One of the concerns going into this legislative session was another concerted push to allow for elected school Superintendents, rather than appointed Directors of Schools as is currently mandated. On Tuesday, the elected superintendents bill — HB3374 (Winningham) — was “taken off notice,” meaning it’s not scheduled for a vote.

It was not withdrawn, so it could come back, but the companion (SB2970, Burks) hasn’t been scheduled for a committee hearing yet either, and the session is moving toward closure.

The folks who support elected superintendents seek greater accountability to the public — so that he or she can be replaced at the will of the electorate. This group likely includes a fair number of county commissioners and county mayors, who would like for someone else to share the blame for tax increases needed to fund education.

The merits of an appointed Director of Schools are several. First, it facilitates a good working relationship between the elected school board (that sets policy and approves budgets), and the Director (who implements the Board’s policy and constructs the budget, which may be modified by the Board before approval). Secondly, it enables the school board to select a Director based upon the qualifications, experience, and skills needed for the job, not personal charisma and name recognition.

Further, it greatly broadens the pool of available talent. It’s not uncommon for school systems to search nationwide for the right candidate; depending on the size of the community, there may be few if any local residents who would truly meet the needs of the school system. Fewer still might be interested in having to run for office.

Lastly, it keeps politics out of the inner workings of schools — promoting a system based upon professionalism rather than political alliance.

While there are merits on both sides of the argument, the current system of appointing Directors of Schools is far better than the alternative. For a more detailed analysis, see the Tennessee School Boards Association’s position paper on this issue.

Opposition from local school boards to a proposed change in the BEP fiscal capacity model is growing, with a number of boards passing resolutions to that effect:

Maryville Daily Times, 3/10/2006:

The board passed a resolution that opposes a plan to change the basic education program funding formula that determines how much the state gives each local school system.

Dalton said the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (TACIR) developed a model using 95 counties rather than the 136 school systems as a means for funding distribution.

The redistribution would cause the Maryville school system to lose $3.3 million annually, he said. The Association for Independent and Municipal School Systems is against the proposed changes, Dalton said.

The reason for the formula change is to bring equity to the poorer areas of the state and provide them with more money.

However, Dalton said he has studied the formula and that 14 out of the 15 richest counties would receive more money, and 14 out of the 15 poorest counties would lose money.

“We think there’s some pretty good reasons for opposing it,” Dalton said.

Oak Ridge, Cleveland, Kingsport and others have passed similar resolutions in recent weeks.

Spurred on by national concern about growing childhood obesity rates, the Tennessee Legislature is responding with proposed legislation to mandate monitoring of the physical fitness curriculum, health policies, and nutrition programs of local public schools.

SB2494/HB2522 (Ketron/Baird) would also require public school students in grades K-6 to participate in 150 minutes of P.E. per week; and students in grades 6-8 to participate in 225 minutes of P.E. per week for the entire school year.

Kids need to be more active than they are, both for health and to “get their wiggles out” to improve learning in subjects that require more concentration. The Commercial Appeal has endorsed it; articles have also appeared in the Tennessean and Chattanoogan.

The only problem is this: the State continues to mandate what must be included in the school day, while taking nothing out. Further, there is no provision for funding additional facilities or instructional staff needed to carry out the mandate. It is, once again, a case of adding to the local burden while relieving nothing.

Extracurricular athletic opportunities abound, and parents should assume some responsibility for seeing to it that their children spend some portion of each day on physical activity. Of course, given the state of adults in this country, we shouldn’t wonder why children are following the unhealthy lifestyles of their role models.

Has anyone proposed a fitness regimen for legislators? How about benchmarking their diet and exercise habits first?

Yesterday’s notice that HB3180 was withdrawn from consideration was certainly good news, but I’ve said before that we can’t rest until this ill-conceived scheme is “dead, buried, with grass growing on top.”

Today’s article in the Chattanooga Times-Free Press about Sen. David Fowler’s decision not to seek a fourth term in the State Senate further hints that other efforts by proponents of the TACIR-inspired BEP reform may yet be pending this year… see paragraph six:

Currently he is working to change the state’s school-funding formula that local officials said discriminates against Hamilton County.

He hasn’t filed a bill this year to change it (the deadline has passed), and yet, he’s “currently working” to change it. One might interpret the hints to mean that either his bill from last year may be resurrected and amended, or that he may be planning to amend some other legislation to achieve the same thing — possibly one of the budget bills.

SB0272 (Fowler)/HB0615 (Brown, McCormick, Favors, Sharp) was filed last year and assigned to the Education committees in both houses… but nothing has occurred with these bills since April 11 of last year. The General Assembly runs on a two-year cycle, however, meaning that this bill could be resurrected through the end of the current session.

Unlike HB3180, Fowler’s version does not specify using the TACIR prototype system-level fiscal capacity model; it simply mandates moving to a system-level model by the 2006-2007 school year. Thus, it is not quite as bad, but there is no other model under consideration that I know of. The plain truth is that the fiscal capacity formula is so doggone complicated that very few people really understand it, and even fewer are able to devise a replacement.

Remember the old line about “lies, damn lies, and statistics?” It’s not quite that bad — math by itself does not lie. But choosing which variables to include in a formula that measures ability to pay leaves it open to bias, and the bias in the TACIR formula is based upon the inclusion of the amount that local governments DO allocate to education, but excluding what they COULD allocate.

More to follow shortly.