As we predicted in an earlier post, the anti-school consolidation folks position themselves as experts on schools and are coming out of the woodwork with specious “facts,” stilted arguments, and more trafficking in fear and fiction.
In many respects, they act like we are a community of amnesiacs. Just yesterday, more red herrings and alleged truths were sent out under the heading: Why The Rush to Surrender MCS Charter ? The missive purported to lay out the truth about the issue, presenting as fact all kinds of things like city schools will not lose funding if Shelby County Schools becomes a special school district and that county commissioners will still have a role, throwing out a bunch of budget numbers that allegedly give their case validity.
Of course, they don’t, because the most of these anti-community folks don’t really understand the complexities of school funding and the implications of interlocking state laws and DOE rules that involve NCLB and BEP to name just a couple.
It’s a sign that the anti-unity people are worried. They don’t have a vote – and despite the silly coverage by Channel 3 acting like they will because of the wishful thinking of some county elected officials – their only currency is to napalm Memphis with lies and deceptions in hopes that they can sound like they are authoritative and that they are successful in scaring the bejesus out of Memphis voters, even if it means exposing the racist rhetoric by some among them.
Most of all, like yesterday’s commentary pretending to show that there’s no reason for Memphis City Schools to rush to a vote, it’s equal parts blame the victim and Rip Van Winkle political rhetoric.
Memphis City Schools voted for the referendum because Shelby County’s rush to a special school district. And the disingenuous argument that Shelby County Schools intention was benign at best and misunderstood at worst assumes we have lost our memory cells. It is built on a factual house of cards and requires the reader to assume that county schools will act in good faith and that they can be trusted, two facts not supported by experience or the facts. More to the point, the latest talking points by the anti-merger cabal simply asks to accept on faith that Shelby County Schools will not revert, given half a chance, to its earlier plans to eliminate the Shelby County Board of Commissioners from approving its budget, to gain taxing authority and to freeze school district boundaries. To suggest now that Mr. Pickler’s promises to the contrary should be accepted as the basis for moving ahead insults our intelligence.
One thing we count on: the architects of all this drama – Shelby County Schools and its minions – will continue to spin another story and will continue to claim that they are possessors of the truth and the numbers.
It’s the same arrogance that led an all-white county school board to assume that a majority black city schools board would never vote to relinquish their power.
As we’ve said before, we live in the Age of the Big Lie. It plays itself out across the U.S. and its purveyors here work hard to repeat the lies often enough that they start sounding plausible. Again, their arrogance convinces them that a majority black city will not take charge of their own destiny and can be stampeded into the voting booth to vote against their own self-interest. It smacks of the striking belief by so many suburban white politicians that African-Americans can’t play quarterback on their own field and that their votes can be manipulated ala Boss Crump.
Here’s the thing: Yes, there are many questions that need to be answered and while lots of pro-divisiveness politicos say we need more time to figure out what’s legal, one thing is incontrovertible: Memphis City Schools acted within its statutory rights to relinquish its charter. There will be ample time – regardless of what you hear – to iron out merger issues during a transition period until a new diverse board will replace the all-white county school board. Too many of those calling for more time so lawyers can work on this seem motivated by a desire to run out the clock so that Shelby County Schools can get a bill introduced in the Tennessee Legislature.
That, my friends, is exactly why there is a rush to vote to merge our separate but equal school districts. It’s also why it’s time to end the justifications and excuses for continuing the existence of our Jim Crow public education system.
Here’s the recent post that predicted these kinds of outlandish arguments:
The cast of characters in suburban politics would flunk a remedial course in elementary logic.
Here’s the syllogism they offer up:
One, Shelby County Schools are superior to Memphis City Schools and the paragon of exceptional education.
Two, our only concern is about the kids and getting them a quality education.
Therefore, we will do whatever we can to keep those Memphis students out of our district.
Just Do It
We just don’t understand. If their methods are better and if their teaching is so exceptional, they shouldn’t hide their light under a basket. They should step up to lead us out of the wilderness on a journey to the Promised Land where the best education in Tennessee is supposedly found.
All of this reminds us of the time years ago at a Leadership Memphis meeting when a former mayor of Germantown told the class that Shelby County Schools simply had “the answer” to student performance. And because of this, he said, if the principal of Germantown High Schools was moved to Northside High School, the city school would have the same student achievement as the suburban school.
The class laughed so loudly that it was hard to hear the rest of what he was saying, but it’s pretty obvious that Shelby County Schools believes that it knows the secrets to better education. We just don’t understand why they don’t want to share.
It’s About The Kids, We Promise
You do have to give the suburban politicians credit for staying on message, even if it is logically fallacious and intellectually dishonest. A good example was interviews by Tennessee Senator Brian Kelsey following the vote by the city board to surrender their district’s charter, he said his proposed bill to punish Memphis City Schools for its audacity in voting to control its own destiny was actually only intended to protect the education of those Memphis students.
It was those students that he’s really concerned about, but not enough to say that Shelby County Schools should share its magic potion to help children unlucky enough, through a coincidence of birth, that they can’t be part of the chosen few.
We suspect that all these talking points may sound good on their conference call, but somehow, seeing him and the rest of the county cabal as saviors of urban education would be just as mind-blowing as expecting Memphis City Schools Board of Commissioners to stand by while Shelby County Schools Chairman David Pickler achieved his dream of a special school district. He and others can try to recast history and act like he’s never been an enemy of Memphis City Schools, but it’s just not true.
Revising History
His first scenario for Shelby County Schools has long been for it to have taxing authority and to remove the Shelby County Board of Commissioners from the funding approval process. He may be engaged in an exercise in revisionist history today by saying he was never trying to attack ADA funding or that he was never trying to eliminate county commissioners’ votes on school funding, but the record speaks for itself.
For lovers of irony, it doesn’t get much better than this. It’s absolutely Shakespearean, as the protagonist is undone by his own obsession rather than what he was worried about in the first place. In his blind fixation on special school district as the trump card for consolidation, Mr. Pickler put the hold cards into the hands of Memphis City Schools and he could ultimately be the reason for the consolidation that he so abhors.
Who would have thought that only weeks after the stinging defeat of city-county consolidation that business as usual could be so thoroughly turned upside down by five courageous members of Memphis City Schools Board of Commissioners? Of course, Mr. Pickler shifts to his default setting – that all of this was part of the grand conspiracy to consolidate governments.
Chicken Little
It’s a symptom of his desperation to find a scapegoat (at a time when he’s been bruised from all sides) for a crisis of his own making. Despite his comments, anyone who thinks that consolidating schools will lead in short order to the consolidation of city and county governments needs to log on to the Election Commission’s website and revisit the election results.
Removing schools once and for all from the debate about consolidating government does not improve the odds for passage at the polls. Despite his customary “sky is falling” rhetoric about gigantic tax increases, about research findings showing that size matters, and about the deteriorating of public education, this is instead an opportunity to recalibrate our schools to align with human capital, economic development, and other priorities.
That’s why we hope that Memphis City Schools Board President Freda Williams was misquoted when a reporter said that she planned to campaign to defeat charter surrender at the polls. If she is looking for the way to usher in the worst nightmares of her district, this would be it. The board has put all the chips on the table and if the referendum fails, things don’t just go back to what they were.
The Real Worst Case Scenario
Rather, an emboldened Shelby County Schools will have newfound power to pass whatever bill that they want at the Tennessee Legislature, and Mr. Pickler may even go back to an earlier incarnation of his special school district amendment, the one with taxing authority and state legislators approving the county district’s budget.
It is now in every Memphians’ self-interest to do what they can to approve the charter surrender, because after all, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. More to the point, one man’s crisis is another man’s opportunity, and this is the opportunity in more than 100 years to reimagine what our public education system should look like.
Yes, there are seminal questions to be answered, because there is no aspect of state law that is murkier or more confusing. That’s why the biggest need that we have right now is an honest broker to act as a reliable source of information and as a statesman leading the thinking for what will happen when the charter surrender is approved by the voters.
Hype
We suspect that in the coming weeks, we’ll hear a lot of ideas from Shelby County Schools and their allies, –ranging from shutting down schools to gutting existing contracts with teachers — that are designed to strike fear into the hearts of Memphis voters. It’s begun in a small way already with Shelby County Schools current board and superintendent acting like they’ll be unilaterally making all the crucial decisions.
The truth is that they can say and do whatever they want, but it can all be undone by a new countywide elected board that will replace the current all-white Shelby County Schools Board. In other words, the period between the referendum and the election of a new board is a time to get the structure right, to align financial and operational systems, and to keep things in motion.
In this way, the most accurate description of the role of the present board and superintendent of Shelby County Schools is now caretaker for a new district rather than as undertaker for Memphis City Schools.
Hopefully, they can rise to the challenge and invest their energy in getting the new district right than in continuing their political fight to keep the walls between us.
SCM,
This is the age of the big lie. I have gotten to where I ask for references and sources, even when speaking to people I trust. Not because they lie, but because the big lie becomes everyone’s truth.
“..city schools will not lose funding if Shelby County Schools becomes a special school district and that county commissioners will still have a role.” were presented as facts because they are facts.
TN Code 49-3-315(a) “All school funds for current operation and maintenance purposes collected by any county, except the funds raised by any local special student transportation tax levy as authorized in this subsection (a), shall be apportioned by the county trustee among the LEAs in the county on the basis of the WFTEADA maintained by each, during the current school year.”
Counties are required to allocate county money between districts based on headcount. A TN Supreme court ruling in 1960 (MCS vs Shelby County Commission) struck down a private act that purported to allow an exception to this rule.
TN Code 49-3-314(c)(1) “No LEA shall use state funds to supplant total local current operating funds, excluding capital outlay and debt service.” This is the maintenance of effort requirement reaffirmed in the recent MCS versus City of Memphis lawsuit.
Neither the city of Memphis nor the Shelby County Commission can reduce its funding of MCS, no matter what SCS does – maintenance of effort. The county commission must allocate all county provided funds based on ADA, no matter what SCS does. MCS CANNOT lose any current funding, even if SCS became a special school district with taxing authority – no tax shift.
This is the truth.
Citations of state law may not satisfy you on this point. After all, ‘everyone’ knows that taxing authority for SCS will financially cripple MCS. You have great sources. Please check with them and then come back and explain how taxing authority for SCS will result in reduced funding for MCS. My source is TN state law; please be sure to include your sources in your explanation.
By the way, I oppose taxing authority for SCS. This entire post is only intended to point out that the primary reason given for surrendering the charter is not a valid reason.
Ken:
If this is so, why did state legislators say just the opposite years ago when they submitted the amendment? And because it is state law, as the legislators said back then, they can change it.
Therein lies the problem.
Based on that history, why should Memphis City Schools board members have assumed that Pickler would honor his word as soon as he left for Nashville?
We know you are against taxing authority, but do you, in your heart of hearts, think that Pickler has abandoned it?
Ken,
I want to make sure I understand you correctly. Is it then a fact that “if” the SCS was allowed to form a special school district and was granted taxing authority, this tax would simply exist as an additional tax to be paid by the residents within the special district? That the residents within any Shelby County special schools district would continue to be assessed for taxes to fund MCS and would then required to pay an additional amount to fund the special school district if they reside within said district’s boundaries?
Ken:
To follow up Urbanut’s question, are you saying that SCS could increase funding for their district by taxing only people in their district to the point that the current structure could legally be declared separate but equal?
“If this is so, why did state legislators say just the opposite years ago when they submitted the amendment?” Which amendment? Which legislators?
Legislators can change state law at any time. However, those laws would apply to the whole state, not just Shelby County. No one has advocated changing MofE or ADA. It is pure speculation to say whether or not either proposal could pass; I do not believe they could.
People seriously overestimate the influence that the SCS board has in Nashville. It is not just Memphis democrats that have stymied them. Last session, the deciding no votes came from two Republican legislators.
I understand that MCS does not take the Chairman of the SCS board at his word. I am not suggesting that they should. At the MCS board meeting, there was a binding contract on the table. They did not have to take Pickler at his word.
Has Pickler abandoned his desire to gain taxing authority? Who can truly know anyone else’s heart? The best way to fight taxing authority for county schools is to make sure that suburban residents understand the issue. There is overwhelming support in the suburbs for consolidation protection. There is limited, perhaps very limited, support for higher taxes. If you separate those two questions, it becomes very difficult to get suburban residents to agree to taxing authority.
I understand that many people favor consolidating the school systems. Even though I strongly disagree, I don’t begrudge anyone their right to that opinion. I would like to see proponents support their position with examples of how consolidation would help MCS students. For us to have an honest debate, we must reach some agreement on whether or not financial considerations are a key factor in the equation. As I outlined in my first post, the financial implications are minor and should not drive this debate.
We all agree that, as a region, we need to see higher success rates for MCS students. What will lead us toward that end? You have said, via sarcasm, that SCS holds no magic formula for educating disadvantaged students. You cannot expect superior management from SCS to deliver better results.
I believe consolidation will deliver lower results for MCS schools. If you believe consolidation will cause city students to learn more, tell us why?
Ken:
We don’t assume that Pickler is some power broker in Nashville, but what concerns us is the pandering legislators that we have who are motivated to “stick it” to Memphis City Schools in the kind of retaliatory bill suggested by Kelsey.
If, in fact, the school board association for which Pickler was president is still pushing this, there is no assurance that a bill with statewide application couldn’t be approved, and come to think of it, Kelsey is essentially using a general bill with specific local application to Memphis so it’s hard to say it can’t be done.
In the end, it’s a game of chance, and we consider the MCS board courageous for being unwilling to gamble with its district’s future against so many people who are making the rules.
In the something for nothing politics of the suburbs, why is there no one there telling them that their taxes can go up. We don’t think that is MCS’s concern, because they have spoken.
Here’s the thing, Ken: you will never understand how the separate but equal educational system of our districts impact our children and their education, but you can look back at history. It matters that all students are treated equally and there is value in having a single educational vision. We do not favor one giant new district, but several districts in which innovation can be tested and where a learning organization can exchange lessons. We think this benefits SCS students too, because SCS can never be accused of being innovative.
We’ve told you why, so we’ll pass on the rhetorical exercise. It is absurd to think that that consolidation will deliver lower results for MCS schools if the districts are smaller, more nimble, and more innovative. It may even also deliver better results than the average performance that SCS delivers up yearly now.
Sorry, we didn’t intend to be sarcastic but wry. It’s a hard line not to cross, we guess.
Ken,
You comments regarding Pickler’s desire, or lack thereof, to gain taxing authority does not answer my question. The question is, if a special school district were to be created and this district was funded via taxing authority granted to the special school district, would the residents within the special school district be obligated to contribute to both school systems? How would taxation along such lines hold under scrutiny by the courts?
These are just 2 of the many questions residents throughout Shelby County need answered in order to formulate an informed opinion.
In the end, Pickler’s desire to dig a moat around his kingdom- er- create a special school district comes dangerously close to creating a publicly funded private school for those that can afford to live in the area and pay the fee. I will go too far here with assumptions and fortune telling, but seeing as we are closing in on the new year, why not: if SCS is in fact granted taxing authority along with its new state protected fiefdom, taxation could theoretically create realm of publicly enabled class segregation by “taxing out” anyone bellow the upper middle class. Worst case scenario, but a real possibility none the less. Separate but equal has been taboo since the 1960s.
Urbanut,
“residents within any Shelby County special schools district would continue to be assessed for taxes to fund MCS”
This is exactly right. Just so no one can nit pick that response: Residents of a SSD with taxing authority would be subject to the SSD tax. The same residents would ALSO continue to be subject to the Shelby County property tax, of which, $1.91 is currently directed to education. The percentage of county revenue used for education can change, the total dollar amount can never go down. The county commission cannot charge different tax rates in different parts of the county for the purpose of operating schools. The county money raised would be allocated based on ADA. Currently, 70% of those funds go to fund MCS. The percentage would change in response to shifting populations, but the dollars per student could never go down. By the way, this is exactly how Williamson County funds Williamson County schools and the Franklin Special School district. This IS how it works.
Frank, SCM, and everyone else;
The “separate but equal” and “separate but unequal” phrases you rely on to make your case ring incredibly hollow to me.
The highest performing high school in Shelby County is White Station High School. Is this school open to any and all residents of Memphis? NO! You must either live in the WSHS attendance zone or qualify based on test scores. How, oh, how can you not see the inequity inherit in this arrangement? The disadvantaged children, condemned by an accident of birth to attend Manassas, are not receiving equal treatment. We must immediately consolidate Manassas High School with White Station High School. White Station parents should not be concerned. All of the students will continue to attend class on their current campus with their current teachers. The principal at White Station will continue to run WHS, but he will also bring his proven ability to deliver high test scores to Manassas. Whether or not that helps the Manassas students learn more, they will no longer labor under the stigma of being Manassas graduates. Beginning with the class of 2011, they will have White Station High School diplomas.
Hopefully you are rolling your eyes at such a ridiculous suggestion. Now, tell me how MCS / SCS consolidation is different from White Station / Manassas consolidation.
No one has suggested that the consolidated district will have open enrollment. The only “separateness” that exists today is based on your home address. There are at least 37 separate high school attendance zones in Shelby County today. That will not change with consolidation.
As to the fear that county schools will raise their education tax as a way to exclude moderate income families; I don’t think you could get taxing authority passed in the suburbs on a stand alone vote. I certainly don’t think you could get suburban residents to go along with a $.78 rate (like city residents pay today). The answer, of course, is a matter of speculation. Is that fear really a sound basis for surrendering a 150 year old charter and hoping it all works out?
It’s easy for a white guy in Germantown to think that separate but equal rings false. Try talking to African-Americans in Memphis. This school setup is nothing if not a last vestige of Jim Crow, which we’ll continue to say and believe.
White Station High School is open to most of the residents of Memphis as a result of No Child Left Behind. In a unified district with a unified vision, these excellent county schools could also be potential schools for children in failing schools.
The reason that there is a 150-year-old charter and a special school district is because Shelby County Government did not fairly fund schools in the first place. They continued to provide county schools and county towns with disproportionate funds and attention until Baker v. Carr’s landmark decision.
Ken says: Residents of a SSD with taxing authority would be subject to the SSD tax.
And we can’t refer to this as separate but equal, with wealthy suburbs getting better education and facilities than the city?
We just see the world from two vastly different points of view.
Ken,
With your statement in mind, I have a few follow up questions:
1) The county currently contributes $156 million annually to the SCS budget and $255 million to the MCS budget. If the total dollar amount contributed towards public education cannot decrease, is my assumption correct that the amount budgeted for the SCS would continue to go towards the special school district should it be created?
2) If the special school district were in fact granted the authority to assess taxes within its boundaries, would Shelby County be able to freeze funding levels at the current dollar amount rates?
What I am looking to clarify is the ability for the county to refuse future funding increases (to compensate for inflation for example) thereby relying on the special school district to fund their system through their own authority to levy a tax and forcing the City of Memphis to increase its commitment to the city school system in order to address the funding gaps. $10,000 is worth more than it was in 2000 and less than it will be in 2020.
If my second question and its premise are not valid, then stop reading here. If the second question is valid then that is where serious issues arise. All of this bickering regarding enrollment based funding ignores one of the primary issues underlying this debate. That is that due to current socioeconomic conditions, it does in fact cost more to educate the average child residing in a poor neighborhood in south Memphis than it costs to educate a child being raised in an upper middle class neighborhood in Arlington. Unless some drastic overhaul at the national and state level occurs, urban school districts will continue to require a greater degree of financial support than their suburban peers. By freezing the current level of financial support at the county level, we would then be asking the city of Memphis to assume the responsibility of funding a school system burdened with poverty by bridging the gap. We would be asking the one municipality already responsible for trying to manage many of the ills of urban poverty- crime and blight- to also take one of its most expensive legacies: its impact on a child’s education and potential. Such a scenario wreaks of hand washing from suburban leaders and the residents they represent.
Like it or not, a large majority of individuals residing in suburban areas benefit greatly from those they would seek to isolate by minimizing their financial commitments. So much of our local economic activity- and the limited wealth that accompanies it- is built on low wage labor. The least we can do is be willing to maintain to the best of our ability a level playing field where public education is concerned. This is one of the bedrock notions of American values- that everyone has more or less an equal chance to succeed beyond the condition to which they were born regardless of wealth or ethnicity.
Having re-read my post I want to go on the record and say I do not consider myself a true “socialist”, as some have suggested here before. In fact I find the pure and naive social ideals expressed by Ayn Rand very appealing, but even I am able to realize that in a capitalist system neither wealth nor economic activity is created in a vacuum. Someone must dig ditches, but their children should not be handicapped by being born into a less financially privileged family.
I cannot help but wonder what the local reaction of suburban leaders would be if the city reversed course and followed the Parisian model of isolating those in poverty in the areas beyond the city limit so that they became wards of the county instead.
Ken is correct. The taxes imposed on an SSD go on top of the money provided by the county.
Where MCS loses out is that the county won’t need to increase the money allocated to education just to fund the country schools … and this giving MCS a windfall since the county raises about $3 for MCS for ever $1 for SCS. MCS would face small increases, if any at all, from the county simply because the county wouldn’t need to increase the overall property tax to fund SCS … the SSD could do that.
Also, an SSD would freeze the district boundary and thus deprive MCS of the windfall of annexing an already built school in the county … and thus saving it a lot of money to build a new school … and it also would deprive MCS of the new students (and thus the associate funding that goes with the headcount).
So yes, MCS wouldn’t lose any current funding … but it would find itself in a bind very quickly on increased funding.
Next …@ SCM … The last time I checked, none of the suburban municipalities were contributing extra money to SCS while Memphis chipped in over $50 million … So if anything, SCS has a complaint about separate but equal not MCS! And MCS spends more per student … so if anything, MCS is guilty of “separate but equal” not SCS.
Having said that, I agree wholeheartedly that the county should be divided into several districts. Maybe Frayser will have its own district that may include Northhaven. But before we can do that we must slay the leviathan of MCS.
Midtowner-
The point regarding the additional funding allocated on a per student basis within the MCS ignores the painful fact that a significant number of those children were born into poverty. We may not like thefact that such a situation means the child will need additional support and instruction in order to compensate for these conditions or the fact that such support requires additional funding, but it is what it is. But you are correct, if we were all first generation, middle-middle class Swedish immigrants living in identical homes with children of the same age and sex and household size and parents of these families had identical incomes and commute times to work, then there would be a serious discrepancy in the funding formula between the MCS and SCS.
Midtowner: We wondered where you’ve been.
Ken is correct if his suppositions are born out by the actions of the Legislature, which is something that the MCS board should never have bet on.
MCS doesn’t receive a windfall either in operating or capital money. The mythology of a windfall has circulated around here so long, it’s believed by a lot of people.
Your notion of how great this would be for Memphians and their taxes presupposes that we don’t end up with one school district that is privileged like similar ones in other cities who see them as a serious problem in producing equity in education.
SSD should not be allowed to free district boundaries for reasons we’ve already written about, chiefly for the fact that they are frozen already as a result of Chapter 1101 agreements signed years ago.
Also, MCS has not had a windfall from annexing schools since there were financial offsets in the past and that’s why new schools have been jointly planned by city and county districts – to make sure that the transition is smooth, the location is jointly set (although the county schools cozy relationship with developers generally drives up costs as they insist on certain sites) and that there is no financial issues created by annexation that have to be resolved upon city action. Not to mention that freezing boundaries so that students are attending one district while their families’ taxes are going to a different city with a different school district is likely not legal but whether it is or not, it’s an organizational nightmare.
You’re definition of separate but equal sure diverges from ours. The fact that white suburbs have not had to fund their schools while a majority black city has had to do so, that county school leaders say their schools are far superior to Memphis’s, etc., are the very definition of separate but equal…if not Jim Crow at its best.
Why should everyone in the county be so scared if we can use this courageous vote by MCS board as the vehicle to create a more innovative structure which smaller districts. The leviathan of MCS is slain with passage of the referendum.
Here’s what I see, I see the County trying to focus on the issues that will keep their teachers and administrators paychecks from being interrupted.
I’ve heard them say everything BUT anything specific about improving the School’s children’s education, which IS SORELY NEEDING IMPROVEMENT IN THE COUNTY. Becoming a special district is only about their paychecks, nothing else.
Here’s the difference I see:
Kriner Cash has made improvements to MCS and David Pickler has done nothing but hide facts and make up a LOT OF DRAMA to scare people with.
Although Ms. Hart and Dr. Cash seemingly didn’t see eye to eye about the surrender, I think it was just a matter of bad timing and not a personal preference as far as the remark by Dr. Cash “you could have done this 4 years ago” and I don’t blame him, his contract isn’t up and it’s bad timing in that regards. The results do need to come in, but, I don’t think that holding up progress in this city is a good idea, move forward with the charter surrender and by al means, don’t listen to people who haven’t been held accountable and don’t want to be, but, still want to get paid for working to their own satisfaction and not national standards, because that isn’t quality service.
Bullbaiting, race baiting, lying ad manipulating elections, the oldest schticks in Memphis political and education areas.
Education is not politics, but, it has become married to politics in Memphis and it’s really weird and very very very BAD for Memphis.
Ken,
Hopefully you see from the responses that the other side lacks the ability to articulate their position when you ask some reasonable questions. They can not justify the current inequities in their system or why they are unable of creating the ‘small districts’ within the current MCS system SCM desires. Because there are none. Here is the skinny of it all…
SCM and his friends could care less about the kids in Memphis as a primary objective, their primary focus is consolidating the city and sticking it to the folks in the suburbs.
Before you reply to their questions, understand they feel that if you are not in poverty you owe a much more signficant portion of your current paycheck and weath to the impoverished. It is unfair for you to have what others do not and enjoy the life you have earned.
My hope is that you and other leaders fight this consolidation tooth and nail. At worst, let’s move forward and create independent school districts post consolidation. It really shouldn’t be all that expensive given we would have our current share of county taxes and a small kicker on top. The increase in property value would be extrodinary. If not we just move our kids to private or leave the county like East Memphis and Midtown have done.
Ken, alot of us are praying for you to guide us out of this mess. Best to you and your family.
That is big talk Do You Understand-
Nothing like really sticking it to some 5 year old on Mississippi Boulevard, right? I guess that will teach them for being born into poverty! I suppose it is worth it just as long as you can retire at 63 and can maintain that lavish lifestyle.
You picked the right name, Do you understand?
The answer is clearly no. Go somewhere else and talk to others of your ilk.
By the way, Ken and others can fight all they want, but this time Memphis City Schools is making the rules, not them. That’s what’s got your goats. Payback time.
As for all those frivolous luxuries showered on poor people, it’s worth remembering that the Reagan/Bush tax policies have created the greatest disparity in wealth in the history of the world has it siphoned our money from the middle class to fatten the fat cats even more.
Get a life.
Urbanut,
1) Yes. Even with taxing authority, SCS would continue to receive their ADA share of county funds , just like today.
2) Yes. The Shelby County Commission can freeze its funding at current levels. That is true today, taxing authority for SCS does not change that. In fact, SCC has not increased education funding in five years.
You describe a scenario that is bad for city residents; county commission never increases funding, City of Memphis is forced to step in and meet real needs at MCS, city taxpayers get hit again. Remember that 10 of the 13 county commissioners are elected by city residents. City residents cannot suffer in a SSD world unless they elect county commissioners who allow them to suffer.
SCM,
“equity in education” – This is the heart of the separate/equal issue, is it not? What do you mean when you say equity? Clearly not equity in funding, MCS has 30% more resources today and consolidation will immediately shave 8% off of that number. Equity in teachers, administrators, facilities? Many people would argue that the MCS faculty is every bit the equal of SCS. I don’t believe you’re talking about equity in inputs to the schools, rather equity in outcomes – student achievement.
I have asked you this before, but i don’t believe I got an answer. What causes the difference in achievement between Manassas High and Collierville High? Can we agree that by far the biggest factor that explains the difference is the support Collierville students get OUTSIDE the school walls, support from home? Consolidating the systems won’t move one inch in a direction that will help MCS students with their greatest need, an engaged adult to help keep them focused on learning.
The inequity that exists between Manassas and Collierville has NOTHING to do with the fact that these two schools are in separate school districts. Putting the two schools in the same district won’t shrink the gap.
Urbanut;
Everyone understands that poor children cost more to educate. That’s what explains the difference in funding between SCS and MCS. MCS gets an extra $500 per pupil from the state and $1,000 from the feds because of the higher percentage of free lunch students in their district. The state and federal governments have assumed responsibility for the higher costs driven by poverty.
SCM,
Just for kicks. Your statement “White Station High School is open to most of the residents of Memphis as a result of No Child Left Behind.” is simply not true.
NCLB does require districts with failing Title I schools to offer parents options at schools that are not failing. According to MCS, there were 27,169 students who qualified for transfer in ’09-10. This is about 26% of the student population, far less than “most”. Secondly, the district decides which schools are options for these students based on geographic zones (that danged “where you live” rule again). A small percentage of MCS students are eligible to attend White Station High School.
Ken,
Thanks for the replies. I realize the scenario I describe might be pretty dark, but it is within the realm of possibilities and that is what we are talking about here. Expecting the MCS to simply accept the sudden good intentions from SCS in spite of the dubious track record where the special district is concerned would be naïve in the least. We would essentially be asking the MCS board to gamble with its future and simply hope that Pickler & company abide by their word. That is a risk I personally would not take, then again I have never been one to readily place a $100 bet at a blackjack table.
As for the additional funding required by the MCS, your analysis of its funding in regards to the additional financial support inherent in an urban public school system where poverty plays a significant role fails to mention the $78 million contributed by the city of Memphis. Why assume that the responsibility for the higher costs driven by poverty are being covered by the state and the feds when the city is contributing an additional $723 per student on an annual basis (or will be now that the lawsuit has been settled)? The additional support from the city of Memphis shows that the additional costs associated with poverty are not simply passed on to the state and federal levels and are being compensated for at the local municipal level as well. The suburban areas are attempting to absolve themselves of this issue to the greatest degree legally possible. Instead of the cost of public education (responsibility) being shared equally by everyone we are facing a situation where poverty’s effect on education is being born to a disproportionate degree by those least able to afford its costs.
@SCM … I’ve just been out experiencing life. I had computer problems and then connectivity problem … but I should be around more often now. 🙂
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the windfall. To me, it’s obvious that if SCS needs another $100 that the country will have to raise $400 in order to give MCS the $300 required in matching funds. MCS gets that regardless of whether it asked for it or not. In my eyes, that’s a windfall and MCS would loose out when the SSD no longer had to request the extra $100 from the SCC and could instead just raise in the SSD.
Yes, there was an agreement some time ago about building the schools in the annexation reserves, etc. It was driving up the county’s debt to raise the 3:1 ratio just to build the schools and thus the deal was worked. It still doesn’t negate the fact that upon annexation that the city gets a relatively new school that it didn’t have to directly pay for … one those moving numbers around in the budget type of thing.
As was pointed out, MCS receives more per student from the state and feds because of various problems for students from low-income families and the city kicks a bundle as well. So the money flowing in and spent per student is higher in MCS so, if anything, the “separate but equal” onus falls on MCS not SCS. The fact that SCS can operate more efficiently does not confer the onus on them.
I’ve proposed ideas for reducing poverty in the past. Neither MCS nor SCS can solve the poverty problem. Nor can they really overcome it. It’s not their place to do so other than just to try to offer education to those students who are willing and capable.
I think we can all agree that SCS taking over MCS won’t suddenly end the problems but it will kill the myth that SCS is superior to MCS because of the way things are run and more importantly, it can set the stage for subdividing the county into smaller districts regardless of political boundaries.
And SCM and I agree that we need to slay the leviathan in order to come up with the better solution of smaller districts. That’s my goal … not a bigger system run by SCS. I don’t believe bigger is better. SCS may be able to trim some of the fat off the beer belly of MCS but, in the end, it will create its own huge, inefficient bureaucracy if it doesn’t subdivide into smaller districts.
Thanks Ken!
Ken,
Thankfully as it is the end of the year, I was able to spend some time following a few links I have noticed recently associated with this topic. Based on the budgets and enrollment figures provided by the SCS and the MCS:
I found that for 2010-11 that the MCS has a budget of $891,717,277 with a projected enrollment of 108,217 students. Simple math shows this breaks down to $8,240.08 per student. The SCS has a budget of $363,835,056 with a projected enrollment of 47,292 students. The same method of division results in and expenditure of $7,693.37 per student. If I use the pure pupil ADA expenditure provided by SCS, that last figure increases to $8,098. The difference in the expenditure on a per student basis comes to $546.71 (based on average daily membership) and/or $142.08 by the SCS ADA standard. If the federal government and the state were in fact contributing additional funds to the MCS in order to compensate for the additional burden that is associated with poverty in public education, should this difference in expenditure not be far greater seeing as where the poverty rate among students in the MCS runs around 75%, the corresponding rate in Shelby County is at 15%? Combine that with federal research that shows that is costs roughly 40% more to educate a low-income student when compared to a middle-income student and we begin to see a widening gap here between the perceived and the real degrees of funding within the community.
Midtowner:
Just want to make sure you understand: On operating funds, all children regardless of where they live receive the same amount from county government. The law requires it and morality dictates it.
On capital projects, the old canard has been that city schools receives money whether they need it or not. What’s always been lost in this discussion – because the tail has always wagged the dog – is that city schools, much older (about 10 are still in use that were built before radios) and many in poor condition. The city has about $450M in construction and renovation needs, but because county government always was more interested in placating developers, it always tried to resist giving city schools what it deserved, all the while the schools needs deepened.
There is no evidence that SCS operates more efficiently. That’s like the old wife’s tale that it build its school more efficiently. They build mediocre schools with HVAC systems that had to be replaced within years, they build them in ways in which they could never be a center of community because of the lack of common space and a sense of arrival. Years ago, a study was done comparing the costs of SCS and MCS. It was a wash. SCS simply runs a different kind of school with a bunch of upper middle class schools. That alone reduces some costs and needs for special services. And if SCS thinks it can deliver better education more efficiently, it should not be bashful about sharing it with all the children of Shelby County.
Ken, It looks like the problem of WHY the parents of impoverished Memphis resident workers can’t be around to support their kids is beyond the scope of only YOUR thinking. You have NOTHING to address that in your scenario.
That’s the problem. Lot’s of people think like that. As much as those people like to say that “the poor are sucking off the system and draining resources, are a burden,” and then move to the county to a new suburb that will have to have new utilities that the developer will conspicuously not have put in so that the inner city residents pay for he utility infrastructure, schools, and the communist police, fire, and trash services along with water, sewer, electric and gas services, it seems that the white people who move to the county are sucking a lot more off of the poor in Memphis. That isn’t just immoral it’s disgusting! Then to read all the tripe about justification as to why the count is “right”.
Total utter hogwash!
Go sell it to someone else. The citizenry isn’t buying anymore. Take your “insurgent”, Mr. Giannini with you. Maybe you can get him a job in the county government.
You can make your argument as complex as you like, make your answers miss as much as you want. Obviously, you are against any redesign of the city to make it work, because you never bring it.
Education is the cure to poverty for the largest part in America and MEMPHIS.
TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
GUIDELINES FOR HIGH PRIORITY NON-TITLE I SCHOOLS
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE
and
REMEDIATION
Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §49-1-602, schools that are on probation or beyond in the accountability system “shall abide by guidelines established by the commissioner for the purpose of improving student performance.” This guide has been established for implementation of public school choice (PSC) and the provision of “remediation” as required by state law.
In the interest of having a uniform accountability system, state guidelines for implementation of public school choice in non-Title I schools are aligned with those required under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and commensurate regulations and guidance documents. Therefore, local education agencies (LEAs) should consult the January 14, 2009, Public School Choice Non-Regulatory Guidance document at http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.doc, prepared by the U.S. Department of Education in their implementation of PSC in non-Title I schools, as well as the additional information offered within this document, which seeks to add clarity and to speak to issues not referenced in the USDOE guidance.
NCLB requires the implementation of supplemental educational services (SES) for Title I high priority schools that are in school improvement year 2 and beyond. SES is available only to low-income students in these schools and has regulatory requirements related to its provision. For information regarding the provision of SES in Title I schools, LEAs should consult the
January 14, 2009 Supplemental Educational Services Non-Regulatory Guidance, at
http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice/help/ses/guidance.html. Tennessee law has a similar provision for the implementation of “remediation” to all students who have not shown success at meeting state academic standards in high priority schools in corrective action and beyond.
I. TIMING AND DURATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOL CHOICE
A. For which students is a LEA required to offer public school choice according to the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §49-1-602?
A LEA must offer all students in the subgroups that failed adequate yearly progress
(AYP) benchmarks enrolled in non-Title I schools the opportunity to transfer to another public school when those schools fall within one of the following stages of improvement:
1. Schools that are in Corrective Action or Corrective Action Improving.
2. Schools that are in Restructuring 1 and Restructuring 1 Improving.
3. Schools that are in Restructuring 2 (Alternative Governance) and Restructuring 2
Improving.
4. State/LEA Reconstitution
B. How long must a LEA continue to offer students in eligible non-Title I schools the option to attend another public school?
A LEA must offer choice to all students in the subgroups that failed to make AYP benchmarks in eligible non-Title I schools until the school makes AYP for two consecutive years and is no longer identified for corrective action or restructuring.
C. How does the offering of public school choice in non-Title I schools differ from the offering of public school choice in a Title I school?
The offering of public school choice in non-Title and Title I schools differs in timing, student eligibility and provision of transportation.
1. Timing – Public school choice is offered in non-Title I schools that have been identified for corrective action or restructuring. Under NCLB, LEAs are required to offer the choice option beginning the first year a Title I school is identified for school improvement and continue until the school is no longer identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
2. Student eligibility – In non-Title I schools, the public school choice offering is limited to all students in the subgroups that failed to make AYP benchmarks, while all students in Title I schools in school improvement, corrective action, and restructuring are eligible for the public school choice option.
3. Transportation – LEAs are not required to provide transportation to students accessing the public school choice in non-Title I schools, but NCLB requires that LEAs provide or pay for transportation to and from the school of choice for all students accessing the choice option in Title I schools. If available funds are insufficient to provide transportation to all students exercising the public school choice option, priority must be given to the lowest-achieving students from low-income families.
II. ELIGIBLE STUDENTS
A. Which students are eligible to change schools under the public school choice provisions in state law?
All students in the subgroups that failed AYP, who are enrolled in non-Title I schools identified for corrective action or restructuring, are eligible to transfer to another public school (including a charter school) that is not identified as high priority.
B. Which students are eligible to exercise the public school choice option in Title I schools?
Under Section 1116(b)(1)(E)(i) of the NCLB Act, all students in a Title I school in school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring are eligible to exercise the public school choice option.
III. TRANSPORTATION
A. Is a LEA required to provide transportation to schools of choice in implementing public school choice mandated by state law?
No. Unlike requirements for students exiting Title I schools that are not making AYP, students exiting non-Title I schools that are not making AYP do not have to be provided transportation by the LEA to a new school of choice.
IV. REMEDIATION SERVICES
A. What remediation services are available to students in non-Title I schools who do not exercise the public school choice option according to the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. §49-1-602?
To any student not meeting AYP benchmarks in a non-Title I school in corrective action or restructuring, a LEA must offer targeted remediation services that specifically address the student’s individual academic needs.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. Are LEAs required to give priority to the lowest-achieving students from low-income families in implementing non-Title I public school choice transfers, since these transfers are not funded by Title I?
Yes. The LEA must give all students in the subgroups that failed adequate yearly progress benchmarks in a school identified for corrective action or restructuring the opportunity to transfer to another public school. In implementing this option to transfer, however, there may be circumstances in which the LEA needs to give priority to the lowest-achieving children from low-income families in the subgroup(s). For example, if not all eligible students can attend their first choice of schools; a LEA would give first priority in assigning spaces to the low-achieving, low income students. Priority to lowest-achieving students from low-income families would help ensure that some of the neediest, and perhaps most underserved students, have the greatest access to quality education alternatives.
2. What process can a LEA use to give priority for public school choice transfers in non-Title I schools, to the lowest-achieving students from low-income families in the eligible student group?
Low-income students, those receiving free or reduced-priced meals, from the subgroup that failed to make AYP benchmarks families, might be rank ordered on their achievement levels by using an objective educational measure such as the State assessment. Alternatively, the LEA might allow low-income students who receive less than a certain score on State assessment to change schools. This method could be used to focus attention on areas where the school or LEA did not meet State AYP goals. Another option might be to base the determination on students’ grades or on scores students receive on other tests.
3. Are LEAs required to offer more than one choice school to students transferring out of
non-Title I schools under the public school choice requirements in state law?
Yes. Offering more than one choice provides parents and students with greater educational alternatives.
4. If a student attending or zoned to attend a high priority school commits an offense that results in assignment to an alternative school, must this student be offered public school choice after he/she exits the alternative school program?
Yes. Tenn. Code Ann. §49-6-3402 states: “All course work completed and credits earned in the alternative schools shall be transferred to and recorded in the student’s home school, which shall grant credit earned and progress thereon as if earned in the home school.” Students who are attending an alternative school and whose home school is a high priority school should be offered public school choice while the choice window is open for all students. If they opt for a new school under public school choice, they would transfer to the school of choice upon their exit from the alternative school program.
5. How long must students who transfer under the public school choice option be allowed to attend their school of choice?
A student must be allowed to remain in their school of choice until he or she has completed
the highest grade in the school.
6. Is the provision of remediation in non-Title I schools limited to out of school hours as is the case with supplemental educational services (SES) in Title I schools?
No, the purpose of remediation services in non-Title I schools is to provide additional support to ensure that students who are experiencing difficulty receive effective and timely assistance. Remediation may occur during the school day or before or after school hours.
7. What fund sources are available for remediation in non-Title I schools?
LEAs must determine funding sources for targeted remediation in non-Title I schools and are encouraged to think creatively in finding both human and fiscal resources to provide remediation.
Ken: State and federal governments provide funding for at-risk kids but that does not relinquish the responsibility of local government, which explains why many single source funding plans included additional money for the special programs needed for students in at-risk situations.
I admire your fortitude even when you line up the facts to support your presupposed opinon. You answer yes twice to the questions from Urbanut, but as SCM has pointed out, your answers assume that legislators will not try to change these laws in light of the surging Tea Party mentality.
Urbanut reply:
“asking the MCS board to gamble with its future and simply hope that Pickler & company abide by their word.” The offer on the table was a legally binding contract. No one asked the MCS board to take Pickler at his word.
“Why assume that the responsibility for the higher costs driven by poverty are being covered by the state and the feds when the city is contributing an additional $723 per student on an annual basis” The higher relative state funding is a result of changes in the BEP formula to specifically address at risk children. The difference in the federal money is Title I funds specifically targeted to schools with high levels of poverty. The city of Memphis money is a 70 year old artifact that originated as a mechanism to provide the wealthy city residents with better education opportunities than those provided to the rural (county) poor. That $78 million was never intended to address costs driven by impoverished student populations.
“MCS has a budget of $891,717,277” This is the general fund and does not include the federal money. MCS does receive 30% more than SCS. Check out the TDOE report card for easy to use summaries. http://www.tn.gov/education/reportcard/
Ken, I appreciate the number sources and will be the first to admit that I had thought Title 1 funds were reflected in the state funding as the fed’s actually send the money to the state which then disperses said funding. However, let’s not fudge the numbers here. Based on current financial support, MCS expenditures per student is 26.8% more than that of the expenditure per Shelby County student.
Regardless of the origins and intent of the original additional contributions being made by the city of Memphis, over the course of those 70 years the needs and utilization of that money has altered as the school system has evolved. To suggest that the money the city is contributing at this point is not an effort to supplement inadequate funding to address the issues of poverty in the educational system is to ignore the very nature of poverty and the demands in places on the MCS. If the city had won the right to withdraw direct financial support, the need would not have evaporated with it. Instead the school system would have seen its per pupil expenditures drop to $9,649. Of course that goes back to the premise behind the city withdrawing those funds in the first place- poverty and its impact on this county are not just a “city” problem, they are a community wide issue.
Per the offer by SCS- while the document would have prevented SCS from “actively pursuing” its SSD goal within the legislature it would in no way prevent the legislature from enabling such action on behalf of the SCS. It is easy to understand the lack of enthusiasm for such an agreement when questions were being raised regarding its legality or whether it was even enforceable. It failed to incorporate any language that went beyond the timeframe mentioned. In fact outside of the moratorium and a special panel, it never specified the requirement that both school systems should arrive at an agreed upon alternative to the current fiasco on or before December 31, 2013. It would not have prevented the same issue from arising again at that point- a scenario in which the SCS could seek SSD status without cooperation or even input by the MCS. Likewise, it made no mention that any agreement arrived at during that period would be binding and would prevent the MCS board from surrendering its own charter after that date. In essence, it did little but stall the issue.
The one scenario it did manage to eliminate is one in which the state legislature approves the changes during the moratorium, and thus clearing a somewhat smoother path for SCS to follow. At this point, the SCS were proposing something that is not currently legal within the state which creates at least one more hurdle.
One issue I have yet to understand is Pickler’s infatuation with defined boundaries. If he simply referenced the agreed upon legally binding document that is the county’s long term growth plan he would see the eventual concrete lines demarcating his kingdom and that of the city’s via the annexation reserve boundaries.
The vote by MCS Board to surrender charter was due to the reality that a 2-3 year delay to study and negotiate with SCS would have come down to the same end – SCS wanting to remain separate. Why wait and hope that merger will eventually happen? Carpe Diem!
The state legislature may lift the ban on the creation of “special school districts” in Tennessee because of statewide interests, but the legislature may respect the majority of Shelby County legislators and not pass a private act to create SCSSD. Hope springs eternal.