IN THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY, 1 IFNNESSEIBS | en SHELBY COUNTY BOARD ) | 4 OFEDUCATION, et al., ) 1 ow ) | zm Plaintiff, ) 2 y © ) =o 8 v. ) ‘Case No. 15-1048-111 ) WILLIAM HASLAM, in his official ) capacity as the GOVERNOR OF ) TENNESSEE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ANSWER ‘The Defendants hereby answer the numbered paragraphs of the Complaint as follows: 1, The first sentence of paragraph 1 is admitted. With regard to the second sentence of paragraph 1, it is denied that the plaintiff school board has the authority or capacity to bring suit on behalf of students or teachers. It is further denied that the plaintiff school board has the legal capacity to bring the instant suit on its own behalf against the State of Tennessee. 2. Denied. 3, Itis admitted that the named defendants are all officials of the State of Tennessee. With regard to the characterization of the State of Tennessee’s duties and responsibilities, the applicable Tennessee law and constitutional provisions speak for themselves. 4, With regard to the first four sentences of paragraph 4, it is admitted that Defendant William Haslam is the Govemor of the State of Tennessee. With regard to the characterization of Defendant Haslam’s duties and responsibilities, the applicableTennessee law and constitutional provisions speak for themselves. With regard to the fifth sentence of paragraph 4, no response is required. The allegations contained in the sixth sentence of paragraph 4 are admitted. With regard to the first two sentences of paragraph 5, it is admitted that Defendant Ron Ramsey is the Speaker of the Tennessee Senate and Defendant Beth Harwell is the Speaker of the Tennessee House of Representative, With regard to the characterization of Defendants’ respective duties and responsibilities, the applicable Tennessee law and constitutional provisions speak for themselves. The allegations contained in the third sentence are admitted. With regard to the first sentence of paragraph 6, it is admitted that Defendant Candice McQueen is the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Education. With regard to the characterization of Defendant McQueen’s duties and responsibilities, the applicable Tennessee law and constitutional provisions speak for themselves. The allegations contained in the second sentence of paragraph 6 are admitted. With regard to the first two sentences of paragraph 7, it is admitted that the named Defendants are all officials of the State of Tennessee. With regard to the characterization of Defendants’ respective duties and responsibilities, the applicable Tennessee law and constitutional provisions speak for themselves. The allegations contained in the third sentence are admitted. Plaintiff's characterization of the purpose ofits own cause of action requires no response from Defendants. With regard to the statutes and constitutional provisions referenced, these provisions speak for themselves. Defendants deny that they have breached any duties arising under the Tennessee Constitution or Tennessee statutes.10. 4. 12 13. 14. 15. Itis admitted that Davidson County is the proper venue for this action. Admitted. Defendants are without knowledge as to whether Plaintiff made “drastic cuts” or utilized 4 particular methodology when making any “cuts.” All other allegations are denied. Defendants aver that a number of schools have been closed since 2013 for a number of reasons. With regard to the first sentence of paragraph 12, Defendants admit that African- ‘American, Hispanic, and Asian-American students are enrolled in the Shelby County Schools District (“District”) in percentages larger than some other Tennessee school districts, All other allegations are denied. With regard to the first sentence of paragraph 13, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge concerning the allegations contained therein. The allegations made in the second sentence are denied With regard to the first sentence of paragraph 14, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge concerning the allegations contained therein. ‘The allegations made in the second sentence are denied. ‘The allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 15 are denied. With regard to the second sentence, Defendants admit that the allegations accurately present statistics from the referenced website. Defendants aver that Plaintiff supplied the information on the referenced website to the Tennessee Department of Education. Defendants are without knowledge conceming the third sentence. With regard to the fourth sentence, Defendants admit that over 90% of the District's schools were Tier I schools. With regard to the fifth sentence, Defendants admit that the allegations accurately present16, 17, 18. 19. 20. 2. statistics that Plaintiff supplied to the Tennessee Department of Education. With regard to the sixth and seventh sentences, Defendants admit that some students in the District require supports and some of those students are minorities. The eighth sentence is denied. With regard to the first sentence of paragraph 16, Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations contained therein. ‘The allegations are, therefore, denied. Defendants admit that the Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee Small School Sys. v. ‘MeWherer, 851 8.W.2d 139 (Tenn, 1993) speak for themselves. Defendants admit only that the Tennessee legislature has a constitutional obligation to maintain and support a system of public schools. Defendants aver that the Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee Small School Sys. v. McWherer, 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn, 1993) speak for themselves. Defendants admit that education funding affects the educational opportunities that are available to students, but deny any conclusory opinions regarding the causal effect of money on educational outcomes. With regard to the second sentence of the paragraph, Defendants admit that Tennessee Small Schools Systems v. McWherter, 894 S.W.2d 734 (Tenn. 1999) speaks for itself. The third sentence is denied. To the extent that the Tennessee Supreme Court has imposed requirements on education funding, the Court’s opinions speak for themselves. Defendants admit that Tennessee ‘Small Schools Sys. v. MeWherter, 91 S.W.3d 232 (Tenn. 2002) speaks for itself. With regard to the first sentence of paragraph 21, Defendants admit that the State of ‘Tennessee funds its public schools, grades K-12, through a statewide system of school funding, including, but not limited to the Basic Education Plan (“BEP”), codified at22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27, 28. Tenn, Code Ann. § 49-3-301, ef seg. With regards to the allegation that this school funding system is “constitutionally mandated,” Defendants admit only that the ‘Tennessee legislature has a constitutional obligation to maintain and support a system of public schools that affords substantially equal educational opportunities to all students in Tennessee, Defendants admit the allegations contained in the second sentence, with the provision that the BEP also requires local funding of public schools. Denied. Denied. Denied. With regard to the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 25, Defendants admit that currently, pursuant to statute and subject to appropriations, the State funds 70% of the “instructional components,” 75% of the ‘classroom components,” and 50% of “non- classroom components.” The remaining allegations made in this paragraph are denied. Denied. Defendants aver Plaintiff has funds available to properly prepare students for assessments, Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 27. Defendants aver that the District chose not to request a waiver that would have permitted the District to employ paper testing during the first year of the program. With regard to the second sentence, Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations contained therein. ‘The allegations in the third and fourth sentences are denied. Denied.29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34, To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. ‘The allegations in this paragraph are otherwise denied. With regard to the first and second sentences of paragraph 30, Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations contained therein. Defendants aver that if there is a correlation, this does not establish causality. The allegations in the third sentence are denied, Defendants deny that their actions “forced” the District to eliminate any programs. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds. Defendants are without knowledge conceming how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. With regard to the remaining allegations made in paragraph 31, Defendants are without knowledge and, therefore, deny these allegations. With regard to the first three sentences of paragraph 32, Defendants are without knowledge concerning the cuts to CTE programs that the District has chosen to make. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how ot why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. The allegations contained in the fourth sentence are denied. With regard to the first sentence of paragraph 33, Defendants are without knowledge concerning the cuts to elective courses and educational programs the District has chosen to make. The allegations contained in the second sentence are denied. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required, The allegations in35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40, this paragraph are otherwise denied due to vague terms such as “many,” “similar,” “often,” and “substantive.” Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 35. The allegations contained in the second sentence are denied. Defendants aver that there is no constitutional mandate or statutory requirement that the State supply pre-k ‘educational funding for all students, The allegations in the second sentence are denied. Denied. Defendants aver that the District’s budget has both increased and decreased over the last several years with the merging of Shelby County Schools and Memphis City Schools, followed by creation of six new and separate municipal school districts within Shelby County. It is further averred that Shelby County Schools’ budget documents reflect a budget increase from Fiscal Year 2015 to Fiscal Year 2016. Defendants deny that they have forced the District to increase class sizes. Defendants admit that class sizes have increased from previous years in some instances. Defendants aver that class sizes do not exceed statutory limits. ‘The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Denied. The allegations made in the first sentence of paragraph 39 are admitted. With regard to the paragraph’s remaining allegations, Defendants are without knowledge. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Denied, as the phrase “cadre leaders” is undefined.4. 42. 43. 44, 45, 46. Defendants admit that principals have multiple responsibilities as school leaders. The remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. With regard to the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 42, Defendants are without knowledge. With regard to the second sentence, Defendants admit that principals have multiple responsibilities as school leaders. With regard to the third sentence, Defendants admit that principals are responsible for teacher evaluations, handling disciplinary matters, providing coaching and instructional leadership to their teachers, and handling day to day administrative duties. With regard to the fourth sentence, Defendants are without knowledge conceming specific instances in the District and aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds, Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Denied, as the phrase “Instructional Leadership Directors” is undefined. With regard to the allegations contained in the first and second sentences of paragraph 44, Defendants are without knowledge. The allegations contained in the third sentence are denied. With regard to the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 45, Defendants are without knowledge concerning the effect of the educational assistants in the District. Defendants deny that their actions “forced” the District to eliminate any programs. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose47. 48, 49, 50, 51. 52. to allocate funds in every instance. With regard to the remain paragraph 46, Defendants are without knowledge. Denied. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first two sentences, Defendants aver that the BEP provides additional funding for counselors, nurses, social workers, and psychologists. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Defendants are without knowledge conceming the allegations made in the third sentence, To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather ‘observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Defendants otherwise admit that, in some instances, professional development programs are effective in improving teacher and administrator performance. Defendants also admit that teacher performance is a factor in student achievement. All other allegations are denied Denied. Denied. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Defendants admit that continuity of schooling, in both physical space and a child’s cohort, can impact student achievement in positive and negative ways. Defendants are otherwise without knowledge concerning the allegations made in paragraph 52.53. 54. 55. 56. 37. 58. 59. With regard to the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 53, Defendants deny that they have “forced” the District to close schools. Defendants admit that the District has closed schools, but deny that closures were due to a lack of funding. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in this paragraph. Defendants admit that parental involvement is a factor in student achievement, but deny that parental involvement, or any other single factor, is an absolute condition precedent for student achievement. Any remaining allegations are denied. Defendants admit that parental involvement is a factor in student achievement, but deny that parental involvement, or any other single factor, is an absolute condition precedent for student achievement, Any remaining allegations are denied. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Defendants aver that the State is not obligated to support and direct parents. Any remaining allegations in this paragraph are denied. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 57. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations made in the remainder of the paragraph. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations made in paragraph 58. Defendants deny that the State is obligated to provide funding for parental support. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 59. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations made in the second 1061. 62. 63. sentence. With regard to the third sentence, Defendants are without knowledge concerning the language fluency of the District. Defendants admit that this may be the case in some instances, but deny this is true in every instance, Defendants aver that the BEP provides funds for at-risk and English Language Leamer students. Denied Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations made in paragraph 62. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. With regard to the allegations made in the first two sentences in paragraph 63, Defendants admit physical facilities may sometimes have an effect on student achievement, but deny that this is true in every instance. With regard to the third and fourth sentences, Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge conceming how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations made in paragraph 64. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Further, Defendants aver that the BEP provides funds for maintenance, operations, and capital outlay. cr65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. n. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations made in paragraph 66. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Defendants admit that sleep can affect the health, safety, and academic performance of students, but the conclusory allegations in paragraph 67 are otherwise denied. Any opinion of the ‘American Academy of Pediatrics speaks for itself, as does the “substantial body of research” referenced in the last sentence of paragraph 67. The opinions and suggestions of the American Academy of Pediatrics speak for themselves. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. With regard to the first sentence of paragraph 69, the opinions and suggestions of the American Academy of Pediatrics speak for themselves. The allegations in the second sentence are denied due to vague terms such as “insufficient,” “common,” and “poor.” Denied. Defendants aver that the start time of the District's schools is within the discretion of the District To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Defendants admit 1272. B. 14, that, in some instances, participation in co-curricular activities can be beneficial to students, but deny any conclusory opinions regarding the causal effects of such activities. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather ns, or generalizations, no response is required. ‘The allegations in observations, opi the first sentence of paragraph 72 are otherwise denied, as the opinions of the National ‘Association of Secondary School Principals speak for themselves. Regarding the second and third sentences, Defendants admit that, in some instances, participation in co-curticular activities can be beneficial to students, but deny any conclusory opinions regarding the causal effects of such activities. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Regarding the first sentence of paragraph 73, the State has provided adequate funding to the District, and Defendants deny that they have imposed any financial burden on students or their parents in violation of the Tennessee Constitution. ‘The allegations in the second sentence are otherwise denied, as the opinions of the National Association of Secondary School Principals speak for themselves. The third sentence does not require a response. ‘The fourth sentence is denied. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants, are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in 1315. 16. 71. 8. every instance. Defendants deny that they have a constitutional mandate to provide co- curricular activities. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Defendants deny that the Tennessee Constitution guarantees that students within the State “achieve” educational “outcomes.” Defendants do aver that the State provides the educational opportunities to students that are afforded by the Tennessee Constitution. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required, Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Defendants aver that the District has discretion as to the employment of truancy officers. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District and Defendants deny that they have “forced” the District to take any particular action with. regard to the employment of social workers, guidance counselors, or behavioral specialists, Defendants are without knowledge regarding the remaining allegations in paragraph 77. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District and Defendants deny that they have “forced” the District to take any particular action with regard to the employment of security support staff. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without 479. 80. 81. 82, 83, 84, 85. knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Defendants are without knowledge regarding the remaining allegations in paragraph 78. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations in paragraph 79, due to Plaintiffs use of vague terms and phrases such as “gang,” “gang activity,” “highly,” “some,” “significant,” “ultimately,” “infiltrating,” and “often.” Denied that the State has a constitutional duty to provide funding for mitigation of gang- related activity. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the District’s level of “success” at suppressing gang activity. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations in paragraph 81. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations in paragraph 82. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Defendants are otherwise without knowledge concerning the allegations in paragraph 83. To the extent that this paragraph does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required. Defendants are otherwise without knowledge concerning the allegations in paragraph 84. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 85. Defendants aver that the BEP formula provides funding for alternative schools on a per- student basis rather than a per-school or per-district basis. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations in the second sentence of paragraph 85, 1586. 87. 88. 89. Defendants admit the allegations in the third sentence of paragraph 85. With regard to the fourth sentence of paragraph 85, to the extent it does not set forth factual allegations, but rather observations, opinions, or generalizations, no response is required Defendants deny that any alleged inability to provide alternative schooling is a result of inadequate State funding. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds. Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 86. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds. Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 87, Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds, Defendants are without knowledge conceming how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. The allegations contained in paragraph 88 are denied due to vague terms such as “consistently” and “poorly,” and lack of specificity as to the studies or factors on which the allegations are based. The allegations contained in paragraph 89 are denied due to vague terms such as “poorly,” and Jack of specificity as to the studies or factors on which the allegations are based. 1690. 1. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. ‘The allegations contained in paragraph 90 are denied due to vague terms such as “poorly,” and lack of specificity as to the studies or factors on which the allegations are based. The allegations contained in paragraph 91 are denied due to vague terms such as “poorly,” and lack of specificity as to which states are the basis for comparison, and as to the studies or factors on which the allegations are based. Denied. Defendants aver that the existing BEP formula provides funds for at-risk, special education, and English Language Leamer students. As to the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 93, Defendants are without knowledge. The second sentence is denied. As to the third sentence, Defendants are without knowledge. As to the fourth sentence, Defendants are without knowledge as to whether the students described had never spoken, read or written the English language. The remaining allegations in that sentence are denied. ‘The fourth sentence is denied. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District, Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. To the extent that the Tennessee Supreme Court has imposed requirements on education funding, the Court’s opinions speak for themselves. ‘The allegations in this paragraph are denied. Denied. ‘The November 1, 2014 BEP Report speaks for itself. Denied. The November 1, 2014 BEP Report speaks for itself, 797. 98. 99. 100. Denied. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Denied. Defendants deny that the State has provided inadequate funding to the District. Defendants deny that the Tennessee Constitution guarantees that students within the State “achieve” educational “outcomes.” Defendants do aver that the State provides the educational opportunities to students that are afforded by the Tennessee Constitution. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. It is admitted that there can be a correlation between wealth and the ability to raise income, ‘The remaining allegations are denied. Defendants deny that the State has 1d inadequate funding to the District. Defendants aver that the BEP equalizes provi funding to account for different capacities at local levels to raise funds. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Itis admitted that a majority of the students in the District consist of African-American, Hispanic and Asian-American students. It is admitted that African-American, Hispanic, and Asian-American students are enrolled in the District in percentages larger than some other Tennessee school districts. It is also admitted that some of those students may 18101. 102. 103. 104, 105. 106. come from homes with low incomes and low property rates. The remaining allegations are denied. Defendants aver that the State provides funding for at-risk children. Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations in paragraph 101 Defendants aver that the State provides finding for at-risk children, Defendants are without knowledge concerning the allegations in paragraph 102. Defendants aver that the State provides funding for disabled children. As to the first sentence, Defendants deny the allegations due to vague terms such as “increased needs.” The second sentence is denied. It is denied that the District is “forced” to shoulder a larger percentage of the cost. The third sentence is denied. It is specifically denied that there is a “lower amount of state funding.” Defendants deny ‘ct. Defendants aver that the that the State has provided inadequate funding to the Dist District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge concerning how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. ‘The first sentence is denied. ‘The second sentence is denied. Defendants aver that SCBE does not incur administrative fees from operation of charter schools. The third sentence is denied. Defendants aver that the District has considerable discretion in deciding how to allocate funds and Defendants are without knowledge conceming how or why the District chose to allocate funds in every instance. Denied. To the extent that paragraph 106 contains allegations, those allegations are denied. 19107, 108. 109. 110. ll. 112, 113. 114, 115, 116, 117. 118. 119. 120, 121. 122, 123 124, Defendants admit that Article XI, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution and Tennessee Supreme Court decisions speak for themselves. All other allegations are denied. Denied. Denied Denied. Denied. Denied Denied. Defendants admit that some Shelby County students are below proficient as demonstrated by TCAP results. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. To the extent that paragraph 118 contains allegations, those allegations are denied. Denied. Defendants admit that Tennessee Small School Sys. v. McWherter, 851 S.W.2d 139 (Tenn, 1993) speaks for itself, All other allegations contained in paragraph 120 are denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. To the extent that paragraph 124 contains allegations, those allegations are denied. 20125. 126. 127. 128. 129, 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. Defendants admit that Article XI, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution and ‘Tennessee Supreme Court decisions speak for themselves. All other allegations are denied. Defendants admit that Tenn. Code Ann, § 49-2-110(c) speaks for itself. All other allegations are denied. Denied. Plaintiffs misstate Rule 0520-01-03(14) by omission. Defendants admit the Rule speaks for itself. All other allegations are denied. Denied, Defendants aver that no fees or tuitions are required of any student as a condition of attending public schools or using its equipment while receiving educational training. Defendants admit that fees may be requested, but not required, for field trips. Defendants admit that fees may be required for extracurricular activities, Denied, Defendants admit that Article XI, Section 12 of the Tennessee Constitution speaks for itself. Defendants admit that Rule 0520-01-03(14) speaks for itself. All other allegations are denied. Defendants admit that Rule 0520-01-03(14) speaks for itself, All other allegations are denied. Denied. Denied, To the extent that paragraph 134 contains allegations, those allegations are denied. Defendants admit that Tennessee Constitution, Article I, Section 8, and Article XI, Section 8 speak for themselves. All other allegations are denied 21136. 137. 138. 139, 140. 141. 142. 143, 144, 145, 146. 147, 148. 149, 150. Defendants admit that Rule 0520-01-03(14) speaks for itself. All other allegations are denied, Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Defendants are without knowledge as to whether SCBE coaches, faculty, sponsors, and other educators often expend hundreds of dollars per year. All other allegations are denied Denied, Denied. Denied. To the extent that paragraph 145 contains allegations, those allegations are denied, Defendants admit that Tenn, Code Ann, § 49-1-102(a) speaks for itself. All other allegations are denied. Defendants deny the allegations contained in the first sentence of paragraph 147. With regard to the second sentence, Defendants admit that Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-3-307(a) speaks for itself. With regard to the third sentence, Defendants admit that Tenn. Code Ann, § 49-3-356 speaks for itself. The allegations in the fourth sentence are denied. Denied. Denied. ‘To the extent that paragraph 150 contains allegations, those allegations are denied 22151. 152, 153. 154. 155, 156. 157. 158, Defendants admit that Article II, Section 24 of the Tennessee Constitution speaks for itself. All other allegations are denied. Denied, Denied. Denied. Denied, Alll allegations not specifically admitted, including instances in which Defendants are without knowledge, are denied. ‘The Plaintiffs’ “Prayer for Relief” should be denied in its entirety and the instant case should be dismissed. Defendants should be granted attorneys’ fees pursuant to Tenn, Code Ann. § 9-4-5115, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ‘The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief should be granted, ‘This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear some or alll of the claims set forth in the Complaint. Some or all claims, as well as the relief sought by the Complaint, violate the Separ: ion of Powers Doctrine set forth in the Tennessee Constitution, Article II, Sections 1 and 2, and the Spending Clause set forth at Article II, Section 24, Subject to discovery, the Plaintiff school board lacks the legal capacity to bring and maintain this cause of action against the State of Tennessee and the State Defendants. The Plaintiff school board lacks the legal capacity to bring and maintain this cause of action on behalf of teachers and students. Some orall of the Plaintiff schoo! board’s claims are barred by the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity. 23Respectfully submitted, HERBERT H. SLATERY IL ATTORNEY GENERAL AND REPORTER Deputy Attorney General Dawn Jordan, BPR # 20383 Senior Deputy Joseph P. Ahillen, BPR # 28378 Assistant Attorney General Laura Miller, BPR # 31234 Assistant Attorney General TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE Civil Litigation and State Services Division P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202 (615) 741-5031 jay.ballard@ag.tn.gov Attomeys for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing Answer was sent via U.S. Mail to the following: Rodney G. Moore Shelby County Schools Office of General Counsel 160 S. Hollywood ‘Memphis, TN 38112 (901) 416-6370 Charles K. Grant Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz 211 Commerce St, Suite 800 Nashville, TN 37201 (615) 726-5767 24Lori H. Patterson Angie C. Davis Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz 165 Madison Ave., Suite 2000 ‘Memphis, TN 38103 (901) 526-2000 on this B* day of July, 2016. Deputy Attorney General Civil Litigation and State Services Division 25