CLARKSVILLE, TN (CLARKSVILLE NOW) – Emotions ran high during the Clarksville-Montgomery County School Board meeting Tuesday night during their vote on the American Classical Academy charter school application, and the room was filled with confusion when the board decided to vote, ultimately rejecting the charter school.
Amid the uncertainty, four board members from other counties happened to be visiting to critique CMCSS for a statewide Board of Distinction award.
Discussing charter schools
Prior to the meeting, Leeland Bassham, 14, a CMCSS student, was among several speakers in a press conference outside Central Office.
“This isn’t about a choice for parents or students,” Bassham said. “This is about taking money away from public education and using it to line the pockets of wealthy investors. A school built in financial gain is not a school, it’s a company. If I, a 14-year-old, can come to this conclusion, then you should also be able to.”
During the formal meeting, board members thanked the Charter Review Committee for their hard work in studying, reviewing and analyzing the 538-page long ACAM application. That committee recommended that the board reject the application.
“Public charter schools are really an anomaly,” board member Jimmie Garland said. “Charter schools I understand. I don’t understand public charter schools. I am not a person who believes that we should use public dollars to send a child to a private school.”
“We raise taxes, and we have taxes for our public schools,” board member Charlie Patterson said. “But bottom line, to me, is using public money for charter schools is out of line.”
ACAM’s rejection challenged
Board member Aron Maberry directed his concerns toward Elizabeth Vincent, CMCSS director of Continuous Improvement. For 10 minutes, she answered his questions regarding comparisons to last year’s application, the curriculum’s lack of alignment to the standards, and the rubric’s supposed requirement to have a Tennessee administrator working in the school.
Maberry said that last year, the applicant met the standard for academic design and capacity, and asked why they only partially meet the standard this year.
“I will just review the response that was shared,” Vincent told him. “In general, the review committee does not do a comprehensive review of previous year’s applications, nor thoroughly compare and contrast previous applications with current applications as the committee is charged with reviewing the current application.”
Maberry said that the applicant told him that no significant changes were made. “Did we get it wrong last year or are we getting it wrong this year?” Maberry said. “I don’t understand.”
As he continued to push Vincent with more questions, Director of Schools Jean Luna-Vedder weighed in.
“I would also like to remind the board members that Elizabeth Vincent is speaking on behalf of the committee and so, I would just ask that you ask your questions to her, but she should not have to defend her answers,” Luna Vedder said.
And audience member then yelled, with an expletive, “Are you on the board?” to which Luna-Vedder responded that she was simply reminding the board members.
Board ends debate
Patterson raised his hand and turned to speak to his counterpart. “Mr. Maberry, I’m trying to be as courteous to you as possible. But I think she (Vincent) said last week, any questions that you have, I feel like you’re wasting the board’s time. You’ve had all week to ask these questions, and now you’re doing it in this particular performance. I don’t want to call the question on you, but I’m going to be courteous to you to ask your questions, but you’ve had seven days, plus, to ask all these questions to her instead of us doing it in a public meeting like this.”
In parliamentary procedure “calling for the question” or “calling the question” is a motion to end debate so the body can vote.
Maberry stressed that these questions should be a matter of public record. Board Attorney Mark Nolan spoke at this point, saying everything regarding the charter schools, including the questions, were already accessible online. Maberry argued that people might not be able to readily see that information. Board Chairman Kent Griffy advised Maberry to “spend your time making points about your concerns rather than revisiting public questions.”
At this point, Patterson raised his hand again. “Since we are talking about questions, I’d like to call for the question,” he said.
The vote to end discussion passed 6-1, with Maberry voting no.
Confusion over vote
The formal vote began with Griffy saying, “We will now take a roll call vote on the issue itself. The issue being the charter school review committee recommendation. The motion has been made already to accept the committee’s recommendation of denying the charter school that has been requested.”
However, as the voting began, Patterson interjected, asking if they voted “yes” were board members voting to accept the committee’s recommendation, to which Griffy was seemingly confused and stated that the vote was to end discussion.
As the vote began again, Griffy realized his mistake and said the vote was to approve or reject the charter school.
Audience members began shouting and asking what was going on, and board members appeared puzzled, scrambling to figure out what they were voting on.
The vote ended with all board members voting, with clarifying statements, against ACAM’s application except Maberry, who voted in favor.
‘Goalpost moving’
Maberry went Facebook after the meeting to complain about the meeting rules and what he called “goalpost moving.”
“Last year the board got to ask questions after the district recommendation, however, this year it was arbitrarily changed without our consent. Tonight, when I start asking the questions (which I had already submitted) to get them on the public record the board voted to shut down my questioning. This is the sad side of politics and those I represent voice got shut down.”
“I had 234 individuals tell me they were for Charter Schools, 74 against them, and 10 undecided and I asked this publicly outside my echo chamber. I know I can’t please everyone, but I voted for parental choice to allow this charter school as the majority of my constituents asked. I couldn’t take the recommendation of the district when almost every deficiency listed went outside the state rubric guidelines. … Two sections recommended last year were not this year with virtually no change to these sections. This is goalpost moving and makes the entire process unfair and uncredible.”
ACAM will have the opportunity to appeal the School Board’s decision to the Tennessee Public Charter School Commission. Once that commission makes a decision, it is final.