After Sexton

A memorial service for Bob Sexton

Oct. 16, at 1:30 p.m.

at the Haggin Auditorium

Transylvania University

Today the Prichard Committee for Educational Excellence meets to begin a tough job: replacing Bob Sexton. It now falls to Chairman Sam Corbett and the Committee to find a successor to Sexton. This isn't going to be easy.

Is Kati Haycock looking to change jobs?

Members of the Committee undertaking the task include:
Sam Corbett, Louisville, Chair
Hilma Prather, Somerset, Vice-Chair
Keith Sanders, Owensboro, Secretary/Treasurer
and Members: Madeline Abramson, Norma B. Adams, Daniel L. Ash, Thomas E. Banta, Brady Barlow, Matthew Barzun, Cynthia D. Baumert, William E. Beasley, Jackie Betts, Robert Biagi, David Bolt, Matthew W. Breetz, Gary Bricking, Bob Brown, Patricia Brundage, Raymond M. Burse, Ellen Call, eHelen Carroll, Alva Mitchell Clark, Martha Layne Collins, Alfonso N. Cornish, Brad Cowgill, Daphine Cox, William Cox, Jr., Ben Cundiff, Beverly Dalton, Sim Davenport, Harold Dexter, Jean M. Dorton, Karen Dougherty, Adam Edelen, Paula Fryland, Pat Gish, Rebecca Goss, Jane Graham, Lois Gray, Stephen Grossman, Kevin Hable, Jean R. Hale, Donna S. Hall, Marion Halliday, Michael Hammons, Necia Harkless, Billy Harper, Marianne Schmidt Hurtt, Sylvia Watson Jaegers, Esther P. Jansing, Nancy Jarett, Franklin K. Jelsma, JoAnn T. Johnson, Doug Jones, Cheryl Karp, Judy Kasey, Joseph W. Kelly, Dan Lacy, Ric Ladt, Carol Lamm, Mary Jane Littleton, Fannie Louise Maddux, Roger M. Marcum, Elissa May-Plattner, William McCann, Lewis N. Melton, Pam Miller, Wade Mountz, P. Daugherty Murphy, Dana Nicholson, Charlie Owen, Col Owens, Kent Oyler, Dennis Pearce, Laura A. Pitman, Hiram C. Polk, Jr., Margaret G. Pope, Louis Prichard, Kathy Reed, Teresa Combs Reed, Josephine D. Richardson, Jill E. Robinson, Jean Rosenberg, Linda Rumpke, Pamela Papka Sexton, Albert P. Smith, Jr., Alice Sparks, David Tachau, J. Maynard Thomas, Lynda M. Thomas, Barney A. Tucker, Lois Combs Weinberg, Mary Gwen Wheeler, Harvie Wilkinson and William H. Wilson.

The Committee intends to launch a national search, but finding the right person to lead will be a major challenge. How does the Committee replace an individual who had great success and no major flaws? This is a tough act to follow.

It is unclear, from my vantage point, how many other individuals have the set of experiences, beliefs, knowledge and skills which, combined with Sexton's political accumen, have allowed them to navigate the choppy political waters of large-scale school reform. But, if anyone knows, it will surely be the Committee, which has shared their grassroots approach widely. Perhaps there are other Prichard Committees out there in other states.

Additionally, the Prichard Committee is not simply replacing their latest leader. They are replacing the group's founder and that challenge runs much deeper. Everything about the group's identity, it's philosophies, how it conducts business, how it studies issues, how it communicates with its constituents, where it stands on issues - virtually everything that is important - was established and nurtured by Sexton's steady hand. It will be difficult to interview candidates without comparing everyone to Sexton and noting what will surely be substantial differences.

Cindy Heine told KSN&C that the Committee had already started thinking about a transition in leadership, but I'm sure everyone thought that would be accomplished over time, with Sexton still around to guide and break in the new Executive Director. That was Sexton's plan. Bob and I had just begun a series of planned interviews intended to capture his thinking on a wide range of issues at the time of his death. He was thinking about this day, but he envisioned a gradual withdrawl from the work he loved.

Prichard Chair Sam Corbett told Education Week,

"We feel a lot of pressure. No one is irreplaceable, but Bob comes pretty close," he said. Mr. Sexton had the rare gift for being able to work on a politically fraught issue without making enemies on either side of the partisan aisle, Mr. Corbett said. "He was able to walk that magic line," Mr. Corbett said.

Ed Week Notes Sexton Passing

Education Week's Alyson Klein posted an article on education advocate Bob Sexton this week.

Sexton was cited as a "champion of Kentucky's pioneering and nationally influential efforts in K-12 education reform" and for his leadership of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

In his role at the helm of the Prichard Committee, based in Lexington, Ky., Mr. Sexton helped shape the Kentucky Education Reform Act, or KERA, which served as
an early model of state-based accountability for schools.

Mr. Sexton was also a visible force in national education policy. He served on the board of the Education Trust, an organization in Washington that advocates for poor and minority children, as well as the board of the Education Commission of the States and numerous other organizations. Since 1992, he had served on the board of trustees of Editorial Projects in Education, the nonprofit corporation that publishes Education Week.

I don't believe there has been a more influential education advocate in recent Kentucky history.

Sexton is seen here with Harry Moberly, an influential legislator during the same period. Moberly was recognized by the Prichard Committee, on May 10th, as a "leading advocate for education and an expert on the state budget." It marked only the second time the organization had presented the award.

A Democrat from Richmond, Moberly was first elected to the state House in 1979. He was involved in the task force that developed the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 and has spearheaded efforts to improve the state's testing program, upgrade teaching quality, and promote school technology. He is a former chairman of the House Appropriations and Revenue Committee.

As Klein points out, Sexton was closely associated with KERA which was passed in response to the Rose Case where, in 1989, the Kentucky Supreme Court declare that the legislature had failed to meet its constitutional duty to create an "efficient school system. The court declared the entire system to be unconstitutional.

Sexton had been a professor of history at Murray State University, an administrator at the University of Kentucky and took on leadership of the Prichard Committee in 1983.

Sexton led the push for using student progress measures as a means of assessing school effectiveness, a model that caught on nationally.

KSBA's Brad Hughes told Klein that "Prichard was probably the linchpin for the start of the grassroots push that … led to KERA....[Sexton] was always out there [saying] that we are asking schools to do a tremendous amount to make tremendous changes, and the schools really had to have the resources...He was a tireless advocate, and some would say, a tireless agitator....When he had something to say, he didn’t wait for someone else to call him."

In fact, the night before his death Aug. 26, Mr. Sexton was on the phone with journalists, Mr. Hughes said, to talk about the next steps for state lawmakers in pushing ahead with a school improvement agenda after Kentucky fell short as a
finalist in its quest for up to $175 million in federal Race to the Top money. Mr. Sexton had scheduled those interviews himself, Mr. Hughes said.

Education Trust's Kati Haycock told Ed Week that Sexton's Prichard Committee served as a testament to the power of state-level activism. The Prichard Committee demonstrated how grassroots education advocacy utilizing "well-regarded citizens" at the local community level got the attention of legislators and created momentum for change.

Harry's Last Stand

Retiring State Representative Harry Moberly of Richmond has filed House Bill 7, a measure that could allow charter schools in Kentucky.

Moberly has long been a staunch advocate for providing better public schools in the state. (Or if you want a different slant, he got a semi-nice shout out from Andy Hightower at Kentucky Club for Growth.) Moberly's command of the state budgetary process and his support for KERA have distinguished him from journeyman legislators for thirty years. He was recently recognized by the Prichard Committee for his work.

House Bill 7 is very likely his last effort as a legislator.

Moberly told WHAS that he filed HB 7 at the request of Education Commissioner Terry Holliday who has said the addition of charter schools could give Kentucky the points it needs to do well in the next round of federal "Race To The Top" education grants.

Full implementation of Senate Bill 1 may well depend on securing federal dollars.

With a charter school law Kentucky stands to gain $175 million for the Commonwealth in the Obama administration's Race to the Top competition.

Governor Beshear says he'd consider amending his call if the 2 chambers could come to agreement on the bill Monday, in order to wrap up the special session in the allotted 5-day timeframe. He doesn't consider that likely, although he's in favor of the charter school idea.As it stands, the bill's been referred to a committee, but can't be given a first reading because it's not on the call, the specific agenda the Governor set for the session.

This from Brad Hughes at KSBA:

Charter school bill eliminates exemption option,

creates “district charter school” option

Bill not scheduled for special session action

- at this time

...Some of the new and/or different wrinkles in Moberly’s charter school bill compared to the Holliday proposal include:

Removing language that could have allowed Jefferson County Schools to opt out of considering charter schools. Jefferson County Schools Superintendent Sheldon Berman and some members of the Jefferson County school board have strongly opposed charter school legislation...

Creating the option of a “district charter school,” which would operate under the authority of the Kentucky Board of Education (KBE) and not by the locally elected school board. Some independent system superintendents have publicly expressed interest in the district charter option...

... mandating that all participating students must either live in the charter-granting district or are covered by a non-resident enrollment pact with their home district.

... HB 7 would make the state board the “final decision-making authority over situations in which KBE determines actions of the local board were contrary to the best interests of students…

... exempts charters from having to adhere to the requirements of Kentucky’s school council statute, KRS 160.345.

Requiring, rather than permiting, local school boards to create review panels to consider all charter school applications before the board considers the proposals.

Placing charter schools under the same Open Meetings and Open Records requirements that apply to Kentucky public schools.

This bill summary from the LRC:

HB 7 (BR 15) - H. Moberly Jr.

AN ACT relating to charter schools, making an appropriation therefor, and declaring an emergency. Create new sections of KRS Chapter 60 to authorize the formation of charter schools within local school districts that are public schools converted from existing public schools;

• the formation of district charter schools that are career academies, early, or middle colleges in cooperation with public postsecondary education institutions;
• authorize the formation of a public statewide virtual charter school;
• define terms;
• provide that local school boards are the only authorizers of charter school and that the Kentucky Board of Education is the authorizer of a statewide virtual charter school, and the commissioner of education may approve a district charter school based on state board administrative regulations;
• define the components that must be in an application for a charter or district charter school for initial approval and for renewal;
• provide that charters may be approved for 3 year, 4 year, or 5 year contracts;
• require annual financial audits and performance reviews based on the contract;
• permit a charter to be revoked at any time or non-renewed for certain reasons;
• require charter schools to serve only students that reside in the district and those eligible to attend school in the district based on local board nonresident student contracts;
• require teachers in a charter school to meet Education Professional Standards Board certification requirements;
• define the role of the Department of Education;
• provide flexibility to charter schools to request waiver of selected statutory provisions and administrative regulations;
• establish new sections of KRS Chapter 156 to require the state board to promulgate administrative regulations to implement charter schools;
• create a new section of KRS 157 to describe how funds shall be distributed to a charter school;
• create a new section of KRS 161 to provide that teachers in charter schools continue in Kentucky Teachers' Retirement and enable them to earn continuing service status under KRS 161.740;
• APPROPRIATIONS; EMERGENCY.

The big honkin' Text of House Bill 7

AN ACT relating to charter schools, making an appropriation therefor, and declaring an emergency.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Kentucky:

SECTION 1. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 160 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

(1) It is the intent of the General Assembly to ensure that all children have the opportunity to learn in schools that reflect high expectations and to encourage the use of different, high-quality models of teaching, governing, scheduling, or other aspects of schooling that meet a variety of students' needs, including at-risk students, and hereby authorizes the formation of charter schools to benefit students, parents, teachers, and to increase community involvement.

(2) Charter schools shall:

(a) Focus on closing achievement gaps between high-performing and low-performing groups of public school students by expanding learning experiences for students who are identified as academically low-achieving;

(b) Increase student learning through the implementation of high, rigorous standards for student performance;

(c) Provide parents and students with expanded choices in the types of education opportunities that are available within the public school system; and

(d) Be allowed freedom and flexibility in exchange for exceptional levels of results-driven accountability.

SECTION 2. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 160 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

As used in Sections 1 to 8 of this Act:

(1) "At-risk student" means a student who is academically unprepared and has inadequate preparation for the next educational level, especially the student affected by socioeconomic or cultural factors;

(2) "Charter school" means a conversion school, which is nonsectarian, nonreligious, non-home-based, tuition-free public school that operates within a local school district; or a statewide virtual public school established by the Kentucky Department of Education through collaboration with Kentucky Educational Television and local school districts and approved by the Kentucky Board of Education; or a career academy, early or middle college operated as a district charter school under a third party contract with a public postsecondary education institution and approved by the commissioner of education;

(3) "Conversion school" means any existing public school that, upon the favorable vote of seventy-five percent (75%) of the faculty at the school and seventy-five percent (75%) of the voting parents of students enrolled in the school, chooses to apply to the local board of education in which the school is located to become a charter school;

(4) "Governing body" means the body identified by a charter school in its contract with a local board or the state board as appropriate that has legal responsibility and authority over the charter school policies, operations, and administration;

(5) "Local board" means the local board of education of a school district;

(6) "Local school district" means a county or independent school district;

(7) "State board" means the Kentucky Board of Education;

(8) "Qualified administrator" means a person certified by the Education Professional Standards Board under KRS 161.027 and 161.028; and

(9) "Qualified teacher" means a person certified by the Education Professional Standards Board under KRS 161.028, 161.030, 161.046, and 161.048.

SECTION 3. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 160 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

(1) A charter school shall be a public school within the school district that grants its charter and shall be accountable to the school district's local board of education for purposes of ensuring compliance with applicable laws and charter provisions. A school cannot apply to, or be granted a charter by, a local board unless all of the school's students reside in the chartering school district or qualify to attend a school in the chartering school district school under a nonresident student agreement. A district charter school or a state virtual charter school shall be accountable to the state board of education.

(2) A charter school shall be subject to all federal and state laws and constitutional provisions prohibiting discrimination on the basis of disability, race, creed, color, gender, national origin, religion, ancestry, or need for special education services. Enrollment decisions shall be made in a nondiscriminatory manner as specified by the charter school applicant in the charter school application.

(3) A charter school shall be administered and governed by a governing body as specified by the charter school applicant and agreed to by the local board. A charter school may use a school-based decision making model within its governing structure, but it shall be exempt from the specific requirements of KRS 160.345, unless the contract includes those requirements.

(4) A charter school may organize as a nonprofit corporate entity organized under KRS Chapter 273 and exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

(5) A charter school for purposes of tax-exempt financing is a governmental entity. Direct leases and financial obligations of a charter school shall not constitute debt or financial obligations of the school district unless the school district specifically assumes such obligations.

(6) Based on the contract between the charter school and the local board, a charter school may not be subject to specific district policies and state administrative regulations, except a charter school shall not be exempt from annual financial and performance audits. Based on the contract, a local board may waive locally imposed school district requirements without seeking approval of the state board. The state board may waive state statutory requirements or administrative regulations promulgated by the state board, except those relating to curriculum, assessment, and accountability under KRS 158.6451, 158.6453, 158.6455, 158.6457, 158.6458, and 158.6459 and those specifically required in Sections 1 to 8 of this Act. Any waivers of statutory provisions or administrative regulations granted under this subsection shall be for the term of the charter, except the state board shall review any waivers granted every two (2) years and may revoke any waiver it deems no longer necessary.

(7) A charter school shall not charge tuition, except a charter school may charge fees as may be allowed by other schools within the school district in which it is located.

(8) A charter school shall be responsible for its own operation, including but not limited to preparation of a budget, contracting for services, and personnel matters.

(9) (a) A charter school may negotiate and contract with a school district or the governing board of a state public postsecondary education institution for the use of a school building and grounds, the operation and maintenance of the facility and grounds, and the provision of any service or activity that the charter school needs in order to offer the educational program described in its charter.

(b) A charter school shall not be required to pay rent for space which is deemed available, as negotiated by contract, in school district facilities. All other costs for the operation and maintenance of the facilities used by the charter school shall be subject to negotiation between the charter school and the local board.

(c) Any service that a local board provides to a charter school under its contract shall be provided at the district's cost.

(d) The charter shall have standing to sue and be sued in its own name for the enforcement of any contract entered into under this subsection.

(10) A charter school shall adhere to the same open meetings and open records, health, safety, and facility requirements as other public schools. Charter schools that are located in a school district's facilities shall be included in the district's local facility plan.

(11) A charter school's results on state assessments shall be included and reported in the chartering district's assessment results.

(12) No local school district shall be required to obligate local funds for the operation of a statewide virtual charter school.

SECTION 4. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 160 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

(1) An approved charter school application shall serve as the basis for a contract between the charter school and the local board of education. A revision of the terms of the contract may be made only with the approval of the local board and the governing body of the charter school.

(2) The charter school application shall be a proposed agreement and shall include:

(a) A mission statement for the charter school and a description of the educational program that it plans to implement;

(b) A description of the charter school's educational program, curriculum, and student achievement performance standards for the school's educational program. The educational programs shall meet or exceed the student performance standards adopted by the state board;

(c) A description of the methods for evaluating whether students have attained the skills and knowledge specified for its performance standards, the timeline for achievement of the standards, and the procedures for taking corrective action in the event that student performance at the charter school does not meet the standards;

(d) A description of the governance and operation of the charter school, including how parents, professional educators, and community members will be involved in the governance and operation of the school;

(e) Evidence that the plan for the charter school is economically sound for both the charter school and the school district, a proposed budget for the term of the charter, a description of how an annual audit of the financial and administrative operations of the charter school, including any services provided by the school district, is to be conducted;

(f) The employment policies and procedures of the school, including the employment of qualified teachers and administrators in compliance with KRS Chapter 161 and any locally bargained contract in effect;

(g) If appropriate, a plan for the displacement of students, teachers, and other employees who will not attend or be employed in a conversion school;

(h) A description of the charter school's enrollment policy;

(i) The rules and procedures by which students may be disciplined, including but not limited to expulsion or suspension from the school, which shall be consistent with the requirements of due process and with federal laws and regulations governing the placement of students with disabilities;

(j) A description of how the school plans to meet students' transportation needs;

(k) A description of the student ages and grade levels to be served by the school;

(l) The school calendar and school day schedule, which shall total at least the number of days, or their equivalent as provided under KRS 158.070, or as otherwise directed by the General Assembly;

(m) Types and amounts of insurance coverage to be obtained by the school, which shall include adequate insurance for liability, property loss, errors and omissions, and the personal injury of students in compliance with administrative regulations promulgated by the state board;

(n) The term of the charter, which shall be three (3), four (4), or five (5) years;

(o) A description of the health and food services to be provided to students attending the school;

(p) Methods and strategies for serving students with disabilities in compliance with all federal laws and regulations relating thereto;

(q) Procedures to be followed in the case of the closure or dissolution of the school, including provisions for the transfer of students and student records to the local school district in which the charter school is located or to another charter school located within the local school district as determined appropriate by the local board; and

(r) All requests for release of the charter school from specific state statutory and regulatory provisions.

(3) No person, group, or organization may submit an application to convert a private school or a nonpublic home-based education program into a charter school or to create a charter school which is a nonpublic home-based educational program.

(4) The following shall apply to the process for the submission and review of a charter school application:

(a) An applicant shall assure the local board that the charter school's students will reside in the chartering school district or qualify for attendance under a nonresidential student agreement with the chartering district;

(b) Applications shall be filed with the local board of education by October 1 to be eligible for consideration for the following school year;

(c) The local board of education shall review all applications and, if the board finds the charter school application is incomplete, the board shall request the necessary information from the charter applicant. The board shall appoint a district review committee to analyze the application before the board considers it for action. A district review committee may be composed of persons with a demonstrated knowledge of innovative educational practices, including charter schools, who may reside inside or outside the district; parents or legal guardians of students that reside in the school district; teachers and administrators; and community leaders;

(d) After giving reasonable public notice, the local board shall hold at least one (1) public meeting to obtain information to assist the board in making its decision to approve a charter school application. The local board of education shall take action on the application in a regularly scheduled meeting of the board within seventy-five (75) days after receiving the application filed under this section. All negotiations between the charter school and the local board on the contract shall be concluded by, and all terms of the contract agreed upon, no later than ninety (90) days after the local board of education rules on the application for a charter school unless the parties mutually agree to waive this deadline;

(e) If a local board denies a charter school application, it shall give its reasons for the denial to the applicant in writing. If a local board grants a charter, it shall send a copy of the approved charter to the Kentucky Department of Education within fifteen (15) days of granting the charter; and

(f) If a local board denies a charter school application or unilaterally imposes conditions for approval that are unacceptable to the charter applicant, the applicant may appeal the decision to the state board.

(5) The following shall apply to the initial approval and renewal of charter schools:

(a) A new charter school may be approved for a period of three (3), four (4), or five (5) years;

(b) Each renewal of a charter may be for a period not to exceed five (5) years with no limit on the number of renewals;

(c) A charter school renewal application shall be submitted to the local board and contain:

1. A report on the progress of the charter school in achieving the goals, objectives, student performance standards, content standards, and other terms of the initial approved charter application;

2. A financial statement that discloses the costs of administration, instruction, and other spending categories for the charter school that is transparent to the general public and that will allow comparison of such costs to other schools or other comparable organizations, in a format required by the state board; and

3. Requested changes to terms in the initial contract.

(6) A charter may be revoked at any time or not renewed by the local board if the board determines that the charter school did any of the following:

(a) Committed a material violation of any of the conditions, standards, or procedures set forth in the charter contract;

(b) Failed to meet or make reasonable progress toward achievement of the content standards or student performance standards identified in the charter contract;

(c) Failed to meet generally accepted standards of fiscal management; or

(d) Violated any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically exempted.

(7) A local board may choose not to renew a charter if it determines that it is not in the interest of students residing within the school district to continue the operation of the charter school.

(8) A charter school that has its contract revoked or not renewed by a local board may appeal to the state board according to the procedures established by the state board under Section 6 of this Act.

SECTION 5. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 156 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

(1) Notwithstanding any other statute to the contrary, the commissioner of education may
approve a district charter for a career academy or middle or early college that is established by a local board and a public postsecondary education institution for purposes of granting high school and college credit and which allows students to fulfill high school graduation requirements and compulsory school attendance; providing rigorous academic curriculum within a supportive and nurturing environment for underserved students; and encouraging academic success by linking students, teachers, and community partners in innovative ways.


(2) The state board shall promulgate administrative regulations that:

(a) Define a career academy, middle college, and early college;

(b) Specify the required elements of the district application that mirror those items deemed appropriate by the state board that are application requirements for charter schools in Section 4 of this Act;

(c) Specify the annual reporting, auditing, and accountability requirements;
(d) Specify the procedures for approvals of contract amendments between the local district and the postsecondary education institutions;
(e) Specify the procedures for renewals of district charters; and
(f) Identify any other specifications needed for implementing district charter schools.
âSECTION 6. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 156 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

(1) The Kentucky Board of Education shall promulgate administrative regulations to implement the establishment of charter schools under Sections 1 to 8 of this Act including:

(a) Procedures for resolutions of disputes between a charter school and a local board of education arising with regard to governing policy provisions of a charter school's charter contract;

(b) Procedures for appeal concerning the denial of a charter school application, the nonrenewal or revocation of a charter school's charter, or the unilateral imposition of conditions on a charter applicant;

(c) Evaluation and reporting requirements from local districts to the state board;

(d) Policy areas which may be considered by the state board for waivers from its administrative regulations or for waiver of statutory provisions; and

(e) Any other provisions necessary to implement charter schools within the state pursuant to Sections 1 to 8 of this Act.

(2) Appeals to the state board shall be reviewed based on the procedures established in administrative regulation under subsection (1) of this section; however, the state board shall have the final decision-making authority over situations in which the state board determines that the actions of the local board were contrary to the best interests of the students, school district, and the community and shall direct the local board in what actions to take.
âSECTION 7. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 161 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

(1) (a) Teachers and employees in a charter school shall participate in the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System and the Kentucky Employees Retirement System. The charter school shall remit to the retirement systems the employer contributions required by law for participating employers. Teachers and other certified personnel shall make the employee contributions to the Kentucky Teachers' Retirement System under KRS 161.540 and 161.560. Classified employees shall make the employee contributions to the Kentucky Employees Retirement System under KRS 61.543.

(b) Every charter school employee shall be provided the health and life insurance and other benefit programs extended to other school employees by the local board of education, unless the employee waives participation.

(c) A person who is employed in a charter school shall accrue service credit in the same manner as other school employees in the local district.

(2) All teachers employed in a charter school are eligible to receive continuing service status under KRS 161.740.
âSECTION 8. A NEW SECTION OF KRS CHAPTER 157 IS CREATED TO READ AS FOLLOWS:

(1) The local board shall pay the charter school any federal or state aid attributable to an exceptional student as defined in KRS 157.200 attending the charter school, in proportion to the level of services for the student that the charter school provides directly or indirectly.

(2) State, local, and school district funds shall be distributed to a charter school by using the same formulas and allocation processes as are used to distribute funds to any other school in the district. State and local funding shall be distributed monthly by the local board to the charter school beginning July 1 following the approval of the charter school's application. The local board shall continue to disburse funds to the charter school for the duration of its contract and for the duration of any subsequent renewals.

(3) During the years of the charter school's operation, as received and to the extent allowed by federal law, a local board shall distribute federal funds to the charter school on the basis of the number of special characteristics of the students attending the charter school.

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, the proportionate share of state and federal resources generated by exceptional students attending a charter school and funds generated under other federal or state categorical aid programs by students attending a charter school or staff serving them shall be directed to the local board of education for distribution to the charter school serving students eligible for aid under state and federal law.

(5) A charter school shall be eligible for federal and state competitive grants and shall not be excluded from opportunity to participate as long as the available grants align with the grade levels included in the charter school and the other criteria established for the respective grants.

(6) All awards, grants, or gifts received by a charter school shall be retained by the charter school.

(7) (a) The governing body of a charter school may accept gifts, donations, or grants of any kind made to the school and expend or use the gifts, donations, or grants in accordance with the conditions prescribed by the donor.

(b) A gift or donation shall not be required for admission to the charter school.

(c) A gift, donation, or grant shall not be accepted by the governing body if subject to a condition that is contrary to law or contrary to the terms of the contract between the charter school and local board.

(d) All gifts, donations, or grants shall be reported to the local school district in the charter school's annual audit report.

Section 9. Whereas it is necessary for the state board to promulgate administrative regulations in a timely manner in order to permit the implementation of a charter school option, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Act takes effect upon its passage and approval by the Governor or upon its otherwise becoming a law.

Moberley Tries to Resuscitate Charters

Now that the elections are over it will apparently only take the House and Senate the minumum amount of time necessary to agree to a state budget.

But this is not news.

The surprise is a bill filed by Harry Moberly Monday intended to breathe life back into the dead charter school issue - thus providing Education Commissioner Terry Holliday the resoucres he needs to accomplish the provisions of Senate Bill 1.

This from the Herald-Leader:

Also filed Monday was a measure that would allow charter schools in Kentucky on a limited basis. Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, filed the bill even though Beshear did not put charter schools on the agenda for the special session. Only the governor can call a special session and set its agenda.

Moberly said he filed the bill because the state was at risk of losing millions of dollars in federal funding from the competitive "Race to the Top" program. Still, House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, said there is not enough time in a five-day session to thoroughly vet the issue of charter schools.

Beshear, at a press conference later Monday, said he would not amend the call of the special legislative session unless there was an agreement between the House and Senate on charter schools. Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville, said Monday afternoon the Senate had long supported charter schools but he had not seen Moberly's bill.

Photo: Moberly chats with Gene Wilhoit at a recent Prichard Committee Meeting. Also in the snap, former KBE Chair Joe Brothers (who Billy Harper still refers to as Mr Chairman) and Pam Sexton.

Commish Pays a Visit - 203 Rocks

Well boys and girls, it's been a very busy week - and that has made it hard to blog.

One of the gifts one receives when achieving a tenure-track position is a bunch of advisees. Whatever time scholarship fails to consume gets sucked up very effectively by the advising process.

But it's been a good week nonetheless.

First there was the Dean's Night of Excellence, pulled together by my teammate June Hyndman. She ran a hundred or so students through mock interviews and sessions on various topics.

I did a session on "Teachers Behaving Badly: What not to do." We looked at the Nicole Howell case as a cautionary tale, highlighting selected aspects of the teacher's contract, ethics, and how some teachers run afoul of the law. The workshop provided tips for avoiding trouble - mostly, living a balanced life and being in control of oneself.

Other topics:

Roger Cleveland on cultural discontinuity -"Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"
Samuel Hinton on Perceptions of the new China
Ginni Fair on life in the middle schools - "Meet Me in the Middle"
Sherwood Thompson on education in India - "Two Democracies, Two World Views"
Peggy Petrilli on what principals are looking for - "One Principal's Perspective"
Diana Porter on the secrets of honor students - "Don't Survive, Thrive"
Kristina Krampe on the Student Council for Exceptional Children - "What SCEC can do for You"

Then, there was "Rose at 20," a wonderful evening. As soon as I can figure out how to convert .msv files to mp3 I will post the speeches from that event. Until then, check out Justin's stuff and Susan's posting of Debra Dawahare's comment on Bert Combs.

On Wednesday, Education Commissioner Terry Holliday was our guest here at EKU. We had a great day full of tours, meetings, a luncheon, and the commish spoke to my EDF 203 students. State BOE member, and our department chair, Dorie Combs, played hostess throughout the day navigating Holliday to confabs with President Doug Whitlock, Interim Provost, and former state BOE member, Janna Vice, Ed Dean Bill Phillips. Did I forget to mention Rep Harry Moberly?

Special thanks to my 203 students for their excellent questions of the Commissioner. The students got the attention of President Whitlock, Drs Combs and Phillips, and even drew a congratulatory tweet from Commissioner Holliday:

"Great visit today with staff at EKU. Very impressed with students in Richard Day's class and questions they asked in session on tchr effctns"

Thanks 203. Y'all rock.

CATS Reaction Across the State

Senate Bill 1 could be signed into law today as across the state folks are coming to grips with what all this means.

"I believe there are several positive elements that could represent an important step forward in our ongoing efforts to reform primary and secondary education. Most significantly, this legislation will create a new system for statewide accountability and assessment that will, for the first time, measure individual student progress over an extended period of time. That is critically important,” Beshear said in a statement.

Politically, some wonder anew if House Speaker Greg Stumbo's rookies should be faulted for the surprise abandonment of accountability over the next three years. Was this a phantom provision, dropped into the free conference report at the last minute? If so, how, and by whom? Or was it a provision that all conferees agreed to with eyes wide open?

"It's an outstanding bill that will make great improvements and will honor the input that we've received from our educators," Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond [told the Herald-Leader].

Republican Sen. Dan Kelly of Springfield, a longtime proponent of changing Kentucky's assessment tools, said the bill would strengthen Kentucky's education system, not weaken it. "This is not the death of reform," Kelly said.

By all accounts, there was a great deal of input from teachers who had had enough....of something. Some clearly reacted to the amount of time they were being "asked" to commit to assessment at the expense of instruction. After all, you don't fatten a calf by weighing it. Some claimed that district personnel and principals had pushed teachers to the edge of some ethical cliff, and they pushed back.

Kelly's assurance that this does not mark the death of education reform in Kentucky is a welcome acknowledgement for those of us who believe a strong system of public schools is essential to our ability to compete as a state. But not all conservatives are buying it. Over at vere loqui, Martin Cothran declared that with the removal of the testing system KERA is officially dead and asked,

Will the last person out of Kentucky's Education Reform Headquarters please turn off the lights?

At KentuckyProgress, David Adams noted "the end of a disastrous episode in education 'reform'" and "got a kick out of "the Courier Journal referring to Bluegrass Institute as merely a "right-wing think-tank" (when everybody knows they are so much more). He thanked the Herald Leader for the "big laugh and free mention" when they referred to "conservative enemies" which Adams correctly assumed meant BIPPS, even though H-L didn't say.

None of the conservative groups came right out and said that Kelly was wrong. But they apparently believe he was.

The Herald-Leader lamented that as "lawmakers were dismantling Kentucky's school-accountability system last week, researchers were holding it up as a national model" citing Kentucky as one of five states that stand out for increasing high-school graduation rates while reducing schools that are "dropout factories." "It's impossible to not credit the Kentucky Education Reform Act for improvements in graduation rates," the H-L wrote.

Secretary of State Trey Grayson issued a statement voicing his dismay over the reduction of emphasis on social studies.

“By suspending the state accountability index and following the federal accountability requirements, we run the risk of marginalizing civics education,” he said in the statement. “With no accountability system in place for social studies, schools will naturally place a greater focus on those subjects that are part of accountability standards of No Child Left Behind.”

It now falls to the Kentucky Board of Education to guide KDE's response to Senate Bill 1. They start chatting on April 1st.

In the interim, some school districts, like Fayette County, are going to "make public its own 'academic index' based on this spring's testing, whether the state publishes a performance index or not." State education department spokeswoman Lisa Gross told the Herald-Leader the interim provisions in SB 1 might lead to widespread confusion until the new assessment system starts. Wayne Young, executive director of the Kentucky Association of School Administrators told H-L, "Some districts are going to go ahead and finish their portfolios. But you could get a bit of everything. There's no pattern that I would describe."

This morning outgoing President of the Council for Better Education Roger Marcum told state education leaders in an email message that Kentucky "chose the path of least resistance and the high risk of lower expectations for the immediate future."

His opinion echoed that of Prichard Committee head Bob Sexton who wrote an open letter posted on the Prichard blog,

It was decided that, for the next three years starting this spring, Kentucky schools should have no accountability except for student test scores on math and reading as required by No Child Left Behind. This means that the results of testing for writing (portfolios included) science, history, geography, economics, civics (i.e., social studies) and the arts won't be counted. The Kentucky Department of Education is also prohibited from publishing an overall school improvement score (accountability index) so schools won't know whether they are better or worse than the previous year - and neither will parents or other taxpayers.

Sexton quoted KEA President Sharron Oxendine as saying, "we should 'just give everybody a breather' from most accountability until we have a new system in three years."

The problems with that, according to Sexton include:

1. For the next three years schools won't have a way of telling parents and other taxpayers how they're progressing with student learning except in math and reading required by NCLB.
2. A likely result will be to de-emphasize writing, science, social studies (history, economics, geography, civics) and the arts.
3. Strong accountability ... and making the case for adequate or superior school funding are joined at the hip.

This last point has some serious legal implications for schools. Kentucky's constitution requires the General Assembly to provide an efficient system of common schools throughout the commonwealth. The Supreme Court has ruled that that means schools must be adequately funded to reach their goals. The absence of state accountability makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for a court to determine whether the General Assembly has fulfilled its obligation. How is a court to determine whether the system is sufficiently funded to reach its goals if the state has no justiciable standards by which the court might measure the efficiency of the system?

Stumbo Sends Rookies to Conference on CATS

This from Stephanie Seitzer at C-J:

Freshmen legislators thrown into the belly of the beast

House Speaker Greg Stumbo appointed four freshmen legislators to the conference committee on Senate Bill 1, the measure to reform the CATS test.

Those freshmen will be up against Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville, Majority Floor Leader Dan Kelly, R-Springfield, and Minority Floor Leader Ed Worley, D-Richmond.

The freshmen are Reps. Kelly Flood, D-Lexington, Linda Belcher, D-Shepherdsville, Kent Stevens, D-Lawrenceburg, and John "Bam" Carney, D-Lawrenceburg.

Of course, longtime legislative heavyweight Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, and House Education Chairman Rep. Carl Rollins, D-Midway, will be accompanying the freshmen...

Ding Dong...

This from Ronie Ellis in the News and Tribune:

House passes bill to replace CATS test

Differences with Senate version

must be ironed out before final passage

FRANKFORT — The widely detested CATS school accountability test isn’t officially dead just yet – but it’s close.

The state House on Wednesday approved legislation to narrow the focus of the test, allow teachers to concentrate on fewer standards and students to gain a deeper understanding of those standards, according to Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond. The test will cost less, take less time, and match up with Kentucky college and university expectations for incoming freshmen.

It removes writing portfolios from the accountability index, although they will continue as an instructional tool. Some open response questions will be retained, although fewer than in the CATS test. And it must be administered during the last two weeks of the school year.

The bill is largely the product of negotiations between the House and Senate over differences between the two chambers’ approaches to school testing. On Wednesday the House education committee inserted into Senate Bill 1 language reflecting those negotiations, although committee Chairman Carl Rollins, D-Midway, said there are a few differences still to be worked out.“

Basically, this is what we proposed,” said Sharron Oxendine, president of the Kentucky Education Association. “You can hear teachers cheering all over the state. They know it’s going to be a better day for instruction.” ...

Amended HB 508 Clears House Education Committee

This from Jim Warren at the Herald-Leader:

House Committee adopts student testing bill

FRANKFORT — A bill that would replace Kentucky's student testing system but retain some of its key principles sailed out of the House Education Committee on a unanimous vote late Tuesday.

House Bill 508 not only would create a new testing system, starting in the 2011-2012 school year, but calls for creation of new curriculum standards that would be used for the test...

...[The bill's lead sponsor, Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond] said after Tuesday's vote that the House Education Committee probably will place the "substance" of HB 508 in the Senate's testing bill as a committee substitute later this week.

The Senate measure, Senate Bill 1, also would abolish CATS. But it seeks to replace open-response questions with more multiple-choice exams that its backers say would save time and money. SB 1 already has passed the Senate.

If an amended version of SB 1 clears the House, a committee of lawmakers from both chambers would probably negotiate a compromise bill later this month...

...the House committee approved several technical changes to HB 508, plus a longer amendment offered by state Rep. Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, aimed at strengthening writing.

HB 508 would retain writing portfolios for instruction purposes but take them out of the state accountability assessment program. Richards said he feared that could lead to writing being de-emphasized. His amendment calls for various changes to help improve how writing is taught...

C-J Chooses the Lesser of Two Evils

This from the Courier-Journal:

Better, not good

If the General Assembly is determined to steamroll ahead with a major change in education policy, even though there's too little time left to do the job right, House Bill 508 is the better vehicle to use.

A comparison and contrast by a Prichard Committee expert suggests ... the bill pushed by Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, is preferable to Senate Bill 1, which is covered with the handprints of those who long have opposed the historic Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990...

...The Moberly bill tries to ensure that higher education experts are involved in setting standards to promote college readiness, and that teacher training programs are producing graduates who can meet high standards. But there's no real assurance these things will materialize.

There's also no assurance that funding will be available to turn all the rosy rhetoric into real educational progress.

Most important, there's no way to be sure this bill avoids the withering erosion to which KERA has been subjected over the years.

But it's by far the better of the two alternatives at hand.

C-J points to HB 508's

• systematic and inclusive approach to the content
• that it allows enough time to revise current standards
• mandates the use of testing that gets at problem-solving and communication skills
• emphasizes so-called "criterion-referenced" testing
• offers some attention to writing portfolios
• promises a "review" of programs in arts and humanities, and in practical living and vocational studies
• Opens the way to adopting end-of-course exams

C-J finds the removal of writing portfolios from the accountability system in both HB 508 and SB 1 tragic, "most likely eliminating any effective classroom emphasis on them," and they seem to share my skepticism of the program review.

They also object to "using the old-fashioned and unsophisticated multiple-choice-only approach" utilizing "norm-referenced testing," which narrows accountability and "places the student in relationship to other test-takers."

CJ Smacks ...Everyone over Assessment Reform

This from C-J:

...Here are some facts:

It does not take a good teacher excessive time to prepare for CATS tests, as critics like to claim.

It would be wrong to drastically narrow the testing, since that inevitably would narrow the teaching that precedes it.

It would be astonishingly stupid to remove writing portfolios from the accountability system, because that certainly would end serious classroom work on this profoundly important capstone skill, which is essential not just for admission to college these days but also to success in the information age workforce.

It would be equally absurd to remove open-response test questions, since they get at the very deep learning and critical thinking that education reform was supposed to foster.

It's deceitful to condemn the legitimate coaching of student writers as "suspect" and to mistake the product of student rewrites as "inauthentic."

It would be educational malfesance to replace CATS with a jury-rigged combination of some off-the-shelf nationally normed test and a few extra questions that make passing efforts to address Kentucky curriculum -- especially since those nationally normed tests are designed to categorize a substantial percentage of those who take them as failures.

Throwing open the entire state curriculum to a revision of standards would, in the current environment, certainly produce a dumbing down of what Kentucky expects its kids to learn...

... there are deep, important differences separating what educators, politicians and competing advocates believe should be done.

To run a political bulldozer over CATS in the few days remaining to this General Assembly session would be a travesty.

Incredibly, almost nobody is standing up to object. All the interested parties cower at the roadside, frightened of retribution from Mr. Williams, Mr. Kelly and the regressive caucus that keeps them in control of events at the Capitol.

Conservative enemies of public education sit in the cramped turrets of their think tanks and cheer.

Perhaps the most pathetic claim is Mr. Moberly's -- that his House bill will successfully set and enforce "world-class benchmarks" and "preserve the principles of reform," serving not only to place Kentucky students' achievement in a national context but also to supply prescriptive information for individual students and to test the acquisition of state-established curriculum. ...No testing system can claim to do all three...

Perhaps the greatest disappointment is a lack of leadership from Gov. Steve Beshear, who has contented himself with a muted call for a thorough review ... whining, "The Republicans won't let me do anything." ...

Lawmakers may be close on testing

This from Ronnie Ellis in the Glasgow Daily Times:

Work on accountability compromise

The state’s public schools accountability testing system, CATS, may have run out of lives as key lawmakers appear close to a compromise on its replacement.

The Republican controlled Senate has passed Senate Bill 1, which would replace the time consuming, controversial testing system with a simpler, less expensive multiple choice test. But they’ve done that in past sessions only to see it go nowhere in the Democratic controlled House. But the landscape has changed in the House with the selection of Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, as Speaker, and he’s been more willing to discuss changes to the testing system.

Senate Majority Floor Leader Dan Kelly, R-Springfield, said there’s “been a sea change in attitudes about the need to make adjustments in the test.”

Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, concedes it’s time to adjust the test, but he doesn’t want to rely solely on a multiple choice test – especially what is known as a norm-referenced test. Such tests compare student performance to that of students from across the country – as opposed to criterion or standards based tests, which measure how much a student knows against established standards of knowledge.

Sharron Oxendine, president of the Kentucky Education Association, said many teachers prefer a multiple choice, “norm-reference” test, but KEA wants to retain a standards based component to any new test.

She said norm reference tests are fine for comparison purposes but they don’t help with assessment because they don’t measure what students specifically know. And such tests, she pointed out, are designed so that half of all students score at the 50th percentile or below. So schools can never place most of their students at the proficiency level on such tests...

Both the right and the left have taken shots at former Commissioner Jon Draud for either too much or not enough of something or other. OK, there was the car thing. But his Task Force on Assessment that was said, by some, to have produced no good, seems to have produced some good. No matter how one views the testing situation, perhaps we should ask ourselves; Until recently, when is the last time we heard cooperation like this out of Frankfort?

Kelly said universities are “reaching out and starting a dialogue with school districts,” helping them prepare their students for college level work.

Nearly everyone said discussions between Senate leaders, including Kelly and Sen. Ken Winters, R-Murray, who sponsored SB 1, and House members over their differences are going well.

Rep. Carl Rollins, D-Midway, chairs the House Education Committee. He said Thursday, “We’re real close to an agreement. I’m very optimistic.”

Included in discussions about how to re-craft the state’s testing system have been school board members, superintendents and Oxendine and KEA. Rollins said for the most part, all the parties “are pretty much on the same page.”

Review KERA, but don't throw it out

This from the Messenger-Inquirer (subscription):

The drive to review the Kentucky Education Reform Act is picking up steam since Gov. Steve Beshear called for a "thorough review" of KERA during his State of the State speech in Frankfort last week.

House Speaker Greg Stumbo called KERA a 20-year plan, and now is the time to see what changes should be made or new initiatives begun.Rep. Brent Yonts, a Greenville Democrat, said the CATS testing program is directing teaching and leaving many students unprepared when leaving school. He said it is hated in this area.

Even Rep. Harry Moberly, the Richmond Democrat who has championed KERA in Kentucky since its inception, agreed that a consensus has formed to take a "fresh look" at KERA, although he said he is hoping reform principles are not abandoned.

And Sen. Tim Shaughnessy, a Louisville Democrat who has resisted frequent Senate attempts to alter or eliminate the CATS tests, now says CATS needs to sunset because it has run it course.

This newspaper has been a staunch support of KERA and the CATS tests. KERA is all about setting high expectations for learning for all students, rigorous accountability and adequate and equitable funding. A year ago, when Senate Bill 1 sought to deep-six CATS in favor of fill-in-the-circle, machine graded standardized tests, we argued that answering a series of multiple-choice questions was far less revealing about a student's knowledge and reasoning ability compared to requiring that student to write an answer.

Moreover, we stressed that learning to be good writers would be wonderfully advantageous for students throughout their lives. We haven't changed our minds about the standards and accountability aspects of education reform.

As for this new push to review KERA, we don't object, but like Moberly we sincerely hope it doesn't turn into a drive to scrap a movement that has moved Kentucky elementary and secondary education farther in two decades than anything before it.

And we definitely do not want reform of reform to derail or make irrelevant the 2014 goals that schools and school districts are pursuing to score 100 on the 140-point CATS tests.

Many schools are already at the proficient level of 100, and many others are closing in. If the main tenants of KERA, including the CATS test, are tossed aside, the efforts of tens of thousands of students and teachers are suddenly not as meaningful.

KERA isn't perfect. It wasn't the day it began in 1990. It has been reviewed and tweaked many times. Whatever is done now should be done without haste and with great care to protect what is good about education reform in Kentucky and with an eye toward making it better.For a poor state like Kentucky, its only real hope rests with a better-educated work force and more dynamic leaders exiting its colleges, universities and technical schools.

Twenty years ago, Kentucky made a bargain with itself to rise from the near-bottom of national education rankings. That has been accomplished, but much more must be done.

Kentucky needs to ask itself if it is still interested in providing its young citizens the best, most rigorous education available.If the answer is yes, then the seemingly irresistible urge to review KERA upon its 20th birthday will be done in an evenhanded way, with the only goal being to improve it.

Now that D's and R's are Talking, Let's Slow Down and Redo Assessment Right

Since Governor Steve Beshear has signalled Republicans that KERA is on the table for discussion - and that sentiment has been echoed by no less than Harry Moberley, who single-handedly killed Senate Bill 1 the last time around - it's no longer reasonable for KERA fans to assume that education reform in Kentucky will remain the same after the current legislative session. It's probably a good idea to think seriously about what those changes might bring.

It is also important to look at the interaction of several simultaneous efforts. For example, everyone is focused on budget cutting and further reductions to KDE are in the cross hairs of some legislators. At the same time SB 1 intends to replace assessment in several areas with "program evaluations."

Now, the last time I talked to Elaine Farris about her already decimated KDE staff, I think she indicated the curriculum department was down to one or two language arts consultants. Further reductions to KDE could leave ...what? ... none? Nobody in their right mind expects a program evaluation to have the same motivating power as an assessment. The department's ability to drive the program evaluation at the local level is something close to zero. So it will fall to each district to police themselves.

Sweet.

If SB 1's intention is to take the pressure off schools to perform for all students, it's on the right track. But, I think we can predict weaker student performance as a result.

Here are some random musings on the new, but not necessarily improved, Senate Bill 1. Each bullet is a proposed change followed by my questions or comments.

• "add an expectation relating to performing arts" OK. Fine. Objectives that help students become better public speakers would be particularly welcome. But apparently these objectives won't be assessed, so principals across Kentucky will know that any efforts to meet the requirement will only have to be superficial to pass muster.


• "restate the purposes and components of a balanced assessment program including both formative and summative assessments" This could be good. In fact, if the original KERA deliberations had been given time to build an accountability system properly, it would have started with curriculum standards; formative assessment; adjusted instruction; summative assessment; and the accountability system on top of that. Instead it was implemented in a top-down fashion, which contributed to its unpopularity.


• "eliminate the open-response questions requirement" This is a wrong idea. Proponents of SB 1 have elevated legitimate concerns over reliability to heights that may ultimately hurt students. Students must be strongly encouraged to think and write. Open response items, however imperfect, require higher-order thinking on the part of students. Any retreat from that goal is problematic.


• "require writing portfolios be maintained for each student in grade 5 to 12 but eliminate from the state assessment" Neutering the writing portfolios will cripple writing instruction in many places. Whatever remains in the assessment will draw the focus of teachers and principals.


• "limit rewrites of the writing portfolio" I don't even know what this means? Limit rewrites? What constitutes a rewrite? And who's going to monitor this...and how? If a student corrects a capitalization error, is that a rewrite? What if she changes two words? ...or a paragraph?


• "require an on-demand assessment of student writing one time within the elementary, middle, and high school grades, respectively" More of less.


• "require writing assessments consisting of multiple-choice items emphasizing mechanics and editing one time within the elementary, middle, and high school, respectively" Arguably the dumbest part of the bill; SB 1 seeks to test student writing without the students actually having to write. A more reliable but less valid test is not progress.


• "require each school council to develop policies relating to the school's writing program" So what?


• "eliminate practical living and vocational studies from the assessment program but require a program evaluation of practical living and career studies annually" Death to that part of the curriculum. The program evaluation is a waste of time and money.


• "eliminate arts and humanities student testing from the assessment program but require a program evaluation of arts and humanities annually" See above.


• "require that accelerated learning be provided any student whose scores on any of the assessments indicate skill deficiencies" and "require each school to devise an accelerated learning plan" As if teachers are not already tearing their hair out trying to get some students up to proficiency.


• "require individual reports to parents on the achievement of their children compared to school, state, and national results" This is the heart of SB 1. The most difficult part of KERA for many parents was its refocusing of student assessment from individual performance to school performance. There was a good reason to do it, but it was never well-accepted by many parents. Parents want to know how their children's performance stacks up against other kids the same age. Better, is to keep standards high while building a value-added system that includes as much data as we have; but which resists the temptation to use that data inappropriately and punitively against teachers.


• "limit state core content testing to the last seven days of a local district's school calendar and limit number of days of testing to no more than five during that period" Limiting the time required for formal assessment may be a good idea. You don't fatten a calf by weighing it. But if I had a magic wand, Kentucky would conduct three days of normative test in the fall of the year and keep a week of state assessment in the spring.


• "provide that a local board of education may adopt the use of commercial assessments for making formative judgments" Sure.


• "require the Kentucky Department of Education to assist districts in selection of commercial products that address Kentucky core content" Sure, if KDE has any assessment folks left after budget cuts.


• "require the Kentucky Board of Education to recommend at least three companies or products to the state board for approval" OK.


• "require the School Curriculum, Assessment, and Accountability Council to provide recommendations relating to the identification of academic skills and deficiencies of individual students" OK.


• "modify language relating to successful school and delete references to rewards" Rewards, like other free-market ideas have lost their luster.


• "modify title of the assessment and accountability system, by adding reference to "academic achievement" CATS is seen as a bad brand, so fine, rename it.


• "change the high school readiness exam from grade 8 to grade 9" If there's a reason to support or oppose this, I don't know what it is.


• "change dates for reporting student data to each school council and change dates for actions by school councils" OK.

So what does all of this mean? It means that when Bob Sexton says, "It's more important to do it right than to do it fast," he's not just dragging his feet - he's right. Changes to KERA need to be considered holistically, carefully and without inviting unanticipated consequences due to a rush to "do something."

KERA reform gains momentum

This from H-L:

FRANKFORT — A major revision of the 1990 Kentucky Education Reform Act that could overhaul both curriculum standards and student testing is gaining bipartisan momentum, key lawmakers say.

"I think there is consensus that we should take a fresh look," said Rep. Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, a staunch supporter of the KERA reforms. "But I'm hoping we can make sure we don't abandon any of our reform principles."

Senate Republicans have offered several pieces of legislation addressing both the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System — the state's main assessment of school performance — and curriculum.

On Tuesday the Senate unanimously approved a measure that directs the Kentucky Department of Education to make mathematics standards more rigorous. And Thursday, legislation that would drastically revamp the CATS test had its first vetting of 2009 in a committee.

Instead of being met with fervent opposition from certain Democrats who have balked at working over the CATS test in the past, a willingness to compromise emerged.

"I think there's consensus that CATS needs to be sunset. It has run its course," Sen. Tim Shaughnessy, D-Louisville, told the Senate Education Committee.

It was the first time Shaughnessy has said so....

Thompson Likely To Chair House A and R

This from Mark Hebert at WHAS:

It looks like Rep. Tommy Thompson's loss in the House Majority Whip's race may actually turn out to be a blessing for him. Thompson is in line to chair the House Appropriations and Revenue Committee, replacing Harry Moberly who supported Jody Richards instead of Greg Stumbo in the House Speaker's race.

Thompson was part of Stumbo's slate in the leadership races but lost by one vote. That loss meant western Kentucky voters would have no representation in House democratic leadership. Thompson is from Daviess County so it appears he'll get to chair the House's most powerful committee as a way to mollify western Kentucky lawmakers and reward him for his allegiance to Stumbo....

Will Stumbo Stop a revived SB1?

In the big news of the day, the Kentucky Democrats seem to have divided themselves neatly into the second and third most powerful political parties in Kentucky.

What bearing will this have on chairmanships and legislation ought to become clearer in the next couple of days.

This from Ronnie Ellis at CNHI:

Stumbo unseats Richards as speaker

Likely means Moberly will lose budget chairmanship

FRANKFORT — Former majority leader and one-time attorney general Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, took out Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, the longest-serving speaker in Kentucky history, in a vote of House Democrats on Tuesday..“Close, real close,” was how Rep. Keith Hall described the vote. Another lawmaker in the room said Stumbo tallied only three more votes than Richards, who became speaker 14 years ago with Stumbo’s help.

But the close margin likely portends wider and far-reaching consequences for the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives – in budget matters and in its dealings with the Senate...

...The biggest change may come at the committee level. It was apparent Richmond Democrat Harry Moberly is unlikely to continue as the powerful chairman of the Appropriations and Revenue Committee. Stumbo said one reason he won was a promise to open up the budget process to more of the members.“My focus has been on opening the budget process up, bringing more members into the decision-making process, getting more information to the members,” said Stumbo. “It’s sort of a message of change, it’s a message of cooperation.”

Asked if that means a change in the A&R chairmanship, Stumbo said, “That depends on how stubborn (Moberly) is. He’s going to have to change his ways. I don’t think it’s in the best interest of this institution or the state to allow one person to dominate the process.”

Moberly said he does not expect to continue as chairman and he was rankled by the suggestion he has not operated the A&R Committee in an open manner.“I was one of the ones who engineered the revolt that made it more open and broader,” Moberly said. “If he’s saying I’ve been against that, then he’s lying.”

Moberly last spring voted against a budget deal brokered between Stumbo and Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville, which added numerous capital projects for local legislators’ districts, calling it “a deal with the devil.”

Williams often clashed with Moberly in budget negotiations between the two chambers, and if Moberly is replaced as budget chairman, it could affect the balance of power.

Neither Moberly nor Stumbo would speculate on who might follow Moberly.

An admittedly surprised Richards said, “I’m not as good a counter as I thought I was.”

He said he didn’t know who Stumbo, Clark and the rest of the leadership might choose for A&R if Moberly isn’t retained.“I don’t know anybody who’s as good as he is, but that’s their choice as the new folks,” Richards said..

Stumbo went out of his way to commend Williams and the Republican Senate for trying to come up with solutions to the $456 million revenue shortfall facing the state.“If we put our heads together I believe we can solve Kentucky’s problems,” Stumbo said. “Sen. Williams is someone I have a great deal of respect for. I think it’s positive there’s an attempt from the Senate side to solve this problem.” ...

...“We started the day as Democrats and we ended the day as Democrats,” said Stumbo, adding with a smile, “We acted like Democrats today in caucus, too.

Downward spiral

This from C-J:

As the 2009 General Assembly session begins, Kentuckians have little reason for optimism about the future of state government and the programs and services it provides.

The person who controls the agenda in Frankfort, Senate President David Williams, is clearly in no mood to help raise new revenue through a cigarette-tax increase. Instead, he pleads a case with which nobody should disagree -- that all efforts should be made to achieve efficiencies and cut costs before imposing new taxes -- as if that might somehow obviate any need for new tax revenue.

State revenue forecasts may be conservative, and the latest revenue reports may not be as bad as expected, but even the best-case scenario will leave Kentucky government unable to meet the legitimate needs of its citizens, much less move the commonwealth toward a more competitive place in the national scheme of things.

We've fallen behind again. We've lost momentum...

...Mr. Williams ... talks about scrapping the CATS school accountability test, as if that would save money. In the short run, such a change not only would be terrible policy but almost certainly would cost the state money that it doesn't have.

House budget chairman Harry Moberly, D-Richmond, is right: Mr. Williams' examples "would not solve the immediate budget problem" and, in the case of CATS, would hurt the educational system.

Unless Mr. Williams is struck with some sort of epiphany, it will be up to the House to protect school reform from his version of "improvement."

House budget chief says a tax increase is necessary

This from H-L:

FRANKFORT — A tax increase is needed to solve the nearly half-billion budget shortfall Kentucky faces, House budget chairman Harry Moberly Jr. said Tuesday.
Moberly, D-Richmond, said erasing the shortfall only with cuts "would be too painful" and would "seriously cripple" important programs.

Moberly's comments came after he and several House leaders met privately for about an hour in the Capitol with Gov. Steve Beshear and members of his staff. Beshear had met earlier in the day behind closed doors with Senate leaders.

After the meeting with House leaders, Beshear declined to say whether he will propose a tax increase when he releases his plan on Thursday or Friday to address a projected $456.1 million shortfall in the budget this fiscal year...

And from C-J:

...Beshear met with Senate leaders in the morning for about two hours, and with House leaders in the afternoon.

"Everyone to a person pledged to work together to find some common ground to address the problem," Beshear told reporters after the second meeting. "I feel very good about where we are right now in terms of the ability of all of us finally to be able to come together and work some solutions out." ...

A Softball for Dan Kelly

I tossed Senator Dan Kelly "a softball" last night.

I asked him if he thought the CATS Task Force was a waste of time.

I thought he'd say, "Yes."

But he didn't.

I did not record a direct quote, but Kelly said he was satisfied with the group, they did some good, and that he benefited from the exchange.

Of course, all the while, Kelly has been recrafting the former Senate Bill 1 for another run during the 2009 session.

It's increasingly hard to ignore the eroding popularity of the CATS assessment among educators. Put to a public vote, I doubt it would pass either. But this is not an issue the public will vote on. The new Senate Bill 1 (or whatever number it carries) will surely sail through the Senate.

Will it take another dirt nap in Moberley's committee in the House?

Whether the CATS Task Force was successful or not, I'll leave to others. My thought is that the task force wasn't where the real action was going to take place on this issue in any case.

But I'd like to thank both of these warriors.

Like Harry Moberley before him , Kelly was gracious enough to host my doctoral students for a three-hour discussion on Kentucky politics, testing, the budget, and more.

To my surprise, Kelly still wanted to talk about the 2005 Dana Suem Stevenson case and accepted my challenge to debate. (I'm not an attorney, but had studied the case and wrote a piece for H-L in 2005.) He argued the case made by Paul Salamanca and James Keller in the Kentucky Law Review. I argued the Supreme Court's position.

Thanks to both legislators for unselfishly giving their time to our students - at the end of a long day and before a long drive home.

Williams Hints at Obstruction

The economy stands on wobbly legs. America is in debt to the Chinese government and others. Kentucky is losing jobs at an unsettling rate. The stock market roller coaster ride is far from over but the direction of the tracks is clear. Down.

State budget folks predict a shortfall.

Yet, a perfectly intelligent David Williams - stubbornly; deliberately - doesn't get it.

He miscasts numerous signs of a deteriorating economy as weak-kneed gubernatoral spin - as if Governor Steve Beshear is simply making this stuff up. Now the Bully from Burkesville wants us to believe he's being bullied. That's rich. If he's not careful, he's going to become Senate President Sissy Mary.

Let's hope Williams (arguably the most powerful man in Frankfort) doesn't just close his eyes and make Kentucky's future go away.

This from Tom Loftus at the Courier-Journal:

Williams skeptical about budget warning
Beshear has said outlook is 'dire'

FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Senate President David Williams continues to voice skepticism about Gov. Steve Beshear's recent warning of the "dire" financial outlook presented by the projected $294 million revenue shortfall this year.

"The fact that the revenue forecasters make this revenue forecast is not going to make me fall into his spin zone," Williams, R-Burkesville, said in an interview last week. "The man has declared some kind of catastrophe every few weeks since he's been in office."

Beshear, a Democrat, announced the projected shortfall late last month and said he would reach out to work with legislators on both sides of the political aisle in crafting a solution. He said that will require spending cuts and may require a tax increase.

If higher taxes are to be part of the solution, the governor will need an agreement with Williams, who successfully opposed Beshear's proposals early this year to raise
revenue by legalizing casinos and increasing the cigarette tax.

Williams sharply criticized Beshear for campaigning for opponents of Republican state Senate candidates and saying late last week that he would continue to try to
elect Democrats to the Senate in 2010.

"If we ever get the governor off the campaign trail, or ever get his fist out of our
face, we will be glad to talk to him. But up to this juncture he's not shown any
indication that he wants to do anything but keep his fist in our face," Williams
said.

He said that isn't a smart approach for Beshear if he'll need votes on a tough budget-balancing bill from Republican senators up for election in 2010.

But Beshear spokesman Jay Blanton said the governor has reached out to Republicans and Democrats alike for cooperation in solving the budget problem and made no threats to Republicans.

Last week's election left Republicans with a 21-15 majority in the Senate...

...acting State Budget Director John Hicks noted that last year's budget was cut to meet a revenue shortfall, and many agencies and programs are being cut in the current budget.

Rep. Harry Moberly, the Richmond Democrat who is chairman of the House budget committee, said, "The situation is very serious because the budget we have right now is a very inadequate budget for education and human services. We can't sustain any more cuts without serious deterioration to our education system and real problems with human services."

Moberly said he favors a higher cigarette tax as part of the solution and supports an increase far higher than the 25-cent boost the House approved early this year but the Senate failed to consider.