Principle and Policy: Notes on Public Education from a Conservative School Board Member
V.1.1: Funding Frustration: Why is it So Hard to Put Money to Work for our Students?
“School systems exist for one reason and one reason only: to improve student outcomes. This is the only reason that school systems exist.” AJ Crabill, Great on Their Behalf
If improving student outcomes isn’t what we’re all here for, then students and families would be better off if we all went home. It seems to me that almost anything can be justified as being “for the kids,” given the huge amounts of money pumped into school districts in Tennessee.
Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA), the current education funding formula, pays Jackson-Madison County Schools about $2-3 million each year in “fast growth” funds that are basically unrestricted. In the past, this money has been allocated haphazardly as it comes in during the year, after the budget has been set. I recall a budget committee meeting in which fast growth funding was allocated primarily to “maintenance of plant,” while another board member expressed hopes to allocate some to athletics, lamenting that he was beaten to the punch.
In my opinion, school boards have a problem. It is not where will we get the money; it is will the money we receive be spent in the best way possible- making a meaningful impact on students’ academic outcomes?
When the final quarterly payment of 2024-25 came in, a little more than $775,000, the school board decided to allocate it for 2025-26 through a budget amendment. We heard the plan to allocate this money in the September budget committee meeting, and the budget amendment was approved on October 9th. I fought hard against spending $90,000 to hire a lobbying firm called Stones River Group. While the other allocations were tied clearly to initiatives the board was already familiar with, hiring a lobbyist was never a part of the picture.
Read my public statement from the 10/9/25 board meeting.
I had three concerns that drove my substantial efforts to defeat this approval. First, I believe that a conservative board should never approve paying taxpayer dollars to a lobbyist, to lobby another taxpayer funded entity- in this case, the State of Tennessee (the firm’s connection to governors and US senators were reported enthusiastically.)
Second, the board must live by its own policies. The argument that the contract qualified as a professional service, that there is a line item for “other contracted services,” that “things change during the year,” were all stated at various points to justify a claim that the Superintendent had the authority to make this decision without the board’s approval. These assertions fall flat, in my opinion. While these talking points are each addressed in policy, the fact is that any expenditure not budgeted previously is a “special expenditure” and requires the board’s approval.
Third, what will we actually get for this expense? Does elevating the District’s profile in Nashville improve student outcomes? Does the Superintendent having a “think tank,” as he called this firm, improve student outcomes? Do we need a firm to recommend which charter schools to approve- and would that improve student outcomes? We have an aggregate 28% ELA achievement rate for 2024-25 TCAP testing, and it only goes down from there in other subjects. Are we justified in putting any amount of money into a lobbying firm? To me, the answer to these questions is “no.”
Although the budget amendment allocating this money passed, this new and inappropriate expenditure should have been handled separately and evaluated thoroughly based on how significantly it would help students in Madison Co. Not only did an in depth discussion not occur, but great pains were taken to prevent it- from the way the agenda was constructed to the parliamentary efforts to stop me from isolating this issue.
When business concluded, one other board member joined me in voting to separate the fast growth funding allocation from the other budget amendments. Failing to do so, I voted in favor of approving the whole budget amendment package because critical funding had been delayed and needed to be appropriated quickly.
Based on principle and policy, not to mention the low chance of positive outcomes, hiring a lobbyist with taxpayer dollars should have been a nonstarter. Instead, the board gave up its responsibility to keep the district squarely in its lane- focused on meaningful actions that prioritize student success.
This is not the only policy or budgetary issue we have, and I will be sharing more successes and persistent problems, reaching back into the efforts I’ve made in the past year. However, this one brings out a couple of things for you to consider.
First, reform is needed at both the state and local level regarding TISA’s grants of unrestricted money throughout the year. These funds are not easily accounted for in the budget process, but are far too easy to waste on initiatives that are not ineffective or unrelated to addressing student outcomes.
Second, as we approach another election season, consider if you are getting the conservative representation you deserve on the school board. School district governance is well-designed in theory but often poorly implemented in practice. If the school board cannot craft the expectations of the community into a vision that can be implemented by the administration with accountability, is governance really taking place?
Sound governance is achievable- if we return to the business of improving student outcomes through long-term, conservative financial stewardship.