Commentary: Legislators should not join education reform opponents
During my time in the military, I had the privilege of serving under several different commanders across the globe. One stood out because of a remarkable leadership philosophy: the phrase “that’s how we’ve always done it” was strictly prohibited. This leader understood that resistance to change and innovation can lead to stagnation and decay. He believed that any healthy organization should welcome and reward functional improvements.
This resistance to change is not unique to the military or government. In any longstanding system, challenges to the status quo are often met with skepticism or outright hostility. There’s no better example of this than public charter schools.
Schools like Detroit Prep and South Bronx KIPP Academy were initially met with enthusiasm from lawmakers and administrators. But when they began to outperform their local counterparts in student achievement and growth, they were quickly seen as a threat. Teachers’ unions, school boards, and city officials began to attack them.
Despite great strides by Tennessee lawmakers to level the playing field for public charter schools, opposition remains aggressive and uncompromising.
Last week, in the House Finance, Ways, and Means Committee, legislators deliberated on a bill designed to help public charter schools gain access to vacant and underutilized school buildings at fair market value.
The bill seems like common sense: if a public school building is vacant or underused, why not let another public school use it for its intended purpose—educating students?
Yet, opponents of the bill argue that public charter organizations are driven by profit motives, seeking to purchase real estate to resell at higher prices. This assertion is based on a fundamental misunderstanding. Public charter school networks are nonprofit organizations, and their boards are responsible for the interests of their schools and students, not profit generation. Securing adequate facilities for high-quality public education falls squarely within their fiduciary responsibility.
Another misconception is that the bill interferes with school districts’ ability to manage their assets. Critics claim school facilities are owned by the district and should be used as the district sees fit. But public school facilities belong to the taxpayers, not the district. Taxpayers fund the construction and maintenance of these buildings to house and educate students, not so districts can profit from their sale.
To argue otherwise would have dubious consequences. Imagine if a local government sold a public park to a big box store. Most residents would be understandably upset. Yet, this could become a reality if these arguments are taken to their logical conclusions.
Opponents of this legislation should view public charter schools not as a threat, but as an opportunity for innovation in public education. Charter schools can coexist alongside traditional public schools, complementing each other.
Every Tennessee student deserves access to high-quality public education in a suitable facility, regardless of the type of school they attend. While this bill may not solve the public charter school facilities crisis entirely, it represents real progress.
Tennessee lawmakers have a choice: embrace innovation to move forward, or continue doing things the way they’ve always been done and expect the same results.
The Tennessee Firefly is a project of and supported by Tennesseans for Student Success.
