Knox County Schools seeking group to take over student clothing center operations
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WATE) — The Knox County Board of Education is looking for an organization to take over the operations of its clothing center, which distributes school clothes to more than 2,000 students each year.
Knox County Schools created the clothing center in 1935 during the Great Depression and has maintained operations for decades. Today, roughly 20 percent of the district's 60,000 students are considered economically disadvantaged by the state of Tennessee.
New program brings Knox County Trustee's Office to elderly, disabled residents
School officials are now asking agencies to apply to operation the 3,000-square-foot facility located at Cedar Bluff Preschool beginning July 1.
Organizations should email a letter of intent to board.office@knoxschools.org by 5 p.m. on February 28. Formal proposals must be submitted to the Clothing Center Committee by Friday, March 14. Click here for details on what should be included in the proposals.
Presentations will be made to the committee on March 24 for review before a formal recommendation is made to the Knox County Board of Education.
How a clothing exchange is growing community at Sweetwater High
'The prior leadership over the facility was really honest with us that they were struggling to maintain leadership and to stay afloat under a volunteer-led model,' KCS Assistant Superintendent of Strategy Kori Lautner told 6 News in October.
Center volunteers have said that they were moved from their longtime location to the facility at Cedar Bluff Preschool without warning and that two employee positions funded by the school system haven't been filled.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Republican Senator Co-Sponsors Bill To Raise The Minimum Wage To $15
Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri proposed a bill Tuesday that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour, his latest move to frame himself as a new kind of pro-worker Republican. Hawley's legislation is not in any danger of actually becoming law — his fellow Republicans hold a majority in the Senate and have been blocking minimum wage increases for years. But the proposal aligns him with a core Democratic demand and further separates Hawley from the traditional anti-union, free-market wing of the GOP when it comes to labor policy. 'Right now, working families, I mean, they haven't gotten a real wage raise in years, and they can't afford anything,' Hawley told HuffPost. 'Right now, the federal minimum wage, if you index it for inflation, or relative to inflation, it's the lowest level since the 1940s.' The federal minimum is just $7.25 per hour and hasn't been raised in more than 15 years, by far the longest such stretch since it was created during the Great Depression. It prevails in the 21 states that currently don't mandate a higher one, many of them clustered in the South. Hawley's bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont, would raise the wage floor to $15, then tie it to an inflation index so that it goes up with the cost of living — a common feature in more progressive legislation. Such a hike would force increases in all but the mostly blue states where the wage floor has already been raised above that level. Hawley did not pretend that his proposal stands much chance of becoming law. 'I will try to move it. I mean, I'd love to get a vote on it,' he said. The proposal puts Hawley far ahead of other Republicans, but still behind Democrats on the issue. Most Democratic lawmakers are now pushing for a $17 minimum wage, arguing that $15 — the rallying cry of the Fight for $15 labor campaign, which began in the fast food industry in 2012 — has become inadequate as a living wage due to inflation. Although he supports a more aggressive raise, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) seemed pleased to see Hawley separate himself from other Republicans on the issue. 'I think every Democrat, last month, voted to raise the minimum wage to $17, and I'll look forward to working with Sen. Hawley,' Sanders told HuffPost on Tuesday, referencing an April vote on an amendment to a symbolic budget resolution. The amendment failed by a vote of 47 to 52 with every Republican except Hawley voting no. Hawley said that if the Republican Party wants to brand itself as the party of working people — which it does, according to statements from President Donald Trump and other leaders — then Republicans need to back policies that benefit the working class. 'This is what President Trump ran on. I mean, if we're going to be a working party, we have to do something for working people, and working people haven't gotten a raise in years,' Hawley said. Hawley is not the first Republican to back a minimum wage increase. Back in 2021, Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.) and then-Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah) proposed a boost from $7.25 to $10. But the bill included an immigration measure that would have mandated nationwide use of e-Verify to crack down on undocumented workers, a poison pill for Democrats that isn't part of Hawley's legislation. Earlier this year, Hawley released a policy platform dubbed a 'Pro-Worker Framework.' It included some pro-labor reforms typically associated with Democrats, like putting limits on mandatory 'captive audience' meetings, in which employers pressure workers not to form unions. Then, in March, he joined Democratic Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.) in proposing a bill that would speed up the process for workers to secure their first union contracts, the sort of legislation a typical Republican wouldn't go near. As with Vice-President J.D. Vance, Hawley's positioning himself as a populist, pro-worker conservative has drawn plenty of suspicion from progressives who fear it's a ploy to further drain the Democratic Party's working-class support. But when it comes to maybe moving legislation, lawmakers like Sanders like the idea of having a Republican to work with. 'It would be great if we could get some other Republicans,' the Vermont senator said. '$7.25 federal minimum wage is a national disgrace. We've got to raise it.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
Is your money safe in a bank during a recession?
As scary as they can be, recessions are normal — and temporary. But that doesn't make them any less painful. With the possibility of a recession dominating headlines in recent months, it's no surprise if you're concerned about the security of your money. You may even wonder if your money is safe in a bank during a recession. Two pieces of good news may help calm your fears: First, according to JPMorgan Research, the likelihood of a recession has dropped from 60% to 40% in recent weeks. Second, even if a recession does happen, your money is safe in a bank. Continue reading to learn how banks protect your cash, what happens when they fail, and how you can keep your money safe during a recession. Banks are generally safe at any time, including during a recession. In 1933, following the Great Depression, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was created to promote consumer trust in banks. The FDIC protects insured bank deposits of up to $250,000 per customer, per insured bank, per ownership category, in case of bank failure. FDIC insurance doesn't apply to all account types; it only covers certain deposit accounts, such as savings accounts, checking accounts, money market accounts, and certificates of deposit (CDs). Money invested in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other investments isn't covered. Bank failures are unlikely, but they do happen on occasion, and especially during a recession. While there has only been one bank failure in 2025, there were 157 in a single year following the Great Recession. But even when banks fail, FDIC insurance protects bank customers in one of two ways: The FDIC may open a new account for you at an insured bank with a balance equal to your insured balance at the failed bank. The FDIC may send you a check in the amount of your insured balance at the failed bank. According to the FDIC's website, it has historically paid customers within a few days of failed bank closures. And since the creation of the FDIC, no depositor has ever lost insured funds. Credit unions and banks are both safe during a recession, provided they're both federally insured. Like banks, credit unions offer insurance on deposits of up to $250,000. Though FDIC insurance doesn't apply to credit union deposits, credit unions are insured by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), which provides similar coverage. While banks and credit unions provide the same amount of financial protection during a recession, credit unions have characteristics that may make them feel safer. For example: Credit unions are member-owned. Unlike banks, credit unions are nonprofit organizations and don't have to cater to shareholders. This generally means they put members' needs first and offer highly personalized customer service, which can provide some peace of mind during financially unstable times. Credit unions tend to have fewer fees, more affordable loans, and higher savings rates. Because credit unions are nonprofit entities, they can pass profits on to members in the form of lower fees and higher savings rates. These extra savings can go a long way during a recession, when members may be looking to cut costs wherever they can. Credit unions take less risk compared to banks. Because banks operate for a profit, they're generally willing to take on more risk in the pursuit of bigger returns. For example, the majority of subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by banks, not credit unions. Credit unions, meanwhile, are more risk-averse, which can provide a sense of stability for their members. You can keep your money safe during a recession by keeping it in the right place. Here are some tips to make sure your cash is secure if and when a recession hits: Make sure you bank with insured institutions. FDIC or NCUA insurance protects your deposits as long as your bank or credit union is backed by one of these organizations. To confirm your bank is FDIC-insured, use the FDIC's BankFind Suite tool. To check a credit union's NCUA status, use the NCUA's Credit Union Locator tool. Get extra FDIC coverage. If you have a lot of money saved, $250,000 worth of insurance may not be enough. Luckily, some banks allow you to insure deposits beyond the standard $250,000 by using something called reciprocal deposits. This system spreads your money between multiple partner banks, each of which can insure up to the standard limit. Alternatively, you can insure funds beyond the $250,000 maximum simply by opening accounts at multiple banks. Build an emergency fund. An emergency fund is always important, but it's particularly crucial during a recession. Having cash on hand in a safe, high-interest account like a high-yield savings account gives you extra comfort and protection if an emergency does happen. Read more: Recession-proof your money: How to protect your savings, investments, mortgage, and more Yes, keeping your money in the bank during a recession is generally a good idea. You can also keep your money in a credit union. As long as your bank or credit union is insured by the FDIC or NCUA, your deposits will be safe up to federal limits. Both banks and credit unions are safe places to keep your money during a recession. Banks are insured by the FDIC, and credit unions are insured by the NCUA. Both types of financial institutions insure up to $250,000 per depositor, per account category. Both banks and credit unions are safer than keeping physical cash, which can get lost, stolen, or damaged. Generally, the government can't take money from your bank account in a crisis. However, it may be able to garnish wages and seize your tax refund if you owe outstanding debt, such as federal student loans.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Yahoo
A banana a day to keep the tariffs away? Howard Lutnick mocked during congressional hearing over plan to make more products in America
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick was ridiculed in the House of Representatives over his proposed solution if Donald Trump's tariffs hit banana imports. Lutnick, one of the loudest cheerleaders for Trump's aggressive trade strategy, was testifying before the House Appropriations Committee when he found himself up against Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. Madeleine Dean. The congresswoman put it to Lutnick that the Trump administration lacked a fundamental understanding of how a trade deficit works, pointing out that the last time the United States had a trade surplus was during the Great Depression of the 1930s, a return to which is 'a direction none of us wants to go,' she said. Dean rebuked the secretary over the chaotic implementation of Trump's tariff policy after the president was forced to row back his imposition of steep levies on 100 countries on 'Liberation Day' (April 2) when they spooked the stock markets, forcing him to swiftly introduce a 90-day pause to allow for dealmaking. 'We are in the midst of negotiations with dozens of countries,' Lutnick raced to reassure her. 'We could sign deals but they're only going to get better as we negotiate them.' Dean then pivoted to her true subject, the cost of living, saying that residents of her suburban Philadelphia district were facing $2,000 a year increases to their grocery bills as a result of inflation, noting that Walmart, for one, had already raised the price of bananas by eight percent. 'Mr Trump promised to bring down the cost of goods, day one. And what he has done through his trade deficit fixation and his tariff chaos has nakedly increased the cost of goods,' she said. Brandishing a banana, Dean asked the secretary: 'What's the tariff on bananas? Americans, by the way, love bananas. We buy billions of them a year. I love bananas. What's the tariff on bananas?' 'The tariff on bananas would be representative of the countries that produce them,' Lutnick answered, estimating the rate at 10 percent when pushed. 'But the cost is on the American consumer now and on the businesses with the confusion now,' she hit back. 'Mr Secretary, I believe you know better. I believe you recognize that a trade deficit is not something to fear. I believe you know that predictability, stability is essential for businesses. I wish you would show that truth to this administration.' When Dean yielded her time, Lutnick asked for permission to respond to her and said: 'There's no uncertainty if you build in America and you produce your product in America. There will be no tariff.' 'We can't produce bananas in America,' she responded, incredulously. 'The concept of building in America and paying no tariffs is very, very clear,' said Lutnick. 'We cannot build bananas in America,' Dean repeated. 'Fighting for imports is not the same,' the secretary tried again. 'We cannot build bananas in America,' the representative repeated. While it is true that the United States cannot 'build' its own bananas and most are imported from Central American nations like Guatemala, Ecuador and Costa Rica, southern states like California, Florida, Arizona, Louisiana and Texas have the necessary climate to grow them but currently only do so in small quantities. Hawaii also grows bananas, as do the American territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands but, again, not currently on a scale sufficient to meet domestic demand.
