Tennessee Leads appears to have been launched with the help of a group of political finance consultants tied to top GOP leaders in the state.
The address and Registered Agent of the group match that of Political Financial Management, a group that has helped the Tennessee Republican Caucus and Gov. Bill Lee.
The group says it is advocating to have 200,000 students using school vouchers and 250,000 students in charter schools by 2031.
While state leaders consider expanding the state’s private school coupon program, a new nonprofit takes a bolder approach. A group calling itself Tennessee Leadsregistered with the Secretary of State as a 501(c)(4) issue advocacy organization with the goal of effectively ending public education in Tennessee by 2031.
The group’s goals: 200,000 voucher students (at a cost of more than $1.5 billion/year), 250,000 charter school students (there are 45,000 now), and the implementation of Direct Instruction.
It’s like every bad idea in education got together and formed a band.
So far, though, it’s not clear who the members are. Stay tuned . . .
The third issue that the U.S. Supreme Court must address is that it needs to determine whether those who run charter schools are state or private actors. This is because the vast majority of people who run charter schools are private groups. However, these charters are defined by law as public schools and are supported by tax-payer dollars. If the Court rules that those who operate the charter schools are state actors, then because they must be non-sectarian, religious charter schools will be ruled unconstitutional. However, if the Court rules that charter schools are private actors, then religious charter schools will be ruled constitutional.
In Kentucky, the Commonwealth’s highest court found that because charter schools are operated by private actors, they are essentially private schools. In other states, that has not been the case. It will be interesting to see how the U.S. Supreme Court sorts this out.
Part of the supposed allure of charter schools is that they are held accountable. Some proponents even suggest they have more accountability than traditional public schools. After all, based on poor performance, a school board or charter authorizer can close a charter school.
Except that rarely happens.
Instead, as Peter Greene points out with an example from Pennsylvania, once opened, charter schools are rarely forced to close. And, even if an authorizer does take action to close the school, legal battles can keep a school open for years.
The charter system was sold with the idea that charters would be accountable to authorizers, that they would have to earn the right to operate and continue earning it to maintain that operation. The Franklin Towne situation shows a different framing, one that is too common in the charter world–once established, the charter doesn’t have to earn its continued existence. It doesn’t need authorization from anyone; instead, authorizers build a case to close down the charter. Authorization to operate, once given, can never be withdrawn without protracted legal battles.
Tennesseans have definitely seen this myth play out. In fact, the authorizing of charter schools at a local level has also been superseded by Gov. Bill Lee’s handpicked charter school commission.
The state commission can force districts to take charters that local elected officials don’t want. And that commission can then allow those charters to stay open – even if they aren’t meeting community needs. Even if they are actually harming the students they take in by way of poor performance.
The states have taken different approaches – and the results suggest that Tennessee just might be on the wrong track.
What’s happened in the intervening 10 years? Has Tennessee closed the gap with Kentucky when it comes to economically disadvantaged kids?
Actually, no.
In both 8th-grade math and reading, the gap with Kentucky has expanded. Tennessee trailed Kentucky by 2 points in 8th-grade math in 2013 but now trails by 7. In reading, Kentucky went from being 2 points ahead to being 6 points ahead.
In 4th grade in both math and reading, the gap between the states remained the same (+3 for Kentucky in math, +8 for Kentucky in reading).
Turns out, another decade of pushing for privatization has not helped those Tennessee kids most in need of help.
Already approved in Rutherford County, Hillsdale-affiliated charter network tries again in Madison, Maury counties
It seems American Classical Education, a charter school network affiliated with Hillsdale College, is not satisfied with having a charter school in just one Tennessee district.
School boards in Madison and Maury counties have until July 28 to review American Classical Education’s latest revision to its charter school applications.
The Maury County School board will vote on the new applications at July 18 meeting. While school officials with the Jackson-Madison County School System said, its board would hold a special-called meeting before the July deadline to deny or approve the resubmitted application.
The network won approval of a charter school to open in Rutherford County in 2024.
However, school boards in Madison, Maury, Montgomery, and Robertson rejected the Hillsdale applications.
In Maury County, the initial vote was 6-5 against Hillsdale. So, if the charter backers can simply switch one vote, they could see approval of a second Tennessee charter school.
Here’s what the Mayor of Maury County’s largest city has to say about Hillsdale:
Winning a second (and possibly third) charter school could put Hillsdale well on the way to the 50 charter schools Bill Lee promised in his 2022 State of the State Address.
And if the local school boards don’t approve the appeals, Hillsdale can still appeal to the State Charter Commission, whose members have all been appointed by Lee.
Why does Hillsdale want so desperately to operate charter schools in the Volunteer State? Money.
The charter network would be financed by state education funds and local property tax dollars – both enriching Hillsdale and driving up education costs for local school systems.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Williams notes that education advocates are warning about SCORE’s plan – supported by Gov. Bill Lee – to bring at least 50 new charter schools to the state in the next 5 years.
And not just in Nashville and Memphis, where charters are already an alarming part of the landscape.
This plan would create charter schools in suburban and rural districts.
It’s similar to a scheme being advanced by Michigan-based Hillsdale College to open at least 50 Christian Nationalist charters in the state.
As Williams notes in a follow-up piece, charters don’t always have the best record of academic achievement. In fact, in many cases, charter schools perform worse than the district schools where they operate.
Maybe that’s why SCORE is moving quickly to help the privately run, publicly funded schools game the state’s new funding formula – TISA.
Pro-charter propaganda machine Tennessee Firefly is out with the story of a bevy of new charter school applications across the state.
The story that’s gotten the purveyors of privatization so excited is that as of now, there are 23 “letters of intent” from charter operators planning to open schools in districts across Tennessee.
School districts across the state received 23 letters of intent this month for applications to open new public charter schools next year. That’s the first step potential charter operators must take before submitting their formal application by February 1, 2023.
The letters of intent include proposed schools in four counties that do not currently have public charter schools and they’re coming from both existing charter operators in Tennessee and those who were rejected this year.
The applications come from a range of operators, including Christian Nationalist Hillsdale College – a group out of Michigan seeking to open schools in five Tennessee counties – Madison, Rutherford, Montgomery, Maury, and Robertson.
At a recent legislative hearing, lawmakers – some of whom supported creating the Tennessee Public Charter School Commission – expressed surprise that the law they passed back in 2019 actually does what it says.
Gov. Lee has been saying this since BEFORE he was even a candidate for governor.
Now that his policies are potentially impacting their districts, policymakers are starting to pay attention. Still no indication they’ll actually do anything to stop it.
For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport
Your support – $5 or more – makes publishing education news possible.
In 2012, Tennessee’s began a scheme known as the Achievement School District, or ASD. The goal was simple and bold: Take a handful of schools in the bottom 5 percent of student achievement, according to state test scores, and move those schools into the top 25 percent in student achievement in just five years.
This miraculous shift, officials claimed, would be accomplished by placing schools under a new state agency, which would then determine an intervention strategy that might include turning a standard public school over to a charter operator. Any school anywhere in the state would be eligible, so long as it was on the “priority schools” list. As a whole, the schools would be governed by their own “district,” complete with a superintendent who reported directly to the commissioner of education.
Tennessee’s commissioner of education at the time, Kevin Huffman, hired charter operator Chris Barbic to run the new district. Barbic’s arrival coincided with the takeover of a first cohort of schools by the ASD, along with the unveiling of his plan to generate the expected turnaround.
So what was that plan, exactly?
Well, of course, it was to turn all the priority schools over to charter operators. After all, Barbic reasoned, other charter school leaders would know just what to do with entire schools from urban districts with high levels of entrenched poverty.
But the charter school plan had another, more sinister impact. Tennessee’s charter school law gave charter operators ten year charters from the granting district. Since the ASD had taken over the local schools (most of them in Memphis), the ASD was now the charter-granting district. Now, schools in the ASD would not be eligible to return to their home districts for ten years, rather than the five years envisioned in the initial ASD legislation.
By executing the charter switch, Huffman and Barbic had immediately doubled the amount of time they would have to produce results with their education experiment, even though both of them would be gone by the time the ten-year period was up.
Still, the plan was bold and its promises were big. Almost immediately, there were problems.
Some charter operators dropped out, and new operators swooped in. A series of directors attempted to run the rapidly sinking ship.
There were even Thunderdome-like contests early on to decide which schools would be handed over to charter operators, despite parent and community objections.
In 2020, New York City math teacher and popular blogger Gary Rubinstein, who tracked the ASD from its inception, reported the ASD’s “initial promise” to take over the bottom 5 percent of schools and “catapult them into the top 25 percent in five years” had “completely failed . . . . Chris Barbic resigned, Kevin Huffman resigned, Barbic’s replacement resigned. Of the thirty schools, they nearly all stayed in the bottom 5 percent except a few that catapulted into the bottom 10 percent.”
When Barbic resigned after just a few years on the job, Chalkbeatreported, he “offered a dim prognosis” on the fate of the ASD. “As a charter school founder, I did my fair share of chest pounding over great results,” he wrote. “I’ve learned that getting these same results in a zoned neighborhood school environment is much harder.”
Still, the ASD muddled forward. Now, the failed experiment is at the end of its run. Multiple groups of students have traveled in and out of charter doors with the end result being disruption, displacement, and discouraging results.
As the tenth year runs out, questions remain about exactly how to transition the schools back to their districts. Funny, it always seemed so easy to just move students and their families to charter schools and then to other charter schools as reformers scrambled to manipulate student populations in search of ever-elusive results.
Even so, it seemed as if the ASD had reached its end.
In March, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee, a Repubican, announced yet another plan to continue the district. More specifically, Lee wants to allow a handful of his personal favorite charter operators to continue to manage some select ASD schools.
Not content to let a really bad idea die, Lee is backing legislation that would allow some schools to move from the ASD to the jurisdiction of the state’s relatively new Charter School Commission. That Commission was created by Lee in his first year as governor in order to circumvent the rejection of charter schools by local school boards.
Another piece of legislation, which has stalled for now, would allow Lee’s commissioner of education to take over an entire district by firing the director of schools and replacing the elected school board. This circumvention of democracy was widely seen as a way for Lee to send a message to the outspoken school boards in Memphis and Nashville that they’d better fall in line or else.
Of course, it hasn’t been lost on observers that Memphis and Nashville are suing the state, challenging the adequacy of the school funding formula. While the legislation is on hold for now, the point is clear: Districts are to do what the governor says and stay quiet when they disagree.
In fact, at a recent press event discussing the use of federal stimulus funds by local districts, Lee suggested that the state’s department of education would be watching districts to ensure they spent the money the right way. House Education Committee Chair Mark White went one step further, saying that he would be expecting tremendous jumps in student performance in exchange for this money.
Education advocates around the country should beware these sorts of moves—power grabs cloaked in the guise of “assistance or guidance,” legislation to extend failed reform models, and/or the repackaging of proven reform failures as something shiny and new.
