OPINION

Parents deserve more notice of charter discussion

Ex school board candidate Miranda Christy: "I know as well as anyone the contentious nature of this issue in our city."

Miranda Christy

On Oct. 25 the Metro Nashville Public Schools Board of Education was set to vote on revisions to the policy governing charter schools.

The revisions would require prospective charter school applications to include more concrete information as to the applicant’s proposed location and facilities.

During the meeting, however, the school board member who brought the resolution moved to defer it — requesting instead to “schedule a block of time next month on the board floor” to have the “big hairy conversation that we’ve all been dreading” — namely, whether MNPS should impose a moratorium on charter schools.

Miranda Christy

The next month came and went with no further mention of either matter until the agenda for the Dec. 13 board meeting was made public last Thursday, Dec. 8, providing the public with five days notice of the "big hairy conversation.”

Because the MNPS Board of Education is subject to the Open Meetings Act, this begs the question: does five days constitute adequate public notice under Section 8-44-103 of the Tennessee Code?

In the case of Neese v. Paris Special School District, for example, the public was not notified of a discussion involving a clustering plan. The Tennessee Court of Appeals found that the issue of clustering students was of “pervasive importance” and “arguably the most important action taken by the Board in many years.”

The court determined that the importance of the clustering issue required that the public be notified of the discussion and held that the notice given to the public was inadequate.

Similarly, over 10 percent of MNPS students attend charter schools, and their families not only have an interest in being present for this discussion, but also may have the most helpful insight to offer our elected officials before they vote on this issue.

Even if parents have internet access (not a given) and saw the agenda posted on Thursday, five days may not be a sufficient amount of time to make alternative work or child care arrangements so they can, at minimum, be present for the discussion.

Regardless of your personal position on the charter school debate or whether you believe a moratorium is a matter of necessity or political theater, the facts are that:

  • Over 10,000 students currently exercise a choice to attend a charter school, which as of 2015 comprised six of the district’s 14 highest performing schools.
  • Our board is voluntarily proposing to eliminate the possibility of additional choices for families and take the option for future charter schools out of its toolbox despite our city’s rapid growth in both population and diversity and a persistent increase in achievement gaps.
  • All families have a right not only to receive adequate public notice of this discussion under the law, but also to have the opportunity for their voices to be heard and to grapple with the purpose and implications of this type of action by the board, e.g., its fundamental legality, whether it will practically achieve its purported purpose, or most importantly: how this action will improve the quality of the education currently available to 87,000 MNPS students.

I know as well as anyone the contentious nature of this issue in our city.

If our board decides they want to tie their own hands and eliminate the possibility for future high-quality educational choices for families, fine.

But they must do so in accordance with the law, and preferably with an eye towards what is fair and equitable for all the families they serve.

Miranda Christy is an attorney in Nashville. She ran for the Nashville School Board District 5 seat in 2016.