for the loss after year 3 of the program.
Fraud Prevention. Other states with ESA programs have experienced rampant fraud. Some states only provide funds on a reimbursement basis after receipts are provided. The Governor’s proposal, on the other hand, requires the department to fund the ESA account at least quarterly and not on a reimbursement basis. The Department of Education is required to establish a fraud reporting service and may contract or conduct random, quarterly or annual review of accounts, but it is unclear exactly what monitoring and auditing procedures will ensure appropriate use of ESA funds.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your financial support helps make reporting education news possible.
As Governor Bill Lee’s voucher legislation begins the legislative process this week with a hearing in a House Education subcommittee, this information from Indiana offers a word of caution. The voucher program in Indiana expanded rapidly and now results in a $154 million decrease in state funds available for public schools.
Executive Summary Growth in Indiana’s budget for public school personnel has not kept up with growth in its general fund or even inflation. Specifically, the current budget for public school personnel is almost $300M behind the 2009-10 budget when inflation is taken into account.
Vouchers are also funded from the budget for public school personnel. In 2018-2019, over $150M of this budget was utilized to fund Vouchers — with very little accountability.
The girls and boys attending Indiana’s public schools are currently educated utilizing a budget that is lagging by $450M.
Indiana’s General Fund (i.e., monies legislators control)
The Consumer Price Index (inflation rate) has grown by 16.71% The Indiana General Fund has grown by 20.96% K-12 Tuition Support Budget has grown by only 12.12% Tuition Support funds nearly all personnel working in public schools Considering inflation, but momentarily ignoring the impact of Vouchers, the Tuition Support Budget is $295,031,840 behind 2010 funding for the current school year
How Vouchers Work
Depending on family income, a qualifying child can receive a Voucher worth up to 90% of their local public school’s per student funding Nearly 60% of voucher recipients have never attended a public school, but are now an additional cost taken from the Tuition Support Budget Of the remaining 40%, the majority attended public schools for only one year before the Voucher program, but not the same year The average public school student receives a little less than $6000, the average Voucher student receives $4258 The Voucher money is not taken from the local school, it is taken out of the Tuition Support Budget, (there is not a simple transfer of funds between the two schools) thereby decreasing the dollars for all public schools
Number of students’ educations funded by the tuition support budget
Public school enrollment during 2009-2019 is volatile, ranging from an increase of 3523 students in 2017-18 to a decrease of 4877 students in 2011-12 From 2010 to 2017, the US Census Bureau projects Indiana has lost 20,806 school-aged children. In that same period of time Indiana’s public and charter schools’ enrollment has only dropped by 6,158 from 1,036,839 students to 1,030,681 students. There were 36,328 voucher requests in 2018-19 The 36,328 vouchers in 2018-19 result in a 3.41% increase in students to be funded this year
Impact on the amount of money allocated per student by Indiana
The Voucher Program decreases funding for all public school students In 2009-10, the Tuition Support Budget allocation divided by enrolled public school students was $6,192 In 2018-19, the Tuition Support Budget allocation divided by only the enrolled public school students would be $6998, which is a 13% increase from 2009-10. However, the addition of Voucher students cut the average to $6,826 – only a 10.25% increase while the rate of inflation was 16.71% This results in approximately $154 million taxpayer dollars spent to fund vouchers that could have been utilized for the benefit of girls and boys attending public school
Fiduciary Oversight
There is no fiduciary oversight by the state of the Voucher money There are no requirements that keep Voucher taxpayer dollars from being used to enable the receiving organization to redirect its existing money for non-education purposes
Not only are vouchers costing Indiana taxpayers a lot of money, they simply aren’t getting results for kids.
Tennessee lawmakers would be wise to look at the impact of vouchers in other states. They’ll see a very expensive program that doesn’t get results.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support makes reporting education news sustainable.
Despite being represented by top voucher advocate Jack Johnson, the Franklin Special School District is speaking out against vouchers. Johnson, best known for his poor math skills and penchant for hypocrisy, is taking the lead in pushing forward Governor Bill Lee’s “Education Savings Account” proposals. Education Savings Accounts, or ESAs, are simply a nicer way to explain the process of taking money from public schools and funneling it to unaccountable private schools.
The Franklin Special School District Board of Education approved unanimously, by consent agenda, a resolution opposing the governor’s Education Savings Account (ESA) proposal, or voucher program, that would use public education dollars to fund private school education.
During his first State of the State address earlier this month, Gov. Bill Lee-R, proposed state funding of an Education Savings Account (ESA), or voucher, program that would allow qualifying parents to use public school funds to enroll their children in a private school, or non-public entity.
In recent days, both Eric Welch and Brad Fiscus of the Williamson County School Board have made their opposition to vouchers known.
While no one should be shocked that Bill Lee supports efforts to dismantle our public schools by way of both vouchers and rapid expansion of charter schools, what’s suprising to me is the number of school board members I talk with who supported Lee. It’s difficult to square support of Lee with support of public education in our state. Lee made clear both during the campaign and by his past involvement in voucher efforts that he is a proponent of using public money to fund private schools.
I suppose some of these same school board members are voting in favor of resolutions opposing vouchers. Perhaps if voucher legislation passes, they’ll explain to their constituents why a local property tax increase is necessary not to support any improvements in what’s offered, but to make up for lost revenue due to an ever-expanding voucher school district.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Williamson County School Board member Brad Fiscus offers thoughts on vouchers.
During Tennessee’s State of the State address, Governor Bill Lee made it clear that privatizing public education would be a significant initiative of his legislative agenda. While he professed his support for public schools, he also laid out his plan to strip away funding from public schools.
The
Governor’s plan proposes vouchers that would eliminate public accountability by
channeling tax dollars into private schools or home school programs that do not
face state-approved academic standards. Private schools do not publicly report
on student achievement and do not meet the public accountability requirements
outlined in major federal laws– including laws which protect students with
special needs. Vouchers are an easy, yet ineffective “out” for our
legislators– relieving our state leaders of their responsibility to provide
oversight and accountability for public schools as demanded by our state
constitution.
Governor Lee
has promised to restrict his “Education Savings Accounts” (ESA) to use by
students from low-income families from the lowest performing schools. These
Education Savings Accounts or education scholarship accounts or individual
education savings accounts or education scholarship tax credits are euphemisms
for vouchers.
In Indiana
in 2011, while now-Vice-President Mike Pence was Governor, vouchers were
approved. Similar to Governor Lee’s proposal, Indiana’s program initially
limited ESAs to 7500 students from low-income families in low performing
districts. As of 2018, over 35,000 students now utilize taxpayer money intended
for public education to pay private school fees. Indiana has spent a combined
$685 million on this publicly-funded private-school experiment. However, a
significant number of participating students were already attending private
schools or participating in homeschool programs. What’s more, studies reveal
these students are not improving academically. Voucher programs don’t work. Imagine
the benefit if Indiana had invested an additional $685 million in its public
schools, instead of subsidizing private schools.
Contrary to what proponents purport, voucher
programs do not support parent and student choice. Instead of voucher programs
providing options for parents and students, private schools have the chance to
choose which students will be accepted, while public education districts are
expected to provide a local system of free public education for all children.
Governor
Lee’s misguided plan will undermine the very schools the State of Tennessee
should be supporting. Until we address the socio-economic conditions that are
predominant in neighborhoods where underperforming schools operate, we will not
solve the issue of suboptimal school performance. We must invest in systems of
support and training, such as mentorship and literacy programs, that have been
proven effective with underserved children and youth, instead of taking
financial resources away.
In
Williamson County, a district with some of the highest performing schools in
the state despite some of the lowest per-student funding, we’re being told by
Senator Jack Johnson and House Speaker Glen Casada that “vouchers won’t affect
us because we have strong schools.” We have been told we “shouldn’t be
worried.” Why would the state’s top-ranked county want to ensure they are not
affected if vouchers are good for public education?
If Indiana’s
experience with vouchers is any indication, we can be sure this plan will
affect Williamson County schools. Even if it doesn’t, shouldn’t we care enough
about public education in other parts of Tennessee to prevent this program from
happening there?
Tell your legislators and our Governor that vouchers are not welcome in our state.
Brad Fiscus is a veteran teacher, a leader in the Tennessee Conference of The United Methodist Church, and a member of the Williamson County Board of Education, the following Op-Ed is his personal views and does not represent the thoughts or opinions of Williamson County Schools or the Board of Education.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support makes reporting education news possible.
In an absolutely epic Twitter thread, Williamson County School Board member Eric Welch makes a case for vouchers. Actually, he makes a case for voucher-level funding for public schools. Welch uses math to make his case. Here are some examples:
Per the @Tennessean, @GovBillLee will provide $7,300 per student in the form of a state-funded voucher for use at for-profit private schools able to discriminate on the basis of special needs, academic achievement, religion, disciplinary concerns, religious views, etc (3)
In fact, let’s do the math. $7,300-$3,410=$3,890 per student funding difference. 40,811 enrolled students X $3,890 = $158,754,790 in additional funding if @GovBillLee’s budget funded @WCSedu as equitably as it proposes to fund for-profit schools (5)
So maybe a voucher for public schools is what students like mine need. Because frankly, what our state currently provides (45th nationally in education funding) isn’t cutting it and it’s not sustainable. (16)
Welch notes the significant funding gap between vouchers and the dollar amount per student Williamson County receives from the state based on the BEP formula. This is an important distinction. The BEP formula generates a per student dollar amount (currently $7300) and then devises an amount owed to local districts based on each district’s ability to pay. So, in some districts, the state sends a lot of money and in others, like Williamson, not so much.
Factors involved in generating the total number are based on a school system’s average daily attendance. That number then generates a number of teachers, administrators, and other positions. The state funds each system’s BEP teacher number at 70% — that is, the state sends 70% of the average weighted salary (around $45,000 currently) to the district for each teaching position generated by the BEP.
Let’s be clear: The BEP is inadequate. Every single district hires more teachers (and other positions) than generated by the BEP. Local districts fund 100% of those costs.
Before the state was taken to court over inadequate funding, the BEP Review Committee used to list a series of recommendations on ways to improve the funding formula to adequately meet the needs of our state’s public schools.
While routinely ignored by policymakers, this list provided a guide to where Tennessee should be investing money to improve the overall public education offered in our state.
Here are some examples from the most recent version of this list:
Fund ELL Teachers 1:20 — COST: $28,709,000
Fund ELL Translators 1:200 COST: $2,866,000
Instructional Component at funded at 75% by State COST: $153,448,000
Insurance at 50% COST: $26,110,000
BEP 2.0 Fully Implemented COST: $133,910,000
Some notes here –
First, BEP 2.0 was frozen by Governor Haslam as he “re-worked” funding distribution and supposedly focused on teacher pay.
Next, the state currently provides districts 45% of employee health insurance for ONLY the BEP -generated positions. Districts must fund 100% of the benefit cost for teachers hired about the BEP number.
Finally, beefing up the instructional component by 5% as recommended here would mean significant new dollars available for either hiring teachers or boosting teacher pay or both.
Here are some “wish list” items on teacher pay, which reflect that our state has long known we’re not paying our teachers well:
BEP Salary at $45,447 COST: $266,165,000
BEP Salary at $50,447 COST: $532,324,000
BEP Salary at Southeastern average $50,359 COST: $527,646,000
BEP Salary at State average (FY14) $50,116 COST: $514,703,000
These are FY14 numbers — so, that’s been a few years. Still, funding teacher pay at the actual average spent by districts (just over $50,000 a year) would mean significant new funding for schools that could be invested in teacher salaries. We don’t fund teacher pay at the actual average, though, we fund it at a “weighted” average that is thousands less than this actual number. Then, districts receive only 70% of that weighted number per BEP position.
Making the large scale jump necessary to truly help direct state BEP dollars into teacher paychecks and provide a much-needed boost to salaries would cost close to $500 million. Bill Lee’s budget this year provides a paltry $71 million, continuing the tradition of talking a good game while letting teacher pay in our state continue to stagnate.
Here are some other recommendations — ideas that Welch suggests districts could pursue if only they were funded at the same level Bill Lee is proposing for private schools:
Change funding ratio for psychologists from 1:2,500 to 1:500 $57,518,000
Change funding ratio for elementary counselors from 1:500 to 1:250 $39,409,000
Change funding ratio for secondary counselors from 1:350 to 1:250 $18,079,000
Change funding ratio for all counselors to 1:250 $57,497,000
Change Assistant Principal ratio to SACS standard $11,739,000
Change 7-12 funding ratios, including CTE, by 3 students $87,928,000
New BEP Component for Mentors (1:12 new professional positions) $17,670,000
Professional Development (1% of instructional salaries) $25,576,000
Change funding ratios for nurses from 1:3,000 to 1:1,500 $12,194,000
Change funding ratios for Technology Coordinators from 1:6,400 to 1:3,200 $4,150,000
Increase Funding for teacher materials and supplies by $100 $6,336,000
Instructional Technology Coordinator (1 per LEA) $5,268,000
If you look at these numbers, you see that a state committee of professional educators (the BEP Review Committee) has been telling state policymakers that Tennessee needs to do more.
They’ve been saying it for years.
Now, we have a Governor who is suggesting that instead of spending state dollars to meet these needs, we’re going to spend them to prop up private schools with little to no accountability.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support makes publishing education news possible.
A new group aims to unify Tennessee teachers in advocating for public education, following a blueprint that led to teacher strikes that rocked states like Arizona, Kentucky and West Virginia.
They are following a blueprint established by teachers in states like West Virginia, Kentucky and Arizona where grassroots efforts outside of union organization resulted in massive teacher work stoppages.
The article notes the group includes current TEA local affiliate leader Tikeila Rucker of Memphis as well as former Knox County Education Association President Lauren Sorenson and Amanda Kail, a candidate for President of Metro Nashville Education Association.
While the three leaders say they aren’t necessarily planning a strike, they indicated that as the group grows, a strike may be an option.
Issues such as persistently low teacher pay, over-testing, and the diversion of public funds to private schools by way of vouchers have caused concerns among teachers.
Tennessee Teachers United plans to raise these issues with key policymakers while organizing across the state to build support among teachers.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
The Tennessee Education Association is raising concerns about Gov. Bill Lee’s school privatization agenda. More from a recent article posted on the TEA website:
In his State of the State address, Gov. Bill Lee announced his intent to allocate more than one-fifth of his K-12 education budget to advance privatization in Tennessee. His proposed budget includes more than $25 million for education savings accounts and $12 million for a charter school building slush fund.
“TEA has serious concerns about the governor’s plan to fund a program that is essentially private school vouchers with even less accountability that are more susceptible to fraud and abuse,” said TEA President Beth Brown. “At a time when classrooms lack needed resources and teachers are digging into their own pockets to buy classroom supplies, it is discouraging to see funding going to something proven to harm student achievement in other states.”
The increase in the building fund for private charter operators is partnered with a proposal to make it easier for new charter schools to be approved. While details on this are still not final, TEA strongly opposes any charter legislation that limits the authority of the locally elected school board to be the final voice on new charter school applications.
“Charter schools need to be a local decision, because local taxpayers bear a majority of the costs,” Brown said. “Also, local boards of education better understand the needs of their district and are better equipped to make the right decision for the students they serve.”
Both charter schools and any form of private school vouchers have proven to destabilize public school budgets and negatively impact existing classrooms. These privatization schemes also have a track record of harming student achievement.
“We have seen in other states where students in voucher programs and unaccountable charter schools are not keeping up with their peers in traditional public schools,” Brown said. “There are many proven ways to improve public education for all schools; unfortunately, the governor is choosing to invest significant resources in two dangerous paths.”
The more than $35 million currently slated for education savings accounts and rapid charter expansion would be better used in ways proven to increase student performance, like reducing class sizes and updating text books and classroom technology.
“As a rural educator, I understand the assumption that these risks will only impact metro areas, but that is simply untrue,” said Brown. “Educators and public education advocates from every corner of the state need to stand together to defeat every single attempt to privatize education. If passed, these proposals would erode the foundation of all public schools.”
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support makes reporting education news possible.
That’s how Nashville school board member Will Pinkston describes Gov. Bill Lee’s proposals to expand charter schools and enact a voucher program. Pinkston’s comments come via The Washington Post and the education column of Valerie Strauss.
Here’s some of what Pinkston has to say:
In Tennessee, our state constitution guarantees “a system of free public schools” — not a system of taxpayer-funded private schools, which is what you’d be creating with vouchers. Setting aside the unconstitutional nature of vouchers, it’s just bad policy at a time when the state is already underfunding our public schools. If your plan is enacted, it will likely end up in court.
Gov. Lee: Tennessee is ranked in the bottom seven states in America when it comes to per-pupil funding. Let’s instead have a conversation focused on large-scale priorities like dramatically improving teacher pay, expanding early childhood education, and committing to adequate funding for all public schools — not privatizing our school systems vis-à-vis charters and vouchers.
