Effective or Ineffective Board Members

Signs of an effective school board member

Here are some signs of a school board member focused on moving the school district forward and educating all students to meet high standards:

• Effective school board members have a clear vision for the district. They set the vision and goals, and measure the success of the district and superintendent against the goals
• Effective school board members work as a team. They collaborate well with others and are respectful of the other board members and superintendent.
• Effective school board members adopt a fiscally sound district budget. They pay attention to finances and regularly monitor the fiscal health of the district.
• Effective school board members focus on what is best for all students. They focus on student achievement and implementing policies that will ensure success for all students.
• Effective school board members advocate at the local, state and national level for public education.  

Signs of an ineffective school board member

If you notice any of the following signs, it’s time to find some new candidates to run for your local board:

• The school board member continually focuses on one issue or talks aimlessly at meetings.
• The school board member doesn’t conduct him or herself in a respectful, collaborative manner in public.
• The school board member comes to meetings unprepared.
• The school board member “rubber stamps” all the superintendent’s proposals without asking hard questions.
• The school board member micromanages rather than focusing attention on district-wide policies.
• The school board member uses his position on the school board as an opportunity to put forth a political agenda with little relevance to student achievement.

Board of Education Responsibilities

Tennessee’s School System Budgets Authority and Accountability 

"Ensuring That the State’s Responsibility for Public Education Is Carried Out Responsibly
The General Assembly, over the course of a century, has repeatedly affirmed the need to separate the funding of schools from the operation of schools.  The school budgeting process in Tennessee, where local legislative bodies rather than independent school districts raise taxes to fund school systems, is unlike that in the majority of other states.  In all but nine states, most school boards have their own taxing authority independent of the local jurisdictions within which they are located.  Tennessee’s approach provides more oversight of school system expenditures by assigning responsibility for funding schools to counties and cities and giving authority to decide how to operate them to locally elected school boards that are accountable to the state for student achievement."

Evolution of Authority and Accountability for School Funding 

• "Educating citizens is one of government’s most important functions.  Not only does it consume a large portion of state and local government budgets, it affects everything from economic development to the health of citizens.  Tennessee’s constitution, Article 11, Section 12, declares both the state’s intent and its responsibility for educating children: 
• The State of Tennessee recognizes the inherent value of education and encourages its support.  The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools. 
• Although this language was added in 1978, Tennessee’s constitution has included provisions declaring the importance of education and making it the General Assembly’s responsibility since 1834.  The General Assembly has delegated this responsibility to local elected school boards, given authority to operate schools and holding them accountable for their success, but unlike legislatures in most other states, does not allow school boards to fund schools.  That authority lies with the general city and county governments for all but the fourteen special school districts created by the legislature.  
• Because school systems often consume the biggest portion of local revenue, there is a natural tension between school officials who want to provide better educational services and county commissions or city councils who want to keep taxes as low as possible, and their members often question how school systems spend taxpayers’ money.  Administrative costs, like other costs considered outside the classroom, are subject to particular attention perhaps because their value isn’t as obvious as the value of teachers. "
  

Accountability for State and Federal Requirements related to Education

"Tennessee’s legislature, exercising its authority to create a statewide system of education, has given school systems considerable authority to meet the standards imposed on them and asks local legislative bodies only to fund them.  Local legislative bodies do not carry the weight of responsibility—are not accountable—for meeting the state’s education standards other than its funding standards.  Under Tennessee’s system, school boards have both the authority and the responsibility to educate children and are the entities the state holds accountable for the success or failure of its children.

The importance of providing sufficient authority to meet accountability standards when delegating responsibility to subordinates is widely recognized.  As E. F. Ortiz says, “Delegation of authority is a prerequisite for the successful implementation of results-based management.  To be accountable for results, managers have to be duly empowered through the clear delegation of authority in all areas. . . .”

  George Jones and John Stewart writing in Public Money and Management describe the link between responsibility and accountability thus:

Where there is responsibility there is a need for accountability as to how that responsibility has been exercised. 

Responsibility defines the boundaries of accountability.  One should not be held accountable for matters beyond one’s responsibility, but one should be held accountable for matters within it.

To fulfill its constitutional obligations for public education, the General Assembly has passed a host of laws, comprising an entire title of Tennessee Code Annotated.  In 1992, responding to a lawsuit filed against the state by 77 small, rural school systems,8 the General Assembly passed the Education Improvement Act, perhaps the most sweeping school reform legislation in Tennessee’s history.

With that Act, the General Assembly met its responsibility to provide for a system of free public schools by establishing a new funding formula, creating a new local governance structure for public education, and enacting a new accountability system requiring local schools and school systems to meet state standards and goals. 

The Act created a burden of accountability and a level of scrutiny not imposed on any other public entity.  If school boards do not meet the state’s standards, the state can take control of their schools.

In exchange for increased levels of state oversight, however, the General Assembly and the State Board of Education gave local boards greater autonomy to manage their school systems by removing earmarks on state funding10 and repealing 3,700 rules and regulations and “allowing individual schools to determine everything from how many minutes to teach reading to the appropriate square footage of classrooms.”

In addition to meeting state requirements, school systems must also comply with federal laws, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind Act), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act.  Each of these laws carries with it a set of complex regulations that school administrators must understand in order to deliver needed services to students and protect their rights and privacy. "

Source: Report of the Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations Tennessee School System Budgets Authority and Accountability for Funding Education and Operating Schools 2015

https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/tacir/commission-meetings/2015-january/2015Tab%203SchoolBudget.pdf

FACTS: NOT EMOTIONS OR FAKE NEWS

 FACTS: NOT EMOTIONS OR FAKE NEWS

We all recognize that schools are a core part of our communities and our lives. Which schools our children attend has a profound impact on everything from our daily lives to their future. 

While the past is not a perfect guide to the present or the future, it is one of the few we have. A society that does not know where it has been cannot know where it is. It is like an individual suffering amnesia - disoriented. 

Within the first few months after I was first elected to the Sullivan County Board of Education in August 2012, I heard two recurring statements from fellow BOE members and others.

1. “The Commission expects us to close more underutilized schools.”

2. “We never see any savings when schools are closed.”

In the Spring of 2013, I decided to research the facts and here are some of the important findings.

A quick review of where we have been will help clarify the current and future needs.

1980

·  In 1980, rural school bonds were issued to construct North and South High Schools as well as the Holston Complex. 

· Renovations bonds at Sullivan Elementary, Miller Perry, Emmett and Bluff City Elementary addition.  

2001

·  In April 2001, the Sullivan County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution to issue rural school bonds not to exceed $24.2 million (ESG) for the purpose of renovating and improving school facilities and pledging state sales tax received by the Sullivan County Board of Education for the annual payments of and interest on the rural bonds until fully paid.” ”The provisions of this Resolution shall constitute a contract between the Sullivan county Board of Education  and the Board of Commissioners of Sullivan County.”

·  The annual payment is $1.9 million with $400,000 coming from renovation funds. The $1.5 million comes from General Purpose Fund that has already been split with the cities.

2007-2008

·  In January 2007, the commission voted in favor of the $50 million bond issue, at least in concept. The issue was championed by the late Commissioner Ralph Harr. That vote included no time frame for when the bonds would be issued. The  County Commission agreed to spend up to $132,000 for both phases of the facilities study.

·  It was called a “Partnership for Educational Facilities Assessment,” (PEFA) prepared as a joint effort of the Knox County Public Building Authority and the Knoxville Metropolitan Planning Commission.

· The Partnership for Education Facilities Assessment — a combined effort of the Knox County/Knoxville Public Housing Authority and Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission — was hired by the Sullivan County Commission to do an analysis of the school system.

· The PEFA study that was done in 2008 primarily addressed the conditions of the facilities and possible impacts of annexation.  

· Phase one was enrollment projections, while phase two assessed the condition of the buildings.

·  Director of Schools Jack Barnes said the proposed closures and rezonings are really a stopgap measure, and the school board needs to start planning a long-term construction and renovation plan, including possible consolidations of existing schools.

· After the PEFA Study no bonds were issued for improving school facilities. 

 2009

· On August 17, 2009,  when the LEA requested approval of a loan for school renovations, the County Commission approved a resolution with the following statement, “the LEA has committed that if these projects are approved it will initiate the first phase of a school closing and consolidation program for Sullivan County Schools as supported by the School Study funded by the Sullivan County Board of County Commissioners in 2008.”  

· Quote from October 28, 2009 Times-News article: “The Sullivan County Board of Education went on record Wednesday that it plans to close Kingsley, Cedar Grove and Akard elementary schools and will consider closing Brookside Elementary. BOE Chairman Ron Smith said the vote — 6-0 with member Jerry Greene absent — was in response to questions and concerns from county commissioners about the funding source for repaying more than $15.4 million in low-interest Qualified School Construction Bonds to fund a renovation and expansion of Ketron Intermediate School in the Bloomingdale community.

·  “They’re looking to us for some assurance that’s going to happen,” Smith, of the Blountville/Piney Flats area, said of school closures that could help fund estimated bond repayments to start at about $1 million over 15 years.”

·  In June 2010, when the LEA requested approval of a $5.3 M loan for additional renovations,  the County Commission approved  a resolution with the following statement, “the LEA has committed that if these projects are approved it will initiate the first phase of a school closing and consolidation program for Sullivan County Schools as supported by the School Study funded by the Sullivan County Board of County Commissioners in 2008.”

·  The combined payment from savings for this loan is $1,782,475.

·  Annual DEBT SERVICE paid by the Sullivan County Schools budget is $3,282,475 plus an additional $400,000 from renovation funds.

2013-2019 

In order to make the best decisions for all students in the county and after listening to the comments and suggestions from many community members, the Sullivan County Board of Education voted to hire an outside organization to assist with facilities issues.

The purpose of this group was to study all of our buildings and attendance zones. This group was responsible for making recommendations to outline future needs relating to both new facilities and current facilities. This total proposal included options for building renovations as well as proposed new buildings in areas identified by this group. This study involved all stakeholders, students, teachers, parents and community members. 

· In early 2013, the Sullivan County Board of Education held community meetings to discuss various proposals concerning re-zoning and school facilities. 

· The decision was made to do a Facilities Study and after much discussion and public input DeJONG-RICHTER was contracted to complete the study.

·  The study began in May 2014 with a Futures Conference held jointly with Kingsport City Schools.

·  The process was completed in May 2015 when a formal report along with an executive summary and recommendations from the Director of Schools were accepted by the Sullivan County Board of Education. 

· On August 3, 2015, the Sullivan County Board of Education adopted the two high school proposal and timeline as outlined by Dr. Yennie on May 21, 2015.

· Phase I consists of building one new high school and one new middle school.

·  On November 2, 2015, the Sullivan County Board of Education approved a RESOLUTION requesting Sullivan County Commissioners to Authorize Preliminary Planning for Phase I of the Renovation and Construction Plan for Sullivan County Schools.

·   On January 19, 2016, the Sullivan County Commissioners approved the amended Resolution authorizing the Sullivan County Schools to hire Architects and start the search for a middle school site in the East area and a high school in the West area.

Results

 Since 2001, the Sullivan County Board of Education has closed 18 schools. 

1. Weaver Elementary School
2. Holston Valley Middle 
3. Valley Pike Elementary
4. Kingsley Elementary 
5. Akard Elementary
6.  Brookside Elementary
7.  Kingsley Elementary
8. Bluff City Middle School
9.  Cedar Grove Elementary 
10.  North High/Middle School (sold)
11.  Mary Hughes Middle
12. East Cherokee Elementary
13.  Lynn View Middle
14. Gravely Elementary
15. Blountville Elementary
16. Blountville Middle School
17. Colonial Heights Middle School
18. Sullivan Middle School

·  Since 2001, the total paid by the Sullivan County School System for Debt Service is approximately 59 million dollars paid primarily from state sales tax in the General Purpose School Fund.

·   Since 2001, enrollment has declined from 12,844 to 8,849 as of May, 2020.

·  On December 10, 2016, the BOE selected building sites for the new middle and high school.

·  On December 12, 2016, the Sullivan County Commission approved a $140 million school bond to construct Sullivan East  Middle School and West Ridge High School

·    Renovated Ketron, added on to Emmett and reroofed the Holston Complex – Debt service paid by Sullivan County School System.  

· Re-roofed East High School in 2015- Debt Service paid by School System. 

· In 2015 the Sullivan County Board of Education adopted the two high school proposal as the best long-term solution.

·  Phase I of the long-term plan consisted of building a new high school (West Ridge High School) in the western portion of the county and a new middle school (Sullivan East Middle School) in the eastern portion of the county,

·  In January, 2016, the Sullivan County Commission authorized preliminary planning for “Phase 1” of a long term renovation and construction plan for Sullivan County Schools.

· In January, 2020, Sullivan East Middle School was opened for students.

· West Ridge High School is scheduled to be completed and opened by August 2021.

    Concluding Facts

The locations of middle and high schools based on the number and location of non-city students were the most critical decisions in the planning process. The correct locations allow for future growth and changes even though we have three school systems in Sullivan County which makes the entire process more difficult. It was very important that the schools be located where non-city Sullivan County students are concentrated and plan for the future in a way that will meet the needs of our students for many years and help us become the premier system in this area. It is critical that teacher salaries be upgraded and additional renovations be completed for our schools.  

Why Do I want To Serve?

Why would I like to continue to serve on the Sullivan County Board of Education?


God has blessed me so much throughout my seventy-one years of life. I am at a point in my life where I can serve my community, not needing to be focused on my career. Eight years ago God led me to offer my service to the students, families and staff of our community by representing them on the Sullivan County School Board. He is continuing to lead me to use the knowledge, relationships and experience I have gained through my 38-year involvement with Bristol and Kingsport City Schools and the eight years as a member of the Sullivan County Board of Education. Much progress has been made towards the three main goals that I outlined in June 2012; however, more work needs to be done to fully accomplish these goals. 

If elected I will continue to try and be a Sullivan County Board member with wisdom, a result of my proven leadership experience, knowledge, and common sense, who plans for the future instead of living in the past.

Questions about School Board Election

Frequently Asked Questions

1     Are you in favor of Managed Choice?

Yes, City residents are also Sullivan County residents; therefore, they should have the right to attend Sullivan County Schools. Since City residents can be elected to serve on the Sullivan County Board of Education, it is my belief that any City student should have the right to attend a county school under zoning guidelines established by the Sullivan County Board of Education.

Please see this article in the Kingsport Times News, March 27, 2013

http://www.timesnews.net/News/2013/03/27/Vote-on-North-South-merger-could-take-months.html?ci=content&lp=13&p=1

 Are you in favor of the two high school plan for Sullivan County?

Yes, two Sullivan County High Schools in the right locations plus Dobyns-Bennet and Tennessee High School can serve all students in the city and county.

3.       Are you in favor of neighborhood schools?

Yes, I support elementary neighborhood schools. Middle School communities have to be larger in order to provide all opportunities for middle schoolers. High School Communities must be even larger to provide a comprehensive education for our students.

4.       Are you in favor of closing Indian Springs Elementary School?

No, it is ideally located in this area and the enrollment is predicted to remain stable or increase as long as Managed Choice (which I support) exists.

5.       Does the two high school plan approved by the Sullivan County Board of Education mean that Indian Springs Elementary School would be combined with Holston Elementary School?

No, that would require additional action by the Sullivan County Board of Education. I am not in favor of that action as long as we have Managed Choice and stable enrollment.

6.       Can one High School centrally located accommodate all students who want to attend the new school?

Yes.  The school can be designed with office space for teachers, which makes more classroom space available for students.

7.       Do you believe that we can continue to operate three school systems in Sullivan County?

No, it is my belief that the State will eventually change the funding mechanism so that we will have to operate a Unified School System. By my definition, a Unified School System is different from a Consolidated School District. Sullivan County’s Two High School plan would fit perfectly with a Unified District if the locations are good.

 

Nepotism Policy

Question:      Does Sullivan County Schools currently have a Nepotism Policy?

Answer:      Yes, the Sullivan County Department of Education has a Nepotism Policy which has been in effect for several years. All BOE members voted for a revision in September 2012. The Policy was reviewed on three readings in 2013, In September 2013, all BOE members voted for the revised policy. No concerns were voiced at any of these meetings.

Here is an excerpt from the policy:

Nepotism Policy 1.108

“When a person makes application for initial employment in the system and that person is related to a member of the Board, the Director of Schools, an administrator in the system, a county commissioner, or any appointed or elected county official, the relationship shall be publicly made known to the Board prior to the employment of such person.

If a member of the Board has a relative who is an employee in the system, prior to voting on any matter of business that may have an effect upon the employment of the relative, the member shall declare such relationship. In making such a declaration, the member shall certify that his/her vote on the pending matter will be in the best interest of the school system.”