S C H O O LC O N S O L I D A T I

O N:S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E

City of Nashville

City of Chattanooga

i

a report on the state’s consolidated city and county school systems

City of Knoxville

ii

S C H O O LC O N S O L I D A T I

O N:S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E

a report on the state’s consolidated city and county school systems

July 2001

Marcus D. Pohlmann, Ph.D.Joy A. Clay, Ph. D.

Kenneth W. Goings, Ph.D.

iii

iv

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

We wish to acknowledge the following individuals whose help proved instrumental to our efforts. Tamara Alston, Susan Schmidt, Drenda Tomlinson, Jennifer Keirce, Matt Williss, Naomi Long, and Robert Masters were outstanding research assistants. Bill Lyons, Roy Mullins, Bob Thomas, Steve Roberts, Sam Anderson, Sam Bratton, Gary Gordon, and Carolyn Smith were invaluable resource people in Knoxville; Janet Qualls, Janet Neal, and the Staff of History and Genealogy at the Hamilton County Library in Chattanooga; and George Cate, Annette Eskind, Marc Hill, Tracey Libros and Bill Wise in Nashville. We also wish to thank Audrey Smith for all her help and patience.

R E S E A R C H T E A M

The Research Team was contracted by Memphis City Schools, Johnnie Watson, Superintendent.

Marcus D. Pohlmann, Ph.D.Chair, Department of Political ScienceRhodes College2000 North ParkwayMemphis, Tennessee 38112(901) 843-3843

Joy A. Clay, Ph.D.Division of Public AdministrationSchool of Urban Affairs and Public PolicyThe University of MemphisMcCord HallMemphis, Tennessee 38152(901) 678-3359

Kenneth W. Goings, Ph.D.Chair, History DepartmentCollege of Arts and SciencesThe University of MemphisMitchell Hall

v

Memphis, Tennessee 38152(901) 678-2515

vi

C O N T E N T S

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

II. Part I: Nashville . . . . . . . . . . 10

III. Part II: Knoxville . . . . . . . . . . 65

IV. Part III: Chattanooga . . . . . . . . . . 112

0

S C H O O L C O N S O L I D A T I O N:I N T R O D U C T I O N

This introduction will be divided into six subsections. The first describes our charge by the Memphis Board of Education. The second explains our research focus. The third outlines some of the background context in terms of the consolidation phenomenon as studied elsewhere across the United States. The fourth provides this same background in terms of the state of Tennessee. The fifth presents several of the empirical dilemmas that make this type of study difficult and make many of the findings tentative at best. Finally, several of the most relevant laws are listed to provide additional context.

O U R C H A R G E

On February 19, 2001, the Memphis City Schools Board of Commissioners passed a “Resolution Calling for a Study of a Single School District in Shelby County.” As part of that review process, the resolution stated: “Be it, therefore, resolved that the Memphis City Schools Board of Commissioners directs the Superintendent and his staff to prepare the study previously requested by resolution in 1998, with data included regarding the merged districts in Davidson, Knox and Hamilton Counties . . .” We have conducted this study at the request of the Superintendent of the Memphis City Schools.

O U R F O C U S

We were asked to focus on school consolidation in the three other large metropolitan areas in the state. Nashville consolidated its city and county schools in 1962. Knoxville followed in 1987. Then, Chattanooga consolidated in 1997. Our task was to lay out the historical context for each of those mergers; describe the consolidation event itself; and then attempt to assess its impact in those cities. We were asked explicitly not to try to reach general conclusions about the overall wisdom of consolidation per se.

As for measuring impact, we focused our analysis on nine research questions we felt could best be addressed given available data. Those questions were:

1

Educational Quality

Did the quality of education improve?

We looked at such things as standardized test trends and percentage of teachers with B.A. and M.A. degrees; pupils per teacher; per pupil expenditures; suspension and expulsion rates; dropout rates; attendance rates; and magnet school history.

Was there educational disruption?

Here we considered developments such as school boundary changes;number of students involuntarily transferred; and additional bus transportation required.

Did consolidation create race or class “flight”?

To answer that we looked at such things as racial composition of the student body and racial concentration in individual schools; the desegregation success of magnet schools; percentage of the children receiving free or subsidized meals; percentage of the county students in private schools; population flight out of the county; and white flight out of the county.

Were there any indicators of increased racism in the consolidated schools?

We analyzed measures such as levels of segregation as well as racial differences in student suspension and expulsion rates.

What was the impact on teachers?

We considered such things as the effect on teacher salary averages and benefit packages, as well as whether teachers were involuntarily transferred.

How was school governance effected?

We looked at how consolidation altered school board size, pay, and demographics.

2

Educational Efficiencies

Were educational costs decreased?

We looked at trends across various measures of school spending.

Did taxes get raised?

We looked at trends in city and county tax rates.

Was efficiency increased?

To answer this question, we searched for such indices as pupils per central office administrators; and central office administration as a percentage of the total school budget; average school size; and individual school utilization (e.g. percent over-populated).

C O N S O L I D A T I O N T R E N D S : U N I T E D S T A T E S

As populations shifted, the number of school children grew, and school operating costs mounted, states and localities have at times looked to a combination of school closures and school system consolidations as a way of making ends meet. Since World War II, for example, the number of the nation’s school children doubled amidst the Baby Boom. Yet, at the same time, the number of school districts in the United States declined from 117,000 to roughly 15,000, while the number of schools were reduced from 185,000 to 85,000.1

School consolidation, however, has remained a controversial issue for more than a century.2 In the middle of the nineteenth century, Horace Mann was one of the first to advocate consolidating neighborhood schools under township control. The arguments then were similar to ones presented by James Conant a century later, and many continue to echo today. They included fiscal efficiency, professional leadership, equally distributed resources, and updated educational practices in the smaller districts.3

By the turn of the century, professional school administrators were increasingly supportive of the large and bureaucratic district model of governance. Yet, resistance to this model continued in many of the rural districts, where there was support for the existing smaller and more personally oriented schools as well as concern about losing local control.4 Nevertheless, assisted by advances in transportation, the more “urban” bureaucratic model began to proliferate in the

3

1930s and 1940s, spawning consolidation waves in most states between 1940 and 1980. In Nevada, for instance, the number of school districts shrunk from 177 to 17 (the number of counties) in a mere two-year period beginning in 1952.5

In terms of consolidation impact, the findings across the nation have been mixed. Consolidation is not usually followed by a marked decline in overall costs, at least not immediately; and several costs, like transportation, may well increase. Meanwhile, there is more flexibility as to how funds are spent across the larger district. Specialization can allow a broader array of curricular options as courses and facilities can be shared. Some central office administrators and some duplicate facilities can be eliminated and more extracurricular opportunities may be offered. Nevertheless, larger districts tend to be less personal; involve more red tape; remove teachers and principals further from district-level decision making; require more time in transit; and have lower attendance rates and higher dropout rates; while parental involvement and community support may wane some, too.6

C O N S O L I D A T I O N T R E N D S : T E N N E S S E E

The Tennessee constitution makes the state of Tennessee responsible for education; but, that is an administrative responsibility the state rather quickly delegated to its county governments. The 1817 Public Acts of Tennessee directed the county governments to appoint county school commissioners for that purpose.7

By 1830, the role of public schools had expanded; and the state provided for the establishment of “school districts of convenient size,” with those districts being governed by a popularly elected school board. The chairpersons of those school boards were then to elect a county school board to manage their finances.8 Six years later, the school district became the official administrative unit for the state’s public schools, and there were 987 such school districts in Tennessee’s 71 counties.9 By 1843, the school district commissioners were authorized to alter school district boundaries and even create new districts as needed.10

Following the Civil War, Tennessee schools were governed by a combination of administrative entities. Initially the 1867 reconstruction legislature created a three-tier governing structure. It consisted of the county, the civil district, and the subdistrict, each with its own elected officials and overseen by the respective county school superintendent. Some of the subdistricts were so small they contained only one school.11

4

Within six years, the state legislature enacted what came to be called the Parent Act. This act subdivided the county-level administrative role into three parts. The county superintendent continued to be the primary supervisor. But, the county executive became the chief financial officer, and the county commission served as the taxing authority. And, once again, the state returned to the concept of a “school district;” governed most immediately by the popularly elected board of school district directors.12 As the 20th century dawned, there were more than 3,000 such school districts.

Following the turn of the century, however, administrative control returned to the county governments. The roles of the county superintendent, county executive, and county commission remained the same, but it was now a county-level school board that governed the day-to-day operations of their county’s schools.13

Meanwhile, as industrialization spurred a growth of cities across the nation in the latter nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the needs and circumstances of city students gradually became distinguishable from those of their more rural counterparts. Thus, cities were granted state authority to maintain their own separate school districts under one of two circumstances. Either that authority was extended explicitly in the city’s charter; or, at least until 1925, state laws allowed municipalities to maintain their own separate school systems.14 When cities opted to maintain their own separate school districts, these districts operated independently of county control, although they did receive state and county funds through the county executive. Beyond that, the city school district would normally elect its own school board and superintendent, make its own financial decisions, develop its own curriculum, hire and fire its own teachers and administrators, and report directly to the State Department of Education.15

As for city-county school consolidation in Tennessee, the pace of such consolidation has been slower than in the nation as a whole. In 1960, for instance, there were 153 school districts in the state’s 95 counties, and that number would shrink by only 15 over the next four decades. Nevertheless, 138 remains below the national average number of school districts per state, even when controlling for population.16

E M P I R I C A L C H A L L E N G E S

There are numerous empirical challenges to studying the impact of a phenomenon such as school consolidation, let alone trying to compare such impact across school settings. We have listed several of these difficulties below.

It would be a simpler task to focus on the impact of consolidation on the county school system, rather than its impact on the city, as those are the records and

5

administrators currently most accessible. When school districts formally go out of business, school records can become destroyed, lost, or only haphazardly stored; the defunct district may have been especially lax about year-end reports their last year in business; and city school system employees become harder and harder to locate as time passes.

Existing records are often kept in separate offices within the school board and they are often warehoused in relatively inaccessible ways after a given number of years. In addition, even annual compilation of various records may not have occurred if it was not required by the state or federal governments.

Beyond year-end reports that were compiled, we were essentially left analyzing our cities with whatever information we were able to obtain, and thus the separate cities are often not completely comparable.

It is hard to assess the impact of consolidation on the city schools and former city school students when school boundaries have been redrawn. This makes it impossible to weigh the impact on any given school over time, as it really is not the same “school” in terms of student body.

Performance impacts are particularly difficult to assess, given that the city and county may well have used different achievement tests; different tests may have been used at different times within the respective city or county system; and, as noted immediately above, the redrawing of school zone boundary lines makes it impossible to do a reliable longitudinal study of any particular school.

There are several different ways indicators such as dropout rates have been calculated, e.g., event vs. cohort vs. census measures.

Many different measures of student enrollment have been used when making various calculations, e.g., total enrollment in September, total enrollment in May, average daily membership, average daily attendance; and all those measures as are further divided by either K-12 only or including all special programs as well.

Similarly, total school expenditures are measured many different ways, e.g., total current expenditures, total school system expenditures, total school operating expenditures, and so on.

There is also an inherent “softness” in any given year’s statistics. For example, in explaining a significant drop in ridership one year, a transportation head explained that it was the year they implemented a new computer network and some of the ridership just didn’t get reported, or there may have been over-reporting before.

6

It is particularly tough to measure consolidation impact when there are so many underlying historical events competing with it, e.g., new laws like “zero tolerance” effecting suspension and expulsion rates; the Better Education Program requiring increased expenditures to reduce student/teacher ratios; or population shifts independent of consolidation.

Lastly, it is hard to find an equivalent to the “Memphis Poll,” allowing calculation of public satisfaction with the schools over time.

R E L E V A N T L A W S

Private Acts of the 78th Tennessee General Assembly, 1955, chapter 113. Allows central cities to annex unincorporated surrounding areas without the approval of those being annexed.

Public Acts of the 80th Tennessee General Assembly, 1957, chapter 12. Authorized consolidation of most all governmental functions of municipal corporations and their counties, if those counties had at least 200,000 people.

TCA 49-2-1201. Equalization. It prohibits “any diminution in the level of educational services in the schools in any of the systems involved.”

TCA 49-3-306. Certification. State provides job protection for "certified" employees, meaning among other things that certified workers are not to be laid off as the result of something like consolidation.

TCA 49-6-4216. Tennessee’s “Zero Tolerance” Law. This reduced disciplinary discretion in the state’s public schools by establishing mandatory penalties for various offenses.

Tennessee’s “Better Education Program” (BEP). Adopted in 1992 to enhance funding for rural school districts. It funds schools according to Average Daly Attendance; specifies maximum class sizes; and mandates that all superintendents be appointed.

Tennessee’s Public School Law. Passed in 1957, it requires counties to distribute co-generated revenues equally among all school districts within the county.

The federal Educational Consolidation and Improvement Act PL97-35. Passed originally in 1965, it was replaced in 1982. It provides special funding and programs for schools with a high percentage of poverty-level students.

7

The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94-142), the 1973 Comprehensive Vocational Act, and the 1973 Americans with Disabilities Act, all govern special services that schools are to provide to students with handicaps.

8

S C H O O LC O N S O L I D A T I O N:N A S H V I L L E, T E N N E S S E E

a report on the state’s consolidated city and county school systems

Part I

July 2001

Joy A. Clay, Ph.D.Division of Public Administration

School of Urban Affairs and Public PolicyThe University of Memphis

McCord HallMemphis, Tennessee 38152

(901) 678-3359

9

10

C O N T E N T S – P A R T I

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

HistoryCounty Profile

Table 1. Race of School Aged Children in Davidson County, 1950-1990Table 2. Income Among Families with Children 18 Years and Younger in

Davidson CountyContext of Metropolitan Consolidation

Map 1. School Facility Locations in the Metro Nashville Public School System

II Nashville-Davidson County Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Local ContextTable 3. Popular Vote, Consolidation Referendum, Nashville and Davidson

County, Tennessee, June 17, 1958

Table 4. Popular Vote, Consolidation Referendum, Davidson County, Tennessee, June 28, 1962

Metropolitan IssuesTable 5. ExpendituresTable 6. School Buildings, Nashville, 1952Table 7. School Buildings, Davidson County, 1952

DesegregationTable 8. School Enrollment in Davidson County

III Consolidated Metro Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Metro CharterTable 9. Metro Government Serivces Districts, 2001Graph 1. Organizational Structure of Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson

CountyMetropolitan Mayor and CouncilMetropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Public Schools

Graph 2. Organization Structure, Mmetropolitan Nashville Public SchoolsTable 10. Metropolitan Public Schools, Number and type, 2001-2002Table 11. Teachers by Degree, 2000-2001 School YearTable 12. Pupil Progress Among Public School Students for Davidson

CountyTable 13. Profile of Current Davidson County SystemTable 14. System Indicators for Davidson County

11

Table 15. Customer Satisfaction, MNPS SchoolsTable 16. Private Schools in Nashville, Member of the Tennessee

Association of Independent SchoolsTable 17. Comparison of Racial Demographics, Nashville and Metro

SchoolsTable 18. Comparison of Student Eligibility to attend Academic Magnet

Schools, by RaceTable 19. Comparison of SAT College Entrance Exam Scores, MNPSTable 20. Comparison of Average/Mean SAT Scores, 1997-98Table 21. 2000 School System Report Card, Nashville-Davidson County School

System—Suspensions and Expulsions by Race and Gender

Table 22. School System Finances, Nashville-Davidson County, 1977-1993 (Dollar amounts in Thousands)

Table 23. Per Pupil Financial Data, Nashville-Davidson CountyTable 24. School System Report Card, Nashville-Davidson County School System Per Pupil

Expenditures and Average Teacher Salary Comparisons

IV Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

V Sources Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

12

S C H O O L C O N S O L I D A T I O N:N A S H V I L L E, T E N N E S S E E

a report on the state’s consolidated city and county school systems

I N T R O D U C T I O N

History

As part of the national territory originally settled by Cherokee Indians, Middle Tennessee was chartered by the English, claimed by the French, briefly considered under Spanish reign and finally adopted as legal U.S. land in 1796. The area serves as the division between the Cumberland Plateau and the lower Tennessee Valley. Located slightly north and west of the center of Tennessee, Nashville/Davidson County accounts for approximately one-tenth of the fertile Central Basin of Tennessee. Originally named “Nashborough” in honor of General Francis Nash, the frontier settlement’s name was officially changed to Nashville by an act of the North Carolina General Assembly in 1784. Davidson County, also named for a North Carolina officer who served in the Revolutionary War, was established in 1783. Nashville adopted the uniform charter, Tennessee Code Annotated, in 1806. As population growth in Middle Tennessee outpaced the eastern section of the state, Nashville gained in political power and became the state capitol from 1812-1817. Nashville became the permanent site of state government in 1826. Nashville also serves as the county seat of Davidson County.17

The economic boom, associated with WWII and the postwar era resulted in a significant outward population growth. A city historian, Professor Don Doyle, writes that “By 1960 the county population outside the city boundaries exceeded that of the central city. The automobile became commonplace among middle-class and blue-collar families by the 1950s, and the two-car family was on the rise.”18 Seeking the “good life” and fleeing from urban issues of crime, disease, and coal smoke pollution, he writes that suburbanites sought both social and physical distance from Nashville. Doyle argues that consequently, “The fundamental political problem of the post-Depression era was how to fashion a government that could provide adequate services and plan for the future development of a metropolitan community that was unified economically but artificially divided by political boundaries.”19 Through the support of political officials, civic leaders and citizen groups, local efforts coalesced around consolidation of the city and county governments as the solution. In a 1962

10

referendum, a majority of voters in each jurisdiction elected to consolidate the City of Nashville and Davidson County into a single governmental entity, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. This included the consolidation of both school systems into the Metropolitan Nashville Public School System.

County Profile

Geographic and Land Area

Located on the 687-mile Cumberland River, Davidson County’s geographic location makes it prime for economic development. The over five-hundred square mile territory is one of the most densely populated areas in the state. The County is part of the Nashville Basin, an oval-shaped depression that slopes northwest several hundred feet off the Highland Rim. This natural drainage system creates rolling farmland with foothills and pastures in the region, giving the area its nickname of the “Garden of Tennessee.” The elevation in the Basin ranges from 500 to 700 feet and the climate is humid and subtropical for most of the year.

Economic Base

The Nashville metropolitan area consumes the majority of the county and boasts a growing economy. Leading industries represented in the area are banking, insurance, printing and publishing, textiles and shoe manufacturing. Nashville is also well known for its music recording industry. The outer reaches of Davidson County are invested in agriculture pursuits, harvesting crops such as tobacco, barley and corn, as well as some cattle and dairy farms.

Demographics

Davidson County’s population is reported as 569,891 in the 2000 Census, showing an 11.6% increase since the previous decade’s Census. The area’s citizens are predominantly white (67%) and African-American (25.9%), with some Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American representation. The 1997 median household income in the county was $39,112, with 12.5% of households living below poverty level. The workforce is made up of 393,097 persons in non-farming establishments and 19,587 employed by the local government. The Nashville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) comprises over one million in population and includes eight counties: Davidson, Cheatham, Dickson, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson Counties. The Nashville Economic Market contains two additional Tennessee counties, Maury and Montgomery. Table 1 lists the racial composition of school age children in

11

Davidson County, from 1950-1990. Table 2 provides information regarding income levels, from 1950-1990.

Table 1. Race of School Aged Children in Davidson County, 1950-1990

Decade Age Category by Race5 to 9 Years Ten to 14 Years 15 to 19 Years

White Black Other White Black Other White Black Other1950 7,873 -- 3,780 7,039 -- 3,524 9,311 -- 4,291

1960 32,258 -- 8,331 28,480 -- 6,431 27,053 -- 5,971

1970 26,130 9,411 -- 34,526 1,006 -- 36,512 9,825 --

1980 50,415 11,705 547 55,893 11,922 519 63,436 15,910 648

1990 55,877 13,361 406 53,332 12,530 302 55,964 13,590 1,569

Source: U S Department of Census 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990

Table 2. Income Among Families with Children 18 Years and Younger

in Davidson County

DecadeIncome Category

Median Income (in dollars)

Total No. of Families at All Income Levels

Total No. of Families at Income Below Poverty

N % of All Income Levels

1950 $ 2,788 81,570

1960 $ 5,332 99,3021970 $ 9,187 139,0931980 $ 19,654 228,417 20,436 8.951990 $ 35,797 266,208 22,953 8.62

Source: U S Department of Census 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000

Context of Metropolitan Consolidation

In the first half of the twentieth century, political scientists generally were theoretically persuaded that “local governments should be consolidated into an areawide metropolitan government . . . that would be more efficient, effective, engage in better comprehensive planning, and deliver better and more uniform

12

public services.”20 However, very few municipalities actually consolidated; failed consolidation efforts of note included Cleveland, St. Louis, and Dayton. Stephens and Wikstrom, however, further observe that between 1950 and 1970, a large number of Southern and Western cities engaged in successful annexation of adjacent territory. Stephens and Wikstrom suggest that annexation in the South and West was facilitated by favorable annexation laws and the minimal number of already nearby incorporated suburban areas (in contrast to the East and Midwest where suburban incorporation was more prevalent). They further note that several cities achieved city-county consolidation, namely Baton Rouge (1947), Miami (1957), Nashville (1962), Jacksonville (1967), and Indianapolis (1969).21 They report that reform efforts to consolidate metropolitan governments, historically, have been financed by the business community and foundations. Further, these researchers note that during this time period almost every metropolitan area formed councils of government to promote local and regional cooperation, generally encouraged and supported by federal and state policy.22

Doyle suggests that efforts in the 1950s supportive of major annexation of suburban areas by Nashville and consolidation of Nashville and Davidson County governments failed because the recommendations came from outside academic consultants who did not the appreciate the local political context. Doyle writes:

The impulse for reform would have to come from within and from planners and politicians in the city and county governments, in league with representatives of business, labor, blacks, women, and academics. Reform would also require the unusual cooperation of both daily newspapers if it was to acquire the necessary public support.23

Stephens and Wikstrom, however, deduce from their research that metropolitan consolidation success, in general, was most likely to result from “unique political circumstances and service inadequacies.”24 Both assessments appear to accurately describe the context in which consolidation reform efforts evolved in Nashville/Davidson County.

13

Map 1. School Facility Locations in the Metro Nashville Public School System

Source: Metropolitan Planning Department of Nashville/Davidson County

N A S H V I L L E – D A V I D S O N C O U N T Y C O N S O L I D A T I O N

The subsequent analysis of the consolidation process of the City of Nashville and Davidson County is based upon a review of the literature, archived documents and reports related to the city-county consolidation and various interviews of knowledgeable informants. The unique political situation and governmental service delivery issues that appear to have led to consolidation of the City of Nashville and Davidson County included issues of personality, party politics, angry suburban reaction to annexation and a city-imposed wheel tax, public health concerns related to adequate sewers, demographic changes that portended a serious declining tax base in the central city, competing school systems in search of an adequate revenue base, economic development constraints caused by inadequate sewage and water supply systems, and concerns regarding adequacy of fire and police protection. The governmental reform efforts were lead primarily by local leaders from the business, academic, and political communities, although some political officials reversed their position

14

after the unsuccessful 1958 referendum and argued against metropolitan consolidation.

Local Context

The history of metropolitan consolidation can be traced back as early as 1915 when a study sponsored by the city commission recommended major annexation and city-county consolidation.25 The major impetus, however, awaited the 1950s. A 1951 non-partisan study by the Tennessee Taxpayers Association that advocated consolidation26 was quickly followed by a detailed study by the Community Services Commission for Davidson County and the City of Nashville (CSC). The CSC, which was established in 1951 by the General Assembly, was charged with making recommendations regarding the extension of urban services to the suburban communities in Davidson County. With assistance from officials from Nashville, Davidson County, Belle Meade and Berry Hill, the four utility districts of Davidson County, staff and students from Vanderbilt University and University of Tennessee, and various civic leaders, the CSC conducted more than 25 functional studies and held “a number” of public hearings to elicit citizen input regarding problems of the metropolitan area. The suburban study area focused upon by the CSC contained approximately 90,000 persons and nearly 69 square miles.27

Both area newspapers praised the 1952 CSC report but local politicians remained equivocal and local organizations did not come forward to promote the proposed reforms.28 A second study authorized by the Nashville and Davidson County Planning Commissions, Plan of Metropolitan Government for Nashville and Davidson County, was conducted by the Advance Planning & Research Division and released October 1956.29 Although the report presented eight alternatives, the Metropolitan Plan was clear that all but annexation and consolidation were unsatisfactory and piece-meal solutions to metropolitan ills.30 This report became the basis for the charter that was finally approved in 1962.

Doyle notes that following the 1953 state constitutional amendment facilitating consolidation, the leadership and strategy developed by the politically savvy Advance Planning & Research Division focused on annexation, short-term, with consolidation as the long-term goal. Further, their report reached a compromise position, that is, dual service districts, each with separate tax rates, but supervised by a single metropolitan government, lead by a mayor and 21 council members. The General Services District was to receive basic county services, including such services as school and roads; the Urban Services District was to provide the more complete, yet higher-taxed, urban services. Urban Services boundaries were to expand as water and sewer systems had capacity to serve new areas, thus linking services to taxation. The Advance Planning & Research

15

Division proposal also allowed the already incorporated suburban cities to continue to be independent until they voted to join the metropolitan government.31 The report also included a realistic timeframe for implementing the recommendations.

As outlined by the Advance Planning & Research Division, the first implementation step required legislation to allow major cities to form a single metropolitan government. This was accomplished in 1957. The next step was formation of a charter commission. The Charter Commission was formed in 1957. The two mayors, Judge Beverly Briley (county) and Mayor Ben West (city) appointed members to the Charter Commission. Doyle notes that the membership well-represented key stakeholders and interests in the community. Following public hearings and deliberations, the Charter Commission adopted what had been proposed earlier by the Metropolitan Plan, that is two service districts, with a mayor and 21-member council (15 elected by district and 6 elected at large). Doyle writes that the proposed charter generated widespread support, including the Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters, labor groups, Tennessee Taxpayers Association, Tennessee Municipal League, both city newspapers, and major political leaders.32

To support the efforts of the Charter Commission, various local organizations formed a Citizens Committee for Metro to conduct a community education campaign, including sponsored speakers and radio and television discussions. Further, newspapers bombarded “the public with stories, cartoons, and editorials extolling the virtues of the new charter as a solution to metropolitan ills.”33 Since proponents saw no serious opposition on the horizon, Doyle notes that they conducted no grassroots campaign. However, opposition did form. Doyle describes the Committee to Save Davidson County Government, as consisting of a variety of interests who felt threatened by the change, including suburban fire and police officers, non-reformist-minded politicians, suburban merchants, even bootleggers and gamblers, and a number of wealthy suburbanites. Initially, the opposition was relatively quiet; however, anti-metro forces waged a successful symbolic campaign the week before the 1958 special election, including full page newspaper ads, radio jingles, and door-to-door canvassing, raising the specter of higher taxes and a dictatorial concentration of power by big government.34

The Tennessee Constitutional Amendment and General Enabling Act required favorable votes in both jurisdictions. Opposition by voters in the county defeated the referendum. Booth suggests that voter turnout was a factor, that is, a light turnout in the city (22 percent of registered voters) relative to the higher turnout (43.9 percent of registered voters) in the county.35 Table 3 describes the votes for and against consolidation by area in Davidson County.

16

Table 3. Popular Vote, Consolidation Referendum, Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, June 17,

1958

For Against Percent in Favor

Urban (City of Nashville) 7,797 4,808 61.9Contiguous Suburban 11,130 10,065 52.5Noncontiguous Suburban 2,105 5,998 26.0Rural 555 3,727 14.9

Source: Daniel R. Grant, National Municipal Review, 1958, p. 399.

Booth’s interview of 18 city councilmen of Nashville and 45 magistrates of Davidson County’s Quarterly Court immediately prior to the referendum found that “local legislators had a poor and, sometimes, confused understanding of the full implications of consolidation but that many saw their political futures threatened.”36 Consequently, Booth asks whether local legislator support could have been increased with more involvement and more sensitivity to the personal consequences on legislators, especially on black legislators who feared a consolidation would diminish black political influence.

With the failure of the 1958 referendum, political consensus disintegrated. Mayor West viewed consolidation as a defunct initiative; however, the city revenue base remained problematic. What unfolded next raised the ire of suburbanites and laid the foundation for the subsequent successful consolidation referendum in 1962. Hoping to increase the tax base, the city quickly proceeded to annex three industrial areas adjacent to the city (for a total of seven square miles) by city ordinance and in August 1959 imposed a ten dollar annual wheel tax on all users of city streets.37

The county tried to revive the metro initiative. However, the city council rejected the idea in February 1960 (and again that following May). Instead, the city proceeded with further annexation by city ordinance. In April 1960, the city council voted to annex four large residential areas (42 square miles and 82,000 people). Although vetoed by Mayor West and overridden by the council, Doyle argues that suburbanites blamed the annexation personally on the Mayor, viewing it as a broken promise. Although the 1958 and 1960 annexations were upheld by the state supreme court, Doyle argues that suburbanites in the county felt that the wheel tax resulted in taxation without representation and annexed suburbanites were angry about paying city taxes while not receiving city services. Proponents of consolidation were consequently able to use anti-West vote to

17

generate support for a new referendum. Going around the city, consolidation proponents pressed the Davidson County delegation to sponsor a private act enabling formation of a charter commission for Nashville and Davidson County, upon approval by city and county majorities, respectively. Doyle writes that the August 17, 1961 referendum to form a second charter commission was preceded by less publicity, had light voter turnout, but received strong majority support.38

Although the charter that resulted from this second effort was basically the same as the 1958 proposed charter, Doyle reports that the 1962 Charter Commission held 75 meetings, countless subcommittee meetings, and numerous public hearings in six months, with “every phrase and comma of the 1958 charter discussed.” However, he notes that controversy heated over a proposal to elect school board members and an amendment that would allow the board to call for a public referendum if the council did not adequately fund the proposed school budget. One significant change from the charter proposed in 1958, however, was the proposal to expand the council to 41 members, with 35 elected by district and five at large and an elected presiding vice-mayor. Doyle argues that this was a compromise to make charter politically palatable to as many neighborhoods as possible, especially for black politicians who were concerned about not reducing their influence. In addition, Doyle notes that the compromise would “assure blacks of continued, even increased, representation” and that subsequently councilmanic districts were drawn to almost guarantee blacks six seats on the new council. Further provisions required adjustment of district boundaries to respond to changes found by the federal census each decade to continue to assure adequate representation.39

The political strategy for the second referendum effort was markedly different. Learning from their failed attempt in 1958, Doyle argues that reformers moved from the “high road of consensus and community education” to a highly politicized and personalized campaign. Financed by the publisher of the Tennessean, Citizens for Better Government became the steering group for an aggressive grassroots campaign, including 5,000 canvassers, door-to-door dissemination of information, and arranging speakers for neighborhood coffees and public meetings. The pro-metro forces made special efforts to reach black voters, enlisting black civic and academic leaders to reach out to their neighborhoods. Supporters tried to counter citizens’ fears by promoting the benefits of consolidation and focusing on the promise of better schools especially to gain women’s support. Changing from his prior support for consolidation, Mayor West fought back, enlisting city employees, loyal city council members, police and fire department officers and their wives. Opponents to the formation of a single metropolitan government charged that it was untested, probably unconstitutional, and a “false panacea for imagined ills.” Doyle reports that the opposition also attracted an odd assortment of right wing extremists who linked

18

the proposal to states’ rights and the desegregation struggles and those who saw big government as a communist plot.40

Table 4. Popular Vote, Consolidation Referendum, Davidson County,

Tennessee, June 28, 1962

For Against Percent in Favor

City of Nashville (including recently annexed areas)

21,064 15,599 57

County (outside Nashville) 15,914 12,514 56

Source: Booth, Metropolitics: The Nashville Consolidation, 1963, 87-88.

Opposition to consolidation was strongest in poor white and black neighborhoods and in the old city wards loyal to the Ben West political organization, but heavy voter turnout in the newly annexed areas (over 45 percent) created an avalanche of support for consolidation (72 percent voted in favor of consolidation). Table 4 summarizes the popular vote results. Thus, in contrast to the failed attempt in 1958, the highly politicized and well-publicized grassroots pro-Metro effort in 1962 was successful and able to fend off a highly organized opposition.41 Suburban officials from Forest Hills and Belle Meade and a black city councilman filed a legal suit challenging the constitutionality of the new charter. Chancery Court denied the lawsuit, as did later the Tennessee Supreme Court in October 1962.42

Thus, personality, party politics, and reformist pressures helped to create the political context of consolidation in Nashville-Davidson County. A window of opportunity for supporters of metropolitan government closed in 1958 but was successfully reopened in 1962. However, the reformist campaign for annexation and consolidation required perseverance, knowledge and sensitivity to local politics, broad-based support, and public belief that metropolitan government would provide more efficient and effective services.

The new metropolitan government was formed on schedule, changing from a city of 73 square miles with a population of 171,000 to a new entity that consisted of 508 square miles and over 400,000 people.43 The city consequently gained national visibility as a progressive municipality. The promised city services were successfully extended to the suburban areas. Two years later a voter opinion survey found that approximately 60% of respondents were positive about Metropolitan government (24% not satisfied, 16% undecided or no answer).44

19

The high positive marks included an 80% satisfaction rate for respondents living in the “old city” areas that had not supported consolidation. Daniel Grant, a key personality in the consolidation efforts, suggests that Nashville-Davidson County consolidation escaped the frustrations and paralysis experienced in other metropolitan consolidations because the state courts had been surprisingly sympathetic, the new government did not face a succession of crippling amendments, the Metro Mayor was a seasoned political leader and had stable cadre of executive leaders, and the transition period, even with the attendant bureaucratic confusion, was able to retain high levels of public approval.45 In the almost forty years since consolidation, there have not been any efforts to dismantle the arrangement.

Metropolitan Issues

The public policy issues and service delivery concerns more directly affecting pressures on the city and county school systems reported by the Community Services Commission and Planning Commissions are described below, with a focus on those issues most directly affecting the city and county public schools. Although important, other issues, such as adequacy of fire and police protection, related more to consolidation of the overall city and county governments are only discussed very summarily.

The Community Services Commission (1952) and the Planning Commissions (1956) concluded that the City should both annex the suburban study area and consolidate city and county governments.46 The Community Services Commission (1952) expressed these conclusions in strong language as reflected in the recommendation section of their report regarding annexation and governmental consolidation:

Annexation of Suburban Nashville: Nashville cannot hope to grow, nor can it safely expect to hold its own, while obsolete City limits, exclude over 90,000 urban dwellers and constitute a paralyzing strait-jacket on the community’s economic progress. . . .County Responsibility for County-Wide Functions: In Davidson County, where over 90 percent of the population is accounted for by the urban area, the City and County both should not be engaged in performing functions which are clearly county-wide activities. The Commission recommends the assumption by Davidson County of all functions which are county-wide in character, making the County exclusively responsible for public health services, hospital care for indigents, public schools, and public welfare.47

In the cover letter to the people of Davidson County, the report from the Advance Planning and Research Division (1956), similarly presented their strong support for consolidation and annexation:

20

It is the firm conviction of the Commissioners that the Nashville Metropolitan Area stands at the threshold of a future which can bring into reality the many things we want for our community. We feel that positive action on this Plan of Metropolitan Government is mandatory for the continued growth and sound development of this total area. If inaction or unfortunate delay interferes with the judgement of the people, our community will suffer and the bright prospects the future hold for the Nashville Metropolitan Area will be lost. The key to achieving these accomplishments efficiently and economically is the decision the people will make concerning the governmental organization and form for our metropolitan area.48

Of most serious policy concern were sewage services. According to the analysis by the Community Services Commission the geology of the area added to the economic development issues faced by developers and homeowners in Davidson County. The rocky conditions of the land (limestone rock ranged from 0-50 feet below the surface) resulted in more costly building of basements, water lines, sewer lines, and gas mains. The area had been divided into over thirty drainage areas. The CSC viewed this high level of fragmentation of drainage districts as complicating provision of an adequate sewage collection system. Winter’s abundant rainfall and consequent flooding was seen as further complicating the suburban area’s reliance on septic systems, resulting in both a public health threat, as well as a public nuisance from the unwholesome smell.49 As with sewage services, inadequate water supply services affected the county’s ability to site and build new schools.50

Population shift outward was predicted by the Community Services Commission to continue, exacerbating the problems of funding urban services. The Community Services Commission reported that one half of the 40 census tracts in the city had lost population in the past ten years and that ten of the downtown census tracts had lost population continuously since 1930. The CSC further noted that “Nashville is being deserted—a good share of it—as a place to live and becoming increasingly a place to work.”51

Further compounding these issues were the existence of fringe cities, a metropolitan phenomenon, that the Commission perceived as problematic for other cities and that warranted heading off. The Commission complained that services were made available from Nashville at little or no cost to suburbanites, including streets traveled to and from work, police protection while in the city, use of park and other recreational facilities, and use of airport facilities. Although the county provided some public services, the Commission complained that these costs were also born by city taxpayers, including county schools and police protection from the Sheriff’s office. The CSC report further complained that the

21

city’s support of the General Hospital was unfair to city taxpayers in that the city was funding a community-wide service.52

Before 1950, only Belle Meade, a wealthy suburb, had incorporated (1938). In 1950, Doyle reports that Berry Hill, a lower middle-class and blue-collar community, incorporated to “avoid annexation and keep taxes low.” By 1952, residents of Oak Hill, a wealthy suburb, also voted to incorporate. Fearing that suburban “isolationism” would grow, reformers viewed consolidation and annexation as a way to head off what was seen as the negative consequences of metropolitan fragmentation.53

The significant population growth in the suburbs had also resulted in direct pressures on the county’s school system. Since the county school system was no longer distinctly rural, the Community Services Commission argued that it was no longer justifiable to have school children in different parts of the same metropolitan community experiencing different standards, qualities, and policies. The Community Services Commission noted “New residents of the County area have been unwilling to get by with a make-shift school system consisting of tents, barracks, and overworked teachers.”54 Population shifts were reflected in the declining enrollments in the city school system. To illustrate, enrollment in the city schools had declined from 28,621 in 1940-41 to only 24,872 in 1950-51. Conversely, county school enrollment had increased in the same period from 17,745 (1940-41) to 24,984 (1950-51). Although city school enrollment had declined, the Community Services Commission further noted that inflation and program improvements had resulted in significantly increasing non-capital outlay expenditures over annual expenditures ten years earlier. 55

Table 5. Expenditures

Nashville City Schools Davidson County Schools

Ordinary Funds

Capital Outlay Ordinary Funds

Capital Outlay

1941 – 42 $1,421,352 $21,815 $1,160,322 $783,7631950 – 51 $4,245,924 $527,837 $3,713,115 $2,884,915Ten year total from 1941 – 42 to1950 – 51

$4,145,039 $8,392,605

Source: Community Services Commission, 1952, p. 124

In contrast to the county, the Community Services Commission noted that the City had been able to remodel or replace older buildings over time. Annual city school capital expenditures from 1940-1949 tended to be modest, ranging from a low of $15,244 in 1948-49 to a high of $331,707 in 1940-41. As illustrated in

22

Table 5, however, total county school capital outlays from 1941-42 to 1950-51 were almost double that of the city school system.56

Inequities in the distribution of tax revenue used to support public education were a source of concern to the Commission. In 1950-51, the Community Services Commission reported that the city school system relied primarily on three sources of revenue: state aid, city property tax, and the city’s share of the county’s elementary school tax based on average daily attendance. In 1951, the city’s share of this county tax accounted for 36.6 percent of the total school revenue.57 The Commission noted that “The City of Nashville does not share in the proceeds of the County high school tax levy, even though residents of the City of Nashville pay a generous share of the tax” and thus the city taxpayer had to support two high school systems.58 County property tax accounted for 61.5% of the county school revenue. A separate elementary and high school county property tax levy was fixed by the County Quarterly Court; the practice of which was deemed by the Commission to be a needless budgetary complication.59 If annexation were to be implemented, the Commission argued that there would be an even greater demand to share the high school tax, as the unshared tax would be spent entirely within an area having less than 18% of the county’s population.60 To further substantiate their position advocating school consolidation, the Commission noted that 30 of the 76 county school buildings were located in the immediate suburban area. Similarly, the Commission reported that almost 60% of school children attended schools in the nearby suburban area.61

Another public school issue of concern described by the Community Services Commission included the possibility of a growing number of vacant classrooms in the city school system. This problem was in sharp contrast to the insufficient classroom space, especially elementary, for school children in Davidson County. Adding to the challenge facing the county school system in meeting enrollment demands, school construction in the fringe areas was negatively impacted by the inadequacy of the current water supply and sewage disposal systems. Although the county had apparently implemented some of the recommendations from the Peabody Survey conducted in 1949 which called for consolidation of small elementary schools, the ability of the county’s school system to respond to continued increased population pressures was of concern to the Community Services Commission.62

23

Table 6: School Buildings Table 7: School Buildings,

Nashville, 1952 Davidson County, 1952 j

Type of School Number of Buildings

Type of School Number of Buildings

Elementary Elementary White 29 White 50 Black 10 Black 15* Total 39 Total 65

High High White 6 White 10 Black 1 Black 1 Total 7 Total 11

Total Buildings 46* Total Buildings 76**

Due to the lack of classroom space in the county schools, the ratio of pupils between the city and county school systems was found to be disparate: an average of 26 pupils per teacher in the city as compared to the county’s average of 31.5. Averages were believed to be misleading because there were a large number of classes with enrollments of 40 or more. The 1949 Peabody Survey was reported to have found average size in white elementary schools to be 41 (with 45% of teachers teaching more than 40 pupils and13% teaching more than 50). The Tennessee State Board specified a standard class size of 30. Although the report notes that the teaching staff had been expanded in the county from 533 to 893, the Community Services Commission believed the student-teacher ratio to be of continuing concern.63

Source: Community Services Commission, 1952, p. 125

* This is three less than in 1940. The report notes that all school buildings were brick except Hume-Fogg High School which was built of stone and Clifton Elementary, a black school, which was frame.

j Source: Community Services Commission, 1952, p. 125-6

* In 1949, there were 27 black elementary schools, all but two were one- and two-teacher schools. In contrast, this was true for only five of the white elementary schools.

** The report also notes that county school buildings were “comparatively young.” In 1949, 84% of white elementary schools were less than 26 years old; 83% of black elementary schools were less than 27 years old; and 82% of all high schools were less than 22 years old.

24

The Community Services Commission report also noted that the County School Board appeared reluctant to authorize expenditure of large sums of money for capital outlays in suburban areas likely to be annexed by the city. The report noted that “This reluctance to build school buildings which might soon become part of the City school system tends to result in various stop-gap measures not in harmony with the best planning of the overall school program for the community. It further tends to cause the County to look at new schools farther out from Nashville’s city limits than would occur if the whole urban area was under a single school system.”64

The Community Services Commission argued that there were numerous advantages to consolidating the two school systems, including:

1) Formation of a single unity of purpose and direction;2) Fiscal equalization and improvement of education standards across the

entire area;3) Planning without regard to arbitrary boundaries;4) Equalization of pay scales to positively affect morale;5) Creation of a larger student population base to facilitate more

specialization of the curriculum and a wider range of courses;6) Expanded and improved vocational high school;7) Provision of special opportunities for all students;8) Establishment of uniform policies to lessen difficulties faced by transferring

students;9) Elimination of the “bickering” over school funds;10)Distribution of the tax burden fairly;11)Improvement of the case work services provided by the Visiting Teacher

Program; and12)Creation of savings from centralized purchasing and elimination of

duplicate administrative staffs, office space, and maintenance personnel and facilities.

Additional educational benefits of school consolidation suggested by the CSC consisted of areas that would make the unified system more efficient and effective operationally, including: elimination of duplicated specialized programs, improved coordinated planning, provision of a unified curriculum responsive to the needs of students transferring from one system to the other, and overall efficiencies in administrative support functions. 65

The Community Services Commission does commend the efforts by the city and county to foster co-operative arrangements. For example, county students were allowed to attend either of the two of the city’s vocational high schools as space was available, at no expense. The CSC, however, concluded that such

25

arrangements provided only stop-gap measures.”66 Further, the Commission argued that:

the financial economies which might result from a merger of the two school systems are generally greatly exaggerated. Actually, both systems are large enough to operate with relative efficiency, especially when compared with other school systems in Tennessee. Although some economies would undoubtedly be made possible by consolidation, this should not be considered one of the more important or even one of the certain advantages of consolidation.67

Although the Plan of Metropolitan Government, October 1956, prepared by the Advance Planning & Research Division (AP&RD) did not detail all of the metropolitan issues as extensively as the CSC report, the issues still remained: inadequate sanitary sewer system, public fire and police protection, street lighting, roads, sanitation collection, water supply, and recreational program. Clearly speaking to the suburbanites in the county, the AP&RD report complained that there was an absence of most other urban services, or that services were offered only on a private subscription basis, received from the City at a higher cost than inside the City, or received from the County at standards much lower than accepted urban standards. The report argued that there was no existing government structure to deal with area-wide problems, such as crime, juvenile delinquency, crowded schools, traffic congestion, fire protection, or water supply. Moreover, the AP&RD argued that having separate county and city governments was wasteful duplication, divided the loyalties of community leaders, and dispersed and dissipated citizens’ control of government since it was not clear who had official responsibility and authority. 68

Similar to the Community Services Commission, the Advance Planning & Research Division (AP&RD) argued four years later that there were important benefits of metropolitan consolidation and that there was urgency in acting if the community were to realize these benefits. Consolidation was argued to offer the following benefits: unified community-wide actions, clear cut authority for policies and actions; a governmental structure that was more economical and efficient, establishment of a jurisdiction, not just for the current urban developed area but also responsive to future growth, financing on a more equitable, simplified and sound basis, and the generation of favorable nationwide recognition. The AP&RD suggested, “Nothing would help Nashville and Davidson County so much in bidding for new businesses and industries as the ability to point to the Plan of Metropolitan Government as an indication of a progressive community.”69 The AP&RD proposed that there would be no immediate change regarding school consolidation, and charged the charter commission with developing an acceptable plan, noting that the plan should reassure city and county school employees that they would not be adversely affected.70

26

Desegregation

In their insightful book, The Burden of Busing: The Politics of Desegregation in Nashville, Tennessee, Pride and Woodard describe the complex history of desegregation and busing in Nashville. On September 23, 1955, Robert W. Kelley and 21 other plaintiffs filed suit to end public school segregation in Nashville (Kelley v. Board of Education). In March 1956, Judge William E. Miller ordered the city schools to desegregate. Kelley’s court suit resulted in the “Nashville Plan,” a staged, grade-a-year program for desegregation that started in the first grade (1957) and was scheduled for full compliance by 1968. In November 1960, Davidson County Public Schools were ordered to follow the same grade-a-year plan. With consolidation, the Metropolitan Board of Education called for desegregation for all twelve grades by 1966-67.71

School location became a contentious issue in Nashville as suburbanites left the older downtown school facilities to black children. In 1969, the original plaintiffs of the Kelley suit filed a brief before the U.S. District Court complaining about inequitable school construction and how the slow pace of desegregation had allowed whites to move to the suburbs, essentially re-segregating the school system. Late that year, Judge Miller of the District Court enjoined the board from proceeding with school construction or purchasing new sites until a plan could be developed that would maximize integration.72 However, in 1970, Judge Miller ordered the school board to submit a plan to desegregate the staff and students and identify how construction would enhance desegregation. Although the board presented an initial staff desegregation plan, they received permission for more time to plan further integration. The Supreme Court holding on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, April 1971, however, supported busing as the means to assure racial assimilation and laid the foundation for busing in Nashville. In August 1971, consequently, the school board was mandated to implement busing, per Judge Morton of the District Court. Busing began in September 1971.73

In the 1970s, white enrollment in schools ordered to desegregate decreased 53%, compared to a decrease of only 13% for schools not under the order (court-ordered schools were 40% black compared to 9% black for non-court-ordered schools). Doyle further notes that private school enrollment grew from almost 8,000 in 1969 to almost 15,000 by 1972, with seven new private schools organizing in 1971.74 Table 8 describes school enrollment trends for public and private schools in Davidson County, 1950-1990.

Table 8: School Enrollment in Davidson County

27

DecadeEnrollment

Public Private Total

N % N % N %1950n 35,585 100

1960n 74,836 90.08 8,242 9.92 83,078 100

1970 117,630 90.53 12,301 9.47 129,931 100

1980 151,304 87.81 21,006 12.19 172,310 100

1990 143,901 88.17 19,299 11.83 163,200 100

Source: U S Department of Census 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000n Years prior to consolidation. Numbers shown are total figures for County and City school systems.

One hundred schools were under the court order; thirty-three were exempt (zone D) as they were considered to be located so far from the urban core that busing was considered to be impractical. The Nashville-Davidson County busing plan attempted to limit busing in grades 1-4. These children were assigned to suburban schools, grades 5-6 were placed in older black community schools. The goal was to have black children account for approximately 25% of each school in the court-ordered area. Doyle writes that some neighborhoods accepted the plan; however, the outlying schools “became havens for white parents trying to avoid busing. The court order had anticipated this white flight and sought to limit it by prohibiting new construction or the use of portables at such facilities.”75

In contrast to parental perceptions, Pride and Woodard conclude that busing had no meaningful negative effect on academic achievement for Metro’s school children. They write:

Indeed the rising achievement scores of most children over the years suggest that the constant pressures on teachers, stimulated by the stresses of busing, may have been a factor in the improved scores . . . Schools were encouraged to develop a variety of programs to meet children’s individual needs; individualized learning programs and ability groupings were authorized and bore fruit.

However, Price and Woodard also found that 20% of children scored lower in 1979 than in 1975; parents tended to blame busing for the decline. Although black children’s achievement test scores improved, Price and Woodard found that the achievement gap between blacks and whites remained substantial and conclude that busing had not ended many of the racial inequities in the schools.76

In 1978, newly appointed District Court Judge Wiseman agreed to reopen Kelley et al. v. Metropolitan County Board of Education. Holding that the existing

28

desegregation plan had encouraged white flight, and, consequently had resulted in de jure segregation, Judge Wiseman demanded that the board develop a new unitary plan for the entire county.77 After much contention and court involvement, a negotiated plan that incorporated pairing and cluster arrangements was contained in a consent order April 1983.78

In 1998, the school system developed a Pupil Assignment Plan, although commonly called the School Improvement Plan, which resulted in the federal court absolving the school system from the many restrictions that had been imposed due to implementation of desegregation. The system’s unitary status is considered a major accomplishment. The consulting company who completed an extensive performance audit of the school system, MGT of America, Inc. notes that: “The Mayor, Board of Education, Director of Schools, and other parties are acutely aware of the established requirements to maintain unitary status.” As summarized in the MGT report, these provisions include the following conditions: goals, rationale, and principles including a three-tiered structure and feeder patterns, as immutable factors. The report also notes that seven additional factors are considerations for the Improvement Plan: demographic diversity, educational needs of students, facilities, transportation, continuity in zones, choice, and community involvement. Pupil assignment to schools comprise three components, that is, zoned schools with consistent feeder patterns, optional schools/programs, and other special programs. The School Improvement Plan must also include a description of school zones and cluster feeder patterns, and a five-year capital plan with budget and timeline.79

According to Dr. Tracy Libros, Director, Student Assignment Services, MNPS, school zones will now have consistent feeder patterns and grade structure configurations. Children in elementary schools will stay together as they progress to middle school. The MNPS now use ArcView, a Geographic Information System, to assist in determining school district boundaries.

C O N S O L I D A T E D M E T R O G O V E R N M E N T

Although the first referendum (1958) on metropolitan consolidation was unsuccessful, the people of Nashville and Davidson County approved a proposed charter to establish the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in a referendum held June 28, 1962. The consolidation of Nashville and Davidson County was the first successful city-county consolidation in Tennessee. The first metropolitan government officials were to be elected in November 1962 with the consolidated government becoming effective the first Monday in April 1963 when the elected mayor and 40-member Metropolitan County Council would take office. A nine-member school board was to be

29

appointed by the mayor and confirmed by a two-thirds vote of the Council. The School Board members were to be selected from each of nine districts. The district groupings of the councilmanic districts were specified in the charter.

The consolidation of the City of Nashville and Davidson County has lasted for almost 40 years with no apparent effort to separate the jurisdictions. The proposed metropolitan charter accepted in 1962 has also been stable. Of interest, the first revision to the charter did not occur until 1980 when voters determined to have an elected school board rather than continue an appointed board.

In his assessment following consolidation, Grant, a supporter of consolidation, suggests that in its first two years unified political responsibility appeared to make it easier for citizens to know who to call or see, efficiencies from reduced duplications resulting in some economies had begun to be realized, countywide equalization of services had been initiated, city-county financial inequities had been eliminated and thus was more fairly distributed, and Nashville had gained national visibility as a progressive community.80 Doyle suggests that even though taxes increased after consolidation as the budget climbed from $60 million to $243 million between 1962 and 1975 and water and sewer rates increased, Nashvillians appeared to be pleased with the improvements in services, re-electing Mayor Beverly Briley in 1966 and 1971.81 Doyle argues persuasively that consolidation created a favorable climate for economic development. Davidson Metro was able to develop an aggressive and successful team of officials to lobby the federal government for grants, so that by the early 1970s, Metro ranked well above competing cities for federal funds. Doyle argues “Nashville enjoyed an edge over rivals because its consolidated government ensured a coherent governmental structure and monitoring system for carrying out federal programs.”82

In a 1968 article about the merger of city and county in Nashville, a reporter writes glowingly about the success of the consolidation, noting that:

Before consolidation, city and county schools were separate—and different. Generally, the city’s schools were superior. Consolidation has permitted the area to develop and improve its school system unhampered by political boundaries and other governmental restrictions. Numerous new schools have been constructed, faculties have been strengthened, and class sizes have been reduced. During the first four years of consolidation, the average expenditure per pupil in the area jumped from $293 to $410.83

Similarly, Fillebrown applauded the positive consequences of consolidation. He suggested that if Metropolitan Nashville had not been approved, the tax rate in

30

Nashville would have been increased by at least $.50 and perhaps a $1.00 (tax rate in old city in 1960 was $5.33 and in 1968 it was $5.30). He notes that property tax in Memphis and Knoxville increased nine percent and Chattanooga 37 percent in the same time period.84 An 1971 article in Business Week reported that Nashville had changed from having the highest tax rate in the state to now having one of the lowest. The article further reported that the end of the “bickering” between the city and county had resulted in improved business confidence to the central city, eased race relations, improved public services, revitalized the downtown and boasted a growing economy.85

Metro Charter

Article 1, Sec. 1.01, Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee established the consolidated metropolitan government:

The governmental and corporate functions now vested in the City of Nashville, a municipal corporation created by Chapter 246, Private Acts of 1947, and amendments thereto, are hereby consolidated with the governmental and corporate functions of the County of Davidson, such consolidation being pursuant to constitutional power granted by article XI, section 9 of the Constitution of Tennessee, as amended, and in conformity with section 7-1-101 et seq. of Tennessee Code Annotated, as amended. Said consolidation shall result in the creation and establishment of a new metropolitan government to perform all, or substantially all, of the governmental and corporate functions previously performed by the county and by the city, to be known as “The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,” herein sometimes called “the metropolitan government.” The metropolitan government shall be a public corporation, with perpetual succession, capable of suing and being sued, and capable of purchasing, receiving and holding property, real and personal, and of selling, leasing or disposing of the same to the same extent as other governmental entities. (Res. No. 88-526, § 1, 10-4-88)

As proposed in the 1962 referendum, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County continues to be divided into two districts. The General Services District (GSD) is synonymous with Davidson County; the Urban Services District comprises the central city and areas added since Metro was formed (the Opryland area was temporarily removed from the USD until 2004). As initially planned, the GSD receives base level services, with a property tax rate that funds this level of service. The USD receives more services, funded by a higher tax rate.

31

Table 9. Metro Government Services Districts, 2001

General Services District Urban Services District

Size 533 square miles 169 square miles

Population (1990 Census)

510,784 371,500

Services General government, financial management, schools, justice administration, law enforcement & incarceration, basic fire & ambulance, regulation & inspection, social services, health, hospitals, libraries, public works, traffic control, recreational & cultural

GSD services plus additional police protection, additional fire protection, and additional public works (refuse collection and street lighting)

Source: FY 2002 Recommended Operating Budget, Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, Overview, p. 2

Graph 1. Organizational Structure of Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County

Source: Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, FY2002 Recommended Budget, Overview, 3.

Metropolitan Mayor and Council

32

Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County Government has a “strong-mayor” form of government, with the mayor acting as the chief executive of metro operations. In 1999, Mayor Bill Purcell became the fifth mayor of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. Continuing a tradition started by Mayor Briley one year after consolidation and similar to Mayor Briley, Mayor Purcell described the state of Metro as good and the future as bright. Regarding his educational promises, Mayor Purcell noted that the largest part of the metropolitan budget is education and pointed to his support for higher standards, better performance, and completing a $206 million school construction program.86

According to Article 3, Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, legislative authority is vested in the metropolitan county council. The council has a total membership of forty members, including five (5) councilmen-at-large, and thirty-five (35) district councilmen. Members serve for a four-year term and receive $300 per month. Council members must be at least 25 years old and have been a resident of the metropolitan area for at least one year (six months in the district, continuing district residence during the term of office). One of the informants noted the Council was able to work effectively, even given its large size due to its very formalized committee structure.

Fourteen members of the Metropolitan Council serve on a Metropolitan Council Education Committee. This committee acts as a clearinghouse for school system issues to be considered by the Council. In the last year, the Education Committee, in conjunction with the School Board, held public meetings to elicit input from citizens about the school system.87

Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Public Schools

The approved charter provided for the existing County and City School Boards to continue to administer, control, and operate their respective school system temporarily until their authority sunset July 31, 1962. A “Transitional School Board” of nine members was to be appointed to oversee the Metropolitan School System from August 1, 1962 until June 30, 1964. Three members were to be selected by the Davidson County Board of Education (those selected were to have been members of the Davidson County Board of Education prior to the termination of that Board) and; three members were to be chosen by the City of Nashville Board of Education (and, similarly, to have been members of that Board prior to August 1, 1962); the three remaining board members were named specifically in the charter. During the transitional two-year period, the

33

Transitional Board was charged with operating two separate systems “in the same manner as the two systems were operated prior to the adoption of the new charter.” The Transitional Board was also charged with implementing a comprehensive survey of both school systems. Both Superintendents continued to serve as Superintendents of their respective units coordinating the transition and implementation of consolidation.88 Consolidation resulted in changing the county’s two-tier structure to the city’s three-tier system, elementary, middle (for seventh through ninth grades), and senior high schools. 89

Article 9, Section 9.01, of the Metropolitan Charter establishes the public school system for Nashville and Davidson County. Section 9.04 enables the Board to call for a referendum election if two-thirds majority of the entire board believe the operational budget to be insufficient and inadequate. 90 Regarding protecting teachers in the conversion to a metro system, Section 9.06 preserves and protects pension rights and benefits of city and county school employees, Section 9.07 calls for the establishment of an actuarially sound pension and retirement plan for teachers, allowing the city and county teachers to transfer to the new system, and Section 9.08 protects the tenure rights of county and city teachers. Section 9.14 transfers all school property owned by Davidson County and the City of Nashville to the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.

A group of citizens, the Committee for Elected School Board, collected enough signatures to call for a referendum in 1980. The referendum was successful, achieving a 56% majority. Consequently, the first school board election took place in 1982. Pride and Woodard ascribe the impetus for this shift to an elected school board as an attempt to force the school board to be more responsive to majority public opinion opposing busing.91

Currently, the Metropolitan Board of Public Education consists of nine elected members, one member elected from each of the nine districts. The term of office is four years, with no less than four members elected every two years. The Director of Schools is appointed by the Board of Education. Although the possibility has been discussed recently, Metro School Board Members have not been and are not now paid for their service.

34

Graph 2. Organization Structure, Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

Source: Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, FY 2002 Recommended Budget, I-1.

Summary Description of Current Metro School System

The Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) currently reports that it is the 49th largest urban school district in the United States with approximately 83% of Nashville’s school children attending Metro Public Schools. They also report that students from their system generally outperform national and large-city averages. Further, MNPS notes that 65% of Metro Schools’ 1999 graduates went on to further education—more than double the national average of 30% for urban districts.92 Table 10 lists the number and types of MNPS schools.

35

Table 10. Metropolitan Public Schools, Number and Type, 2000-2001

School Type Number

Elementary Schools 67Middle Schools 31High Schools 11Magnet Schools* 12Special Education Schools 4Adult Education Schools 1Alternative Schools 3Total Schools 129

Source: Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, Vital Statistics, 2000-2001* All MNPS magnet schools are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

More than 5,000 students are enrolled at Metro magnet schools. To attend a magnet school, a drawing is held for entry-level grades to select students. Students eligible for grades above entry level are assigned to waiting lists. Parents must provide transportation for their children. The school system does provide parents with student lists to facilitate carpooling and the Metropolitan Transit Authority provides a special student rate from most parts of the county. Table N provides data on the degree level of teachers in the Metro system. Of the total number of teachers (5,013), 52.4% have master’s degrees or master’s degree plus additional coursework; 4.1% of teachers have doctoral degrees.

Table 11. Teachers by Degree, 2000-2001 School Year

Total Bachelor’s

Master’s Master’s Plus*

ED.S Ph.D

Elementary Schools 47.3% 31.1% 19.0% 1.1% 1.5%Middle Schools 45.0% 30.4% 20.3% 1.0% 3.2%High Schools 32.7% 32.0% 27.1% 2.0% 4.9%Magnet Schools 40.7% 34.1% 20.1% 1.7% 3.4%Other Schools 39.0% 37.8% 12.2% 1.2% 4.9%

Average All Schools

39 17 12 8 1 2

Total All Schools 5,013 2,168 1,583 1,042 64 138Percentage of All Schools

43.2% 31.6% 20.8% 1.3% 2.8%

Source: MGT of America Inc., Performance Audit of Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, 2001, 3-12.

36

*Teachers with master’s degrees plus having taken additional hours of coursework, but not have attained a doctorate.

The School system has no taxing authority, receiving 34% of its operational budget from state sales tax and 66% from local property and sales taxes.93 The highlights section of the FY2002 Recommended Budget notes that the budget proposal provided for continuation of educational programs and services at last year’s level with inflationary adjustments, compliance with state mandates in teacher-pupil ratio for grades 4-6 as well as funding for textbooks and staffing new schools becoming operational in 2001-2002, implementation of the performance audit first-year recommendations from MGT of America, and a reserve to fund compensation issues for staff. The total recommended budget appropriation for operating expenditures thus was $443 million.94 The FY2001-2002 operating budget approved by the Board of Education indicates that $110 million of the projected revenue would come from property taxes and $150 million from the local option sales tax.

Source: Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, FY 2002 Recommended Operating Budget, Overview-38.

Accountability

Before 1975, Metro did not have system wide achievement tests at all grade levels. After 1975, Doyle reports that elementary scores were published in the newspaper and would result in critical comment. Although the overall scores showed modest increases toward the national average, the scores showed a gap between white and black averages.95 Two surveys of public opinion, conducted in 1977 and 1981, reported that the community perceived the school system quality to be low and that busing had failed.96

Table 12 provides statistical information on pupil progress for MNPS students, from 1950-1990.

37

Table 12. Pupil Progress Among Public School Students for Davidson County

School Year

Number of Students

Promoted Retained Expelled Suspended

N %of total

enrollment

N %of total

enrollment

N %of total

enrollment

N %of total

enrollment

1950n 41,587 3,094 -- --

1960n 66,708 91.73 4,674 6.43 -- --

1965 82,745 94.56 4,294 4.91 -- --

1970 88,229 95.54 2,997 3.25 -- --

1980 62,924 88.83 3,783 5.34 -- --

1990 58,026 87.85 4,131 6.25 0 0 10,833 16.4

2000 59,582 87.18 5,437 7.96 343 0.5 11,890 17.4

Source: Annual Statistical Report of the Dept. of Education 1950, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000

n Years prior to consolidation. Numbers shown are total figures for County and City school systems.

Metro citizens responded to the 1990 national movement promoting educational reform efforts calling for each community to develop a report card evaluating its local public schools. Beginning in 1993, a Nashville/Davidson County community group called the Citizens Panel for a Community Report Card has produced an annual report card about the Metro School System. Also concerned about performance, the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools established a system-wide Accountability Framework in 1998 (amended 1999, revised 2000) with the assistance of business and community leaders, some of whom had served on the Citizens Panel. The eight district accountability goals emphasize student academic achievement, but include a goal regarding provision of a safe, respectful, and orderly environment for learning. Each school is responsible for making improvements to achieve the standards. The Director of Schools is to present an annual report card on the district and each school’s progress toward meeting the goals and school standards.97

While noting some system improvements in facilities and technology, the 2000 Progress Report prepared by the Citizens Panel notes that student achievement remained a problem and summarily graded the system as performing at average, a grade of “C.”98 According to the results of the 2000 School Report Card from the Tennessee Department of Education, MNPS scored a “D” for per pupil expenditures and average teacher salary. Achievement scores for elementary, middle, and senior high schools ranged from “B” to “D” with “D’s” in the majority

38

regarding academic achievement. The gaps in academic performance for minority children noted prior to consolidation remain an issue.99

Mayor Purcell’s election platform had called for quality schools and accountability. Consequently, the School Board asked for the school system to have the first professional performance audit. Consequently, Metro government funded an extensive audit at a cost of $500,000 (the cost was equally shared between Metro government and local private foundations). The audit reviewed the following school operations: School system organization and management, Educational service delivery, Personnel management, Financial management, Asset and Risk Management, Purchasing and Warehousing, Facilities Use and Management, Community Involvement and Communications, Administrative and Instructional Technology, Transportation, Food Service, and Safety and Security. In addition, the report compares the Metro system to five other similarly sized school systems: Austin Independent School District (TX), Charlotte-Mecklenberg Schools (NC), Columbus Public Schools (OH), Hamilton County Schools (TN), Jefferson County Public Schools (KY). The audit team visited fifty-two schools; reviewed documentation from the school system; interviewed school administrators, parents and students, board members, community and business leaders; conducted written surveys of administrators, principals, and teachers; and held a public hearing. The final report was released in January 2001.

The performance audit conducted by MGT of America provides a detailed analysis of the school system and presents more than 200 findings and recommendations, including several commendations. The lengthy report is available to the public through links on the Metro school system site (www.nashville.k12.tn.u s ) or the Chamber of Commerce site (www.nashvillechamber.net). Copies of the survey instruments are included in Appendix A of the MGT report; the results of each formal survey are reported in Appendix B of the MGT report. Overall, the auditors found that overall funding for the school system was generally adequate. To implement their recommendations, however, the consultants estimated that MNPS would need an additional $12 million, that is, the $47 million in spending recommendations would be offset by $35 million of savings and revenue enhancements. The consultants also recommended $14.5 million in net capital expenditures over the next five years and $9.2 million in net savings from food service operations. The largest area of spending recommendations related to improvements in technology. Based on their comparisons of the six school systems, MGT concluded that the system employs lower than average numbers of teachers, administrators, and total employees overall, but ranks below the other systems regarding number of curriculum specialists, ACT scores, number of instructional or teacher aides, and average teacher and administrator salaries. Further, the MNPS fell below the comparison group with respect to technology staffing and

39

average number of computers for instructional use. MNPS also was found to have the highest number of student expulsions and suspensions.

Table 13 provides a profile of statistical information on the current Davidson County School System. Information includes number of faculty, pupil enrollment categorized by race, financial information, achievement scores and disciplinary actions.

Table 13. Profile of Current Davidson County System

Number of Public Schools 126

PERSONNELNumber of Faculty 4,528Number of Administrators 266

ENROLLMENTTotal Pupil Enrollment 68,345

White 36,842Black 35,108Hispanic 2,976Asian 2,526Native American 166

FINANCIALPer Pupil Expenditures $6,912Average Teacher Salary $41,072% of budget that comes from local sources 59.5%% of budget that comes from state sources 31.8%% of budget that comes from federal sources 8.7%

ACHIEVEMENTDistrict Average of Senior Student SAT Scores 1 987District Average of Senior Student ACT Scores 2 18.99District Average of TCAP Scores 3 D

DISCIPLINENumber of Expulsions 343Number of Suspensions 11,890

Source: Tennessee School Report Card, 20001 SAT is the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Davidson County’s average score was lower than both the state

(1116) and national (1019) average scores.2 ACT is the ACT Assessment. Davidson County’s average score was lower than both the state (20.00)

and national (21.00) average scores.3 The TCAP is the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program. Davidson County’s score was

below average.

School Consolidation Impact The Metropolitan Nashville Public School System has been in existence for almost forty years. Unlike the consolidation experience for Knoxville-Knox County and Chattanooga-Hamilton County school systems, school consolidation

40

in Nashville was but one component of the overall metropolitan governmental consolidation. The key lessons learned from the Metro Nashville consolidation appear most relevant to gaining insights into the political process that was undertaken to achieve majority and stakeholder support, the detailed level of analysis and specification of metropolitan issues underlying the design efforts to create the proposed charter, and the two-year transition period allowed for both school systems to plan and implement consolidation.

In the social sciences, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove causation. This challenge is exacerbated given the length of time that has passed since Metro was formed in 1963. Changes have occurred in data reporting and customary documentation practices. Further, court-ordered busing in 1971 appears to supersede ascribing system changes to the mid-1960’s school consolidation. Direct causal linkages regarding quality and system efficiencies would be inappropriate given the significant public policy changes educational systems have responded to between 1963 and 2001. However, statistical information is provided to present a picture of the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools.

Table 14 summarizes statistical information indicators in Davidson County, 1950-2000. The table presents information on the number of schools, expenditures, faculty resources, administrative personnel, pupil enrollment, and pupil transportation.

Quality

Based on the review of the literature about the consolidation and the study’s interviews of knowledgeable Nashvillians, the effects of school consolidation appear to be perceived as generally positive, then and now. In contrast to school systems that are more fragmented, the consensus of those interviewed suggest that consolidation may be an advantage in being able to direct efforts towards planning and achieving system improvements as well as generating support for resources.

Apparently citizens in Memphis in 1965 were considering changing from a commission form of government. Consequently, the Memphis Press-Scimitar had lengthy articles about how the council-manager form was working in San Antonio and Cincinnati. A third article assessed the city-county consolidation in Nashville. Quoting one of the members of the Metro Council, Robert E. Norris, the reporter writes that consolidating the city and county school systems was one of the greatest accomplishments and that students who were in the county outside the city were now being better educated. Quoting Mayor Briley, the reporter writes: “We get better teaching because of strong supervision, better management and more of it. . . . “People who don’t like me say this government costs more. We are spending more because we are doing more. We have

41

increased the total budget for more schools spending, a bigger public works program and other things.” Education system costs after consolidation increased, but this appears to be related to increases in service, assuring salary equity, and adding teachers.

Table 14. System Indicators for Davidson County

Indicator

School Year

1950

n 19

60

n 1965

1970

1980

1990

2000

Number of SchoolsTotal Number

Percent City Public SchoolsPercent County Public Schools

Expenditures (in dollars)Total Current (in millions)

Per PupilFaculty

Total Number of TeachersPercent City Public Teachers

Percent County Public TeachersAverage Annual Teacher Salary

(in thousands)Number of Pupils per Teacher

AdministrationNumber of Admin. Personnel

Pupils per AdministratorPupil Enrollment

Average Daily MembershipAverage Daily Attendance

Length of School Term (in days)Pupil Transportation

Number Transported Daily Source: Annual Statistical Report of the Dept. of Education 1950, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000

n Years prior to consolidation. Numbers shown are total figures for County and City school systems.

Before 1975, Metro did not have system wide achievement tests at all grade levels. As discussed earlier in the report, overall scores did show modest increases toward the national average. However, the scores also showed that the gap between white and black averages remained.100 Public opinion polls in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s found that the public had little confidence in the system.101 The 2000 Progress Report prepared by the Citizens Panel for a Community Report Card commended the school system for improvements such as improvements in attendance rates, writing scores, and drop out rates as well as increased per pupil expenditures and teacher salaries. However, the citizen

42

panel expressed concern that during 1999-2000 student ACT scores declined, teacher effectiveness declined in four of five subjects, reading scores for grades 3 through 8 showed no improvement, and the passing rate for the 9th grade competency test declined.

The Citizens Panel has conducted customer satisfaction surveys over the last three years to assess community perceptions of the effectiveness of MNPS. About half of the respondents in the 2000 survey graded the public schools with a grade of “C.” However, the number giving the school system an “A” or “B” dropped from 27% last year to 18% this year, with 35% of respondents perceiving the system is worse compared to five years ago. Table 15 highlights some of the customer satisfaction measures.

Table 15. Customer Satisfaction, MNPS Schools

Query Customer Satisfaction Ratings1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000

Quality of Metro Schools Overall (scale 1-10)

5.64 5.80 6.22

Effectiveness of Tax Dollars for Education (scale 1-10)

4.05 4.32 4.50

Responders Rating Metro Schools “C” or better

73.8% 75.6% 66.0%

Parents of Metro Students Rating Metro Schools “C” or better

79.0% 80.6% 70.0%

Source: Citizens Panel for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress Report.

The Metro community is concerned about school safety and security. For the last three years, the Customer Satisfaction Survey found discipline, violence and funding as leading causes of concern. The 2000 Progress Report notes an increase in the number of weapons confiscated (1997-98, 8 guns and 57 knives/other; 1999-2000, 11 guns, 157 knives, and 3 other weapons) as well as the number of in-school suspensions (1998-99, 27,373 incidents; 1999-2000, 34,376 incidents). The Metro Police School Services Division assigned 28 officers to serve as campus police, with an additional 11 Metro Police D.A.R.E. officers assisting the school system.

Disruption

Given the two-year transition period, consolidations of the city and county school systems did not appear to cause any educational disruption. Several informants indicated that the support from the teachers in both systems smoothed the transition process. Further, Metro consolidation does not appear to have

43

heightened “flight.” Flight to the suburbs had already begun in the 1950s and appeared to be more associated with desegregation efforts and busing than with consolidation of the two governments. At the same time, it was the forced annexation and imposition of a wheel tax that garnered support by suburbanites for consolidation. Although only speculative, without those two factors the problem of having inadequate services may have not been adequate to rally suburbanites to support consolidation.

Flight

Similarly, the growth spurt of private schools in the Nashville area appears to be linked to court-ordered busing, not consolidation. See Table 8 for the information on private school enrollment trends. Enrollment in private schools grew from less than 10% in 1960 to almost 12% in 1990. At the same time, the Tennessean reported that the MNPS was hoping to attract 1% of private school enrollment each year back to public schools. The article, however, argues that MNPS will have to improve its performance before it can be successful in convincing parents to choose public schooling for their children.102 The list of private schools with membership in the Tennessee Association of Independent Schools is presented in Table 16 to offer a profile of the variety of the private programs available in Nashville.

44

Table 16. Private Schools in Nashville, Member of the Tennessee Association of Independent Schools

School Type Enrollment

Abintra Montessori School Coeducational Montessori,8 weeks-15 years

125

Akiva School Coeducational Jewish Day SchoolK-6th

75

Davidson Academy Coeducational InterdenomenationalDay School, PreK3-12th

1,077

Donelson Christian Academy

Coeducational NondenomenationalDay School, PreK4-12

1,005

Ensworth School Coeducational Day SchoolK-8th

553

Father Ryan High School Coeducational Roman Catholic Day School, 9th-12th

1,000

Franklin Road Academy Coeducational Day School,PreK-12th

881

Harding Academy Coeducational Day School, K-8th 410Harpeth Hall School Girls Day School, 5th-12th 539Montgomery Bell Academy Boys Day School, 7th-12th 625Oak Hill School Coeducational Day School, PreK-6th 441Overbrook School Coeducational Roman Catholic Day

School, PreK3-8th 366

St. Cecelia Academy Girls Roman Catholic Day School,9th-12th

207

St. Paul Christian Academy Coeducational InterdenomenationalDay School, PreK-6th

328

University School of Nashville

Coeducational Day SchoolK-12th

979

Westminster School Coeducational Day SchoolK-8th

205

Total EnrollmentNashville TAIS Schools

8816

Source: Tennessee Association of Independent Schools, Member Directory, Nashville, www.taistn.org.

Race

As discussed in the earlier section on desegregation, race was and continues to be an issue for the Nashville area and the school system. The history of segregated schools, court-ordered busing, and continued gaps in academic performance between the races create a challenging context for political and educational leaders. The careful implementation of the Improvement Plan will hopefully be of benefit to the community over the long term. Causal linkages to the 1963 consolidation to an increase in racism appear inappropriate.

45

Consequently, the data provided below is intended only to present a summary profile of this issue. Table 17 reflects the growing diversity of the Metro area. The table shows that African American certified staff account for approximately 25% of the total certified staff in the MNPS. In contrast, African American students comprise more than 45% of the student population. In its 2000 report card, the Citizens Panel recommended that the MNPS evaluate its current recruitment policies to ensure that minority representation is enhanced.

Table 17. Comparison of Racial Demographics, Nashville and Metro Schools

Race Ethnic Diversity of Faculty and Students

Nashville Metro Schools

1998 Projected 2003

Students Certified Staff* 1998

Certified Staff* 2000

White 71.3% 69.4% 47.5% 76% 73.6%African American

25.1% 25.6% 45.2% 24% 25.3%

White-Latino 1.3% 1.8% 3.8% -- 0.6%

Asian/Pacific Islanders

2.0% 2.4% 3.3% -- 0.4%

Native American/Other

0.3% 0.6% 0.2% -- --

Source: Citizens Panel for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress Report.* Certified staff comprised of principals, assistant principals, and teachers

The annual report card found that the percentage of dropouts declined for African American students, 49.5% in 1997-98 to 48.1% in 1998-99. However, this percentage increased in 1999-2000, 51.8%. Further, the percentage of African American students eligible for academic magnet programs is much lower than for other students. Table 18 shows this disparity. Table 19 shows a gap in performance regarding SAT scores, while Table 20 provides benchmarking information to compare Metro average scores with the averages for the state and nation.

46

Table 18. Comparison of Student Eligibility to attend Academic

Magnet Schools, by Race

Eligibility for Academic Magnet Schools

1997-98* 1998-99* 1999-2000*

5th grade (for Meigs) African American-13%White-70%Other-18%

African American-13%White-70%Other-18%

African American-13%White-69%Other-18%

7th grade (for MLK) African American-14%White-66%Other-20%

African American-14%White-66%Other-20%

African American-15%White-69%Other-16%

9th grade (for Hume-Fogg)

African American-13%White-70%Other-17%

African American-13%White-70%Other-17%

African American-13%White-69%Other-17%

Source: Citizens for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress Report*Students are eligible for the following academic year Of 119 schools in 1997-98, seven schools were primarily African American (80% or more); one school was primarily white. However, of 126 schools in 1999-2000, fifteen schools were predominately African American and three were primarily white.

Table 19. Comparison of SAT College Entrance Exam Scores, MNPS

Comparative Mean SAT Scores

1997-98* 1998-99 1999-2000

White Verbal Math

591582

577566

573554

African American Verbal Math

498481

480460

488463

Source: Citizens for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress ReportIn 1997-98, 606 Metro students selected the SAT as an exit exam.

Table 20. Comparison of Average/Mean SAT Scores, 1997-98

Metro State NationalVerbal 563 564 505Math 561 557 512

Source: Citizens for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress Report

47

See Table 21 for current data on suspensions and expulsions by race for the Metro school system.

Table 21. 2000 School System Report Card, Nashville-Davidson County School System--

Suspensions and Expulsions by Race and Gender

Suspensions* Expulsions**

Number of Students

Percent*** Number of Students

Percent***

Total 11,890 14.5 343 0.4RaceWhite 3,923 10.1 121 0.3Black 7,414 20.0 204 0.6Hispanic 320 9.0 13 0.4Asian 211 7.8 4 0.1Native American 22 11.3 1 0.5

GenderMale 8,108 19.2 262 0.6Female 3,782 9.5 81 0.2

Source: State of Tennessee Report Card 2000, Davidson County System Detail*Suspension is defined as a student who is not allowed to attend school for a period of time not greater than 10 days and remains on the school rolls. **Expulsion is defined as a student who is expelled from school and is not allowed to attend school for a period of time greater than 10 days; they are removed from the school rolls during the period of expulsion.***Percentage calculation is based on net enrollment, e.g., number of students suspended divided by net enrollment.

Impact on Teachers

According to informants, the teachers in both systems supported consolidation. The Education Council Teachers of Nashville and Davidson County had placed a full ad in the Banner prior to the referendum calling for citizen support of consolidation, with the headline “Get More Education for your Tax Dollar. Vote for the Metropolitan Charter.”103 The two-year transition period went smoothly. As described earlier in the report, the new Metropolitan Charter explicitly addressed issues of personal and professional concern to teachers, that is, protection of tenure and preservation and protection of pension rights and benefits. During the transition, the school system planned for a new pension and retirement system with teachers choosing to join or not the new system. Following consolidation, county teacher pay was raised to the level of city teacher pay.104 Equalization of teacher pay appears to have positively affected teacher morale and to have

48

eliminated the friction and competition that had been experienced between the two systems.105

School Governance

As discussed earlier in this report, the Metro School Board replaced the separate city and county boards. However, a nine-member Transition Board which had three members from each of the prior city and county board plus an additional three board members appointed by the Metro Mayor, was in charge of planning system consolidation over a two-year period. At the end of the transition, both of the superintendents retired, the new Metro School Board was appointed by the mayor with confirmation by two-thirds of the Metro Council. Each board member represented one of the nine school districts. Although appointed, the School Board had independent authority for school policy and direction. Mayor Briley appointed the first Metropolitan Board of Education on February 27, 1964. The nine-member board was comprised of two women and seven men. Dr. John Harper Harris, was appointed on August 4, 1964 to serve as the first Director of Metro Public Schools. Seven members of the Metro Council were appointed to one-year terms on the School Committee of Metro Council by Vice-Mayor George Cate to study issues related to the MNPS but most importantly to focus on the School budget, “since school expenditure accounts for one-half of the total Metro Budget.”106

During the transition and as called for in the charter, a survey was authorized by the Transition Board. Educational Research Services, Inc. conducted a detailed review of the school system in 1963 and generated recommendations including the organization and administration of the unified school system, improvements in elementary and secondary education programs, and development of a salary adjustment plan to increase teacher salaries to hold and attract qualified staff. The report, known as the Cornell Report (Cornell was the Director of Educational Research Services Inc.), served as a blueprint for a five-year program to build the unified system. The Report estimated that implementation of the survey’s recommendations would cost approximately $5.3 million more than currently budgeted for the school system.107

Efficiency

Although some savings appear to have been realized from consolidating the two systems, the pent up demand for programs, services, improved teacher-pupil ratio, etc. resulted in consolidation calling for increased levels of budgetary support. Limited savings did arise from combing the two school superintendents into one position. The Director of Metro Schools salary was set at $30,000; this was higher than the mayor’s salary of $25,000.108 However, it was $3,000 less

49

than the combined heads of the two former systems.109 Through transferring 1,000 students from over-crowed county schools to empty classrooms in city schools, savings of over one million dollars in construction costs was reported in the first year of MNPS.110

In a letter to the Metro Mayor and Council published in the Banner, the Education Council, Inc. called for approval of the Board of Education’s request for an additional $1.2 million school budget request. Their letter provides some details on some of the services and costs needed for consolidated school operations:

Salary equalization between city and county $600,000Transportation for city students living more than 1.25 miles from school 130,000Expanded summer school services 78,000*Pension Fund 62,000School Survey 23,00020 Custodians for new schools and additions 50,000Utilities and sewerage for new schools 100,000170 additional teachers (help serve 4,100 new students and reduce pupil-teacher ratio) 350,000

Total $1,409,000

*The summer program request was needed to assure the county system had the same tuition-free summer school as the city. The city did not provide bus transportation for city students prior to consolidation; it was provided in the county but only if a child lived more than 1.25 miles from school.

Source: Education Council, Open Letter, Banner, June 10, 1963. Also, “School Budget Backing Urged, Tennessean, June 6, 1963.

The first Metro school budget passed through the Council almost untouched. The Council also approved a bond issue for $4.1 million dollars for capital improvements.111 Mayor Briley writes “Perhaps the success story of the consolidation of the school system can best be illustrated by what this community interpreted as a vote of confidence in the School Board and its Director, in recently voting to tax themselves through the adoption of a $.01 local option sales tax to provide for increased revenues for the school system.”112

Tax rates are an indicator of system efficiency. As discussed above taxes did go up immediately after consolidation as Metro improved and expanded public services. In an article about the consolidation, the reporter noted that Metro officials speculated that they would have increased anyway, that better services were necessary, and that Mayor West had created a negative financial status as he dipped into the reserves, granted pay raises, and issued bonds before leaving office.113 Fillebrown concluded that while taxpayers outside Nashville might be

50

complaining about paying more taxes and receiving no services, “Actually they are now paying for services which they formerly received free.”114

Educational Costs

The information below provides summary information on the financing of Metro Nashville Public Schools. As discussed earlier in the report, consolidation of the school systems did result in increased taxes as the system engaged in major construction to meet student enrollment demand, needed to equalize teacher salaries and implement new programs recommended in the Cornell report. Table 22 provides information on school financing. Census information was not available earlier than 1977.

Table 22. School System Finances, Nashville-Davidson County, 1977-1993

(Dollar amounts in Thousands)

1977-78 1982-83 1987-88 1992-93Enrollment 79,265 65,874 67,332 69,566General Revenue Intergovernmental Revenue General Revenue-own Sources

$123,755$46,763$76,992

$152,342$56,599$95,743

$236,407$97,092

$139,315

$314,561$138,450$176,111

General Expenditure Current Operation Expenditure Capital Outlay Expenditure Interest on Debt

$131,008$114,760

$12,594$3,654

$158,911$153,958

$2,216$2,737

$284,243$241,037

$36,893$6,313

$304,981$292,085

$5,738$7,158

Debt Outstanding Long-Term Short-Term

$68,306$68,306

-----

$49,683$49,683

-----

$137,240$137,240

-----

$109,763----------

Source: U.S. Department of Census, Finances of Public School Systems, 1977-78, 1982-83, 1987-88, 1992-93

Table 23. Per Pupil Financial Data, Nashville-Davidson County

1977-78 1982-83 1987-88 1992-93

General Revenue $1,561 $2,313 $3,511 $4,522General Expenditure $1,653 $2,412 $4,221 $4,170Debt Outstanding $862 $754 $2,038 -----

Source: U.S. Department of Census, Finances of Public School Systems, 1977-78, 1982-83, 1987-88, 1992-93

51

Table 24 provides current data on Nashville-Davidson County per pupil expenditures and average teacher salary in 2000 compared to state and national averages.

Table 24. 2000 School System Report Card, Nashville-Davidson County School System Per Pupil

Expenditures and Average Teacher Salary Comparisons

Davidson County State National State GradePer Pupil Expenditures

$6,912 $5,794 $6,829 D Below Average

Average Teacher Salary

$41,072 $36,328 $41,575 D Below Average

Source: State of Tennessee Report Card 2000, Davidson County System Detail

In a review of consolidation, a paper written by the Bureau of Public Administration at the University of Tennessee listed the following as the accomplishments most often cited by Metro leaders of the Metropolitan School System115:

Appointment of a Director of Schools as the single head of the Metro Public Schools.

Establishment of a Department of Pupil Personnel Services, including social workers and other supportive staffs.

Expanded Personnel Departments from a staff of two professional supervisors, to an Assistant Superintendent and five full time professionals and numerous clerical assistants.

Improved program of teacher recruitment and selection. Visits are made to over ninety different college campuses in fourteen states and the District of Columbia in recruiting teachers.

Improvements in curriculum, including more than 150 elective courses in secondary schools.

Increased teaching materials and supplies, such as textbooks, reference books, supplementary textbooks, and audio-visual materials.

Reduction in the teacher-pupil ratio. Improved special education program with special services provided for the

educable mentally retarded, severely mentally retarded, homebound, hospitalized, emotionally disturbed, perceptually handicapped, physically handicapped, partially sighted, hard of hearing, and those with speech difficulties.

Expanded vocational and technical educational programs. Establishment of Department of Adult Education.

52

Establishment of Kindergarten programs in many regular elementary schools and, also, in federally funded ESEA schools.

Improved guidance services with one or more trained counselors in each junior and senior high school.

Establishment of a professional growth plan for teachers. Establishment of a Department of School-Community Relations with a full

time Director, two full-time professionals, and three clerical assistants. Expanded supervisory staffs including art, music, reading, and physical

education consultants, and other subject area supervisors. Placement of assistant principals in high schools and all large junior high

schools. Establishment of a Clothing Center for indigent school children. Increased salaries for substitute teachers. Establishment of Data Processing Center and a Central Purchasing Business

operation. Development of a cooperative program for the training of educational leaders.

Program jointly conducted by Metro Schools, Tennessee State University, University of Tennessee, and Peabody College.

Replacement of obsolete movable classrooms with modern commercial type movable structures.

Building new school plants instructionally planned with emphasis on team teaching, multiple utilization of space and more flexibility.

In summary, school consolidation appears to have been positive for the Metro community overall. At the same time, caution must be exercised in ascribing too much to consolidation of the two school systems since school consolidation was but one part of the overall consolidation of city and county governments. Further, school consolidation is not a panacea for the modern challenges facing school systems. Nashville is facing the same challenges as other large urban school system, including discipline, attendance, violence, and minority achievement gaps. The advantage of the Nashville system, however, lies in its ability as a unified planning and policy entity to attempt to meet these challenges. Where to apply civic pressure to improve system performance is clear. The ability to elicit budgetary support can be addressed singly to the entire community. At the same time, the consolidated system has less than 70,000 students and so did not generate a mega-system. Understanding and responding to the local context was essential to achieving electoral support for consolidation. Gaining and retaining community support for its implementation and administration is continuous.

53

C O M M E N T A R Y

Consistently, the informants for this study were positive about the consequences of consolidation on Nashville and the Metropolitan Nashville School System. The information gained substantiated the descriptions of the context and political process of consolidation found in secondary sources. The following key insights were offered by those informants who responded to what advice they might offer to the political leadership in Memphis for consideration:

Consolidation, especially consolidation of schools, can be politically controversial. Broad civic support is most likely necessary to be successful in achieving consolidation.

School consolidation helps to assure consistent educational policies and procedures.

Be sure to provide teachers with equalized salary and benefits, not diminishing what teachers had achieved prior to consolidation.

In order to develop an effective structure, the community must financially support the educational system.

Ensure that the Board of Education fairly represents the community constituencies.

Consolidation into one system makes the politics simpler and education funding easier since the schools are one unit and it is easier to get the community as a whole to support schools.

To implement consolidation, treat people fairly and give people credit for what they have already accomplished. Be sure not to favor people or programs from one system over the other, taking best practices from each.

Rather than focusing on promised system efficiencies, the conversation should put the needs of children first.

54

S C H O O LC O N S O L I D A T I O N:N A S H V I L L E, T E N N E S S E E

a report on the state’s consolidated city and county school systems

Part I

July 2001

Joy A. Clay, Ph.D.Division of Public Administration

School of Urban Affairs and Public PolicyThe University of Memphis

McCord HallMemphis, Tennessee 38152

(901) 678-3359

55

56

C O N T E N T S – P A R T I

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

HistoryCounty Profile

Table 1. Race of School Aged Children in Davidson County, 1950-1990Table 2. Income Among Families with Children 18 Years and Younger in

Davidson CountyContext of Metropolitan Consolidation

Map 1. School Facility Locations in the Metro Nashville Public School System

II Nashville-Davidson County Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Local ContextTable 3. Popular Vote, Consolidation Referendum, Nashville and Davidson

County, Tennessee, June 17, 1958

Table 4. Popular Vote, Consolidation Referendum, Davidson County, Tennessee, June 28, 1962

Metropolitan IssuesTable 5. ExpendituresTable 6. School Buildings, Nashville, 1952Table 7. School Buildings, Davidson County, 1952

DesegregationTable 8. School Enrollment in Davidson County

III Consolidated Metro Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Metro CharterTable 9. Metro Government Serivces Districts, 2001Graph 1. Organizational Structure of Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson

CountyMetropolitan Mayor and CouncilMetropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Public Schools

Graph 2. Organization Structure, Mmetropolitan Nashville Public SchoolsTable 10. Metropolitan Public Schools, Number and type, 2001-2002Table 11. Teachers by Degree, 2000-2001 School YearTable 12. Pupil Progress Among Public School Students for Davidson

CountyTable 13. Profile of Current Davidson County SystemTable 14. System Indicators for Davidson County

57

Table 15. Customer Satisfaction, MNPS SchoolsTable 16. Private Schools in Nashville, Member of the Tennessee

Association of Independent SchoolsTable 17. Comparison of Racial Demographics, Nashville and Metro

SchoolsTable 18. Comparison of Student Eligibility to attend Academic Magnet

Schools, by RaceTable 19. Comparison of SAT College Entrance Exam Scores, MNPSTable 20. Comparison of Average/Mean SAT Scores, 1997-98Table 21. 2000 School System Report Card, Nashville-Davidson County School

System—Suspensions and Expulsions by Race and Gender

Table 22. School System Finances, Nashville-Davidson County, 1977-1993 (Dollar amounts in Thousands)

Table 23. Per Pupil Financial Data, Nashville-Davidson CountyTable 24. School System Report Card, Nashville-Davidson County School System Per Pupil

Expenditures and Average Teacher Salary Comparisons

IV Commentary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

V Sources Consulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

58

S C H O O L C O N S O L I D A T I O N:N A S H V I L L E, T E N N E S S E E

a report on the state’s consolidated city and county school systems

I N T R O D U C T I O N

History

As part of the national territory originally settled by Cherokee Indians, Middle Tennessee was chartered by the English, claimed by the French, briefly considered under Spanish reign and finally adopted as legal U.S. land in 1796. The area serves as the division between the Cumberland Plateau and the lower Tennessee Valley. Located slightly north and west of the center of Tennessee, Nashville/Davidson County accounts for approximately one-tenth of the fertile Central Basin of Tennessee. Originally named “Nashborough” in honor of General Francis Nash, the frontier settlement’s name was officially changed to Nashville by an act of the North Carolina General Assembly in 1784. Davidson County, also named for a North Carolina officer who served in the Revolutionary War, was established in 1783. Nashville adopted the uniform charter, Tennessee Code Annotated, in 1806. As population growth in Middle Tennessee outpaced the eastern section of the state, Nashville gained in political power and became the state capitol from 1812-1817. Nashville became the permanent site of state government in 1826. Nashville also serves as the county seat of Davidson County.116

The economic boom, associated with WWII and the postwar era resulted in a significant outward population growth. A city historian, Professor Don Doyle, writes that “By 1960 the county population outside the city boundaries exceeded that of the central city. The automobile became commonplace among middle-class and blue-collar families by the 1950s, and the two-car family was on the rise.”117 Seeking the “good life” and fleeing from urban issues of crime, disease, and coal smoke pollution, he writes that suburbanites sought both social and physical distance from Nashville. Doyle argues that consequently, “The fundamental political problem of the post-Depression era was how to fashion a government that could provide adequate services and plan for the future development of a metropolitan community that was unified economically but artificially divided by political boundaries.”118 Through the support of political officials, civic leaders and citizen groups, local efforts coalesced around consolidation of the city and county governments as the solution. In a 1962

65

referendum, a majority of voters in each jurisdiction elected to consolidate the City of Nashville and Davidson County into a single governmental entity, Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. This included the consolidation of both school systems into the Metropolitan Nashville Public School System.

County Profile

Geographic and Land Area

Located on the 687-mile Cumberland River, Davidson County’s geographic location makes it prime for economic development. The over five-hundred square mile territory is one of the most densely populated areas in the state. The County is part of the Nashville Basin, an oval-shaped depression that slopes northwest several hundred feet off the Highland Rim. This natural drainage system creates rolling farmland with foothills and pastures in the region, giving the area its nickname of the “Garden of Tennessee.” The elevation in the Basin ranges from 500 to 700 feet and the climate is humid and subtropical for most of the year.

Economic Base

The Nashville metropolitan area consumes the majority of the county and boasts a growing economy. Leading industries represented in the area are banking, insurance, printing and publishing, textiles and shoe manufacturing. Nashville is also well known for its music recording industry. The outer reaches of Davidson County are invested in agriculture pursuits, harvesting crops such as tobacco, barley and corn, as well as some cattle and dairy farms.

Demographics

Davidson County’s population is reported as 569,891 in the 2000 Census, showing an 11.6% increase since the previous decade’s Census. The area’s citizens are predominantly white (67%) and African-American (25.9%), with some Asian, Pacific Islander and Native American representation. The 1997 median household income in the county was $39,112, with 12.5% of households living below poverty level. The workforce is made up of 393,097 persons in non-farming establishments and 19,587 employed by the local government. The Nashville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) comprises over one million in population and includes eight counties: Davidson, Cheatham, Dickson, Robertson, Rutherford, Sumner, Williamson and Wilson Counties. The Nashville Economic Market contains two additional Tennessee counties, Maury and Montgomery. Table 1 lists the racial composition of school age children in

66

Davidson County, from 1950-1990. Table 2 provides information regarding income levels, from 1950-1990.

Table 1. Race of School Aged Children in Davidson County, 1950-1990

Decade Age Category by Race5 to 9 Years Ten to 14 Years 15 to 19 Years

White Black Other White Black Other White Black Other1950 7,873 -- 3,780 7,039 -- 3,524 9,311 -- 4,291

1960 32,258 -- 8,331 28,480 -- 6,431 27,053 -- 5,971

1970 26,130 9,411 -- 34,526 1,006 -- 36,512 9,825 --

1980 50,415 11,705 547 55,893 11,922 519 63,436 15,910 648

1990 55,877 13,361 406 53,332 12,530 302 55,964 13,590 1,569

Source: U S Department of Census 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990

Table 2. Income Among Families with Children 18 Years and Younger

in Davidson County

DecadeIncome Category

Median Income (in dollars)

Total No. of Families at All Income Levels

Total No. of Families at Income Below Poverty

N % of All Income Levels

1950 $ 2,788 81,570

1960 $ 5,332 99,3021970 $ 9,187 139,0931980 $ 19,654 228,417 20,436 8.951990 $ 35,797 266,208 22,953 8.62

Source: U S Department of Census 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000

Context of Metropolitan Consolidation

In the first half of the twentieth century, political scientists generally were theoretically persuaded that “local governments should be consolidated into an areawide metropolitan government . . . that would be more efficient, effective, engage in better comprehensive planning, and deliver better and more uniform

67

public services.”119 However, very few municipalities actually consolidated; failed consolidation efforts of note included Cleveland, St. Louis, and Dayton. Stephens and Wikstrom, however, further observe that between 1950 and 1970, a large number of Southern and Western cities engaged in successful annexation of adjacent territory. Stephens and Wikstrom suggest that annexation in the South and West was facilitated by favorable annexation laws and the minimal number of already nearby incorporated suburban areas (in contrast to the East and Midwest where suburban incorporation was more prevalent). They further note that several cities achieved city-county consolidation, namely Baton Rouge (1947), Miami (1957), Nashville (1962), Jacksonville (1967), and Indianapolis (1969).120 They report that reform efforts to consolidate metropolitan governments, historically, have been financed by the business community and foundations. Further, these researchers note that during this time period almost every metropolitan area formed councils of government to promote local and regional cooperation, generally encouraged and supported by federal and state policy.121

Doyle suggests that efforts in the 1950s supportive of major annexation of suburban areas by Nashville and consolidation of Nashville and Davidson County governments failed because the recommendations came from outside academic consultants who did not the appreciate the local political context. Doyle writes:

The impulse for reform would have to come from within and from planners and politicians in the city and county governments, in league with representatives of business, labor, blacks, women, and academics. Reform would also require the unusual cooperation of both daily newspapers if it was to acquire the necessary public support.122

Stephens and Wikstrom, however, deduce from their research that metropolitan consolidation success, in general, was most likely to result from “unique political circumstances and service inadequacies.”123 Both assessments appear to accurately describe the context in which consolidation reform efforts evolved in Nashville/Davidson County.

68

Map 1. School Facility Locations in the Metro Nashville Public School System

Source: Metropolitan Planning Department of Nashville/Davidson County

N A S H V I L L E – D A V I D S O N C O U N T Y C O N S O L I D A T I O N

The subsequent analysis of the consolidation process of the City of Nashville and Davidson County is based upon a review of the literature, archived documents and reports related to the city-county consolidation and various interviews of knowledgeable informants. The unique political situation and governmental service delivery issues that appear to have led to consolidation of the City of Nashville and Davidson County included issues of personality, party politics, angry suburban reaction to annexation and a city-imposed wheel tax, public health concerns related to adequate sewers, demographic changes that portended a serious declining tax base in the central city, competing school systems in search of an adequate revenue base, economic development constraints caused by inadequate sewage and water supply systems, and concerns regarding adequacy of fire and police protection. The governmental reform efforts were lead primarily by local leaders from the business, academic, and political communities, although some political officials reversed their position

69

after the unsuccessful 1958 referendum and argued against metropolitan consolidation.

Local Context

The history of metropolitan consolidation can be traced back as early as 1915 when a study sponsored by the city commission recommended major annexation and city-county consolidation.124 The major impetus, however, awaited the 1950s. A 1951 non-partisan study by the Tennessee Taxpayers Association that advocated consolidation125 was quickly followed by a detailed study by the Community Services Commission for Davidson County and the City of Nashville (CSC). The CSC, which was established in 1951 by the General Assembly, was charged with making recommendations regarding the extension of urban services to the suburban communities in Davidson County. With assistance from officials from Nashville, Davidson County, Belle Meade and Berry Hill, the four utility districts of Davidson County, staff and students from Vanderbilt University and University of Tennessee, and various civic leaders, the CSC conducted more than 25 functional studies and held “a number” of public hearings to elicit citizen input regarding problems of the metropolitan area. The suburban study area focused upon by the CSC contained approximately 90,000 persons and nearly 69 square miles.126

Both area newspapers praised the 1952 CSC report but local politicians remained equivocal and local organizations did not come forward to promote the proposed reforms.127 A second study authorized by the Nashville and Davidson County Planning Commissions, Plan of Metropolitan Government for Nashville and Davidson County, was conducted by the Advance Planning & Research Division and released October 1956.128 Although the report presented eight alternatives, the Metropolitan Plan was clear that all but annexation and consolidation were unsatisfactory and piece-meal solutions to metropolitan ills.129 This report became the basis for the charter that was finally approved in 1962.

Doyle notes that following the 1953 state constitutional amendment facilitating consolidation, the leadership and strategy developed by the politically savvy Advance Planning & Research Division focused on annexation, short-term, with consolidation as the long-term goal. Further, their report reached a compromise position, that is, dual service districts, each with separate tax rates, but supervised by a single metropolitan government, lead by a mayor and 21 council members. The General Services District was to receive basic county services, including such services as school and roads; the Urban Services District was to provide the more complete, yet higher-taxed, urban services. Urban Services boundaries were to expand as water and sewer systems had capacity to serve new areas, thus linking services to taxation. The Advance Planning & Research

70

Division proposal also allowed the already incorporated suburban cities to continue to be independent until they voted to join the metropolitan government.130 The report also included a realistic timeframe for implementing the recommendations.

As outlined by the Advance Planning & Research Division, the first implementation step required legislation to allow major cities to form a single metropolitan government. This was accomplished in 1957. The next step was formation of a charter commission. The Charter Commission was formed in 1957. The two mayors, Judge Beverly Briley (county) and Mayor Ben West (city) appointed members to the Charter Commission. Doyle notes that the membership well-represented key stakeholders and interests in the community. Following public hearings and deliberations, the Charter Commission adopted what had been proposed earlier by the Metropolitan Plan, that is two service districts, with a mayor and 21-member council (15 elected by district and 6 elected at large). Doyle writes that the proposed charter generated widespread support, including the Chamber of Commerce, League of Women Voters, labor groups, Tennessee Taxpayers Association, Tennessee Municipal League, both city newspapers, and major political leaders.131

To support the efforts of the Charter Commission, various local organizations formed a Citizens Committee for Metro to conduct a community education campaign, including sponsored speakers and radio and television discussions. Further, newspapers bombarded “the public with stories, cartoons, and editorials extolling the virtues of the new charter as a solution to metropolitan ills.”132 Since proponents saw no serious opposition on the horizon, Doyle notes that they conducted no grassroots campaign. However, opposition did form. Doyle describes the Committee to Save Davidson County Government, as consisting of a variety of interests who felt threatened by the change, including suburban fire and police officers, non-reformist-minded politicians, suburban merchants, even bootleggers and gamblers, and a number of wealthy suburbanites. Initially, the opposition was relatively quiet; however, anti-metro forces waged a successful symbolic campaign the week before the 1958 special election, including full page newspaper ads, radio jingles, and door-to-door canvassing, raising the specter of higher taxes and a dictatorial concentration of power by big government.133

The Tennessee Constitutional Amendment and General Enabling Act required favorable votes in both jurisdictions. Opposition by voters in the county defeated the referendum. Booth suggests that voter turnout was a factor, that is, a light turnout in the city (22 percent of registered voters) relative to the higher turnout (43.9 percent of registered voters) in the county.134 Table 3 describes the votes for and against consolidation by area in Davidson County.

71

Table 3. Popular Vote, Consolidation Referendum, Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, June 17,

1958

For Against Percent in Favor

Urban (City of Nashville) 7,797 4,808 61.9Contiguous Suburban 11,130 10,065 52.5Noncontiguous Suburban 2,105 5,998 26.0Rural 555 3,727 14.9

Source: Daniel R. Grant, National Municipal Review, 1958, p. 399.

Booth’s interview of 18 city councilmen of Nashville and 45 magistrates of Davidson County’s Quarterly Court immediately prior to the referendum found that “local legislators had a poor and, sometimes, confused understanding of the full implications of consolidation but that many saw their political futures threatened.”135 Consequently, Booth asks whether local legislator support could have been increased with more involvement and more sensitivity to the personal consequences on legislators, especially on black legislators who feared a consolidation would diminish black political influence.

With the failure of the 1958 referendum, political consensus disintegrated. Mayor West viewed consolidation as a defunct initiative; however, the city revenue base remained problematic. What unfolded next raised the ire of suburbanites and laid the foundation for the subsequent successful consolidation referendum in 1962. Hoping to increase the tax base, the city quickly proceeded to annex three industrial areas adjacent to the city (for a total of seven square miles) by city ordinance and in August 1959 imposed a ten dollar annual wheel tax on all users of city streets.136

The county tried to revive the metro initiative. However, the city council rejected the idea in February 1960 (and again that following May). Instead, the city proceeded with further annexation by city ordinance. In April 1960, the city council voted to annex four large residential areas (42 square miles and 82,000 people). Although vetoed by Mayor West and overridden by the council, Doyle argues that suburbanites blamed the annexation personally on the Mayor, viewing it as a broken promise. Although the 1958 and 1960 annexations were upheld by the state supreme court, Doyle argues that suburbanites in the county felt that the wheel tax resulted in taxation without representation and annexed suburbanites were angry about paying city taxes while not receiving city services. Proponents of consolidation were consequently able to use anti-West vote to

72

generate support for a new referendum. Going around the city, consolidation proponents pressed the Davidson County delegation to sponsor a private act enabling formation of a charter commission for Nashville and Davidson County, upon approval by city and county majorities, respectively. Doyle writes that the August 17, 1961 referendum to form a second charter commission was preceded by less publicity, had light voter turnout, but received strong majority support.137

Although the charter that resulted from this second effort was basically the same as the 1958 proposed charter, Doyle reports that the 1962 Charter Commission held 75 meetings, countless subcommittee meetings, and numerous public hearings in six months, with “every phrase and comma of the 1958 charter discussed.” However, he notes that controversy heated over a proposal to elect school board members and an amendment that would allow the board to call for a public referendum if the council did not adequately fund the proposed school budget. One significant change from the charter proposed in 1958, however, was the proposal to expand the council to 41 members, with 35 elected by district and five at large and an elected presiding vice-mayor. Doyle argues that this was a compromise to make charter politically palatable to as many neighborhoods as possible, especially for black politicians who were concerned about not reducing their influence. In addition, Doyle notes that the compromise would “assure blacks of continued, even increased, representation” and that subsequently councilmanic districts were drawn to almost guarantee blacks six seats on the new council. Further provisions required adjustment of district boundaries to respond to changes found by the federal census each decade to continue to assure adequate representation.138

The political strategy for the second referendum effort was markedly different. Learning from their failed attempt in 1958, Doyle argues that reformers moved from the “high road of consensus and community education” to a highly politicized and personalized campaign. Financed by the publisher of the Tennessean, Citizens for Better Government became the steering group for an aggressive grassroots campaign, including 5,000 canvassers, door-to-door dissemination of information, and arranging speakers for neighborhood coffees and public meetings. The pro-metro forces made special efforts to reach black voters, enlisting black civic and academic leaders to reach out to their neighborhoods. Supporters tried to counter citizens’ fears by promoting the benefits of consolidation and focusing on the promise of better schools especially to gain women’s support. Changing from his prior support for consolidation, Mayor West fought back, enlisting city employees, loyal city council members, police and fire department officers and their wives. Opponents to the formation of a single metropolitan government charged that it was untested, probably unconstitutional, and a “false panacea for imagined ills.” Doyle reports that the opposition also attracted an odd assortment of right wing extremists who linked

73

the proposal to states’ rights and the desegregation struggles and those who saw big government as a communist plot.139

Table 4. Popular Vote, Consolidation Referendum, Davidson County,

Tennessee, June 28, 1962

For Against Percent in Favor

City of Nashville (including recently annexed areas)

21,064 15,599 57

County (outside Nashville) 15,914 12,514 56

Source: Booth, Metropolitics: The Nashville Consolidation, 1963, 87-88.

Opposition to consolidation was strongest in poor white and black neighborhoods and in the old city wards loyal to the Ben West political organization, but heavy voter turnout in the newly annexed areas (over 45 percent) created an avalanche of support for consolidation (72 percent voted in favor of consolidation). Table 4 summarizes the popular vote results. Thus, in contrast to the failed attempt in 1958, the highly politicized and well-publicized grassroots pro-Metro effort in 1962 was successful and able to fend off a highly organized opposition.140 Suburban officials from Forest Hills and Belle Meade and a black city councilman filed a legal suit challenging the constitutionality of the new charter. Chancery Court denied the lawsuit, as did later the Tennessee Supreme Court in October 1962.141

Thus, personality, party politics, and reformist pressures helped to create the political context of consolidation in Nashville-Davidson County. A window of opportunity for supporters of metropolitan government closed in 1958 but was successfully reopened in 1962. However, the reformist campaign for annexation and consolidation required perseverance, knowledge and sensitivity to local politics, broad-based support, and public belief that metropolitan government would provide more efficient and effective services.

The new metropolitan government was formed on schedule, changing from a city of 73 square miles with a population of 171,000 to a new entity that consisted of 508 square miles and over 400,000 people.142 The city consequently gained national visibility as a progressive municipality. The promised city services were successfully extended to the suburban areas. Two years later a voter opinion survey found that approximately 60% of respondents were positive about Metropolitan government (24% not satisfied, 16% undecided or no answer).143

74

The high positive marks included an 80% satisfaction rate for respondents living in the “old city” areas that had not supported consolidation. Daniel Grant, a key personality in the consolidation efforts, suggests that Nashville-Davidson County consolidation escaped the frustrations and paralysis experienced in other metropolitan consolidations because the state courts had been surprisingly sympathetic, the new government did not face a succession of crippling amendments, the Metro Mayor was a seasoned political leader and had stable cadre of executive leaders, and the transition period, even with the attendant bureaucratic confusion, was able to retain high levels of public approval.144 In the almost forty years since consolidation, there have not been any efforts to dismantle the arrangement.

Metropolitan Issues

The public policy issues and service delivery concerns more directly affecting pressures on the city and county school systems reported by the Community Services Commission and Planning Commissions are described below, with a focus on those issues most directly affecting the city and county public schools. Although important, other issues, such as adequacy of fire and police protection, related more to consolidation of the overall city and county governments are only discussed very summarily.

The Community Services Commission (1952) and the Planning Commissions (1956) concluded that the City should both annex the suburban study area and consolidate city and county governments.145 The Community Services Commission (1952) expressed these conclusions in strong language as reflected in the recommendation section of their report regarding annexation and governmental consolidation:

Annexation of Suburban Nashville: Nashville cannot hope to grow, nor can it safely expect to hold its own, while obsolete City limits, exclude over 90,000 urban dwellers and constitute a paralyzing strait-jacket on the community’s economic progress. . . .County Responsibility for County-Wide Functions: In Davidson County, where over 90 percent of the population is accounted for by the urban area, the City and County both should not be engaged in performing functions which are clearly county-wide activities. The Commission recommends the assumption by Davidson County of all functions which are county-wide in character, making the County exclusively responsible for public health services, hospital care for indigents, public schools, and public welfare.146

In the cover letter to the people of Davidson County, the report from the Advance Planning and Research Division (1956), similarly presented their strong support for consolidation and annexation:

75

It is the firm conviction of the Commissioners that the Nashville Metropolitan Area stands at the threshold of a future which can bring into reality the many things we want for our community. We feel that positive action on this Plan of Metropolitan Government is mandatory for the continued growth and sound development of this total area. If inaction or unfortunate delay interferes with the judgement of the people, our community will suffer and the bright prospects the future hold for the Nashville Metropolitan Area will be lost. The key to achieving these accomplishments efficiently and economically is the decision the people will make concerning the governmental organization and form for our metropolitan area.147

Of most serious policy concern were sewage services. According to the analysis by the Community Services Commission the geology of the area added to the economic development issues faced by developers and homeowners in Davidson County. The rocky conditions of the land (limestone rock ranged from 0-50 feet below the surface) resulted in more costly building of basements, water lines, sewer lines, and gas mains. The area had been divided into over thirty drainage areas. The CSC viewed this high level of fragmentation of drainage districts as complicating provision of an adequate sewage collection system. Winter’s abundant rainfall and consequent flooding was seen as further complicating the suburban area’s reliance on septic systems, resulting in both a public health threat, as well as a public nuisance from the unwholesome smell.148 As with sewage services, inadequate water supply services affected the county’s ability to site and build new schools.149

Population shift outward was predicted by the Community Services Commission to continue, exacerbating the problems of funding urban services. The Community Services Commission reported that one half of the 40 census tracts in the city had lost population in the past ten years and that ten of the downtown census tracts had lost population continuously since 1930. The CSC further noted that “Nashville is being deserted—a good share of it—as a place to live and becoming increasingly a place to work.”150

Further compounding these issues were the existence of fringe cities, a metropolitan phenomenon, that the Commission perceived as problematic for other cities and that warranted heading off. The Commission complained that services were made available from Nashville at little or no cost to suburbanites, including streets traveled to and from work, police protection while in the city, use of park and other recreational facilities, and use of airport facilities. Although the county provided some public services, the Commission complained that these costs were also born by city taxpayers, including county schools and police protection from the Sheriff’s office. The CSC report further complained that the

76

city’s support of the General Hospital was unfair to city taxpayers in that the city was funding a community-wide service.151

Before 1950, only Belle Meade, a wealthy suburb, had incorporated (1938). In 1950, Doyle reports that Berry Hill, a lower middle-class and blue-collar community, incorporated to “avoid annexation and keep taxes low.” By 1952, residents of Oak Hill, a wealthy suburb, also voted to incorporate. Fearing that suburban “isolationism” would grow, reformers viewed consolidation and annexation as a way to head off what was seen as the negative consequences of metropolitan fragmentation.152

The significant population growth in the suburbs had also resulted in direct pressures on the county’s school system. Since the county school system was no longer distinctly rural, the Community Services Commission argued that it was no longer justifiable to have school children in different parts of the same metropolitan community experiencing different standards, qualities, and policies. The Community Services Commission noted “New residents of the County area have been unwilling to get by with a make-shift school system consisting of tents, barracks, and overworked teachers.”153 Population shifts were reflected in the declining enrollments in the city school system. To illustrate, enrollment in the city schools had declined from 28,621 in 1940-41 to only 24,872 in 1950-51. Conversely, county school enrollment had increased in the same period from 17,745 (1940-41) to 24,984 (1950-51). Although city school enrollment had declined, the Community Services Commission further noted that inflation and program improvements had resulted in significantly increasing non-capital outlay expenditures over annual expenditures ten years earlier. 154

Table 5. Expenditures

Nashville City Schools Davidson County Schools

Ordinary Funds

Capital Outlay Ordinary Funds

Capital Outlay

1941 – 42 $1,421,352 $21,815 $1,160,322 $783,7631950 – 51 $4,245,924 $527,837 $3,713,115 $2,884,915Ten year total from 1941 – 42 to1950 – 51

$4,145,039 $8,392,605

Source: Community Services Commission, 1952, p. 124

In contrast to the county, the Community Services Commission noted that the City had been able to remodel or replace older buildings over time. Annual city school capital expenditures from 1940-1949 tended to be modest, ranging from a low of $15,244 in 1948-49 to a high of $331,707 in 1940-41. As illustrated in

77

Table 5, however, total county school capital outlays from 1941-42 to 1950-51 were almost double that of the city school system.155

Inequities in the distribution of tax revenue used to support public education were a source of concern to the Commission. In 1950-51, the Community Services Commission reported that the city school system relied primarily on three sources of revenue: state aid, city property tax, and the city’s share of the county’s elementary school tax based on average daily attendance. In 1951, the city’s share of this county tax accounted for 36.6 percent of the total school revenue.156 The Commission noted that “The City of Nashville does not share in the proceeds of the County high school tax levy, even though residents of the City of Nashville pay a generous share of the tax” and thus the city taxpayer had to support two high school systems.157 County property tax accounted for 61.5% of the county school revenue. A separate elementary and high school county property tax levy was fixed by the County Quarterly Court; the practice of which was deemed by the Commission to be a needless budgetary complication.158 If annexation were to be implemented, the Commission argued that there would be an even greater demand to share the high school tax, as the unshared tax would be spent entirely within an area having less than 18% of the county’s population.159 To further substantiate their position advocating school consolidation, the Commission noted that 30 of the 76 county school buildings were located in the immediate suburban area. Similarly, the Commission reported that almost 60% of school children attended schools in the nearby suburban area.160

Another public school issue of concern described by the Community Services Commission included the possibility of a growing number of vacant classrooms in the city school system. This problem was in sharp contrast to the insufficient classroom space, especially elementary, for school children in Davidson County. Adding to the challenge facing the county school system in meeting enrollment demands, school construction in the fringe areas was negatively impacted by the inadequacy of the current water supply and sewage disposal systems. Although the county had apparently implemented some of the recommendations from the Peabody Survey conducted in 1949 which called for consolidation of small elementary schools, the ability of the county’s school system to respond to continued increased population pressures was of concern to the Community Services Commission.161

78

Table 6: School Buildings Table 7: School Buildings,

Nashville, 1952 Davidson County, 1952 j

Type of School Number of Buildings

Type of School Number of Buildings

Elementary Elementary White 29 White 50 Black 10 Black 15* Total 39 Total 65

High High White 6 White 10 Black 1 Black 1 Total 7 Total 11

Total Buildings 46* Total Buildings 76**

Due to the lack of classroom space in the county schools, the ratio of pupils between the city and county school systems was found to be disparate: an average of 26 pupils per teacher in the city as compared to the county’s average of 31.5. Averages were believed to be misleading because there were a large number of classes with enrollments of 40 or more. The 1949 Peabody Survey was reported to have found average size in white elementary schools to be 41 (with 45% of teachers teaching more than 40 pupils and13% teaching more than 50). The Tennessee State Board specified a standard class size of 30. Although the report notes that the teaching staff had been expanded in the county from 533 to 893, the Community Services Commission believed the student-teacher ratio to be of continuing concern.162

Source: Community Services Commission, 1952, p. 125

* This is three less than in 1940. The report notes that all school buildings were brick except Hume-Fogg High School which was built of stone and Clifton Elementary, a black school, which was frame.

j Source: Community Services Commission, 1952, p. 125-6

* In 1949, there were 27 black elementary schools, all but two were one- and two-teacher schools. In contrast, this was true for only five of the white elementary schools.

** The report also notes that county school buildings were “comparatively young.” In 1949, 84% of white elementary schools were less than 26 years old; 83% of black elementary schools were less than 27 years old; and 82% of all high schools were less than 22 years old.

79

The Community Services Commission report also noted that the County School Board appeared reluctant to authorize expenditure of large sums of money for capital outlays in suburban areas likely to be annexed by the city. The report noted that “This reluctance to build school buildings which might soon become part of the City school system tends to result in various stop-gap measures not in harmony with the best planning of the overall school program for the community. It further tends to cause the County to look at new schools farther out from Nashville’s city limits than would occur if the whole urban area was under a single school system.”163

The Community Services Commission argued that there were numerous advantages to consolidating the two school systems, including:

13)Formation of a single unity of purpose and direction;14)Fiscal equalization and improvement of education standards across the

entire area;15)Planning without regard to arbitrary boundaries;16)Equalization of pay scales to positively affect morale;17)Creation of a larger student population base to facilitate more

specialization of the curriculum and a wider range of courses;18)Expanded and improved vocational high school;19)Provision of special opportunities for all students;20)Establishment of uniform policies to lessen difficulties faced by transferring

students;21)Elimination of the “bickering” over school funds;22)Distribution of the tax burden fairly;23)Improvement of the case work services provided by the Visiting Teacher

Program; and24)Creation of savings from centralized purchasing and elimination of

duplicate administrative staffs, office space, and maintenance personnel and facilities.

Additional educational benefits of school consolidation suggested by the CSC consisted of areas that would make the unified system more efficient and effective operationally, including: elimination of duplicated specialized programs, improved coordinated planning, provision of a unified curriculum responsive to the needs of students transferring from one system to the other, and overall efficiencies in administrative support functions. 164

The Community Services Commission does commend the efforts by the city and county to foster co-operative arrangements. For example, county students were allowed to attend either of the two of the city’s vocational high schools as space was available, at no expense. The CSC, however, concluded that such

80

arrangements provided only stop-gap measures.”165 Further, the Commission argued that:

the financial economies which might result from a merger of the two school systems are generally greatly exaggerated. Actually, both systems are large enough to operate with relative efficiency, especially when compared with other school systems in Tennessee. Although some economies would undoubtedly be made possible by consolidation, this should not be considered one of the more important or even one of the certain advantages of consolidation.166

Although the Plan of Metropolitan Government, October 1956, prepared by the Advance Planning & Research Division (AP&RD) did not detail all of the metropolitan issues as extensively as the CSC report, the issues still remained: inadequate sanitary sewer system, public fire and police protection, street lighting, roads, sanitation collection, water supply, and recreational program. Clearly speaking to the suburbanites in the county, the AP&RD report complained that there was an absence of most other urban services, or that services were offered only on a private subscription basis, received from the City at a higher cost than inside the City, or received from the County at standards much lower than accepted urban standards. The report argued that there was no existing government structure to deal with area-wide problems, such as crime, juvenile delinquency, crowded schools, traffic congestion, fire protection, or water supply. Moreover, the AP&RD argued that having separate county and city governments was wasteful duplication, divided the loyalties of community leaders, and dispersed and dissipated citizens’ control of government since it was not clear who had official responsibility and authority. 167

Similar to the Community Services Commission, the Advance Planning & Research Division (AP&RD) argued four years later that there were important benefits of metropolitan consolidation and that there was urgency in acting if the community were to realize these benefits. Consolidation was argued to offer the following benefits: unified community-wide actions, clear cut authority for policies and actions; a governmental structure that was more economical and efficient, establishment of a jurisdiction, not just for the current urban developed area but also responsive to future growth, financing on a more equitable, simplified and sound basis, and the generation of favorable nationwide recognition. The AP&RD suggested, “Nothing would help Nashville and Davidson County so much in bidding for new businesses and industries as the ability to point to the Plan of Metropolitan Government as an indication of a progressive community.”168 The AP&RD proposed that there would be no immediate change regarding school consolidation, and charged the charter commission with developing an acceptable plan, noting that the plan should reassure city and county school employees that they would not be adversely affected.169

81

Desegregation

In their insightful book, The Burden of Busing: The Politics of Desegregation in Nashville, Tennessee, Pride and Woodard describe the complex history of desegregation and busing in Nashville. On September 23, 1955, Robert W. Kelley and 21 other plaintiffs filed suit to end public school segregation in Nashville (Kelley v. Board of Education). In March 1956, Judge William E. Miller ordered the city schools to desegregate. Kelley’s court suit resulted in the “Nashville Plan,” a staged, grade-a-year program for desegregation that started in the first grade (1957) and was scheduled for full compliance by 1968. In November 1960, Davidson County Public Schools were ordered to follow the same grade-a-year plan. With consolidation, the Metropolitan Board of Education called for desegregation for all twelve grades by 1966-67.170

School location became a contentious issue in Nashville as suburbanites left the older downtown school facilities to black children. In 1969, the original plaintiffs of the Kelley suit filed a brief before the U.S. District Court complaining about inequitable school construction and how the slow pace of desegregation had allowed whites to move to the suburbs, essentially re-segregating the school system. Late that year, Judge Miller of the District Court enjoined the board from proceeding with school construction or purchasing new sites until a plan could be developed that would maximize integration.171 However, in 1970, Judge Miller ordered the school board to submit a plan to desegregate the staff and students and identify how construction would enhance desegregation. Although the board presented an initial staff desegregation plan, they received permission for more time to plan further integration. The Supreme Court holding on Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, April 1971, however, supported busing as the means to assure racial assimilation and laid the foundation for busing in Nashville. In August 1971, consequently, the school board was mandated to implement busing, per Judge Morton of the District Court. Busing began in September 1971.172

In the 1970s, white enrollment in schools ordered to desegregate decreased 53%, compared to a decrease of only 13% for schools not under the order (court-ordered schools were 40% black compared to 9% black for non-court-ordered schools). Doyle further notes that private school enrollment grew from almost 8,000 in 1969 to almost 15,000 by 1972, with seven new private schools organizing in 1971.173 Table 8 describes school enrollment trends for public and private schools in Davidson County, 1950-1990.

Table 8: School Enrollment in Davidson County

82

DecadeEnrollment

Public Private Total

N % N % N %1950n 35,585 100

1960n 74,836 90.08 8,242 9.92 83,078 100

1970 117,630 90.53 12,301 9.47 129,931 100

1980 151,304 87.81 21,006 12.19 172,310 100

1990 143,901 88.17 19,299 11.83 163,200 100

Source: U S Department of Census 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000n Years prior to consolidation. Numbers shown are total figures for County and City school systems.

One hundred schools were under the court order; thirty-three were exempt (zone D) as they were considered to be located so far from the urban core that busing was considered to be impractical. The Nashville-Davidson County busing plan attempted to limit busing in grades 1-4. These children were assigned to suburban schools, grades 5-6 were placed in older black community schools. The goal was to have black children account for approximately 25% of each school in the court-ordered area. Doyle writes that some neighborhoods accepted the plan; however, the outlying schools “became havens for white parents trying to avoid busing. The court order had anticipated this white flight and sought to limit it by prohibiting new construction or the use of portables at such facilities.”174

In contrast to parental perceptions, Pride and Woodard conclude that busing had no meaningful negative effect on academic achievement for Metro’s school children. They write:

Indeed the rising achievement scores of most children over the years suggest that the constant pressures on teachers, stimulated by the stresses of busing, may have been a factor in the improved scores . . . Schools were encouraged to develop a variety of programs to meet children’s individual needs; individualized learning programs and ability groupings were authorized and bore fruit.

However, Price and Woodard also found that 20% of children scored lower in 1979 than in 1975; parents tended to blame busing for the decline. Although black children’s achievement test scores improved, Price and Woodard found that the achievement gap between blacks and whites remained substantial and conclude that busing had not ended many of the racial inequities in the schools.175

83

In 1978, newly appointed District Court Judge Wiseman agreed to reopen Kelley et al. v. Metropolitan County Board of Education. Holding that the existing desegregation plan had encouraged white flight, and, consequently had resulted in de jure segregation, Judge Wiseman demanded that the board develop a new unitary plan for the entire county.176 After much contention and court involvement, a negotiated plan that incorporated pairing and cluster arrangements was contained in a consent order April 1983.177

In 1998, the school system developed a Pupil Assignment Plan, although commonly called the School Improvement Plan, which resulted in the federal court absolving the school system from the many restrictions that had been imposed due to implementation of desegregation. The system’s unitary status is considered a major accomplishment. The consulting company who completed an extensive performance audit of the school system, MGT of America, Inc. notes that: “The Mayor, Board of Education, Director of Schools, and other parties are acutely aware of the established requirements to maintain unitary status.” As summarized in the MGT report, these provisions include the following conditions: goals, rationale, and principles including a three-tiered structure and feeder patterns, as immutable factors. The report also notes that seven additional factors are considerations for the Improvement Plan: demographic diversity, educational needs of students, facilities, transportation, continuity in zones, choice, and community involvement. Pupil assignment to schools comprise three components, that is, zoned schools with consistent feeder patterns, optional schools/programs, and other special programs. The School Improvement Plan must also include a description of school zones and cluster feeder patterns, and a five-year capital plan with budget and timeline.178

According to Dr. Tracy Libros, Director, Student Assignment Services, MNPS, school zones will now have consistent feeder patterns and grade structure configurations. Children in elementary schools will stay together as they progress to middle school. The MNPS now use ArcView, a Geographic Information System, to assist in determining school district boundaries.

C O N S O L I D A T E D M E T R O G O V E R N M E N T

Although the first referendum (1958) on metropolitan consolidation was unsuccessful, the people of Nashville and Davidson County approved a proposed charter to establish the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County in a referendum held June 28, 1962. The consolidation of Nashville and Davidson County was the first successful city-county consolidation in Tennessee. The first metropolitan government officials were to be elected in November 1962 with the consolidated government becoming effective the first

84

Monday in April 1963 when the elected mayor and 40-member Metropolitan County Council would take office. A nine-member school board was to be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by a two-thirds vote of the Council. The School Board members were to be selected from each of nine districts. The district groupings of the councilmanic districts were specified in the charter.

The consolidation of the City of Nashville and Davidson County has lasted for almost 40 years with no apparent effort to separate the jurisdictions. The proposed metropolitan charter accepted in 1962 has also been stable. Of interest, the first revision to the charter did not occur until 1980 when voters determined to have an elected school board rather than continue an appointed board.

In his assessment following consolidation, Grant, a supporter of consolidation, suggests that in its first two years unified political responsibility appeared to make it easier for citizens to know who to call or see, efficiencies from reduced duplications resulting in some economies had begun to be realized, countywide equalization of services had been initiated, city-county financial inequities had been eliminated and thus was more fairly distributed, and Nashville had gained national visibility as a progressive community.179 Doyle suggests that even though taxes increased after consolidation as the budget climbed from $60 million to $243 million between 1962 and 1975 and water and sewer rates increased, Nashvillians appeared to be pleased with the improvements in services, re-electing Mayor Beverly Briley in 1966 and 1971.180 Doyle argues persuasively that consolidation created a favorable climate for economic development. Davidson Metro was able to develop an aggressive and successful team of officials to lobby the federal government for grants, so that by the early 1970s, Metro ranked well above competing cities for federal funds. Doyle argues “Nashville enjoyed an edge over rivals because its consolidated government ensured a coherent governmental structure and monitoring system for carrying out federal programs.”181

In a 1968 article about the merger of city and county in Nashville, a reporter writes glowingly about the success of the consolidation, noting that:

Before consolidation, city and county schools were separate—and different. Generally, the city’s schools were superior. Consolidation has permitted the area to develop and improve its school system unhampered by political boundaries and other governmental restrictions. Numerous new schools have been constructed, faculties have been strengthened, and class sizes have been reduced. During the first four years of consolidation, the average expenditure per pupil in the area jumped from $293 to $410.182

85

Similarly, Fillebrown applauded the positive consequences of consolidation. He suggested that if Metropolitan Nashville had not been approved, the tax rate in Nashville would have been increased by at least $.50 and perhaps a $1.00 (tax rate in old city in 1960 was $5.33 and in 1968 it was $5.30). He notes that property tax in Memphis and Knoxville increased nine percent and Chattanooga 37 percent in the same time period.183 An 1971 article in Business Week reported that Nashville had changed from having the highest tax rate in the state to now having one of the lowest. The article further reported that the end of the “bickering” between the city and county had resulted in improved business confidence to the central city, eased race relations, improved public services, revitalized the downtown and boasted a growing economy.184

Metro Charter

Article 1, Sec. 1.01, Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee established the consolidated metropolitan government:

The governmental and corporate functions now vested in the City of Nashville, a municipal corporation created by Chapter 246, Private Acts of 1947, and amendments thereto, are hereby consolidated with the governmental and corporate functions of the County of Davidson, such consolidation being pursuant to constitutional power granted by article XI, section 9 of the Constitution of Tennessee, as amended, and in conformity with section 7-1-101 et seq. of Tennessee Code Annotated, as amended. Said consolidation shall result in the creation and establishment of a new metropolitan government to perform all, or substantially all, of the governmental and corporate functions previously performed by the county and by the city, to be known as “The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County,” herein sometimes called “the metropolitan government.” The metropolitan government shall be a public corporation, with perpetual succession, capable of suing and being sued, and capable of purchasing, receiving and holding property, real and personal, and of selling, leasing or disposing of the same to the same extent as other governmental entities. (Res. No. 88-526, § 1, 10-4-88)

As proposed in the 1962 referendum, the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County continues to be divided into two districts. The General Services District (GSD) is synonymous with Davidson County; the Urban Services District comprises the central city and areas added since Metro was formed (the Opryland area was temporarily removed from the USD until 2004). As initially planned, the GSD receives base level services, with a property tax

86

rate that funds this level of service. The USD receives more services, funded by a higher tax rate.

Table 9. Metro Government Services Districts, 2001

General Services District Urban Services District

Size 533 square miles 169 square miles

Population (1990 Census)

510,784 371,500

Services General government, financial management, schools, justice administration, law enforcement & incarceration, basic fire & ambulance, regulation & inspection, social services, health, hospitals, libraries, public works, traffic control, recreational & cultural

GSD services plus additional police protection, additional fire protection, and additional public works (refuse collection and street lighting)

Source: FY 2002 Recommended Operating Budget, Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, Overview, p. 2

Graph 1. Organizational Structure of Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County

Source: Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, FY2002 Recommended Budget, Overview, 3.

87

Metropolitan Mayor and Council

Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County Government has a “strong-mayor” form of government, with the mayor acting as the chief executive of metro operations. In 1999, Mayor Bill Purcell became the fifth mayor of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. Continuing a tradition started by Mayor Briley one year after consolidation and similar to Mayor Briley, Mayor Purcell described the state of Metro as good and the future as bright. Regarding his educational promises, Mayor Purcell noted that the largest part of the metropolitan budget is education and pointed to his support for higher standards, better performance, and completing a $206 million school construction program.185

According to Article 3, Charter of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, legislative authority is vested in the metropolitan county council. The council has a total membership of forty members, including five (5) councilmen-at-large, and thirty-five (35) district councilmen. Members serve for a four-year term and receive $300 per month. Council members must be at least 25 years old and have been a resident of the metropolitan area for at least one year (six months in the district, continuing district residence during the term of office). One of the informants noted the Council was able to work effectively, even given its large size due to its very formalized committee structure.

Fourteen members of the Metropolitan Council serve on a Metropolitan Council Education Committee. This committee acts as a clearinghouse for school system issues to be considered by the Council. In the last year, the Education Committee, in conjunction with the School Board, held public meetings to elicit input from citizens about the school system.186

Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County Public Schools

The approved charter provided for the existing County and City School Boards to continue to administer, control, and operate their respective school system temporarily until their authority sunset July 31, 1962. A “Transitional School Board” of nine members was to be appointed to oversee the Metropolitan School System from August 1, 1962 until June 30, 1964. Three members were to be selected by the Davidson County Board of Education (those selected were to have been members of the Davidson County Board of Education prior to the termination of that Board) and; three members were to be chosen by the City of

88

Nashville Board of Education (and, similarly, to have been members of that Board prior to August 1, 1962); the three remaining board members were named specifically in the charter. During the transitional two-year period, the Transitional Board was charged with operating two separate systems “in the same manner as the two systems were operated prior to the adoption of the new charter.” The Transitional Board was also charged with implementing a comprehensive survey of both school systems. Both Superintendents continued to serve as Superintendents of their respective units coordinating the transition and implementation of consolidation.187 Consolidation resulted in changing the county’s two-tier structure to the city’s three-tier system, elementary, middle (for seventh through ninth grades), and senior high schools. 188

Article 9, Section 9.01, of the Metropolitan Charter establishes the public school system for Nashville and Davidson County. Section 9.04 enables the Board to call for a referendum election if two-thirds majority of the entire board believe the operational budget to be insufficient and inadequate. 189 Regarding protecting teachers in the conversion to a metro system, Section 9.06 preserves and protects pension rights and benefits of city and county school employees, Section 9.07 calls for the establishment of an actuarially sound pension and retirement plan for teachers, allowing the city and county teachers to transfer to the new system, and Section 9.08 protects the tenure rights of county and city teachers. Section 9.14 transfers all school property owned by Davidson County and the City of Nashville to the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County.

A group of citizens, the Committee for Elected School Board, collected enough signatures to call for a referendum in 1980. The referendum was successful, achieving a 56% majority. Consequently, the first school board election took place in 1982. Pride and Woodard ascribe the impetus for this shift to an elected school board as an attempt to force the school board to be more responsive to majority public opinion opposing busing.190

Currently, the Metropolitan Board of Public Education consists of nine elected members, one member elected from each of the nine districts. The term of office is four years, with no less than four members elected every two years. The Director of Schools is appointed by the Board of Education. Although the possibility has been discussed recently, Metro School Board Members have not been and are not now paid for their service.

89

Graph 2. Organization Structure, Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

Source: Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, FY 2002 Recommended Budget, I-1.

Summary Description of Current Metro School System

The Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) currently reports that it is the 49th largest urban school district in the United States with approximately 83% of Nashville’s school children attending Metro Public Schools. They also report that students from their system generally outperform national and large-city averages. Further, MNPS notes that 65% of Metro Schools’ 1999 graduates went on to further education—more than double the national average of 30% for urban districts.191 Table 10 lists the number and types of MNPS schools.

90

Table 10. Metropolitan Public Schools, Number and Type, 2000-2001

School Type Number

Elementary Schools 67Middle Schools 31High Schools 11Magnet Schools* 12Special Education Schools 4Adult Education Schools 1Alternative Schools 3Total Schools 129

Source: Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, Vital Statistics, 2000-2001* All MNPS magnet schools are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

More than 5,000 students are enrolled at Metro magnet schools. To attend a magnet school, a drawing is held for entry-level grades to select students. Students eligible for grades above entry level are assigned to waiting lists. Parents must provide transportation for their children. The school system does provide parents with student lists to facilitate carpooling and the Metropolitan Transit Authority provides a special student rate from most parts of the county. Table N provides data on the degree level of teachers in the Metro system. Of the total number of teachers (5,013), 52.4% have master’s degrees or master’s degree plus additional coursework; 4.1% of teachers have doctoral degrees.

Table 11. Teachers by Degree, 2000-2001 School Year

Total Bachelor’s

Master’s Master’s Plus*

ED.S Ph.D

Elementary Schools 47.3% 31.1% 19.0% 1.1% 1.5%Middle Schools 45.0% 30.4% 20.3% 1.0% 3.2%High Schools 32.7% 32.0% 27.1% 2.0% 4.9%Magnet Schools 40.7% 34.1% 20.1% 1.7% 3.4%Other Schools 39.0% 37.8% 12.2% 1.2% 4.9%

Average All Schools

39 17 12 8 1 2

Total All Schools 5,013 2,168 1,583 1,042 64 138Percentage of All Schools

43.2% 31.6% 20.8% 1.3% 2.8%

Source: MGT of America Inc., Performance Audit of Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, 2001, 3-12.

91

*Teachers with master’s degrees plus having taken additional hours of coursework, but not have attained a doctorate.

The School system has no taxing authority, receiving 34% of its operational budget from state sales tax and 66% from local property and sales taxes.192 The highlights section of the FY2002 Recommended Budget notes that the budget proposal provided for continuation of educational programs and services at last year’s level with inflationary adjustments, compliance with state mandates in teacher-pupil ratio for grades 4-6 as well as funding for textbooks and staffing new schools becoming operational in 2001-2002, implementation of the performance audit first-year recommendations from MGT of America, and a reserve to fund compensation issues for staff. The total recommended budget appropriation for operating expenditures thus was $443 million.193 The FY2001-2002 operating budget approved by the Board of Education indicates that $110 million of the projected revenue would come from property taxes and $150 million from the local option sales tax.

Source: Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, FY 2002 Recommended Operating Budget, Overview-38.

Accountability

Before 1975, Metro did not have system wide achievement tests at all grade levels. After 1975, Doyle reports that elementary scores were published in the newspaper and would result in critical comment. Although the overall scores showed modest increases toward the national average, the scores showed a gap between white and black averages.194 Two surveys of public opinion, conducted in 1977 and 1981, reported that the community perceived the school system quality to be low and that busing had failed.195

Table 12 provides statistical information on pupil progress for MNPS students, from 1950-1990.

92

Table 12. Pupil Progress Among Public School Students for Davidson County

School Year

Number of Students

Promoted Retained Expelled Suspended

N %of total

enrollment

N %of total

enrollment

N %of total

enrollment

N %of total

enrollment

1950n 41,587 3,094 -- --

1960n 66,708 91.73 4,674 6.43 -- --

1965 82,745 94.56 4,294 4.91 -- --

1970 88,229 95.54 2,997 3.25 -- --

1980 62,924 88.83 3,783 5.34 -- --

1990 58,026 87.85 4,131 6.25 0 0 10,833 16.4

2000 59,582 87.18 5,437 7.96 343 0.5 11,890 17.4

Source: Annual Statistical Report of the Dept. of Education 1950, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000

n Years prior to consolidation. Numbers shown are total figures for County and City school systems.

Metro citizens responded to the 1990 national movement promoting educational reform efforts calling for each community to develop a report card evaluating its local public schools. Beginning in 1993, a Nashville/Davidson County community group called the Citizens Panel for a Community Report Card has produced an annual report card about the Metro School System. Also concerned about performance, the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools established a system-wide Accountability Framework in 1998 (amended 1999, revised 2000) with the assistance of business and community leaders, some of whom had served on the Citizens Panel. The eight district accountability goals emphasize student academic achievement, but include a goal regarding provision of a safe, respectful, and orderly environment for learning. Each school is responsible for making improvements to achieve the standards. The Director of Schools is to present an annual report card on the district and each school’s progress toward meeting the goals and school standards.196

While noting some system improvements in facilities and technology, the 2000 Progress Report prepared by the Citizens Panel notes that student achievement remained a problem and summarily graded the system as performing at average, a grade of “C.”197 According to the results of the 2000 School Report Card from the Tennessee Department of Education, MNPS scored a “D” for per pupil expenditures and average teacher salary. Achievement scores for elementary, middle, and senior high schools ranged from “B” to “D” with “D’s” in the majority

93

regarding academic achievement. The gaps in academic performance for minority children noted prior to consolidation remain an issue.198

Mayor Purcell’s election platform had called for quality schools and accountability. Consequently, the School Board asked for the school system to have the first professional performance audit. Consequently, Metro government funded an extensive audit at a cost of $500,000 (the cost was equally shared between Metro government and local private foundations). The audit reviewed the following school operations: School system organization and management, Educational service delivery, Personnel management, Financial management, Asset and Risk Management, Purchasing and Warehousing, Facilities Use and Management, Community Involvement and Communications, Administrative and Instructional Technology, Transportation, Food Service, and Safety and Security. In addition, the report compares the Metro system to five other similarly sized school systems: Austin Independent School District (TX), Charlotte-Mecklenberg Schools (NC), Columbus Public Schools (OH), Hamilton County Schools (TN), Jefferson County Public Schools (KY). The audit team visited fifty-two schools; reviewed documentation from the school system; interviewed school administrators, parents and students, board members, community and business leaders; conducted written surveys of administrators, principals, and teachers; and held a public hearing. The final report was released in January 2001.

The performance audit conducted by MGT of America provides a detailed analysis of the school system and presents more than 200 findings and recommendations, including several commendations. The lengthy report is available to the public through links on the Metro school system site (www.nashville.k12.tn.us) or the Chamber of Commerce site (www.nashvillechamber.net). Copies of the survey instruments are included in Appendix A of the MGT report; the results of each formal survey are reported in Appendix B of the MGT report. Overall, the auditors found that overall funding for the school system was generally adequate. To implement their recommendations, however, the consultants estimated that MNPS would need an additional $12 million, that is, the $47 million in spending recommendations would be offset by $35 million of savings and revenue enhancements. The consultants also recommended $14.5 million in net capital expenditures over the next five years and $9.2 million in net savings from food service operations. The largest area of spending recommendations related to improvements in technology. Based on their comparisons of the six school systems, MGT concluded that the system employs lower than average numbers of teachers, administrators, and total employees overall, but ranks below the other systems regarding number of curriculum specialists, ACT scores, number of instructional or teacher aides, and average teacher and administrator salaries. Further, the MNPS fell below the comparison group with respect to technology staffing and

94

average number of computers for instructional use. MNPS also was found to have the highest number of student expulsions and suspensions.

Table 13 provides a profile of statistical information on the current Davidson County School System. Information includes number of faculty, pupil enrollment categorized by race, financial information, achievement scores and disciplinary actions.

Table 13. Profile of Current Davidson County System

Number of Public Schools 126

PERSONNELNumber of Faculty 4,528Number of Administrators 266

ENROLLMENTTotal Pupil Enrollment 68,345

White 36,842Black 35,108Hispanic 2,976Asian 2,526Native American 166

FINANCIALPer Pupil Expenditures $6,912Average Teacher Salary $41,072% of budget that comes from local sources 59.5%% of budget that comes from state sources 31.8%% of budget that comes from federal sources 8.7%

ACHIEVEMENTDistrict Average of Senior Student SAT Scores 1 987District Average of Senior Student ACT Scores 2 18.99District Average of TCAP Scores 3 D

DISCIPLINENumber of Expulsions 343Number of Suspensions 11,890

Source: Tennessee School Report Card, 20001 SAT is the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Davidson County’s average score was lower than both the state

(1116) and national (1019) average scores.2 ACT is the ACT Assessment. Davidson County’s average score was lower than both the state (20.00)

and national (21.00) average scores.3 The TCAP is the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program. Davidson County’s score was

below average.

School Consolidation Impact The Metropolitan Nashville Public School System has been in existence for almost forty years. Unlike the consolidation experience for Knoxville-Knox County and Chattanooga-Hamilton County school systems, school consolidation

95

in Nashville was but one component of the overall metropolitan governmental consolidation. The key lessons learned from the Metro Nashville consolidation appear most relevant to gaining insights into the political process that was undertaken to achieve majority and stakeholder support, the detailed level of analysis and specification of metropolitan issues underlying the design efforts to create the proposed charter, and the two-year transition period allowed for both school systems to plan and implement consolidation.

In the social sciences, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove causation. This challenge is exacerbated given the length of time that has passed since Metro was formed in 1963. Changes have occurred in data reporting and customary documentation practices. Further, court-ordered busing in 1971 appears to supersede ascribing system changes to the mid-1960’s school consolidation. Direct causal linkages regarding quality and system efficiencies would be inappropriate given the significant public policy changes educational systems have responded to between 1963 and 2001. However, statistical information is provided to present a picture of the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools.

Table 14 summarizes statistical information indicators in Davidson County, 1950-2000. The table presents information on the number of schools, expenditures, faculty resources, administrative personnel, pupil enrollment, and pupil transportation.

Quality

Based on the review of the literature about the consolidation and the study’s interviews of knowledgeable Nashvillians, the effects of school consolidation appear to be perceived as generally positive, then and now. In contrast to school systems that are more fragmented, the consensus of those interviewed suggest that consolidation may be an advantage in being able to direct efforts towards planning and achieving system improvements as well as generating support for resources.

Apparently citizens in Memphis in 1965 were considering changing from a commission form of government. Consequently, the Memphis Press-Scimitar had lengthy articles about how the council-manager form was working in San Antonio and Cincinnati. A third article assessed the city-county consolidation in Nashville. Quoting one of the members of the Metro Council, Robert E. Norris, the reporter writes that consolidating the city and county school systems was one of the greatest accomplishments and that students who were in the county outside the city were now being better educated. Quoting Mayor Briley, the reporter writes: “We get better teaching because of strong supervision, better management and more of it. . . . “People who don’t like me say this government costs more. We are spending more because we are doing more. We have

96

increased the total budget for more schools spending, a bigger public works program and other things.” Education system costs after consolidation increased, but this appears to be related to increases in service, assuring salary equity, and adding teachers.

Table 14. System Indicators for Davidson County

Indicator

School Year

1950

n 19

60

n 1965

1970

1980

1990

2000

Number of SchoolsTotal Number

Percent City Public SchoolsPercent County Public Schools

Expenditures (in dollars)Total Current (in millions)

Per PupilFaculty

Total Number of TeachersPercent City Public Teachers

Percent County Public TeachersAverage Annual Teacher Salary

(in thousands)Number of Pupils per Teacher

AdministrationNumber of Admin. Personnel

Pupils per AdministratorPupil Enrollment

Average Daily MembershipAverage Daily Attendance

Length of School Term (in days)Pupil Transportation

Number Transported Daily Source: Annual Statistical Report of the Dept. of Education 1950, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000

n Years prior to consolidation. Numbers shown are total figures for County and City school systems.

Before 1975, Metro did not have system wide achievement tests at all grade levels. As discussed earlier in the report, overall scores did show modest increases toward the national average. However, the scores also showed that the gap between white and black averages remained.199 Public opinion polls in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s found that the public had little confidence in the system.200 The 2000 Progress Report prepared by the Citizens Panel for a Community Report Card commended the school system for improvements such as improvements in attendance rates, writing scores, and drop out rates as well as increased per pupil expenditures and teacher salaries. However, the citizen

97

panel expressed concern that during 1999-2000 student ACT scores declined, teacher effectiveness declined in four of five subjects, reading scores for grades 3 through 8 showed no improvement, and the passing rate for the 9th grade competency test declined.

The Citizens Panel has conducted customer satisfaction surveys over the last three years to assess community perceptions of the effectiveness of MNPS. About half of the respondents in the 2000 survey graded the public schools with a grade of “C.” However, the number giving the school system an “A” or “B” dropped from 27% last year to 18% this year, with 35% of respondents perceiving the system is worse compared to five years ago. Table 15 highlights some of the customer satisfaction measures.

Table 15. Customer Satisfaction, MNPS Schools

Query Customer Satisfaction Ratings1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000

Quality of Metro Schools Overall (scale 1-10)

5.64 5.80 6.22

Effectiveness of Tax Dollars for Education (scale 1-10)

4.05 4.32 4.50

Responders Rating Metro Schools “C” or better

73.8% 75.6% 66.0%

Parents of Metro Students Rating Metro Schools “C” or better

79.0% 80.6% 70.0%

Source: Citizens Panel for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress Report.

The Metro community is concerned about school safety and security. For the last three years, the Customer Satisfaction Survey found discipline, violence and funding as leading causes of concern. The 2000 Progress Report notes an increase in the number of weapons confiscated (1997-98, 8 guns and 57 knives/other; 1999-2000, 11 guns, 157 knives, and 3 other weapons) as well as the number of in-school suspensions (1998-99, 27,373 incidents; 1999-2000, 34,376 incidents). The Metro Police School Services Division assigned 28 officers to serve as campus police, with an additional 11 Metro Police D.A.R.E. officers assisting the school system.

Disruption

Given the two-year transition period, consolidations of the city and county school systems did not appear to cause any educational disruption. Several informants indicated that the support from the teachers in both systems smoothed the transition process. Further, Metro consolidation does not appear to have

98

heightened “flight.” Flight to the suburbs had already begun in the 1950s and appeared to be more associated with desegregation efforts and busing than with consolidation of the two governments. At the same time, it was the forced annexation and imposition of a wheel tax that garnered support by suburbanites for consolidation. Although only speculative, without those two factors the problem of having inadequate services may have not been adequate to rally suburbanites to support consolidation.

Flight

Similarly, the growth spurt of private schools in the Nashville area appears to be linked to court-ordered busing, not consolidation. See Table 8 for the information on private school enrollment trends. Enrollment in private schools grew from less than 10% in 1960 to almost 12% in 1990. At the same time, the Tennessean reported that the MNPS was hoping to attract 1% of private school enrollment each year back to public schools. The article, however, argues that MNPS will have to improve its performance before it can be successful in convincing parents to choose public schooling for their children.201 The list of private schools with membership in the Tennessee Association of Independent Schools is presented in Table 16 to offer a profile of the variety of the private programs available in Nashville.

99

Table 16. Private Schools in Nashville, Member of the Tennessee Association of Independent Schools

School Type Enrollment

Abintra Montessori School Coeducational Montessori,8 weeks-15 years

125

Akiva School Coeducational Jewish Day SchoolK-6th

75

Davidson Academy Coeducational InterdenomenationalDay School, PreK3-12th

1,077

Donelson Christian Academy

Coeducational NondenomenationalDay School, PreK4-12

1,005

Ensworth School Coeducational Day SchoolK-8th

553

Father Ryan High School Coeducational Roman Catholic Day School, 9th-12th

1,000

Franklin Road Academy Coeducational Day School,PreK-12th

881

Harding Academy Coeducational Day School, K-8th 410Harpeth Hall School Girls Day School, 5th-12th 539Montgomery Bell Academy Boys Day School, 7th-12th 625Oak Hill School Coeducational Day School, PreK-6th 441Overbrook School Coeducational Roman Catholic Day

School, PreK3-8th 366

St. Cecelia Academy Girls Roman Catholic Day School,9th-12th

207

St. Paul Christian Academy Coeducational InterdenomenationalDay School, PreK-6th

328

University School of Nashville

Coeducational Day SchoolK-12th

979

Westminster School Coeducational Day SchoolK-8th

205

Total EnrollmentNashville TAIS Schools

8816

Source: Tennessee Association of Independent Schools, Member Directory, Nashville, www.taistn.org.

Race

As discussed in the earlier section on desegregation, race was and continues to be an issue for the Nashville area and the school system. The history of segregated schools, court-ordered busing, and continued gaps in academic performance between the races create a challenging context for political and educational leaders. The careful implementation of the Improvement Plan will hopefully be of benefit to the community over the long term. Causal linkages to the 1963 consolidation to an increase in racism appear inappropriate.

100

Consequently, the data provided below is intended only to present a summary profile of this issue. Table 17 reflects the growing diversity of the Metro area. The table shows that African American certified staff account for approximately 25% of the total certified staff in the MNPS. In contrast, African American students comprise more than 45% of the student population. In its 2000 report card, the Citizens Panel recommended that the MNPS evaluate its current recruitment policies to ensure that minority representation is enhanced.

Table 17. Comparison of Racial Demographics, Nashville and Metro Schools

Race Ethnic Diversity of Faculty and Students

Nashville Metro Schools

1998 Projected 2003

Students Certified Staff* 1998

Certified Staff* 2000

White 71.3% 69.4% 47.5% 76% 73.6%African American

25.1% 25.6% 45.2% 24% 25.3%

White-Latino 1.3% 1.8% 3.8% -- 0.6%

Asian/Pacific Islanders

2.0% 2.4% 3.3% -- 0.4%

Native American/Other

0.3% 0.6% 0.2% -- --

Source: Citizens Panel for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress Report.* Certified staff comprised of principals, assistant principals, and teachers

The annual report card found that the percentage of dropouts declined for African American students, 49.5% in 1997-98 to 48.1% in 1998-99. However, this percentage increased in 1999-2000, 51.8%. Further, the percentage of African American students eligible for academic magnet programs is much lower than for other students. Table 18 shows this disparity. Table 19 shows a gap in performance regarding SAT scores, while Table 20 provides benchmarking information to compare Metro average scores with the averages for the state and nation.

101

Table 18. Comparison of Student Eligibility to attend Academic

Magnet Schools, by Race

Eligibility for Academic Magnet Schools

1997-98* 1998-99* 1999-2000*

5th grade (for Meigs) African American-13%White-70%Other-18%

African American-13%White-70%Other-18%

African American-13%White-69%Other-18%

7th grade (for MLK) African American-14%White-66%Other-20%

African American-14%White-66%Other-20%

African American-15%White-69%Other-16%

9th grade (for Hume-Fogg)

African American-13%White-70%Other-17%

African American-13%White-70%Other-17%

African American-13%White-69%Other-17%

Source: Citizens for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress Report*Students are eligible for the following academic year Of 119 schools in 1997-98, seven schools were primarily African American (80% or more); one school was primarily white. However, of 126 schools in 1999-2000, fifteen schools were predominately African American and three were primarily white.

Table 19. Comparison of SAT College Entrance Exam Scores, MNPS

Comparative Mean SAT Scores

1997-98* 1998-99 1999-2000

White Verbal Math

591582

577566

573554

African American Verbal Math

498481

480460

488463

Source: Citizens for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress ReportIn 1997-98, 606 Metro students selected the SAT as an exit exam.

Table 20. Comparison of Average/Mean SAT Scores, 1997-98

Metro State NationalVerbal 563 564 505Math 561 557 512

Source: Citizens for a Community Report Card, 2000 Progress Report

102

See Table 21 for current data on suspensions and expulsions by race for the Metro school system.

Table 21. 2000 School System Report Card, Nashville-Davidson County School System--

Suspensions and Expulsions by Race and Gender

Suspensions* Expulsions**

Number of Students

Percent*** Number of Students

Percent***

Total 11,890 14.5 343 0.4RaceWhite 3,923 10.1 121 0.3Black 7,414 20.0 204 0.6Hispanic 320 9.0 13 0.4Asian 211 7.8 4 0.1Native American 22 11.3 1 0.5

GenderMale 8,108 19.2 262 0.6Female 3,782 9.5 81 0.2

Source: State of Tennessee Report Card 2000, Davidson County System Detail*Suspension is defined as a student who is not allowed to attend school for a period of time not greater than 10 days and remains on the school rolls. **Expulsion is defined as a student who is expelled from school and is not allowed to attend school for a period of time greater than 10 days; they are removed from the school rolls during the period of expulsion.***Percentage calculation is based on net enrollment, e.g., number of students suspended divided by net enrollment.

Impact on Teachers

According to informants, the teachers in both systems supported consolidation. The Education Council Teachers of Nashville and Davidson County had placed a full ad in the Banner prior to the referendum calling for citizen support of consolidation, with the headline “Get More Education for your Tax Dollar. Vote for the Metropolitan Charter.”202 The two-year transition period went smoothly. As described earlier in the report, the new Metropolitan Charter explicitly addressed issues of personal and professional concern to teachers, that is, protection of tenure and preservation and protection of pension rights and benefits. During the transition, the school system planned for a new pension and retirement system with teachers choosing to join or not the new system. Following consolidation, county teacher pay was raised to the level of city teacher pay.203 Equalization of teacher pay appears to have positively affected teacher morale and to have

103

eliminated the friction and competition that had been experienced between the two systems.204

School Governance

As discussed earlier in this report, the Metro School Board replaced the separate city and county boards. However, a nine-member Transition Board which had three members from each of the prior city and county board plus an additional three board members appointed by the Metro Mayor, was in charge of planning system consolidation over a two-year period. At the end of the transition, both of the superintendents retired, the new Metro School Board was appointed by the mayor with confirmation by two-thirds of the Metro Council. Each board member represented one of the nine school districts. Although appointed, the School Board had independent authority for school policy and direction. Mayor Briley appointed the first Metropolitan Board of Education on February 27, 1964. The nine-member board was comprised of two women and seven men. Dr. John Harper Harris, was appointed on August 4, 1964 to serve as the first Director of Metro Public Schools. Seven members of the Metro Council were appointed to one-year terms on the School Committee of Metro Council by Vice-Mayor George Cate to study issues related to the MNPS but most importantly to focus on the School budget, “since school expenditure accounts for one-half of the total Metro Budget.”205

During the transition and as called for in the charter, a survey was authorized by the Transition Board. Educational Research Services, Inc. conducted a detailed review of the school system in 1963 and generated recommendations including the organization and administration of the unified school system, improvements in elementary and secondary education programs, and development of a salary adjustment plan to increase teacher salaries to hold and attract qualified staff. The report, known as the Cornell Report (Cornell was the Director of Educational Research Services Inc.), served as a blueprint for a five-year program to build the unified system. The Report estimated that implementation of the survey’s recommendations would cost approximately $5.3 million more than currently budgeted for the school system.206

Efficiency

Although some savings appear to have been realized from consolidating the two systems, the pent up demand for programs, services, improved teacher-pupil ratio, etc. resulted in consolidation calling for increased levels of budgetary support. Limited savings did arise from combing the two school superintendents into one position. The Director of Metro Schools salary was set at $30,000; this was higher than the mayor’s salary of $25,000.207 However, it was $3,000 less

104

than the combined heads of the two former systems.208 Through transferring 1,000 students from over-crowed county schools to empty classrooms in city schools, savings of over one million dollars in construction costs was reported in the first year of MNPS.209

In a letter to the Metro Mayor and Council published in the Banner, the Education Council, Inc. called for approval of the Board of Education’s request for an additional $1.2 million school budget request. Their letter provides some details on some of the services and costs needed for consolidated school operations:

Salary equalization between city and county $600,000Transportation for city students living more than 1.25 miles from school 130,000Expanded summer school services 78,000*Pension Fund 62,000School Survey 23,00020 Custodians for new schools and additions 50,000Utilities and sewerage for new schools 100,000170 additional teachers (help serve 4,100 new students and reduce pupil-teacher ratio) 350,000

Total $1,409,000

*The summer program request was needed to assure the county system had the same tuition-free summer school as the city. The city did not provide bus transportation for city students prior to consolidation; it was provided in the county but only if a child lived more than 1.25 miles from school.

Source: Education Council, Open Letter, Banner, June 10, 1963. Also, “School Budget Backing Urged, Tennessean, June 6, 1963.

The first Metro school budget passed through the Council almost untouched. The Council also approved a bond issue for $4.1 million dollars for capital improvements.210 Mayor Briley writes “Perhaps the success story of the consolidation of the school system can best be illustrated by what this community interpreted as a vote of confidence in the School Board and its Director, in recently voting to tax themselves through the adoption of a $.01 local option sales tax to provide for increased revenues for the school system.”211

Tax rates are an indicator of system efficiency. As discussed above taxes did go up immediately after consolidation as Metro improved and expanded public services. In an article about the consolidation, the reporter noted that Metro officials speculated that they would have increased anyway, that better services were necessary, and that Mayor West had created a negative financial status as he dipped into the reserves, granted pay raises, and issued bonds before leaving office.212 Fillebrown concluded that while taxpayers outside Nashville might be

105

complaining about paying more taxes and receiving no services, “Actually they are now paying for services which they formerly received free.”213

Educational Costs

The information below provides summary information on the financing of Metro Nashville Public Schools. As discussed earlier in the report, consolidation of the school systems did result in increased taxes as the system engaged in major construction to meet student enrollment demand, needed to equalize teacher salaries and implement new programs recommended in the Cornell report. Table 22 provides information on school financing. Census information was not available earlier than 1977.

Table 22. School System Finances, Nashville-Davidson County, 1977-1993

(Dollar amounts in Thousands)

1977-78 1982-83 1987-88 1992-93Enrollment 79,265 65,874 67,332 69,566General Revenue Intergovernmental Revenue General Revenue-own Sources

$123,755$46,763$76,992

$152,342$56,599$95,743

$236,407$97,092

$139,315

$314,561$138,450$176,111

General Expenditure Current Operation Expenditure Capital Outlay Expenditure Interest on Debt

$131,008$114,760

$12,594$3,654

$158,911$153,958

$2,216$2,737

$284,243$241,037

$36,893$6,313

$304,981$292,085

$5,738$7,158

Debt Outstanding Long-Term Short-Term

$68,306$68,306

-----

$49,683$49,683

-----

$137,240$137,240

-----

$109,763----------

Source: U.S. Department of Census, Finances of Public School Systems, 1977-78, 1982-83, 1987-88, 1992-93

Table 23. Per Pupil Financial Data, Nashville-Davidson County

1977-78 1982-83 1987-88 1992-93

General Revenue $1,561 $2,313 $3,511 $4,522General Expenditure $1,653 $2,412 $4,221 $4,170Debt Outstanding $862 $754 $2,038 -----

Source: U.S. Department of Census, Finances of Public School Systems, 1977-78, 1982-83, 1987-88, 1992-93

106

Table 24 provides current data on Nashville-Davidson County per pupil expenditures and average teacher salary in 2000 compared to state and national averages.

Table 24. 2000 School System Report Card, Nashville-Davidson County School System Per Pupil

Expenditures and Average Teacher Salary Comparisons

Davidson County State National State GradePer Pupil Expenditures

$6,912 $5,794 $6,829 D Below Average

Average Teacher Salary

$41,072 $36,328 $41,575 D Below Average

Source: State of Tennessee Report Card 2000, Davidson County System Detail

In a review of consolidation, a paper written by the Bureau of Public Administration at the University of Tennessee listed the following as the accomplishments most often cited by Metro leaders of the Metropolitan School System214:

Appointment of a Director of Schools as the single head of the Metro Public Schools.

Establishment of a Department of Pupil Personnel Services, including social workers and other supportive staffs.

Expanded Personnel Departments from a staff of two professional supervisors, to an Assistant Superintendent and five full time professionals and numerous clerical assistants.

Improved program of teacher recruitment and selection. Visits are made to over ninety different college campuses in fourteen states and the District of Columbia in recruiting teachers.

Improvements in curriculum, including more than 150 elective courses in secondary schools.

Increased teaching materials and supplies, such as textbooks, reference books, supplementary textbooks, and audio-visual materials.

Reduction in the teacher-pupil ratio. Improved special education program with special services provided for the

educable mentally retarded, severely mentally retarded, homebound, hospitalized, emotionally disturbed, perceptually handicapped, physically handicapped, partially sighted, hard of hearing, and those with speech difficulties.

Expanded vocational and technical educational programs. Establishment of Department of Adult Education.

107

Establishment of Kindergarten programs in many regular elementary schools and, also, in federally funded ESEA schools.

Improved guidance services with one or more trained counselors in each junior and senior high school.

Establishment of a professional growth plan for teachers. Establishment of a Department of School-Community Relations with a full

time Director, two full-time professionals, and three clerical assistants. Expanded supervisory staffs including art, music, reading, and physical

education consultants, and other subject area supervisors. Placement of assistant principals in high schools and all large junior high

schools. Establishment of a Clothing Center for indigent school children. Increased salaries for substitute teachers. Establishment of Data Processing Center and a Central Purchasing Business

operation. Development of a cooperative program for the training of educational leaders.

Program jointly conducted by Metro Schools, Tennessee State University, University of Tennessee, and Peabody College.

Replacement of obsolete movable classrooms with modern commercial type movable structures.

Building new school plants instructionally planned with emphasis on team teaching, multiple utilization of space and more flexibility.

In summary, school consolidation appears to have been positive for the Metro community overall. At the same time, caution must be exercised in ascribing too much to consolidation of the two school systems since school consolidation was but one part of the overall consolidation of city and county governments. Further, school consolidation is not a panacea for the modern challenges facing school systems. Nashville is facing the same challenges as other large urban school system, including discipline, attendance, violence, and minority achievement gaps. The advantage of the Nashville system, however, lies in its ability as a unified planning and policy entity to attempt to meet these challenges. Where to apply civic pressure to improve system performance is clear. The ability to elicit budgetary support can be addressed singly to the entire community. At the same time, the consolidated system has less than 70,000 students and so did not generate a mega-system. Understanding and responding to the local context was essential to achieving electoral support for consolidation. Gaining and retaining community support for its implementation and administration is continuous.

108

C O M M E N T A R Y

Consistently, the informants for this study were positive about the consequences of consolidation on Nashville and the Metropolitan Nashville School System. The information gained substantiated the descriptions of the context and political process of consolidation found in secondary sources. The following key insights were offered by those informants who responded to what advice they might offer to the political leadership in Memphis for consideration:

Consolidation, especially consolidation of schools, can be politically controversial. Broad civic support is most likely necessary to be successful in achieving consolidation.

School consolidation helps to assure consistent educational policies and procedures.

Be sure to provide teachers with equalized salary and benefits, not diminishing what teachers had achieved prior to consolidation.

In order to develop an effective structure, the community must financially support the educational system.

Ensure that the Board of Education fairly represents the community constituencies.

Consolidation into one system makes the politics simpler and education funding easier since the schools are one unit and it is easier to get the community as a whole to support schools.

To implement consolidation, treat people fairly and give people credit for what they have already accomplished. Be sure not to favor people or programs from one system over the other, taking best practices from each.

Rather than focusing on promised system efficiencies, the conversation should put the needs of children first.

109

N O T E S

110

1. Diane Ravitch, “What We’ve Accomplished Since World War II,” Principal 63 (January 1984), 7-13; Chion-Kenney (1993).2. DeYoung (1987).3. Strang (1987); Conant (1959).4. DeAntoni (1971); Rosenfeld and Sher (1977).5. Strang (1987). For an overview, see Loretta Warren Changery, “Implementing A Legislatively Mandated School District Merger: Lessons Learned,” PhD dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1994; 6. Ibid.; E. Young, “Questioning Consolidation,” Tennessee School Board Association Journal 11 (2), 1994, 33-37; Weldon Beckner and Linda O’Neal, “A New View of Smaller Schools,” NASSP Bulletin 64 (October 1980), 1-7; Steve Kay, “Considerations in Evaluating School Consolidation Proposals,” Small School Forum 4 (Fall 1982), 8-10; Ravitch, “What We’ve Accomplished Since World War II,” op. cit.; D.K. Wiles, “What Is Useful Information in School Consolidation Debates?” Journal of Education Finance 19 (3), 1994, 292-318; William Duncombe and John Yinger, “Does School Consolidation Cut Costs?” Syracuse University, Center for Policy Research Working Paper No. 33 (January 2001).7.Public Acts of Tennessee, 1817, chapter 124.8.Public Acts of Tennessee, 1829-1830, chapter 107.9.Public Acts of Tennessee, 1838, chapter 148.10.Public Acts of Tennessee, 1839-1840, chapter 38; and Public Acts of Tennessee, 1843-1844, chapter 165.11.Public Acts of Tennessee, 1866-1867, chapter 27.12.Public Acts of Tennessee, 1873, chapter 25.13.Public Acts of Tennessee, 1907, chapter 236.14.Public Acts of Tennessee, 1872, ex. sess., chapter 12; and Public Acts of Tennessee, 1885, ex. sess., chapter 19.15.For a general discussion of this entire phenomenon, see George C. Howard and Edith Foster Howard, “City-County Educational Relationships in Tennessee” (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Bureau of Public Administration, February 1950), pp. 1-3.16. For example, see “School Consolidation in Tennessee,” (Nashville: Association of Independent and Municipal Schools, 1994).17 Friends of the Metropolitan Archives of Nashville and Davidson County, TN, “Local History;” see also “Brief Annals of Nashville,” by Anson Nelson. www.geocities.com. Also, Tennessee Blue Book Online, 1999-2000 Millenium Edition, p. 354. Of further historical interest, General Nash was killed in the Battle of Germantown, in 1778 (“Local History”) and William Lee Davidson (ca. 1746-1781) was killed at Valley Forge. Tennessee Blue Book Online, 1999-2000 Millennium Edition, 491. The Basic Charter, Metro Nashville and Davidson County Government is found under TCA §7-7-1-1 et seq (1962). 18 David Doyle, Nashville since the 1920s (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, 1985), 179.19 Ibid., 179-180.20 Stephens and Wikstrom, Metropolitan Government and Governance (New York: Oxford University, 2000), vi.21 Ibid., 46.22 Two recognized examples of note were the establishment of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, Minneapolis and St. Paul (1969) and Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Services District (1970). Ibid., 47.23 Doyle, 197.24 Stephens and Wikstrom, 46.25 Doyle, 191. For another detailed discussion of the politics of city-county consolidation in Nashville, see Brett Hawkins, Nashville Metro, (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 1965).26 Ibid., 191.27 Tennessee Community Services Commission for Davidson County and The City of Nashville, A Future for Nashville (Nashville, TN: June 1952), 1.28 Doyle, 198.29 The Advance Planning & Research Division study had four stated objectives:

• To extend urban services rapidly and economically to the entire metropolitan area (receipt of taxes and provision of services in reasonable time relationship); • To provide for a simplified governmental structure; • To provide for a government with jurisdiction to prepare the way for future urban growth, not merely to remedy the mistakes of past urban development; and • To insure equitable and sound financing of all governmental services, with area-wide services financed on an area-wide basis, urban services financed on an urban basis.

Advance Planning & Research Division, Plan of Metropolitan Government for Nashville and Davidson County (Nashville, TN: 1956), 1.

30 Eight alternatives offered by the 1956 Metropolitan Plan included: • Annexation of the Urban Area to the Central City; City-County Consolidation; • Functional Consolidation of Particular Services at the City or County Level;

• Creation of the Special Metropolitan Utility District; • The Borough Plan, or Federated Municipality; • Expansion of County Functions in the Suburban Area;• Inter-Municipal Cooperation through Contractual Agreements; and

• City-County Separation (that is, separate the rural area from the new city-county, either ceding it to neighboring counties or making into a separate, donut-shaped rural county.

Ibid.,16-27. 31 Ibid., 57.32 Doyle, 202.33 Ibid.34 Ibid., 203.35 David Booth, Metropolitics: The Nashville Consolidation, (East Lansing, MI: Institute for Community Development and Services, Michigan State University, 1963), 21-23.36 Ibid., 36.37 The wheel tax was imposed on all vehicles using city streets at least 30 days or more during the year. Although the new tax was difficult to enforce, Doyle notes that the police imposed a tough crackdown on violators as suburbanites complained of uneven compliance; the fine was $50 dollars. Doyle, 205.38 Ibid., 207.39 Ibid., 208-209.40 Ibid., 208-210.41 Ibid., 212. Also, Booth, 85-86.42 The courts focused principally on the meaning of the Constitutional Amendment providing for consolidation of cities and counties in Tennessee. “This amendment was interpreted as giving wide latitude to the legislature in setting up the machinery of consolidation, allowing local problems to be taken into consideration. Thus, the provision of two service districts and two tax rates was quite reasonable and quite compatible with the intentions of the members of the Constitutional Convention.” Booth, 89.43 Doyle, 214-215.44 George Cate, Interview45 Daniel Grant, “News in Review,” National Civic Review, 1965, 375-77. Dr. Grant was a professor at Vanderbilt University and acted as Special Consultant on Government. His contribution to the Advance Planning & Research Division, Plan of Metropolitan Government was mentioned in this report as significant.46 The Community Services Commission also recommended that the State Constitution be amended to allow for city and county home rule, reapportion the urban districts in Davidson County to improve representation in the County Court, raise the quality of suburban fire protection from 10th class to 3rd class, extend city police protection to the suburban areas, extend the sewer lines and street lighting, improve water supply adequacy and absorb the Radnor and Belle Meade special utility districts, consolidate the Nashville and Davidson County planning commissions, build more public libraries, and transfer the regulation of public transportation services from the City Council to the State Railroad and Public Utilities Commission. Community Services Commission, A Future for Nashville, 4.47 Ibid., 3.48 Advance Planning & Research Division, Plan of Metropolitan Government.49 Community Services Commission, 5.50 The city may have lost its leverage as it allowed private suburban water companies to purchase city water. Doyle, 197.51 Community Services Commission, A Future for Nashville, 8.52 Ibid., .53 Doyle, 185-197.54 Community Services Commission, 123.55 Ibid., 124.56 Ibid., 124.57 In FY 1951, schools accounted for 33.1% of city expenditures (or $24.62 per capita expenditures), not including debt service. Budget appropriations for county elementary schools, were 24%of total appropriations; not including the elementary tax levy paid to the city. High schools accounted for 16.4% of total budget. Appropriation of almost $300,000 for rural areas was considered a separate part of the school tax. The separation precluded it from being shared with the city. Davidson County school building program, increased the county debt over 300%. Ibid., 182-185.58 Ibid., 124.59 The Commission reported that this practice had been discontinued by the 1947 General Assembly for all counties except in the wealthiest, including Davidson. Ibid., 125.60 Ibid., 127.61 Ibid., 126.

62 The Peabody survey criticized the large number of one- and two-teacher elementary schools for blacks, recommended that the 27 schools for blacks be consolidated into six attendance areas, and that five new schools be constructed. The survey called for the construction of six new buildings, replacement of four buildings, and construction of additions to 23 buildings, and the eventual demolition of 11 of the 50 white elementary schools. The survey further recommended expansion of one of the black high schools, consolidation of two high schools, abandonment of one, and the construction of two new high schools. Ibid., 125-126.63 Ibid.,128.64 Ibid.,129.65 Ibid.66 Ibid., 129-30. 67 Ibid., 130.68 Advance Planning & Research Division, Plan of Metropolitan Government, 8-10.69 Ibid., 33-37.70 Ibid., 54.71 Pride and Woodard, The Burden of Busing: The Politics of Desegregation in Nashville, Tennessee (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, 1985), 54-57.72 Ibid., 61-62.73 Ibid., 69-73.74 Doyle, 258.75 Ibid., 76-78.76 Pride and Woodard, 124-125.77 Ibid., 178-183.78 Ibid.,189-27779 MGT of America, Inc., Performance Audit of Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2001), 1-4.80 Grant, ‘A Comparison of Predictions and Experience with Nashville “Metro”,’ 38-46.81 Doyle, Nashville Since the 1920s, 216.82 Ibid., 217.83 Ed Grimsley, “Metropolitan Nashville Merger Called Success, Richmond Times-Dispatch, B1, 6. See also Edson Whipple, “Metropolitan Rule Eases Urban Growth Problems,” The Blade (Toledo, Ohio,) September 8, 1963, 1. And Leverett Chapin, “Nashville Leaders Enthusiastic about Metro Government,” The Denver Post, October 2, 1963. Archives.84 T. Scott Fillebrown, “The Nashville Story,” National Civic Review , 58 (May 1969), 197-200.85 “Nashville Thrives on a City-County Merger,” Business Week, September 25, 1971, 133-138.86 www.nashville.org 87 Interview Marc Hill, Special Assistant to the Mayor for Education.88 Judge Beverly Briley, County Judge, Davidson County, “Nashville and Davidson County Consolidate Their Local Governments,” Archives.89 Judge Beverly Briley, “The Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee: A Case Study,” Undated and unpublished manuscript. Archives90 According to the telephone interview with Mr. George Cate, a Nashville lawyer knowledgeable about the history of the consolidation effort and school system, the Board called for two referendum elections since metropolitan consolidation; however, neither referendum was successful. 91 Price and Woodard, 253.92 www.nashville.k12.tn.us, “General Information”93 www.nashville.k12.tn.us, Vital Statistics and General Information94 Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, FY 2002 Recommended Budget Narrative, I-2 and I-3, www. Nashville.org95 Doyle, 108-109.96 Ibid., 145-146.97 Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, Accountability Framework, www.nashville.k12.tn.us98 Citizens Panel, 2000 Progress Report.99 Tennessee School Report Care, Davidson County, 2000. 100 Doyle, 108-109.101 Ibid., 145-146.102 Tim Chavez, “Metro Trying to Win Back Private School Students,” Tennessean, December 31, 2000, www. Tennessean.com. In an article announcing the opening of a new private school, East Academy, in east Nashville, the reporter quotes a 20-year real estate agent complaining that homebuyers were avoiding east Nashville because of perceived problems with public school quality. Tim Chavez, “East Nashville Private School Planned, Tennessean, March 15, 2001, www. Tennessean.com. 103 Banner, June 25, 1962, Archives.104 Education Council, Inc., “An Open Letter to the Mayor and Council of Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County,” Banner, June 10, 1963. Archives.

105 James C. Coomer, “Nashville Davidson County: A Study of Metropolitan Government,” unpublished internship paper, 1974. Archives106 “Public Schools of Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County: Transition and Consolidation,” Undated and unpublished report, summarizing background problems leading to consolidation and operations by the transitional board and first year of Metro Schools operation. Metro Archives.107 Educational Research Services, Inc., Digest of Comprehensive Survey of the Metropolitan School System of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, White Plains, NY, October 1963. James C. Coomer, “Nashville Davidson County” and James C. Coomer and Charlie B. Tyler, “Nashville Metropolitan Government: The First Decade,” unpublished paper, Bureau of Public Administration, University of Tennessee, 1974. Archives.108 Van Pritchartt, Jr., “Council Districts Breed ‘Ward Heeler’ Woes,” Memphis Press-Scimitar, December 3, 1965, 1, 6.109 James Nathan Miller, “A City Pulls Itself Together,” Reader’s Digest, July 1967, 135.110 C. Beverly Briley, “The Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee: A Case Study.” 111 Coomer and Tyer, “Nashville Metropolitan Government,” 52.112 Briley, “Metropolitan Government,” Case Study, 13.113 Whipple, “Metropolitan Rule Eases Urban Growth Problems”114 Fillebrown, “The Nashville Story,” 199.115 Coomer and Tyer, “Nashville Metropolitan Government,” 54.116 Friends of the Metropolitan Archives of Nashville and Davidson County, TN, “Local History;” see also “Brief Annals of Nashville,” by Anson Nelson. www.geocities.com. Also, Tennessee Blue Book Online, 1999-2000 Millenium Edition, p. 354. Of further historical interest, General Nash was killed in the Battle of Germantown, in 1778 (“Local History”) and William Lee Davidson (ca. 1746-1781) was killed at Valley Forge. Tennessee Blue Book Online, 1999-2000 Millennium Edition, 491. The Basic Charter, Metro Nashville and Davidson County Government is found under TCA §7-7-1-1 et seq (1962). 117 David Doyle, Nashville since the 1920s (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, 1985), 179.118 Ibid., 179-180.119 Stephens and Wikstrom, Metropolitan Government and Governance (New York: Oxford University, 2000), vi.120 Ibid., 46.121 Two recognized examples of note were the establishment of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Council, Minneapolis and St. Paul (1969) and Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Services District (1970). Ibid., 47.122 Doyle, 197.123 Stephens and Wikstrom, 46.124 Doyle, 191. For another detailed discussion of the politics of city-county consolidation in Nashville, see Brett Hawkins, Nashville Metro, (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 1965).125 Ibid., 191.126 Tennessee Community Services Commission for Davidson County and The City of Nashville, A Future for Nashville (Nashville, TN: June 1952), 1.127 Doyle, 198.128 The Advance Planning & Research Division study had four stated objectives:

• To extend urban services rapidly and economically to the entire metropolitan area (receipt of taxes and provision of services in reasonable time relationship); • To provide for a simplified governmental structure; • To provide for a government with jurisdiction to prepare the way for future urban growth, not merely to remedy the mistakes of past urban development; and • To insure equitable and sound financing of all governmental services, with area-wide services financed on an area-wide basis, urban services financed on an urban basis.

Advance Planning & Research Division, Plan of Metropolitan Government for Nashville and Davidson County (Nashville, TN: 1956), 1.

129 Eight alternatives offered by the 1956 Metropolitan Plan included: • Annexation of the Urban Area to the Central City; City-County Consolidation; • Functional Consolidation of Particular Services at the City or County Level; • Creation of the Special Metropolitan Utility District; • The Borough Plan, or Federated Municipality; • Expansion of County Functions in the Suburban Area;• Inter-Municipal Cooperation through Contractual Agreements; and

• City-County Separation (that is, separate the rural area from the new city-county, either ceding it to neighboring counties or making into a separate, donut-shaped rural county.

Ibid.,16-27.

130 Ibid., 57.131 Doyle, 202.132 Ibid.133 Ibid., 203.134 David Booth, Metropolitics: The Nashville Consolidation, (East Lansing, MI: Institute for Community Development and Services, Michigan State University, 1963), 21-23.135 Ibid., 36.136 The wheel tax was imposed on all vehicles using city streets at least 30 days or more during the year. Although the new tax was difficult to enforce, Doyle notes that the police imposed a tough crackdown on violators as suburbanites complained of uneven compliance; the fine was $50 dollars. Doyle, 205.137 Ibid., 207.138 Ibid., 208-209.139 Ibid., 208-210.140 Ibid., 212. Also, Booth, 85-86.141 The courts focused principally on the meaning of the Constitutional Amendment providing for consolidation of cities and counties in Tennessee. “This amendment was interpreted as giving wide latitude to the legislature in setting up the machinery of consolidation, allowing local problems to be taken into consideration. Thus, the provision of two service districts and two tax rates was quite reasonable and quite compatible with the intentions of the members of the Constitutional Convention.” Booth, 89.142 Doyle, 214-215.143 George Cate, Interview144 Daniel Grant, “News in Review,” National Civic Review, 1965, 375-77. Dr. Grant was a professor at Vanderbilt University and acted as Special Consultant on Government. His contribution to the Advance Planning & Research Division, Plan of Metropolitan Government was mentioned in this report as significant.145 The Community Services Commission also recommended that the State Constitution be amended to allow for city and county home rule, reapportion the urban districts in Davidson County to improve representation in the County Court, raise the quality of suburban fire protection from 10th class to 3rd class, extend city police protection to the suburban areas, extend the sewer lines and street lighting, improve water supply adequacy and absorb the Radnor and Belle Meade special utility districts, consolidate the Nashville and Davidson County planning commissions, build more public libraries, and transfer the regulation of public transportation services from the City Council to the State Railroad and Public Utilities Commission. Community Services Commission, A Future for Nashville, 4.146 Ibid., 3.147 Advance Planning & Research Division, Plan of Metropolitan Government.148 Community Services Commission, 5.149 The city may have lost its leverage as it allowed private suburban water companies to purchase city water. Doyle, 197.150 Community Services Commission, A Future for Nashville, 8.151 Ibid., .152 Doyle, 185-197.153 Community Services Commission, 123.154 Ibid., 124.155 Ibid., 124.156 In FY 1951, schools accounted for 33.1% of city expenditures (or $24.62 per capita expenditures), not including debt service. Budget appropriations for county elementary schools, were 24%of total appropriations; not including the elementary tax levy paid to the city. High schools accounted for 16.4% of total budget. Appropriation of almost $300,000 for rural areas was considered a separate part of the school tax. The separation precluded it from being shared with the city. Davidson County school building program, increased the county debt over 300%. Ibid., 182-185.157 Ibid., 124.158 The Commission reported that this practice had been discontinued by the 1947 General Assembly for all counties except in the wealthiest, including Davidson. Ibid., 125.159 Ibid., 127.160 Ibid., 126.161 The Peabody survey criticized the large number of one- and two-teacher elementary schools for blacks, recommended that the 27 schools for blacks be consolidated into six attendance areas, and that five new schools be constructed. The survey called for the construction of six new buildings, replacement of four buildings, and construction of additions to 23 buildings, and the eventual demolition of 11 of the 50 white elementary schools. The survey further recommended expansion of one of the black high schools, consolidation of two high schools, abandonment of one, and the construction of two new high schools. Ibid., 125-126.162 Ibid.,128.163 Ibid.,129.

164 Ibid.165 Ibid., 129-30. 166 Ibid., 130.167 Advance Planning & Research Division, Plan of Metropolitan Government, 8-10.168 Ibid., 33-37.169 Ibid., 54.170 Pride and Woodard, The Burden of Busing: The Politics of Desegregation in Nashville, Tennessee (Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, 1985), 54-57.171 Ibid., 61-62.172 Ibid., 69-73.173 Doyle, 258.174 Ibid., 76-78.175 Pride and Woodard, 124-125.176 Ibid., 178-183.177 Ibid.,189-277178 MGT of America, Inc., Performance Audit of Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. (2001), 1-4.179 Grant, ‘A Comparison of Predictions and Experience with Nashville “Metro”,’ 38-46.180 Doyle, Nashville Since the 1920s, 216.181 Ibid., 217.182 Ed Grimsley, “Metropolitan Nashville Merger Called Success, Richmond Times-Dispatch, B1, 6. See also Edson Whipple, “Metropolitan Rule Eases Urban Growth Problems,” The Blade (Toledo, Ohio,) September 8, 1963, 1. And Leverett Chapin, “Nashville Leaders Enthusiastic about Metro Government,” The Denver Post, October 2, 1963. Archives.183 T. Scott Fillebrown, “The Nashville Story,” National Civic Review , 58 (May 1969), 197-200.184 “Nashville Thrives on a City-County Merger,” Business Week, September 25, 1971, 133-138.185 www.nashville.org 186 Interview Marc Hill, Special Assistant to the Mayor for Education.187 Judge Beverly Briley, County Judge, Davidson County, “Nashville and Davidson County Consolidate Their Local Governments,” Archives.188 Judge Beverly Briley, “The Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee: A Case Study,” Undated and unpublished manuscript. Archives189 According to the telephone interview with Mr. George Cate, a Nashville lawyer knowledgeable about the history of the consolidation effort and school system, the Board called for two referendum elections since metropolitan consolidation; however, neither referendum was successful. 190 Price and Woodard, 253.191 www.nashville.k12.tn.us, “General Information”192 www.nashville.k12.tn.us, Vital Statistics and General Information193 Metropolitan Nashville/Davidson County, FY 2002 Recommended Budget Narrative, I-2 and I-3, www. Nashville.org194 Doyle, 108-109.195 Ibid., 145-146.196 Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, Accountability Framework, www.nashville.k12.tn.us197 Citizens Panel, 2000 Progress Report.198 Tennessee School Report Care, Davidson County, 2000. 199 Doyle, 108-109.200 Ibid., 145-146.201 Tim Chavez, “Metro Trying to Win Back Private School Students,” Tennessean, December 31, 2000, www. Tennessean.com. In an article announcing the opening of a new private school, East Academy, in east Nashville, the reporter quotes a 20-year real estate agent complaining that homebuyers were avoiding east Nashville because of perceived problems with public school quality. Tim Chavez, “East Nashville Private School Planned, Tennessean, March 15, 2001, www. Tennessean.com. 202 Banner, June 25, 1962, Archives.203 Education Council, Inc., “An Open Letter to the Mayor and Council of Metropolitan Nashville and Davidson County,” Banner, June 10, 1963. Archives.204 James C. Coomer, “Nashville Davidson County: A Study of Metropolitan Government,” unpublished internship paper, 1974. Archives205 “Public Schools of Metropolitan Nashville-Davidson County: Transition and Consolidation,” Undated and unpublished report, summarizing background problems leading to consolidation and operations by the transitional board and first year of Metro Schools operation. Metro Archives.206 Educational Research Services, Inc., Digest of Comprehensive Survey of the Metropolitan School System of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, White Plains, NY, October 1963. James C. Coomer, “Nashville Davidson County” and James C. Coomer and Charlie B. Tyler, “Nashville Metropolitan Government: The First Decade,” unpublished paper, Bureau of Public Administration, University of

Tennessee, 1974. Archives.207 Van Pritchartt, Jr., “Council Districts Breed ‘Ward Heeler’ Woes,” Memphis Press-Scimitar, December 3, 1965, 1, 6.208 James Nathan Miller, “A City Pulls Itself Together,” Reader’s Digest, July 1967, 135.209 C. Beverly Briley, “The Metropolitan Government of Nashville-Davidson County, Tennessee: A Case Study.” 210 Coomer and Tyer, “Nashville Metropolitan Government,” 52.211 Briley, “Metropolitan Government,” Case Study, 13.212 Whipple, “Metropolitan Rule Eases Urban Growth Problems”213 Fillebrown, “The Nashville Story,” 199.214 Coomer and Tyer, “Nashville Metropolitan Government,” 54.