We want people who are SOLUTION BASED -- people who love the Greater Farragut Community and want to preserve it.

You know, it would be nice if we had folks who loved KNOX COUNTY and wanted to preserve and enhance the educational experience for all its children.

Quite frankly, I'm disgusted by the folks in west Knoxville who created the need for a new school by moving to an area where there wasn't enough capactity, demanded that new school, got it, and now are squabbling over whose kids "have" to go there.

They're taking everyone's tax dollars to build new facilities, leaving little $$ to maintain the existing infrastructure. They should either say "thank you," or cancel the damn school and send the $$ back to the center city. We can use it.

Bizgirl: "What's wrong with the "families, students and community members" getting involved? Better now than when it is all done."

Oh, it's not that. It's been my impression (and apparently it's been Cathy's impression, 2nd post above)from N-S coverage that Farragut High families are now getting "cold feet" about leaving their old digs.

It's ironic, since the wheel tax vote that supplied funding for their new school was so contentious and since a wrenching construction process (i.e., impact of building supply price increases) is nearly complete.

The N-S coverage about parents' fears that kids at the new school would have fewer choices among Advanced Placement courses was kinda unsympathetic, since Farragut High, it pointed out, had twice as many course offerings as any other KC high school.

Also, I *think* Farragut High operates a private foundation to benefit just its own high school (I know the Farragut primary/intermediate schools do), so I was wondering whether splitting private funds of this sort is possibly becoming an issue among parents who contributed?

So, could be that the meeting notice Randy shares is just an effort to gently remind affected parents that *someone* is going to have to accept rezoning, if overcrowding is to be relieved. Or, could be that the meeting is a planning session for how it is this one-group-about-to-become-two might demand that same broad curriculum available at Farragut High, but not available in other KC high schools. Or, could be that squabbling has arisen about whether parents contributing to the foundation I *think* exists will see that $ follow their kids to a new school.

I just can't tell...

I didn't say they were taking "all" the tax money. I said they were taking tax $$ that lots of other schools could use and then whining about it.

They're taking everyone's tax dollars to build new facilities, leaving little $$ to maintain the existing infrastructure. They should either say "thank you," or cancel the damn school and send the $$ back to the center city. We can use it.

By "everyone" I didn't mean "all the money." I meant we're all paying for the new school.

This happens a lot, I've learned. Just in my own community of Powell:

One of Powell Middle's principals, Janice Brown, is married to the principal at Holston Middle. Another Powell Middle teacher, Mrs. Kemp, is wife to the Vine Middle principal. A Powell Elementary teacher, Candy Parker, is wife to Adrian Burnett principal Adam Parker. Another Powell Elementary teacher, Jill Cooper, is sister to Dogwood Elementary principal, Lana Lowe. A Karns Middle teacher, Jane Buckner, is sister to former Powell High principal, Eddie McLemore, and Eddie's deceased wife, Carole McLemore, taught at Powell Elementary until her death.

I am also aware of Powell-area teachers whose spouses teach or are principals in surrounding school systems.

Where marital relationships are concerned, it may be, then, that these "teaching personalities" are just drawn to one another? In the other instances, maybe families spawn "teaching siblings" as the result of a shared family ethic in support of education?

Personally, I don't make too much of it, especially since, in the instances I know about, these family members are working in different schools or even school systems.

And, of course, it's not like the school system is even able to hire unqualified people--a great deal of specific training is required to become a teacher or a principal, either one.

All school system personnel records are open to the public, I believe.

I would think so, too, Cathy. And it may also be that they want to send a message that both schools will operate comparably (i.e., intensively academic).

I spoke with Diane Jablonski, former school board member and Farragut resident, since I shared my vague questions about Farragut High having a private foundation to benefit their school. She says yes, they do, but she couldn't venture to guess how the foundation might address the loss of any sizable contributor base rezoned to another school.

Our comrade, fixedpig, made an interesting comment in that regard earlier (don't mean to talk like you're not listening, fixedpig--I just don't know if you are). He said that his parents "moved to Farragut specifically for the school system." Of course, Farragut doesn't *have* a "school system," Knox County does.

Given Farragut's ability to circumvent so many of the Knox County school system's budget woes, though, I can see how residents might imagine they operate their own, independent "school system." It is symptomatic of the "disconnect" ennui mentions, I think.

(Bearden High and, I believe, West High also operate private foundations among KC's twelve high schools.)

Hmmm. You raise a couple of questions, 007 (and we're starting to digress from our topic).

First, since the Ethics Policy adopted last month relies in its entirety on state law (and the text cites specific statues), I had imagined that any amendments KC might add would be added only in response to *new* state law.

Of course, it may be, since we're a home rule county, that KC could enact a policy on this or any topic that is more restrictive than state law, but I wouldn't imagine the law department would encourage the committee to go too overboard. After all, Owings et al could lose a lot of time on the front end researching how proposed policies could backfire on KC to create lawsuits--or worse, Owings could ultimately need to defend KC against those lawsuits.

Second, I would not expect to find any nepotism policy in either the existing Ethics Policy or an amended version that strictly forbade the hiring/appointing/electing of family members. I would only expect that a policy provided some guidelines for qualifying applicants.

If a policy strictly forbade family members, I would think that, sooner or later, a situation would arise in which the county entity hiring might be forced to hire some less-qualified applicant, rather than the family member applying. It seems that a scenario like that would create a high probablity of a lawsuit from the family member, affording him a claim of a discriminatory county hiring policy.

I welcome the new Ethics Policy, but the N-S has already carried a number of stories on the undue concerns of some public officials fearful of breaching it. As we learn more of the policy's particulars, I expect we'll find the guidelines are tempered with rationality.