Are you aware that the State Board of Education is considering additional graduation requirements, at a time when all high schools are struggling to increase graduation rates?

Do you wonder why some communities pay more than others to provide more than a “basic” education for public school students? Or, why the local matching requirement is different from one county to the next?

Do you think that our schools are doing enough, or not nearly enough, in terms of academics, safety, health and wellness, or anything else?

On Monday, there will be a public forum on education featuring Bruce Opie, Assistant Commissioner for Teaching and Learning for the State of Tennessee, along with Jerry Winters of the Tennessee Education Association. Bruce has the governor’s ear on education issues, and Jerry brings the viewpoint of the state’s teachers. It would be a great opportunity to learn more about what we’re doing — and what we need to do — to improve education and opportunity in Tennessee.

The forum begins at 4:30 p.m. on Monday, September 18, in the Little Theatre at Clinton High School. Everyone is welcome.

It’s also your chance to give input on what’s needed — or what’s not — to the folks who can carry your message back to Nashville.

This seminar was organized by Rep. Jim Hackworth, who has put forth an excellent effort over the last four years to bring information to this community so that we better understand the viewpoint from the capitol, and to offer us the opportunities of access and input to the decision making process. Thanks, Jim; we appreciate your service, and the fact that you really do work to bring us into the process.

This morning, the Nashville City Paper carried a story about a new initiative proposed by the governor: that every student scoring at least a 19 on the ACT could attend any of Tennessee’s community colleges at no cost.   The purpose is to motivate students to stay in school, raising the graduation rate.

I first heard this news last night from Gary Nixon, Executive Director of the State Board of Education, at the TSBA Fall District Meeting at Scott County High School.  However, Nixon brought along some more sobering statistics on the level of high school coursework and ACT performance required to secure “zone 3” employment — jobs that do not require a college degree, but that provide an income sufficient to sustain a family of four (about $39,000 per year).

According to Nixon, an analysis by the College Board determined that the threshold for success either as a college freshman, or as a candidate for “zone 3” employment, are the same: an ACT science score of 24, math score of 22, English score of 18, and at least a 21 in reading.  The College Board also provided a listing of high school coursework generally required to achieve those scores, which for math and science, exceed State requirements: biology, chemistry and physics for the science portion, along with Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II and Trig.

It’s not just the number of hours that makes the difference, but the actual courses taken.  Physics is the big predictor in the science score, he said, because it has a strong tie to math and logic, boosting both scores.  Most kids don’t take physics in high school; many never take trig — the requirement is simply three years of math, and passing the Algebra I gateway exam (which most Oak Ridge students easily pass in the 8th grade).

The State Board of Ed is seriously considering requiring math all four years, so that students don’t slack off in their senior year.  They’ve also debated adding reading classes to every year of school, K-12.

The Legislature continually talks about adding more mandatory PE classes, “personal finance” curriculum, and other wellness-type coursework.

School board members are wondering where we’re going to fit in all these new requirements — will school go until 5 p.m.?  Will they drop some other requirements?  Will our students be able to take any elective courses at all?

Board members in areas not blessed with the wealth of math and science talent that Oak Ridge has are asking, “where will we find all these new math and science teachers, since they have to have a degree in their subject area (in addition to teaching certification)?

Statewide, of every 100 9th graders, 35 will pursue postsecondary education.  Half of those will require developmental (remedial) courses in college.  About 16 will graduate in 150% of the expected time (3 years for an AA or AS, 6 years for a BS or BA).  The numbers are dismal; if we are to improve our economic standing and quality of life, we must find a way to raise the bar.

Is it possible to require more rigorous courses and raise the graduation rate at the same time?  I think it is, but it will require change going back to the middle grades, 5-8, to ensure that high school students are adequately prepared for more rigorous courses.  And, that change may well have some impact on AYP, or “adequate yearly progress,” as defined by No Child Left Behind.

While opportunity for all is a wonderful concept (as is “no child left behind”), we’re faced with evidence that a 19 on the ACT is neither sufficient preparation for college, nor for a job that produces a decent living wage.  While I applaud Governor Bredesen for his ambitious goal of sending everyone to college, I believe that we must first ensure that they’re adequately prepared — whether for work or higher education.

That will mean increasing funding for K-12 first.  It can be done.

The BEP Review Committee is a group established by the Legislature to annually review the state’s education funding mechanism — the BEP.  Membership consists of the Chairs of the House and Senate Education Committees, representatives of the State Board of Education, the Comptroller’s office, Tennessee School Boards Association, Tennessee Organization of School Superintendents, a representative of the “small schools” coalition, along with superintendents and finance directors of various school systems.

At the end of the Legislative session, the General Assembly directed the BEP Review Committee to develop a “consensus recommendation” on moving to a system-level fiscal capacity model — one that would evaluate ability to pay based on the school district’s, rather than the whole county’s economic data.

The largest part of today’s meeting was devoted to a presentation by Leonard Bradley, a Vanderbilt professor and a member of the Peabody Center for Education Policy.  The Peabody Center became involved at the invitation of the State Board of Education, following considerable dissent last year over the proposed system-level formula developed by TACIR.  One of the agreed-upon goals of the BEP Review Committee is that the formula should be as simple as possible, defensible, and easy to explain; Bradley stated that they recognized the most immediate problem was to examine issues lurking within the current BEP.

The haste, of course, is that the BEP Review Committee was clearly directed by the Legislature to develop a consensus recommendation for change by Nov. 1, the date of the committee’s annual report.  One of the things I found disturbing is that several months have elapsed without further study or attempt at consensus, with a recommendation due in two months.  Bradley was not optimistic about being able to even gather the necessary data by that time, although he did acknowledge that they had ascertained that the necessary data does exist within state government.

That data is primarily comprised of property valuation by school system, although sales tax data may also be available.  The short term goal seemed to be simply using property values and sales volumes to establish a district’s ability to pay, and assigning state funding commensurate with that ability.
Richard Kitzmiller of Kingsport pointed out that if this sytem is used, it would be necessary to change state law regarding shared taxes (all county residents pay some portion of their property taxes dedicated to education operations, including city residents, all of whom pay county taxes, but only a portion of which is returned to their city school system).  If the County were no longer required to share, City residents would not have to pay the portion of County taxes dedicated to education.  The City could then raise property taxes by the amount needed to make up the difference — likely, a smaller tax rate than what was removed by the County, as property values in the Cities tend to be higher.

The same would be true for not sharing sales taxes — therefore, Oak Ridge would get back the half-cent superseded by the County in May.

Nothing was decided at today’s meeting, except that three more meetings will be needed before the Nov. 1 deadline.  At present, they are scheduled to be on Sept. 28, Oct. 11, and Oct. 23.  At the first of those, the Peabody Center should have a basic idea of what the new way to determine fiscal capacity should be.

I confess that they seemed to me to be speaking in code, but at the break, Dr. Kitzmiller (the Kingsport superintendent, who is a member of the committee and an advocate for municipal school systems) told me that it’s his opinion that this would be a positive change.  We would certainly receive less State funding, since all the cities are more affluent than their respective counties, but without having the “shared” taxes, we would have more revenue available for the same or less burden upon the taxpayer.

A reporter from Metro Pulse was there, but few other local school board members besides Dan DiGregorio and myself.  Oak Ridge lobbyist Bill Nolan was also present, and I don’t think it escaped the committee’s notice that Oak Ridge is both interested and watching.  But, with the real work ahead, it looks like I’m going to be headed back with some frequency this Fall.