Even as Signal Mountain’s School System Viability Committee wraps up its final report for the Signal Mountain Town Council, many are asking why the town is investigating a potential split from Hamilton County Schools at all.
The inquiry is not new.
Since the SSVC began its fact-gathering mission in February, local community members and school officials alike have publicly told the council that they have yet to hear a formal reason why Signal would need to consider breaking away from the county school district.
“I’m just trying to figure out what problem we’re trying to solve,” Signal Mountain resident Ray Laliberte said during the town council’s Sept. 11 meeting.
Mayor Chris Howley said he had already answered the question on social media and in at least two other public meetings, but after the query arose again during this month’s meeting, he reiterated his past response: that the investigation began in response to an “unsustainable trend” in funding from the Hamilton County Department of Education identified by an ad hoc group of Signal Mountain residents that proposed the study late last year.
The trend indicates that with public donations to the Mountain Education Foundation declining and the community already covering the cost of basic requirements the county cannot fund, the town may eventually be forced to eliminate some of the programs that have made it a standout in the county.
“Is it the [International Baccalaureate program]? Is it the STEM Lab? Is it the 14 teachers we cover? Where do you make that cut?” Howley asked, adding, “Do you continue to be as good as you are if you make that cut?”
SSVC Chair John Friedl agreed, saying the motivation ultimately comes down to a question of quality.
Part of the committee’s task, Friedl explained in a followup interview, is to determine whether more funds would be available for quality improvements if the town created an independent school district, compared to what is currently received from the county. So far, the committee’s findings have suggested that the answer is yes.
While the county school system must allocate much of its financial resources to its large central administration, Friedl said, a municipal school district’s smaller central office would not consume the same sizable percent of the budget.
The reduced expense would free up a surplus of $2 million for quality improvements, Friedl said, or a surplus of $1.25 million if the district covered the roughly $650,000 contributed to the mountain’s three schools’ operating budget through MEF and the supply fees parents pay at registration.
Though Friedl said the motivation for the study will be outlined in the committee’s final report, which is expected to be made public next month, he admitted that the motive may not have been as definitively stated by the ad hoc group during its presentation last year, leaving residents wondering why the town might need its own district from the start. He added that further confusion may have been caused by comments circulating on social media regarding the nationwide trend of forming independent school districts which suggest other motives, like white flight and elitism.
“I can’t speak for the motivation of other communities,” Friedl said. “What I do know is that after eight months of sitting with these seven people [on the SSVC], that’s not what we’re doing, that’s not what we’re about, that’s not what we want and that has nothing to do with our motivation.”
SSVC member Susan Speraw indicated during the initial review of the committee’s quality survey Aug. 30 that town officials should play an active role in clearing up any confusion.
One of the takeaways from the survey, she said during recent SSVC meetings, was that many of the 738 local parents, educators and community members who responded had “misconceptions” about why the town was considering creating its own school district. Respondents alluded to motives ranging from separating the wealthy to recruiting more football players from Chattanooga-area schools.
“I haven’t seen any official statement that says we’re only interested in doing this because we want a better football team, yet there are enough people who say it that there are [now] people who think that,” Speraw said. “In terms of a path forward, if the town decides they want to move ahead with this, this is a good indication of things they need to bring before the public and clarify.”
The SSVC will present its final report to the community during a yet-to-be-scheduled public meeting in early October. The town council will then continue the discussion during its Oct. 27 work session to determine how it would like to proceed.