Hearings on federal ed. money leave more questions than answers
A legislative panel considering rejecting federal school funds for Tennessee concluded two weeks of meetings Wednesday with more questions than answers about whether to decline federal funds and replace them with state dollars.
The Joint Working Group on Federal Education Funding wrapped Wednesday after holding hearings over the course of two weeks. More meetings are expected after Thanksgiving.
Russell Moore, director of the Tennessee Comptroller’s Office of Research and Education Accountability, laid out a framework of dozens of questions on Wednesday for the panel to consider as they move forward with a policy recommendation for when the General Assembly convenes again in January.
The panel also heard testimony Wednesday from representatives of two conservative groups who highlighted advantages of rejecting federal funds. They were the only special interest groups permitted to testify during the hearings. No disability rights groups, for instance, addressed the group.
Sal Nuzzo, senior vice president of the Tallahasseebased conservative James Madison Institute, told House members Wednesday afternoon that school districts receiving federal funds are required to leverage them for student services in federally determined proportions.
He said federal rulemaking has conflicted with state laws passed in Florida, citing a new state law that requires school staff to refer to students using pronouns based on their biological sex. New proposed federal guidance, if adopted, would create a legal basis for school employees to sue the school district if preferred pronouns are not used. Nuzzo said this puts school districts in the dilemma of having to “choose whether to risk their state or federal funding.”
Nuzzo also told lawmakers that Florida “didn’t suffer” when officials declined more than $2 billion in federal school funding, but student achievement has since risen. He later noted that those funds were post-coronavirus supplemental funding and did not support day-to-day school operations.
Florida has not rejected funding for federal Title 1, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or school nutrition programs, as Tennessee lawmakers are considering.
Steve Johnson, a fellow with the State Policy Network’s Center for Practical Federalism, encouraged the panel to reject the funding in order to “guard the authority you have as a state.”
He claimed that Individualized Education Plans for students struggling academically – which he praised because “we don’t want a one-size fits all policy” – are burdensome for teachers to administer because they involve “hours and hours of paperwork” to ensure federal compliance. He considers those hours an opportunity cost that could be saved if the state allowed districts to administer IEPS without federal compliance requirements.
“If you turn down these federal funds, it would allow you to innovate in a way nobody has ever done,” Johnson said. “With the federal regulations right now, it doesn’t allow for that innovation.”
Johnson also cited extensive requirements connected with the USDA’S school nutrition program — such as permitting schools to serve a protein-enriched macaroni and cheese as a meat alternative — and said that school districts would be free to innovate and compete if the state just provided funding for school lunches in a block grant.
Here’s what else there is to know as the panel concluded its scheduled public hearings.
What money are they talking about?
Tennessee receives about $1.8 billion in program grant funding from federal agencies each year, which supports day-to-day services for economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, career and technical education opportunities, and the school nutrition program.
Nearly 1 million Tennessee students and more than 100,000 teachers and school staff receive direct support from federal funds. All 147 local school districts in Tennessee receive at least one federal grant, according to the state Department of Education. Out of the 1,900 public schools in the state, 1,200 implement a Title I program to support economically disadvantaged children.
Throughout the working group’s meetings, no lawmaker outlined or proposed specific areas of federal funding to reject.
Sen. Jon Lundberg, R-bristol, who co-chairs the committee, has repeatedly emphasized that the panel’s work is “not about cutting programs in any way, shape
or form.”
If the state does choose to reject federal funding, he says the state would continue to pay for programs funded by that money.
What federal ‘strings’ are they concerned about?
It’s still not clear. One of the tasks assigned to the panel was identifying federal requirements or “strings” attached to federal dollars. Several speakers noted federal reporting requirements, and requirements that schools actually serve lunches to students when they participate in the USDA school nutrition program.
The “most notable and broad” federal requirement tied to the funds is annual achievement testing in reading, math, and science from 3rd through 12th grade, Austin Reid, a federal education policy analyst at the National Conference of State Legislatures, told the panel. House Speaker Cameron Sexton, R-crossville, has repeatedly noted Tennessee’s TCAP test as a requirement attached to federal school funding.
Sen. Joey Hensley, R-hohenwald, asked Wednesday where all federal “strings” attached to dollars are compiled.
“Do you have a list or any way we could find out what federal requirements we could forego if we did not take the money? State requirements and federal requirements,” Hensley asked. “That’s the whole issue we’re trying to face is what strings or what requirements that we could forego if we didn’t take the money.”
Moore said that he is not aware of a document comparing federal requirements with how the state meets them – whether by rule, regulation, or policy. Lundberg indicated that could be something the panel requests the comptroller’s office to compile in the future – something Moore described as “a big undertaking.” Moore noted that the state could ask for exemption from some specific requirements in its waiver request to federal agencies.
Democrats on the panel have noted that there are “strings” attached to state dollars as well.
How could the state go about rejecting funds?
Moore said Wednesday there are several ways that the state could go about rejecting federal funds, but there are many questions to consider. The state could reject funds and replace them with state dollars, or seek a waiver from the federal government to seek more autonomy in how programs are administered — as the state has done with its Medicaid system, known here as Tenncare.
Moore raised a series of questions about whether the state can reject the funding:
h What part of the state’s budget would money to replace the rejected funding come from, and is that funding source sustainable?
h Would it be possible to reverse the rejection and replacement effort at any time in the future?
h Would state replacement funding need to vary in coming years, as some federal funding amounts vary each year?
h Would the state require local dollars to help make up the difference?
h Would the state pursue an incremental rejection of some funds over time?
h Would the state require local governments to match state funds filling the gaps for rejected federal money?
What would be the legal implications?
Because of the unprecedented nature of the move, and the nature of the programs the federal dollars support, any rejection of funding is likely to draw a lawsuit.
“Potential litigation is another consideration,” Moore said, adding that members should consider requesting opinions from Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti on legal aspects of the matter.
No parent testimony
During the meetings, lawmakers heard from state fiscal analysts and researchers, national education policy experts, representatives from schools and school districts, officials from the Tennessee Department of Education, and the conservative-leaning organizations.
No public comments from parents, activist or disability rights groups were taken by the panel during its formal meetings.
A group of mothers called for lawmakers to maintain Tennessee’s federal education funding.
Ashley Warbington, whose son attends Shwab Elementary School in East Nashville, called federal funding through the Title I program a “critical lifeline” to a school population that is classified majority low-income. A significant portion of the school’s population is also facing homelessness, Warbington said.
Warbington criticized lawmakers who have said Tennessee should cut the “strings” connected to federal funding for increased state autonomy, though few overreaching federal requirements have been illuminated through the Education Review Taskforce meetings.
“In fact, these so-called ‘strings’ are not burdensome requirements but rather ensure the protection of the most vulnerable children,” Warbington said. “They are investments that benefit our children at Shwab and contribute nearly $2 billion to help children in Tennessee.”
How is the Lee administration reacting?
Gov. Bill Lee has signaled he is open to the panel’s work and has cited “excessive overreach” of federal agencies. He has also emphasized that appointing the working group was not his idea.
If lawmakers opt out of certain federal funding, lawmakers have said they will fill in the gaps with state dollars. In her agency’s budget hearing this week, Tennessee Education Commissioner Lizzette Reynolds did not propose a large sum of state investment in anticipation of offsetting rejected federal funds.
During her testimony to the panel, Reynolds emphasized the critical role the funds have in daily functions for Tennessee schools, and uncertainties if the state were to reject federal school funds.
“The issue of accepting or rejecting federal funding is a complicated one, with numerous legal implications and uncertainties,” Reynolds said. “For these reasons, it’s hard to project exactly how decisions would play out if made.”
Is this idea bipartisan?
Not at all. The panel was appointed by Republican speakers of the House and Senate, and eight of the 10 panel members are Republicans. Democrats on and off the panel and have criticized the idea from the beginning.
Sen. London Lamar, D-memphis, said Wednesday that even considering rejecting any federal school funding is “reckless and irresponsible,” as Tennessee students are among the least funded in the United States.
“Our students need more support in the classroom, not less. Our students need more access to tutoring, counselors and mental health specialists, not less. Our students need regular meals and wrap-around support to be the best learners they can be,” Lamar said in a statement. “There’s no future success story for students, families or our economy if Tennessee continues down this dangerous, anti-student path.”
How are other Republicans reacting?
The idea of rejecting buckets of federal money and replacing them with state tax dollars isn’t a universally hailed one within the GOP.
Sen. Bo Watson, R-hixson, who chairs the powerful Senate Finance Ways & Means Committee, seems skeptical.
In a social media post on Wednesday, Watson said the committee has been watching financial indicators over the past two quarters, “and have been warning of some economic headwinds” for next year.
“Spending discipline will be critical in the State’s next budget,” he wrote.
Melissa Brown contributed.
Vivian Jones covers state government and politics for The Tennessean. Reach her at vjones@tennessean.com .