Thanks, Bubba. I had a brief exchange with Huffman's PIO late last Friday in which a correction was demanded. I came down on the side of interpretation, having checked the phrasing before using it to drive home my point. Then Huffman wrote the letter. I considered it an honor that he was reading, and liked seeing him dig his way out of their twisted reasoning.

Huffman is a PR guy. To him, it's all message framing.

I was glad to see Pam ruffle some feathers...

This appears to be the language at 49-1-104(a) both before and after the formerly-proposed change:

Current language--

49-1-104. Maximum class size -- Waiver -- Split-grade classes.

(a) It is the intent of the general assembly that every LEA move expeditiously and promptly toward the goals established in this section, and to that end, neither the commissioner nor the state board of education shall grant waivers from the maximum class sizes established in this section. Every public local school system shall have as a policy that pupil-teacher ratios should not exceed the averages prescribed in this section. In no school building shall the average size of any grade level unit prescribed in this section exceed the stated average, though any individual class within that unit may exceed the average; provided, that no class shall exceed the prescribed maximum size. Click here to view image.

Formerly-proposed language in SB 2210--

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 49-1-104, is amended by deleting subsection (a) in its entirety and replacing it with the following:

(a) Every LEA shall have a policy prohibiting pupil-teacher ratios from exceeding the maximums prescribed in this section. In no school building shall the maximum class size of any grade level unit prescribed in this section exceed the stated number.

Grade Level Maximum Class Size
K-3 25
4-6 30
7-12 35
Career & Technical Education 25

I do see that the clause which specifically prohibited the commissioner or the state board of education from issuing any waiver as to maximum class size would have been dropped in SB 2210.

However, I also see that SB 2210 would have specifically instructed LEAs to adopt their own maximum class size standards which "in no school building," the bill read, could have exceeded the state-mandated maximums.

Personally, I do not see that the commissioner or the state board of education could have waived these state-mandated maximums under SB 2210 for three reasons:

1) While the authority to waive the local policy enacted was not prohibited of the two state offices, neither was it specifically granted of either office, and

2) no rationale would have existed for a LEA to approach either state office to seek an exemption from its own local policy, and

3) even if some rationale might have existed for a LEA to approach either state office to seek an exemption from its own local policy, the statute read that the stated maximums "shall" apply, not "may" apply.

Don't get me wrong--I didn't like the (retracted) proposal, either.

I just don't really see how, if the thing had passed, either the commissioner or the state board of education could have subsequently waived the changed maximums the bill would have implemented.

I realize that charter schools can apply for waivers of a good many statutes, BUT their ability to make such application is specifically granted in statute, here:

49-13-105. Statutes, rules and regulations.

(a) Public charter schools shall be part of the state program of public education.

(b) Except where waivers are otherwise prohibited in this chapter, the sponsor of a proposed public charter school may apply to either the LEA or to the commissioner of education for a waiver of any state board rule or statute that inhibits or hinders the proposed charter school's ability to meets its goals or comply with its mission statement. Neither the LEA nor the commissioner shall waive regulatory or statutory requirements related to:

(1) Federal and state civil rights;

(2) Federal, state, and local health and safety;

(3) Federal and state public records;

(4) Immunizations;

(5) Possession of weapons on school grounds;

(6) Background checks and fingerprinting of personnel;

(7) Federal and state special education services;

(8) Student due process;

(9) Parental rights;

(10) Federal and state student assessment and accountability;

(11) Open meetings; and

(12) At least the same equivalent time of instruction as required in regular public schools.

Really, it's because charter schools' ability to apply for waivers is specifically outlined in statute that I expect traditional schools' any ability to also be specifically outlined in the same manner?

Dunno if that's a reasonable expectation on my part, just saying that's the basis for my expectation.

I'm curious enough to want to make a call to the DOE to confirm or deny its reasonableness, though.

If I get through and get any definitive answer, I'll share here...

Just left a message with Legislative Liaison Emily Bale (Bail?) in Huffman's office to ask whether SB 2210 would have allowed "traditional" schools to request of the state an exemption from the max classroom size dictate, OR whether an exemption of this (or of any sort) may be afforded to a LEA only to the extent that the proposed bill or an existing statute specifically outlines the sorts of exemptions LEAs may request.

Even though this particular bill is dead for the session, it seems important to confirm our differing interpretations on this point going forward, so that we will better understand the implications of other bills under consideration later?

I'll report back any return call I get.

Afterthought: Could it be that the no-waiver language was removed ONLY so that charter schools (not "traditional" schools) could apply for waivers from the max class size dictates?

After all, that charter school statute I copied above says charters may apply for waivers except "where waivers are otherwise prohibited in this chapter?"

I'll ask that, too, if/when that gal calls back.

Tamara, I'm constantly impressed at your time and energy. I seem to always have just enough going on that I really don't have enough time to go that extra step. I can put in the amount of time that my pay justifies, but ...

Anyways, good deal on your time and energy.

I remember "deadline pressure," Pam, back in the days I had a job.

Fortunately or unfortunately, I don't have one anymore!

Ah well, it just seemed that maybe getting some clarification on these points (i.e., what is the consequence to either charter or "traditional" schools should this prohibition be lifted in the future, and/or may either type school routinely request waivers of statute if no such authority to make requests is specifically outlined in statute) might be helpful going forward.

This Emily Bell--it wasn't "Bale" or "Bail" either one--just called back, only to say that she is relatively new and can't answer my question(s).

She has offered to pass my inquiry on to her boss, Stephen Smith, but he's out of town until tomorrow aft.

I know Stephen, though he probably doesn't remember me, from his days as Legislative Analyst for the TN School Board Association.

Back when I served as Legislative Chair for Knox County Council PTA, and for a couple of school-level PTAs before that--Stephen was always a good source of authoritative info, so I'll expect clarification from him in the next few days, I guess.

(And let me add that I am also glad to learn Huffman et al are monitoring the public's response to their recommendations. Thanks for registering yours.)