►
Description
House K-12 Subcommittee - March 22, 2022 - House Hearing Room 2
A
Just
want
to
see
who
jumped
the
most
there
all
right,
we'll
call
education,
k-12
subcommittee,
to
order.
We
have
madam
clarke
go
ahead
and
take
the
roll.
B
A
Thank
you.
Do
we
have
any
personal
orders
before
we
begin
chair,
yeah,
representative.
D
And
director
of
schools
for
franklin
special
is
in
the
crowd,
dr
david
snowden,
and
welcome
him
and
appreciate
what
he
does
for
us.
E
Chairman
what
there
was
anybody
else
on
the
committee,
but
I
was
just
talking
to
the
cleveland
bradley
chamber
of
commerce
students
here
today
and
mr
chairman,
anybody
want
to
say
anything
more
about
them.
That's
leading
the.
A
Anybody
else
all
right,
let's
take
a
look
at
the
calendar,
a
few
updates
we'll
go
through
before
we
start
off
adam.
A
House
bill
item
number
10
house,
bill.
1000
is
off
notice
and
I
believe
that's
all
that's
off
notice
right.
That's
the
only
two.
We
have
off
notice
right
now.
So
that
brings
us
to
item
number
one
house
bill.
2143,
do
I
have
a
motion
properly
motion
and
chairman
white.
You
were
recognized
on
house
bill
2143
and
I
do
believe
you
have
an
amendment
to
start
us
off
with
there.
E
Thank
you,
chairman
committee,
we're
starting
to
make
sure
we're
on
the
right
amendment.
We
introduced
the
bill
two
weeks
ago.
The
main
amendment
is
one
five,
five,
nine
one.
A
E
E
I
have,
we
have
put
it
out
for
many
people
to
comment
on.
I
have
a
lot
of
comments
and
things
and
we've
got
several
amendments
to
introduce.
Today,
the
department
has
been
listening
in
the
administration
has
been
listening
to
the
feedback
and
we'll
talk
about
those,
but
that
is
where
we
are
at
this
juncture,
with
with
a
particular
bill.
The
piece.
A
Of
bill,
thank
you,
chairman
watt,
and
does
anybody
have
any
questions
on
this
amendment?
Of
course
we're
going
to
be
in
a
a
lot
of
discussions
about
this
bill
today.
So
without
objection
we'll
go
ahead
and
adopt
this
amendment
without
objection
we'll
be
voting
to
adopt
amendment
one
five,
five,
nine
one,
all
those
in
favor,
please
indicate
by
saying
aye
aye,
all
the
opposed
say:
no,
the
eyes
have
it
and
the
amendment
is
adopted.
I
believe
that
takes
us
to
the
next
amendment
that
was
on
the
list.
A
I
believe
it's
amendment
number
two
in
on
your
mark
calendars
and
what
is
that
drafting
code
chairman
white,
that.
A
On
this
amendment
properly
motion
chairman
white,
you
were
recognized
on
your
amendment.
Would
you
like
to
explain
it?
Okay,.
E
This
amendment,
the
first
of
we
have
three
today.
The
first
is
it's
a
compilation
of
things
that
the
department
administration
heard
that
they
have
want
to
amend
to
the
bill.
I
would
like
to
ask
d.o.e
to
be
the
ones
who
go
over
this.
It's
about
12,
13
items,
if
it's
okay
with
them,
instead
of
me
just
going
going
through
the
list,
they
may
have
questions
of
the
committee
anyway,
if
that'd
be
okay,
I
will.
C
A
Without
objection,
I
think
that
that
would
be
prudent
if,
if
the
committee
so
wills,
it
we'll
go
ahead
and
take
up
this
amendment
and
then
discuss
briefly
the
next
one.
And
if
there's
some
questions
in
between
we're
fine
doing
that.
But
I
think
that
that's
a
wise
approach,
if
the
committee's
okay,
with
that
motion
to
adopt
the
amendment.
C
A
Probably
motion
without
objection
we'll
be
voting
to
adopt
amendment
one
six,
one,
six,
eight,
all
those
in
favor
indicate
by
saying
aye
aye
the
opposed
say
no,
the
eyes
have
it.
The
amendment
is
adopted
that
takes
us
to
the
second
amendment
or
I'm
sorry,
amendment
three
in
your
on
your
calendars.
A
I
believe
it's
drafting
code,
one
six,
one,
seven,
four
chairman:
what
is
that?
What
you
have.
E
A
A
E
A
A
With
that
chairman
white,
we
do
have
in
committee,
we
do
have
some
people
down
to
testify
without
objection,
we
will
go
ahead
and
go
out
of
session
and
begin
taking
up
some
of
the
list
of
the
people
that
had
had
requested
this
within
the
24-hour
period
that
we
require.
A
So
without
objection
we
will
go
out
of
session
and
I
will
we
will
begin
with
david
connor
and
we
will
invite
him
up
and
just
for
the
record,
please
make
sure
you
state
your
name
and
who
you
represent,
and
we
do
have
a
three-minute
testimony
time
frame
on
these.
Just
to
keep
that
in
mind,
go
right
ahead.
F
F
We
represent
county
commissioners,
county
mayors
across
the
state,
and
somebody
asked
me
that
they're
like
you're
on
the
list,
but
it
doesn't
show
if
you're,
supporting
or
you're
opposing,
and
it's
like.
Okay,
if
I'm
a
traffic
light,
I'm
not
a
green,
I'm,
not
a
reb,
we're
kind
of
like
a
flashing
yellow,
which
is
just
like.
Please,
let's
make
sure
we
get
this
right,
we're
at
a
really
unique
moment
in
time.
F
The
last
two
governors
have
both
thought
about
making
major
revisions
to
education
funding
and
what
they
didn't
have
in
place
at
the
time
was
a
large
amount
of
funding
to
invest
into
it,
as
if
you
don't
have
that
otherwise
you're
kind
of
picking
winners
and
losers,
and
some
of
the
things
that
I
know
are
being
considered
in
the
amendments
like
the
fiscal
capacity
and
other
matters.
It's
like
you
know.
How
does
that
affect
our
members?
Well.
F
Well,
20
counties
do
better
under
this
one,
but
30
counties
do
worse
and
then
you
know
so
it
puts
us
in
a
difficult
position,
but
I
said
you
all
do
have
very.
Fortunately,
our
state
has
a
great
surplus
due
to
its
financial
management
right
now
there
is
an
opportunity
to
put
money
in
and
I
don't
want
to.
F
I
don't
want
to
be
short
about
the
fact
of
saying
we
are
very
appreciative
of
the
large
investment
that
the
governor
and
the
and
the
general
assembly
is
looking
at
making
that
in
k-12
education
right
now,
that's
very
much
appreciated
by
local
government.
I
I'd
like
to
spend
more
time
on
that,
but
I
got
three
minutes
so
I
do
want
to
touch
on
two
things.
One
is
something
I
want
to
point
out
that
this
is
not
fixing.
That
has
been
an
issue
with
the
bep.
F
If
you
look
at
the
bep
one
of
the
biggest
complaints
from
the
local
government
side
is
we
don't
feel
like
it
funds
all
the
positions
there's
about,
depending
on
the
year
10
or
11
000
positions
outside
the
bep,
the
local
school
systems
fund?
So
that's
been
a
frustration.
Now
there
are
some
things
in
here:
definitely
improving
the
ratios
on
nurses
on
counselors.
It
is,
is
that
possibly
adding
some
additional
teachers
into
the
base,
but
it
takes
a
huge
amount
of
money
to
cover
all
those
positions
and
that's
not
entirely
getting
resolved
under
this.
F
I
think
the
flip
side
of
that
coin
and
the
frustration
that
often
you
all
have
as
a
general
assembly
is
you
put
money
in
for
teacher,
raises
and
you're
frustrated
by
the
time
it
gets
to
the
local
level.
Those
teachers
are
saying,
they're
not
seeing
it
in
their
paychecks,
and
I
think
those
two
are
related.
F
So
you
can
make
adjustments
to
that
when
we
go
to
this
base
funding
amount
per
pupil.
If
you
want
to
put
money
into
teacher
salaries
now
you
got
to
put
it
into
the
base
and
earmark
it,
and
then
that
triggers
an
investment
in
the
weights
and
then
all
of
that
triggers
a
local
30
percent
match
on
all
of
that.
So
it's
going
to
be
difficult
to
be
able
to
say
that
we're
putting
the
money
directly
where
we
want
it
to
go
so
that
issue's
not
going
to
be
resolved.
F
F
I
hope,
as
we
move
forward
either
through
the
legislation
or
through
the
rules,
the
department
looks
at.
We
are
careful
that
we
don't
end
up
monetizing
our
students
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is.
We
have
to
be
careful
about
incentives
we
create,
because
we
see
that
a
lot
of
places
you
could.
You
could
end
up
incentivizing
schools
to
over
identify
special
education
or
over-identify
kids
with
certain
needs.
You
can
incentivize
schools
to
go
out
and
start
trying
to
get
kids
signed
up
for
benefits
in
order
to
qualify
them
as
economically
disadvantaged
things
like
that.
A
Thank
you,
mr
connors.
Anybody
have
any
questions
representative,
clemens,
you're,
recognized.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
mr
connor.
I
don't
know
if
you
can
answer
this
question
or
not,
but
the
several
representations
have
been
made
by
the
department
of
education
with
regards
to
this
question
and
answer.
So
if
we
were
to
maintain
the
bep
as
it
exists
today
and
this
body
were
to
appropriate
a
billion
new
dollars
into
the
bep
as
it
exists
today,
how
much
would
that
trigger
for
cumulatively
for
the
counties
to
to
put
in
total
there.
F
Would
be
different
answers
to
that,
depending
on
exactly
how
you
put
it
into
the
formula?
I
think,
if
you
put
it
all
in
to
say
we're
going
to
take
the
salary
component
and
push
the
salary
component
up
that
might
trigger
more.
We
had
someone
take
a
look
at
what,
if
you
add
additional
positions,
you
try
to
cover
as
many
of
those
10
or
11
000
positions
in
the
bep
that
might
not
have
as
much
of
an
effect.
F
We
do
think
there
are
some
counties
that
are
funding
right
at
that
local
match
level,
that
no
matter
what
you
do
and
you
invest
you're
going
to
require
them
to
put
in
more,
but
most
of
the
systems
across
the
state
are
filling
funding
well,
above
that
local
match,
so
it
wouldn't
necessarily
trigger
an
increase.
We've
looked
at
one
way
of
doing
it
and
it
may
be
as
little
as
like
10
or
15
million.
Well,
I
mean
not
for
a
billion,
but
you
could
put
maybe
700
million
in
and
not
trigger
much
locally.
F
I
will
say
in
the
past,
when
governors
have
looked
at
major
new
investments
into
education
funding,
there
are
ways
too.
You
could
put
a
circuit
breaker
in
there
to
say
we're
putting
all
this
in
right
now
and
for
this
year,
we're
not
going
to
require
a
match,
because
local
governments
don't
have
the
the
big
large
s
that
the
state
does
right
now.
G
So
representative
clemens
thanks,
mr,
so
I
just
want
to
get
clarification
so
there
you
said
there
was
a
scenario
where
it
would
only
be
10
to
15
million
dollars,
cumulatively
across
the
state,
because
of
because
I
know
nashville.
For
instance,
I
mean
we
put
in
well
above
and
we
fund
positions
well
outside
the
bep.
F
I
mean,
I
think,
that
it's
similar
to,
what's
being
looked
at
in
tissa
natissa,
is
looking
at
resetting
that
local
match
even
lower
to
try
to
guard
against
raises
for
a
number
of
three
or
four
years.
I
said
when
we
looked
at
this,
so
many
systems
are
above
the
local
match
that
when
the
state
puts
this
money
in
the
local
match
has
to
go
up,
but
you're
already
funding
well
above
it,
so
it
wouldn't
necessarily
trigger
a
local
tax
increase.
F
There
are
a
number
of
systems
right
near
that
match
that
would
have
to,
but
the
way
we
looked
at
it,
it
was
not
that
large
of
an
increase.
G
F
So
I
mean
I
think
there
are
some
systems
that
that
would
been
the
first
year
or
two
they're
already
being
affected,
and
certainly
by
the
time
we
get
to
year,
four,
so
others
are
there,
that's
difficult
for
us
now
to
really
make
a
good
projection
on
under
the
new
formula
as
to
where
it's
going
to
go.
Is
it
is
it
going
to
be
higher
than
what
it
would
have
been
under
the
bep
and
I've
heard
some
folks
say:
no,
it's
probably
about
the
same
amount
of
growth.
F
That's
it's
difficult
for
us
to
tell
because
there's
it's
such
a
significant
change
in
how
it's
calculated.
Thank
you,
chairman,
sapi.
C
F
When
I
was
mentioning
about
how
there
are
improvements
into
the
teacher
ratio
and
the
nursing
ratio
and
some
of
those
that's
going
to
help
close
that
gap
right
now,
where
the
local
systems
complain
that
we're
having
to
hire
a
lot
more
people
outside
the
formula,
it's
bringing
some
folks
into
the
formula,
I
don't
think
it's
bringing
the
full
amount
and
that
that's
a
discussion
maybe
to
be
made
that
maybe
some
of
those
need
to
come
into
the
formula.
F
C
Learning
calculations
we
change
the
base
amount
that
student
that
is
currently
in
that
dyslexia
line
their
needs
are
being
met
because
we've
already
funded
that,
but
by
the
recalculation
of
that
there's
now
extra
money
available
there
to
the
lea.
Could
the
lea
not
use
that
money
to
help
close
to
teacher
salary
ratios
the
teacher
position
ratio?
Sorry
about
that.
F
C
Yeah,
so
last
one
yes
go
ahead,
so,
hypothetically
for
four
years,
the
general
assembly,
since
I've
been
here
every
year,
we've
given
a
pay
raise
every
year,
some
some
greater
than
others,
some
less
than
others,
but
we've
given
a
pay
raise
every
year
since
I've
been.
I
know
this
member's
been
here
a
lot
longer
than
I
have.
It's
pretty
much
become
accustomed
that
the
general
assembly
gives
pay
raises
to
teachers
every
year
and
the
new
in
the
new
base
funding
formula.
C
F
E
Thank
you
chairman,
and
that's
where
I
want
to
kind
of
develop
the
thought
representative
piggy.
You
made
a
statement
to
begin
with,
as
one
of
the
concerns
is,
you
do
not
feel
like
it
covers
all
staffing
positions,
and
that
was
one
of
the
weaknesses
of
the
bep
is
that
it
was
based
upon
ratios
and
then
the
locals
have
the
flexibility
to
do
what
they
feel
like
they
need
to
do
so
now,
under
this
model,
the
tessa
model,
we
are
at
least
funding
based
upon
the
weight
of
the
the
type
of
students
that
each
district
has.
E
F
I
I
guess
the
point
I
was
trying
to
make
earlier
is
that
moving
completely
away
from
this
under
the
system.
Now
I
can
say,
you've
got
so
many
kids
in
this
grade,
so
that's
generating
this
number
of
teachers
you're
actually
hiring
20
more
on
top
of
that,
for
whatever
reason-
and
we
can
at
least
make
that
comparison
under
here,
it's
going
to
be
this
kid's
getting
68.60
that
kid's
getting
78.40.
That
could
you
know-
and
I
don't
know
how
to
add-
that
up
to
determine
how
many
teachers
it
is
and
isn't
paying
for.
F
H
I
know
one
of
the
issues
I
believe
that
leas
have
had
and
school
boards
and
districts
is
needing
more
school
nurses,
counselors
social
workers,
the
money
being
put
in,
but
not
necessarily
describing
or
prescribing
that
a
certain
ratio
can
be
achieved
in
the
language
of
the
bill
does
give
you
more
flexibility.
H
My
concern
would
be
that
when
the
costs
start
to
increase
in
year
four
or
five
or
six
that
because
it's
not
prescriptive,
that
may
be
the
first
place
you
pull
from
in
order
to
reduce
some
calls,
because
now
you
know
that
you
don't
have
to
spend
money
in
that
certain
area
not
projecting
this
on
any
of
the
districts.
But
I'm
saying
when
we
don't
prescribe
those
areas,
then
it
becomes
a
little
bit
more
difficult
to
maybe
save
some
of
those
areas,
because
it's
not
in
law.
That's
what
I'm
saying
makes
sense.
F
It
does,
I
think,
with
respect
to
school
nurses
right
now.
The
ratio
is
so
large
that
the
systems
are
hiring
many
more
nurses
than
the
formula
is
generating.
So
I
think
it's
they're
not
going
to
back
off
with
that.
They've
seen
that
and
the
covet
has
only
made
us
more
aware
of
the
fact
that
the
importance
of
a
school
nurse
and
how
critical
they
are
to
the
academic
side
of
things
so,
and
I
think
that's
out
there.
F
There
wasn't
a
lot
of
funding
initially
and
that's
one
of
the
things
the
bp
review
committee
has
made
some
recommendations
about
to
improve
rti
funding,
because
some
counties
saw
that
and
they're
looking
at
it
like.
We
need
that
we
need
rti
instruction,
we're
not
getting
the
funding
for
it,
and
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
things.
F
F
I
think
our
systems,
our
school
boards,
working
with
the
county
commissions,
are
trying
to
figure
out
what
do
our
students
really
need?
I
think
that's
what
their
focus
is
right
now
and
I
said
appreciate
the
fact
that
that
is
the
focus
of
this
formula.
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
the
the
department
is
trying
to
give
as
much
flexibility
to
the
locals
as
they
as
they
need.
I
think
it's.
F
There
will
be
those
decisions
in
the
future
whether
it's
a
fast-growing
system
trying
to
keep
up
with
school
growth
and
having
to
build
new
buildings
or
whether
it's
a
system,
that's
got
declining
growth,
and
how
do
we
manage
the
fact
that
we're
going
to
have
to
lay
off
some
teachers
and
rearrange
the
kids
or
you
know,
there's
there's
on
both
ends
of
the
spectrum?
The
systems
are
struggling
with
how
to
manage
those
needs
and
maintain
them,
and
I
think
that
will
always
be
a
part
of
it.
Okay,.
A
I
There,
it
is
all
right,
my
name
is
stephen
puckett,
I'm
a
private
citizen
from
hendersonville
tennessee,
I'm
here
as
a
concerned
citizen
and
and
as
a
taxpayer.
I
speak
for
myself,
but
I'm
sure
there's
others
that
agree
with
me
anytime,
there's
a
new
funding
formula.
Of
course,
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
questions.
I
You
know
it's
one
thing,
one
thing
to
say
that:
well,
we've
got
you
know
9
999,
but
the
thing
is
that
may
sound
good,
but
if
it
costs
ten
thousand
dollars
to
actually
provide
the
service,
then
you've
wasted
nine
thousand
nine
hundred
ninety
nine
dollars
and
so
measuring
based
on
dollars
per
student,
is
not
highly
effective
as
say
measuring
time
per
student,
which
is
a
much
more
clear
measure.
I
The
bep
kind
of
splits,
the
difference
with
the
ratios,
where
you
can
actually
measure
time
per
student
based
on
classroom
size
and
things
like
that,
and
you
can
actually
see
cannibalization
at
times,
especially
with
our
social
workers.
Our
you
know,
nurses,
and
everything
where
you
can
see
through
the
actuality
the
cannibalization
of
time.
I
The
second
major
issue
with
this
is
that
it
fails
to
account
for
dynamic
risk.
It
actually
shares
this
problem
with
the
bep,
in
that
we
don't
have
core
curriculum
like
communications
or
foreign
language,
which
would
address
the
esl
issue
as
the
sl
risk,
as
well
as
different
kinds
of
communication
issues
such
as
speech
therapy
dyslexia.
Things
like
that
that
are
part
of
the
special
education
program
and
that
you
currently
have
to
pull
students
out
of
another
class,
like
say
in
my
case,
pulled
out
of
science
for
speech
therapy
that
could
be
incorporated
in
that
curriculum.
I
The
last
one
is
probably
the
biggest
one,
and
that
is
the
dishonesty
issue.
This
funding
formula
is
designed
almost
in
every
component
for
opportunities
for
dishonesty.
It's
it's
results-based
issue
can
actually
promote
academic
dishonesty.
We
already
have
major
problems
with
the
draconian
penalty
system.
We
have.
This
would
supercharge
that
and
has
been
demonstrated
in
other
places
implemented.
I
Academic
dishonesty
versus
economic
dishonesty
are
in
our
key
key
indifference.
Academic
dishonesty
injures
the
student
well
economic
dishonesty,
which
would
be
a
student
getting
patented
for
work.
They
didn't
do
or
publish
for
work.
They
didn't
do
because
the
teacher
fleshed
out
an
idea
would
provide
economic
reward
to
the
students,
something
I
presented
previously
on
an
ant
when
we
were
discussing
lunch
issues.
I
Also,
the
direct
funding
there's
concern
about
the
flexibility
the
governor
would
have
in
that.
If
the
governor
changed
direct
funding
from
one
item
to
another,
it
may,
the
locals
may
be
forced
by
the
parents
to
have
to
raise
taxes
to
address
that.
That
creates
dynamic
issues
at
the
local
level
and
so
as
well
as
questions
about
whether
or
not
the
compartmentalization
chairman's
picky
was
kind
of
talking
about
that
with
the
the
fun
the
four
formulas
you
know
legislating
it.
I
A
Thank
you,
mr
puckett.
Does
anybody
have
any
questions
for
our
guests?
A
Seeing
none
appreciate
you
taking
your
time
and
coming
in
and
sharing
your
thoughts
with
us.
Thank
you,
mr
puckett,
and
that
brings
us.
I
think
we
have
three
that
we'll
bring
up
at
the
same
time
is
it.
We
have
three
jacob
jacob
sorrells
or
sorrells:
I've
known
sorrells,
I've,
I've
known
both
pronunciations
justin
owen
and
elizabeth
brown.
A
If
they
would
come
on
up
to
the
to
the
table
here
and
just
start
off
by
introducing
each
each
one
of
yourselves
and
who
you
represent
and
then
we'll
start
down
at
the
right
and
work
across
for
your
comments,
it'll
be
three
minutes
each
and
then
we'll
open
it
up
for
any
questions.
D
Thank
you,
I'm
jacob
sorrells.
I
represent
marshall
county
schools.
D
I'm
really
here
to
represent
the
students
of
marshall
county.
Thank
you
for
allowing
me
to
be
here.
Thank
you
to
the
committee,
thank
you
to
the
governor
for
his
bold
initiative
and
thank
you
to
the
commissioner
and
the
department
of
education
for
their
willingness
to
listen
to
us,
the
feedback
that
we
we've
gotten
and
the
information
that
we
have
received.
I
appreciate
everyone,
so
please
pass
this
for
the
students
of
marshall
county.
D
D
It's
pretty
easy
for
me
to
just
stretch
out
really
really
quickly
what
we
would
do
with
that
and,
of
course
I
have
to
ask
my
board:
I'm
not
the
end
all
be
all
in
marshall
county,
but
the
recommendations
I
would
make
to
them
are
these.
You
know
we
got
some
one-time
funding,
federal
money
covered
money,
esser
funds
that
was
one-time
money.
It
was
hard
to
spend
that
on
recurring
funds
and
but
we've
hired
10
additional
teachers
in
k3.
D
Like
you,
we
agree
that
early
literacy
is
important,
so
we
pushed
in
10
additional
staff
members
to
lower
that
student
t-shirt
ratio
to
try
to
teach
our
students
how
to
read.
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
more
important
than
what
we
do
there
we,
but
when
we
did
that
we're
telling
these
people
as
we
hire
them.
D
D
We
can
give
a
substantial
raise
with
this
money
and
that
raise
would
go
to
our
staff
to
help
attract
and
retain
staff
keep
staff
that
we
have
now
right.
Now
we
have
more
teachers
on
permits
than
we've
ever
had.
I'm
sure
the
state
can
tell
you
that
they
have
processed
more
permits
than
they
ever
have.
I
can't
speak
for
them,
but
I
feel
like
that's
the
case,
so
we
need
to
attract
and
retain
qualified
staff
and
be
able
to
keep
them.
D
D
D
I
I
don't
know
what
the
amendment's
going
to
do
right
when
you,
when
you
throw
the
taxer
back
in
the
obviously
that's
going
to
change
the
amount
of
funds
that
I
think
we're
going
to
get,
and
it's
only
a
five-year
average
anyway,
but
we
can
add
in
several
at
least
12
new
positions.
That
would
be
something
I
would
go
back.
Talk
to
my
school
board
talk
to
my
principals
and
staff.
How
we're
going
to
allocate
this
out
and
you
you
might
ask
you
know
why
now
why?
D
Why
can't
this
just
wait,
and
I
understand
you
need
to
be
thorough.
I
understand
the
accountability.
You
can't
just
throw
a
you,
know:
billion
new
dollars
at
us
and
and
walk
away
and
expect
nothing
in
return.
I
get
that
and
I
appreciate
the
new
money
the
governor's
given
us
this
year,
but
it's
going
to
be
a
really
hard
sale.
D
When
I
go
back
home,
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
walk
my
budget
this
year
with
this,
knowing
this
has
passed
and
about
how
much
money
I'm
going
to
get
because
it's
going
to
be
difficult
to
keep
retain
the
people
I
have
with
a
one
or
two
percent
raise
right,
so
I'm
gonna
have
to
have
those
conversations
or
maybe
no
race
this
year
with
my
folks,
it
sure
would
be
nice
if
I
knew
hey
we're
gonna
get
six
million
more
dollars
for
next
year.
Look
at
all
these
other
things!
A
J
Afternoon
I
had
the
honor
of
serving
as
the
chair
of
the
student
engagement
subcommittee,
and
I
want
to
extend
a
special
thank
you
to
governor
lee
and
commissioner
schwinn
for
giving
me
this
amazing
opportunity.
Being
a
part
of
the
subcommittee
gave
students
an
opportunity
to
be
heard
and
trust
me,
students
love
to
use
their
voices
and
be
heard
because
who
better
to
know
the
needs
of
students
than
students
themselves.
J
Students
had
a
hand
in
helping
craft
components
to
consider
in
this
formula,
and
I
think
it
says
a
lot
about
the
department
of
education
that
they
allowed
students
to
be
a
part
of
the
process.
It
speaks
volumes
that
they
care
about
our
needs
because,
as
students,
I
know
that
sometimes
we
often
can
feel
under
appreciated.
So
we
really
thank
the
department
of
education
for
giving
this
opportunity
to
share
our
needs.
J
Now
is
the
time
to
move
forward
with
the
student-based
funding
model.
First,
the
last
time
we
re-evaluated
the
funding
model
was
30
years
ago.
A
lot
has
changed
in
30
years.
I
wasn't
even
thought
of
30
years
ago
and
I'm
a
senior
in
high
school
now
it's
necessary
to
meet
current
needs
because,
like
I
mentioned,
needs
have
changed.
We
have
been
advancing
in
technology
and
things
like
career,
technical
education
and
work
based
learning
have
become
so
big
in
public
education.
J
Now
I
personally
am
the
tennessee
fbla
state
president,
so
I
advocated
very
diligently
for
cte
funding.
There
has
been
changes
in
industry,
so
it's
time
for
something
that
will
meet
those
current
needs.
In
addition,
unfortunately,
some
of
our
students
can
feel
unprepared
for
their
future
with
so
much
going
on
in
our
world.
J
It
is
time
for
a
change
and
if
I
didn't
believe
that
I
would
not
be
sitting
here
right
now
endorsing
it,
I
believe
in
student
achievement
and
this
bill
will
accommodate
student
needs.
We
are
the
future
and
we
know
what
is
essential
in
making
our
dreams
a
reality
and
for
some
students
that
starts
in
the
classroom.
J
As
a
current
student
in
the
public
school
system,
I
am
thrilled
that
tennessee
wants
to
move
forward
with
a
student-based
funding
formula.
Students
are
the
most
important
factor
of
a
public
school
system
and
again
we're
funding
students,
not
systems.
They
must
be
put
in
front
of
any
decision-making
process
and
with
tennessee
investment
in
student
achievement.
I
believe
that
this
will
be
achieved.
Thank
you
so
much.
K
Go
right
ahead
or
follow
her
in
testimony.
Mr
chairman,
thank
you,
mr
chairman
members,
I'm
justin
owen
with
beacon
impact.
I
also
chaired
the
fiscal
responsibility
subcommittee
as
part
of
this
process,
and
I'm
here
today
in
support
of
tesa,
primarily
because
it
is
a
student-focused
rather
than
systems-based,
approach
to
funding
education,
but
also
for
three
other
reasons
that
I
think
are
important
to
point
out
to
the
committee.
K
This
will
now
be
at
their
fingertips
like
never
before,
and
that
increased
transparency
alone
will
lead
to
the
next
benefit
of
a
student-based
funding
model,
and
that
is
accountability
by
tying
dollars
spent
to
the
outcomes
that
districts
achieve.
We
can
see
what
works
and
what
doesn't
and
we
can
fund
things
that
get
those
results.
In
addition
to
that,
the
outcomes
based
funding
will
provide
further
incentives
for
districts
to
be
financially
rewarded
for
making
good
decisions
for
investing
in
the
right
ways
and
getting
results,
and
a
third
major
benefit
to
a
formula
like
this.
K
Is
it
empowers
school
leaders
with
more
flexibility,
beacon,
studied
this
issue
and
found
that,
on
average,
a
principal
in
this
state
only
has
say
over
about
eight
percent
of
his
or
her
budget.
So
imagine,
being
the
ceo
of
a
company
and
being
told
here's
your
budget,
92
percent
of
it's
already
been
allocated.
Good
luck.
We
can't
expect
them
to
get
results
with
their
hands
tied
behind
their
backs
like
this.
This
will
give
them
the
ability
to
innovate
and
try
new
things
and
focus
on
funding
what
their
needs
are
at
the
district
and
individual
school
level.
K
We
know
that
states
are
laboratories
of
democracy.
This
approach
will
allow
schools
and
districts
to
be
laboratories
of
education
and
that's
a
good
thing.
So,
for
these
reasons,
I
urge
you
to
vote
for
this
bill
and
lead
the
way
in
moving
to
a
student-based
model
that
will
create
better
transparency,
accountability
and
flexibility
for
our
local
leaders
and,
as
a
result,
we'll
lead
to
better
outcomes
for
our
kids.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you.
Let's,
let's
go
on
this
side.
First
for
the
beacon
center
here.
You've
talked
about
accountability
and
goals
and
results.
Do
you
know
what
are
they?
What.
K
Are
their
the
goals?
Yes?
Well?
Obviously,
you've
got
certain
benchmarks
like
third
grade
reading
is
a
huge
benchmark.
If
you
don't
achieve
that,
then
we
know
that
that
child
is
going
to
struggle
long-term.
Obviously,
graduation
rates
are
a
big
goal,
getting
kids
prepared
for
either
college
or
a
technical
path.
K
C
Chairman
piggy,
so
with
the
beacon
center,
I
know
the
detail
that
you
guys
are
all
involved
in
right
now,
with
the
additional
one
billion
dollars
of
funding
per
year.
Let's
say,
hypothetically
in
third
grade,
our
literacy
rates
are
29
in
three
years.
What
is
the
beacon
center
found
with
this
additional
funding
with
our
students
outcomes?
What's
that
new
number
going
to
be
for
tennessee
in
three
years.
K
I
don't
have
off
the
top
of
my
head.
What
that
exact
number
is,
but
I
can
report
back
to
you
what
we've
seen
from
other
states
so
I'll
be
glad
to
to
get
that
number
back
to
you.
What
we
think
would
be
a
good
benchmark
from
other
states.
C
If
you
would
send
it
to
the
whole
committee,
I'd
appreciate
the
chairman.
I
appreciate
that
and
then
I
keep
going.
Mr
chairman,
all
right.
Go
ahead.
You
young
lady!
You
are
well
spoken,
I'm
not
even
going
to
attempt
to
challenge
yourself
so
guys,
sorry
about
that.
So
on
the
the
superintendent
from
marshall
county
school.
What's
your
last
name,
sir
sorrells!
Thank
you,
mr
toros.
You
talk
about
the
six
million
dollars
currently
in
marshall.
County
school
system
are
all
of
your
positions
funded
by
the
bep.
D
No
so
they're
not
we
got.
We
have
45
certified
positions
that
are
not
funded
within
the
bp,
so.
C
If
we,
mr
chairman,
so
stop
me
anytime,
you
want,
mr
chairman,
okay,
thank
you.
So
if
we,
if
we,
if
you
have
six
more
million
dollars
coming
and
you've
got
40
positions
that
aren't
funded
by
the
bep
are,
are
you
saying,
at
the
local
level,
you're
going
to
hire
12
more
people
additional
and
still
fund
those
40
positions,
or
are
you
going
to
fund
those
40
positions
with
the
60
million
or
6
million?
C
D
C
Both
of
those,
so
you
can
cover
all
your
yes,
but
in
the
funding
formula,
isn't
that
money
broken
up
into
weighted
formula
two?
So
if
we
have
a
student
that
has
10
learning
disabilities
that
they're
getting
150
150
of
that
funding
formula
of
that
base
ratio
isn't
that
money
restricted
to
that
student.
D
Well,
the
state
defines
them
for
us
one
through
ten.
So
when
we
have
a
an
iep
meeting,
the
the
parents,
the
group,
the
team,
makes
those
decisions
and
there's
different
levels,
whether
it's
level,
one
if
I
need
extra
time
to
take
a
test
or
it's
level
10
and
I'm
basically
non-verbal
and-
and
I
need
every
need-
met
for
me
all
day-
long.
Everything
that
I
do
that
kid's
going
gonna
get
gonna
be
level.
Ten
they're
gonna
be
funded
at
150
percent.
So
that's
on
top
of
the
base.
G
D
Fine,
I
don't
think
they'll
want
them
either.
I'll,
just
be
honest
with
you,
you
asked
me
a
point-blank
question
I'll
give
you
a
point-blank
response.
I
don't,
I
don't
think
they'll
want
those
kids
yeah.
D
G
Exactly
well,
thank
you
for
answering
that
question
and
one
more
question
go
ahead
and
for
mr
owens,
mr
owens.
You've
repeatedly.
G
K
This
does
spend
more,
obviously,
but
it
comes
with
significantly
increased
transparency,
significantly
increased
tran
accountability
and
gives
the
districts
that
flexibility
to
spend
money
in
different
ways
than
they
do
now
to
get
those
results,
and
then
we
can
see
what
works
and
what
doesn't.
So,
if
we're
going
to
spend
a
billion,
we
should
not
just
throw
more
money
into
the
bep.
We
should
overhaul
the
entire
system
so
that
we're
getting
the
transparency,
accountability
and
flexibility
that
will
lead
to
better
results.
Whether
we
spend
more
or
not,.
K
Of
course-
and
we
talked
about
that
a
lot
on
our
subcommittee
and
discussed-
you
know
what
those
weights
should
be,
how
they
should
be
broken
down,
and
our
recommendations
were
taken
by
the
department
and
incorporated
into
this,
which
was
to
include
weights
for
economically
disadvantaged
for
poverty,
for
students
with
special
needs,
english
learners
and
then
essentially
put
those
weights
on
a
scale.
Knowing
that
not
every
child
who
meets
one
of
those
weights
requires
the
same
cost
to
fund
right
that
some
are
more
costly.
Some
are
less
costly
and
that's
reflected
in
the
proposal.
H
Okay,
the
reason
I
asked
was,
I
know
across
the
state.
One
of
the
issues
that
we
have
is
that
different
counties
have
different
percentages,
that
the
state
contributes.
There's
this
piece
that
the
locals
are
supposed
to
provide
and
so
just
want
to
always
make
sure
that
we
get
into
that
question
and
answer
also
about
making
sure
that
we
have
some
some
understanding
about
the
benefits
of
that.
So
it
helps
you
that
that
there's
an
opportunity
for
the
state
to
come
in
and
sure
up
what
they
have
provided.
D
Yes,
sir,
it
does
and-
and
I
understand
that
there's
going
to
be
some
districts
that
that
get
more
percentage-wise
than
we
do
and
I'm
okay
with
that.
I
just
I
think
it's
a
as
long
as
it's
a
win
for
everybody.
D
H
H
L
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
to
the
young
lady,
thank
you
for
being
here,
as
my
colleague
noted
well
spoken,
but
my
question
for
you
is,
is
straightforward,
and
that
is
as
a
student
you're
looking
with
a
perspective
of
one
inside
the
fishbowl,
so
to
speak,
but
you're
getting
near
the
end.
If
you
look
back
at
your
career
through
there,
where
do
you
see
that
a
formula
like
this,
which
increases
funding
on
the
basis
of
needs
and
or
other
requirements,
would
have
helped
you
or
those
that
you
know
personally.
J
One
of
my
biggest
regrets
was
not
taking
a
marketing
class
because
at
my
school,
if
you
take
a
marketing
class,
you
can
be
in
deca
and
I'm
an
fbla.
But
I
wish
that
my
freshman
year,
someone
would
have
told
me
that
I
could
have
chosen
more
than
one
career
path,
because
I
feel,
like
students,
get
pressured
to
choose
a
certain
career
path
and
as
freshmen,
that
that
is
a
lot
of
pressure
just
to
know
exactly
what
you
want
to
do,
and
so
that
was
really
hard
for
me.
J
L
J
L
K
Going
back
to
representative
sipiki's
question:
we
can
get
you
numbers
on
what
other
states
have
seen
with
relatively
similar
investments
and
we'll
be
glad
to
provide
those
to
the
the
committee.
I
think
two
benefits
are.
The
first
thing
is
to
draw
the
line
between
those
two
right
between
the
spending
and
whatever
benchmark
you
set,
whether
it's
third
grade
reading
graduation
rates,
those
types
of
things,
so
that
taxpayers
and
parents
can
see
the
results
of
that
right.
E
E
But
there
is
more
accountability
because
we
see
where
the
dollars
are
going,
you're
getting
dollars
based
on
student
weights
and
where
those
dollars
are
going
and
if
you're
not
moving
the
needle,
whether
it
be
you
know,
unique
learning
needs
student
or
third
grade
reading
or
whatnot.
E
D
I
think
we
already
have
the
accountability
with
our
with
all
our
state
testing,
so
I
would
say,
there's
more
transparency,
but
yes,
it's
still
and
even
in
their
you
know
the
direct
fundings,
k-3
literacy
they're,
not
telling
us,
you
know,
there's
not
a
mandate
but
they're,
really
putting
it
in
here.
Really:
hey
you're,
getting
k-3
literacy,
500
per
kid.
Don't
you
think
you
should
push
that
down
there.
I
mean
they're
kind
of
telling
us
in
some
way
cte
five
thousand
dollars
per
kid.
Fourth
grade
tutoring
post-secondary
assessments.
D
That's
that's
all
direct
funding!
That's
a
post-secondary
assessment
act!
I
don't
know
if
I
answered
your
question
or
not.
E
Chairman,
no,
you
did
I'm
just
making
sure
I'm
asking
it
correctly.
Well,
it
looks
like
to
me,
though
I
like
the
word
transparency.
I
I
agree
with
you
on
that,
but
it
seems
like
where
we've
been
I've
been
on
education
for
nine
years
and
it
seems
like
all
the
accountability
comes
from
our
testing.
The
only
way
we
know
if
you're
doing
adequately
in
in
marshall
county
by
we
constantly
test
and
therefore
hold
you
accountable
now,
as
mr
wilson
says,
we
have
accountability
through
funding.
D
So
technically
we
generate
x
number
of
funds
for
all
these
different
purposes,
but
unless
it's
codified
in
law
right,
we
can
still
spend
it
the
way
we
want
to
now.
I
want
to
spend
it
the
way
it
needs
to
be
spent,
but
that's
going
to
be
different
in
every
district
based
off
of
what
your
needs
are.
The
needs
in
williamson
county
are
going
to
be
different
from
the
needs
in
wayne,
county
or
marshall
county.
E
D
A
Now,
just
one
quick
follow-up
to
that
point.
Before
I
go
to
chairman
sapicki
picky,
one
of
the
things
that
we
hear
about
the
bep
a
lot
is:
is
it
kind
of
more
of
a
cookie
cutter
approach,
and-
and
I
guess
the
question
I
have
is-
is
going
this
route
over
a
period
of
time?
Are
we
going
to
be
able
to
see
some
areas
that
are
seeing
very
high
success
rates
and
be
able
to
like
learn
it's
like?
Well,
we
can
model
this
behavior.
A
K
I'll
be
glad
to
take
first
step
at
that.
Mr
chairman,
absolutely
I
think
the
bit
the
biggest
benefit
is
just
that,
with
the
flexibility.
Different
districts
are
going
to
prioritize
different
things
and
that's
okay,
a
because
their
their
student
population
looks
different,
but
when
we
do
start
to
see
something
really,
click
and
work
in
terms
of
like
getting
a
really
good
return
on
that
investment,
then
other
districts
can
follow
that.
K
Just
like,
when
a
state
does
something
really
well
from
a
policy
standpoint,
other
states
can
adopt
that
and
improve
upon
it,
and
so
I
think
that
one
of
the
biggest
benefits
is
to
let
districts,
try
different
things
and
see
what
works,
and
then
the
review
process
is
part
of
this
for
those
schools
that
aren't
doing
well.
That
committee
will
bring
them
in
and
have
those
discussions
about
how
they're
spending
relative
to
those
districts
that
are
spending
and
getting
better
outcomes.
K
C
So
so,
to
follow
up
on
on
the
whole
line
of
questioning
here
is
the
state
of
tennessee
is
making
a
huge
investment
with
our
children,
and
with
that
comes
accountability
of
the
transparency
of
how
you
spend
it,
but
also
the
people
of
tennessee.
We
know
we
can't
be
where
we
are
in
education
right
now,
on
literacy
rates
on
math
rates
on
act
scores,
giving
the
flexibility
to
the
least
to
make
these
these
decisions
at
the
local
level.
C
Accountability
is
going
to
come
when
we're
not
the
biggest
fear.
I
have
is
that
in
three
years,
we're
right
right
where
we
are
we've
been
right,
where
we
are
now
for
a
long
time
we're
stuck
and
what
I'm,
what
our
fear
is-
and
I
speak
for
some
members,
not
all
members,
but
what
our
fear
is,
as
we
make
this
capital
investment
in
education
across
the
state
of
tennessee,
giving
local
autonomy
to
do.
D
I
get
the
feeling
that
you
think
all
the
laws
that
y'all
pass
y'all
pass
a
lot
of
them,
don't
matter
they
do.
We
spend
a
lot
of
time
digging
through
them
and
then
you'll
go
change
it.
So
we
have
to
go
dig
through
it
again,
but
we
what
you
do
matters:
okay,
the
the
literacy
law
last
year.
D
That's
your
accountability,
you're
really
just
paying
for
it
now
you're,
just
giving
us
the
tools
to
carry
it
out,
there's
so
much
accountability
that
y'all
give
to
us.
That
was
that's
huge.
That's
a
there's!
Tons
of
repercussions
for
that
we
talk
about
it
all
the
time.
We
just
need
the
money
to
implement,
implement
it,
and
you
know
I
know
you
played
ball
right.
D
What
coach
ever
gave
a
guarantee
that
we're
going
to
win
this
or
win
that
right?
We
want
to
win.
We
want
to
be
the
best.
I
promise
we
do
but
you're
just
not
going
to
get
you're
not
going
to
get
those
guarantees
you
can
set
out
in
law.
You've
got
to
do
these
things
which
you've
done
and
that
stuff
matters
give
us
the
money
to
carry
it
out
and
if
we
don't
then
that's
on
us,
then
we
allocated
it
wrong.
My
fault
get
rid
of
me.
H
A
H
And
I
appreciate
what
you're
saying
we
do
pass
a
lot
of
laws.
H
What
could
be
better
if
you
had
the
time
and
if
it's,
if
it's?
If
you
can't
answer
it
now,
email
us
but
think
about
it?
What
could
be
better
based
upon
your
three
unique
experiences?
D
I
I
don't
make
the
formula
a
win
for
all
districts.
I
know
that
there
were
some
small
school
districts
couple
of
them
in
my
area.
It
just
costs
more
that
the
the
the
economies
of
scale
or
lack
thereof
for
those
guys
it
isn't
favorable
yeah.
So
I
think
we
added
in
well.
I
guess,
when
we
add
in
the
the
tissue
I
mean
the
siever
and
the
the
other
formula
that
will
taste
that
will
help.
D
I
think
those
some
of
the
small
school
systems
are
really
struggling,
and
that
would
be
my
first
reaction
to
to
make
it
better.
I
think
it
should
be
a
win
for
everybody.
Nobody
should
not
get
something
out
of
this.
I
think
it's
wrong.
Okay,
thank.
A
H
J
Think
I've
been
in
elementary
school,
the
most
recent
I
would
assume
so
I've
been
I
saw.
I
was
in
elementary
school
most
recently
and
one
thing
that
our
subcommittee
discussed
speaking
for
specific
students,
students
with
dyslexia.
I
know
that
I
experienced
in
elementary
school
being
around
some
of
those
students
and
even
in
middle
school.
Those
students
with
dyslexia
sometimes
feel
like
they're,
not
appreciated,
because
they're
put
into
these
classrooms
and
teachers
have
a
certain
speed
to
go
at
and
maybe
the
kids
with
dyslexia
are
falling
behind
and
they
don't
want
to
speak
up.
J
I
know
this
has
happened
to
me
personally
with
students
around
me,
my
peers,
and
I
think
that
they
don't
want
to
speak
up
because
they're
scared
that
the
teacher
might
get
onto
them
just
logically
thinking
about
an
elementary
school
student.
So
I
think
that
having
more
teachers
to
accommodate
their
needs
and
then
also
in
addition
to
students
with
dyslexia,
I
think
about
esl
learners.
J
When
I
was
in
the
fifth
grade,
I
had
a
student
who
came
to
my
class
and
she
spoke
no
english
at
all
and
you
couldn't
help
but
feel
bad
for
her
and
then
also
in
the
student
engagement
subcommittee.
We
had
a
girl
say
that
she's
in
a
class
right
now,
as
a
junior
in
high
school,
with
a
student
in
her
spanish
class.
Who
speaks
no
english.
So
the
teacher
is
kind
of
having
to
teach
two
different
lessons
to
the
kids,
who
do
speak
english
and
the
and
the
singular
student
who
doesn't
so.
J
I
think
that
just
having
more
individuals
to
accommodate
those
needs
for
not
just
dyslexia
and
esl,
but
those
are
the
two
that
I've
been
exposed
to
primarily
thank
you.
K
Thank
you
representative,
mr
chairman,
for
us.
I
think,
there's
future
opportunity
for
more
outcomes.
Funding
as
we
see
what
works.
So
it's
not
really
a
criticism
of
the
current
proposal
as
much
as
going
back
to
what
the
chairman
was
saying.
If
we
see
what
works
start
to
incentivize,
that
through
that
outcomes
bucket
at
the
top,
so
that
we're
continuing
to
get
those
results
and
can
encourage
not
require
but
encourage
other
districts
to
to
follow
the
good
lead
of
those
that
are
getting
results.
Thank.
A
We
will
bring
up
the
administration
and
the
department
now
they'll
come
up
and
just
state
their
names
and
who
they
represent
for
the
record
and
we'll
open
it
up
for
any
comments
that
they
have
to
open
up
with.
And
then,
if
we
have
any
questions,
we'll
open
it
up
for
questions.
A
M
G
So
I
keep
hearing
that
this
is
more
transparent
and
and
simpler
than
the
bp,
but
the
bulk
of
this
bill
is
contingent
upon
future
appropriations.
It
has
a
four
year
cliff
and
it
is
contingent
upon
administrative
rulemaking.
Most
of
the
details
that
have
been
touted
about
this
piece
of
legislation
are
not
in
the
legislation.
G
G
M
So
a
couple
of
things,
so
I
think
one
I
just
want
to
be
very
clear
that
there
is
not
a
four-year
fiscal
cliff.
We
are
happy
to
walk
through
that
in
detail,
but
that
is
not.
That
is
not
actually
that
it's
not
an
accurate
statement.
I
think
on
the
rule-making
piece,
the
decisions
that
are
part
of
that
and
the
rulemaking
that
happens
within
the
department.
M
Those
are
things
that
we
make
decisions
on
now
it
is
just
there
is
no
rulemaking
on
it.
There
are
a
lot
of
decisions
that
are
made
with
administering
the
bep
that
are
done
internal
to
the
department
that
are
not
public
at
all.
We
introduce
that
into
rulemaking
as
a
way
to
make
that
public
and
part
of
that
rulemaking
process
includes
a
public
hearing.
It
will
also
include
the
state
board,
giving
a
positive,
neutral
or
negative
recommendation
through
the
amendment
and
then
finally
it
goes
to
the
government
operations
committee.
M
So
I
want
to
make
clear
that
that
is
the
base
is
one
part
of
the
full
funding
formula.
So
if
we
are
looking
at
the
7
300,
that's
including
the
entirety
of
the
bep,
when
you
are
looking
at
the
base
amount-
which
again,
is
the
second
highest
in
the
southeast-
and
it
is
the
12th
highest
in
the
country-
we
actually
provided
a
one-pager
that
worked
through
the
fiscal
year,
23
actual
bep
numbers
and
show
dollar
for
dollar.
How
that
compares
against
tisa.
M
Sure
so
there
are
three.
Essentially
there
are
four
components.
We
shrunk
that
into
three.
So
on
the
instructional
component,
it
is
3.59
billion
dollars.
You
have
the
classroom
component,
which
is
690
million
dollars,
and
then
you
have
the
non-classroom
component,
which
is
2.17
billion
dollars
altogether.
The
projected
allocations
for
the
bep
for
fiscal
year
23,
including
coordinated
school
health
plus
school
safety
plus
family
resource
center,
so
all
of
those
together
equals
7.749
billion
dollars.
M
There
is
1.056
billion
that
has
been
moved
to
the
weights
and
then
197
million,
which
is
currently
in
the
direct
part
of
the
formula.
So
when
you
just
look
at
what
is
remainer
remaining,
it
is
6.495
billion
dollars.
That
is
what
is
in
the
bep
and
all
of
the
grants
that
I
just
mentioned.
For
tisa,
the
base
amount
only
is
6.6
billion
dollars
for
a
difference
of
125.79
million
dollars.
M
Now,
when
you
look
at
the
weights,
which
again
this
is
all
together
combined
for
the
weights
under
the
bep,
it
is
1.056
billion
dollars
under
tisa,
the
weights
are
1.767
billion
for
the
direct
funding
component
under
the
bep.
Those
same
line
items
are
197
million
under
tisa,
it's
375
million.
There
are
zero
dollars
allocated
in
the
bep
for
outcomes.
There
are
80
million
allocated
in
tsa,
plus
funds
that
are
typically
reverted.
G
Representative
clemens,
thank
you,
and
so
one
of
the
recitals
is
to
provide
equitable
funding
for
students,
and
we
obviously
have
that
required
by
the
state
constitution
and
case
law
in
tennessee,
specifically
the
quarter
case.
So
we
just
heard
from
a
gentleman
from
marshall,
county
marshall
county
is
going
to
get
6
million
additional
dollars
davidson
county.
The
entire
county
is
going
to
get
12
million
additional
dollars.
M
So
those
that's
a
just
to
be
clear.
That's
a
little
bit
of
an
apples
to
oranges,
comparison
when
marshall
county.
That
is
how
much
the
students
are
generating
right
on
davidson
county.
You
are
only
putting
apart
what
the
state
is
contributing.
The
formula
actually
contributes
approximately
42
or
44
million
dollars
for
davidson
county.
The
concern
that
I
know
I've
heard
I've
heard
from
you,
which
I
I
can
appreciate
and
understand,
is
fiscal
capacity.
M
That
is
the
difference
that,
in
terms
of
how
much
comes
from
the
state
versus
how
much
the
locals
have
to
put
in
that
is
something
that
is
required
for
us
to
apply.
I
think
the
amendment
would
allow
for
the
tasser
sieber
average,
as
as
has
been
occurring
in
under
the
bep,
but
either
way
davidson
county
does
have
a
significantly
larger
fiscal
capacity
than
marshall
county,
and
so
that
is,
I
think,
that's
what
you're
referencing.
I
just
want
to
be
clear
that
marshall
county-
that's
the
total
dollar
figures
versus
davidson
county.
M
That
12
million
is
the
additional
state
dollars.
The
other
thing
I
just
want
to
make
sure
to
clarify
is
that
davidson
county
part
of
the
challenge
was
they
were
receiving
over
55
million
dollars
to
pay
for
a
decline
in
economically
disadvantaged
students.
So
we
were
paying
the
district
50
to
55
million
dollars
because
they
had
seen
a
decrease
of
about
10
000
students
who
were
economically
disadvantaged.
M
A
G
G
We
got
a
lot
of
questions
here
so
with
the
fiscal
capacity
issue,
we
don't
know,
are
you
counting
state
property
state
on
buildings?
What
are
you
counting
in
the
fiscal
capacity?
We
don't
even
know
if
that's
included
the
definition
of
economically
disadvantaged
you're
using
title
1
schools.
Don't
you
think
that
undercount
students
would
cover
kids
or
something
like
that
not
be
a
better
reflection
of
the
total,
economically
disadvantaged
or
students?
I
mean
I've
got
so
many
questions
I'll
just
leave
it
at
that.
A
M
So
for
fiscal
capacity,
it's
the
same
calculations
that
districts
have
experienced
under
the
bep,
so
one
is
tesser
and
one
is
sieber.
The
average
of
those
is
what
currently
exists
under
the
bep,
but
the
amendment
there
would
be
no
change,
so
it
would
be
the
status
quo
of
what
happens.
Now
is
that's
the
fiscal
capacity
calculation,
two
completely
different
calculations.
M
We
did
see
I'm
happy
to
send
back
over
the
document
that
goes
through
and
outlines
that
we
have
one
produced
by
the
department,
there's
also
an
external
one-
that
I
think
is
really
helpful
as
well,
so
no
change
in
the
fiscal
capacity
in
terms
of
title
one
and
economically
disadvantaged.
I
want
to
highlight
that
there
are
two
calculations
right
now.
There
is
your
economically
disadvantaged,
and
that
is
actually
not
the
title.
One
eligible
schools
that
is
looking
specifically
at
those
who
are
directly
certified,
foster,
homeless,
runaway
and
migrant.
That
is
how
we
calculate
at
risk.
M
Now
it
is
a
slightly
broader
definition,
but
it
is
the
same
calculation
for
economically
disadvantaged.
When
we
look
at
concentration
of
poverty,
we
actually
don't
have
that
calculation
in
the
bep.
That
is
an
additional
component
and
an
allocation
that
would
be
given
to
districts.
The
number
of
students
who
are
in
title
one
eligible
schools
is
actually
commensurate
with
the
last
time
that
the
state
did
any
kind
of
free
and
reduced
price
meal
form
collection
that
was
in
2016..
M
The
proportional
component
of
those
numbers
is
the
title.
One
eligible
students
is
proportionally
the
same
as
when
we
cop
is
when
we
collected
those
frpm
forms,
so
that
is,
that
is
an
equivalent
number,
but.
G
M
M
Free
action,
I
apologize,
sir.
G
M
Correct
and
when
the
general
assembly
moved
away
from
that
in
2016
to
the
direct
cert,
I
think
what
we
have
done
is
we
have
said
there
are
two
factors
so
one
when
you
look
at
frpm.
There
are
two
issues
that
I
would
identify
and
I
would
agree
with
you:
we
see
that
there
is
a
higher
rate
of
participation
in
form,
completion
in
elementary
school
that
tends
to
decline
a
bit
in
middle
school
and
then
decline
quite
significantly
in
high
school,
which,
which
I
think
aligns
with
a
lot
of
other
things.
M
The
second
issue
is
that
when
you
assign
additional
funding
for
free
and
reduced
price
meals
based
on
that
form,
the
additional
funding
there
is
a
very
different
type
of
audit
that
happens.
What
we've
seen
is
that
nationally,
it's
a
five
to
eight
percent,
six
to
eight
percent
error
rate.
That
is
a
really
high
error
rate
that
then
has
to
get
rectified
at
the
end
of
the
year.
Those
are
both
reasons
why
we
know
that
so
many
states
have
moved
away
from
frpm
now.
M
We
also
know
that
some
districts
will
continue
to
collect
those
forms
and
that
can
be
used
as
part
of
title
1
eligibility
for
title
1
eligible
schools.
The
big
difference
that
I
just
want
to
note
is
that
a
title
1
school
is
of
all
the
schools
that
qualify
in
a
district
districts
actually
have
to
pick
the
ones
that
they
want
to
receive.
The
funding,
not
every
school
within
the
district,
who
is
eligible,
actually
gets
the
designation
or
that
funding.
A
Representing
clemson,
do
you
have
a
follow-up
directly
to
that
one
or
we'll
come
back
then
chairman
sepiki
you're
recognized.
M
C
There
was
a
statement
made
about
the
five
thousand
dollars
for
cte
that
that's
what
they're
receiving.
Can
you
just
make
sure
we
clarify
that,
because,
from
what
I
understand
from
the
department,
that's
based
off
of
what
level
of
cte
course
they
take.
So
we
just
plugged
five
thousand
dollars
in
there
as
an
average.
That
doesn't
mean
that
they're
going
to
get
five
thousand
dollars
per
student,
we're
just
hoping
that
that
that
would
be
an
average.
C
M
That's
correct
right
now
we
fund
cte
courses.
At
about
four,
I
mean
with
all
the
cte
components
in
the
bep.
It's
about
4
500
per
student.
This
brings
that
average
up
500,
but
it
would,
it
would
have
a
range
depending
on
how
far
in
the
sequence
they
were,
but
it
does
also
include,
I
think,
really
good
feedback
that
I
remember
you
provided
in
the
summer
was
the
idea
of
middle
school
and
wanting
to
ensure
that
we
were
able
to
address
some
of
those
needs
going
into
high
school.
So
it
does
account
for
that
as
well.
M
C
C
M
C
C
C
Okay
and
then,
as
we
come
in
on
the
back
end
and
look
at
at
scores,
then
there
could
be
the
accountability
coming
in
on
the
back.
End
is
well.
Your
scores
haven't
improved
and
you're
spending
your
money.
The
this
way,
then
there
could
be
corrective
action
taken
after
that,
in
theory,
correct.
M
Yes,
sir,
I
think
how
I
would
how
I
would
characterize
it
if
I'm
channeling
in
this
moment
my
daughter,
which
is
maybe
not
the
best
example,
but
it's
it's
kind
of
saying
I
will
give
you
the
funding
to
go,
buy
whatever
ingredients,
you
need
to
bake
a
cake,
you
decide
what
ingredients
they
are.
You
bake
the
cake,
you
decorate
the
cake,
I'm
going
to
come
in
on
the
other
end
and
and
judge
all
the
cakes
you
know
in
terms
of
how
good
they
taste
or
how
how
well
they're
decorated.
M
I
do
have
to
say,
I
think
part
of
this
and
to
your
point
on
autonomy.
I
deeply
believe
in
the
work
that's
happening
in
our
districts
and
I
deeply
believe
that
the
superintendents
in
our
state
will
make
the
best
decisions
for
kids
and
part
of
what
you
are
hearing
from
me.
In
terms
of
that
that
confidence
in
the
autonomy
is
is
really
driven
by
the
people
who
are
in
our
school
systems,
and
I
do
believe
every
day
they
will
learn
from
what
worked
and
what
didn't
work.
F
C
C
M
C
If
there's
a
teacher
in
a
unique
learning
need
or
in
cte-
and
we
give
a
pay
raise
to
the
baseline,
it
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
they're
going
to
have
enough
money
to
pay
for
that
teacher.
That's
in
a
unique
learning
line
or
a
cte
to
be
able
to
get
them
the
same
pay
raise
as
everybody
else
if
they,
if
they
so
choose
to
move
those
teachers
around.
M
So
I
so
what
I
would
say
is
when
you
increase,
let's
say
the
base:
100
million
dollars
or
125
million
dollars
that
will
filter
through
the
weight,
so
you'll
get
that
increase
for
teacher
salaries
assigned
to
the
base
and
then
on
the
weights.
You
will
see
that
weighted
difference
increase.
So
if
you
have
teachers
funded
from
that,
that
increase
could
be
used
for
salary
increases
there
as
well.
M
I
would
also
say
that,
typically,
when
we
as
a
state,
have
been
budgeting
on
teacher
increases
for
those
bep
funded
positions,
what
we've
started
to
model
out
is
what
that
looks
like
when
you
put
it
into
the
base.
I
know
that
was
a
question
from
both
both
of
you
chairman
and
a
couple
others
what
that
ends
up
being
when
it
trickles
through
the
formula
and
what
that
ends
up
producing.
So
I
do
think
it
does
cover
those
teacher
raises.
M
That's
something
that
we've
been
kind
of
very
cognizant
of
the
only
thing
I
would
I
would
want
to
be
clear
on
is
that
it
does
not
direct
districts
on
how
they
allocate
those
increases.
Our
districts
have
different
salary
schedules,
some
have
performance
plans
and
other
things
we
would
want
to
make
sure
they
had
the
flexibility
to
do
those
increases
in
the
way
that
makes
the
most
sense
locally.
C
Chairman
piggy,
thank
you
and
last
one
for
now
is
I've
gone
through
15
591.
and
in
15
591?
I
believe
right
now
there
is
no
funding
in
the
bill
for
outcomes
we
would
have
to.
That
would
be
additional
on
top
of
to
to
provide
the
outcomes
bonuses
for
the
lease,
so
we
that
has
to
be
allocated
on
top
of
this
and
and
that's
okay.
C
If
we
put
something
in
here
that
says,
if
we
have
teachers
hitting
their
benchmarks
for
our
students
that
there's
a
way
to
get
them
a
direct
bonus
from
the
state,
so
if
an
lea
isn't
performing
at
the
highest
levels,
teachers
that
are
could
still
gain
a
financial
benefit
from
that.
So
that's
something
we're
probably
working
on
later.
I
got
more
I'll
pass
off
right
now.
Thank.
E
Thank
you.
Thank
you
chairman,
commissioner.
One
concern
I
have,
and
I
appreciate
that
the
the
administration
and
doe
is
listening
to
the
concerns
over
the
past
two
weeks
and
we're
adding
these
amendments,
which
I
don't
disagree
with,
but
I
do
have
a
question
is
someone
who
does
support
the
option
of
charter
schools
because
I
believe
that
they're
they're
needed
in
certain
areas,
certain
leas
and
for
certain
students
that
that
need
these?
It's
a
parental
choice
where
there
may
not
be
an
option
for
a
parent.
E
We
did
remove
the
public
charter,
schools
from
the
weighted
funding
and
we'll
go
back
to
the
direct
funding
we're
doing
now.
So
what
I
would
like
to
ask?
What
is
the
guarantee
moving
forward?
Because
there
are
issues
that
we've
addressed
continually
facilities
and
things?
So
what
exactly
going
forward?
Will
we
be
doing
in
addressing
the
direct
funding
allocations
for
our
charters.
M
Yes,
sir,
so
I
I
want
to
make
sure
that
I
acknowledge
kind
of
the
rationale
and
I
I
want
to
also
say
I
appreciate
the
feedback
from
from
folks
in
this
room
and
very
candidly
from
superintendents.
In
these
conversations
related
to
the
weight
is
shared
across
districts.
It's
that
70
30
split
and
when
we
look
at
if
there
was
ever
a
need
to
reduce
in
the
formula
the
weights
are
the
last
to
come.
M
So
I
think
those
were
two
kind
of
compelling
arguments
in
that
conversation
that
I
think
were
important
to
consider
in
terms
of
how
that
would
work
moving
forward.
When
you
look
at
that
charter,
school
funding,
as
we
know
it's
outside
of
the
bep
now
and
so
it
kind
of
is
in
the
appropriations
bill.
Some
folks
knew
about
it,
some
folks
didn't
what
this
would
do
is
it
would
still
work
through
appropriations.
So
every
year
it
becomes
a
recurring
amount
and
that
is
built
into
the
base
of
the
budget.
M
Just
like
it
is
now.
The
difference
is
from
a
transparency
perspective.
I
think
to
the
point
that
representative
clemens
brought
up.
This
would
now
say
it
is
in
the
formula
in
direct
funding.
Everyone
can
see
it,
it's
not
kind
of
kind
of
hidden
away
in
in
a
large
budget
book.
So
there
is
that
transparency
about
it
is
in
the
formula,
but
it
is
a
recurring
funding
through
the
appropriations
bill
every
year.
G
Back
yeah,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
so
and
please
feel
free
to
let
anybody
else
jump
down
if
they
need
to
so
in.
In
the
first
time
you
prepared
for
this
committee,
you
were,
I've
got
the
transcript
of
your
testimony.
If
you're
somewhere,
you
really
were
excited
about
us
eliminating
tesser
from
that
physical
capacity
calculation.
M
Yes,
so
I
mean
I,
I
think
it's
it's
both
and
I
think
part
of
what
I
also
believe
I
testified
on,
or
at
least
have
spoken
with
people
about
is
fiscal
capacity
has
to
be
applied
one
way
or
another.
That
is
a
requirement
we
have
said
on
a
couple
of
occasions,
the
department's
pretty
deferential,
in
terms
of
which
calculations
you
all
want
to
use,
I
think
with
sieber.
M
We
talked
about
the
three
reasons
why
we
included
that
in
the
initial
proposal
the
first
was,
we
heard
a
lot
of
stakeholder
feedback,
saying
that
we
should
have
one
calculation,
not
an
average
of
two.
We
also
saw
some
legislative
intent
from
several
years
ago
to
move
to
sieber
and
third,
we
looked
at
best
practice
and
what
is
happening
in
states
across
the
country
and
what
we
saw
is
they've
moved
to
a
more
seber
like
formula
which
is
the
simple
calculation.
M
So
we
tried
to
make
that
objective
decision.
Looking
at
all
of
those
things
together,
it
does.
I
mean
the
amendment
does
reflect
that
the
feedback
we
heard
is
to
go
back
to
that
average
and,
like
I
said
it
doesn't
change
the
formula
in
terms
of
how
much
is
produced
for
students.
It
is
really
about
what
that
local
share
breaks
up
in
terms
of
local
contributions,
so
that
I
think
both
of
those
both
of
those
truths
can
exist.
G
Representative
clemens,
so
with
regards
to
capital
needs
of
leas.
How
is
that
addressed
in
this,
because
I
know
several
leas,
you
know
said
that
they
would
ideally
need
x,
amount
of
dollars
to
address,
and
you
know,
aside
from
fast
growth
stipends,
which
aren't
necessarily
going
to
apply
to
every
county
that
have
capital
needs.
How
are
those
going
to
be
addressed
fully
under
this
formula?.
M
So
I
think,
first
and
foremost
in
terms
of
what
was
previously
funded
under
the
bep
that
funding
still
carries
over
into
this
formula.
I
think
the
second
thing
I
would
say
is
that
with
any
additional
funding
to
to
the
chairman's
point
earlier,
there
is
a
lot
of
flexibility
so
how
districts
choose
to
spend
their
dollars
is
really
some
of
that
local
decision
making,
but
there
is
a
minimum
of
what
was
previously
funded,
does
carry
over
into
tesa.
G
Representative
clemens,
thank
you,
mr
and
so
it's
carrying
over
into
tesa,
so
it's
not
changing,
but
now,
if
you're,
waiting
or
you're
in
direct
allocations
to
charter
schools,
you're
waiting
certain
things
and
if
that
money
leaves
the
public
school
system
they're
still
going
to
have
those
capital
needs.
So
how
is
that
addressed
specifically
and
is
that
circumstance
even
considered
in
the
formula.
M
That
there
is
no
difference
by
in
funding
formulas
if
a
student
leaves
a
district,
whether
that
is
a
resource-based,
a
categorical
or
a
student-based
formula.
The
student
is
no
longer
in
the
school
system,
so
the
school
system
does
not
receive
funding
in
a
resource-based
formula.
That's
going
to
happen
in
aggregates
and
averages
in
a
student-based
formula.
You
can
see
that
at
the
student
level,
but
there
isn't
there
isn't
a
scenario
where
the
district
keeps
receiving
funding
for
that
student.
A
One
more
and
then
I'm
going
to
go
to
represent
love.
G
Okay,
well,
there's
no
cost
of
living
adjustment
that
I
see
in
this
you've
got
different
needs
in
different
counties.
Different
costs
teachers
face
different
costs
depending
on
where
they
live
and
which
county
they
work.
They
may
travel
from
one
county
to
another.
How
come
there
are
no
cost
of
living
adjustments
or
factors
in
this
formula
and
on
piggybacking
that
were
there
any
other
weights
considered
by
the
administration
that
were
not
included
in
the
formula.
M
I
haven't
been
asked
that
before
so
on
the
on
the
cost
of
living
adjustment,
we
did
a
lot
of
consideration
of
what
happens
in
other
states,
there's
a
lot
of
variance.
Frankly,
in
what
happens
there,
we
had
also
seen
that
some
of
the
we
have
a
similar
measure.
That's
currently
in
the
bep,
there's
been
a
move
to
lower
that
year
over
year.
That's
part
of
I
think,
legislation
that
happened
a
little
while
ago,
so
we
were
again
looking
at
that
trend.
M
I
think
we
have
seen
two
or
three
districts,
but
I
will
acknowledge
you
know
for
metro
nashville.
I
know
I
know
that's
where
you
represent.
That
is
a
significant
factor
in
terms
of
the
feedback
we've
heard
from
them,
and
I
want
to
acknowledge
and
validate
that
we
did
hear
that
feedback.
I
know
we've
had
lots
of
conversations
on
it
in
terms
of
other
weights
that
were
considered
in
the
formula.
There
was
an
initial
conversation
specifically
around
that
k-3
literacy
weight
or
an
elementary
school
weight.
We
did
hear
that
quite
a
bit
from
the
subcommittees.
M
One
of
the
things
that
we
heard
from
just
a
cost
control
perspective
was
that
it
made
more
sense
to
put
in
direct
because
that
allowed
us
to
control
for
the
local,
the
local
share
of
the
formula.
So
that's
why
you
see
that
500
per
student
in
the
direct
the
same
thing
with
cte.
We
did
hear
that
some
folks
wanted
to
see
that
more
as
a
weight
as
opposed
to
direct.
M
G
Yeah,
so
I
appreciate
that,
and
so
I
I
don't
just
ask
that
cost
of
living
question
for
davidson
county,
I
mean
that's
a
huge
factor
for
davidson
county,
but
haywood,
county,
tipton
and
fayette
are
about
to
see
incredible
cost
of
living
increases
over
the
next
few
years,
williamson
county,
seeing
them
rutherford,
columbia,
murray
county.
These.
This
isn't
just
a
davidson
county
issue.
Cost
of
living
is
a
significant
issue
for
anybody
in
the
donut
counties
around
nashville
the
greater
nashville
region.
G
M
H
M
H
And
so
my
concern
is:
is
there
any
way
to
establish
a
floor
whereby
at
a
minimum,
each
county
could
expect
50
percent
from
the
state?
H
As
my
colleague
has
pointed
out,
there'll
be
some
changes
across
the
state
in
the
western
part
of
our
state.
When
manufacturer
builds
a
plant
and
that
property
value
goes
up,
you
may
find
that
fiscal
capacity
also
increasing,
and
then
a
dramatic
shift
may
occur.
Where
then,
that
county
that
had
not
been
at
a
level
of
fiscal
capacity,
a
number
of
years
now
has
a
different
level.
H
H
I
use
an
example
of
just
we
can't
assume
what
someone's
ability
to
raise
funds
can
be
simply
because
we
say
well,
the
city
is
growing,
can't
you
give
right,
and
so
just
want
to
put
that
out
there
that
maybe
some
consideration
can
be
given
to
to
consid
to
look
at
what
it
would
be
like.
I
know
it
would
cause
some
issues
because
you'd
have
to
recalculate
everything,
but
what
would
that
be
like?
H
H
If
they
have
this,
if
they
have
that,
and
so
as
we
start
talking
about
language
and
and
how
to
put
it
in
just
just
give
consideration
to
that
piece
about
how
one
might
try
to
get
to
a
place
where
the
cliff
is
not
such
that
the
state's
37
becomes
34,
30,
20,
10,
5
and
nashville's
contribution
is
17,
18,
19,
20.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
want
to
start
by
saying
thank
you
for
the
the
you
know
the
concern
we're
hearing
here
about
the
the
locals
and
what
the
effect
we'll
see
there
and
that's
been
one
of
my
greatest
concerns
in
the
beginning
because
of
my
district
and
the
changes
we're
gonna
see
over
the
next
three
to
five
to
seven
years.
So
you
know,
I
know
what
I'm
saying
on
paper
looks
good,
but
also
no
reality,
and
you
know
I
just
want.
B
I
definitely
appreciate
the
questions
on
that,
because
we
we
don't
want
to
see
any
drastic
increase
and
honestly
what
I've
seen
from
some
other
states
we're
seeing
that
concern
raised
and
seeing
that
in
reality
there.
So
that
is
on
my
radar,
but
for
this
round
of
questioning,
I
want
to
focus
on
I'm
going
to
tread
on
the
chairman's
territory
a
little
bit
and
shift
gears
to
coordinated
school
health.
I
had
a
a
good
meeting
in
my
district
with
with
some
folks
yesterday
and
they
had
some
concerns
and
I
just
want
to
get
some
clarity
today.
B
M
The
funding
would
work
that
way.
The
the
programmatic
components
of
coordinated
school
health
are
dealt
with
separately
in
a
different
part
of
the
statute.
The
the
there
is
a
shift
in
language
that
I
think
I
saw
the
same
same
document
that
you
probably
saw
and
then
happy
to
chat
through
that
too.
Well.
B
M
Yeah,
so
so
in
the
the
same,
funding
is
included
in
the
base.
There
would
still
be
the
requirements
under
that
under
coordinated
school
health.
The
programmatic
component,
within
the
statute,
I
think,
in
in
reading,
through
the
the
concern
in
terms
of
the
language
shift,
it
was
to
kind
of
keep
with
the
same
bill
and
you
have
to
spend
the
funding
on
coordinated
school
health
in
the
current
statute.
M
What
it
says
is-
and
there
must
be
someone
designated
to
oversee
it-
doesn't
technically
require
a
full-time
person,
but
that
is
the
practice
that
is
used
in
most
of
our
districts
and
I
think,
a
really
good
and
important
one.
I
understand,
and
can
I
can
understand,
absolutely
the
concern
that
that
that
clause
is
not
seen
in
the
bill
and
then
certainly
want
to
be
able.
We
will
be
deferential
to
to
whatever
change
you
would
want
to
make
there.
It
was
not
the
intent
of
the
department
to
see
any
programmatic
changes
there.
M
B
I'm
sorry
thank
you
for
that
and
we'll
have
a
little
more
discussion
moving
forward
to
make
sure
we're
all
on
the
same
page
there.
B
But
I
guess
the
last
question
that
they
expressed
some
concern
now
that
it's
not
a
grant
and
we
still
have
some
funding,
I
mean
some
reporting
and,
and
they
you
know,
we're
hearing
that
when
when
they
received
grants
the
reporting,
it
was
a
lot
of
reporting,
basically
because
it
was
a
grant
that
everybody
totally
understood
that
how
does
the
reporting
from
the
grants
now
going
to
compare
to
the
reporting
they're
required
to
do
that?
It's
figured
in
and
it's
basically
funded
a
different
way.
How
does
that
compare.
M
So
I
think,
if
you're
going
to
see
a
change,
it
would
actually
be
a
streamline
in
those
reporting,
because
we
don't
have
to
go
into
eplan
and
fill
out
a
whole
grant
application
for
every
single
thing.
The
funding
is
there.
It
is
really
about
ensuring
that
our
coordinated
school
health
professionals
in
all
of
our
districts
are
able
to
focus
on
those
really
critical
services
for
students.
M
I
think
that's
actually
a
significant
benefit
to
this,
and
so
I'm
I'm
feeling
very
optimistic
about
what
that
means
for
kids
and
that
those
hours
spent
filling
out,
grant
applications
and
the
hours
we
spend
reviewing
them
and
approving
them.
Those
can
all
be
redirected
to
things
that
that
we
know
that's
why
they
got
into
the
profession,
which
is
to
help
students
great.
B
One
of
their
concerns
was
I'm
sorry,
chairman
go
right
ahead.
That
was
one
of
their
concerns.
You
know
that
if
it
wasn't
come,
they
they
have.
We
all
know
it
like.
I
do
that
they
spend
so
much
time
doing,
paperwork
and
reporting
that
they
want
to
spend
time
with
kids.
So
I
appreciate
that
clarity
and
on
that
topic.
So
that's
all
for
me
on
round
one
chairman.
Thank
you,
chairman
reagan,.
L
M
You
know
I'm
happy
to,
I
think
there's
I
would
want
to
do
it
on
the
input
side
and
then
certainly
on
the
output
side.
So
when
you
think
about
the
inputs
and
what
these
dollars
can
fund,
we
hear
from
districts
constantly
in
different
regions
of
the
state.
That
say
you
know
I
would
love
to
have
a
slightly
smaller
class
size
for
my
youngest
learners,
to
really
focus
on
literacy.
M
I
really
want
to
make
sure
that
I
can
invest
in
contemporary
equipment
and
machinery
for
my
cte
programs
to
funnel
into
the
jobs
that
are
available
in
my
community.
There
are
really
important
investments
that
I
I
know
districts
will
make
in
a
very
strategic
way,
because
they've
been
thinking
about
this
for
a
long
time
and
there's
ongoing
professional
development
conversations,
reviews
and
things
that
we
do
as
part
of
that
transparency
and
accountability.
M
I
think
the
other
side
is
that
output.
So
what
do
you
then
get
when
you
invest
in
smaller
class
sizes
or
high
dosage
tutoring
or
equipment
and
machinery
or
whatever
those
decisions,
are
at
the
local
level?
We
can
look
at
that
data
and
for
the
first
time,
because
we
now
have
that
that
much
more
transparent
line
of
sight
into
spending
we
can
say
and
help
districts
look
at.
You
invested
this
these
dollars
in
these
inputs.
M
Here's
the
output
that
came
from
that
is
that
something
that
you
expected
is
that
better
than
you
expected-
and
maybe
you
want
to
put
more
funding
into
that-
is
that
not
actually
what
you
expected
and
we
need
to
redirect
those
funds
in
a
different
way,
you're
able
to
have
that
conversation
and
make
those
strategic
decisions
in
a
way
that's
really
difficult
to
do
under
the
bep.
I
think
it
does
allow
for
more
strategy
there.
M
That
being
said
in
terms
of
the
quality
of
the
inputs,
that
is
also
something
that
we
heard
from
the
subcommittees
in
terms
of
additional
support.
So
we
know
that
every
teacher
in
a
classroom
every
day
is
working
as
hard
as
he
or
she
can
for
in
the
best
interest
of
their
children
and
their
students.
We
know
that-
and
we
also
heard
from
the
teachers
subcommittee
and
many
of
our
other
subcommittees-
that
additional
professional
development
can
continue
to
help
our
teachers
thrive
and
be
successful.
M
I
think
there
was
some
conversation
on
on
the
literacy,
the
literacy
success
act
that
was
passed
last
year.
We
are
already
seeing
really
strong
positive
effects
of
that.
The
additional
funding
helps
us
to
accelerate
that
work
so
depending
on
where
the
investment
is
the
real
transparency
piece
and
connecting
those
dollars
into
what
those
investments
are
helps
for
better
decision
making
year
over
year.
L
Chairman
reagan,
thank
you
not
sure
I
phrased
my
question
exactly
to
get
the
answer
that
I
was
looking
for
here.
L
Nothing
detrimental
about
what
you
said,
but
we
sit
here
in
the
legislature.
We
look
at
things
like
act
scores.
We
compare
that
across
I'm
going
to
say
141
districts,
because
when
you
take
out
school
for
the
deaf
school
for
the
blind,
etc,
you
have
about
141
districts
left
that
that
we
can
compare.
So
we
compare
performance
there.
My
question
is
related
to
performance.
You
were
talking
about,
for
example,
they
get
results
in
cte.
L
Well,
if
I'm
looking
at
stuart
county-
and
I
want
to
compare
their
performance
in
cte
to
hamilton,
county
or
perhaps
anderson
county
knox,
can
I
pick
one?
How
do
I
do
that?
Because
you've
just
enunciated
that
they're
going
to
be
spending
this
all
differently?
So
what
what
standard
of
comparison
do
we
have
to
ensure
that
we're
getting
the
bang
for
the
buck.
M
Yes,
sir,
so
appreciate
that
clarification.
So
what
what
I
would
say
is
we
have
a
pretty
robust
accountability
system,
we'll
be
rolling
out
of
course,
letter
grades
this
august,
but
it
has
a
series
of
different
accountability
metrics.
So
we
look
at
performance
and
growth
on
all
of
our
end-of-year
assessments.
We
look
at
act
performance.
We
also
look
at
how
many
students
earned
industry
credentials,
how
many
students
earn
statewide
dual
credit,
dual
enrollment
or
other
types
of
post-secondary
credits.
M
We
now
for
the
first
time
this
year,
thanks
to,
I
think,
some
really
really
good
work
on
our
assessment
and
accountability
team.
We
will
have
individual
student
tivos
scores,
and
that
means
that
the
individual
student
level
will
be
able
to
measure
that
growth
over
time
in
a
very
different
way
and
frankly,
report
to
families
and
have
that
transparency
for
families.
So
all
of
those
are
different
outcome
indicators
that
we
currently
publicly
report
on.
A
L
L
I
have
been
getting
questions
from
city
officials
as
well
as
citizens
there
as
to
local
match
impacts,
and
I
we
we've
talked
about
the
hold
harmless
or
nothing
changes
for
the
first,
whatever
it
is
three
or
four
years,
but
their
concern
is
that
you
know
they're
already
putting
in
a
lot
and
when
this
funding
formula
changes
and
there's
four
years
of
catch-up,
as
someone
else
mentioned
earlier,
under
the
maintenance
of
effort
category.
L
What's
going
to
happen
to
them-
and
I
would
I
dare
say
that
applies
also
to
davidson
county
and
some
others
who
put
in
a
lot
of
money,
because
it's
not
just
a
question
of
how
much
they
put
in
there's
that
maintenance
of
effort
piece.
So
how's
that
going
to
be
calculated,
what's
going
to
be
the
impact.
M
Yes,
sir,
so
I
will
give
the
maintenance
of
effort
and
then
go
to
the
actual
district,
so
at
the
maintenance
of
effort
level,
the
current
legislation
keeps
that
the
same
as
it
is
now,
meaning
if
a
if
a
district
puts
in
10
million
dollars
more
than
what
their
minimum
required
matches,
that
they
will
still
have
to
maintain
that
level
of
funding
over
time.
So
the
maintenance
of
effort,
the
vast
majority
of
our
districts,
put
in
more
than
the
bep
requires
that
amount
they
have
to
put
in
year
over
year.
M
So
they
have
to
keep
that
that
full
dollar
amount.
When
you
look
at-
and
I
just
want
to
be
really
clear
about
kind
of
this
idea
of
a
fiscal
cliff-
that
is
not
what
happens.
We
have
not
frozen
anything,
and
I
think
it's
that
idea
that
we
have
frozen
the
local
contribution
or
that
that
a
dollar
amount.
What
we've
actually
done
is
we've
lowered
that
amount,
and
so
every
year
it
still
increases
it's
just
lower
than
what
people
spend.
Now.
M
We've
essentially
lowered
the
bill,
and
so
every
year
maybe
the
bill
was
and
we
can
get.
Actually.
We
should
probably
pull
up
the
exact
numbers
if
the
bill
that
locals
are
putting
in
is
two
billion
dollars.
We've
actually
set
that
now
to
1.5
billion,
it's
still
going
to
go
up
by
65
million
each
and
every
year,
but
because
we
set
it
lower,
it
doesn't
catch
up
to
current
funding
levels
until
fiscal
year.
27..
M
That's
why
so
many
districts
when
we
gave
them
their
projections
out
to
fiscal
year,
30!
That's
why
so
many
were
lower.
Even
when
you
put
in
100
million
dollars
a
year
year
over
year,
you
are
still
seeing
that
that
is
going
to
be
lower
than
what
they
would
do
under
the
bep.
We've
run
that
analysis
for
tisa
we've
run
it
for
tsa,
adding
100
million.
M
We
certainly
don't
want
to
be
presumptuous
about
more
investment,
but
if
that
was
the
case,
and
we've
run
that
with
the
bep
putting
a
billion
dollars
into
the
bep
year
over
year
through
fiscal
year,
30.,
so
for
a
for
a
district
like
oak
ridge,
they
do
put
in
a
significant
amount
above
the
bep.
What
you
would
see
for
them
is
that
they
will
still
see
those
increases
just
like
they
would
under
the
bep.
L
M
C
And
speaking
for
myself,
it
is
very
difficult
to
come
in
on
a
monday
and
be
looking
at
a
new
amendment
in
new
bells
on
this.
What
I
would
request
is
if
this
bill
does
move
forward
today,
that
let
us
digest
where
we
are,
as
a
committee,
an
entire
committee
and
in
the
full
committee,
let
us
put
together
what
we
believe
that
we
can
get
across
the
finish
line
and
then
let
the
department
and
the
governor's
office
take
a
look
at
it
and
then,
whatever
whatever
the
department
or
the
offer
administration,
doesn't
like,
then
everything
else.
C
We
agree
on
and
start
focusing
on
our
differences
to
try
to
close
that
gap
up,
because
it's
very
frustrating
to
keep
coming
in
here
on
a
monday
and
having
to
figure
out
where
we
are
every
week.
Instead
of
let
us
get
a
working
document
for
you
and
then
you
just
tell
us
yeah
everything
is
good,
except
for
these
things,
then
the
only
conversation
we're
having
is
what
what
those
things
are
and
that's
it.
So
that's
that's
my
speech,
but
on
page
11
at
the
bottom
it
says
three
directors
of
schools
on
15
591.
C
C
M
Yes,
so
is
that
our
currently
or
in
in
this
bill,
how.
M
Sir,
so
what
we
do
is
we
allocate
the
funds
specifically
for
that
purpose,
and
so
they
are
appropriated
for
that
year
and
then
looking
at
the
students,
the
number
of
students
who
would
qualify,
we
we
allocate
those
dollars
in
that
current
year,
so
that
that
fast
growing
section,
which
is
why
it's
slightly
separate
from
the
formula
is
for
current
year
funding.
Specifically,
I
think
the
benefit
is
that
right
now
we
do
that
on
a
pretty
there's,
a
lot
of
space
between
those
payments,
we're
actually
going
to
increase
that
to
five
payments
per
year.
M
Yes,
sir,
that's
right.
Okay,.
C
C
distribution
of
funds,
starting
with
section
b-
yes,
sir,
so
this
is
what
has
a
lot
of
us
concerned
about
the
the
cliff
here,
because
the
100
every
year
it
drops
25
percent
of
making
a
district
hole
here.
Okay,
can
you
just
run
us
through
how
that
works
in
four
years.
M
Yes,
sir,
so
that
that's
helpful,
so
this
this
section
is
specific
only
to
that
very
small
group
of
districts
that
have
seen
significant
enrollment
decline.
Those
are
districts
that
even
you
know
for
the
most
part
under
the
bep,
they
are
kind
of
losing
money
because
they've
reduced
enrollment,
some
in
double
digit
percentage
percentages.
So
what
this
does
is
it
says,
whatever
you
were
funded
at
in
fiscal
year
23,
especially
for
those
districts
again
that
over
the
last
three
years
have
seen
significant
enrollment
declines.
M
We
will
give
them
that
stair
step
down
to
be
able
to
right
size
over
those
four
years,
as
opposed
to
frankly
how
it
works
now,
which
is
kind
of
you're
just
cut.
So
this
is
this
section
is
really
only
for
that
very
small
handful
of
districts.
I
think
it's
five
and
I'm
going
to
check
with
sam
to
make
sure
that's
correct.
Five
districts
total
everybody
else.
This
section
does
not
apply
to
just
enroll
those
significant
enrollment
decline.
Districts
chairman.
C
There's
there's
we
could
go,
I'm
gonna
be
conscious
here
of
everybody's
time,
but
you
know
you
and
I
have
talked
about
this-
is
we
as
a
state?
We
cannot
be
where
we
are
right
now
in
three
years.
C
It
almost
looks
like
we
have
to
do
it
in
like
three
year
increments
to
allow
the
leas
to
adjust,
implement
and
move
right
and
after
three
years
there
has
to
be
something
some
measurement
for
an
lea
to
say:
okay,
you're
at
28
literacy
rate
three
years
ago
for
your
district,
we're.
Looking
at
your
your
your
metrics,
your
data,
you
have
to
be
at
35
in
three
years
or
37
right,
because
germantown
at
the
high
or
oak
ridge
who's
performing
at
a
high
level.
C
You
just
can't
arbitrarily
say
we
need
eight
points
in
in
in
three
years.
That's
going
to
be
virtually
almost
an
impossibility
for
some
of
these
districts,
and
so
one
of
the
things
I
want
to
make
sure
we're
working
on
and
it's
nothing
in
the
bill.
This
is
where
the
devil
comes
out
in
the
details
that
one
of
my
colleagues
talked
about
is
we've
got
to
have
some
way
to
have.
Accountability
is
if
we're
going
to
give
this
maximum
autonomy
at
the
beginning.
C
There
has
to
be
a
time
there
where
we
come
in
as
evaluate
and
say:
okay,
hey
you're,
hitting
the
mark,
keep
your
autonomy
or
you're
not,
and
now
there
has
to
be
oversight
on
that
district
to
to
do
best
practices,
that's
kind
of
more
of
a
statement
there.
Yes,
sir,
and
then.
Lastly,
I
want
to
throw
this
out
to
you,
as
my
colleague
from
davidson
county
talked
about
cost
of
living.
C
As
a
mortgage
banker,
it's
just
been
announced
that
in
williamson
county,
the
average
cost
of
a
home
for
sale
right
now
is
one
million
dollars,
1
million
in
murray
county.
It
is
increasing
at
a
rapid
rate.
Cost
of
living
is
going
to
be
a
very
real
thing
here
in
middle
tennessee
and
other
parts
of
the
state.
Like
chairman,
hurt
when
that
ford
plant
starts
to
come
online,
the
gm
plant
we
have
in
spring
hill
has
13
schools
around
it
with
it
within
10
miles
13
schools.
C
So
these
are
things
that
we
have
to
consider
going
forward.
Is
there
has
to
be
some
safeguards
in
here,
because
if
not
our
local
match
is
going
to
have
to
go
up,
have
to
go
up,
and
then
that
makes
it
very
difficult
for
me
to
sit
here
and
vote
for
a
bill
that
I
know
is
going
to
require
a
tax
increase
on
my
constituents
in
my
district.
So
more
of
a
statement,
but
thank
you.
M
If
I,
since
that's,
come
up
a
couple
times,
if
I
can
so,
I
want
to
make
sure
so
let
regardless
so
if
it's
just
under
the
bep,
what's
happening
in
in
kind
of
blue
oval
city,
what's
happening
in
middle
tennessee,
etc,
that
the
fiscal
capacity
calculation
does
not
change.
So
if
we
kept
things
exactly
the
same
and
all
of
those
places
had
increasing
property
values
and
explosions
of
populations,
their
fiscal
capacity
requirement
will
increase
under
the
bep
that
that
is
just.
That
is
how
fiscal
capacity
works.
It
is
constitutionally
required.
M
We
do
that
because
of
case
law
previously,
and
so
I
think
there
were
a
couple
of
things
on
that.
I
think
there
was
a
kind
of
the
assume
the
ability,
the
department
does
not
calculate
fiscal
capacity.
Two
independent
organizations
and
agencies
do,
and
we
average
those,
but
it
is
based
on
real
data
that
is
collected
from
local
counties.
So,
looking
at
actual
property
taxes
collected
actual
sales
tax
revenues
that
are
collected,
so
those
real
dollars
are
the
calculations
I
100
percent
agree.
M
We
have
some
places
in
the
state
where
the
fiscal
capacity
balance
is
going
to
shift
because
they
are
growing
and
property
values
are
going
up.
I
will
also
say
for
a
lot
of
our
rurals
right
now.
Their
sales
tax
revenues
went
went
pretty
high
because
of
the
pandemic
because
of
the
bill
that
was
passed
to
be
able
to
do
the
sales
tax
on
those
online
purchases
and
so
we're
seeing
some
shifts
in
real
time.
I
think
what
I
just
want
to
make
sure
to
be
really
clear
about.
M
Is
that
the
the
tisa
versus
the
bep
on
that
does
not
change
the
fiscal
capacity
that
is
going
to
happen
no
matter
what
the
thing
that
we
are
able
to
do
under
tsa
as
a
state
is
to
actually
say,
because
there
is
this
billion
dollar
investment.
It
allows
us
to
lower
that
bill
for
districts,
and
it
gives
them
more
time
for
some
of
these
changes
that
are
happening
because
tennessee
is
in
such
an
economic
boom.
It
actually
controls
for
those
local
increases
in
a
way
that
does
not
exist
under
the
bep.
M
So
that
is
something
that
I
would
say
is
actually
a
benefit
and
that's
why,
when
you
look
at
those
projections
year-over-year
it
is,
it
is
something
that
I
would
say
is
one
of
the
things
that
is
going
to
be
good
for
locals.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
just
kind
of
a
question
explanation
here
on
when
we
look
at
the
weighted
allocations,
there's
obviously
a
couple
categories:
there
different
percentages
and
we
have
a
significant
amount
of
money
going
towards
cte,
which
I
think
we're
all
good
for
we're
good
with.
But
on
the
other
side
of
that,
when
you
talk
about
the
academic
side,
we
have
schools
that
are
made
and
even
as
a
general
assembly
we've
made,
you
know
commitments
to
increasing
the
dual
credit
money.
We've
got.
B
You
know,
schools
that
have
made
drastic
commitments.
They're
great
you
know,
students
graduating
with
associates
degrees
and
in
multiple
dual
credits,
so
we're
not
seeing
any
weight
for
that.
Did
that
cross
the
department's
mind
to
put
any
weight
in
that
side
of
it
or,
and
obviously
it's
not
on
there,
but
you
know
why
wasn't
it
I'd
like
to
talk.
M
Great
question:
one
of
the
reasons
is
we
looked
at
the
source
of
the
funds
and
where
those
funds
currently
sit
in
the
budget.
So
some
of
the
examples
that
you
gave
actually
filter
through
t
heck
or
a
different
organization
same
thing
with
summer
school
summer,
school
came
up
a
lot
in
the
conversations
to
put.
M
Can
we
put
that
in
the
formula,
because
so
much
of
that
summer,
school
funding
is
funded
through
tanf,
it
isn't
specific
to
the
formula
itself,
and
so
we
tried
to
keep
things
that
were
reflective
in
current
state
budgets
or
grants
that
were
standalone
administered
solely
by
the
department.
So
that's
that's
part
of
the
the
decision
making.
That
was
there.
B
Was
it
hurt?
Thank
you.
Let
me,
I
guess,
ask
you
to
ask
it
the
wrong
way:
the
outcomes
side
of
it
on
that
end
of
it.
Where
we're
you
know,
with
with
certified
certifications,
we're
rewarding
and
things,
but
when
I
don't
reward
a
school
for
has
us,
you
know
when
students
receive
associates
degrees
or
you
know,
pursue
dual
credits
on
the
academic
side
of
it.
I
see.
M
Apologies,
sir,
so
one
of
the
things-
and
this
is
some
feedback
we
received
from
the
steering
committee
and
then
that
subcommittee
process
was,
we
had
originally
had
a
very
long
list
of
outcomes,
and
I
think
that
was
represented
in
that
initial
draft
framework.
M
The
feedback
that
we
received
was
to
get
that
a
lot
tighter,
and
so
what
we
heard
was
strong
emphasis
on
literacy,
as
we
can
appreciate,
given
given
the
investments
here
and
then
the
second
was
a
college
track
and
then
a
college
and
career
track,
and
so
they
had
looked
to
say
what
is
the
outcome
that
we
would
want
to
see
there?
One
of
those
measures
for
college
readiness
was
that
act
mark
of
21
or
the
significant
improvement
between
the
first
test
and
the
retake.
M
The
second
was
on
that
college
and
career
track,
and
that
was
earning
in
tier
two
or
tier
three
industry
credentials,
and
so
it
encompassed
more
students
than
just
looking
at
an
assessment.
It
also
looked
at
assessments
that
were
more
aligned
to
the
cte
programs
of
study.
I
think
certainly
there
were
conversations
on
statewide,
dual
credit
and
ap
scores,
and
all
of
that
for
this
initial
proposal,
the
idea
was
to
keep
that
pretty
streamlined.
That
being
said
before,
any
of
that
would
happen,
we
would
go
through
that
rule
making
process
with.
M
I
think
all
the
folks
listed
in
the
bill
reviewed
by
the
state
board
and
then
going
to
government
operations.
So
there's
still,
I
think,
the
next
15
months,
if
this
were
to
pass
where
all
of
that
feedback
would
be
considered
from
a
larger
group
of
stakeholders.
Besides
just
kind
of
the
folks
you
see
here,
yes,
sir.
G
M
G
I
don't
I
mean
it
seems
like
the
biggest
argument
for
passage
of
this
is
that
well,
this
is
going
to
delay
the
inevitable,
but
the
inevitable
could
be
avoided
if
we
changed
like
really
spent
some
time
working
through
this
and
changing
the
fundamental
problems
that
an
earlier
witness
said
we're
not
even
addressed
by
this.
So
at
the
end
of
four
years,
what
is
going
to
happen?
What
is
guaranteed.
M
Yes,
so
I
I
do
want
to
acknowledge,
because
I
think
there's
a
few
things
that
were
that
are
getting
clumped
together
that
are
completely
different
conversations,
so
at
the
state
level
we
have
projected
for
up
through
fiscal
year
30.
we
in
our
assumptions.
In
those
projections,
we
assumed
the
one
percent
adm
growth
and
we
assumed
a
hundred
million
dollar
increase
to
the
base.
That's
what
we
assumed
in
those
five-year
projections
and.
M
That
that's
correct,
which
is
why,
when
we
send
out
the
district
allocations,
we
are
not.
We
do
not
want
to
presume
that
on
your
behalf,
but
we
have
still
run
those.
So
we
can
answer
questions,
certainly
that
have
come
up
like
today.
So
for
those
projections-
and
this
is
the
same
sheet
that
I
know
many
of
you
have
looked
at
for
fiscal
year-
24-
it
does
show
that
for
the
state
we
would
put
in
6.37
billion
dollars
locals
would
put
in
2.5
billion
in
fiscal
year.
M
M
What
happens
is
the
next
year
goes
from
2.5
billion
to
2.57
billion
to
2.643
billion
in
fiscal
year.
26.
all
of
those
years
are
still
lower
than
fiscal
year.
23
the
last
year
of
the
bep.
It
doesn't
catch
up
to
where
we
are
in
the
bep
until
fiscal
year
27..
So
we
have
set
that
total
amount.
Lower
we've
controlled
for
those
costs
to
be
lower,
it
is
still
increasing.
M
It
is
every
year,
but
it
doesn't
hit
where
we
are
now
until
fiscal
year
27.,
so
that
I
just
want
to
be
very,
very
clear,
and
that
assumes
a
hundred
million
in
the
base
and
everything
that
happens
with
the
weights
and
it
assumes
fiscal
capacity
that
is
frankly
stagnant.
So
it's
that
70
30
and
we
are
using
the
task
receiver
split
that
tas
receiver
split.
M
G
M
M
So
so
we
are
giving
kind
of,
unless
you
all
put
in
more
than
100
million
dollars
and
and
certainly
when
it
goes
through
the
weights,
it
ends
up
being
you
know
more
than
that,
but
we
are
making
that
assumption
of
that
kind
of
hundreds.
Let
me
see
I
can
give
you
the
exact
217.7
million
dollars
for
state
and
local
154
million
dollars
total
in
state.
If
you
invest
that
every
year,
those
are
the
numbers
I
just
put
in.
M
D
M
Is
different
than
the
formula,
and
I
just
want
to
be
really
clear:
we
have
to
separate
those
two
conversations.
The
formula
is
how
much
money
is
provided
for
the
children
in
a
district
fiscal
capacity
is
totally
separate,
and
that
is
just
how
you
divide
up
the
pie.
That
division
is
not
going
to
change
in
terms
of
those
percentages
that
will
be
the
same
under
any
formula.
M
What
I
am
saying
is
that,
because
the
state
is
putting
more
money
in
and
reducing
that
local
bill,
how
the
locals
divide
up
that
pie
is
on
a
lower
total
dollar
amount,
which
is
why
the
majority
of
our
districts
end
up
doing
really
well
in
additional
state
dollars,
and
those
who
are
just
doing
the
minimum
every
year
are
still
going
to
do.
Okay,
because
we've
lowered
their
total
bill.
I
cannot,
of
course,
under
the
bep
or
tsa
control
for
growth
or
what
the
future
will
hold.
G
G
We
don't
know
what
those
amounts
are
going
to
be
that
that
is
concerning
to
me.
We
also
have
other
issues
with
regards
to
funding
that
you're
going
to
determine
with
regards
to
student
outcome
incentives
what
those
outcome
goals
are
going
to
be
what
those
outcome
incentive
dollars
are
going
to
be.
That
makes
it
very
hard
for
districts
to
plan
out
on
on
those
dollar
amounts.
What
those
incentives
are.
G
M
Just
want
to
clarify
is
that
the
department
is
not
deciding
the
dollar
amount.
We
are
required
to
promulgate
rules.
You
all
will
decide
the
dollar
amount.
You
will
do
that
through
the
appropriations
bill.
We
essentially
have
to
do
rule
making.
That
is
a
direct
reflection
of
how
much
you
all
choose
to
appropriate.
We
don't
have
the
authority
to
appropriate
funds.
Well,.
G
That's
a
concern
of
mine
because
the
language
says
you'll
promulgate
rules
to
set
the
direct
allocation
amounts
pursuant
to
the
subsection,
and
then
it
says,
you're
going
to
submit
the
proposed
outcome
goals
which
will
have
a
direct
income
and
you're
going
to
appoint
this
committee
unilaterally
to
regarding
outcome,
incentive
dollars
tied
to
those
goals.
So
I
guess
I
would
like
some
clarification
on
what
that's
going
to
be.
M
Sure
so,
on
the
direct
allocation
part
of
that
rule
making
is
because
all
of
that
needs
to
go
in
the
tisa
guide.
So
essentially,
the
rule
is
putting
the
dollar
amounts
that
you
all
choose
to
appropriate
every
year.
We
put
that
in
the
tesa
guide,
that
is,
that
is
a
direct
kind
of
transfer
over
in
terms
of
the
outcomes
component.
M
One
of
the
things
is,
if
this
were
to
pass,
that
outcomes
committee
would
need
the
rulemaking
around
that
and
what
that
looks
like
starts
immediately,
so
that
as
we
go
into
next
school
year,
that
is
very
clear,
but
it's
15
months
worth
of
time
to
be
able
to
set
what
those
look
like
in
rule
now
for
the
outcomes
component.
That
is
slightly
different
than
the
formula.
I
would
never
tell
a
district
that
they
should
bank
on
the
same
amount
every
single
year,
because
it
is
based
on
performance
within
that
year.
M
I
think
many
of
our
districts
can
look
at
trends
over
time.
I
do
know
there
are
a
number
of
districts
who
have
already
started
to
look
at
what
they
might
generate
based
on
an
initial
starting
point,
so
it
is
one-time
funding
year-over-year
the
formula
which
is
base
plus
the
weights
plus
the
direct
that
is
essentially
the
entitlement
funding
that
districts
receive
as
a
result
of
the
students
who
are
enrolled
in
their
district.
M
G
M
M
So
everything
that
is
currently
within
the
bill
and
that
we've
projected
out
through
fiscal
year
30
we
have
done
based
on
the
funding
that
has
been
made
available,
so
that
is
based
on
the
additional
investment,
certainly
of
the
billion
dollars.
It
also
assumes-
and
we've
we've
worked
with
fna
on
this-
that
this
is
within
the
fiscal
kind
of
boundaries
of
what
the
state
is
comfortable
with.
So
we
do
feel
that
the
full
formula
can
be
funded
through
the
projection
year,
which
is
fiscal
year.
30.
G
And
two
more
questions,
mr
go
ahead:
quick
ones!
With
regard
to
the
student
outcome
incentives,
I
have
a
real
fear
that
we're
going
to
be
incentivizing
systems
with
fewer
struggling
kids
and
that
these
outcome
incentives
are
going
to
lead
to
schools
that
are
already
struggling,
receiving
even
less
funding
than
other
systems.
M
Sir
and
I
I
will
say
that
both
in
terms
of
the
bill,
but
also
as
someone
who
has
worked
exclusively
in
title,
1
schools,
her
entire
career,
and
that
is
that
we
have
put
double
the
funding
towards
economically
disadvantaged
students.
So
if
you
have
a
student,
who's
economically
disadvantaged,
the
initial
proposal
that
obviously
we
have
to
go
through
rule
making
in
the
committee
and
feedback
and
all
that,
but
right
now,
what
we
have
budget
is
that
if
you
are
a
student
who's
economically
disadvantaged,
you
would
receive
a
double
in
terms
of
that
outcomes.
M
Funding
also
we've
looked
at
growth
and
improvement,
so
at
the
a.c.t
level,
if
students
improve
over
that
act
score,
that's
still
also.
It
provides
additional
support
there.
So
I'm
a
economically
disadvantaged
student,
I
show
improvement
on
the
act.
I
would
get
double
the
funding
as
someone
who's,
not
economically
disadvantaged.
M
I
also
think,
what's
really
important
is
tier
two
and
tier
three
industry
credentials
when
we
look
at
students
in
across
our
state,
urban,
suburban
and
rural,
who
are
involved
in
our
cte
programs
and,
frankly,
our
exceptional
cte
programs.
This
does
ensure
that
those
students
who
earn
those
tier
two
and
tier
three
credentials,
that
is,
that,
can
be
any
student,
but
it
still
provides
that
double
funding
for
economically
disadvantaged
students,
so
it
is
not
just
a
test
score.
G
Mr
mitt,
thank
you,
and
so
the
way
I'm
reading
this
is
that
a
lot
of
this
funding
isn't
going
to
be
allocated
until
the
24-25
school
year,
because
it's
based
on
data
in
the
preceding
year
that
the
bill
actually
goes
into
effect,
which
is
23
24..
So
what
are
we
going
to
do
between
now
and
year?
2425
with
regards
to
school
funding,
because
I
don't
know
how
you
would
allocate
these
dollars
when
you've
got
provisions
in
here
saying
they're,
based
on
data
collected
in
the
preceding
year.
Once
this
bill
goes
into
event,.
M
So
the
data
collected
good
question:
the
data
collect
in
the
preceding
year
is
the
22-23
school
year,
so
that
data
is
used
for
the
first
year
of
the
formula
which
would
be
the
23-24
school
year.
The
dates
that
you
see
in
terms
of
reports
etc
also
reflects
that
implementation
year
again,
that's
23
24.
M
24-25,
no,
sir,
so
the
clarification
there
is,
we
collect
the
same
data.
So
there's
no
new
additional
data
collections.
It's
the
same
data
we
collect
now
this
this
year
would
be
hypothetically
if
this
past
the
last
year
of
the
bep
and
then
the
23-24
school
year
would
be
the
first
year
of
tsa
implementation.
M
M
Still
prior
year,
so
there
aren't
changes
in
that
operational
component.
It's
just
what
formula
are
you
applying
those
data
points
to,
and
so
that
would
be.
We
have
a
15-month
essentially
window
from
hypothetical
passage
until
the
actual
implementation,
where
the
new
funding
model
would
be
implemented.
G
M
M
M
E
M
E
M
E
So,
every
year,
we're
in
education
committee
we're
looking
for
40
million
recurring
for
nurses
to
put
the
nursing
ratio
down.
Normally
we
can't
find
it
we're
looking
for
an
extra
100
million
to
give
teachers
a
thousand
dollar
a
year
raise
it
takes
about
100
million
for
every
thousand
dollars
recurring.
E
Therefore,
it
dies
in
finance
because
it's
not
in
the
budget
and
and
the
maintenance
of
effort
on
the
locals
is
still
going
to
continue
to
go
up
as
we
as
a
state
continue
to
put
more
money
in
education
grow.
So
my
comment
is
whether
we
move
to
a
tesla
model,
which
I
do
see
more
accountability
and
transparency,
or
we
stay
right
where
we
are.
We
still
got
a
lot
of
the
same
issues
that
we're
concerned
about
in
this
committee,
which
are
all
really
good
concerns.
We
need
to
flush
them
out,
so
that's
microsoft.
E
M
That's
where
I
think
the
majority
of
the
questions
when
we
look
at
that
local
contribution,
local
taxes,
things
like
that
that
is
a
that
is
something
that
is
applied
in
every
state.
I
can
appreciate
kind
of
the
challenges
around
that
there's:
lots
of
good
conversation
to
be
had
on
kind
of
policy,
recommendations
related
to
floors
and
ceilings
and
how
that's
calculated,
but
ultimately
bep,
tsa
or
something
else.
M
The
formula
generates
more
funding
for
students
who
need
more
supports
in
order
to
meet
the
very
rigorous
benchmarks
that
that
we
have
for
them
and-
and
I
think
to
chairman
sepiki's
point
that
we
should
have
and
that
we
must
have
if
we're
going
to
continue
to
accelerate
as
a
state.
The
conversation
around
fiscal
capacity
is
a
very
important
one.
We,
I
think
to
representative
clemens
point.
M
We
did
make
a
recommendation
on
what
we
thought
was
best
practice
nationally
appreciate
kind
of
the
the
really
good
productive
conversations
on
that
and
can
appreciate
kind
of
additional
conversation
on
that
particular
element.
Bep
tsa,
or
something
else.
It's
still
going
to
apply.
What
I
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
lose
sight
of
is
that
if
this
is
a
student-based
formula,
we
have
to
make
sure
we
are
focused
on
students
and
students
in
this
formula
generate
more
funding
than
they
do
under
the
bep.
M
Students
who
need
more
supports
generate
more
funding
under
this
formula
than
they
would
under
the
bep,
and
that
empowers
our
educators
to
provide
that
really
exceptional
academic
instruction
that
they
do
every
day.
And
that
is
what
we
are
laser
focused
on
and
think.
It's
really
important
that
we
don't
lose
sight
of.
A
A
All
right,
we
are
back
in
session.
We
are
back
for
anybody
that
lost
count
of
where
we
were
in
the
calendar.
We're
on
item
number
one.
A
House
bill
2143
by
chairman
white
chairman:
why
do
you
have
any
remarks
before
we
open
it
up
for
any
questions
for
the
sponsor
or
comments.
E
No
thank
you.
I
appreciate
the
discussion
appreciate
us
going
this
two
and
a
half
hours.
We
really
need
this
and
as
we
move
forward,
I
I
think
we
got
a
lot
of
a
good
discussion
today
and
hope
the
committee
is
has
enough
good
understanding
that
we
can
go
ahead
and
move
this
this
bill
forward
and
have
fuller
discussion
in
a
the
larger
committee.
C
This
is
one
of
our
major
expenditures
in
the
state
of
tennessee
and
we
have
to
be
very
cautious
with
this
moving
forward,
because
this
is
one
no
matter
what
happens,
we
can't
get
wrong,
there's
a
million
students
in
tennessee
that
are
depending
on
us
to
get
this
right,
but
we
have
beat
this
horse
hard
today
and
I
think
the
department
knows
that
there's
probably
a
lot
more
questions
coming
at
the
full
committee
by
no
means,
I
think,
we're
across
the
finish
line
yet,
but
I
think
cautiously
we
can
move
forward
and-
and
I
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
send
this
to
the
full
committee
to
continue
this
discussion.
A
I'm
going
to,
we
didn't
really
have
a
question
on
the
bill
on
that,
but
go
ahead
and
withdraw.
If
you
don't
mind,
I
did
have
representative
clemens
that
had
I
had
said
to
him
that
he
would
be
quick
on
his
10-second
comment.
So
representative,
clemens
withdrawal,
thank
you
and
chairman
hurt
you're
good.
I'm
counting
10
seconds.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
my
I
guess
the
main
point
here
is:
you
know
this
has
been
a
six
month
process.
This
is
rushed.
I
don't
think
we
have
to
keep
doing
the
bep
every
year
and
or
past
tisa.
I
don't
think
this
is
an
either
or
proposition.
I
think
that
we
can
take
our
time
work
together
and
make
the
fundamental
changes
that
we
need
to
make
to
the
bep
and
that
address
the
inherent
flaws
of
the
bep.
While
taking
the
good
ideas
of
this
bill,
I
you
know
we
spent
two
and
a
half
hours
today.
G
G
This
is
a
largely
contingent
upon
rulemaking
and
many
other
factors
that
we
don't
know,
and
you
can't
go
to
your
counties
and
tell
them
a
definitive
answer
on
most
of
this
stuff,
I'm
hard-pressed
to
vote
for
a
piece
of
legislation
like
this
momentous
in
in
this
posture
or
even
move
it
along,
and
I
really
do
not
think
we
should
view
this
as
an
either
or
proposition.
I
think
we
can
work
together.
G
C
Well,
chairman
said
piggy:
by
no
means,
I
don't
want
anybody
to
confuse
my
motion
to
move
this
forward
with
a
yes
vote
on
this
bill.
C
I
don't
think,
there's
anybody
here.
I
might
maybe
speaking
out
of
turn.
I
think
there's
people
here
that
still
have
reservations
about
this
whole
plan
and
about
the
expediency
of
of
what
the
pressure
we're
getting
from
outside
the
general
assembly
from
the
executive
branch
to
move
this
bill
forward.
C
I
I
am
committed
that
I
will
not
vote
for
this
bill
unless
I
believe
it's
for
the
best
benefits
of
our
students
in
tennessee
period,
and
that's
that's
my
statement.
So
please
don't
confuse
the
motion
to
move
this
forward
as
one
of
of
giving
in
or
saying
it's
okay.
I
think
that
we
need
to
have
a
discussion
with
the
full
education
administration
committee
and
make
sure
that
that
we
are
exploring
every
opportunity.
C
Representative
clemens
is
correct.
The
decision
may
come
back
is
no
we're
not
going
to
do
this
this
year,
we're
going
to
continue
to
fund
the
bep
and
continue
to
work
on
this,
or
we
can
get
this
in
a
position
that
we're
able
to
move
it
forward.
So
that
lengthy.
Mr
chairman,
I
make
a
motion
to
move
this
to
the
full
committee.
A
All
right
without
objection,
we
will
be
voting
on
house
bill
21.
Oh
I'm,
sorry,
I'm
sorry.
H
You,
mr
chairman,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
part
of
what
I
think
chairman
picky
said
earlier
about
an
amendment
in
full
is
what
we're
going
to
do
because
I
know.
Procedurally,
sometimes
we
don't
put
amendments
on
in
full
that
substantially
change
the
legislation.
So
I
want
to
get
some
some
clarity
and
direction
on
that
piece.
C
Thank
you,
mr
speaker.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
There
was
an
untimely
filed
amendment
that
that
I
filed
its
drafting
code
zero
one
six,
two,
nine
four.
My
full
intention
is
to
put
that
amendment
on
the
bill
in
the
full
committee.
Now,
there's
gonna
be
some
other
changes
that
are
gonna
be
added
to
it.
But
my
full
intention
is
to
add
that
amendment
into
full
committee
and
with
anybody
anybody
else
that
wants
to
tag
anything
on
top
of
that
would
be
more
than
welcome
to
and
be
looked
at
as
a
friendly
amendment.
C
We
need
to
get.
We
need
to
get
this
and,
like
I
stated
earlier,
every
monday,
we're
coming
in
here
with
new
amendments,
new
bills
and
we're
trying
to
figure
out
where
we
are.
I
think,
as
a
house
we
need
to
say
this
is
where
we
are.
Can
we
get
to
a
point
that
we're
comfortable
with
and
let
the
department
look
at
what
our
proposal
is
and
then
make
make
recommendations
off
of
that,
and
then
we
decide
as
a
committee
of
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
take
those
recommendations
or
not.
That's
that's
the
intent.
E
Yeah,
just
just
for
clarity,
and-
and
I
appreciate
it-
I
want
everybody
to
understand
where
representative
picky's
coming
from
we've
had
multiple
conversations
over
the
last
number
of
years.
He
wants
tennessee
to
be
number
one
in
education.
We
all
do,
and
so
we
want
to
get
this
right,
and
so
I
appreciate
his
comments.
E
What
I'll
in
talking
about
this
this
amendment?
If
we
go
take
this
on
to
full
and
you've
got
this
16294.
E
C
Absolutely
I
think
we've
got.
I
don't
know
how
many
other
members
chairman,
you
probably
know,
but
there's
a
lot
of
members
that
aren't
privy
to
the
conversations
we
have
so
before
we
get
to
the
amendment
that
I
would
be
bringing
asking
you
to
probably
sign
on
to
is.
We
need
to
get
everybody
up
to
speed
of
where
we
are.
I
would,
I
would
be
ventured
to
say
that
next
week
in
education
admin-
because
this
I
don't
know
what
higher
ed
has
done,
but
we
this
would
be
the
only
bill,
we'd
move
forward.
C
This
could
be
devoted
to
conversation
to
try
to
get
the
other
members
caught
up,
and
then
we
can
continue
to
have
discussions.
I
mean,
like
I
said
once
again,
I'm
in
no
hurry
to
get
this
thing
across
the
finish
line.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it's
right
for
the
students
of
tennessee.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.