Constitutional and Judicial Challenges in Education Policy: A Critical Legal Analysis of the Republican Plan to Reject Federal Education Funding in Tennessee

Abstract:

The text outlines the historical significance of education in the United States, emphasizing its role in shaping the nation's identity from before its founding. It touches upon landmark legal cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Tinker v. Des Moines, which have influenced the landscape of education by addressing issues of racial segregation and students' rights to speech and expression.

The focus then shifts to the current situation in Tennessee, where there is a controversial move to reject federal funds for education. The Joint Working Group on Federal Education Funding, led by Tennessee's Speaker of the House, Cameron Sexton, examines the feasibility of rejecting federal funds for public schools. The text argues that this move is potentially unconstitutional, violating the principles of home rule and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The discussion delves into the legal aspects, referencing Dillon's Rule, the Home Rule Amendment, and relevant court cases, including a recent one involving the school voucher program. There's an exploration of the potential impact of rejecting federal funds on the ability of counties to govern themselves and provide essential services like education. The argument is made that rejecting federal funding could violate the education clause in the Tennessee Constitution.

Education has been vital to America’s identity since its founding in 1776. Before there was an organized government in the thirteen colonies, the colonists built schools because they believed that an educated citizenry was sacred to not only the identity of a person but also would frame the United States today. Education was a sacred value in the thirteen colonies. The colonists levied taxes against themselves to build schools. The first free taxpayer school in North America was the Mather School in Dorchester, Massachusetts, which opened in 1639. Since then, America’s education landscape has drastically improved over the last two centuries with an end to racial segregation in schools in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). In Brown, Mr. Oliver Brown and 12 other families filed a class action lawsuit against the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, alleging that the segregation policy of Topeka Public Schools was unconstitutional. Brown appealed to the Supreme Court, where the Court held that the segregation policy violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause because separate facilities were inherently unequal. America’s education system has also expanded by safeguarding students’ right to speech and expression in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 U.S. 503 2

In Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker wore a black armband to school with a peace symbol to oppose the ongoing Vietnam War. Tinker was suspended from school because wearing an armband disrupted the learning environment. Her parents appealed her suspension to the Supreme Court, where the Court ruled Mary Beth’s suspension unconstitutional. The Court held that students have the right to express themselves even if their speech conflicts with the opinions of school administrators. Children have that right if it does not disrupt the learning environment. 

Subsequent rulings have narrowed the scope of this definition. One way for the federal government to ensure that these rulings are carried out is through funding. Federal funds have been a hallmark of America’s education system since 1965 with the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed this act into law as part of his larger campaign to fight the war on poverty. The act is split into seven titles to expel racial, gender, and sex discrimination in education and equal access to a quality education regardless of socioeconomic status. A key facet that I am focusing on is Title I. Title I provides funding for school districts that have a high proportion of low-income students. Title I requires the federal Department of Education to advise state departments of education on best education practices across the nation through instructional material and professional development strategies. A state department of education has the duty of controlling the education system in a state, including state testing and funding. Under the Community Eligibility Provision, for a school district or local education agency to become eligible for Title I funds, the
school must have at least 40 percent of its students come from low-income families according to the U.S. Census definition of low-income.3 The U.S. Census defines a low-income family as a family whose income exceeds 150 percent of the national poverty level. In 2021, the national poverty level for an individual was $14,891, and for a family of four was $29,960. Federal funding for public schools is under scrutiny in Tennessee. The Speaker of the House of Representatives in Tennessee, Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville), and the Republican
Conference are leading an effort to reject federal funds for education from the federal government. Speaker Sexton and Lieutenant Governor Randy McNally created the Joint Working Group on Federal Education Funding. The purpose of this working group is to examine federal funding in education in public school districts across Tennessee and the feasibility of
rejecting those funds. The group must submit a recommendation to the Tennessee House of Representatives and Senate by January 9th, when the legislature reconvenes. The unprecedented move by the Tennessee legislature has not been attempted by any other state. Although state and local governments fund the majority of public schools’ budgets, the unprecedented move by the Tennessee legislature to reject federal funding is unconstitutional because it is a violation of the home rule and education provisions in the Tennessee Constitution and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

In constitutional law, Dillon’s Rule grants localities and municipalities the ability to
govern themselves in their interests so long as the state constitution grants them that authority.
The National League of Cities acknowledges thirty-one Dillon Rule states, including Tennessee.6
Article Eleven, Section Nine of the Tennessee Constitution grants all 95 counties in Tennessee
the authority to adopt Dillon’s rule in their city charter by a referendum vote. The legislature’s
reluctance to reject federal funds for education in Tennessee public schools creates tension with
counties reserving the right to govern themselves. The Home Rule Amendment was adopted by a
state constitutional convention in 1953 and was ratified by voters in November 1953. Journal and
Proceedings of the Limited Constitutional Convention of Tennessee 937 (1953) The Tennessee
Supreme Court has ruled in many cases where the Home Rule Amendment was in question. Its most recent case was the Tennessee Department of Education’s controversial school voucher
program, which was decided in Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County et
al. v. Tennessee Department of Education et al.7 The Tennessee legislature enacted House Bill
0433 and Senate Bill 0012, which established the Tennessee Education Savings Account Pilot
Program.8 The program is a pilot test for the Tennessee school voucher program that is intended
to extend state-wide contingent upon the successes of the voucher program in Shelby, Davidson,
and Hamilton counties. The Davidson County metropolitan government and Shelby County
government sued the Tennessee Department of Education citing that the school voucher program
was a violation of home rule. Chief Justice Roger Page delivered the majority opinion, joined by
Justices Bivins and Frierson II. The Court held that the school voucher program was
constitutional and was not a violation of the home rule because the Education Savings Account
does not implicate the Home Rule Amendment. In addition, the Home Rule Amendment did not
apply to this case because the Act dealt specifically with the school districts and not the county
governments that fund public schools.9
I disagree with the Court on this issue because although the bill has specific language
about the school districts, the bill affects how the schools are funded. After three years of its
enactment, the Education Savings Account Act will no longer fund the missing gap for students
who transfer from a public to a private school. Thus, the bill affects county governments’ ability
to fund schools in future years after the funding requirement in the Education Savings Account 

expires. As a result, the Education Savings Account does affect county governments under the
Home Rule amendment in the 2023-2024 school year because of their inability to govern
avenues of funding for the county school districts fully.
The school voucher bill only applied to Shelby, Davidson, and Hamilton counties, which
is another violation of the Home Rule Amendment because the bill operates as a private act. A
private act is when legislation directly affects a county or a city without affecting other counties
or cities in the state. In Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority v. City of
Chattanooga, 580 S. W. 2d 322 (Tenn. 1979), the city of Chattanooga and Hamilton County
refused to transfer the title to the hospital authority because the legislature passed an act in 1976
that the city and county believed violated the Home Rule Act. The Supreme Court in Tennessee
ruled the 1976 Act constitutional, and the Court ruled that the City’s argument was without merit
and ordered that the City of Chattanooga and Hamilton County enter into a decree to surrender
the title rights over to the hospital authority10

. Justice Sharon Page authored the dissent in the
school voucher case, and she used Chattanooga-Hamilton Hospital Authority in her dissent
when Page argues, “The lesson from Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority is that a
stature that is facially directed at another entity, but which substantially affects a county, may be
found to govern or regulate the county, be “applicable to” it, and thus implicate the Home Rule
Amendment.11
Applying Page’s analysis to Tennessee’s move to reject federal funding, counties have a
substantial argument to make as it relates to the question of whether the Home Rule Amendment
would be grounds for a challenge of Tennessee’s move to reject federal funding for education. Although the county and state governments bear most of the responsibility to fund public
education, if Tennessee rejects funding, it will lead to an encroachment on the local county
commissions' ability to govern funding, substantially weakening their fiscal authority altogether.
Moreover, counties can make the argument that rejecting federal funding will allow some
families to withdraw their children from public schools and into private schools with the state’s
new school voucher program.
Opponents of this argument will argue that home rule does not apply in this case due to
the precedent established in McColluch v. Maryland 17 U.S. 316 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819). In
McColloch, the Bank of the United States was operated in the state of Maryland. The state of
Maryland levied a tax against the bank, and the bank’s cashier refused to pay the tax because it
was a bank operated by the federal government. The Supreme Court intervened and ruled that the
Bank of the United States was not subject to state taxes because it was a federal government
entity. It famously ruled that when federal and state law are in conflict, federal law trumps state
law.
12 Although the legal basis for the argument is true, this will not be in play because the state
of Tennessee has the burden of proving that rejecting federal funding proves a legitimate state
interest established in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez 411 U.S. 1 (1973).
In Rodriguez, a group of parents sued their child’s school district because it was severely
underfunded as opposed to neighboring school districts that were in wealthy neighborhoods.
They argued that the imbalance in funding was a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal
protection clause. The Court held that reliance on property taxes to fund public schools does not
violate the Equal Protection Clause if it causes inter-district spending disparities. Furthermore,
absolute equality of education funding is not required for the state, but a state system that encourages local control over schools bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.13
Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton explains the impetus for the joint working group to
reject federal funding so that Tennesse would no longer have “federal government interference.”
The question becomes does Tennessee’s intended action to reject federal education funding
achieve a legitimate state interest as articulated in Rodriguez? The crucial point here is that a
state must articulate a true reasoning behind its actions to achieve this high burden and political
rhetoric does not qualify to achieve a legitimate state interest. The state could be a legitimate
argument to make when considering Speaker Sexton’s comments. However, the argument is not
sufficient for the state to have judicial standing. Judicial standing is when a person or in this case,
the state, has been negatively impacted by a law. The Supreme Court ruled in 303 Creative v.
Elenis et al. 600 U.S. 570 (2023) that Lorie Smith, a wedding website creator, had legal standing
to refuse to create a wedding website for a gay couple. The decision was based because Smith’s
refusal stemmed from a conflict between her religious views on gay marriage and her obligation
to provide service despite Smith’s legal counsel proving a judicial injury was made against her.
Despite the ruling in 303 Creative, cases before the judiciary will require judicial standing to be
established first. The Tennessee General Assembly has not specifically proven what injury is
caused by the state and its local school districts to accept federal funding.14
Counties can make the argument that the rejection of federal funding for public schools is
a violation of the education clause in the Tennessee Constitution. If Tennessee rejects federal
funding and children take advantage of the state’s school voucher program, another tension arises
between the state and local governments. Article Eleven Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution instructs the legislature to support public education.15 The Tennessee Appeals Court
ruled in Southern Constructors Inc. Loudon County Board of Education 58 S.W.3D 706 (2001)
that the power to arbitrate construction contract disputes is fairly implied from the authority in
Tennessse’s home rule amendment. In 1997, the Loudon County Board of Education contracted
Southern Constructors, Inc. (SCI) for school building additions and renovations. During
construction, an SCI subcontractor caused damage to electrical equipment, leading to a power
disruption and subsequent discovery of mold. The Board hired the contractors to remove the
mold. A disruption arose when SCI claimed the Board lacked the authority to enter arbitration
agreements.16The court of appeals in the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County case interpreted the decision in Southern Contractors as the state observed that the
legislature has “plenary and exclusive authority” to provide for public schools. When applying
the Southern Contractors to the legislature’s responsibility to provide for the “maintenance,
support, and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools, a rational basis is
constructed to prove that Tennesse’s rejection of federal funding is unconstitutional.17
To further this analysis, rejecting federal funding will, in theory, stop programs like
free/reduced lunch grants, educational programs like Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps
(JROTC), federal Headstart, Section 504/IDEA grants, and vocational programs. Free/reduced
lunch grants are monies allocated to school districts across the United States from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to provide school districts with monies to purchase nutritional food.
School districts are eligible for free/reduced lunch grants if at least 25% percent of the district’s 

student population is economically disadvantaged. 18The Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps,
colloquially known as JROTC, provides high school students with leadership training, character
development, and a general understanding of military practices and values. The JROTC program
is not a feeder into the U.S. military, nor does it force students to join the military upon
graduation from high school. It operates as a reimbursement program for school districts from
the U.S. Department of Defense.19 For instance, the school district provides services and space
for JROTC programs, and at the end of each fiscal year, the Department of Defense reimburses
school districts for administering the program.20 Federal Head Start grants from the federal
Department of Education to states to help low-income elementary students learn to read.
Vocational programs like the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act grant
funding to low-income school districts to allow low-income students to learn valuable trade and
workforce development skills to aid America’s workforce. The federal government grants
funding for students who have a learning disability as defined under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Act ensures that public school districts do not discriminate
against students with learning disabilities. 21

IDEA funding is for students who also suffer from
learning disabilities and ensures special education resources are allocated to those students under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990. 22 Metropolitan areas in Tennessee, like
Tennessee’s largest school district, Memphis Shelby County Schools, heavily depend on federal
funds to fund public education. Memphis-Shelby County Schools is primarily funded by the 

Shelby County Commission, with over 60% of its budget allocated to education. According to
the U.S. Census Bureau, the federal government has contributed at least 7.7% percent or $54.7
billion toward funding U.S. public schools in fiscal year 2019.23

In FY (fiscal year) 2023,
Memphis-Shelby County Schools received $907,842,968 in federal funding because of ESSER
funds that were given to local school districts to aid schools reopening amidst the COVID-19
pandemic. Those funds are required to be spent at the end of the fiscal year 2024 or lose them.24
After ESSER funds, the federal government will continue to give federal funds for free/reduced
lunch, the federal Head Start, JROTC, etc. However, if public schools lose these federal dollars,
funding for the Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) and special needs populations
will be negatively affected.

Refusing federal education funds for the JROTC programs will affect not only education
outcomes but also the education opportunities afforded to students under the 14th Amendment’s
Equal Protection Clause. The Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, colloquially known as
JROTC, provides high school students with leadership training, character development, and a
general understanding of military practices and values. The JROTC program is not a feeder into
the U.S. military, nor does it force students to join the military upon graduation from high school.
The educational opportunities in JROTC for high school students will be at risk if Tennessee
rejects federal education funding. Students will not have access to marquee scholarships that are
offered at different schools across the country for participation in JROTC. Moreover, students
who do not enroll in JROTC while in high school will not be able to receive a nomination to attend any of the military academies on full tuition. Thus, limiting the educational opportunities
for all Tennessee students will violate the support standards outlined in the Tennessee
Constitution as well as the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
This will constitute discrimination amongst low-income individuals because students in
cities like Nashville and Memphis will not be offered the same opportunities as a child across the
state line in Alabama or Mississippi. Impeding students’ ability to succeed with educational
opportunities will create an unequal education system, which was ruled unconstitutional as it
pertains to race in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) because school
districts with a high concentration of minorities and low-income students rely on outside
resources to like JROTC to provide equal assess to educational opportunities. As stated earlier,
the Court ruled racial segregation unconstitutional because it violates the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.25 School districts with a lower percentage of
economically disadvantaged districts, like Knox County Public Schools, have access to other
avenues of achieving educational opportunities for their students and do not have to rely solely
on programs sponsored by the federal government. For instance, Farragut High School in
Knoxville, Tennessee, has the largest AP course offerings in the entire state with 32 Advanced
Placement offerings. 26 Advanced Placement courses offer college credits for high school
students who score a three, four, or five on their AP exam at the end of the school year. Farragut
High is also an AP Capstone Diploma school that offers two yearlong AP Seminar and Research
courses. Meanwhile, twenty-nine out of thirty high schools in Memphis, Tennessee, do not offer
at least twenty Advanced Placement classes. 

Some schools in the Memphis Shelby County Schools district have higher concentrations
of honors courses, like East High School, which has 60 honors courses, but honor courses do not
equate to college credit. However, schools in Memphis rely on JROTC programs to provide
educational scholarships like the Tennesee National Guard Scholarship and Military Academy
nominations. A legal argument can be made that eliminating JROTC programs is unequal
treatment under the law, given that other districts in the state will have access to a breadth of AP
courses to supplement the loss of the JROTC programs. Meanwhile, school districts like
Memphis Shelby County Schools will lose additional educational opportunities with the loss of
JROTC funding. Therefore, tension arises with discriminatory treatment between school districts
that inherently have more resources than others.
In this law review, I hold the assumption that if the funding goes away, then the federal
requirements will not be enforced by the federal government as true. If this is the case, this will
constitute possible violations of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause and the education
clause in the Tennessee Constitution by disproportionately affecting students with mental
disabilities who are required to have individualized education plans to tailor their K-12 education
experience. We can examine the possible violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal
Protection Clause first. Section 504 and IDEA students are required to have individualized
education plans (IEP). An IEP is a written legal document that outlines the special education
instruction, support, and services a student needs to thrive in school. The process begins with an
evaluation that shows a student’s strengths and challenges academically. It also allows families to
be involved in decisions that impact their child’s education and also gives students rights when it
comes to student discipline.28 Without IEP plans, students with disabilities could suffer from a
decrease in academic performance, low self-esteem, and a higher likelihood of dropping out of 

school.29 Students with learning disabilities will no longer be viewed as a protected class under
the law if Tennessee rejects federal funding along with federal requirements. Therefore, students
with learning disabilities will be placed at an academic disadvantage when compared to their
peers without a learning disability. Therefore, Tennessee will be discriminating against students
with learning disabilities if students with learning disabilities’ academic performance is
negatively impacted. The Tennessee legislature is in conversations about rejecting federal
funding, and there has not been a rejection of federal funding to date. However, if the legislature
does pursue rejecting federal funding for education, it will possibly violate the Fourteenth
Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
Applying this analysis to the Education Clause in the Tennessee Constitution, Tennessee
could violate the Education Clause in Article Eleven Section 12 of the state Constitution. The
clause requires that the legislature provide for the “maintenance, support, and eligibility standard
of a system of free public schools.”30 The Supreme Court of Tennessee in Tennessee Small
School Systems v. McWherter, 894 S. W. .2d 734, 738 (Tenn. 1995) ruled that the legislature must
provide for free public schools in a non-discriminatory way. The argument is that the legislature
is acting in a non-discriminatory way by not fully considering the direct effects that the rejection
of federal funding will have on students with learning disabilities. The purpose of IEPs is to help
the students succeed, and slashing them will, inversely, not help those students. The government
has adopted the parens patriae doctrine which is Latin for parent of the nation. The doctrine is
regarded as the legal protector of citizens who cannot protect themselves like school-aged children. The Supreme Court has recognized the government bears this responsibility. In one
case, In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) upheld the government’s responsibility to protect children in
criminal trials. The case involved a boy, Gerald Gault, who was arrested, and his parents did not
receive notice of appearance before a judge. The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles accused of
crime in delinquency proceedings should have the right to delinquency proceedings should have
the right of due process protected by the Fifth Amendment.32 Applying the decision in Gault, the
legislature bears this responsibility per the parens patriae doctrine and if the Tennessee
legislature rejects federal funding, Tennessee will be neglecting its responsibility to the state’s
most vulnerable population. Therefore, this will be reasonable grounds for a violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
Rejecting these funds will also reject the federal requirements that come with them.
Tennessee may violate the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by rejecting federal
funding. The 14th Amendment equal protection clause applies the first ten amendments of the
Constitution to the states through a process called selective incorporation. Enacted by the Court
in Palko v. Connecticut 302 U.S. 319 (1937), the Court set the standard that prevents states from
passing laws that deprive American citizens of rights protected in the Bill of Rights. However,
the Bill of Rights must be individually applied to the states through Supreme Court rulings. 33
In Palko, Frank Palko committed larceny and killed two police officers. Palko was initially charged
with two counts of second-degree murder but was retried by Connecticut prosecutors for
first-degree murder. Palko appealed this decision, citing a violation of the double jeopardy clause
in the Fifth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled Palko’s conviction as
constitutional and held that the Fifth Amendment right to protection against double jeopardy is not a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. 34For instance,
Tennessee rejecting free/reduced grant funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture will not
provide students with breakfast or lunch meals throughout the day. This will not be an issue for
school districts like Williamson County Schools which have a low percentage of low-income
students, but it will be a problem for rural and poor school districts like Haywood County Public
Schools. According to the 2021-2022 TN State Report Card, the Williamson County School
District has three percent of its students, or 1,238 out of 41 251 students, economically
disadvantaged.35 Meanwhile, Haywood County Schools forty-three percent of its students, or
1,108 students out of 2,577 are economically disadvantaged. 36Applying this evidence to the
argument, Tennessee will be in potential violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection
Clause because of the disproportionate impact of rejecting free/reduced lunch grants from the
Department of Agriculture. Low-income students are a protected class when viewed through the
lens of the federal government with Title Five of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Act prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, or national origin from entities that receive federal funding,
including schools. Tennessee denying these grants may exacerbate education inequality by
placing a burden on low-income students and leading to unequal access to educational
opportunities and resources.37 Applying the income disparities from Williamson and Haywood
counties and viewing the evidence through the lens of the 14th amendment, there is a direct link
to unequal educational opportunity for students contingent upon income. Lack of proper nutrition
in schools may hinder academic performance and may negatively impact the behavior of 

economically disadvantaged students compared to their peers who are not economically
disadvantaged. Thus perpetuating the achievement gap in America’s school system. For a claim
to fall under the 14th Amendment, there must be a developed intent to discriminate against a
protected class. The rejection of federal funding can be proven as a state action to discriminate
against low-income students with the passage of the Education Savings Account mentioned
earlier. Allowing parents to send their children where everyone they want to is not the subject of
debate here. However, depriving school districts with a high concentration of low-income
students, like Memphis Shelby County Schools, by affecting their state funding for education
shows a pattern of discrimination. Although the Metropolitan case ruled the Education Savings
Account Act constitutional, Chancellor Anne Martin of Davidson County raised a prevalent
point in her opinion about the Act at the trial court level. She ruled that the state reimbursement
that the State gives the counties for monies lost for children taking advantage of the program in
the first three years of implementation does not make the counties whole. Chancellor Martin
concluded that the reimbursement funds for the state are earmarked for school improvement
instead of being allocated for operational purposes. Without covering operational costs, schools
will lose funding to purchase curriculum materials, including but not limited to online resources
and textbooks, at the beginning of the fiscal year before the next school year starts. Thus,
low-income school districts, like Memphis Shelby County Schools, are marginalized further by
losing funding at the state level after the three-year reimbursement period ceases. As stated
earlier, the Act only applied to Shelby, Davidson, and Hamilton counties in the state. Taking
Chancellor Martin’s argument into consideration and applying it to the grounds to file a claim
under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause for Tennessee rejecting federal education
funding, Tennessee has a history of discrimination in education through subtle yet provable

ways. As a result, a school district or a county has sufficient grounds to bring a claim against
Tennessee for rejecting federal funds as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection
clause.
Although the Tennessee Constitution is vague about eligibility standards, it will be fair to
conclude that eligibility standards are basic requirements like funding for low-income students
that protect the integrity of education. Taking that definition into account and applying it to the
legislature trying to reject federal funding, Tennessee will be violating the eligibility standards by
refusing Head Start funds, and it will place a heavy burden on school districts with a
disproportionate number of low-income Pre-K and kindergarten students. Federal Head Start
programs have been effective because children who participate in Head Start programs are more
likely to go to college after graduating from high school.38 Drawing on the parens patriae
doctrine from Gault, the legislature bears the responsibility to protect vulnerable populations like
children. Rejecting federal funding could hamper childhood development and academic
performance in later grades. Thus, children in neighboring states and private school children in
grades Pre-K through 3rd grade will be more advantageous than children who go to schools that
depend on Federal Head Start funding. As has been made clear in the Memphis Shelby County
Schools district, if a student cannot read on grade level by third grade, then the child will
struggle. This longstanding doctrine in Memphis Shelby County Schools was later transformed
into state law in HB 0437/ SB 0300, colloquially known as the third-grade retention law. The law
states that if a third-grade student scores less than “met” or “exceeded expectations” on the state
standardized test, then the child shall be retained for another school year. A county of a school district can use this instance to show that a rejection in federal funding, specifically federal Head
Start programs, makes this law very hard to enforce with an unfunded mandate from the State to
the local school districts.
In conclusion, the rejection of federal education funds by the state of Tennessee, as
proposed by some lawmakers, carries significant implications for the state's educational system
and its students. This move, if realized, not only defies the historical importance of education in
American society but also raises constitutional and practical concerns. Education has been a
cornerstone of American identity, dating back to the founding of the nation. It has been
recognized as a vital investment in the future of our citizens, and the willingness of early
colonists to tax themselves for the establishment of schools reflects the sacred value placed on
education. Over the centuries, significant strides have been made to improve the educational
landscape, from desegregation to the separation of church and state within the education system.
The Elementary and Secondary Schools Act of 1965 marked a crucial federal commitment to
support low-income schools and ensure that every child, regardless of income or race, could
receive a quality education. Title I, in particular, has provided essential funding to schools with a
high proportion of low-income students, aiming to bridge the achievement gap. The Tennessee
legislature’s move to reject federal funds, while a subject of political discourse, raises significant
constitutional and legal concerns. The potential impact on local governance, educational
programs, and adherence to constitutional obligations warrants careful consideration. The
rejection of federal funding in Tennessee may face challenges in reconciling state interests with
constitutional principles like the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and the
education and home rule clauses of the Tennessee Constitution.