Judging by the 400-plus comments, Clay Bailey's story on municipal mayors ready to hit the accelerator on creating municipal school districts tapped into a hot issue. Most people in those municipalities with children probably would love to see a municipal district, but of course that will mean eventually persuading people without children (or families committed to private schools) that it would be worth paying possibly much higher city taxes. Even many Memphians, who understand the issue, have said they can deal with other municipalities running their own schools, so long as they pay the full cost.
However, the mayors who talked to Clay appear to have misread Judge Mays's ruling. Yes, Mays ruled that the new Norris-Todd state law is constitutional and valid, and, yes, Norris-Todd contains a provision that calls for the lifting of the long state ban on new municipal or special school districts. But Mays's ruling is very explicity and clear -- he did not make any determination on the legality of the (b)(3) provision of Norris-Todd that lifts the ban. Mays even points out the matter was not even briefed. Mays writes:
Furthermore, those proponents of municipal schools following the issue most closely are well aware that that (b)(3) provision also says that the ban is not lifted until AFTER the merger is completed, at this point most likely sometime later spring or early summer of 2013. It's also worth noting that Allan Wade, attorney for the City Council, told reporters Tuesday that any attempt to carve a new municipal or special district out of the consolidated countywide system would be met with fierce legal resistance. Some of his briefs hinted at a likely challenge, pointing out that such a district would have a disparate racial impact -- intended or not -- on students and would fall under heavy scrutiny by federal courts unfriendly to efforts that -- intentionally or not -- work to INCREASE racial segregation in schools.
Add all of this up, and it points to, again, what those who know the issue best have been saying -- municipal districts are possible but it won't likely happen easily and without much persistence. Given likely court actions (and absent some new state legislation), it might be 2015-16 or later before we see municipal districts in Shelby County.
NOTE: Put an edit in second-last paragraph. Obviously, federal courts are unfriendly to efforts that increase racial segregation in schools.
However, the mayors who talked to Clay appear to have misread Judge Mays's ruling. Yes, Mays ruled that the new Norris-Todd state law is constitutional and valid, and, yes, Norris-Todd contains a provision that calls for the lifting of the long state ban on new municipal or special school districts. But Mays's ruling is very explicity and clear -- he did not make any determination on the legality of the (b)(3) provision of Norris-Todd that lifts the ban. Mays even points out the matter was not even briefed. Mays writes:
Whether (b)(3) itself is constitutional is not properly before the Court. Although the parties have not briefed the issue, any harm resulting from the addition of this subsubsection would not occur until an attempt was made to create municipal school district or special school district. Nothing in the record suggests that such an attempt has been made or will be made in the future. Any harm depends on contingent future events. As the Supreme Court has explained, "[a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon 'contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all.'" Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (quoting Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Prods. Co., 473 U.S. 568, 580-81 (1985)); see also Magaw, 132 F.3d at 280 ("Ripeness requires that the 'injury in fact be certainly impending.' Ripeness separates those matters that are premature because the injury is speculative and may never occur from those that are appropriate for the court's review.") (citations omitted). The challenges to Public Chapter 1's addition of section (b)(3) to Tennessee Code Annotated ยง 49-2-502 are not ripe.
Furthermore, those proponents of municipal schools following the issue most closely are well aware that that (b)(3) provision also says that the ban is not lifted until AFTER the merger is completed, at this point most likely sometime later spring or early summer of 2013. It's also worth noting that Allan Wade, attorney for the City Council, told reporters Tuesday that any attempt to carve a new municipal or special district out of the consolidated countywide system would be met with fierce legal resistance. Some of his briefs hinted at a likely challenge, pointing out that such a district would have a disparate racial impact -- intended or not -- on students and would fall under heavy scrutiny by federal courts unfriendly to efforts that -- intentionally or not -- work to INCREASE racial segregation in schools.
Add all of this up, and it points to, again, what those who know the issue best have been saying -- municipal districts are possible but it won't likely happen easily and without much persistence. Given likely court actions (and absent some new state legislation), it might be 2015-16 or later before we see municipal districts in Shelby County.
NOTE: Put an edit in second-last paragraph. Obviously, federal courts are unfriendly to efforts that increase racial segregation in schools.
You're really going to be sad when Germantown has it's municipal school system aren't you? I remember your wistful tweets about your child attending Riverdale and the lack of objectivity that showed. It's still possible, but will require a move to Germantown.
I've no doubt that the creation of the municipal school districts in the suburban cities will be difficult and expensive (although not so expensive as to be impossible or improbable), and I've no doubt that there will be court challenges to their creation. I also firmly believe that at the end of the day Bartlett, Germantown, and Collierville will have municipal school systems under Norris-Todd or, if necessary, some new legislation from Nashville.
BTW, are you really leaning on Allen Wade for your legal opinions? Isn't he the one who insisted that Memphis had no obligation to continue to pay it's portion of the MCS budget? How many times does he have to lose to quit getting paid by the City Council and quoted by reporters whose personal desires cloud their objective reporting?
I don't know about 'wistful.' More like amused. My point then, and still is, with everything in flux, where WILL my children be going to school come 2013? Or 2014? We happen to love our current situation -- I wouldn't trade the classrooms my children currently attend for any in these United States. Like a lot of families, we've found a path that appears to be great for us for many future years and that makes us comfortable. Status quo suits me fine, personally.
But all that said, my own personal situation would not and should not affect professional journalistic judgements.
And as I wrote in the post and have said out loud, I believe it makes a lot of sense for parents in Germantown (and other municipalities) to push hard for a municipal district. My point is, those folks would be wise to listen to people like Ken Hoover who say it will take dogged determination to make it happen.
Anyway, not trying to discourage or cheerlead those efforts (or any others). Just making some points about the judge's ruling.
"Just discussed possibility w/wife of .... Riverdale Middle for the 2nd-grader!" - Zackmcm on Twitter (1220/2010)
I'll just put it out there and let others judge if it's wistful or amused.
http://mediaverse-memphis.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-zack-mcmillin-rebuilding-bovernment.html
Another link to shed some light on your objectivity. It's hard to imagine that someone who so ardently supported consolidating city and county government could be truly unbiased in reporting on an issue involving the biggest impediment to that consolidation (the schools). Perhaps it's just a coincidence that you worked with Tomeka Hart and Martavius Jones on consolidating city and county government and they are the ones who pushed so hard for school consolidation. I'm sure we both realize that a reporter's firmly held beliefs (in this case, your belief that consolidating the city and county is the thing to do) are going to bleed through in their reporting, especially on a in issue (school consolidation) that many believe is a back door way to gaining city/county consolidation.
The funny thing is, as an fervent advocate of consolidating city and county government it would be in your best interest to support (not in your writing because you'd never let your beliefs and desires affect your reporting - right?) the suburban cities in their efforts to get their own school systems. The suburban cities would then have no reason not to support consolidated city/county government because their services (police/fire/zoning/code enforcement/schools) would be wholly controlled by their respective cities.
First off, I do appreciate the feedback. I'm all about transparency. I worked for two months, long before there was any political campaign, mainly supporting efforts to engage the community and hear concerns, hopes, fears, dreams about specific communities, the county at large and the metro region in general. Then I went back to The CA, long before the first charter provision was even written. Also, schools consolidation was off the table completely.
As for the tweet, it was very much meant to point out the crazy dimensions of that Dec. 20 vote. As mentioned earlier, we're delighted with our children's school situation and, on a very personal level, the uncertainty of consolidation does create real anxiety with us and others in our situation who have figured out what looks like a great path through MCS, as things stand now.
I do like to think my situation with elementary-age school children adds to my coverage of the issue. I know how deeply invested many parents are in the schools that educate their children, and appreciate the gravity of this for the entire community.
I appreciate the responses, but I'm unconvinced. When the work product (the reporting, the editorial page, and the opinion columnists) shows some evidence of seeing both sides of the issues of consolidation and the suburban cities forming municipal school districts, perhaps I'll come around.
Here's a couple of ideas to get you started. Why not find some legal experts other than Steve Mulroy or Allen Wade to give opinions about the constitutionality of the suburban city school districts? I bet you could even find some who think that they will pass constitutional muster. As a tip, I'd avoid those who insisted that Norris-Todd would be overturned. After that, you could maybe do a story or two exploring the history of the SCS turning school buildings and property over to the MCS after annexations and how much they charged the MCS for these schools. As a follow up, you could do a report about the reasons why the Bartlett or Collierville City Schools should be treated differently and the motivation of those who would treat them differently.
Best of luck with your career and your family. Even if I believe you are engaging in a bit of advocacy journalism in some of your stories on this matter, I think you are a fine reporter and write good stuff I enjoy reading. The CA and it's readers are lucky to have you back.
I think people like Allan Wade better be careful and watch what they say. Shelby County is in deep trouble and the next few years will make or break this entire area. I wouldn't have a problem with a consolidated school system if it was being created for the right reasons. It is nothing but a vendetta because some people in the city want to get back at the people that live in the suburban cities. This should be about the children and nothing else. I just wonder who will be left to pay taxes if this type of drama continues. I know people that are moving out of Germantown because of the political mess in this county. I also realize that everyone wouldn't be able to sell their homes but I have talked to several people that said that they would walk away from their house if necessary. It is simple, people are going to do whatever it takes to protect their children even if it mean taking a hit on their credit for 3 years.