“Not for the first time Marianne thinks cruelty does not only hurt the victim, but the perpetrator also, and maybe more deeply and more permanently. You learn nothing very profound about yourself simply by being bullied; but by bullying someone else you learn something you can never forget.”
― Sally Rooney, Normal People

Old Donald Trump has hit the ground running. The newly sworn-in President is throwing out executive orders at an exhausting pace. While the list of orders has been lengthy, there is more to come.

One that is in the drafting phase would start the process of eliminating the Federal Department of Education,

The first question that comes to mind is, can he actually do it?

That question would be quickly followed by, should he?.

Hypothetically, he can weaken the department considerably. Dissolution would take an act of Congress.

This is not the first time that Trump has had the DOE in his sights. During his first term, his administration proposed merging the Education and Labor Departmentsinto one federal agency. That didn’t get any traction, even though Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House.

People tend to forget that the Department of Education is a relatively new government agency. It was created in 1979. Many of the federal government programs it administers predate the creation of the DOE, they were just housed in different agencies. This includes federal funding programs for K-12 schools that help support the education of students from low-income families and children with disabilities,

Many of those programs would likely continue even if the DOE doesn’t. The programs and resources would be transferred to other agencies which would distribute the funding. Hypothetically it could mean more money and fewer strings would pass to the states. Everybody likes that.

When discussing the potential dissolving of the DOE, it is important to note the role the funding plays in school budgets. Federal funding makes up a small portion of public school budgets — roughly 14% — but it adds targeted support for low-income schools and special education, among other grant programs.

Last year, Tennessee lawmakers took a deep dive into federal education funding under the idea that they could reject federal funding. While people on the blue side of the aisle were highly critical, I think in the end it opened some eyes. Lawmakers got a better picture of how federal funding works, and for many it served as an eye-opening look in the mirror. There was a realization that not all the issues were on the federal government side, but lay with the state.

Ultimately the question of is it a good thing or bad thing comes down to who you trust more – the state or the federal government.

I’m not going to get into that argument, because it would take more than a minute or two, but I would think that if you were serious about dissolving an agency, you would want people in charge who actually understood how the agency worked.

Penny Schwinn ain’t the one.

I continue to find it amusing that President Trump is proposing a candidate to run a federal agency whose rules they couldn’t follow when they were on the other side of the table.

During her tenure as the head of the Tennessee Department of Education, Schwinn put millions of federal funds at risk through her failure to follow the law. A letter was sent to Scwinn outlining their concerns:

“The assessment and accountability compliance issues are significant because they not only impact the state’s ability to provide clear and transparent information to the public about school performance, but also result in the state using information that is not comparable across schools in TDOE’s statewide accountability system,” the letter states.

State leaders have 30 days to submit evidence that the state has taken steps to correct these issues, or risk losing Title I, part A funding, which helps fund low-income schools. Federal documents say the state received more than $328 million in Title I, Part A funds in 2021.

I am placing a condition on TDOE’s Title I, Part A grant award until such time as these issues are fully resolved,” the letter stated.

The letter was the result of a USDOE performance review of Tennessee’s K- 12 grant programs and education laws. A review found ways Tennessee schools either used federal funds inappropriately or didn’t provide documentation proving otherwise. It identified 18 ways the state needs to take corrective action.

Some of those Schwinn and company corrected, but not until she played at least a year of chicken with the Feds by ignoring their correspondence. Ironic that the shoe will soon be on the other foot.

Despite Schwinn’s multiple failures, establishment Republicans continue to leap to the defense of their heroine. Arguing that competence over cultural warfare should serve as a hallmark for conservatives while heaping praise on Schwinn.

The latest is education activist Robert Pondiscio urges conservatives. In my opinion, if we are talking about Schwinn, competence is the last thing you want people to focus on, but he goes forth with the argument.

“If conservatives demand competence from fire departments and other government services, why not demand it from schools? Schwinn’s leadership in Tennessee was marked by a laudable focus on literacy and teacher training—exactly the priorities conservatives should want in an education leader. Her tenure in the Volunteer State was defined by a clear focus on student achievement: She championed high-quality instructional materials, launched a statewide tutoring program, and revamped reading instruction based on the science of reading.”

Hmmm…I didn’t realize that conservative priorities included power grabs and contracts for friends.

The pursuit of high-quality instructional materials involved Schwinn overstepping the Commissioner’s role in the textbook adoption process and steering contracts toward friends. To the extent that legislators were forced to craft new state laws putting restrictions on the TDOE’s role in the state textbook adoption process.

As part of that literacy initiative, the company Schwinn’s ex-husband worked for, TNTP, received a substantial contract from the state of Tennessee. Of course, Schwinn never included his employment on her state disclosure of interest until after the contract was awarded.

Pondiscio goes on to quote his colleague Rick Hess who wrote in his defense of Schwinn: “Restoring common sense to classroom culture isn’t a distraction. It’s a necessary first step if we want educators focused on the work of educating. But then what? That’s when we need education leaders who unapologetically embrace the stuff of learning: academics, rigor, good teaching, and student outcomes.”

Sure, that looks great on a t-shirt, but it’s nothing subscribed to by the erstwhile former Tennessee Education Commissioner. Pondiscio makes an even bigger stretch in his conclusion:

“Public trust in schools is eroding not just because of ideological concerns, but because of decades of academic failure. Conservatives cannot demand competence from police and fire departments while dismissing it in education. Penny Schwinn’s nomination is an opportunity to refocus on what matters: ensuring that America’s schools fulfill their twin missions of cultural transmission and competence.”

How do you tell me you are not from Tennessee without telling me you are not from Tennessee?

The ultimate irony is that even as conservatives applaud the efforts of Elon Musk’s DOGE initiative, the Trump administration is empowering a woman with a lengthy history of being loose with the purse strings. There is no evidence to support the idea that any money saved by the DOGE initiative won’t just be redistributed to favored private interests by Penny Schwinn.

Brilliant.

I guess for those concerned about the dismantling of the Department of Education, the appointment of Penny Schwinn could be seen as a sign of encouragement.

Trump has reportedly told Secretary of Education nominee Linda McMahon, that he wants her to put herself out of a job.”

McMahon might be willing to do that, Schwinn ain’t never worked herself out of a paycheck.

I suspect that over the next four years, we’ll see a great deal of deck chair shuffling, but in the end, we will still be on the same ship.

– – –

This week marked the first meeting of the House Education Committee. Once again Rep Mark White(R-Memphis)will be leading the committee.

Tuesday’s meeting was mainly a get-to-know-each-other session, but White did give an inkling of what to expect this year. Front and center will be the limiting of cell phones in the classroom.

During Tuesday’s brief committee meeting, White cited cell phones and social media as a contributing cause to a decade-long decline in student learning as measured by standardized tests and an increase in discipline issues. He might as well have thrown in a “you kids get off my lawn” for good measure.

You kids and your social media, has replaced you kids and your rock and roll music as a descriptor for the fall of civilization.

Rep Scott Cepicky (R-Culleoka) has gone on record saying:

“Cell phone usage in the classroom presents an unnecessary distraction for students and is unfair to the hard-working teachers who are passionate about educating the next generation,” he said in an emailed statement. “This legislation will limit interruptions and empower Tennessee’s children to concentrate on learning, which can improve social skills, mental health, and academic performance.”

Sure they are a distraction, but distractions aren’t new. Education policy continues to be seen through a lens of what can be done to kids as opposed to, what can we do with them.

As a father of two teenagers, let me testify, that adult agendas don’t always run congruent with those of the children we are trying to help. I’d go even further and suggest that the internet and phones have played a role in the leveling of relationships between teens and their parents. Something that makes many parents more uncomfortable is cell phone usage.

“Because I said so, and I’m your father” works about as well as the belt these days. These are two parenting strategies that have long outlived their usefulness.

I suspect what’s really at play here is a slippage of power, so local leaders turn to the General Assembly to apply the heavy hand, supplying plausible deniability.

This is evidenced by quotes from state Sen. Todd Gardenhire, R-Chattanooga, “We want to make sure that they have the right interest in mind,” Gardenhire said. “We got our input straight from superintendents and from teachers. This is not something we thought up. This came right from the superintendents that we talked to and the teachers that we talked to.”

Hmmm…wonder how many students were consulted.

Like it or not, social media and phones are a central part of life in the 21st century. How about in an effort to prepare kids for life we approach the issue through the lens of guidance as opposed to control?

Later in the session, Representative White will be passing legislation requiring all genies to return back to the bottle and remain there for the foreseeable future.

– – –

Speaking of adults holding on to power and saying stupid things in that service, this week, as expected TSSAAA released a statement on its transfer policy for high school athletes. Unfortunately, it was not the announcement many expected.

Currently, a student-athlete can not transfer to another school, without a legitimate in a change in residency, and without sitting out for one year. That’s a major deterrent for student-athletes.

Too often athletes are trapped in situations, through no fault of their own, that limit their potential. Meanwhile those with money, on both sides of the equation, somehow manage to subvert the rules.

College athletics recognize the challenges and have created a transfer portal that allows athletes a specific time frame where they can transfer without penalty.

Recent court rulings have created a system where amateur athletes can receive payments for their name, image, and likeness. Upon entering 11th grade HS athletes are eligible to collect NIL payments. Currently, the numbers aren’t substantial for most high school students, but expectations are that they will grow. TSSAA’s transfer policy could adversely affect a student’s ability to earn NIL money.

In response to the changing environment, TSSAA was considering amending their transfer rule and allowing a student to transfer one time without penalty during their high school career. Instead, they rejected amending that policy and all penalties remain in place.

Along with the refusal to amend the policy, TSSAA Executive Director Mark Reeves offered the following explanation:

Those who do not work regularly in education-based athletics sometimes fail to distinguish the dramatic differences between intercollegiate athletics, where athletes are recruited to engage in elite competition, and interscholastic athletics whose primary purpose is to supplement the academic programs of a school. Because many do not appreciate those differences, outsiders are sometimes too quick to assume that what works at the intercollegiate level is appropriate for the interscholastic level. Outsiders also may not fully appreciate how important the transfer rule is in the prevention of athletic recruiting because the prospect of a year of ineligibility discourages student-athletes from becoming victims of athletic recruiting. More than likely, they do not fully appreciate how important the prohibition on recruiting (and consequently the transfer rule) is on the preservation of interscholastic athletics as we know it, the maintenance of fair competition, and the prevention of victimization of student-athletes through athletic exploitation. At the legislative level, our legislators also may not appreciate that the creation of eligibility rules through state law, as opposed to allowing the member schools engaged in these activities to create the eligibility standards of the organization, would result in creating a system that cannot be easily modified if an eligibility standard becomes unworkable as the landscape of education evolves.

That statement is complete and utter bullshit. Maybe in 1955, athletics’ primary purpose was to supplement the academic programs of a school, but that ship has long sailed.

Recruiting takes place at all levels, and today kids are well-versed in what it takes to earn the ability to play at the next level. For many of the kids, athletics are not a supplement but rather a core element of who they are, no different than musicians, painters, or writers. Talk with these kids and they’ll be able to break down recruits in the same manner professional athletes were once analyzed.

MNPS has a high school that regularly excels in sports, yet has no natural feeder system. It’s an all-choice school. In other words, a sports magnet school. Think there is no recruiting going on there?

Why do the same teams routinely end up in the Tennessee State finals? Do kids just magically matriculate to these long-time powerhouses? Maybe he wants us to believe that it’s the magic of coaches and not the regular restocking of premium athletes through recruitment that fuels their success.

For Reeves to say with a straight face, “More than likely, they do not fully appreciate how important the prohibition on recruiting (and consequently the transfer rule) is on the preservation of interscholastic athletics as we know it, the maintenance of fair competition, and the prevention of victimization of student-athletes through athletic exploitation” is insulting.

The only thing being preserved is the success of legacy teams and the adults that run them. Is it any surprise that informal polling shows overwhelming support from parents and disapproval by coaches and athletic directors?

Unfortunately for Reeves, his words on the subject won’t be the last. The General Assembly is expected the take up the subject this session. They were hoping to avoid crafting a law, but since TSSAA is intent on protecting adults and institutions as opposed to student-athletes, they’ll need to explore taking action.

– – –

It’s been only two weeks since the shooting at Antioch HS, but things seemed to be fading into the rearview mirror. Dr. Battle and her cadre of advisors seem intent on using the tragic event as a means for self-congratulations while failing to admit any culpability.

Unfortunately for them, some teachers at Antioch High School aren’t content to just let things snap back to normal with no accountability. This week, three veteran AHS teachers, with a combined 3 decades of experience between them, have spoken out. They are speaking out in hopes that their words will lead to other students being kept safe.

According to News5, on the day of the shooting, all three teachers were in different parts of the building when the 17-year-old shooter pulled a gun out of his backpack. He shot and killed Dayana Escalante, 16, in the cafeteria before shooting and killing himself. None of these teachers were in the cafeteria at the time but they saw the fear and fleeing first-hand.

“They’re running and just screaming, and I’m waiting by my door. ‘Are you sure?’ and the kids are like, ‘Yes’. ‘Well they’ve not made any announcements,’” said one teacher. “We waited and waited. I don’t know how long, but it was a good long time.”

Police reports say the shooter opened fire in the cafeteria at 11:09.

“I called my principal at 11:14. I said, ‘Students are running outside. Are we on a lockdown? Something’s not ok,’” said one teacher. “She said, ‘No we’re not on a lockdown. I’m in the auditorium, and you can wait to see if they make an announcement, but we’re not on a lockdown.’”

It wasn’t until 11:20 that the lockdown was ordered. The time may seem minuscule, but when kids’ lives are at risk, it is almost an eternity.

What is described is a scene where teachers and students remained barricaded behind doors, with no updates, while SWAT members cleared the building, sporadically shooting lock-off doors to gain entry.

“Kids were showing (us) videos of what was taking place in the cafeteria way before we even got the (lockdown) announcement,” said another teacher.

One student texted their father and said, “It’s real. I love you. I don’t know what’s going to happen, but I’ll let you know.”

Good thing those phones weren’t locked up in pouches, or the trauma might have been even more severe.

The teachers tell News5 that the first communication they got from the school during the lockdown was a single, three-sentence email an hour after the shooting that said:

“Antioch family, I hope this email finds you well. Please ensure you have a roster and the number of scholars who are in your class. I appreciate all of you.”

They are equally critical of how things were handled in the aftermath of the tragedy. Criticism stands in stark contrast to the picture painted by MNPS officials.

According to the directions in the gym kept changing, causing more anxiety and confusion.

“The way we were evacuated the state of things in the gym was complete and utter chaos,” said one teacher.

“Our student population is very diverse. We have many different languages at our school, and this was all in English. Finally, they put a police officer who spoke Spanish on the microphone to also say it. They didn’t have Arabic, Swahili.”

On Friday, Director Battle and MNPS distributed a press release outlining plans to ask the school board for an additional $5 million over 4 years to put a new system that detects weapons, like the one added last week to Antioch HS, in all schools.

The plan comes with few details, and reeks of being reactionary and rooted in optics. One red flag is, that the ask is included on the consent agenda – a portion of the budget designated for approving contracts not expected to require discussion.

There is no timeline included, no explanation of how the order of schools will be chosen, the revenue source for the funding, or when middle schools can expect the same protection.

The money line in the press release for me is the following:

If approved by the Board, concealed weapons detection systems will be deployed gradually over the coming weeks and months, allowing time for:

• School-specific entry flow designs to ensure efficient student movement
• Training for staff to effectively manage the systems
• Student education on how to move through the detection systems with minimal disruption

The release goes on to say, “The annual cost for the concealed weapons detection systems across all district high schools is estimated to be $1.25 million per year and based on a preliminary review of school designs and needs. Actual costs and configurations will be determined following a more intensive design process in coordination with schools. If approved, the district will work with stakeholders to determine and secure the appropriate source of funding for the systems.

Battle herself offers caveats. “There is no single solution to ending gun violence, a national epidemic that affects all parts of society, with access to weapons often going unchecked. However, we remain committed to doing what we can to protect our students and staff in our schools,” said Dr. Adrienne Battle, Superintendent of Metro Schools. “Expanding concealed weapons detection systems to all high schools is an important step forward. This will take time to implement thoughtfully, and we will work closely with staff, students, and families to ensure a smooth transition.”

Mind you it is the second week in February, and TCAP testing starts in 6 weeks. After that, 6 weeks remain in the school year. Add in Dr. Battle’s vehement opposition to metal detectors, and you get some pause for cause. I hope I am wrong, but my slow walk spidey sense is tingling away.

Despite my fears and suspicions, I do take heart from the fact that the conversation is still taking place and people are not letting it fade away in the rearview mirror.

– – –

If you’ve got something you’d like me to highlight and share, send it to Norinrad10@yahoo.com. Either wisdom or criticism is always welcome.

As you may suspect, keeping this blog going with a cost. In that light, I’ve set up a number of ways you can show your financial support. if so inclined.

I invite you to become a subscriber over at Substack. The rates, should you choose to become a paid subscriber are reasonable, and there remains a free option. The only real difference between the two is that one allows me to eat a little better, but I appreciate you signing up for either.

You can also send a donation through my Venmo (Thomas-Weber-10) or cashAp ($PeterAveryWeber)

A huge shout-out to all of you who’ve already lent your financial support. I am eternally grateful for your generosity. It allows me to keep doing what I do and without you, I would have been forced to quit long ago. It is truly appreciated and keeps the bill collectors happy. Now more than ever your continued support is vital.

If you wish to join the rank of donors but are not interested in Substack, you can still head over to Patreon and help a brother out.