BLOG

Co-authored by Jason Edmonds and Glen Gaugh

Since 2020, Tennessee school districts have received record funding through federal pandemic relief and increased state appropriations tied to a new funding formula. These funds, however, have not always been used as intended. The misallocation of federal relief dollars, from retractable bleachers to architect fees, has been widely documented. Meanwhile, new state funding came with increased flexibility, but it has been subject to abuse. For example, one Tennessee school district used $90,000 of taxpayer funds to hire private lobbyists to influence the state legislature rather than to benefit students and teachers. Thus, the money intended to support outcome-based improvements, rapid enrollment growth, and infrastructure was spent lobbying the very entity that appropriated the funds rather than helping students.

Taxpayer-funded lobbying (TFL) is nothing new in Tennessee, but it is almost universally frowned upon. Only five percent of Tennesseans support the practice of TFL. While cities and counties make up the largest group that use tax dollars to hire private lobbyists, other government entities, like school districts, utilities, public universities, and even individual local government offices, partake in the practice. But for school districts to spend tens of thousands of dollars on private lobbyists, while continually claiming they don’t receive enough taxpayer funding, it likely leaves residents with an even poorer view of TFL.

Multiple school districts have and continue to use education tax dollars to hire private lobbyists, but the most recent example may be the first where TISA fast-growth funds are so clearly steered away from the classroom. A benefit of TISA, the state’s education funding mechanism, is that it provides local districts with funding flexibility, which, in theory, should enable them to determine what is best for their schools and what is needed in classrooms. But without a state law to limit or eliminate the bad practice of taxpayer-funded lobbying from all sources, state and local funds will likely continue the dangerous cycle of being used to lobby state lawmakers. Local government leaders, from mayors, commissioners, and even superintendents, have the ability and the responsibility to advocate for their communities at the state legislature. But by using tax dollars to hire private lobbyists, local government leaders are shrugging off their responsibilities, especially to be good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

The discussion on TFL in public education, particularly the use of unrestricted state funds like TISA fast-growth funds, highlights a couple of key issues at the local level. First, what types of expenditures actually are beneficial “for the kids?” We have seen how almost anything can be rationalized as helping students. If we narrow the definition down to spending that helps improve student outcomes, what would that spending provide? Second, when the state decides to provide funding for which districts will not be held accountable to the state, will taxpayers speak up and demand accountability through their elected school boards and county commissions? The answer to each of these questions, if citizens expect higher achievement as a result of prudent spending, is active participation at the county level. While it seems unlikely that county budgets would excuse the use of local property or sales taxes to fund lobbyists, greater state funding may empower school districts to justify spending that is egregious to taxpayers.