SCHOOL
C O N S O L I D A T I O N:
K N O X 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 II
July 2001
Marcus D. Pohlmann, Ph.D.
Department of Political Science
Rhodes College
2000 North Parkway
Memphis, Tennessee 38112
(901) 843-384

65
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
CONTENTS–PART II
I.
Historical Context
.......................................
67
Consolidation Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
80
Governing Structures
Educational History
Consolidation
The Announcement
The Campaign
The Ballot Issue
The Results
The Aftermath
II.
Educational Quality
Was there educational disruption?
Did consolidation create “flight”?
Were there indications of increased racism?
What was the impact on teachers?
How was school governance affected?
Educational Efficiency
Were educational costs decreased?
Did taxes get raised?
III.
Commentary
.......................................
96
IV.
Tables
.......................................
99
Table 1. Educational Quality
Table 2. Educational Efficiency
Figure 1. The Knoxville County Metropolitan Statistical Area
Figure 2. Knoxville County School Zones
V.
Sources Consulted
.......................................
66
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
107
S C H O O L C O N S O L I D A T I O N:
K N O X 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
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Prior to the Revolutionary War, the Knoxville area was claimed by North
Carolina, but it was populated mostly by the Cherokee, who actually allied with
the British in an attempt to maintain control over their homeland. Following the
War, North Carolina and other local white settlers considered that the Cherokee
had “forfeited” this land as a result of their alliance with the British. North
Carolina was prepared to cede the land to the newly formed United States,
however, in part to gain federal protection for the region’s politically connected
settlers. To that end, North Carolina established a “land grab act” and sold off
the area at a price of ten pounds per hundred acres. It then relinquished
governance to the United States.
In 1791, local white settlers negotiated the Treaty of Holston with the Cherokee.
The City of Knoxville was then founded, named after United States Secretary of
War Henry Knox. Lying in the valley between the Cumberland and Great
Smokey Mountains where the French Broad and Holston Rivers merge to create
the Tennessee River, Knoxville became a frontier outpost and trading station
under the protection of federal troops. Over the years, its location has allowed it
to maintain a strategic commercial role in the eastern portion of the United
States. Today, for example, it is located at the crossroads of interstates 40, 75,
and 81.
Knoxville’s political leanings date back to disagreements with legendary
Tennessee Democrat Andrew Jackson.
Knoxville voters deserted the
Democratic Party in the Presidential Election of 1836. At that point, the city
became a Whig stronghold and actively supported federal assistance in
advancing mass transportation routes. Persuading the national government to
route the trans-continental railroad through Knoxville came to be a considerable
boost to the city’s commercial ambitions.
The economic history of such mountain areas was very different from much of
the rest of the South. With a terrain not conducive to cotton or tobacco
plantations, there were more small farms and there was less demand for slaves.
The relatively small number of slaves who were used in this overwhelmingly
white area tended to be farm hands and domestics. This was a more personal
67
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
and paternalistic system of slavery than found in the large plantation settings.
Not experiencing some of the worst of the brutality prevalent on many of those
larger plantations, there was less incidence of slave militancy and violent revolt.
Such realities have helped shape both the demographics and race relations in
Knoxville.1
The posture of Knoxville and Knox County before and during the Civil War is also
instructive in this regard. In many ways, Knoxville had become the capital city of
the Mountain South. In the process, it attracted a relatively broad array of
politicians, journalists, and industrialists. This combination of small mountain
farmers and more cosmopolitan urbanites created a political climate noticeably
different than found in the Old South. Not only had they become Whigs with a
penchant for federal largesse, but they were far more inclined to support
maintenance of the Union, despite a tempered support for the general principles
of slavery and states’ rights.2
In the face of war, the more rural Knox County voted heavily against secession in
1861. The City of Knoxville supported it, although apparently more out of
commercial expediency than conviction.3 During the war, local jails quickly filled
with Unionist “bridge burners” who had attempted to destroy commercial arteries
needed for the Confederate war effort. On September 1, 1863, Union troops
captured the city and were greeted enthusiastically by local Unionists. The area
would remain under Union control for the remainder of the war, although it would
suffer as the center of several battles as well as experiencing violent attacks and
counter attacks among its divided citizenry.
One upshot of all this was that the area became heavily Republican politically,
with the secession-supporting elites comprising a minority Democratic Party.
The Republicans could be counted on to “wave the bloody shirt” of war-time
atrocities, while the Democrats would rail against the degradations of
Reconstruction. Nevertheless, much of this subsided as the city turned its
attention to industrialization. Meanwhile, the corresponding urbanization would
attract a host of new residents. In the three decades from 1870 to the turn of the
century, the city quadrupled its population from 8,000 to 32,000.4
In terms of race, it should be recalled that the area had a Manumission Society
as well as a white abolitionist presence well before the Civil War. The Reverend
Thomas Humes ran a school for free black children. And, Knoxville’s early fall to
the Union troops also made it a logical destination for freedmen. Where the area
had a relatively small African American population prior to the war, its black
population grew noticeably thereafter.
There would continue to be ample evidence of racism, Jim Crow laws and
practices, and even some racial attacks in 1919 and 1921; but, overall, blacks in
68
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Knoxville faced far less violent animosity than that found in much of the Old
South.5 The local branch of the NAACP began its work in 1919. In addition,
streetcars and many other public facilities were not segregated as they were in
the Old South. Ironically, however, such race relations also had the effect of
reducing the number of black entrepreneurs, as there would not be the necessity
of black businesses to serve black customers.
The city voluntarily desegregated its libraries in 1950. The University of
Tennessee at Knoxville began admitting black students in 1952 and was fully
integrated by 1960. The Knoxville public schools desegregated with little incident
in 1960, only a year after the first lawsuits were brought. Hotels, motels,
theaters, restaurants, and hospitals followed in 1965. Nevertheless, continued
economic discrimination, the legacies of Jim Crow, and the departure of many of
the most talented young blacks, helped to leave the city’s African-American
population disproportionately poor overall.6
The Great Depression ushered in a major new era in the area’s economic
history, marked by a significant rise of government-related employment. In
particular, the federal government created the Tennessee Valley Authority as
well as the atomic energy complex at Oak Ridge. The University of Tennessee
also was expanded considerably, in part thanks to the infusion of federal funds.
With these additions came thousands of new managers and laborers from many
areas of the country. One result was a cultural change bemoaned by some of
the area’s long-standing residents. From a city whose bars served only beer,
many closed by 9:30 p.m., and no movies or baseball games were allowed on
Sunday, Knoxville approved liquor by the drink in 1972 and several similarly
liberalizing measures thereafter.7
Knoxville has become the third largest city in Tennessee, with a population of
roughly 175,000.
It is located entirely within Knox County, sharing its
“Metropolitan Statistical Area” with several surrounding rural counties. (See
Figure 1.) Knox County has roughly twice the population of the city alone; and
the MSA has become nearly twice again as populous as the county. Rapidly
growing outlying areas include Oak Ridge in Anderson County, as well as Alcoa
and Maryville in Blount County. Demographically, the city is roughly 16 percent
black, while that figure is some ten percent for the county as a whole and seven
percent for the MSA. The area’s African-American population resides primarily in
the downtown Knoxville area, out Magnolia Street to the east, and in both the
Mechanicsville and Lonsdale neighborhoods.
The area’s strategic location, diversified local economy, and diversified work
force have allowed it to enjoy a relatively low unemployment rate. In 2000, for
instance, the Knoxville unemployment rate was only 2.3 percent, well below that
of both the state and the nation as a whole. The western portion of the city has
69
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
become its more affluent end, while the poorest areas are the housing projects
located near downtown, north of the University of Tennessee campus.
Governing Structures
Knoxville initially functioned under an elected commission form of government
until receiving its first city charter in 1815. At that point, the charter called for an
elected governing board comprised of a mayor and board of alderman, all
standing for reelection each year. By 1885, the city had both a streets and health
department, a city hospital, police and fire protection, as well as contracts with
private companies to provide street lighting, water, and streetcar service.
Legislative authority remained in the hands of the board, but they added a board
of public works to administer city services. The chair of that board was popularly
elected, while the boards two associate members were appointed by the city
commission.8
The city voted to abolish its charter in 1907, so as to reincorporate under
prohibition. Reformers then succeeded in re-adopting a commission form of
government in 1911, reuniting the legislative and executive functions under a
single elected body and electing all commissioners citywide, thus abolishing the
more politicized ward system. Twelve years later, they switched to a councilmanager system in an attempt to further professionalize the administration of city
services.
Despite reform efforts, local politics have normally been highly factionalized and
intensely competitive.
Elections have traditionally been nonpartisan, for
example, although candidate party has normally been relatively easy to
determine. By 1947, the council-manager form gave way to the present mayorcouncil governing arrangement and a home rule charter was added in 1954.
The present city governmental arrangement was adopted in 1968 and revised in
1982. It includes a mayor as well as nine city councilpersons, three of whom are
elected at large. The other six are elected from districts, although they are
nominated in a primary election and the top two finishers in each district are then
voted on by the entire city electorate. The mayor and four council members are
elected in the odd-numbered years before presidential elections, while the rest of
the council is elected every four years in the other odd-numbered year. The
terms are renewable.
The Knox County
their politics have
comprised of 19
providing three.
government evolved into a mayor-council system as well; and
been much more openly partisan. The county commission is
commissioners, elected from nine districts with District 5
The county executive and the entire commission stand for
70
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
reelection every fourth year, the even-numbered years between presidential
elections. The county was granted a home rule charter in 1988.
With the exception of certain services like a health care system which had been
delivered countywide since first mandated by the state in 1928, Knox County has
tended to provide services more for those living outside the boundaries of
Knoxville proper. This city-county division of labor has also been reflected in the
way the school system has been divided and governed.
By the mid-1980s, there were nine city school board members, three of whom
were elected at large. The other six were elected from districts; although, like the
city council, they were nominated in a primary election and the top two finishers
in each district were then voted on by the entire city electorate. All served
staggered four-year renewable terms and were paid $6,000 per year for their
services. The city school superintendent was appointed by the board.
The county school board, by contrast, held elections every four years. At those
junctures, they elected the superintendent, as well as electing all nine of its board
members from districts. See Figure 2. All of these elected officials served
renewable terms, and board members were paid $3,600 per year.
By state law, both boards functioned independently of their respective
governments in matters of policy and curriculum. Nevertheless, the city and
county governments were required to approve the school budgets proposed by
their respective school boards.
In terms of racial representation, there were at least one and sometimes two
black elected representatives in Knoxville from 1869 until 1890.
That
representation gradually disappeared during the days of Jim Crow laws, but it
has since returned. In recent times, both the city and county commissions, as
well as the city and county school boards, each had one predominantly black
district which consistently maintained black representation in each body. These
are is District 6 in the city and District 1 in the county.
Educational History
Prior to the Civil War, most education was conducted in private schools and
academies. Following the war, although many of the wealthy continued to send
their children to private schools, the county adopted a public school system in
1867, and the city followed suit in 1870. Several schools for blacks also sprang
up during and after the war, many funded and taught either by northerners or the
Freedmen’s Bureau. Governmental funding for public schools remained minimal,
but it was still higher than what could be found in most of the rest of the state.
71
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Overall enrollment was high as well, with 1869 finding 71.5 percent of whites and
76.35 of blacks in school.9
With the annexation of surrounding rural areas in 1897, the proportion of area
children in school dropped noticeably. At that time, for instance, the county
schools had an 80-day school session that provided ample opportunity for county
school children to “pick peas, dig potatoes, sow wheat and pull fodder.”
Nevertheless, attendance rebounded with the introduction of a compulsory
attendance law in 1913; and today all of the state’s public schools have
mandatory 180-day school year calendars.
Like the nation as a whole, Knoxville experienced a surge in students as the
post-World War II Baby Boom generation reached school age in the 1950s.
Although commencing roughly a decade later, Knox County like many other
outlying areas not only had to deal with the Baby Boom, but it also had to
accommodate those moving outward as part of the suburbanization trend
beginning at the same time.
Many schools were built during this period, beginning with elementary schools
and later secondary ones. Not even counting those schools that were renovated
or enlarged to meet this demand, the City of Knoxville built eleven elementary
schools in the 1950s, two junior highs in the 1960s, and two high schools in the
late 1960s and early 1970s. Knox County, on the other hand, added six
elementary and intermediate schools between 1960 and 1972. Four middle
schools and three high schools were added between the mid-1960s and mid1970s.
Annual birthrates began to taper off by the mid-1960s, however; and by the mid1970s, those born at the tail end of the Baby Boom began leaving elementary
school. This exodus left a good many elementary schools underutilized. By the
early 1980s, some of these elementary schools were nearly empty. When this
group began leaving high school, once again there was underutilization of
facilities. Yet, just about the time school systems began to close elementary
schools in the late 1970s, the children of the Baby Boomers began to reach
elementary school age.
By the mid-1980s, elementary schools were
experiencing net increases once again.
This most recent series of student population ebbs and flows put a strain on the
city and county school systems’ ability to adapt. By the mid-1980s, both were
facing some hard decisions in terms of closing older and/or underutilized schools
as well as adding schools and teachers to meet the latest surge of students and
the shifts in population locations. They would also have to decide how all of this
was to be financed.
72
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Yet, closing underutilized schools, building new ones, and redrawing district lines
to best utilize existing resources was only one of the challenges school
administrators and their school boards faced in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
There was also the issue of racial desegregation.
The Knoxville-area public schools had been racially segregated until a federal
lawsuit was filed in 1959. After a hearing in February of 1960, the city was
ordered to develop a desegregation plan. The city agreed to desegregate one
grade each of the succeeding years, beginning with the youngest children.
When the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals demanded quicker compliance, the
entire system ended up desegregated by 1964. By June of 1967, federal district
Judge Robert Taylor dismissed the case, granting that “the board and school
authorities are moving skillfully and with expedition toward the full integration of
the Knoxville School System.”10 Although ordered by the Court of Appeals to
continue monitoring compliance, the case was finally dismissed completely in
1973.
A primary desegregation device was the majority/minority transfer policy. By this
formula, a student could transfer to a school where his or her presence would
enhance the racial mix.
In addition, the school system would provide
transportation if necessary. As a hypothetical case-inpoint, if the overall school
system was 20 percent black and a black student was in a school that was more
than 20 percent black, that student could transfer to a school that had a black
population of less than 20 percent. Court-ordered school busing was avoided in
part because of this compromise. However, it was also avoided because the city
did not possess a fleet of school buses and the racial imbalances in the schools
were seen to have resulted from residential patterns and not overt governmental
policy.11
Consolidation
Since the early 1950s, there have been several significant attempts to try and
consolidate the City of Knoxville with Knox County. Nevertheless, all such
consolidation efforts have ultimately been thwarted by local voters.
Following state authorization in 1957, the first of these consolidation referenda
took place in 1959. The switch was supported by the charter commission, most
members of the city and county governments, and both newspapers. It was
opposed primarily by city teachers and county workers. In the end, it was
defeated by a resounding 87 percent of the area voters.12
Despite incremental annexations over time, suburbanization occurred faster than
the city could annex, particularly after World War II. Soon, the suburban areas
73
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
contained a sizable majority of the county’s population, even though county
services lagged. In response, Knoxville roughly tripled its geographic size by
annexing many of those surrounding areas in 1962. In the process, it also
increased its population by more than 50 percent, from 112,000 to 175,000. 13
During this same period, there also have been separate attempts to formally
consolidate the city and county schools. Those efforts have failed as well. In
1963, for instance, voters rejected school consolidation by a 55 percent to 45
percent vote. Three years later, they rejected it again, this time by a 65 percent
to 35 percent margin.14
Nevertheless, the city annexations of the 1960s involved the annexation of some
30 county schools, including allegations that the city had “cherry-picked” those
schools, drawing the lines to include some of the more desirable ones and
exclude those that were less desirable.15 True or not, the impact on the well
reputed county school system was significant. It had lost half its student body,
and those schools remaining were far more rural overall. Some in the county
schools began to fear that their school system was in the process of being
“annexed into oblivion.” Consequently, many of these individuals supported the
subsequently unsuccessful 1963 and 1966 referenda to merge the city and
county schools.16
Mildred Doyle was the elected county school superintendent from 1945 to 1975,
and her leadership and political savvy appear to have helped the county system
survive the turmoil of the 1960s and even to rebound. Although accounts vary,
the 1970s seem to have found the county more inclined to build its newest
schools further and further on the outer rim of the county. Whether intentional or
not, it served the purpose of making it more difficult for the city to annex such
schools. She was ultimately defeated by Earl Hoffmeister, who would hold that
position from 1976 through 1991. It would be Hoffmeister at the helm when
consolidation would finally come to fruition by default in 1987.
As early as 1983, the City of Knoxville was showing signs of fiscal distress. The
city and county library systems had merged in 1967, and the consolidated
libraries were jointly funded by the city and county governments thereafter. Yet,
in 1983, the city abruptly withdrew its support, leaving the library system entirely
to the county.
Despite such moves, by the mid-1980s the city was facing a fiscal crisis. Voters
had given city teachers attractive private pension boosts in lieu of salary raises.
Yet because of an annual pension contribution cap included in its 1963 city
charter, the city had fallen over $90 million behind in its pension funding
obligations. A second major problem was that Knoxville had been using federal
74
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Revenue Sharing money to fund its schools’ general operating budget, and the
curtailment of that federal program left the city in a further predicament.
Although those two were the most glaring problems, several other circumstances
converged to further challenge the city’s fiscal solvency. The federal government
also curtailed the Community Development Block Grant Program.
The
Tennessee Valley Authority reorganized, involving multiple layoffs. Knoxville
faced the loss of revenues that had flowed from its hosting of the World’s Fair in
the early 1980s. And, the city also had been deferring maintenance. They had,
for example, postponed the removal of asbestos from several city schools for
about as long as they could. It was increasingly clear that unless Knoxville could
17
reduce its service obligations, it was facing a sizable property tax increase.
Adding to the fluidity of the situation was a major upheaval on the city school
board. Dubbed the “Gang of Five,” five well entrenched incumbents were
defeated by a group of young political newcomers in the city school board
elections of 1985. The newly elected board members were Steve Roberts, Gary
Gordon, Judy Pratt, Pat Medley, and Ivan Harmon. Recognizing that they then
had the potential to control board policy, this new majority began meeting
regularly before they were even sworn in. The inaugural board meeting lasted an
unprecedented three hours, and in that time the new majority managed to close
schools, redraw some school zone lines to equalize enrollments, and make some
personnel changes.18
Consolidation of the city and county school systems had been an issue raised at
times during the 1985 campaign; but, even the newcomers figured any move in
that direction would have to be a gradual process.19 Yet, recognizing that
consolidation was becoming a very real possibility, the administrative staffs of the
two school systems began to meet informally to discuss the logistics of such a
conversion should it occur.20
Before such discussions and planning got much of anywhere, however, the city
mayor and city council reached the conclusion that Knoxville needed to turn over
its educational function to the county, despite county opposition. To that end, a
referendum was ultimately placed on the 1986 city ballot. The 1986 charter
reform vote to abolish the city school system was passed by the city of Knoxville
voters by a relatively comfortable margin. This created a consolidated school
system by default. What follows is a brief description of how that consolidation
result finally came about.
75
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Primary Players
Kyle Testerman, Knoxville Mayor
Fred Bedelle, Superintendent of City Schools
Gene Overholt, Chair of City Board of Education
Gary Gordon, sole African-American on City Board
A. L. “Pete” Lotts, Chair of County Board of Education
Sam Anderson, sole African-American on County Board
Sarah Moore Greene, head of local NAACP
Dorothy Hyder, representative of the Knoxville Education Association
The Announcement
In January of 1986, faced with a large budget deficit, Knoxville Mayor Kyle
Testerman announced his intention to call for a charter amendment referendum.
According to the mayor, if calling for such a vote was acceptable to the city
council, county commission, and both the city and county school boards, it would
appear on that November’s general election ballot. That election already
promised a respectable turnout in that it would also include contested races for
Governor and United States Congress.
The Campaign
Several of the battle lines were drawn early. Outside the city, for instance, there
continued to be concern that city annexations might ultimately doom the county
school system. Nevertheless, many suburban residents opposed consolidation
because they were not anxious to take on the problems several Knoxville schools
were seen as facing. Beyond deferred maintenance costs, these problems
appeared in large part to be related to the fact that some of the county’s poorest
residents lived in several of these troubled districts, districts that also happened
to be disproportionately black.
Meanwhile, there was considerable city
opposition as well.
Within Knoxville, city teachers led much of the early opposition. They had a
significantly more lucrative pension plan than did their county counterparts. For
example, “Pension A” allowed city teachers employed before 1977 to be vested
after five years and to retire at age 62 earning roughly 90-95 percent of their
existing salaries. They feared that they would lose some of those benefits if
consolidation occurred.
As the campaign unfolded, prominent opponents also included the Knoxville
NAACP, Knoxville Area Labor Council, the Conference of Black Churches, Gary
76
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Gordon, the only black city school board member, and the Knoxville Education
Association.
Supporters were led by the “Knoxvillians for Better Schools;” and, this list
ultimately included the Chamber of Commerce, both the city and county school
board chairmen, the Knox County superintendent, both the city and county
mayors, and the Knoxville News-Sentinel.
On February 25th of 1986, the city school board considered the Mayor’s
consolidation proposal, including a clause that no referendum vote would occur
until both school boards agreed. At its May 12th meeting, the city school board
“adopted and approved” the idea of consolidation in principle, as set out in very
general terms in a Transition Committee Report. This was done by voice vote,
with the one recorded “no” being Gary Gordon, the board’s one black member.
County superintendent A. L. “Pete” Lotts also noted that the county school board
had indicated support for the plan earlier that evening. The referendum vote was
now headed for the city’s November ballot.
Yet by October 13th, in light of the referendum’s specifics, or more correctly the
lack thereof, and confronted by mounting opposition from city employees, city
board chair Overholt asked for reconsideration of the board’s previous decision.
County chairman Lotts promised no significant changes the first year; but, the
city board reversed itself and called on Knoxville voters to reject the city
referendum to surrender its school charter.
On October 31st, just days before the vote, the Knoxville NAACP and the
Knoxville Area Labor Council announced their opposition. Meanwhile, County
superintendent Lotts continued to reassure voters that he did not anticipate any
school closings or boundary changes in the first year.21 City board chair Overholt
supported the referendum despite his board’s opposition because “the city
schools are chronically underfunded.”22 And county mayor Dwight Kessel
conceded that the county will have to increase taxes, but he still saw
consolidation as best for the county.23 Meanwhile, the county had promised
repeatedly that it would employ all city school employees who wished to keep
jobs, and it would recognize city seniority and tenure.24
African-American leaders responded with concerns about how the city’s minority
of black children would be treated in a school system within which they would be
an even smaller minority. For example, the only black city school board member,
Gary Gordon, feared the consolidated system would end up being insensitive to
black students and even less capable of providing them with the educations they
needed. The Conference of Black Churches also opposed the referendum
because there were just “too many question marks.”25
77
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
The Knoxville Education Association worried most about protecting the
preferable pensions of its employees. They threatened a lawsuit, if necessary, to
save them.26
Overall, as described by the Knoxville News-Sentinel, the campaign had become
“a back alley brawl with no punches pulled . . . It is pitting neighbor against
neighbor, political leader against political leader and community group against
community group in an increasingly bitter and personal contest.”27 As one
reporter noted, “Both sides agree that [the] battle has been ‘vicious.’”28 City
school board chairman Overholt described the campaign as “clearly the most
bitter fight that I have seen.”29
Examples included an allegation that information handed out to city school
students on the Thursday before the election had been “slanted” against the
referendum. Meanwhile, the mayor was being accused in one flyer of handing
city assets over to his “big money friends;”30 and, a News-Sentinel editorial
warned voters not to be “blinded by fear tactics of the city school employees.”31
The Ballot Issue
Abolishment of City School System
Shall the Charter of the City of Knoxville be amended so as to delete in their
entirety the provisions of Art. VI and Art. XII and thus effectively abolish the City
of Knoxville Public School System as more fully set forth in Ordinance No. 0-12386 of the City of Knoxville as duly published?
The Results
City voters voted 56.5 percent - 43.5 percent to adopt the charter amendment for
the “Abolishment of the City School System.” The highest levels of support were
found in the more affluent west end, where the referendum passed by a 3-1
margin. The least supportive precincts were found in several predominantly
inner-city districts, where African-American opposition had obviously remained
strong.
The Aftermath
Although the city schools had formally gone out of business and thus
surrendered their educational function to the county, many questions remained
unanswered. Some of these could be addressed by county school officials, but
78
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
several ended up in litigation. In particular, city teachers challenged certain
aspects of the merger that stood to harm them in ways they felt violated state
law. The teachers were represented in court by the Tennessee Education
Association.
The most pressing legal matter was what came to be referred to as the city
schools’ “Plan A” pension system. This was a very generous private pension
package that 650 active city teachers had been granted by the city since 1971.
Besides local pension contributions, they received an annual state annuity that
had originally been intended as a state reimbursement to the city but had been
passed along directly to the teachers. At the time, the “Plan A” city teachers
were the only teachers in the state receiving two pensions, at an additional local
cost of some $5 million per year. County teachers and city teachers hired after
1976 simply received the regular state retirement package. That package
included an annuity, but teachers had to pay into it, where Plan A teachers did
not.32
In late May of 1987, scarcely more than a month before they were to take over
and run the previous city school system, the county school board acted. Despite
an opinion by Tennessee Attorney General Mike Cody that state law required the
county to rehire all the city employees and keep their benefits intact, 33 the county
school board voted 5-4 not to rehire any of the 650 city school teachers receiving
the “old pension system” unless the county commission voted to fund it. Faced
with what already looked to be an 80 cent property tax increase just to fund the
consolidated school system’s anticipated operating budget, the commissioners
resisted an additional $5 million annual obligation.
In June, State Education Commissioner Charles Smith intervened in the pending
challenges before the Chancery Court in Knoxville. He argued that the judge
should stop the merger from occurring on July 1 unless pending issues were
resolved. In particular, he argued that merging at this time would cause
“irreparable harm” to educators, parents, and students. Knoxville Mayor Kyle
Testerman was just as adamant in response, threatening to cease providing
school services on June 30th, as the voters had legally decided to do, regardless
of any state mandate or court order. Nevertheless, the state always had the
option of withholding the $50 million it annually contributed to the Knoxville area
schools until the matter was acceptably resolved.34
It was not actually until the very eve of the scheduled takeover that a local judge
finally cleared the way for this to occur. Judge Frederick McDonald ruled on
June 30th that city school administrators had no guarantee of their specific
current positions, but their tenure and salaries would be retained. The city was
responsible for paying off the millions it owed the city teachers’ pension fund,
while all city teachers would be guaranteed their jobs, contracts, tenure, and
79
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
seniority. Meanwhile, nontenured, temporary and interim personnel had no
guarantees and could be rehired at the consolidated schools’ discretion.
Instead of immediate equalization, both the city and county contracts would
remain in place until they expired in 1989, even though this created some
awkwardness. City teachers, for example, received dental insurance that county
teachers did not. County teachers had more life insurance. The work day for city
teachers was 45 minutes shorter. There were differences in pay scales, meaning
at some ranks city teachers were paid more and at other ranks county teachers
were better paid. They also had different holiday schedules, transfer policies,
and so on. County school superintendent Earl Hoffmeister responded that the
35
ruling would create a “nightmare.”
Nonetheless, the newly consolidated Knox County Schools came into being on
July 1, 1987. As Table 1 notes, it required merging 53 city and 42 county
schools, as well as some 23,600 city and 26,500 county students. There was
also the matter of combining roughly 1,300 teachers from each system, besides
hundreds of administrators.
The first order of business for the consolidated school board was to plan for the
merger of the city and county central office staffs. To that end, transition
committees formed between the two boards and between the two staffs,
operating under the leadership of a volunteer community leader by the name of
Jack Walker. Recommendations were developed; but, in the end, the final
decisions would have to be made by the county school board and the county
commission.
Meanwhile, abolishing the city school system presented long-time consolidation
supporters with an opportunity to accomplish one of the thorniest aspects of a full
city-county merger, combining the two school systems. With much of the city
and county already combined via annexation and with the schools merged, some
felt the way had been paved for a subsequent full consolidation of the city and
county. Local voters did not fall into line as expected, however, rejecting full
consolidation in a 1996 referendum, as they had in 1983.36
CONSOLIDATION IMPACT
The consolidated Knox County school system has been in existence for 14
school years. What follows is an attempt to assess some of the major changes
that have occurred in Knoxville-area education since the consolidation event took
place. Generally it will not be possible to prove causation, that is to prove that
most of what has occurred is a direct result of consolidating the two school
80
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
systems. Nevertheless, it is still important to isolate trends that have come about
in the wake of the merger.
This section has been divided into two main subsections. The first addresses
measures of “educational quality” since consolidation. The second does the
same for measures of operating efficiency.
Educational Quality
Did the quality of education improve?
Educational circumstances seem to be improving steadily in virtually every
category reviewed. Student/teacher ratios have declined; per-pupil expenditures
have increased; teacher qualifications have improved; more students have
access to more programs, including the introduction of a magnet school
arrangement; and city school students have additional supplies, transportation,
and building improvements. The overall attendance rate has remained pretty
much unchanged, however, while one problematic indicator is suspensions and
expulsions, which have increased. Yet, the latter can be explained at least in
part by the introduction of the state’s “zero tolerance” rule. What is harder to
explain are the serious problems that continued to plague some of the system’s
poorest schools long after the consolidation dust had settled.
Student-to-Teacher Ratio. As Table 1 indicates, there has been a steady decline in
the student-to-teacher ratio. Part of that decline, however, has been mandated
by a combination of the state’s Better Education Program and the Federal
Educational Improvement Act. Nonetheless, the ratio had been trending
downward prior to the full impact of those laws, and the consolidated school
system actually employed nearly 200 new teachers immediately following the
school merger as part of the equalization process. One system, for instance,
may have been offering music or physical education options that the other had
not been offering. These programs were then added to the other system’s
offerings.
Per-Pupil Expenditures.
There also has been an increase in per-pupil
expenditures. Table 1 notes that such spending edged upwards in constant
dollars until the 1997-1998 school year.
Thereafter, that figure jumped
remarkably. To begin, when combining city and county school spending,
average expenditures had been increasing more than $200 per year immediately
prior to consolidation. They then made their first quantum jump, when
equalization involved raising the county schools closer to city-level expenditures
per pupil.37 The latest surge, however, raising constant dollar spending to a level
43 percent higher than at the time of the merger, can be explained in part by last-
81
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
minute compliance with class sizes mandated by the federal government in its
Education Improvement Act and the state in its Better Education Program
respectively.
Teacher Qualifications. Using college degrees as an indicator of teaching quality,
there also have been improvements. In the years prior to consolidation, the
proportion of city school teachers with B.A. and M.A. degrees had actually been
declining.38 The consolidated school averages are notably higher, however,
especially the proportion of teachers with M.A. degrees. By 1996, the majority of
the consolidated system’s teachers held a master’s degree or better.
Total Programs.
City students gained access to some programs previously
available only to county students and vice versa. In the end, however, the city
students appeared to gain more on balance, as declining enrollment in their
former school system had made it difficult to offer as comprehensive a curriculum
as was found in the county schools at the time. Yet, many of these new
programs were delayed a year for both budgetary reasons and so as to minimize
disruption. The former city schools did immediately get driver’s education,
however, as it paid for itself through student fees. In addition, a program to
integrate children with handicaps into the regular classrooms was implemented in
all the schools.
Magnet Schools. Five magnet schools were added between 1993 and 1997. All
five are located in the inner-city, and transportation is provided. These are
schools within schools. Each offers a unique set of curricular opportunities, and
at very little additional cost to the school system. In-zone students get priority,
then the remainder of the seats are filled by lottery, with attention paid to racial
balance. Only Beaumont has specific admissions criteria, requiring the student
to score a minimum of 85th percentile on the Bracken exam.
Indicated below are the five schools that contain magnet programs, the year they
began, the proportion of their students in that program, the program’s
incremental cost to the county schools, and the program’s academic emphasis.39
Beaumont Elementary, 1993, 19% (108/571), $37,000, honor’s academy.
Green Elementary, 1994, 34% (175/511), $38,000, math/science.
Sarah M. Green Elementary, 1996, 26% (178/698), $58,000, technology.
Vine Middle, 1996, 57% (339/592), $109,000, science/performing arts.
Austin-East High, 22% (169/775), $112,000, science/performing arts.
As the president of the Vine Middle School Parent-Teacher-Student Association
put it, “I think Vine is one of the best schools in Knox County, and I think one of
the greatest things that has happened to the inner city has been the magnet
82
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
school program. It has brought resources to our community that we would never
have had without it . . . Until recently there were no dance studios in the inner city
. . . Being part of the magnet school program has allowed one of my daughters to
excel in dancing. She is part of the school’s dance company, and that has
helped build her self esteem which has helped her in other areas of school.”40
Bus Transportation. Roughly 3,000 city school students became eligible for bus
transportation; and, as noted earlier, bus transportation was provided for those
opting for the magnet school alternative. Table 1 notes the increase in the total
of daily one-way miles of transportation provided.41
School Improvements. Former city schools saw their budgets for paper, books and
supplies triple almost immediately, reducing the need to have fund-raising
campaigns in order to buy supplies. Beyond that, during the academic year after
consolidation, the county spent more than $10 million on former city school
buildings to install air conditioning, remove asbestos, and repair roofing. 42
Attendance.
Little change has been evident in attendance rates. Prior to
consolidation, the city and county attendance rates were nearly identical, at
between 94 and 95 percent. Since the merger, districtwide attendance has
remained pretty much unchanged, at almost exactly that same 94 to 95 percent
rate.43 See Table 1.
Disciplinary Action. On the negative side, however, suspensions and expulsions
have increased markedly, indicating an increase in school disturbances. As
Table 1 demonstrates, the number of “suspension incidents” nearly doubled from
the point of consolidation. The number of expulsions has varied considerably,
but the norm is far higher than occurred at the time of the merger. The main
complicating factor in this regard, however, is that the state subsequently
adopted a “zero tolerance” rule that mandated minimum penalties for a host of
violations. Consequently, it is somewhat difficult to know if there are more
instances of serious misbehavior now, or if there are simply more suspensions
and expulsions being meted out for behavior that has been occurring all along.
Achievement. Although it was the impression of those closest to this process that
achievement scores did improve as a result of consolidation;44 unfortunately,
there was no dependable way to measure the impact of consolidation on
achievement test scores in Knox County. The incremental redrawing of school
boundary lines after the merger made it impossible to do a reliable longitudinal
study of any particular school. Districtwide, the Stanford Achievement Test was
used in both the city and county before the merger, but it was discontinued after
the 1988-89 academic year. That was two years after the merger, but it should
be recalled that very little changed at the school level in the first year. Looking,
83
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
then, for the impact on Stanford Achievement Test scores after one year of
change did not seem empirically sound.
Inequities. Despite a lack of concrete achievement measures, a handful of the
system’s poorest and heavily African-American schools continued to exhibit
serious problems years after consolidation. Predominantly black Vine Middle
School demonstrated critical on-going problems a full seven years after
consolidation. PTSA president Joe Cody described the school as a “total mess.”
A 1994 Knoxville News-Sentinel expose noted serious disciplinary problems such
as a norm of suspending some 40 students a day in a school of fewer than 500
students. TCAP scores continued to hover at just better than half the county
45
average. Building conditions also suggested a serious lack of maintenance.
Although Vine would later show definite signs of improvement when converted to
a magnet school, former city school board member Gary Gordon recently decried
the condition of many of the county’s poor and predominantly black schools. He
concluded that little has changed for the students in schools where teachers,
administrators, and the general public seem resigned to a status quo that leaves
many African American students almost hopelessly behind.46
Was there educational disruption?
To minimize the disruption and also to buy the central administration more time
to plan, the decision was made early on to change virtually nothing the first year.
Other than some transportation adjustments and a few new programs as part of
equalization, everything looked pretty much the same. The children and
teachers went back to the same schools they had gone to before the merger.
Thereafter, however, many things did change; and that change created some
disruption. Jobs changed; school zones got incrementally redrawn; some
programs got shifted from one school to another; and old schools closed, while
new ones were built.
Employees. In part thanks to position tenure and/or certification, no administrator,
with the exception of the city superintendent, lost his or her job. Consequently,
the norm was to create relatively comparable positions for the former city
administrators, although usually slightly subordinate to his or her county
counterpart, at least on paper. For example, there would become a “Lead Math
Supervisor” who had previously held the Math Supervisor’s position in the
county.
The city counterpart would remain the “Math Supervisor” with
comparable pay; and, the two would divvy up the responsibilities. Yet, there was
also natural attrition, as well as city administrators opting for retirement. This
created some helpful flexibility in establishing needed jobs with clearer titles,
responsibilities, and pay commensurate with the job.
84
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
The new system was required by state law to retain all “certified” employees, and
they did so. As a matter of fact, in order to minimize overall disruption,
essentially all teachers returned to their same classrooms for the first year.
Although not required by law, the consolidated schools also guaranteed jobs for
non-certified employees such as secretaries, clerks, aides, and custodians.
Again, an effort was made to minimize movement the first year. The student
would return to school settings that appeared almost exactly as they had left
them the previous Spring.
“Title I” Eligibility. One program not covered by state equalization requirements
was the federal Title I program. Title I eligibility was determined by ranking the
schools in the district according to those with the highest percentage of children
eligible for free or reduced priced school meals. This meant that of the Title I
schools the consolidated school system had the monies to fund, 34 of the 36
were located in the city. Ten county schools immediately lost their Title I
eligibility, which had allowed them to hire 26 extra teachers and aides for reading
and math. Five city schools then became eligible where they had not been when
they were city schools.
Desegregation. The most disruption stemmed from issues of desegregation. Prior
to the consolidation vote, Sarah Moore Greene, president of the Knoxville
NAACP, warned that the referendum stood to upset the longstanding legal
desegregation settlement reached between Knoxville and her organization.
Failing to see an “equitable desegregation plan” set out in the consolidation
proposal, she predicted that federal civil rights officials would have to reexamine
the entire Knoxville area school desegregation arrangement should the
referendum pass.
Once the referendum did pass, the newly consolidated county schools faced
circumstances such as the following. There was one black high school principal,
and he headed Austin-East High School which was 97 percent black. There
were numerous schools that were more than 99 percent white. With only one
exception, there were no white principals in predominantly black schools. Eleven
of the area’s fifteen high schools had African-American enrollments below the
county’s 13 percent average. Hundreds of students had been transferring out of
their zones, often negatively effecting the zone’s racial balance. And so on.47
After negotiations with Superintendent Earl Hoffmeister broke down, a complaint
was filed with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) on June 15, 1989. It requested a
“Total Compliance Review.”48 A review occurred that fall, and it determined that
the Knox County school system was discriminatory in its assignment of teachers
85
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
and principals and also by its practice of too freely allowing transfers without
attention to racial balance. Working with the OCR, the ultimate goal was to have
an “Enhanced Educational Opportunity Plan” (EEOP) by the start of the 1991-92
school year. Among other things, the desegregation plan would utilize the
magnet school concept as its centerpiece.
In April of 1991, after months of fits and starts, the school board adopted a final
23-school desegregation plan over the protests of some two hundred angry
parents challenging unwanted school consolidations in their neighborhoods. 49
The board, chaired by its lone African-American member Sam Anderson,
adopted the plan which the OCR then accepted. In particular, it was to add
magnet school optional programs to five of the schools with the highest
proportion of African-American students: Austin-East High School, Vine Middle
School, Green Elementary, Beaumont Elementary, and Sarah Greene
Elementary. The goal was to have a 50-50 racial balance in each of the magnet
programs except Beaumont, where the goal was 75 percent white and 25
percent black.50
In addition, some teachers and principals were transferred, and there were
several school closings, start-ups and consolidations as boundary lines got
drawn and redrawn to facilitate more school integration without having to resort
to school busing for that purpose. A new tougher policy on student transfers was
also adopted, and a real key was providing bus transportation from “pick-up
points” for those students desiring to take advantage of the magnet school
opportunities.51 Little of this could go into effect, however, without the necessary
budgetary allocations from the county commission. And, in the end, the school
board had to take the county commission to court before they finally went along
one step ahead of a court order to comply.
The 1990 involuntary transfer of 52 teachers (see section 5 below) disrupted
educational expectations for those students who had anticipated a particular
teacher the following year. Nevertheless, it was not unusual for as many as 52
teachers not to return to their particular classrooms the following year due to
reasons such as retirement, on leave, voluntarily transferring, or not being
rehired.
Involuntary Student Transfers. For all intents and purposes, no students were
involuntarily transferred from one existing school to another per se.
Nevertheless, a combination of school closings, new school construction, and
changes in school boundary lines ultimately resulted in some student movement.
Did consolidation create “flight”?
86
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Public school student enrollment has grown, but not as fast as the county
population as a whole. Filling the void, in part are private schools. Their
enrollment doubled during this period, although it still remains relatively small by
comparison. There is also evidence that the area population continues to move
outward, many leaving Knox County altogether; yet, that outward flight has
actually slowed some since the merger. Of those remaining in the county, the
proportion that are African American has grown slightly. Meanwhile, the county’s
public school student body is getting marginally blacker and marginally poorer.
Public School Enrollment.
Student enrollment has grown by approximately 5
percent since consolidation, from about 49,500 students to roughly 52,000. See
Table 1. But, at the same time, the Knox County population has grown by some
16 percent.52 That means that the county population is growing more than three
times faster than the county school population. So, assuming that the number of
school age children also has grown proportionately to the population growth as a
whole, where are the extra students going to school?
Private School Enrollment. According to the Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan
Planning Commission, the number of private and parochial school students has
more than doubled over this time period. There were 20 such schools in 1987,
with a student population of roughly 3,000. Those numbers had grown to 21 and
4,000 by 1990; then 28 and 5,300 by 1998. There are now 52 private and
parochial schools enrolling 6,700 area students. Two of the better known are
Webb Academy and Knoxville Christian Academy.53
Population Trends. Another type of flight is flight out of the county altogether.
Rather than losing people in this manner, however, Knox County has actually
grown in population by 16 percent since the merger. Nevertheless, the entire
metropolitan statistical area grew by 21 percent over that period. That means
more of the area’s growth from 1986 to 2000 occurred outside the county than
within it. Yet, looking at population growth between 1970 and 1986, the
metropolitan area grew by 41 percent, while Knox County only grew by 19
percent. Consequently, since the merger, there appears to have been some
stabilization of the population growth outside the county.54
Of the growth beyond the county line, only a small fraction of it appears to be
traditional “white flight.” Since, 1970 for instance, Knox County has gone from
8.4 percent black to 9.6 percent. Meanwhile, the African American population in
the metropolitan area has shrunk slightly from 6.8 percent to 6.5 percent.55
School Demography. In terms of race, the consolidated schools’ student body has
gradually become slightly blacker.
The proportion of county’s public school
87
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
students who are African American grew from less than 12 percent at the time of
consolidation to roughly 13.5 percent by 2000.
Meanwhile, that population has gotten slightly poorer as well. Using the
proportion of students receiving free or reduced-price school meals as an
indicator of flight by better off students, Table 1 shows that percentage to have
increased from less than 25 percent at the time of consolidation to a peak of 34
percent in 1997, and still more than 27 percent in 2000.
What these numbers fail to capture is “flight” within the school system itself. Part
of the reason for tightening the student transfer policy in 1991 was to stem “white
flight,” where white students would transfer to predominantly white schools to
avoid neighborhood schools that contained more black students.56
Were there indicators of increased racism?
Despite the existence of the majority/minority transfer policy and the introduction
of five magnet schools, there has been little change in the level of racial
segregation in the county’s schools, a segregation that also appears to be
economically related. In addition, apparent racial bias in the application of
suspensions and expulsions are problematic as well, although this does not
appear to be a phenomenon exclusive to post-consolidation Knox County.
Segregation. Focusing on the schools that were most racially segregated at the
time of the school merger, the success of desegregation efforts has been mixed.
Considerable racial concentration continues to occur despite the magnet school
programs at five of them, the majority/minority transfer policy, and the closing of
schools and redrawing of school zone lines. As a matter of fact, two of the
magnet schools have become even more racially segregated.
Eastport Elementary was 98 percent black shortly after consolidation, and it no
longer exists. Maynard Elementary was 96 percent black, and it remained 90
percent black by 2000. The comparable numbers for Austin East High School
are 93 and 86; Vine Middle: 93 and 67; Green Elementary: 92 and 86; Fair
Garden Elementary 89 and gone; Sara Moore Greene Elementary: 85 and 85;
Chilhowee Elementary 64 and 22; Lonsdale Elementary: 54 and 65; Beardsley
Middle 54 and gone; Holston High 51 and gone; Rule High 50 and gone; Spring
Hill Middle 49 and gone; and Beaumont Elementary: 34 and 48.57
This phenomenon also seems to correlate with class segregation. The
predominantly black schools, for instance, ended up as the schools with some of
the highest proportions of students qualifying for governmentally subsidized
meals, a standard poverty measure. Maynard Elementary: 94 percent; Austin
88
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
East: 67 percent; Vine: 69 percent; Green: 83 percent; Sarah Moore Green: 85
percent; Chilhowee Elementary 47 percent; Lonsdale: 90 percent; and
Beaumont: 86 percent. Those numbers would probably have been higher yet,
had it not been for the magnet programs in five of those six schools.58
The majority/minority transfer policy never seems to have been more than a very
modest success. Prior to consolidation, for instance, a little better than 300 city
students, slightly more than one percent, took advantage of this option in most
years. There also was some concern on the part of black educators that those
African-American students who did leave were often some of the brightest and
most motivated at the schools they were departing, harming the latter schools in
59
the process.
Since then, the magnet school program was set up in part to try and attract more
white students into five of the city’s six most racially segregated schools.
Progress has been relatively slow. The year 1998 saw only 311 white students
take advantage of this opportunity. That number jumped to 472 by 2000,
although it still only represented slightly more than one percent of the white
students in the county schools.
Disciplinary Bias. African American students have been suspended and expelled
from the Knox County schools in numbers that far exceed their proportion of the
student body. In the 1999-2000 school year, for instance, 20 percent of the
county’s black students were suspended at least once, while that number was
only 8.4 percent for whites. Over the course of only one school year, in ten of the
county schools more than one third of the black students received at least one
suspension. And, in one school, that figure was nearly one half.
There was also a difference in the types of offenses for which black students
drew their suspensions. Blacks were far more likely to be suspended for
violence or intimidation, while white suspensions tended to be more related to
tardiness, cutting class, and tobacco.
Sam Anderson, the lone African American on the county school board voiced
concern. “It’s not something new . . . This is a major problem for my community
and my district and for all African Americans in Knox County and their parents. . .
It’s hard to improve test scores if you’re suspending kids at that kind of rate.”60
Anderson went on to note that the county school system was nearly all white at
the time of the merger, leaving them with far less experience dealing with racial
differences than the city system had developed. Thus, he felt it essential that
any consolidated system include some African Americans in decision-making
positions.61
89
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
It also should be noted, however, that many of the administrators delivering these
disciplinary measures were African Americans themselves. In addition, such
racial discrepancies are not unique to Knox County. Where the Knox County
schools suspended 20 percent of their black students and 8.4 percent of their
white students, those figures were 25 percent and 12 percent nationally; 10.7
and 5.3 statewide; 20 and 10 in Nashville; 12.7 and 6.2 in Chattanooga; 8.8 and
3.5 in Shelby County; and 6.6 and 2.9 in Memphis.62
What was the impact on teachers?
City school administrators were rehired if they desired to be, but most of them
ended up at least marginally subordinate to their county counterparts. By
contrast, for those teachers not subject to involuntary transfer as part of the
desegregation plan, consolidation really did not change their lives very much at
all. Nevertheless, the merger did produce some teacher morale problems,
particularly related to general uncertainties, the involuntary transfers, and
compensation issues. In addition, a pension conflict ended up in court. Over
time, however, those problems seem to have worked themselves out, studentteacher ratios are down, and average teacher salaries have continued to climb.
Involuntary Transfers.
As part of the desegregation plan described above, a
sizable number of teachers ended up being involuntarily transferred for the
purpose of better integrating the teacher corps at 26 racially identifiable schools.
When few volunteered, a lottery was held on May 16, 1990; and 52 teachers
were transferred in a process Knox County Education Association President
Carolyn Smith watched and termed “horrible.”63 Nevertheless, only 4 of these
teachers retired rather than fulfilling their 3-year obligation. Also, these were 52
teachers out of 2,800, which means more than 98 percent of city and county
teachers were essentially able to remain in their post-consolidation school of
choice.
Pension Controversy. Pensions were another major concern. As described at
length in Section I above, the 650 city teachers receiving the more generous
“Pension Plan A” benefits went to court after the county commission refused to
fund the plan and the county school board then threatened not to rehire any of
them. Yet, state law was interpreted as requiring the county to continue those
benefits for city teachers who enjoyed them at the point of consolidation. In the
end, then, more than 600 city teachers maintained their pension advantages; and
city teachers as a whole received slightly higher salaries when they switched
over to the county schools’ salary scale. See Table 1.
Teacher Morale. Besides the morale problems surrounding the involuntary transfer
and pension controversies, county teachers were upset when fiscal constraints
90
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
threatened a pay increase they had previously negotiated with the county school
board. There also was considerable “fear of the unknown,” with teachers worried
about their job security and about being treated equitably. Uncertainties such as
these caused a number of teachers to file grievances, retire, or seek employment
outside the public schools.64
Teacher Salaries. The city and county salary scales were very similar. At the point
of consolidation, the average teacher salary in the county was $23,138; while the
corresponding figure was $22,556 in the city system. The pay ranges were also
quite similar. In the county it was $15,820 - 28,920, while in the city it was
15,925 - 28,120. Thus, not much changed in this regard. City teachers ended
up getting slightly higher salaries on average as a result of equalization. Yet,
since the merger, average teacher salaries have risen more than 7 percent in
constant dollars. See Table 1.
Student-Teacher Ratio. As Table 1 indicates, the public school student-teacher
ratio has declined steadily since the merger. Beginning at roughly 18 students
per teacher, that number was less than 16 by 2000. Not only does that suggest
a marginally improved work load for the teacher, but it also contributes to the
quality of education that teacher is able to provide.
How was school governance affected?
Essentially, the city school board ceased to exist, and the new consolidated
system was governed by the county board. City administrators, except for the
superintendent, were reassigned to roughly equivalent positions in the new
administration.
City School Board. At the time of consolidation, there were nine city school board
members. Three were elected at large and six from districts. There was one
black-majority district. All served four-year renewable terms and were paid
$6,000 per year for their services. The city school superintendent was appointed
by the Board. Following the merger, the city school board simply ceased to exist,
and the city superintendent became the one city employee to actually lose his job
as a result of consolidating the schools. Positions were found for all the other
city school employees who desired one.
County School Board. The county school system remained in place following the
referendum. The superintendent continued to be elected countywide until state
law recently required the position to be appointed by the board. The school
board continued to be elected from nine districts, one of which had a black
majority. See Figure 2. Board members continued to serve four-year renewable
terms and were paid $3,600 until the county was subsequently granted a home
91
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
rule charter and board pay increased to $17,000 per year. There also seem to
be fewer entrenched incumbents. Since consolidation, it is no longer so unusual
for incumbents to be defeated, as the politics seem more competitive and fluid.65
As the consolidated county school administration took shape, it was normally the
official from the former county school system who was given the top job in any
given area, while his or her city school counterpart who was given a parallel role
or placed second in command. By 1990, the organizational structure for the
consolidated county schools looked like this:
Superintendent
Assistant Superintendent
Business and Administration
Facilities
Director
Coordinator
Supervisors
Personnel
Director
Coordinator
Supervisors
Pupils
Director
Coordinator
Supervisors
Assistant Superintendent
Curriculum and Instruction
Supplemental
Director
Coordinator
Supervisors
Vocational
Director
Coordinator
Supervisors
Educational Efficiency
Was efficiency increased?
Yes. Two of the areas in which consolidation savings could be expected to
appear are a reduction in administrative duplication and a better utilization of
existing resources. There was indeed some evidence of both in Knox County
following the school merger.
Duplication. Most notably, the number of central office administrators eventually
did decline. Although all such administrators were guaranteed jobs following the
referendum vote, attrition finally allowed the number to diminish. There were
94.5 central office administrators immediately following the merger, and that
number had shrunk to 71 by the year 2000. As Table 2 notes, that meant a 37
percent increase in the number of students per central office administrator.
The central office’s share of the overall school budget also declined. Table 2
shows that number falling from 2.65 percent to 1.98 percent. That is a decrease
of more than 25 percent; yet, the decline is less than would be expected from the
number of administrators no longer employed. This suggests an increase in
administrative costs per administrator.
Utilization. In the years since consolidation, there has been a net decline of 9
school buildings. See Table 1. Nevertheless, the number of teachers and the
92
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
number of students have both increased. As would be expected, Table 2 shows
how the average school size has increased. From 573 students per school prior
to consolidation, that number has risen to approximately 650.66 Yet, this has
been accomplished with few schools ending up “overcrowded” by state definition.
That fact suggests more efficient utilization. However, this was accomplished in
part by closing older, smaller schools and building larger ones in their places, as
well as adding wings onto the more expandable of the existing schools.
Beaumont Elementary is a good example of the latter phenomenon.67
In addition, as touched on earlier in the desegregation context, there have been
individual school consolidations and changes in boundary lines. Beyond
desegregation, however, this process also has been used to increase effective
utilization. Each year, May and August enrollment numbers are analyzed to
determine the degree of facility utilization per school. Each year as a result of
this analysis, incremental changes in boundary lines are recommended to the
superintendent and ultimately to the board. Some will be adopted each year,
although it is generally several years between such changes for any given
school. One particular incentive to do this effectively has been the maximum
class sizes mandated by the state under its Better Education Program.68
Table 2 notes the particular benefits gained by students from the former county
school system, where outward migration had left many of their schools seriously
overcrowded. Prior to the merger, the county averaged 742 pupils per school,
while the comparable city number was 455. Since consolidation, as indicated
above, the consolidated schools’ average is roughly 650.
Were educational costs decreased?
No. In fact, constant dollar school expenditures have actually risen by 49 percent
since consolidation occurred. See Table 2. There are several explanations for
this increase. Given that most school spending is done in the classroom, there
will not be revolutionary amounts of savings from consolidation, as all the existing
students will still need to be taught. Also, equalization will likely mean additional
programs will be provided. Students will generally retain the programs they had
and add ones the other system was enjoying that they were not.
Total Expenditures. As Table 2 indicates, the consolidated county schools budget
has increased by 49 percent in constant dollars since the time of their merger.
The initial operating budget proposal was for some $16 million more than the
previous city and county school budgets combined. This included funding for
items such as increases required by equalization, a teacher pay raise, and
monies to cover the additional costs of pensions for former city teachers covered
under “Pension Plan A.”69
93
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Per-Pupil Expenditures. As would be expected, this growth in total spending is also
reflected in per-pupil expenditures. As previously discussed, and observable in
Table 1, a recent surge in per-pupil expenditures has raised constant dollar perpupil spending to a level 43 percent higher than at the time of the consolidation.
Teacher Compensation. Education is a very labor-intensive endeavor. Thus, adding
programs means adding personnel. As previously indicated, nearly 200 teachers
were added the very first year after consolidation. In addition, equalization
ultimately required some adjustments in teacher salaries. And, as a higher
proportion of teachers has come to have advanced degrees, it costs the school
system that much more in step-salary increases. As a result, teacher salaries
increased by more than seven percent in real dollars over the period under
review. See Table 1. Beyond that, the county schools were required by the
court to raise some $2 million per year just to fund the former city teachers’
“Pension Fund A.”70
Transportation. Given its rural beginnings, the county had a tradition of providing
school bus transportation from the student’s front door. The city, on the other
hand, provided very little in the way of bus transportation to school.
Consolidation would mean equalizing such service, and the compromise solution
ended somewhere in between.
Under the new arrangement, county students would no longer get picked up at
the door, and some ceased to qualify for bus transportation under the new
formula. Meanwhile, a number of city students now qualified and had to be
accommodated. Although the number of buses and the number of students
being transported actually dropped slightly the first few years after consolidation,
they would increase as a result of the various desegregation efforts that would
follow, especially the magnet school program.
As a result, the daily one-way miles of transportation provided increased by
nearly 35 percent from the combined city and county total the year before
consolidation to the 1999-2000 academic year. See Table 1.
Renovation. Between 1988 and 1989, as previously indicated, the county spent
some $10 million to repair decaying city school buildings. Some of the more
costly maintenance involved installing air conditioning, removing asbestos and
repairing roofs - expenditures that the city was likely to have had to have made
eventually anyway.71
Limits. By 1991, the county asked the city for $1 million to help close a $9.5
million shortfall in the consolidated school budget. The city rejected that request,
94
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
and the county subsequently cut some employees and several school programs
for the 1991-92 academic year.72
Did taxes get raised?
Yes. Both property and sales taxes have increased since consolidation, as well
as the schools’ proportion of each. However, not all of all of these increases
were merger related. Part was needed to compensate for the fact that the
previous budget had been funded by some federal monies that no longer existed
and from some city and county savings accounts.
External Revenue Sources. In the course of the 1980s, the federal government
ended its Revenue Sharing program, and Community Development Block Grants
were scaled back significantly. These developments contributed to an overall
decline in the proportion of county school money coming from the federal
government. The state proportion has declined somewhat as well, leaving the
local area to raise an increasing proportion of its own school revenues. As Table
2 indicates, Knox County’s share has risen from 51 percent to 59 percent since
the time of their merger.
Property Taxes. With school expenditures increasing by 49 percent in constant
dollars since consolidation, and with the state and federal governments
contributing smaller shares, local tax revenues had to go up to cover that cost.
And they did. When you combine city and county property tax rates, the overall
community-wide rate has changed very little. It was 5.67 at the time of the
merger, and it rose to 6.36 by 2000. See Table 2. That is scarcely more than a
12 percent increase over 14 years, or less than one percent per year.
It is important to note, however, that there is a difference in the consolidation
burden born by city and non-city residents. The city’s property tax rate actually
declined slightly, from 3.40 to 3.04; while the county’s increased from 2.27 to
3.32 over the same time period. See Table 2. But, it should be remembered that
city residents have paid both from the beginning. So, overall, their tax burden
rose slightly as indicated in the combined rate above. Non-city residents saw
their property taxes increased by 46 percent, but they were still paying only the
county tax.
Focusing on that portion of all property taxes that go to the schools, the school
millage rate has risen from $0.84 to $1.43 since consolidation. That is a 70
percent increase.
Meanwhile, when the city went out of the public school business, it no longer
expended any money for schools, with the exception of having to meet the
95
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
court’s order to continue contributing to the “old” city teacher pension plan for a
set period of time. The county doubled the number of students it was serving;
but, the county property tax rate did not double because the county was already
providing more than 40 percent of the city school revenues prior to the merger.
Sales Taxes. At the time of the merger, the total sales tax burden in Knox County
was seven percent, of which 1.25 percent went to the schools. Within three
years, those numbers had risen to 7.75 and 1.625. As of 2001, they were 8.25
and 1.625.73
COMMENTARY
What follows are some of the more common thoughts and sentiments of
individuals interviewed and secondary accounts reviewed.
With only one exception, everyone interviewed and most all secondary accounts
indicated satisfaction with the merger once the various transition problems were
addressed.
The perceived advantages included an improved ability to
concentrate resources more efficiently for meeting student needs, more flexibility
allowing for less crowding and more facility sharing, and equalization which
tended to mean that city students got programs that were provided exclusively for
the county students before consolidation and vice versa.
Every account concurred that the way Knox County arrived at consolidation was
not the way it should be done. They definitely do not recommend having the city
school system simply surrender its charter, creating consolidation by default.
Without a plan, there ends up being unnecessary uncertainty, fear, litigation, and
so on.
According to a panel of teachers closely involved throughout the merger, to
achieve successful consolidation there is a need for strong central leadership,
and it is essential to outline legitimate reasons for consolidating; have the two
school boards mutually plan for the change at least a year in advance; develop a
planning group that includes community members, teachers, and principals;
develop a detailed timetable for making needed changes; equitably treat all
parties; and avoid duplicate positions. It is also important to do all this openly,
utilizing the media; have a consolidation hotline; and employ human resources
specialists to help counsel teachers and students.74
Consolidating school systems may upset the existing desegregation
arrangement, at least temporarily. If one of the consolidating systems has many
exclusively white schools and the other has several that are almost exclusively
black, and if the teaching and administrative staffs reflect those racial divisions,
96
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
there is a chance this arrangement may be challenged as discriminatory unless a
new desegregation plan is developed. Having said that, the prospect of courtordered school busing as an alternative is essentially nonexistent. Instead, any
such desegregation plan may involve some redrawing of school zones, the
creation of more magnet schools with transportation as necessary, and more
attention to placing new schools in locations that facilitate racial integration. At
the very least, it is likely to require equalization of curricular offerings.
It is best to do such desegregation planning openly and voluntarily at the front
end, rather than waiting for prompting from either the Office of Civil Rights or a
federal judge. It is also seen as important to take economic class into
consideration as well. In other words, it is important to try to devise a plan which
disperses low income children to different schools, not concentrating them in a
handful of schools.75
Although there will be some savings eventually in terms of reducing the number
of central office administrators; there also will be added costs involved in the
process of equalization. In the end, there is not likely to be a net reduction in
overall school spending. If anything, there may well be a net increase in
expenditures.
It is important to be prepared for some disruption as services get reallocated to
where they are most needed. Lower-income county schools, for example, may
lose their Title I programs in order to provide such services to even more needy
inner-city schools currently unserved because of their respective ranking in the
city system.
There also may be culturally based disagreements between city and county
teachers and administrators over various curricular and extracurricular priorities.
In Knoxville, for example, the city system placed a higher priority on middle
school athletics, elementary school band, sex education, and certain technical
programs. These disagreements will have to be resolved.76
In addition, it should be noted that just prior to the merger, there was a rumor that
a deal had been quietly arranged whereby the city system would increase
teacher wages and benefits and the county would do likewise for their
administrators. Then, following consolidation, equalization would allow county
teachers and city administrators to gain these as well. There is no reason to
believe that was anything but a rumor. Nevertheless, it is still important to watch
for such things should consolidation end up being an announced and phased-in
process.
Finally, looking beyond the opinions of education professionals, politicians,
interest group leaders, and the media, the limited public opinion polling that has
97
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
been done actually depicts a less than glowing endorsement of the Knoxvillearea public schools. Local schools were considered personally “essential” or at
least “very important” by more than 85 percent of those Knox County residents
surveyed, while that percentage rose to 97 percent when asked the importance
of schools to the community as a whole. Yet, only about one half considered
Knox County schools to be “good” or “excellent.” Approximately the same
number rated them as “fair” or “poor.” Demographically, the African-American
neighborhoods were least supportive of existing schools, while the wealthier city
neighborhoods and some of those furthest out in the suburbs tended to be most
supportive. Comparatively, schools rated higher than road maintenance but
lower than police, libraries, and public health services. Nevertheless, it also
should be noted that this polling did not begin until 1995; there are no
comparable measures before consolidation; and there is no way to tell the
opinion of only those who have had first-hand experience with the system.77
98
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Students Receiving
Free or Subsidized
Meals (%)
36.8a
4.6a
19.6a
24.5
26.0
26.0
26.3
27.0
*****
28.5
29.6
30.8
33.7
29.0
28.7
27.4
Average Teacher
Salary (constant
dollars)
34,144
35,025
34,593
34,262
35,753
35,846
35,644
34,142
33,140
34.032
35,174
36,042
36,028
35,667
35,870
36,715
Students Expelled
99
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
* a note: 1985-86 data were used here, as the 1986-87 data were unavailable
34
***
111
62
53
24
***
39
16
29
13
9,752
10,611
9,464
10,842
9,847
10,470
10,242
9,582
8,287
7,213
6,984
5,865
****
****
Suspension Incidents
1
***
***
Attendance Rate (K12)
****
94.7
94.2
94.0
93.9
92.8
92.4
92.4
92.9
93.4
93.4
92.9
93.2
94.3
94.6
Daily One-Way
Transportation Miles
****
12,382
10,377
10,184
10,292
9,719
****
9,064
9,243
9,132
****
8,927
8,737
8,620
9,187
8,435
Per-Pupil
Expenditures
(constant dollars)
5,975
5,831
5,007
5,284
5,198
5,070
5,104
5,123
4,761
5,009
5,146
****
4,889
4,175
3,834
4,561
15.6
15.8
16.0
16.6
17.2
17.6
17.5
****
18.0
18.1
17.8
18.6
17.9
19.1
17.6
20.6
Student/Teacher
Ratio
752
80+6=86
78+7=85
78+7=85
78+6=84
79+7=86
80+7=87
82+6=88
84+4=88
81+5=86
87+6=93
90+5=95
87+7=94
85+8=93
85+10=95
35+7=42
50+3=53
Number of Schools
K-12 plus Spec.
Schools
93.8
******
51,374
51,982
52,371
52,277
51,953
51,546
******
50,324
50,127
49,867
52,533
50,232
50,152
26,541
23,611
Student Enrollment
***
****
1999 - 2000
1998 – 99
1997 – 98
1996 – 97
1995 – 96
1994 – 95
1993 – 94
1992 – 93
1991 – 92
1990 – 91
1989 – 90
1988 – 89
1987 – 88
‘86-‘87 (tot.)
86-87 (co.)
86-87 (city)
Category
***
Table I: Educational Quality
School Year
N.A.
2.76
2.91
2.85
3.07
3.07
3.30
2.91
2.91
3.16
3.16
2.77
2.77
3.32
51
51
51
**
56
49
53
52
52
52
52
54
59
School Revenues from
Local Sources (%)
**
100
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
* a note: 1985-86 data were used here, as the 1986-87 data were unavailable
3.04
2.85
2.85
2.58
2.87
2.87
2.87
3.51
3.51
3.51
3.24
3.24
3.40
N.A.
N.A.
Property Tax Rate
(city plus county)
2.27
6.36
5.62
5.62
5.74
6.03
5.78
5.78
6.81
6.58
6.58
6.09
6.15
6.16
5.67
N.A.
Total Current
Expenditures
(constant dollars)
293,395,590
283,607,608
260,277,887
259,747,927
254,836,962
244,015,752
242,818,306
242,575,587
222,376,672
234,513,156
239,347,132
229,045,671
222,083,607
197,171,174
93,639,229a
87,594,579a
***
641
649
653
643
630
618
***
605
564
543
590
577
573
742
455
Average School Size
(K-12)
N.A.
1.98
2.01
2.07
2.07
2.11
2.14
2.35
2.31
2.44
2.63
2.72
2.61
2.65
****
****
****
Central Office
Expenditures as a
Percentage of the
Total School Budget
**
3.40
728.3
723.6
722.0
717.4
692.4
697.4
624.8
*****
649.3
586.3
590.1
644.6
531.6
*****
*****
*****
Central Office Staff per
Student
N.A.
1999 - 2000
1998 – 99
1997 – 98
1996 – 97
1995 – 96
1994 – 95
1993 – 94
1992 – 93
1991 – 92
1990 – 91
1989 – 90
1988 – 89
1987 – 88
‘86-‘87 (tot.)
86-87 (co.)
86-87 (city)
Category
**
Table 2: Educational Efficiency
School Year
Property Tax Rate (city)
Property Tax Rate (co.)
Figure 1. The Knoxville Metropolitan Statistical Area
112
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Figure 2. Knoxville County School Zones
113
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
SOURCES CONSULTED
Anderson, Lonell, Jr.,“An Analysis of Student Academic Achievement, SelfConcept and Self-Reliance as Related to School Social Structure and School
Social Inputs in Knox County and Knoxville City Schools,” E.Ed. dissertation,
University of Tennessee at Knoxville, March 1982.
Bean, Betty, Project Change: Knoxville, Tennessee - Opportunities for Racial
Unity in the 21st Century (Knoxville, Tennessee: Public Media Center, 1995).
Booker, Robert J., Two Hundred Years of Black Culture in Knoxville, Tennessee
(Virginia Beach, VA.: The Donning Co. Publishers, 1993).
Daves, J. H., A Social Study of the Colored Population of Knoxville, Tennessee
(Knoxville, Tennessee, 1926).
Deaderick, Lucille, Heart of the Valley: A History of Knoxville, Tennessee
(Knoxville: East Tennessee Historical Society, 1976).
Gray, Aelred J.and Mrs. Susan F.Adams, “Government,” in Lucille Deaderick,
Heart of the Valley (Knoxville: East Tennessee Historical Society, 1976),
Chapter 2.
Gunther, John, Inside U.S.A. (New York and London: Harper and Brothers,
1947).
Howard, George C. and Edith Foster Howard, “City-County Educational
Relationships in Tennessee” (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Bureau of
Public Administration, February 1950).
Joyce, Debra Denise, “A Per Pupil Expenditure and Competency Test
Performance Study of 9th Graders From Shelby, Davidson, Knox, and
hamilton County School Systems,” E.Ed. dissertation, Tennessee State
University, August 1997.
Kelley, Paul, “Education,” in Lucille Deaderick, Heart of the Valley (Knoxville:
East Tennessee Historical Society, 1976), Chapter 5.
Kern, J. Harvey, Social and Economic Conditions in Knoxville, Tennessee, As
They Affect the Negro (Southern Regional Office, National Urban League,
October, November, December, 1967).
114
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Knox County Public Schools, Annual Statistical Report (Knoxville: Government
Printing Office, various years).
Knoxville Journal.
Knoxville News-Sentinel.
Knoxville Public Schools, Annual Statistical Report (Knoxville: Government
Printing Office, various years).
Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission, Knoxville Area Facts
and Figures (Knoxville: Government Printing Office, various years).
Lyons, William, and John Scheb, “Saying No,” State and Local Government
Review (Spring 1998).
MacArthur, William J., Jr., “Knoxville’s History: An Interpretation,” in Lucille
Deaderick, Heart of the Valley (Knoxville: East Tennessee Historical Society,
1976), Chapter 1.
McComb, Thomas and Martha Donaldson, “Knoxville-Knox County Consolidation
and the County and City School Systems,” Bureau of Public Administration,
University of Tennessee at Knoxville, August 1958.
McDonald, Michael J. and William B. Wheeler, Knoxville, Tennessee: Continuity
and Change in an Appalachian City (Knoxville, TN.: University of Tennessee
Press, 1983.
Peach, Larry Eugene, “Perceptions of Participation in Decision Making and
Satisfaction With Decisions Made in the Knox School System,” E.Ed.
dissertation, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, August 1978.
Rothrock, Mary U., The French Broad-Holston Country; A History of Knox
County, Tennessee (Knoxville: East Tennessee Historical Society, 1946).
Stanfield, John, “White and Black Inequality in Urban Appalachia: The Case of
Knoxville, Tennessee,” in Edward Miller and Robert Wolensky, ed.,
Proceedings of the Fourth Conference on the Small City and Regional
Community (University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point, 1981).
Tennessee Education Association and Appalachia Educational Laboratory,
Maintaining Positive Educator Morale During Consolidation (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, May 1988).
115
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Tennessee State Board of Education, Annual Report Card of the Knox County
Schools (Nashville: Government Printing Office, various years).
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the
Population (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, various years).
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, City and County
Data Book (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, various years).
United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical
Abstracts of the United States (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, various years).
Williams, Samuel Cole, History of the Lost State of Franklin (Johnson City, TN.:
The Watauga Press, 1924)
Reports
“Budget Summary,” Knox County Department of Finance and Administration.
“Budget Survey” polling data, prepared for both Knox County and the City of
Knoxville by William Lyons and John Scheb, University of Tennessee at
Knoxville.
“Combined School Membership,” Office of Research and Evaluation, Knox
County Board of Education.
“Combined State and Local Teacher Salary Schedules, Knox County Schools.
“Development Activity: A Summary of 1997 Development Trends in Knoxville and
Knox County, Tennessee,”Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning
Commission, 1998.
“Economic Data: Knoxville Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area,”Knoxville/Knox
County Metropolitan Planning Commission, September 1995.
“Education: Summary and Issues,”Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning
Commission, 1990.
“Free and Reduced Meals: Membership Comparison Report, Knox County Food
Service.
116
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
“Goodspeed's History of Tennessee” (Nashville, TN.: Charles and Randy Elders
Booksellers, 1972).
“Historical Patterns of Social and Economic Discrimination Against African
Americans in Knoxville, unpublished report prepared by George White and
Gary Gordon, 1999.
“Knox County Schools Population and Enrollment Trends Study,” Knoxville/Knox
County Metropolitan Planning Commission, March 1988.
“Knox County Schools Standardized Test Results,” Office of Research and
Evaluation, Knox County Board of Education.
“Knoxville Area Facts and Figures,” Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning
Commission.
“The Metro Economy: Profile of Growth in Knox and Surrounding Counties,”
Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission, October 27,
1997.
Extended Interviews
Anderson, Sam: May 24, 2001. Sam taught and coached in the city schools;
became the city’s Director of Parks and Recreation, the first African
American to hold such an office in Knoxville; and he was elected to the
consolidated county school board in May of 1988, where he remains its only
African American member.
Bratton, Sam: May 23, 2001. Sam taught in the county for six years and then
worked in the central office of the county schools for nearly 40 years, serving
much of that time as its Coordinator for Research and Evaluation.
Gordon, Gary: June 12, 2001. Gary grew up in Knoxville and was the second
African American to graduate from Webb Academy there. He worked as a
consultant for several governmental agencies including the TVA; and he was
one of the five newcomers elected to the city board of education in 1985,
serving at the time of consolidation.
Lyons, William: April 29, 2001. Bill is a professor of Political Science at the
University of Tennessee at Knoxville, hosts a local political television
program, and has done several polls for the city and county governments.
Mullins, Roy: June 13, 2001. Roy has spent 40 years in the county school
system, beginning as a teacher, principal, and then Superintendent of
117
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Human Resources. He was interim county school superintendent for the
1988-1989 academic year. And, he is currently the county school’s Assistant
Superintendent for Administrative Services.
Roberts, Steve: May 24, 2001. Steve became the Deputy Director of the Public
Service Department after teaching in the city schools and working for a state
agency. He was the leader of the five newcomers who formed the city
school board majority at the time of consolidation.
Smith, Carolyn: June 13, 2001. Carolyn has taught locally for the past 27 years
and was the first president of the newly consolidated Knox County Education
Association in 1987.
Winstead, Mike: April 27, 2001. Mike succeeded Sam Bratton as the County
School’s Coordinator of Research and Evaluation.
118
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
SCHOOL
C O N S O L I D A T I O N:
C H A T T A N O O G A, T E N N E S S E E
a report on the state’s first merger between city and county school systems
Part III
July 2001
Ken Goings, Ph.D.
History Department
College of Arts and Sciences
The University of Memphis
Mitchell Hall
Memphis, Tennessee 38152
(901) 678-2515

119
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
CONTENTS–PART III
I.
Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
114
City and County Histories
City, County, and School Governing Structures
Schools’ Funding Formula/Process
History of the Consolidation Movement and Final Conversion
II.
Consolidation Impact
...........................................
130
Student Demographics
Table 1. Racial Makeup of Students by School System for School Years
1994-95 through 1999-2000
Graph 1. White Student Population Before Merger
Graph 2. Black Student Population Before Merger
Graph 3. White vs. Black Student Population
Table 2. Private & Home School Student Populations vs. Public School
Student Populations
Graph 4. Public vs. Private School Enrollment, School Years 1994-95
through 1999-2000
Table 3. Administrative and Support Personnel in Hamilton County School
System
Table 4. Funding Sources for Hamilton County & Chattanooga City
Schools for School Years 1994-95 through 2000-01
Graph 5. State Funding Before & After Consolidation
Graph 6. Local Funding Before & After Consolidation
Graph 7. Federal Funding Before & After Consolidation
Graph 8. Total Funding From All Sources Before & After Consolidation
Table 5. Operational Expenditures & Per Pupil Expenditures
Graph 9. Per Pupil Expenditures
Table 6. Average Salaries for Hamilton County & Chattanooga City School Teachers for School Years
1994-95 through 1999-2000
Graph 10. Average Teacher Salaries
Table 7. Attendance Rate of Hamilton County & Chattanooga City Schools
for School Years 1994-95 through 1999-2000
Table 8. Drop Out, Expulsion & Suspension Rates for Hamilton County &
Chattanooga City Schools for School Years 1994-95 through 19992000
Graph 11. Overall Dropout Rates
Graph 12. Overall Expulsion Rates
Graph 13. Overall Suspension Rates
III.
Sources Consulted
...........................................
120
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
160
S C H O O L C O N S O L I D A T I O N:
C H A T T A N O O G A, T E N N E S S E E
a report on the state’s consolidated city and county school systems
PROCESS
City and County Histories
Chattanooga
Chattanooga holds the distinction of being Tennessee’s fourth largest city.
Beginning in approximately 6,000 BC and continuing into the early 1800s, the
area around present-day Chattanooga was first inhabited by a succession of
Native Americans cultures, culminating with the Cherokee. The Cherokee,
naming the area “Chado-na-ugsa,” or “rock that comes to a point,” because of its
nearness to Lookout Mountain, were virtually non-existent by the early 1830s
when the first permanent White settlers had established a trading post at Ross’s
Landing.78 Located where the foot of present-day Broad Street meets the
Tennessee River, Ross’s Landing began with an original population of fifty-three
families, grew steadily to become a center for river traffic and commerce, and
incorporated as the town of Chattanooga in 1839.
Although its importance as a river port continued, it was the railroad that brought
both great prosperity and destruction to Chattanooga. Eventually becoming
known as the site “where cotton meets corn,” the first railroad, the Western and
Atlantic, reached Chattanooga in 1850 and by 1860 the town had become a
virtual gateway to the Deep South.79 Because of this economic and commercial
relationship with their neighbors to the South, many of Chattanooga’s people also
“shared that region’s social, political, cultural, and commercial tendencies.”80
Regional ties became even more apparent when, after the majority of East
Tennessee voted to remain with the Union in 1861, Chattanoogans decided to go
with the Confederacy.
Confederate troops, first entering the city in 1861 to protect it from Unionist
forces from East Tennessee, converted it into a vital Confederate supply depot
and administrative center by 1863. Unfortunately, its importance also gained
Chattanooga the attention of Union forces, which began a series of campaigns
against it in the fall of that same year. Fearing Union occupation, the majority of
Chattanooga’s population fled the city, leaving it virtually abandoned to the
121
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
military forces.
Culminating in the bloody battles of Chickamauga and
Chattanooga, Union forces subdued the city in November 1863 and, within only a
few weeks, once again had the transportation infrastructure reestablished an
operational. During Sherman’s March into Georgia and South Carolina, the city
became the staging area for this vast army, serving as a both the main supply
depot and hospital.
After the Civil War, Northern officers who had were stationed in the city and had
taken stock of its transportation and natural resources, returned to establish
commercial and manufacturing businesses. As well as possessing great amount
of economic and financial power, these Northerners also wielded political
hegemony as well. During the decades of the 1870s and 1880s, Republicans
controlled virtually all facets of the city’s government until they found their base
slowly slipping away by the gaining dominance of Southern voters. To offset this,
more and more reliance was placed on the African American voter, which soon
imbued them with a political voice that was not common in the South. African
Americans could be found on the city’s Board of Alderman as well as other
segments of the civic government, and their political clout gained them schools
and patronage.81
This boom time was not to last, however, and, by the late-1880s, a real estate
boom that had seen investors from both sides of the Atlantic and had caused an
astronomical rise in property values, collapsed and the prices bottomed out. The
Panic of 1893 brought further economic ruin, with the city’s African American
population taking the brunt of the hardship. Where they had once held a great
amount of political clout, new Jim Crow laws coupled with the downfall of
Republican hegemony “robbed local blacks of their votes and denied them their
hard-earned voice in local government.”82
Beginning in 1898, Chattanooga began a slow but steady economic and financial
comeback with a series of developments that stability to the city once more.
First, the Spanish-American War provided the city with an influx of much-needed
dollars when troops were moved through the city on their way to Cuba. Second,
after the war civic leaders established a balanced economy based upon a
combination of banking, insurance, manufacturing, and tourism. Third, and
possibly the greatest benefit, the city became the home of the Coca-Cola bottling
company when Ben F. Thomas, Joseph B. Whitehead, and John T. Lupton
bought the exclusive bottling rights to the product, bringing millions into the city’s
economy. Fourth, although Chattanooga suffered as badly as did the remainder
of the nation during the Great Depression, the arrival of the Tennessee Valley
Authority in 1933, transformed the city into a headquarters for construction
projects throughout the area and projects such as Chickamauga Dam brought
much-needed jobs and an influx of money. Finally, World War II, in bringing an
end to the Depression, further boosted the areas economy when local
122
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
manufacturing businesses geared up for war production. This success came at a
price, however, and by the late 1960s Chattanooga was one of the nation’s most
polluted cities. Implementation of strict pollution standards were effective, and
the city now enjoys a much healthier environment.
In the late 1950s, African Americans Chattanoogans had “joined the national
movement for social and racial equality,” and the city’s greatest challenge would
be that of desegregation.83 In March 1962, federal courts ordered the
desegregation of the city’s schools. In the years following, Mayor Ralph Kelly
first opened up all city facilities to all African Americans and then, under pressure
from the mayor and other civic leaders, local businesses followed suit. Being
hailed by the African American community, these measures were strongly
resisted by the Whites, causing a great amount of tension which culminated in
several violent clashes during the 1960s and 1970s. Even with federal orders,
the total desegregation of Chattanooga’s schools was not complete until the early
1970s.
The last twenty-five years have, however, once again brought a period of calm
and prosperity to Chattanooga and its people. There is now a burgeoning
African American middle class that is again prominent throughout all facets of
government and local business. The local government, which was once
condemned for its machine politics, is now hailed as a model for others to
emulate. Center city Chattanooga, which has been virtually rebuilt, now contains
a new stadium, the Tennessee Aquarium, and a revitalized retail business area.
The estimated 1998 population for Chattanooga is 152,446.
Hamilton County
The history of Hamilton County is execrably bound up with that of Chattanooga.
The land that is now Hamilton County, established by an act of the Tennessee
General Assembly on 25 October 1819 and named for Alexander Hamilton, was
originally appropriated from the Cherokee Indians through the Hiwassee
Purchase of 1817. In this purchase, the Indians ceded a large section of land
that became parts of both Alabama and Georgia as well as the Sequatchie Valley
in which Hamilton County lay. However, the area of Hamilton County that is now
south of the Tennessee River did not join the remainder of the county until the
Treaty of 1835 led to the removal of the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears.
In the federal census of 1820, Hamilton County had a population of “821
residents, including 16 free blacks and 39 slaves.” 84 Also counted, were 100
Cherokees living on six separate family reserves dotted throughout the
Sequatchie Valley. White and African American settlers, as well as slaves, were
originally clustered around several small settlements which included Sale Creek,
Poe’s Crossroads, and Asahel Rawlings farm. Poe’s, the site of a local tavern,
123
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
saw the convening of the first county courts. Later, court was moved from Poe’s
to the farm of John Mitchell and then to a log cabin built at Dallas, in the vicinity
of Rawlings farm. The county seat was then moved to Harrison in 1840 and
finally Chattanooga in 1870. In addition to Chattanooga, principal towns found in
Hamilton County are Red Bank, Soddy-Daisy, Ooltewah, Collegedale, East
Ridge, Lookout Mountain, and Signal Mountain with Dallas and Harrison being
consumed by the filling of Chickamauga Lake in 1939. The county now
encompasses 542 square miles and the estimated 1998 population was 285,536.
History of School Desegregation and Busing in Chattanooga
In the 1954 landmark Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the Supreme
Court took a first step toward desegregation when it ruled against segregation.
Change came slowly, however, and the Court made several subsequent
decisions that called on individual public school districts to desegregate
immediately. One of the most common methods of desegregating school
districts was busing. White students were bused to all black schools and black
students to all white schools.
Integrationists in some metropolitan areas devised temporary plans to bus
children to schools outside of their neighborhoods as a way to integrate urban
schools. Busing had been used for many years to maintain segregated school
systems in the South, but whites opposed this new form of busing vehemently.
They challenged the legality of busing in the courts, but these challenges were
unsuccessful. The Supreme Court declared busing for educational integration
constitutional, and many state and local courts ordered cities to develop busing
plans.
These plans had their greatest effect on working class ethnic neighborhoods
near inner cities. The newest, best-equipped schools, which were predominately
in affluent white suburbs, were less likely to be affected. Busing raised parents’
concerns about having their children attend school far from home. Although they
welcomed the opportunities better schools provided, black parents, whose
children were most often bused, worried about the students’ adjustment to a
strange and often hostile school environment. These concerns and continued
opposition from many whites ensured that busing remained controversial through
the 1990s.
The controversy over busing in Chattanooga was the product of efforts beginning
in the early 1960s and ending with the final acceptance of federally mandated
school desegregation in 1973. Busing itself, however, was virtually never
mentioned and did not actually become an issue until mid-1971 while a class
action law suit, originally filed against the Chattanooga school system by James
Mapp ten years earlier, was being heard before Judge Frank Wilson in United
States District Court.
124
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
The word ‘busing’, first heard in May 1971 during several days of testimony in the
above mentioned law suit, came about when conflicting statements were
forwarded by members of the city’s school board. From newspaper accounts, it
can be determined that testimony was being taken at this time which questioned
the validity of zoning that had originally been instituted in 1941 to establish a
more equitable balance of pupils in the city’s schools. First stating that “race did
not have a part in the establishment of school zones,” Assistant Superintendent
Robert Taylor went on to admit that “the Chattanooga school system has
substantial de facto segregation and the present school zones have not fostered
large-scale integration.”85 Second, James Henry, the Chattanooga School
Superintendent, testified that “a great deal of school desegregation could be
accomplished by rezoning, without the necessity of busing.”86 One administrator
testified that zoning did not work while the second, and head administrator,
stated that rezoning could lead to desegregation without the need for busing.
Still not an issue, busing was left out of Judge Wilson’s decision of 20 May 1971,
when he gave the city school board thirty days to prepare a plan which would
“eliminate all vestiges of state-imposed school segregation.”87 Specifically,
Judge Wilson totally ruled out “freedom of choice” in the high schools, which he
said “has not accomplished desegregation.”88
Beginning in early June 1971, several weeks after Judge Wilson handed down
his decision, talk was being bandied about over the possibility of consolidation for
the city and county school systems. Among several interested groups, none of
which was talking for publication, there were two schools of thought. One, that
school consolidation should have been accomplished long before this time and
two, that school consolidation could be a precursor for the merging of city and
county governments. According to the Chattanooga Times, however, “the
apparent real reason behind the mushrooming of such support at this time [was]
the prospective integration of the city school system.”89
This situation arose because the city was now under orders from Judge Wilson to
provide the court with a plan by 18 June which would totally desegregate the
schools. To accomplish this, some busing of white and black students would be
necessary and the prospect of this alone was cause for these groups to talk of
consolidation. Feeling that this as a direct insult from the White community,
many African American’s of Chattanooga viewed the merging of school systems
“as a determined effort on the part of whites to avoid more than token
desegregation.”90 At this time, the city schools with no tuition-paying students
was approximately 50-50 white and black while the county schools contained a
possible 3% African American student. Thus, through city/county consolidation,
a system-wide desegregation would be accomplished and not one that was
school-by-school. This would leave the predominantly white schools in predominantly white hands.
125
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Admitting that he could not order a particular racial balance of students in the
schools, Judge Wilson did inform the city school board that some form of racial
balance would be necessary to determine if a unitary school system had been
achieved. By unitary, he meant a school system in “which all vestiges of stateimposed segregation have been eliminated.”91 Over the next several weeks, in
discussions held by city and county officials as well as further hearings before
Judge Wilson, it was becoming apparent that busing would be necessary. By
late June, school superintendent Dr. James Henry, after discussions with the
Southern Coach Lines, reported that busing could possibly cost the city $500,000
in equipment and vehicles to bus as many as 5,000 students. Although
emphasizing that no hard and fast plan for desegregation had been promulgated,
he did admit that any court accepted plan would have to contain some busing,
but “for no fewer that 5,000 pupils.”92 To this end, the Chattanooga Board of
Education filed a brief with Judge Wilson’s court in which it defended its plan to
provide minimal busing for elementary schools and none for high schools. In this
brief, the board “argued that “educational values” support the board plan as
presented to the court last week.”93
To further complicate the situation, in early July 1971 several white Chattanooga
parents requested that Judge Wilson allow them as plaintiffs in the desegregation
suit and that he “bring in the Hamilton County board of education as
defendants.”94 Brought by an ad hoc group known as the Tennessee Parents
and Taxpayers, Inc. or the TPT, the members of this group had dedicated
themselves to active support of a constitutional amendment which would outlaw
any busing of students for the purpose of either segregation or desegregation. It
was the contention of these individuals that any “desegregation order covering
only the city schools would deny equal treatment to Hamilton County citizens
who live in the city, prevent “maximized integration” of city schools, and maintain
a “haven” outside the city to which the white citizens can flee.”95 The plaintiffs
also felt that there were not enough whites in Chattanooga proper to allow for the
maximized integration of schools by busing, and that the continued ‘white flight’
into the county made the entire proposition impossible.
Matters appeared to worsen from this point. On 26 July 1971, Judge Wilson
handed down his opinion for the integration of the Chattanooga school system.
His rulings did not, however, set well with either the now-increased plaintiffs or
defendants in the case; i.e. Mr. Mapp and his group of original plaintiffs, the
NAACP and the TPT on the one side or the Chattanooga city and school
administrators on the other. After Judge Wilson provided yet another order on 5
August, all sides were allowed ten days in which to bring appeals in the case,
and bring them they did. To further worsen the situation, the Tri-State Citizens
Council planned an anti-busing march on city hall and federal funds from the
Department of Housing, Education and Welfare, the HEW, would not be provided
to purchase buses to transport students. This essentially left the city with a lack
126
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
of transportation with which to meet Judge Wilson’s requirements handed down
in July and August.
Even with the situation as it was, and supposedly operating under the orders of
Judge Wilson, students went back to classes in early September, but there were
only fourteen buses and approximately 1,200 students involved in busing at this
time. In reporting the situation to U.S. District Court and Judge Wilson, this lack
of transportation was played off against HEW’s earlier refusal to provide
emergency funds for the purchase of buses. This was rendered a moot point
when the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati denied the city school
boards appeals on both desegregation and busing.96
In a rather bold move by the state, yet another twist was thrown into the situation.
On 9 December 1971, a citizens group - the Concerned Citizens of Chattanooga
- filed a class action suit with the Tennessee Circuit Court to stop the
Chattanooga City Commission from spending any money for the busing of
students. The judge of this court, Judge David Tom Walker, ordered the
commission to show cause why it should not be required to stop providing funds
and a hearing was set for 14 January 1972 before Judge Joe N. Hunter. In its
defense, the city attorney filed a brief in which was stated that the Circuit Court
had not jurisdiction in the busing matter because the law was vested in the board
of education and the city commissioners had no control over providing funds for
busing. Still, Judge Hunter ordered the city to cease providing funds for busing,
an order with ultimately effected 1,036 students. The school board, in a form of
reply to Tennessee Judge Hunter, asked for instructions from Federal Judge
Wilson. As would be expected, Judge Wilson’s court ordered the Chattanooga
school board to ignore Hunter’s order and continue with the federal court
mandated busing. Now nearing the end of the 1971-1972 school year, however,
the city was now finding itself in rough waters. “Caught in a time squeeze
between court decisions on desegregation appeals and delivery dates for
vehicles, the Chattanooga Board of Education [was forced to order] 26 school
buses at a cost of $249,956.72.”97
With the end of the 1971-1972 school year, all plaintiffs and defendants in the
desegregation case continued to pursue appeals through the federal courts.
Limited busing continued as it had the year before, even though the city had
canceled its order for 26 new buses. Finally, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that the Chattanooga school board must “implement a plan of
desegregation that would require a ratio of not less than 30 percent nor more
than 70 percent of any one race in any city school.”98
Possibly in a last ditched effort to forestall the inevitable, the city school board
filed yet more appeals and even contemplated bringing their case before the
United States Supreme Court. The school board even devised and voted on an
adjusted desegregation plan based upon Judge Wilson’s original 1971 ruling.
127
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
The city’s “arguments that lose of [a] large number of white students from the
system justified his accepting the adjustments,” were evidently no defense, and
the school board was ordered to implement the original plan by the beginning of
the second semester for the 1973-1974 school year. 99 Even though the order
meant the forced busing of some 3,500 students and the closing of three
schools, the Chattanooga Board of Education accepted the finality of the
situation, and declared that it would obey the court on desegregation.
The entire situation was not, however, to be laid to rest. In a meeting on 4
December 1973 with the City
Commission, the Concerned Citizens
for Neighborhood Schools, led by
Fred Curd of Chattanooga, asked city
administrators what they intended to
do about the court mandated busing.
They were informed by the City
Attorney, Eugene Collins, that “the
federal district court has specifically
enjoined the city, the members of the
City Commission, and other city
officials from hindering in any manner
the orders of the court in connection
with the desegregation case.”100 As
stated by a Commissioner Roberts,
“That is a final order. . . It must be
obeyed.”101 To counter the forced
busing of their children, the group first
planned to open as many as sixteen
‘private’ schools, and then petitioned the courts once again in an attempt to halt
busing. Not only were the ‘private’ schools a failure, but attempts to stop busing
were also stopped and by the 11th of November 1974, busing was a part of
Chattanooga city schools.
City, County, and School Governing Structures
Chattanooga City
The city of Chattanooga has a Mayor/Council form of government. The mayor,
currently Bob Corker, is elected for a four-year term. Mayor Corker, elected to
his present term in March 2001, received 54% of the popular vote in a field of
eleven candidates. Mayor Corker holds a Bachelor of Science in Industrial
128
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Management from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. In the private sector,
he has been involved in the areas of construction and real estate, while he has
served in both local as well as state government positions, serving as
Tennessee’s Commissioner of Finance and Administration from 1995 until his
election as Mayor of Chattanooga. There, he was widely acclaimed for his ability
to bring together Democrats and Republican lawmakers to solve problems.
Among his responsibilities were the preparation and implementation of
Tennessee’s $13 billion state budget and overseeing the general operations of
the state.
The Chattanooga City Council consists of nine representatives who are elected
from their respective districts for a period of four years. Elections for Chair and
Vice Chair are made each year, generally the 3rd week of April. With current
terms running from April, 2001 until April, 2005, each councilperson will be up for
re-election in 2005. The following are the current members of the council and the
districts that they represent. District 1 - John M. Lively representing Valley View,
Wauhatchie City, Mountain Creek, and Northwoods North; District 2 - Sally
Robinson representing North Chattanooga, Riverview, Stuart Heights, Lupton
City, Northgate, and Northwoods South; District 3 - Dan Page representing
Hixson, Hixson 2, Dupont, Murray Hills, Kings Point, and Lake Hills; District 4 Jack Benson representing Tyner, Benson, and East Brainerd; District 5 - John P.
Franklin, Jr. representing Bonny Oaks, Airport, Dalewood, Eastdale, and
Woodmore; District 6 - Ron Littlefield representing Brainerd Hills, Eastgate,
Brainerd, Sunnyside, Missionary Ridge North & South, Ridgedale, and Cedar
Hills; District 7 - John R. Taylor, Sr. representing Moccasin Bend, Howard, St.
Elmo, Alton, Eastlake, and Piney Woods; District 8 - Leamon Pierce representing
Courthouse, City Hall, Clifton Hills, Bushtown, and Avondale; and District 9 Yusuf Hakeem, Chairman, representing Amicola, East Chattanooga, Glenwood,
Orchard Knob, Highland Park, and East Side. Of the nine council members,
Messrs. Franklin, Taylor, Pierce, and Hakeem are African-American while the
remainder are White, with Mrs. Robinson being the only woman.
Hamilton County
Hamilton County is governed by a County Executive and County Commissioners
elected from one of nine districts. The County Executive's duties include
administering the day-to-day activities of county government and serving as the
county's chief financial officer. The County Commission is the legislative and
policy-making body of the County. It is composed of nine residents who are
elected from and represent nine districts within the County. Commission
members are elected for four-year terms, and both the Chairman and the
Chairman Pro Tempore are selected as the presiding officers by the members of
the Commission and serve for one year. Currently, Claude Ramsey is the
County Executive and the County Commissioners are District 1, Fred R. Skillern;
129
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
District 2, Richard Casavant; District 3, Charlotte E. Vandergriff; District 4,
William R. Cotton, Jr.; District 5, JoAnne H. Favors; District 6, Ben F. Miller;
District 7, Harold Coker; District 8,
Curtis D. Adams; and District 9 - Bill
Hullander, Chairman Pro Tempore.
Mr. Cotton and Mrs. Favors are
African-Americans
while
the
remaining members are White.
Hamilton County School System
The Hamilton County schools are
governed by an elected School Board
that is comprised of nine members,
one each elected for four years from
the same districts as the County
Commissioners, and a Board of
Education that consists of persons
appointed to or hired into their
respective positions. Currently, the
Hamilton County School Board
members are District 1 - William G. Eldridge; District 2 - Chip Baker; District 3 Everett R. Fairchild; District 4 - Debra Matthews; District 5 - Charles E. Love,
Chairman; District 6 - Janice Boydston; District 7 - Joe A. Connor, ViceChairman; District 8 - Debbie L. Colburn; District 9 - Marty Puryear. Of the nine
members, the Chairman, Mr. Love, and Mrs. Matthews are African-American
while the remaining members are White.
Before school consolidation became a reality in 1997, the Hamilton County
School Board was a great source of contention and turmoil. The primary reason
for this situation was the public’s concern over the process in which the school
board members received their appointments. In the Chattanooga school system,
board members were popularly elected officials while those from the county were
appointed by the powers-that-be. Since consolidation, however, this situation
has been rectified with all board members now being elected by popular vote
from their respective school districts
Schools’ Funding Formula/Process
The Hamilton County school system operates on a July 1 to June 30 fiscal year.
For fiscal year 1997, the first year of consolidation, the funding formula for
Hamilton County schools was 48% from local sources of which 31% is from local
property taxes and 17% from an optional local sales tax; 45% from the state; 4%
130
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
from the city of Chattanooga; and 3% from other sources. ‘Other’ sources
include funds received from such agencies as the Federal govt. or monies gained
from local hotel/motel taxes, marriage licenses, bank excise taxes, tuition for
summer school, community service fees received for child day-care, and
payments received in lieu of taxes from such sources as TVA and local utilities.
Table #4, entitled “Sources of School Funding for Hamilton County and
Chattanooga City Schools, 1994-1995 thru 2000-2001 School Years,” provides,
other than 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, a year-to-year breakdown of local, state,
federal, and total funding.
A main point of controversy between those for and against school consolidation
was funding. While there were those who thought school funding in both
Chattanooga and Hamilton County was either equitable or non-equitable, a look
at the available figures illustrates that the funding was quite equal between the
two. Using school year 1994-1995 as a base, the funding for Hamilton County
rose 9.2% from $102,338,782 to $111,365,177 in 1996-1997, the first year of
consolidation. Using the same base year, Chattanooga city school funding rose
9.1% from $100,092,133 to $109,877,669. Also, both school systems served
virtually the same number of students from the 1994-1995 through 1996-1997
school years, with Hamilton County having an average population of 23,551 and
Chattanooga 20,024.
History of the Consolidation Movement and Final Conversion
Consolidation of the Hamilton County and Chattanooga city school systems was
not a situation which occurred overnight.
School consolidation was
recommended as early as 1929, when a report entitled the “Strayer Report” was
issued by a Dr. George B. Strayer of Columbia University. There was no action
taken on this report and nothing more was done until a further study was
completed by the League of Women’s Voters in November of 1947. This report
would provide the fundamental framework for the eventual school consolidation
of 1997.
Again left to linger in limbo, consolidation did not come into the public mind until
early in 1953.
However, merger of the two school systems was not
recommended until several items of concern had been alleviated. First, and a
situation which would come back to ‘haunt’ future mergers, it was recommended
that “measures [should] be adopted to elect the county school board by the
people and the law . . . changed to give the county board the power to employ its
own superintendent.”102 Second, it was recommended that both school systems
adopt the same textbooks and teachers salary schedules as well as “plan school
construction together, establish zones for high school attendance and effect
other co-ordinations to give common benefits in city and county students.”103
131
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Advantages to school consolidation were seen as equalization of the tax base
and consistency of educational opportunity.
The issue was again shelved until mid-1956 when discussion was again taken
up. With this occurrence, however, the primary motivation appears to have been
the possibility of the Hamilton County delegates to the Tennessee state
legislature pushing through a bill which would force the merging of the two school
systems.
Even if the legislature had passed such a bill, the issue of
consolidation would still have to go before the public for a vote. By late 1956,
Ray W. Evans, the county’s prominent and outspoken Republican delegate to the
state legislature was arguing that the present laws of the state would be sufficient
to bring about consolidation. In early 1957, the Education Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce had voted 25 - 0 that no legislative action be taken and
discussion on the issue again died out until late 1960.
During the 1960 discussions, the Chamber of Commerce again answered the call
for consolidation by declaring that merger of the two school systems would not
produce the economic and financial balance that most people envisioned. The
Chamber would, however, recommend consolidation under certain
circumstances which had already been made patently clear. Primarily, teachers
salaries had to be maintained high enough to bring in only the best teachers; the
school board had to be popularly elected with its members being non-partisan
and the elections held only in off-election years; and only the school board had
the authority to appoint or hire the superintendent.104
Again the subject was allowed to lapse once more, with short-lived discussions
cropping up in 1962, 1964, 1967, 1971. During this time, petition drives were
instituted, county and city council votes were taken, and referendums were
placed before the people. As discussed previously in this study, consolidation
was also seen as a possible ‘cure’ for school desegregation during the back-andforth law suits of the early 1970s. Consolidation still remained as illusive and
contentious an issue as it had been, but, in the 1980s, money and minority
concerns were beginning to take center stage in the call for merger of the two
systems. In early 1980, a dispute over capital funding for school occurred
between county and city officials. Impetus for the discussion during this period
was the city’s annexation of 7 schools and the county’s request to pay $13 million
for those schools.
In the early 1990s, issues of race and politics, the larger cost of transportation in
a merged school system, and subsidies and equal salaries for teachers were
becoming the main issues for merger. In August 1994, it was believed that a
vote on the issue could be placed before the people on November’s ballot, but
City Commission members remained the main stumbling block, with pros and
cons hotly divided along racial lines. Pros for the merger - five of the nine
132
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Commission members - saw the consolidation of the two systems as an avenue
to equity in school funding and appropriations, smaller administrative staffs, a
deterring factor to halt White Flight from the city to the county. As would be
expected, however, the cons for the school system merger saw a completely
different set of circumstances. The four members opposing consolidation
envisioned a higher tax rate; saw the possibility of teacher displacement as a
determent to quality education because of lessened effectiveness; it was
believed that county officials had no desire to take on the responsibility of
educating the city’s children; and, finally, crime would become a factor because
of a “generation of young people who are without hope because of frustration
and confusion that will develop over the next few years . . . and will express
themselves in manners that . . . would [not be deemed] appropriate.”105
During September 1994, the issue remained hotly discussed by both the city and
county authorities. In early October is was determined that merger could
possibly cost $24 million and there were eleven specific points of contention.
These points, several of which had come to the forefront in past years,
surrounded the issues of special education, the pupil-teacher ration, teacher
salaries, support staff and business administration, trustee fees, principals
offices, school operation and maintenance, a centralized computer system, plans
for future elementary and middle schools, and - as always - transportation.
However, the vote went ahead and, in November 1994, consolidation of the
Chattanooga City and Hamilton County school systems was approved by a
margin of approximately 3,500 votes, with merger set to be completed by 30
June 1997.106 It may have been approved, but there was still much work to be
accomplished and points of contention and conflict were still abundant.
Even with city and county administrators and school officials promising a smooth
transition from two to one school system, no sooner had the vote been taken and
merger approved by the people than there were several groups who were
considering law suits to stop the action.107 James Mapp, now president of the
Chattanooga brand of the NAACP and the gentleman filing the original law suit
which forced the city school system to desegregate in the 1970s, filed a suit to
stop the consolidation. The primary complaints in this suit were that the
placement of the ordinance on the ballot did not meet state requirements and it
was not phrased in such a manner that it could be answered by a yeah-or-nay
vote; the full ordinance had not been printed on the ballot; the ballot contained a
misleading and inappropriate statement to the effect that there would be a tax
savings of $3 million; and the wording of the ballot could be misleading to many
voters. However, the organizations’ attorney, Myron McClary, failed to file the
appropriate and timely motions and the group left court on 13 December empty
handed. Two other groups playing a minor role in the conflict were also
becoming vociferous over the planned consolidation; the Minister’s and
133
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Layperson’s Fellowship, a local religious group, and People Wanting A Change,
a group of ‘concerned’ citizens.
It was recommended in mid-December that the “responsibility of unifying the city
and county schools” be handed over to a local, non-profit organization, the Public
Education Foundation, or PEF for short.108 The primary reasoning behind the
decision was the fact that this non-profit organization received the majority of its
funding from both the city and the county. Founded in 1988, the foundation was
formed “by a group of civic and educational leaders, [and] was designed to funnel
private dollars into city and county classrooms.”109 The action was seen by many
education officials concerned with the consolidation as an action that would force
them to act, “because we really aren’t sure what we’re doing.”110
During 1995, consolidation of the two systems continued, and several excellent
decisions had been made which would impact the consolidation process. First, it
was determined that all steering committee meetings held by those involved in
the consolidation would be open to the public with everyone allowed to voice
their opinions, concerns, or recommendations.111 Second, by mid-year the PEF
and school board had produced a working outline for consolidation which then
became the agenda of a 37-member planning committee who had $5 million at
their disposal.112 It was the responsibility of this group to develop “the
framework, philosophy, mission statement and standards for all students.”113
This group would also divide itself into subgroups which would be tasked with
studying transportation, maintenance, curriculum, food service, and school
system support. However, all was not without problems.
A major point of concern in consolidating the two systems was the situation of
combining two support staffs. While “the city school system [had] more than 300
administrators, clerks and maintenance workers . . . [the] county [had] about 100,
officials said.”114 It was envisioned that there would be a centralized school
system office which employed from 125 to 175 personnel. This, unfortunately,
left approximately 275 to 250 people without a position. To alleviate this
situation, and to ensure that everyone had a position, the opinion was voiced that
some people - possibly as many as 125 to 175 - would have to return to the
classroom. With this, however, also came the legal question of whether there
was an obligation to keep all of the current county system employees while
providing jobs for those from the city system as well.
In a form of counter-argument, the city superintendent, Dr. Harry Reynolds,
believed that the system would need more staff than the anticipated 125 to 175
because a larger system required more personnel to ensure its operation. 115
Also, it was Reynold’s contention that, from past experience, the county could not
be relied upon to give equitable employment to minorities.116 Dr. Reynolds found
this of such great concern that he was quoted in the Free Press as saying that
134
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
“When the city has been very successful in recruiting and promoting both blacks
and white, then why has the county remained so white?” 117 Considering that in
late 1995 there were only two African-American administrators and one principal
in the entire county school system, it is possible that Reynold’s had reason for
concern.
Yet another point of conflict now came into play. Dr. Don Loftis, the county
school superintendent and a major point of contention with many from the city,
was placed at the head of the combined city and county school systems by the
member of the non-popularly elected Hamilton School Board. In an attempt to
explain their actions, Mr. Bill Nevins, the chairman of the superintendent search
committee, stated that he had been “told by the experts that you could be putting
a new superintendent in harm’s way, as well as your educational system, by
trying to push the envelope and getting someone in here who is unequipped (for)
what he or she might be asked to do as well as be put in the middle of a system
that’s not yet been formed.”118 However, even though Loftis’ was unpopular with
many, the appointment was seen by many city and county school officials and
concerned citizens as a ploy for the county school board to keep their ‘own
people’ in control by filling important and sensitive positions “through the back
door.”119 Fortunately, the school board not only backed off from its appointment
of Loftis, but he also rejected the position, stating that he “is not interested in
being superintendent of the consolidated school system. And that’s final.” 120
Through 1996 and into 1997, the various steering committees and the PEF
continued on with the consolidation of the two systems. Points of concern virtually all of which had come up in during discussions in the past - again came
to the forefront. Transportation was seen as problem, because where the county
operated its own buses and drivers the city contracted this out to a private
company. Also seen as a problem, the county transportation system required
greater funding than did the city’s. While teachers salaries and administrative
staffing continued to be a stumbling block, yet another group of ‘concerned’
citizens raised their proverbial ‘ugly head.’ Mr. Dean Arnold, formerly the
communications director of the Chattanooga Resource Foundation, had resigned
his position to place his efforts into his organization, Urban PREP, short for
Parent-Run Education Petition. The main purpose of this organization was to
champion the efforts of parents, community leaders and pastors by “empowering
[them] through vouchers, charter schools or creating schools of their own.” 121
Although not operating in conjunction with another group, Amos Baker’s the
People Wanting a Change (PWAC), the Urban PREP’s objective was to be there
in the event a petition drive being conducted by the PWAC failed. Local NAACP
officials were concerned by Arnold’s efforts because they saw this as yet another
attempt to re-segregate the schools through the mandate of God. NAACP VicePresident Eddie Holmes was quoted as saying that “We want public education.
Dean Arnold is saying that parents are commissioned by God to train their
135
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
children. Training the child and educating the child are not the same thing. The
community has responsibility through tax dollars.”122
Not only would Arnold’s efforts eventually come to a inglorious end, but the
petition drive also being run by Baker’s PWAC could not have been thoroughly
thought out as well. City and state law could, if the petition were successful,
become a sort of two-edged sword that would require two votes to overturn the
people’s 1994 decision to consolidate their school systems. According to Randy
Nelson, the then-city attorney, one vote would be necessary for the issue to be
placed on the ballot and a second would then be taken to either keep
consolidation or reverse the 1994 decision. Nelson was quoted as saying, “It
takes two steps. You need an ordinance to change the city charter and then a
second vote by the people on the ordinance.”123 Also, according to Tennessee
state law, the only way in which the city charter could be changed was by a vote
of the electorate. “The 1994 election included such a vote after the City Council
approved a referendum for the ballot, and the result was city residents giving up
their school system. By state law, Hamilton County becomes responsible for
providing an education to city and county children.”124 As would be expected,
those running the petition drive saw the entire two-vote scenario as a ploy to stop
their efforts. Baker’s PWAC would also go the way of Arnold’s organization and
eventually realize that the people had voted in school consolidation and it could
not be stopped.
Although consolidation of the Chattanooga City and Hamilton County school
systems occurred as planned on 30 June 1997, it was still not an easy, openand-shut matter. Even with entities such as the NAACP and Christian and
citizens groups removed from the fight, there were still concerns. School children
themselves voiced dissenting opinions on the situation with valedictorians from
both county and city high schools speaking out against the consolidation. 125 It
was believed, however, that there
. . . stakes behind the merger [that were] bigger than public education itself.
This battle will determine the future and direction of the community. One
prominent school of thought believes that bigger is better in government.
Proponents feel that the more central control, the better. Many of these folks
agree with an expanded role for the federal government. Others favor the
centralized vision of the United Nations and socialistic government.
School principals became involved when they began questioning the qualities
that should be sought in a new superintendent, with some believing that he or
she should come from out of state while others felt that person should be either
from Tennessee or the local area.
136
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Today, the Hamilton County Department of Education, overseen by the nine
members of the popularly elected school board and Superintendent Dr. Jesse
Register, is quite an entity to be observed. School crime is down, test scores are
up and, while drop outs, expulsions, and suspensions are still a problem, there
are steps being taken to alleviate this situation. Although the problem of unifying
the transportation systems of both school systems continues to be a problem,
solutions are being implemented during the 2001-2001 school years which finally
bring the entire operation under the control of the education department. The
magnet schools operated by Hamilton County are some of the finest in the nation
and do not cater to the privileged few, but are open to all regardless of race,
social standing, or even handicap. There are still problems, but every person
involved with this county’s school system is striving to ensure that all children
receive a quality education.
PART II - CONSOLIDATION IMPACT
Student Demographics
As with all areas of the United States, the overall population is represented by
many races and cultures, and Chattanooga and Hamilton County are no
exception. However, as shown in Table 1 & Graphs 1, 2 & 3 below, the majority
student populations of this area are made up primarily of White and AfricanAmerican students, with others such as Hispanics, Asians, and Amer-Indians
making up the small minority. A major concern with any school system,
especially one in which there is the aspect of a poorer inner city surrounded by
an affluent suburban/county entity, is that of what has become popularly known
as White Flight.
In an attempt to determine if White Flight is prevalent in this area, three graphs
have bee prepared; one for White students, another for African-American, and a
final for White vs. African-American. At first glance, it can be seen that there has
been a slight drop in the White student population while there has been a small
increase the African-American population. Also, in the first and second graphs,
the figures clearly illustrate that there are more White students in Hamilton
County than African-Americans while the reverse was true in Chattanooga City
proper, with the ration being 2.1 to 1, White over African-American. However,
the drop in White and rise in African-American student populations does not
mean that there is White Flight prevalent in Chattanooga/Hamilton County. As
can bee seen by the figures for school years 1998-1999, there was a significant
drop in both student populations, with a rise the next year. Also, the overall drop
of 9.4% in White students with a 3.3% rise in African-Americans means little
when taking into account the total number of students involved.
137
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Private and Home School
Table 2 and Graph 4 below make the attempt to determine if the these sectors of
educational opportunity are rising or declining. In this case, it would appear that
the latter is the more prevalent. Although home schooling figures were difficult to
impossible to obtain, private schooling figures were readily available from the
Hamilton County Department of Education. Graph 4 clearly illustrates that more
parents are opting to send their children to private - quite possibly Christian
based - schools. However, when looking at the numbers of students involved, it
would appear that this avenue of education has a long way to go before it is a
threat to public school enrollment. Even with this, it is significant that the number
of children leaving public school is approximately 2 for every 1 that enters private
school.
Table 1. Racial Makeup of Students by School System for
School Years 1994 – 95 through 1999 – 2000
Before Consolidation
1995 – 96
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Amer-Indian
Total
Hamilton
County
Chattanooga
City
Combined
Total
Hamilton
County
Chattanooga
City
22,583
858
143
238
24
23,846
7,442
12,302
81
323
20
20,168
30,025
13,160
224
561
44
44,014
22,148
842
140
257
23
23,410
7,314
12,352
101
363
20
20,150
29,462
13,194
241
620
43
43,560
22,037
961
141
258
23
23,420
6,875
12,426
99
356
20
19,776
1997 – 98
Hamilton County
28,397
13,596
301
645
86
43,025
After Consolidation
1998 – 99
Hamilton County
26,509
12,416
359
559
80
39,923
138
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Combined
Total
Combined
Total
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
Amer-Indian
Total
Chattanooga
City
Race
1996 – 97
Hamilton
County
1994 – 95
28,912
13,387
240
614
43
43,196
1999 – 2000
Hamilton County
27,170
13,590
429
592
79
41,860
Graph 1. White Student Population Before Merger
139
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 2. Black Student Population Before Merger
140
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 3. White vs. Black Student Population
141
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Table 2. Private & Home School Student Populations vs. Public School
Student Populations
Private
Home School
Total of Above
Public
Before Consolidation
1994 - 95
1995 – 96
1996 – 97
10,215
10,548
10,319
---10,215
10,548
10,319
44,014
43,560
43,196
After Consolidation
1997 – 98
1998 – 99
1999 – 2000
11,221
11,218
11,243
--225
11,221
11,218
11,468
43,025
39,923
41,860
Administrative Personnel
Administrative personnel employed by the Hamilton County Department of
Education are divided into two categories; Classified and Non-Classified
personnel. Classified personnel are those who are deemed to be professional,
i.e. those who either require a college/university education or some other form of
training/ experience which would qualify them for a higher paying, more-technical
position. Classified positions are taken up by Administrators, Teachers, and
Student Support Staff. Non-Classified positions are those which require little, if
any, training are predominantly those of a labor-intensive type. Non-Classified
positions are taken up by Teaching Assistants, Staff Support - those who support
the student staff personnel - and other support staff which includes custodial and
some maintenance personnel.
Table 3 below is, unfortunately, grossly lacking in figures. The only year for
which ‘solid’ numbers could be obtained was 1997-1998, the first year after
consolidation. Taking into consideration the difference between Administrators
and Teachers for 1997-1998 and 1999-2000, one can see that there is a
somewhat-steady rise in personnel. Also, with the growing student population in
the Hamilton County School system, it would stand to reason that the number of
support personnel would rise accordingly.
Individual School Boundaries
As discussed previously, individual school boundaries are determined through
the use of the high-end software program, EduLog. This is an excellent program
for use when a student population, like that in Chattanooga and Hamilton County,
is very fluid and is constantly shifting. Well before the beginning of each new
school year, this program is given its new numbers and new boundaries for each
individual school are re-drawn as necessary.
142
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 4. Public vs. Private School Enrollment, School Years 1994 – 95
through 1999 -2000
143
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Table 3. Administrative and Support Personnel in Hamilton County
School System
1997 – 98
1998 – 99 *
1999 – 2000 **
187
-208
2,193
-2,597
237
---
366
---
252
---
1,388
---
4,623
-2,805
Personnel
per Pupil
Total
Personnel
Other Support
Staff
Staff Support
Teaching
Assistants
Non-Classified
Personnel
Student
Support Staff
Teachers
School Year
Administrators
Classified
Personnel
1 : 9.3
-1 : 14.8
* Total personnel for 1998 – 99 are only for professional, or classified, personnel and there are no
numbers for the non-classified personnel. Because of this, any numbers given – as well as
assumptions – would be grossly inaccurate ant the school year is thus left blank.
** The only figures available for 1999 – 2000 are for Administrators and
Teachers. No numbers are available for the other categories of personnel.
Allocation of Staff After Consolidation
As could well be expected, this was a major source of concern both before and
after consolidation. However, a committee specifically tasked with finding a
solution to this problem came up with an excellent solution. Each and every
individual school’s need was first taken into account as well as the student body
that would be served. First, all positions in every school were posted where
teachers and other personnel could readily have access to them. Those wishing
to transfer to another school were given the opportunity to submit a request,
receive an interview from the appropriate principal, and then - as was the case in
most situations - that persons was transferred to the new location. It was found
that this was an excellent way in which to match up the appropriate personnel
with the jobs that needed filling. In the few cases that occurred where the
positions which went unfilled, those people who possessed the necessary skills
were first asked if they would voluntarily transfer. If that person refused for any
reason, someone else with the same qualifications would be asked. According to
Mrs. Janet Qualls, the Executive Secretary to the Superintendent, Dr. Register,
there were only several involuntary transfers, and these people were only
required to stay in that position until another person could be found to take their
place. No one was let go or terminated because they refused to transfer and
very few people left the school system because of need to transfer.
144
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Transportation
Both before and after consolidation, Hamilton County provided its own bus
service, using buses purchased and drives hired by the school system.
Chattanooga, however, contracted out its bus service. This is an ongoing
situation that will finally be rectified this school year, 2001-2002, with
transportation being provided by the school systems own buses with its own,
hired drivers.
The Hamilton County magnet schools are provided with bus transportation.
However, there are no front door-to-school services such as those provided for
the regular, non-magnet schools. Instead, students attending magnet schools,
and who require and/or are entitled to bus transportation, gather at central points
located throughout the county and board buses for their respective magnet
schools. After school hours, the students board their buses and are then
dropped off at these same central points where parents or guardians then pick
them up.
Funding Sources
Table 4 and Graphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 illustrate the three major sources of income for
the school system; Local, State, and Federal funding. Local funding comes
primarily from property and sales taxes and fees levied against other services.
While coming from basically the same types of sources, State and Federal
funding are a different level altogether.
Before consolidation, it can be seen that Hamilton County and Chattanooga both
expended, with little difference, approximately the same amounts of monies, with
the county experiencing an overall rise of 13.6% with the city rising 16.2%.
However, when consolidation was finally implemented, funding actually dropped
a slight 1.53% between school years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999. Although a
solid figure could not be obtained for 1999-2000, it is still apparent that local
funding is again on the rise.
In State funding, Hamilton County received an overall rise of 2.8% while
Chattanooga saw a rise of 3.8%. However, Hamilton County received an
average of $6 to $6.5 million more than Chattanooga to service a student
population which was only 2 to 3 thousand greater. Federal funding for Hamilton
County was significantly lower than that for Chattanooga, with slight rises being
seen by both before consolidation. After consolidation, however, Federal funding
took a 52.9% rise, going from $15.5 million in 1997-1998 to $23.7 million in 19981999. Total, overall funding both before and after consolidation remained on a
145
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
steady climb, rising from $202.4 million in 1994-1995 to $252.9 million in 20002001, an overall gain of 25% in seven years.
Table 4. Funding Sources for Hamilton County & Chattanooga City
Schools for School Years 1994 –95 through 2000 - 01
Chattanooga
City
Hamilton
County
Chattanooga
City
47.8
40.1
12.2
98.5
86.2
17.8
52.8
47.3
6.1
52.5
41
11.3
105.3
88.3
17
57.6
47.4
6.3
55.5
41.7
12.6
113.1
89.2
18.9
$102.34
$100.1
$202.43
$106.27
$104.8
$211.07
$111.37
$109.88
$221.24
1997 – 98
Hamilton County
Local
State
Federal
Total
After Consolidation
1998 – 99
1999 – 2000 *
Hamilton County
Hamilton County
Combined
Total
Hamilton
County
50.7
46.1
5.5
Combined
Total
Combined
Total
Total
1996 – 97
Chattanooga
City
Local
State
Federal
1994 – 95
Hamilton
County
Funding
Sources
Amount Funded in Millions of Dollars
Before Consolidation
1995 – 96
2000 – 01 *
Hamilton County
117.6
89.4
15.5
116.3
92.2
23.7
----
----
$222.54
$232.19
$249.85
$252.88
* Only total funding for these school years could be determined.
146
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 5. State Funding Before & After Consolidation
147
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 6. Local Funding Before & After Consolidation
148
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 7. Federal Funding Before & After Consolidation
149
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 8. Total Funding From All Sources Before & After
Consolidation
150
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Operational and Per-Pupil Expenditures
To graph each type of operational expenditure would, unfortunately, take quite a
bit of space and explanation. For the purposes of this study, however, it should
suffice to say that expenditures for the Hamilton County and Chattanooga school
systems, both before and after consolidation, continued to rise at a steady rate.
An excellent bell-weather indicator of the emphasis placed upon education in
Hamilton County can be seen in the Graph 9. Before consolidation, both
systems maintained nearly the same rise in expenditures, with Hamilton County
growing ate 12.7% from 1994-1995 through 1996-1997 and Chattanooga seeing
a rise of 13.5% during the same period. After consolidation, however, the funds
expended per pupil rose significantly each year, going from $4,487 in 1997-1998
to $6,440 in 1999-2000, an overall rise of 43.5% in three years.
151
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Table 5. Operational Expenditures & Per Pupil Expenditures
Operations
Administration
Regular Instruction
Special Ed.
Vocational Ed.
Transportation
Per Pupil
Expenditures
Combined
Total
Hamilton
County
Combined
Total
Hamilton
County
Chattanooga
City
Combined
Total
1996 – 97
98.7
9.5
55.7
10.8
4.1
4.3
96.4
9.3
51.5
10.3
3.4
3.5
195.1
18.8
107.2
21.1
7.5
7.8
101.5
9.5
57.9
10.7
9.8
4.3
99.4
9.9
53
10.6
3.3
3.5
200.9
19.4
110.9
21.4
7.1
7.8
109.9
10.5
62.4
11.6
4.1
4.8
106.9
11.5
56.8
11.5
3.6
3.7
216.8
22
119.2
23.1
7.7
8.5
$4,456
$5,358
$4,907
$4,664
$5,494
$5,079
$5,023
$6,084
$5,554
Hamilton
County
Operations
Administration
Regular Instruction
Special Ed.
Vocational Ed.
Transportation
Per Pupil
Expenditures *
Chattanooga
City
1994 – 95
Chattanooga
City
Expenditures in Millions of Dollars
Before Consolidation
1995 – 96
1997 – 98
Hamilton County
210.6
-112.5
23.3
7.2
8.6
After Consolidation
1998 – 99 **
Hamilton County
-------
1999 – 2000 ***
Hamilton County
--122.3
23.2
6.8
10.5
$4,487
--
$6,440
* Per Pupil Expenditures for the Combined Total column are the average of the Hamilton County
and Chattanooga City per pupil amounts.
** Figures for the 1998 – 99 school year are only given as amounts spent per pupil and do not
give a total dollar expended.
*** Figures for Operations and Administration during school year 1999 – 2000 are
not given in available data.
152
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 9. Per Pupil Expenditures
153
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Average Teacher Salaries
Unfortunately, a pay scale illustrating solid monies for each level of teaching
could not be obtained. Average salaries, however, were readily available.
Teachers salaries were a major point of contention during the negotiations for
consolidating the two school systems. As can be seen on the Graph 10 before
consolidation Chattanooga City school teachers received considerably less than
their Hamilton County contemporaries. It was determined, however, that this
disparity could be overcome, and although the first years after consolidation saw
the Hamilton County school teachers taking a slight reduction in pay at first, this
was finally made up in the 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 school years with a raise
that was well above even the highest pay before consolidation.
Table 6. Average Salaries for Hamilton County & Chattanooga City
School Teachers for School Years 1994 – 95 through 1999 – 2000
Average Salary by Category
Hamilton County
Chattanooga City
Combined Average
Before
Consolidation
1994 – 95
$36,381
$33,539
$34,960
1995 – 96
$36,785
$34,494
$35,640
1996 – 97
$38,150
$39,792
$37,471
After
Consolidation
School Year
1997 – 98
$37,625
--
--
1998 – 99
$38,196
--
--
1999 – 2000
$39,008
--
--
154
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 10. Average Teacher Salaries
155
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Attendance
Attendance both before and after consolidation appears to be fairly excellent,
with the averages being well above the 90% mark for all grades. Although
Hamilton County saw better attendance rates before consolidation than did
Chattanooga, an aggressive truancy policy appears to have stemmed the tide.
Unfortunately, a copy of the truancy policy could not be obtained as it is in the
process of being revamped for the next school year.
Table 7. Attendance Rate of Hamilton County & Chattanooga City
Schools for School Years 1994 – 1995 through 1999 –2000
K–5
K–6
6–8
7 – 12
9 – 12
C. A. P. *
93.2
90
-94.15
-90.05
--
1997 – 98
Hamilton County
-94
-91
-92.5
-93.8
-88
--
94.35
90.9
-94.65
-90.6
--
After Consolidation
1998 – 99
Hamilton County
-94.4
-93
-93.7
-95.59
-93.99
--
-92.3
-86.44
--
94.79
89.37
Combined
Average
Percentile
Combined
Average
Percentile
Chattanooga
City
-95.5
-93.2
--
Chattanooga
City
-93.1
-86.9
--
Combined
Average
Percentile
Chattanooga
City
-95.2
-93.2
--
1996 – 97
Hamilton
County
K–5
K–6
6–8
7 – 12
9 – 12
C. A. P. *
Hamilton
County
Grade Level
Hamilton
County
Before Consolidation
1995 – 96
1994 – 95
-93.95
-90.22
--
1999 – 2000
Hamilton County
94.5
-92.6
-91.1
92.73
* Combined Average Percentile
Drop Out, Expulsion, and Suspension Rate
Drop outs, expulsions, and suspensions continue to be a problem in Hamilton
County schools. As seen by the Table 8 and Graphs 11, 12 & 13 below, the
numbers, although growing smaller for drop outs and expulsions, are still indicate
a overall rise. Solutions are being implemented in the Hamilton County schools
which should, if given the proper support from parents, teachers, and
156
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
administrators, bring these numbers down further. First, parents are being made
responsible for their children’s behavior. Second, teachers and administrators
are being trained to observe, report, and deal with those who may or have
become a classroom ‘problem.’ Out-of-school suspensions are becoming rarer
and are only utilized when the infraction is of a serious nature such as drugs,
fighting, etc. More in-school suspensions are being used so, even though the
student does not gain any ‘credit’ for their work, he or she does no lag behind
their peers. Also, more stringent and structured alternative programs are being
introduced to ensure that those who have become a ‘problem’ are given the
opportunity receive the education they deserve.
Table 8. Drop Out, Expulsion & Suspension Rates for Hamilton
County & Chattanooga City Schools for School Years 1994 – 95
through 1999 – 2000 
Before Consolidation
1995 – 96
Drop Outs
Expulsions
Suspensions
Chattanooga
City
Combined
Total
Hamilton
County
Chattanooga
City
Combined
Total
Hamilton
County
Chattanooga
City
Combined
Total
Drop Outs
Expulsions
Suspensions
1996 – 97
Hamilton
County
1994 – 95
572
9
2,101
1,472
57
2,343
2,044
66
4,444
1,076
8
2,243
1,209
24
2,030
2,285
32
4,273
1,008
21
1,813
1,403
42
2,637
2,411
63
4,450
1997 – 98
Hamilton County
2,065
113
4,480
After Consolidation
1998 – 99
Hamilton County
2,156
143
6,337
1999 – 2000 *
Hamilton County
682
113
7,024
* The figures for 1999 – 2000 only contain those students who are either under or over age 18
and refer only to drop outs for disciplinary reasons. All other years contain drop outs for all
reasons.
157
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 11. Overall Dropout Rates
158
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 12. Overall Expulsion Rates
159
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Graph 13. Overall Suspension Rates
160
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
District Wide Standardized Testing
As can be seen in the following Tables 9A and 9B, standardized test scores in
Hamilton County were higher than those found in Chattanooga City. After
consolidation, the combination of both test scores did bring the average down
somewhat.
161
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Table 9A. Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP)
162
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Table 9B. ACT, SAT, Writing Assessment and Competency Test
163
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
Schools’ Public Relations Operations
The Hamilton County school system employs several persons in its Public
Relations department, with the head of this section answering directly to the
school Superintendent, Dr. Jesse Register. It is the responsibility of this section
to communicate with all media - newspapers, radio, and television - and to
implement newer, better, and faster means of disseminating information to the
public. To date, this department has implemented several noteworthy avenues
and methods of getting that information to all concerned citizens as well as the
media. First, Dr. Register holds a weekly, one-hour-on-Monday-evening call-in
talk show on local radio in which any citizens with concerns, suggestions,
comments, or even praise can call in. Second, each of the nine members of the
Hamilton County School Board holds a separate town-hall style evening meeting
at least once a month at one of their district schools. Third, Dr. Register has a
public e-mail address which is published and accessible to all citizens of
Hamilton County.
Finally, the Hamilton County Department of Education maintains not only one of
the most comprehensive Internet websites to be found in Tennessee, but
possibly in the United States as well. Contained in this site are links to every
department in the county’s school system; the school system’s complete,
comprehensive, and unclassified 400-page-plus budget; general information on
every regular and magnet school in the system, complete with all addresses,
telephone numbers, and principals with their e-mail addresses as well as
enrollment information for the magnet schools; and, information on the county
school board, its members, their e-mail addresses, and their corresponding
county districts and county council members.
164
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
SOURCES CONSULTED
Chattanooga New-Free Press. 28 September 1972 – 28 May 1998.
Chattanooga Times. 11 May 1971 – 14 June 1996.
Gaquin, Deirdre A. and Mark S. Littman, ed. 1999 County and City Extra: Annual
Metro, City, and County Data Book. 8 ed. Washington D. C.: Bernan Press,
1999.
21st Century School Report Card: County/City Supplements, Hamlen-Hardeman.
Nashville, TN: Tennessee Department of Education, 1999.
165
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
NOTES
1. Significant portions of this information was derived from an interview with Gary Gordon, June
12, 2001. Gary grew up in Knoxville and was the second African American to graduate from
Webb Academy there. He worked as a consultant for several governmental agencies including
the TVA; and he was one of the five newcomers elected to the city board of education in 1985,
serving at the time of consolidation. Also see “Historical Patterns of Social and Economic
Discrimination Against African Americans in Knoxville, an unpublished report prepared by George
White and Gary Gordon.
2. See William J. MacArthur, Jr., “Knoxville’s History: An Interpretation,” in Lucille Deaderick,
Heart of the Valley (Knoxville: East Tennessee Historical Society, 1976).
3. Ibid., p. 23.
4. MacArthur, “Knoxville’s History,” op. cit., pp. 45-54.
5. MacArthur, “Knoxville’s History,” op. cit., pp. 28, 42, and 59.
6. “Historical Patterns of Social and Economic Discrimination Against African Americans in
Knoxville, unpublished report prepared by George White and Gary Gordon, 1999.
7. See John Gunther, Inside U. S. A. (New York and London: Harper & Brothers, 1947), p. 761;
MacArthur, “Knoxville’s History,” op. cit., p. 66.
8. See Aelred J. Gray and Mrs. Susan F. Adams, “Government,” in Lucille Deaderick, Heart of
the Valley (Knoxville: East Tennessee Historical Society, 1976), Chapter 2.
9. MacArthur, “Knoxville’s History,” op. cit., p. 40; Paul Kelley, “Education,” in Lucille Deaderick,
Heart of the Valley (Knoxville: East Tennessee Historical Society, 1976), pp. 237-240.
10. Quoted in Kelley, “Education,” p. 258.
11. For example, see Roger Harris, “Desegregation 1989,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, September
17, 1989, p. A1.
12. See the Knoxville Journal, January 6, 1959; February 26, 1959; and April 9, 1959.
13. From 25.4 square miles in the 1960 census, Knoxville was listed as 77.0 square miles by
1970. By the 2000 census, it was 97.7 square miles, but the city’s population actually declined
slightly, from 174,587 in 1970 to 173,890 by 2000.
14. For example, see William Lyons and John Scheb, “Saying No,” State and Local Government
Review (Spring 1998).
15. From interviews with Sam Bratton, May 23, 2001 and Carolyn Smith, June 13, 2001. Sam
worked in the central office of the county schools for nearly 40 years, serving much of that time as
its Coordinator for Research and Evaluation. Carolyn has taught locally for the past 27 years and
was the first president of the newly consolidated Knox County Education Association in 1987.
16. Significant portions of this information was derived from an interview with Sam Bratton, May
23, 2001, op. cit.
17. Significant portions of this information was derived from an interview with Sam Anderson,
May 24, 2001. Sam taught and coached in the city schools; became the city’s Director of Parks
and Recreation, the first African American to hold such an office in Knoxville; and he was elected
to the consolidated county school board in May of 1988, where he remains its only African
American member.
18. Significant portions of this information was derived from interviews with Gary Gordon, June
12, 2001, op. cit; and with Steve Roberts, May 24, 2001. Steve became the Deputy Director of
the Public Service Department after teaching in the city schools and working for a state agency.
166
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
He was the leader of the five newcomers who formed the city school board majority at the time of
consolidation.
19. Ibid.
20. Interview with Sam Bratton, May 23, 2001, op cit.
21. Knoxville News-Sentinel, November 5, 1986.
22. Lair, op. cit.
23. Knoxville News-Sentinel, November 5, 1986.
24. Knoxville News-Sentinel, November 2, 1986.
25. Roger Harris, “Inner-City Vote plays role in school issue,” Knoxville News-Sentinel,
November 3, 1986.
26. Knoxville News-Sentinel, November 5, 1986.
27. Jack Lair, “Campaign hits homestretch,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, November 2, 1986, p. 1.
28. Marty Levany, “School Merger,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, November 4, 1986.
29. Ibid.
30. Lair, op. cit.
31. Editorial, Knoxville News-Sentinel, November 11, 1986.
32. See Roger Harris, “Pension turmoil has 1960s roots,” Knoxville News-Sentinel, June 7, 1987.
33. Knoxville News-Sentinel, May 21, 1987.
34. Knoxville Journal, May 28, 1987; June 4, 1987.
35. Knoxville Journal, July 1, 1987.
36. Portions of this information were derived from an interview with Steve Roberts, May 24,
2001. Also see Lyons Scheb, “Saying No, op. cit.
37. Using current dollars, the city schools outspent the county $2,460 to $2,217 in 1984-85;
$2,721 to $2,472 in 1985-86; and $3,014 to $2,758 in 1986-87.
38. The proportion of city teachers holding at least a B.A. degree declined from nearly 98% in
1976 to just over 95% by 1986, the last figures available before consolidation. The proportion
with at least a master’s degree increased to a peak of 41% in 1982, only to slip back to just over
38% by 1986.
39. Costs are the “actual” 1998-99 expenditures.
40. Linda Clark, president of the Vine Middle School parent-teacher-student association, as
quoted in the Knoxville News-Sentinel, December 8, 2000, p. EA2.
41. Average Daily Attendance “Pupils Served” data was available, but it was not considered to
be a reliable measure over time, in that the method of counting student riders changed
significantly between 1996 and 1997.
42. Knoxville Journal, September 14, 1991.
43. This state-reported number seems to be derived by dividing Average Daily Attendance by
Average Daily Membership (the best indicator of current enrollment). Average Daily Attendance
is calculated by dividing the total Days Present by the Total Days of Instruction. Average Daily
Membership is the Days Present plus the Days Absent divided by the total Days of Instruction.
44. In particular, interviews with Sam Bratton and Sam Anderson supported this conclusion.
Bratton was in charge of Research and Evaluation throughout the transition, while Anderson
chaired the school board from 1991-1994 and remains its lone African-American member.
167
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
45. See Jacquelyn Dean, “Ills of past, uncertainties of future shape Vine present,” Knoxville
News-Sentinel, May 22, 1994, p. A1.
46. Interview with Gary Gordon, June 12, 2001.
47. Roger Harris, “Desegregation 1989,” Knoxville News Sentinel, September 17, 1989.
48. From interview with Sam Anderson, May 24, 2001.
49. Eric Vreeland, “Board wraps up school package over protests,” Knoxville News-Sentinel,
April 23, 1991, p. A1.
50. See Ed Marcum, “Magnet schools changing student body mix,” Knoxville News-Sentinel,
December 8, 2000, p. EA2.
51. A portion of this information was derived from an interview with Roy Mullins on June 13,
2001. Roy spent 40 years in the county school system, beginning as a teacher, principal, and
then Superintendent of Human Resources. He was interim county school superintendent for the
1988-1989 academic year. He is currently the consolidated school’s Assistant Superintendent for
Administrative Services.
52. According to the United States Bureau of the Census, Knoxville had 173,210 people in 1986
and 173,890 in 2000. The comparable figures for Knox County were 329,500 and 382,032.
53. Knoxville/Knox County Metropolitan Planning Commission, Knoxville Area Facts and Figures
(Knoxville: Government Printing Office, various years).
54. According to the United States Bureau of the Census, the Knoxville Metropolitan Statistical
Area consists of the following counties: Anderson, Blount, Knox, Loudon, Sevier, and Union.
See Figure 1. It had 400, 337 people in 1970, 565,970 in 1986 and 687,249 in 2000. The
comparable figures for Knox County were 276, 293 in 1970, 329,500 in 1986, and 382,032 in
2000. Knoxville had 174, 587 in 1970, 173,210 in 1986 and 173,890 in 2000.
55. According to the United States Bureau of the Census, the Knoxville Metropolitan Statistical
Area had a population that was 6.8% black in 1970, 6.6% in 1990 and 6.5% in 2000. The
comparable figures for Knox County were 8.4%, 8.8%, and 9.6%. Knoxville’s numbers were
12.8%, 15.8%, and 16.2%.
56. Harris, “Board wraps up package over protests,” op. cit.
57. Figures are used from the 1990-91 academic year as a baseline because earlier numbers
were not available. At least these numbers pre-date the conversion of any of these schools to
magnet program.
58. It should be noted that 2000-2001 free or reduced price meal numbers were used in this
comparison. Other “poor” schools by this measure included Christenberry Elementary: 84%;
South Knoxville Elementary: 80%; Pond Gap Elementary: 78%; Inskip Elementary: 74%;
Dogwood Elementary: 72%; West View Elementary: 71%.
59. Interview with Sam Anderson, May 24, 2001.
60. Knoxville News-Sentinel, April 29, 2001, p. A1.
61. Interview with Sam Anderson, May 24, 2001.
62. Knoxville News-Sentinel, April 29, 2001, p. A1; Tennessee State Board of Education, Annual
Report Card of the Knox County Schools (Nashville: Government Printing Office, various years).
63. Interview with Carolyn Smith, June 13, 2001.
64. Ibid.
65. Interview with Sam Anderson, May 24, 2001
66. These numbers were derived by taking the “average daily membership” for all schools K-12,
excluding “special” schools which tend to be smaller by definition, and dividing that number by the
total number of schools.
168
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
67. Portions of this information came from an interview with Roy Mullins, June 13, 2001; and
Carolyn Smith, June 13, 2001.
68. Ibid.
69. For example, see Marti Levary, “$16 million hike sought for schools,” Knoxville NewsSentinel, April 30, 1987.
70. Knoxville News-Sentinel, July 1, 1987; Knoxville Journal, September 14, 1991. The figure
ultimately became $2 million rather than $5 million in that the county was allowed by the courts to
continue the city’s practice of using state annuity funds to offset the cost of these teachers’ higher
pension benefits.
71. Knoxville Journal, September 14, 1991.
72. Knoxville Journal, September 14, 1991.
73. Although property and sales taxes produced more than 99% of the “local” portion of school
revenue, the remainder was derived from such sources licenses and permits, delinquent taxes, in
lieu of tax contributions from businesses such as TVA, and a mixed drink tax
.
74. Tennessee Education Association and Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Maintaining
Positive Educator Morale During Consolidation (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Education, May 1988).
75. Interview with Sam Anderson, May 24, 2001.
76. Interview with Sam Anderson, May 24, 2001.
77. Knox County “Budget Surveys,” prepared by William Lyons and John Scheb in the years
1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, and 2000.
1Carroll
Van West, ed., Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture (Nashville, TN: Rutledge
Hill Press, 1998), 139.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4Ibid.,
140.
5Ibid.
6Ibid.
84Ibid.,
398.
85Chattanooga
Times, 11 May 1971.
169
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
86Ibid.,
14 May 1971. Underlining added by author for emphasis.
87Ibid.,
20 May 1971.
88Ibid.
89
Ibid., 3 June 1971.
90Ibid.
91Ibid.,
92Ibid,
13 June 1971.
22 June 1971.
93Ibid.,
24 June 1971.
94Ibid.,
2 July 1971.
95Ibid.
96Ibid.,
28 September 1971; Chattanooga News-Free Press, 28 September 1971.
97Chattanooga
Times, 25 May 1972.
98Chattanooga
New-Free Press, 30 April 1973.
99Chattanooga
Times, 17 November 1973.
100Ibid.,
5 December 1973.
101Ibid.
102Chattanooga
Times, 17 Jan. 1953.
103Ibid.
104Ibid.,
12 Dec. 1960.
105Chattanooga
Free Press, 24 Aug. 1994.
106Chattanooga
Times, 9 Nov. 1994. The vote came to 22,694 ‘for’ merger and 19,044 ‘against.’
107Ibid.,
22 Nov. 1994.
108Ibid.,
16 Dec. 1994.
109Ibid.
110Ibid.
111Chattanooga
Free Press, 2 Feb. 1995.
112Chattanooga
Times, 7 June 1995.
113Ibid.
114Chattanooga
Free Press, 15 Nov. 1995.
170
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee
115Ibid.,
16 Nov. 1995.
116Ibid.,
17 Nov. 1995.
117Ibid.
118Chattanooga
Times, 15 Dec. 1995.
119Ibid.,
16 Dec. 1995.
120Ibid.,
22 Dec. 1995.
121Chattanooga
Free Press, 11 Apr. 1996.
122Ibid.
123Ibid.
124Ibid.
125Chattanooga
Times, 24 May 1996.
171
School Consolidation: Knoxville, Tennessee