Slowing down

Amid backlash, Tennessee extends time for public to weigh in on proposed social studies standards

A growing chorus of complaints about Tennessee’s proposed new social studies standards has led a state panel to extend the period for receiving public input on the draft.

The state’s Standards Recommendation Committee voted Wednesday to lengthen the timeline for public comment from Oct. 28 to Dec. 15.

“… We want to be absolutely sure that all Tennesseans have had a chance to be heard,” said Jason Roach, chairman of the appointed 10-member panel, inviting the public to give feedback at the state’s online review site.

The new timeline comes after state leaders began receiving pushback about proposed changes designed to streamline the standards at the expense of numerous historical events and people. Gov. Bill Haslam expressed concern about taking too much history out of the K-12 teaching requirements, as have the legislature’s black caucus and state historian Carroll Van West.

Items moved to other grade levels or left out include major milestones in civil rights movements for minorities and women, the Cherokee origins of the state’s name, why Tennessee is known as the Volunteer State, and several Civil War battles fought in Tennessee. Several of those standards were moved to a new high school elective course in Tennessee history.

The winnowing of the standards was by and large a response to teachers’ concerns that the current set is cumbersome and overly prescriptive. Those standards are only two years old. But the State Board of Education hastened another revamp this year in the wake of concerns from parents and activists about how Islam is being taught to middle schoolers in world history.

An initial online public review was held last winter, generating comments from more than 1,400 reviewers, mainly teachers. This summer, a panel of teachers from across the state used the feedback to make revisions.

The Standards Recommendation Committee is appointed by the governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the House and confirmed by the legislature as part of Tennessee’s process for reviewing academic standards. The panel will send its final draft to the State Board to vote on next April.

“The State Board of Education wants to make sure this is a very thoughtful and inclusive review process,” said Executive Director Sara Heyburn in a statement. “We have heard from many Tennesseans that there is real interest and commitment to ensuring the best possible standards for the students and teachers of our state. Therefore, it makes sense to slow down and extend the review period to ensure all voices are able to be heard and considered before anything goes to the State Board for their consideration.”

The new standards are to reach Tennessee classrooms in the 2019-20 school year.

legislative look-back

Holcomb pulls off a near-perfect education record in his first session as Indiana governor, and with far less drama than in years past

PHOTO: AP Photo/Darron Cummings, Pool
Gov. Eric Holcomb, right, responds to a question during a debate for Indiana Governor.

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb managed a rare feat in his first year on the job — to check nearly every box on his education agenda for 2017.

At the beginning of the year, Holcomb set four specific goals for K-12 education: making the state superintendent appointed by 2021; doubling state funding for preschool; adding funding  for school internet access; and better coordinating science, technology, engineering and math initiatives across the state.

It wasn’t always clear whether those proposals would pass. But Holcomb was ultimately able to get what he wanted with fairly little drama — unlike his predecessor, Vice President Mike Pence.

“The legislature over-delivered,” Holcomb said Tuesday. “Now it’s time for us to take these tools and new resources and put them to work.”

Holcomb’s success likely hinged both on his collaborative approach to working with lawmakers — in contrast to the more ideological and aggressive approaches, respectively, of former Gov. Pence and his predecessor, Gov. Mitch Daniels — and the less controversial makeup of his education priorities.

Pence failed to make much progress when he tried to break new ground in some way — like with plans to re-imagine teachers’ roles in schools — or when he faced vehement opposition, like his attempts to further reduce union negotiating power. Holcomb’s priorities, for the most part, were harder to argue with: a need for more preschool for poor children, better school internet access or more opportunities to prepare kids for the workforce and science- and math-related fields.

Although Pence was ultimately able to push through many of his education priorities, such as establishing a preschool program, driving up career and technical education funding, and increasing support for charter schools and vouchers, his efforts brought more opposition from lawmakers, even those in his own party.

Take preschool.

When Pence put out the call for a state-funded pilot program after years of debate, senators were extremely skeptical. In the waning days of the 2014 session, they stripped any meaningful investment from the bill, turning it instead into a suggestion to study the issue over the summer. At the last minute, after Pence himself testified before lawmakers, the funding was restored, and the program became a reality.

This year, the same last-ditch attempts to kill the proposal were absent. After the Senate proposed only increasing preschool spending by $4 million, lawmakers came back with a $20 million-per-year plan in line with Holcomb’s initial ask.

Holcomb also had the benefit of not having to go head-to-head with the state schools chief.

Pence’s frequent battles with then-state Superintendent Glenda Ritz were a notable part of his administration. Current Superintendent Jennifer McCormick, on the other hand, was fairly aligned with Holcomb’s goals from the beginning — even signing on to support his call to make her position appointed, rather than elected, in the future.

That’s the one area in his education policy agenda where Holcomb didn’t eke out a full win — but it was arguably also the most controversial part of his agenda, with many educators and some lawmakers asserting that the move takes away an independent education voice at the Statehouse. The proposal has been debated in some way for more than 30 years.

Holcomb originally supported a 2021 start date for the appointment, which would allow him to make the appointment if elected to a second term. Instead, this year’s legislation would have it begin in 2025, meaning McCormick could seek a second term and Holcomb wouldn’t be the executive empowered to make the first secretary of education pick.

Holcomb said Tuesday that he has no desire to revisit that legislation in order to change the effective date.

He reiterated his goal of collaboration Tuesday when addressing reporters during a press conference, pointing to his relationship with McCormick.

“We’ll continue to meet and collaborate and work on issues that we both know are of the utmost importance,” Holcomb said. “And we’ll get there together. I look forward to it.”

As far as bills that weren’t on his agenda, Holcomb today said he plans to sign into law Senate Bill 567, which would appoint emergency financial managers in the Gary and Muncie school districts. He also indicated support for House Bill 1003, which would replace the state’s ISTEP test with a new program to be called “ILEARN” in 2019.

You can find other education bills that moved ahead this session here in our legislative wrap-up.

Doing the math

As lawmakers scrutinize the price tag of school vouchers in Memphis, here’s a cost breakdown

PHOTO: The Commercial Appeal
Sen. Brian Kelsey of Germantown has been a passionate supporter of vouchers his entire legislative career. He says that concerns about cost are overblown.

If the legislature votes to pilot school vouchers in Memphis, the state will have to spend about $45,000 on envelopes and stamps to get the word out to eligible families.

But the vast majority of the cost for the five-year pilot would fall on districts that operate in Memphis — and that could be more than double the $18 million that’s been cited.

The House Finance Committee is scheduled to vote Wednesday on the bill, and the Senate finance panel is to weigh in next week. Their role is to consider the cost of the program to taxpayers.

They’ll pick up questions that state lawmakers have been hashing out for six years, all with money at the center. Would vouchers drain too much money from public schools? Would taxpayer dollars be well spent on private schools?

What follows is the full text of the “fiscal note,” which outlines the price as estimated by the Tennessee General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee. It itemizes highly debated costs such as the $7,000-per-student voucher for up to 5,000 students, but also details unexpected costs, such as thousands of dollars for postage to inform Memphis families about the option of using public money to pay for private school tuition beginning in the fall of 2018.

We’ve annotated the fiscal note to include links to our past coverage and context. Click on the highlighted passages to read our annotations.


ESTIMATED FISCAL IMPACT: Increase State Expenditures – Exceeds $330,400/FY17-18 $230,400/FY18-19 and Subsequent Years

Other Fiscal Impact – For local education agencies that have schools in the bottom five percent of achievement and are mandated to participate in the statewide scholarship program, the shift of state and required local BEP funding from these local education agencies to the non-public participating schools is estimated as follows: $8,867,500 in FY17-18; $13,633,100 in FY18- 19; $18,632,500 in FY19-20; and an amount exceeding $18,632,500 in FY18-19 and subsequent years.

Assumptions relative to state expenditures:

 The DOE will require two new positions to administer the program beginning in FY17-18. One position will require a salary of $80,124 with benefits of $20,219; a total of $100,343. One position will require a salary of $67,008 with benefits of $18,043; a total of $85,051.

 The total recurring increase in state expenditures for personnel is estimated to be $185,394 ($100,343 + $85,051).

 Pursuant to § 49-1-1205 of the proposed bill, the DOE shall notify parents of student eligibility and participating schools. Though the exact number of eligible students is unknown; based on information from the DOE, it is estimated that the Department will notify at least 65,000 students annually of the pilot program.

 Based on information from DOE, the recurring increase in state expenditures to notify eligible students and participating schools through mailings and brochures is estimated to be $45,000.

Other Fiscal Impact – For local education agencies that have schools in the bottom five percent of achievement and are mandated to participate in the statewide scholarship program, the shift of state and required local BEP funding from these local education agencies to the non-public participating schools is estimated as follows: $8,867,500 in FY17-18; $13,633,100 in FY18- 19; $18,632,500 in FY19-20; and an amount exceeding $18,632,500 in FY18-19 and subsequent years.

Assumptions relative to state expenditures:

 Based on information from the DOE, the Department will require a new online portal system for receiving and processing student applications. The Department confirms a thirdparty contract vendor will be required to develop the new portal system. Though the exact cost for developing such system is unknown; the one-time increase in state expenditures for software development is estimated to exceed $100,000. Such expenses will be incurred in FY17-18.

 The total increase in state expenditures in FY17-18 is estimated to exceed $330,394 ($185,394 + $45,000 + $100,000).

 The total recurring increase in state expenditures beginning in FY18-19 is estimated to be $230,394 ($185,394 + $45,000).

Assumptions relative to enrollment, scholarship amounts, and program estimates:

 The scholarship pilot program will begin in the fall of 2017.

 Based on information from DOE, Shelby County Schools will be the sole location of the pilot program based on the achievement scores of all LEAs in FY15-16. 3 SB 161 – HB 126

 Though the exact number of annually participating students is unknown, it is reasonably estimated that a minimum of 25 percent of the cap for the pilot program will be filled each year beginning in FY17-18.

 For the purposes of this fiscal note, the required state and local BEP expenditures are utilized as the scholarship amount with an estimated scholarship growth of 2.5 percent annually.

 Statewide Program Student Enrollment Estimates:

 In FY17-18, an estimated 1,250 students will participate.

 In FY18-19, an estimated 1,875 students will participate.

 In FY19-20, an estimated 2,500 students will participate.

 In FY20-21 and subsequent years, over 2,500 students will participate.

 Statewide Program Scholarship Estimates:

 In FY17-18, the scholarship is estimated to be $7,094 (the average 2016-2017 per pupil expenditure).

 In FY18-19, the scholarship is estimated to be $7,271 ($7,094 x 1.025%) per pupil.

 In FY19-20, the scholarship is estimated to be $7,453 ($7,271 x 1.025%) per pupil.

 In FY20-21 and subsequent years, the scholarship is estimated to exceed $7,453 per pupil.

 Total Statewide Program Estimates:

 In FY17-18, an estimated $8,867,500 ($7,094 x 1,250 students) will shift from LEAs to participating schools.

 In FY18-19, an estimated $13,633,125 ($7,271 x 1,875 students) will shift from LEAs to participating schools.

 In FY19-20, an estimated $18,632,500 ($7,453 x 2,500 students) will shift from LEAs to participating schools.

 In FY20-21 and subsequent years, an amount estimated to exceed $18,632,500 will shift from LEAs to participating schools.

Assumptions relative to LEA fund retention:

 The BEP maintenance of effort requires that local government continue to fund their LEA at the same level year-to-year unless there is a decrease in enrollment.

 Participating students will continue to be counted in LEA enrollment numbers, and LEAs will be required to continue providing funding based on the enrollment numbers that include participating students.

 A majority of LEAs are currently funding their students above and beyond the BEP local match requirement. This amount varies widely by LEA, but according to DOE, the average amount that LEAs will retain in FY17-18 is $1,279 per pupil. This amount is estimated to increase at an average growth rate of 2.5 percent annually in each subsequent year.

 Each year, students leave and enter LEAs. As a result, LEAs adjust expenditures, teachers, facilities, and other items to meet the change in student population.

 LEAs will be able to use retained funding to offset any increase in local government expenditures or to use at their discretion for some other purpose.

CERTIFICATION: The information contained herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Krista M. Lee, Executive Director