IS THIS REALLY A FIRST WE WANT?

Some firsts are praiseworthy.

Tennessee was the first state to pass a child restraint law and the first to offer free community college for students.

Some firsts, like the state being the first to make it a felony to camp on public property spaces or the first to restrict drag performances, are still being debated.

We’re not sure a newer proposal — for Tennessee to become the first to reject federal funding for K-12 education — is the right move at this moment in history. But we’re not against an exploratory panel studying the idea.

Tennessee Speaker of the House Cameron Sexton, R-Crossville, floated the idea at a Tennessee Farm Bureau reception in February and filed legislation to create a group to study the idea in March, but the bill did not pass either house.

Undaunted, last week, the speaker and Lt. Gov. Randy McNally, R-Oak Ridge, announced the appointment of 10 people to examine the restrictions, mandates and regulations wound around the potential removal of $1.8 billion in federal dollars from education in the state. Their idea is that the state, which has been flush with cash, could make up the estimated 10% of education money the feds kick in without the ties — cultural and otherwise — insisted upon by D.C.

“Basically, we’ll be able to educate the kids how Tennessee sees fit,” Sexton said at the Farm Bureau event last winter. “We as a state can lead the nation once again in telling the federal government that they can keep their money and we’ll just do things the Tennessee way. And that should start, first and foremost, with the Department of Education.”

His failed legislation would have created an 11-member panel, had it begin meeting by Aug. 1 and plan to deliver a proposal to legislators and Gov. Bill Lee by Dec. 1.

The group would have included six legislators, two school superintendents and two teachers, all appointed by Sexton or McNally. However, the new group is 10 members of the state House and state Senate, including one Democrat from each body, and no one from Southeast Tennessee. No date has been set for the group’s first meeting. Currently, most of the federal money in question supports low-income students, English learners and students with disabilities. Sexton earlier this year identified federally required tests as a reason for the state to take over the funding, but we suspect it’s also to get out from under certain federal curriculum mandates, requirements about bathrooms for transgender students and demands about sports participation for those who identify as a different gender from their birth, all of which are understandable.

However, the same legislature that wants to replace the federal funds also passed legislation earlier this year, the Tennessee Works Act, that included a three-month sales tax holiday on grocery items — cutting $273 million — and annual small business tax relief for another $150 million that won’t go into state coffers.

We’re all for returning money to taxpayers, but state revenue in August was $39.4 million less than estimated and $1.7 million less than the same month a year ago. Further, revenue growth projections have been lowered significantly for 2023-2024 from the last two years.

And if a prolonged recession occurs somewhere in the future, even with the state’s sizable rainy day fund, the state could find itself wishing it had not taken on the extra nearly $2 billion — plus whatever additional employees it had to hire to be sure it was serving the particular needs — that previously had come from Washington.

There’s also this: If a Republican president is elected in 2024, he or she is likely to turn back some of the restrictions put on federal money by the Biden administration and against the will of the majority of the American people. That could preclude some of the reasons Sexton and McNally have for wanting to get the feds out of the picture.

Taking on the funding of low-income students, English learners and students with disability is no easy feat. And the state’s recent track record, from unspent Temporary Assistance for Needy Families money to housing children in state custody to underfunding historically Black colleges, is not a solid one.

Even if the state doesn’t draw the federal money, federal eyes will be hard on the state to do everything right. And who doubts the people behind those D.C. eyes would be quick to call out the state if every “i” isn’t dotted.

It never hurts to study a proposal. To look at it from every angle. To consider every dollar the state would have to spend. To check on more flexibility if the money stays with the feds. To enlist the help of education experts and financial gurus. To take your time.

Oklahoma and South Carolina have made noises about similar legislation but haven’t passed anything.

Yes, it’s only about 10% of K-12 education money in the state’s budget, but it may involve too many strings and too many headaches and still may not get the federal government off the state’s back.

We think the state should look before it leaps.