The BEP Review Committee meets on Wednesday morning in Nashville; I’ll be there. Although I’m not on the committee and have no direct vote, sometimes just being there can make a difference. Like any other public body, knowing that someone is interested and watching can impact what they say and do.

The BEP is Tennessee’s mechanism for directing State funding to public school systems. The “equalization formula” referenced in the link above is actually the Fiscal Capacity Formula, developed by Harry Green of the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR). Simply put, it’s Tennessee’s formula for providing more state funding to school systems with less local resources, and less to those with more local resources. At this time, fiscal capacity is measured at the County level, which means that all the school systems in Anderson County (Anderson County, Clinton, and Oak Ridge) receive the same number of dollars per pupil from the State.

For a couple of years now, there’s been a push to change the formula so that the larger cities get a bigger share. They do receive less state funding per pupil under the formula, because they have much larger tax bases. In particular, they have very large sales tax bases funded in significant part by residents of surrounding areas, so that’s why they receive less. At the same time, those large cities argue that they have a harder-to-educate population (higher percentages of poor and minority students, as well as those who don’t speak English well); they feel that changing to a system-level fiscal capacity formula would be better, since all the big cities have consolidated school systems, whereas many of the municipal school systems are just outside their borders, and therefore compete for teachers, etc.

Two years ago, the Legislature directed the BEP Review Committee to move toward a “system level fiscal capacity model,” and they attempted to do so last year. The problem is that the new formula developed by TACIR (see David v. Goliath from last February) would have caused great harm to more than half the school systems in the state. Bills to move immediately to the system-level model were defeated in the Legislature last Spring, but the BEP reauthorization resolutions passed late in the year (HR0286/SR0120) directs the BEP Review Committee to develop a consensus recommendation on a system level fiscal capacity model.

Unfortunately, consensus will be difficult — maybe impossible — to achieve if the method is to simply rearrange distribution of already inadequate funding.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the first agenda item pertains to things like “phase-in” and “hold harmless” — in other words, a painstaking death to the losers in the TACIR prototype system-level fiscal capacity formula.

The second item will be a report from the Peabody Center for Education Policy, with an alternative system-level reform model (short-term objective) as well as a “21st Century Education Finance System” (long-term objective). This item is key — has someone come up with a better, more fair system-level formula?

There’s no way to know, except to go and listen to the presentation firsthand. So I shall. And no, fraud-and-waste watchdogs, your tax dollars are not paying for the trip… I am.

There’s been considerable local focus over the City’s decision to not fund the requested amount for Oak Ridge Schools in this year’s budget, which led to painful cuts — the most obvious being a decrease in bus service. However, the City Manager, Vice-Mayor Tom Beehan, and the City’s lobbyist, Bill Nolan, have worked closely with me (and our Superintendent, and the rest of the Board) over the past two years to monitor the State’s actions and proposals to prevent passage of reforms that would be harmful to our school system through reduced or limited state funding.

Be very clear: although there was and is disagreement over the City’s budget allocation this year, we are on the same team.

Look for a review of this meeting on Wednesday, Aug. 30. I hope I have good news.

Mrs. Eaves has a thoughtful post over at AtomicTumor this morning, and she’s right — some of the discomfort over the change in bus service is not about household crisis, but about inconvenience. There are some parents who need to shoulder a bit more responsibility for their kids (although this isn’t new).

But only some. There are definitely families that do all the right things, taking time with their kids for study and behavior training, but for whom transportation will be a real problem, as she correctly notes.

One suggestion I mentioned to Dr. Bailey to pass along to the principals for consideration was to see if we could create a “fast lane” drop-off for people carpooling with three or more kids — sort of an incentive to encourage carpooling, and a reward for those who are helping out by getting them through the line faster.

Another suggestion is one I received from Anotherthing2 is an effort that could be coordinated through the PTO/PTA: some sort of “safe place” sign to put on selected houses within the 1-mile zone, where a child walking home can go at any time if they feel afraid or need help. Obviously, someone would have to take charge of making sure that the homeowner with a “safe place” sign really was okay, but still, I do like the concept.

In this city, there are a number of people who walk for exercise, or walk their dogs, every morning. Many no longer have young children at home; might they volunteer to help out a neighbor in a bind with no bus service, by walking with young students to school?

Do we as individuals have the will to address the problem in ways that would strengthen our neighborhoods and the community as a whole? Clearly, reducing bus service was an unpleasant choice. Reducing any service that our students and parents rely on is painful.

At the same time, I do see the possibility of some good coming out of this adversity… of parents and neighbors getting to know each other better, and helping each other in a way that used to be the norm rather than the exception. Perhaps a greater number of students riding bicycles to school could make it more fun, and the combined walking/biking efforts could lead to better health for our children who often don’t get enouch exercise, fresh air, and sunshine.

Maybe it’s too 1950’s to work… but even in the 70’s, it was a special treat for me to ride my bike to school, because it gave me a little “unwind time.”

What might you do to make something good happen from this bad situation?

Cathy Toth lays it on the line in a letter to the editor in the Oak Ridger today: City Council caused schools’ funding shortage.

Key highlights of Cathy’s letter include:

Here’s how it works: The superintendent’s office works up a budget, based on what they need to run the schools for the next year, and presents it to the School Board. The School Board goes through that budget line by line. Time-consuming and difficult, they do this publicly. Anyone can attend the meetings, watch them on Channel 15, or read the detailed minutes. The School Board looks at the revenue from the federal, state, and county sources and asks City Council to cover the rest. On May 22, City Council said “No.”

Let’s talk priorities. That’s what a budget is — a statement of what a community values enough to pay for. For many years, Oak Ridge placed education near the top of the list. In 1987, city leaders spent 46.6 percent of the city budget on the school system. Last year they spent less than 30 percent.

…

However you slice the data, the priority given the schools has seriously declined in the last 20 years.

The May 22 vote left the schools about $500,000 short, and something had to be cut. The School Board protected programs (e.g., 4th grade strings, driver’s education, freshman football, class sizes), but transportation took a hit. So did teacher raises, building maintenance, and basic supplies. Add to the problem the rising costs of energy, insurance, and the state retirement program. Add again programs, such as No Child Left Behind, which the federal government mandates but does not fund. Oak Ridge Schools does not control any of these costs.

With rising costs and a policy to maintain a flat tax rate, this problem will only get worse.

Despite all efforts to accurately communicate the shortfall leading to reduced bus service this year, misinformation still abounds. On the Oak Ridger’s Forum, “Mom Goose” continues to carry on about purchasing buses with air conditioning for the football team, while “Atomic Citizen” incorrectly claims:

“More than two dozen new administrators and teachers will enter Oak Ridge schools this year”. Not to mention all current administrators and teachers were given raises. That is where the school board decided to spend their money, not on transportation.

Neither Mom Goose nor Atomic Citizen have listened or tried to get the facts, apparently. No new administrators were hired, except to fill vacancies. The only new administrative position proposed was that of Athletic Director, which was the very first thing cut, long before the Board approved a budget request to send to City Council. Buses are replaced according to State requirement — every ten years, I think. And yes, the preschool just got new buses to accomodate a different State requirement for 5-point harnesses last year.

I welcome any thoughtful discussion on how we might better manage the budget for the school system, for the City, or both, but when people just make things up and then try to base their arguments upon it, well, it denigrates the whole process.

Today’s post was supposed to be “Frivolous Friday.” but that will have to wait.

As expected, a number of people addressed the school board last night regarding the change in bus service — nearly all from Sunshine Playschool, which provides before and after school care to elementary students.

Because of a change in state law, the 15-passenger vans that most daycares use will no longer be permitted after January 1. Thus, Sunshine sold their vehicle, planning for their Willowbrook elementary students to ride the bus — but they did so four days before the May 30 Board decision to eliminate bus service within a 1-mile radius of the schools.

However, vehicles with a capacity of less than 10 people are not affected; there’s still the option to use a minivan, SUV, etc. For daycares with a large number of students to transport that would not be easy, requiring either multiple vehicles or multiple trips, but it would be better than the current situation.

From the last speaker’s remarks, there’s evidently some confusion (no surprise here) about the State’s reimbursement for student transportation under the BEP. The reality is, the State reimburses Oak Ridge Schools about 52% of the cost of actual riders who live more than 1.5 miles from the school. Of course, in a city the size of Oak Ridge, that’s a minority of the kids, especially for the elementary schools.

The last speaker apparently believed that the State funds bus service for all children who live more than 1.5 miles from the school, whether or not they ride the bus. He wanted to know where the money was going, since his child attends Sunshine and is not eligible for bus service to and from the daycare, but would be eligible to and from home.

He was right about one thing though: if this continues, Oak Ridge will lose its standing as one of the best school systems in the nation. When fixed and mandated costs — things like electricity, fuel, insurance and participation in the state retirement program — rise at rates much higher than the cost of living, we cannot continue to offer the same services when we do not have the funding to even maintain the status quo.

While we did receive a 4.5% increase in funding from the City, costs in the regular instruction program rose 5.3%. “Regular instruction program” is things like teachers and books — the basics. Our mandated State Retirement expenditure just for the regular instruction program rose 21.2%, or $182,784. Electricity went up 20%. Natural gas went up 45%.

The City increased funding by 4.5%… and thinks that should be enough.

I have to give credit to Stacy Myers, who spoke on behalf of Girls Inc. He asked for one of two solutions: to provide bus service to elementary students who participate in Girls Inc. after school programs, or to have someone watch over the several Willowbrook students who attend that program until one of their vehicles can get to the school to pick them up. At least he presented a viable option, rather than an unattainable demand.

Although there are almost no school systems in Tennessee that provide bus service to all students as we have up until this year, something has been taken away, and it hurts. I’m no less concerned about student safety than any one of the parents sitting in the audience last night, because I’m a mom too, first and foremost. It bothers me. A lot.

It bothers me that the schools receive only a passing mention in the City’s strategic plan, in a city that has always valued providing the best in public education. It bothers me that Council members who campaigned on educational excellence can’t see that the restricted funding is causing very real harm — and no, it’s not a political stunt. Our books are open, and any board member or administrator would be more than happy to assist, if needed, with explaining the complexities of the funding sources, restrictions on the use of funding from various sources, and why we were forced to cut bus service.

It’s not all the City’s fault: the State does a poor job of funding education statewide. I’m personally working very hard on that. But it’s not new. What is new — at least in the last several years — is the City’s approach to prioritizing the needs of the school system relative to other city services and the tax rate.

For years, cuts have been hidden in areas that didn’t outwardly affect anyone, mainly using money from savings in the fund balance. Our savings is very nearly gone, and we can’t hide the cuts any longer.

Council members will tell you that cutting bus service was the School Board’s decision, and that is true, but we are legally obligated to balance the budget. Unfortunately, few seem to recognize that while we bear all the blame for the cuts, they have complete control over a significant portion of our revenue.

City Council could have prevented this cut by funding our request. It might have been as simple as only buying half of the city vehicles they budgeted to replace; that would have been more than enough.

This year’s “buzz” in education funding is “English language learners,” or ELL. This seems like a silly term to me, as I hope we expect all children to be learning English (and math, science, etc.), but the phrase refers to children who speak a foreign language at home.

The City Paper carries an article today about Nashville’s complaints, but rest assured that the same arguments are being made in each of the state’s four largest cities, as well as a few rural areas with growing immigrant populations.

Although the clamor for funding and specialized staffing is new, the problem is not: in this country, we have always had immigrant children in our schools. In Oak Ridge, we have traditionally had a more diverse array of languages than most, but even in the tiny rural school that my husband attended, there were children of migrant farm workers who spoke only Spanish at home.

Children adapt more easily than adults, and are able to learn a new language much more quickly through immersion. Whether Hispanic, Russian, Chinese, or any other nationality, kids can and do pick up English if they’re exposed to it every day through their peers. Although I did not attend school during my adventure as an exchange student, I went from knowing little more than “please” and “thank you” to literally dreaming in Spanish — within a few weeks’ time.

Do we risk doing more harm by segregating these children into special classes comprised of other non-English speaking students, thereby separating them from those from whom they would learn the language most quickly?

Or, is the real goal to leverage more funding from the state for yet another specialized program, serving a few at the expense of the many?

ALL children can learn. They will not learn at the same rate, nor will all attain the same levels of mastery in all subjects. They are, like the rest of us, unique individuals. However, to give immigrant students the best opportunity to succeed in this country, it seems that we should immerse them in our language, culture and customs in our schools.

Tennessee needs to provide adequate funding to educate all students, and stop wasting time and resources trying to divide an inadequate pie.