KYLE MURPHYStaff Writer

The Tullahoma City Schools Board of Education recently ruled that Alderman Jenna Amacher was responsible for tuition payments from the 2022-2023 school year as her child was considered an out of district student.

Prior to the meeting, the board gave an opportunity for individuals to address the board. Fanchyon Miller spoke to the board advocating for Amacher’s daughter to be re-enrolled in the school district. Miller said if documentation as listed by policy 6.203 was turned in, the city taxes were paid on the Ledford Mill road property, the taxes are being used to fund TCS and no other family is claiming the property as their residence then there should be no other issue or any other redefinition of the policies to prevent the child from attending school.

 “If TCS is using different standards to define residency than the official government ones, then it should be clearly defined in its policies, to which again I did not find anywhere any policy that states where you lay your head on a pillow, or performing any bed checks or utility using checks,” Miller said to the board. “The sure fact that this was a known potential issue with her return to school well in advance ahead of the school year and still missed the first day of school is inexcusable.

Miller finished her statement by saying if this was about the supposed non-resident tuition then it could have been clearly addressed in the appeals without effecting Amacher’s daughter’s education and allowing her to attend these last two weeks. 

Amacher addresses the board 

Later in the meeting, Amacher addressed the board and said she was “accosted” this past year with the school system being “valiant supporter of the efforts” against her that she was not a resident of Tullahoma, noting that her trial in March ruled in her favor and stated that she was a resident. 

The basis of the trial was that the office of District Attorney General Craig Northcott claimed that Amacher vacated her residency in the city of Tullahoma after selling her property on Amhurst Drive in February of 2021, then finalizing a sale for property on Ledford Mill Road six months later. The argument by Northcott’s office indicated that Amacher was not living or residing at the property on Ledford Mill Road, but rather on a family-owned property on Blue Creek Road, which is in Franklin County and not within the city limits of Tullahoma. Under the city charter, in order to run for either alderman or mayor of the city of Tullahoma, one must reside within the city limits. The city charter also indicates that an alderman and mayor must continue to reside in the city limits for the full term. The trial concluded with Judge Robert Carter ruling that Amacher was a resident of the city of Tullahoma, though he did acknowledge that while Northcott did prove that she lived outside of the city limits he concluded that the intention of Amacher to permanently reside at her property on Ledford Mill Road was enough to establish her as a resident.

Amacher said that the school district’s policies were regarding tuition for non-residents and said while it may helped the board use the standard of “where you lay your head at night,” the Department of Education wants to make sure the board did not create a chilling effect on school enrollment.

“Even if a student is perhaps a family member of a non-resident but they are laying their head in Tullahoma then you don’t turn them away at the schoolhouse gates, the very thing you did to my child,” Amacher said to the board.

She described the moment when she went to drop off her child for the first day of school and was turned them away as appalling, invidious and harassment.

“The Department of Education provides that you do not have the right to treat any student differently with respects to your residency verification.”

She continued and said she filed a temporary restraining order in December to prevent this scenario, and was informed by the district’s attorneys that it will depend on her court ruling if she was a resident. Amacher said she understood and if the court ruled that she was a non-resident then she would have been fine paying the tuition; however, since the ruling the board had no right to treat her child that way, noting that her child is scared that she will asked to leave.

“I’ve had to get out of district exception in another school district to get my child into school this year,” she said. “That is unacceptable.”

With extended time given to Amacher to speak before the board, she went on refer to several bills that could potentially be applied to her situation to where her child should be enrolled in school system, like Bill HB 1130/SB 1419 in the Tennessee General Assembly which states that it would require “local education agencies to provide for the enrollment of students who are residents of the state, regardless of the student’s residence, race, ethnicity or language proficiency.” Amacher concluded her statement that she is both a property and business owner in Tullahoma, and maintains that her child has been negatively impacted by the situation.

“The damage that has been done to me emotionally and to my child and the feeling of being unwelcomed as a returning second grader, that is appalling,” Amacher said. “I could not believe you would allow an administrator to turn a child away at the door, who was so excited to get to school.” 

School board discusses motion 

TCS Director of Schools Dr. Catherine Stephens said the issue before the school board was can a person be considered a resident in Tullahoma for purposes of voting or holding office while still being a non-resident for the purposes of enrolling in school.

“Ms. Amacher considers them one in the same however I submit that school board policy speak differently from this,” Stephens said to the board.

Stephens then focused on board policies 2.603, School Admission, and 2.604, Attendance of Non-Resident K-12 Students, where she said both board approved policies outline clearly school enrollment, address verification, as well as how and when tuition is assessed and paid. Per policy 2.603, in order meet residency requirements, families must provide two current proofs of residency for verification, like a driver’s license, utility bill, a house payment stub and so on. Per Stephens, if someone cannot establish residency with those items, they will then turn to policy 2.604.

“It is important to lift up that residency status for the purpose of enrollment in Tullahoma City Schools is different than residency status for other items like holding office or even voting,” Stephens said. “Policy 2.604 acknowledges that very thing. Lines 28 to 31 of that policy conveys that non-resident students of non-residents who are qualified to vote in Tullahoma must still pay tuition but at a half priced rate.”

Stephens also stated that when TCS Director of Student Services Dr. Shannon Duncan attempted to get current proofs of residency, the utility bill provided did not convey use at the address, which resulted Duncan going to the address and noting that no one was living there at the time.

“While it is clear that you can be considered a resident for some purposes, it is also clear that it is not true for all purposes,” she said. “Applying board policies 2.603 and 2.604 to the facts at hand, we concluded that Ms. Amacher was not a resident of Tullahoma for the purpose of school enrollment, and as a result should pay $450 in tuition fees for the 22-23 school year.”

School board member Pat Welsh made the motion for the board to approve the findings and recommendations from the administration, including the $450 assessment for the 2022-2023 school year, which school board member Andy Whitt seconding it. When opened to further discussion, school board member Amy Dodson said she would like the school district to look into how to handle a student if this were to happen again, as every child should have an education.

“Whether which party is right or wrong it’s not the child’s fault and that’s where I have a problem how this was handled on both sides,” Dodson said. “That’s not right for a child because we are going to get them to where they hate school and be nervous about school and I don’t want that for any child.”

She further stated that she is not pointing fingers as she viewed that both sides could have handled the matter different.

The school board then voted 6-1 on the motion to approve the findings and recommendations from the administration, including the $450 assessment for the 2022-2023 school year, with school board member Beth Harrison voting against.