“I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves.”
― Christopher Hitchens, Hitch 22: A Memoir

Every year, when the Tennessee General Assembly gavels into session, I tell myself the same thing.

Maybe this will be the year sanity prevails.

Maybe this will be the year lawmakers take a look around, review the laws already on the books, and collectively decide: You know what? We’re good.

Maybe — just maybe — they will resist the urge to tinker with everything in sight.

Every year, I am disappointed.

The 2026 legislative session will be no exception.

This week, the insanity was on full display.

Immigration, Data, and the Real Target

Grabbing most of the headlines this week was a bill advancing through the Tennessee House that would require school districts to track and report the immigration status of their students.

If that sounds familiar, it should.

Last year lawmakers attempted to pass legislation that would permit districts to deny students access or charge tuition based on immigration status — a proposal that ran headlong into a rather inconvenient Supreme Court decision: Plyler v. Doe (1982).

That ruling ensures public schools must provide educational opportunities for all students, regardless of immigration status.

This year’s bill strips out the denial of access and instead focuses on data collection.

At its core, however, the legislation appears designed to challenge the Plyler ruling and reopen the broader legal debate.

There is also a financial argument being made.

Educating students who are not fluent in English requires additional resources — translators, specialized instruction, and additional support staff. Some estimates place that cost at roughly half a billion dollars statewide.

As the number of non-English-speaking students in Tennessee has grown, those costs have become a larger concern for some lawmakers.

Critics warn that the bill could jeopardize federal education funding, which currently totals roughly $1.1 billionflowing into Tennessee schools.

House Majority Leader William Lamberth (R-Portland), the sponsor of the bill, acknowledged that concern during committee debate.

He has reportedly reached out to the U.S. Department of Education for guidance on whether the bill could put those funds at risk.

So far, the response has been… less than reassuring.

“We have not been given the idea that it would not,” Lamberth said.
“I understand, in some part, why they would be unwilling to answer a question about a bill that has not passed yet.”

Lamberth maintains the legislation is simply a tool for gathering information, noting that districts would only report aggregate numbers and would not be required to provide the names of students.

Critics remain skeptical.

Even aggregated data, they argue, could still be used to target individual districts.

There is also the issue of the Senate version of the bill, which previously passed with provisions allowing districts to deny enrollment.

Any final legislation would have to go through reconciliation — meaning the finished bill could end up looking very different from the House version.

Protest, Passion, and Signs in the Chamber

The hearing itself was heated.

Seated behind Lamberth during his presentation was a woman holding a sign that read:

“Jesus said, whoever welcomes children welcomes me.”

The sign remained visible throughout the hearing despite chamber rules prohibiting signs.

There were several outbursts during the debate, and protesters were eventually escorted out of the room by the Sergeant-at-Arms.

The bill ultimately passed out of subcommittee and now heads to the House Finance Committee.

As the vote concluded, spectators began shouting loudly enough to force a temporary recess and clearing of the chamber.

I understand the passion.

But disruptions rarely lead to productive debate.

Still, something tells me this issue isn’t going away anytime soon.

The Teacher Union and the Bill That Came Due

Despite living in a union household, I’m not sure there is a more politically ineffective organization in Tennessee than the Tennessee Education Association (TEA).

Over the past decade teachers have seen more responsibilities piled onto their plates while the job itself has become increasingly difficult. At the same time, the union has been pushed further and further out of the conversation, leaving teachers with fewer ways to advocate for themselves while lawmakers and administrators continue making decisions about the classroom from a distance. Teacher shortages are now a constant topic of conversation.

During another committee meeting this week, I heard a lawmaker argue that there is no statewide teacher shortage.

Later — in defense of his own bill — he acknowledged that roughly 6,000 teachers across Tennessee are currently working under emergency credentials.

Which is an interesting way of saying there isn’t a shortage.

Back in 2011, lawmakers eliminated collective bargaining for teachers and replaced it with something called collaborative conferencing.

Think of it as collective bargaining cosplay — it looks similar, but comes with far more restrictions and produces agreements that are not legally binding.

Still, it provides teachers with at least some voice in the process.

Now lawmakers want to eliminate that too.

HB2226 would end collaborative conferencing entirely.

In its place?

Nothing.

Just the assumption that districts will treat teachers fairly on their own.

If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Arizona I’d love to sell you.

Teacher unions exist for a reason, and the work they’ve done over the years has improved the lives of educators immeasurably.

But the TEA has also developed a reputation — fair or not — for focusing too heavily on social issues unrelated to the classroom.

That reputation has created enemies.

Including the sponsor of this bill.

Aron Maberry and an Old Political Score

Representative Aron Maberry (R-Clarksville) is the sponsor behind the legislation.

Maberry is a former Montgomery County Commissioner, an Army veteran, and someone with strong ties to evangelical faith communities.

Several years ago Clarksville became the center of a controversy involving “See You at the Pole.”

The national student-led event involves students gathering around their school flagpole before classes begin to pray.

The event itself is legal.

Students absolutely have the right to pray at school.

But schools cannot organize or promote the activity.

Some critics argued the Clarksville event was being promoted using school resources.

Supporters countered that critics were attempting to suppress students’ religious freedom.

Maberry supported the students’ right to pray, arguing that voluntary student religious expression is protected under federal law so long as it is not organized or led by school staff.

The TEA weighed in during that fight.

And later supported a political challenge to Maberry’s seat.

That challenge failed.

Elections have consequences. And in this case, the consequences are about to be felt by teachers across the state.

Maberry argues that ending collaborative conferencing does not silence teacher input, noting that only about 30 districts currently use the process.

But the bill also contains another provision that should concern educators.

It restricts teacher organizations from meeting inside school buildings.

Representative Ronnie Glynn (D-Clarksville) pointed out the practical problem with that.

The TEA currently provides several professional development trainings to districts at no cost.

If the bill passes, districts may be forced to absorb those costs themselves. Unfortunately that wasn’t enough to slow the bill’s roll.

The bill passed out of subcommittee 4-1.

Rumor has it amendments are already being drafted.

It might behoove the union to set aside some of its worst instincts and learn to play better with others.

Because right now, those bridges are burning.

Legislative Odds and Ends

Several other bills caught my eye this week.

HB2395 would require students to learn about the religious beliefs of the nation’s founders.

During debate, Representative Gino Bulso (R-Brentwood) admitted he wasn’t aware the Declaration of Independence contained what the bill called a preamble.

Legal counsel clarified that the reference was to the famous passage beginning:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

I must admit I was a little surprised by the confusion.

But I doubt he was the only one in the room who learned something that day.

Another proposal from Monty Fritts (R-Kingston) would require the construction of a 40-by-40-foot plaza on every public university campus in Tennessee.

That’s 47 courtyards.

Each would display plaques featuring the Bill of Rights, the Tennessee Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Ten Commandments — with the plaza itself dedicated to Charlie Kirk.

Because when most people think of the founding principles of the American republic, the first name that comes to mind is a conservative podcaster from Arizona.

Estimated cost: $18 million.

Fritts disputes that number.

Personally, I’d argue that if the cost were $100, it would still be too high.

Look, I like Charlie Kirk just fine, but we need a little perspective here.

His historical ties to Tennessee are minimal.

Meanwhile, Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader who spent decades fostering difficult public dialogue, recently passed away and the state couldn’t even agree to lower the flags.

Perspective matters.

But what do I know?

I’m just a guy who thought university campuses were supposed to be dedicated to students.

The Aging Warrior

Sports fans are long familiar with the public decline of the aging warrior.

This past football season, NFL fans bore witness to a future Hall of Famer attempting to hold on to past glory and falling short. Once a nimble runner, Aaron Rodgers struggled to pick up first downs even when wide open fields presented themselves. What once had been routine had suddenly become difficult. Another victim of Father Time.

Sometimes those same moments play out in other corners of the public sphere.

For years, Channel 5 investigative reporter Phil Williams served as something of a boogeyman for public officials across Nashville. The mere sight of his news van pulling into a parking lot was enough to make bureaucrats nervous. Williams built a reputation on detailed investigations and earned multiple Emmys for his work.

These days, however, the fear factor seems diminished.

Earlier this week Williams aired a report examining the relationship between former MNPS Chief of Staff Hank Clay, the Ingram Group lobbying firm, and Metro Nashville Public Schools.

Clay left his role inside MNPS and joined the Ingram Group. Not long after his departure, the Ingram Group entered into a consulting agreement with MNPS that allowed Clay to continue advising district leadership — this time as an outside consultant working through the firm.

At the time the contract was signed in December of 2024, it carried a price tag of $12,000 per month.

That alone raised a few eyebrows.

But the agreement didn’t stay there.

Since then, the contract has grown to $20,000 per month — roughly $240,000 a year of taxpayer money flowing to a lobbying firm that now employs the district’s former Chief of Staff.

For context, that means Metro Nashville Public Schools is paying nearly a quarter of a million dollars annually for outside advice — advice being provided to district leaders who themselves earn salaries in the neighborhood of $200,000 a year.

Part of Clay’s role reportedly includes participating in contract reviews with district leadership, offering strategic guidance on how the district approaches various operational decisions.

Williams’ report focused on a contractor that also happens to be a client of the Ingram Group.

As Williams put it:

“Just to put a fine point on it. Hank Clay is getting paid by taxpayers to advise Metro Schools and then Zayo is paying him to advise them on how to work with Metro Schools?”

A former employee of the contractor confirmed that arrangement.

Naturally, that raised questions about whether the relationship should have been disclosed as a potential conflict of interest.

MNPS spokesperson Sean Braisted wrote:

“While we have no indication of any improper activity, we do believe advance notice of any potential or perceived conflict of interest is appropriate.”

Later statements clarified that the Ingram Group was not involved in procurement or vendor selection, meaning there was technically no overlap.

The more interesting question, however, is who wasn’t in the story.

MNPS Superintendent Adrienne Battle was conspicuously absent — despite the fact that it is difficult to imagine a consulting contract growing from $12,000 to $20,000 a month without the superintendent’s knowledge or approval, especially when it involves one of her closest confidants.

Which raises the obvious question:

Who’s afraid of who?

Because when public money and public institutions are involved, the public deserves the full story — not just the convenient parts.

Watching the report, I couldn’t help but think back to that Rodgers comparison. Once upon a time, Williams’ investigations moved the chains. They uncovered details, connected dots, and forced accountability. This one, however, felt more like a quarterback scrambling toward the sideline before reaching the marker. The play looked promising at first, but in the end it came up short.

While adults argue over politics, contracts, and investigations, students across Nashville are already thinking about the future.

Students and the AI Question

At Metro Nashville Public Schools’ first AI Summit, students from Whites Creek, Glencliff, McGavock, and John Overton weren’t debating whether artificial intelligence belongs in school.

For them, that question is already settled.

Instead they were asking a more practical one:

How can it help them learn better?

Glencliff senior Sean Sanders explained his approach simply.

“I don’t say, ‘Give me the answer.’ I say, ‘Teach me how to do it.’”

To prepare for the ACT, Sanders uses AI to generate practice math problems and walk through solutions step-by-step.

Other students described using AI to format scripts, support research, and clarify difficult concepts.

Whites Creek junior Mikayla Hester described it as a kind of late-night tutor.

“Maybe you’re at home and you’re struggling with something. You can’t always text your teacher or e-mail them at 12 in the morning… Sometimes you can just ask AI, ‘Hey, can you explain this to me?’”

But the students were also clear-eyed about the risks.

Whites Creek junior Easton Clendenin warned that overreliance could erode fundamental skills.

“If we continue to ask AI to do that for us, we’re going to lose that skill.”

Ultimately, the students delivered a message many adults in the room needed to hear.

AI should guide learning — not replace it.

The Work Continues

This isn’t corporate media.

There’s no team.

No budget.

No handlers.

It’s just me — trying to keep up, trying to keep you informed, and trying to say what others won’t.

If you value that work:

Venmo: @Thomas-Weber-10
Cash App: $PeterAveryWeber
Tips: Norinrad10@yahoo.com

Categories: Education