Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Bartlett Leaders Ready to Go Muni
Posted by John Branston on Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 9:35 PM
The mayor acknowledged that the current one is about 500 students below its capacity of 2,100 students. And only 7,428 students who live in Bartlett attend county schools, which is about 1700 short of the projected enrollment of the prospective municipal system in 2013, according to the study. In Bartlett, as in Germantown and Collierville, students don't necessarily go to the nearest school or the school in the suburb in which they reside. Some Bartlett students go to high school at Arlington and Bolton. Also, all three suburbs also draw students from unincorporated areas of Shelby County.
In some ways Bartlett might be better able to sustain a municipal system than Germantown. According to the latest census, Bartlett is bigger than Germantown, younger, and grew faster but is not as wealthy. Germantown, however, sends more children to private schools and fills its public schools with thousands of children from unincorporated areas near Southwind and from Collierville.
Along with funding, voter approval, and court challenges, one of the biggest uncertainties about the rush to municipal school systems is students, who might be walking around with bounties on their chests in 2013 as schools scramble to fill their classrooms and secure the state and local funding that follows the students and, in turn, pays the staff and the bills.
Consultant Jim Mitchell, a former Shelby County Schools superintendent, made the pitch to Bartlett, and it was similar to the one he made in Germantown 24 hours earlier. Consultants project that a Bartlett municipal system would have 9029 students, 886 employees, $69 million in revenue and $68.2 million in expenses. The system would be approximately 31 percent black, 59 percent white, and the rest other ethnic groups. As in Germantown, there were no questions or comments from spectators. More than 100 people filled the auditorium however, and many of them applauded at the end of the meeting.
The Bartlett Board of Mayor and Aldermen asked several questions, and McDonald, a member of the transition planning team, was one of the most enthusiastic backers of a municipal school system. He said the requisite 15 cents on the local property tax would add only $66 to the tax bill on a $175,000 home. And Bartlett also has a commercial base that would yield roughly $3.5 million a year if the community were to opt for a half-cent increase in the local option sales tax.
McDonald suggested Bartlett hold a public hearing on February 6th, a referendum on May 24th, and a school board election in November. He said "it's possible" lawsuits could delay the start of the muni in 2013, but he said he would urge residents to push for a new high school "on day one." One alderman suggested the cost should be covered by the citizens of Shelby County at large, not Bartlett, but Mitchell said Bartlett would have "first responsibility for your capital program."
In one scenario, Shelby County could have one large county school system and perhaps five municipal school systems, each with their own school board determined to get its existing buildings for nothing and pass its capital spending bills on to the unified school board. At 9,000 students, Bartlett would be the biggest municipal school system in the state.
No one on the board spoke favorably about or even mentioned the future unified school district or the transition planning team which, judging by recent suburban meetings, might as well be selling "Herenton For Mayor" t-shirts.
"I probably didn't think Memphis City Schools would give up their charter. They did," said McDonald. "They probably didn't think we would start our municipal school system. We might."
Comments (53)
Showing 1-50 of 53
"...might as well be selling "Herenton For Mayor" t-shirts."
Even Dr. Herenton would get a chuckle out of that line.
like
dislike
Et tu, Bartlett?
Will you now stab your traitorous dagger into the heart of the home schooling culture?
The flyer has really done the best coverage of the Municipal Schools. The facts of the the meeting were laid out and John generally keeps his opinions out of his work, and notes where he is stating opinion. This is compared to the CA articles which are rife with the CA editiorial board's shaded opinions against the Municipal Schools effort. Thanks Memphis Flyer for presenting the news fairly.
Why stop at a $26 million school? Why not get Shelby County taxpayers to foot Bartlett's entire bill for a separate school district? I'm sure the "consultant" would support that as well; it's not like their gravy train for helping implement a separate district would come to a screeching halt, or anything, if they told Bartlett to abandon any hope of it, is it, or that they would have any accountability for their opinion if it didn't pan out?
Assume Bartlett does not form their own school system. Are they going to need a new school or not?
Assuming they do not form their own system, and further assuming they do need a new high school, who would pay for it?
If they do form their own system, at least according to the report, they would be educating the same students that are being educated in those schools now wouldn't they?
drift boat: I think the word to describe the situation is "fluid." Safe to say there won't be any new school construction for a few years.
The consultants told the board the captital building cost would be the responsibility of the cities, not the the county. They were pretty up front that after the transfer of the existing building, upkeep and new construction were the responsibility of Bartlett, not the county.
Mr. Branston,
I'm sure saying the situation is "fluid" is putting it mildly. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that if Bartlett follows the plan outlined in this study and forms their own school system, the students attending school inside their city limits will not change, the racial makeup of the student body will not change, the buildings will not change, they will have more or less the same teachers, and those schools will be funded more or less the same way they are now . The only changes I can see are, they will have slightly higher taxes inside Bartlett, either property or sales, AND the residents of Bartlett will control the schools that are located inside their city limits as opposed to having them controlled by a Shelby County school board with a majority elected by voters inside the city limits of Memphis.
By the way I agree with BartlettVol, the Flyer coverage is better than the CA.
True, BartlettVol, IMO, the ringers the CA "interviews" for opposing viewpoints at local meetings about the schools are laughable. Journalism at its lowest point possible. The CA should change the title of "Editor" to "Head of Propaganda".
The CA is truly the worst newspaper I have ran across in the U.S., and I read the liberal Detroit Free Press and Toledo Blade for years, which were both good newspapers. I think a good newspaper simply prints what is happening in and around, and keeps its opinions in a separate part of the paper, not embedded in its articles.
Sounds like Mayor McDonald is going to have his hands full planning his municipal school system. How much quality time will that leave him to contribute to the transition team for a district that he hopes none of his constituents are forced to attend?
We should be able to replace him with someone who is dedicated to the success of the transition being planned.
memphismini, why would you think the Mayor doesn't want the new SCS to succeed? I believe all of the people in Bartlett and the rest of the small towns in Shelby County want it to succeed. They just don't want to be in it.
memphismini,
Success of the new Shelby County school system, and success of a Bartlett school system are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You never know, Mayor McDonald may be one of those gifted individuals that can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Great article John. I would really question that the enrollment in 2013 would reach 9,000. Are the consultants again counting students in reserve areas of Bartlett and other cities? Do they think that most of the children attending private/parochial schools will just leave and attend a Bartlett school?
I would be dubious about the racial makeup projected by consultants also unless they are again including areas outside the current muni boundaries of Bartlett. I do agree that of all the cities in the County outside of Memphis Bartlett has the best chance of making a muni school system work through educational support and financially.
Some school bldgs in Bartlett are far below standard. But fat chance that as a Memphis resident that I'm paying for new schools or renovation for them!
Not saying that he doesn't want them to succeed, but you can't tell me that he can be 100% dedicated to planning that success when he is busy building his own district. There is only so much time in the day, and if pressed, something directly affecting my residents would take priority over something that would indirectly affect them.
And that's just assuming that he really is a nice guy that just wants the best for everyone. What politician isn't?
IMPlanner,
If I read the Germantown report correctly they are including students outside the city limits. I believe the term they used is "attendance zones" or something like that. I haven't seen the Bartlett report but would assume it would read the same on that issue. I think that's how they make it financially feasible by having more or less the same number of students they have now.
IM,
Based on my average neighborhood in Bartlett, the demographics look just about right. Bartlett is a more diverse place than Memphian's give it credit for. Yes they are counting students that are from the annexation reserve, Lakeland and other areas that currently funnel into Bartlett schools (minus the Bridgewater pocket near Shelby Farms) plus the students who would be repatriated from Bolton but not those that currently go to Arlington. Thes would have to be covered under an MOU.
As for the schools, we would just like the same treatment that MCS got for 40+ years. We'll handle the upkeep and improvements from there.
Memphismini,
Since there seems to be a desire by the 'burbs to go the MSD route, shouldn't the transition board be planning for that so that we have as little disruption to the students as possible. As I see it, since MSDs are part of the bill that also established the transition team, should part of the planning also include them?
When people write 'I live in Memphis and will not pay for schools in Bartlett' fail to realize that the rest of the county was paying for your schools in Memphis. In fact, money was the main reason that MCS surrendered their charter. They knew that as soon as SCS became an idependent school system then by law they would not be require to contribute to fund MCS. I live in Bartlett and my county taxes paid for schools in the MCS system. Now, to the main topic. Bartlett has the best shot at making this work. The main point is going to be the buildings, if SCS is not willing to give up its building then it will all be a mute point. There is no way any city within Shebly County could afford to start a school system if they have to build new schools.
Stuck still doesn't understand how local taxes were generated and divided by the 2 districts.
Yes, Stuck, your idea of how the schools in the county are funded is not right. Everyone in the county who owns property pays county property tax. A portion of that is distributed to all of the schools in the county through the county commission as part of the ADA payment set in Nashville. So, everyone who pays property tax in the county is helping to pay for all of the schools in the county. That will not change when municipal districts come into play.
Barf,
The property tax bill I get from the county every year shows how much of what I pay gets allocated to City and County schools. Lets just say that all Shelby Countians that paid property tax paid their share for every school built in the county save AHS that was paid by rural school bonds. Memphis folks paid extra on top from their city taxes for MCS, I'm prepared to do the same for Bartlett Municipal Schools.
I talked with Charles Perkins, former county comish and, by way of disclosure, adviser to schools at times, but still a good source. rather than post again, i offer this as comment. Re the possible half-cent sales tax increase, he recalled that Wyeth Chandler tried to raise it and the referendum failed. merchants don't like it, fearing competitive disadvantage. seems a little "freakonomics-ish" to me that folk will drive out of their way to save half a cent on sales tax, but that may be so. Perkins thinks linking it to schools would give it a better shot though. Consultants note that sales tax referendum needs only a majority. Perkins also thinks, maybe wishfully, that transition team could recommend something that preserves county schools more or less as they are, putting out the fire on MSDs. Or not. Finally, he said Bartlett HS is about 100 years old and needs to be replaced.
Drift and BartlettVol
By law, if it is a municipal district they can't count nor accommodate the students from outside the municipal boundary. Not even in their own reserve area. Special District status tailored to B'lett might work. They would have to go to legislature to bring in students from current attendance zones outside of B'lett. And then they could have a problem with bordering cities - Millington and Memphis (not Lakeland as it is not an actual city, still living off Shelby County - said laughingly and with a touch of tongue-in-cheek) Not saying it wouldn't work with the Rep. legislature, but they still have to change the law.
And I am well aware of the demographics in Bartlett. It is diverse. That is much to its credit and why it makes it a place that folks want to move into. It is also one of the reasons why I made the comment about B'lett being in the best position to support its own school system. But the % of non-White used in report seems a bit high. I have found demographics in G'town report to be incorrect.
My recollection is that Bartlett is over 90% white within the city limits. Having lived in Bartlett recently for three years, I found that to be very surprising. If someone else doesn't provide the correct breakdown, I'll look it up a bit later and post it here.
UHOH
Here's the 2010 Census. First number Bartlett; second number is for Tennessee. Not the 49%, but 16% is higher than the other burbs with probably the exception of Millington
White persons, percent, 2010 (a) 78.7% 77.6%
Black persons, percent, 2010 (a) 16.1% 16.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2010 (a) 0.3% 0.3%
Asian persons, percent, 2010 (a) 2.5% 1.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2010 (a) Z 0.1%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2010 1.6% 1.7%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2010 (b) 2.7% 4.6%
White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2010 77.2%
uhoh and implanner. re racial percentages, consultants have been giving projected percentage for the schools. For current school by school and district by district numbers, see Tennessee Report Card. For 2010 general population demographics in Shelby County, see U.S. Census. Sounds like you are talking about two different things.
Thank you, IMPlanner. What I was thinking of was the 2000 census, when the Bartlett white population was 92.44%. Thank you for the correction.
IM,
Educating Children from outside the city limits can be done, but it has to be via a Memorandum of Understanding between school districts. If everyone plays nice, that would be the best thing to limit disruption while the different districts reconfigure to their new boundaries. Also the city system could accept additional students from outside the district if they have surplus capacity at the descretion of the school board. It would then be the students families choice. There is no law that says they can't do that, they just can't force kids from outside the district to attend.
uHoh,
2010 census says 78% white, 16% black, 2.7 hispanic, 2.5 asian, just about the mirror of Tennessee as a whole
All, I can state with absolute confidence from conversations I've been a party to or listened to that one of the "pluses" for some people (and a few fairly vocal ones)in Germantown of having a MSD is that ultimately it will consist of Germantown kids only. There is a certain segment which has wanted to reconfigure the demographics of GHS for a long long time. They see this as their opportunity, and I believe they are right. Drift disagrees with me, based on some language that I think concerns the split of students at HHS between Germantown kids and Collierville kids.I do not believe that language measn that in the long run, kids who live in Southeast Shelby County in Memphis' reserve annexation area are going to continue to be sent to GHS since the city of Germantown has no jurisdiction there and moreover, those areas wouldn't be contributing to the property taxes in Germantown.
having said that, I believe the state legislature is going to do anything and everything they can to give the suburbs whatever they ask for, barring court action to invalidate.
As an aside, I'm also curious what's going to happen to MIllington, they obviously don't have the tax base to do this.
Should be interesting. I'm thinking by the time this settles out, my youngest, who is in 5th grade now, will be at least a senior in HS if not graduated. So I really don't care from a personal standpoint as my wife will probably have talked me into moving to Colorado or New Mexico by then.
IMPlanner,
I based my comments on my reading of the report done for Germantown. I haven't researched the law but supposedly some attorneys, that work in this area of the law, did the research as part of the report to Germantown. I'm pretty sure they are talking about including all the students currently attending schools located inside the city limits of Germantown. So necessarily they would include quite a few students living outside Germantown. They mentioned attendance zones. They said in the report that the city officials in Germantown had asked them to do that. It's a smart move that might defeat claims that these municipal districts are all about race. They spell out the demographics in their report. As I said I haven't read the Bartlett report but would be surprised if it was much different as far as the students included in the system. Now that I think about it seems that they also mentioned the possible necessity of more legislation but I thought they were talking about the buildings.
And John Branston is correct, they are talking about student demographics.
This has actually been a pretty civil, intelligent discussion. I'm kind of wondering why it hasn't attracted a certain paywall refugee ...
Drift, if they permanently include attendance zones outside of the city of Germantown (like areas in Memphis' reserve annexation area), it won't be a true MSD.
There are kids who live in Cordova who go to HHS and kids who live in SE Shelby who go to GHS. I don't believe for one second that Germantown residents are going to be willing to raise their property taxes to help pay for kids who don't live in Germantown and whose parents aren't being taxed to contribute to that MSD. The report may SAY they can do that, (subject to interpretation), but I don't believe that's what is going to transpire if the city gets a MSD.
Agree, barltettvol. Perhaps he and R cranium can find a nice little chat room in which they could flame away with impunity.
Drift
I answered Uhoh with the Census info because I believe he was referring to his collective neighborhood, not the kids in the schools. I too have read the Gtown report. They refer to the school aged children and give an overview of what I assume to be Census numbers related to income, age of pop., etc., but I do not recall a reference to where they obtained their numbers. They did not do any projections and certainly no projections by cohort in order to determine possible #s of children in various grades. John is correct the only definitive numbers on race of school children are in the TN Report Card.
"This has actually been a pretty civil, intelligent discussion. I'm kind of wondering why it hasn't attracted a certain paywall refugee ..."
"Agree, barltettvol. Perhaps he and R cranium can find a nice little chat room in which they could flame away with impunity.
How does that old song go? "Don't tug on Superman's cape, don't spit into the wind..."
Or maybe better, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Here is the link to the SES report for Germantown in case anyone needs it.
http://www.germantown-tn.gov/Modules/ShowD…
Packrat, I concur on your observation re non-G'town students attending the MSD. As a non-incorporated Cordova resident with kids attending SCS schools in G'town, I attended the initial meeting at GPAC last year. During that meeting, G'town city leadership specifically stated (when asked by a parent) that non G'town students would NOT be able to attend. There have been rumors that "perhaps" non-G'town kids could attend if their parents paid tuition, similar to what MCS allows for non-Memphis residents today. However, I'm not willing to risk my kid's education on that....I can only hope that others in the same boat are watching and listening very carefully.
BTW, I'd gladly pay tuition. But if the students aren't wanted there, well, I can spend my money elsewhere.
Lastly, note that the report basically said they'd be willing to take non-G'town students if there is space available. At my kid's school, they havent accepted transfers for several years due to overcrowding, so again, I'm not hanging my hat on this.
Packrat, I think you will be surprised at the competition for kids among the various school districts if these municipal districts do indeed come into being. Like the article says, there will be competition among the districts for the ADA these kids will bring into the districts. I don't think Germantown will be an exception. The amount of the property tax increase is a pittance for supporting a municipal district compared to the million dollars in ADA that will accompany every group of 120 kids. (That is a rough estimate.)
I think all of the kids should be able to continue to attend their current schools until they graduate, and that will additionally complicate things. ( I am sure there are others who share that belief.) I know Governor Haslam was in town recently and asked the General Assembly not to pass any new legislation to firm up the law with regard to municipal districts, but I think we may need the state to do exactly that. I don't think a free-for-all battle for students is a good idea.
Observer, the conventional wisdom a while back was that only children who lived within the city boundaries could attend its municipal schools. Perhaps that is what you were hearing. Today, there seems to be a different take on this, although I don't pretend to understand how it is going to work in the end.
Will residents of Bartlett, Germantown and Collierville still have to pay the portion of county taxes that is allocated to SCS? I don't live in any of those places so I don't know how it works now. If it ends up that each municipal is not given the land and buildings and it has to either pay up to SCS or build new, does that make all of this moot? There is no way each one can raise the capital to build new, is there?
"I think all of the kids should be able to continue to attend their current schools until they graduate"
Completely agree with that sentiment, uhoh. Anything else would not be humane or decent.
noone,
Everyone in Shelby county will have to continue to pay their county property taxes and the education portion will be divided evenly between the districts based on ADA. People in cities with Municipal Districts will pay additional taxes that will fund only their school systems on top of what they receive from county, state and federal sources.
In light of BartVols response re: taxes, should the age of the facilities be a factor? If municipalities were to pay for certain facilities, they may be in fact forcing their citizenry to pay for said buildings twice. Ex: older school buildings within the city may have been paid for in full decades ago while the construction of “brand new” facilities such as Southwind High continue to place a debt burden on the county. It goes back to one of the primary principles underlying this entire issue: outmigration being subsidized by existing residents and neighborhoods in a metro defined by negative to stagnant economic and population growth. I would argue that the age of the structure should be taken into consideration. This might be a benefit for facilities such as Germantown High, but would be a burden where newer buildings are concerned.
As a long time Bartlett resident i think we should start our own school system. But i think we need to look at a 1 cent tax increase instead of the half cent proposed,and the reasoning is this,there are renters in Bartlett that does not pay a property tax, but use our schools, wit a tax increase all Bartlett residents will be contributing to the schools, I myself have no kids in school, or gradnkids in Bartlett but a property tax would effect me, and not the renters...
Butch- That is one of the great myths of our age and when you really think about it, it does not make a lot of sense. Renters do pay property tax via their rents. The individuals who own the property pay a property tax for the properties. One can asusme that these individuals are not simply assuming these costs out of the goodness of their hearts and instead are passing the property tax along to the renter as part of their overall rent.
Butch, don't forget that even though the renters don't pay property tax their rent provides the landlord with the money to pay property tax - and at a higher rate than residential. The net result is that renters indirectly do pay property tax as a part of their rent.
Why the animosity against renters? Traditionally, property taxes are used to fund schools, and the word "requisite" was used in the article regarding the .15 property tax increase.
Businesses are against raising the sales taxes, especially those on Stage, because they would be charging a higher rate than their competitors across the street. I think they should hold off on that until it becomes more clear how this is going to play out, but my guess is that it is probably going to be necessary to raise the property tax more than required, or raise the sales tax - or both.
uhoh-
Based on nothing more than personal principles, I would hope that a sales tax option would be the funding source of last resort. Seeing as sales tax is regressive in nature, it would place additional demand on those that can least afford it. Property taxes present at least a marginally more balanced approach.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
