Senate Passes Charter, “Neighborhood” Schools Bill amid Passionate Debate

Measure Moves to House

When Session Resumes in February

This from KSBA:

At the end of a rare Friday afternoon debate, the Kentucky Senate narrowly voted 21-17 to pass Senate Bill 3, the charter school, “neighborhood” schools legislation championed by President David Williams (R-Burkesville).

An often passionate 80-minute debate between Democrat and Republican senators dwelled little on the issues of creating charter schools, but rather on how districts set school attendance boundaries – the “neighborhood schools” language. As in Thursday’s Senate Education Committee hearing, the focus was on the controversial Jefferson County Schools’ student assignment plan and the bill’s proponents desire to give parents greater say in having their children attend schools closest to their homes.

Both sides in Friday’s exchanges made local decision making by school boards as a primary focus of their support and opposition to both the charter schools and school attendance boundary subjects...

Support for charter schools had been building to some degree as a new advocacy group formed in Lexington. As Jim Warren reported in the Herald-Leader, interest in charter schools in Lexington has grown in recent months with the creation of Asteroids, a group of parents, educators and clergy who have been discussing charter schools since about September. To be sure, there is no groundswell of charter school support yet. And no one has indicated any intention of starting a charter school in Lexington if the General Assembly approves enabling legislation.

"I guarantee you there is lot of frustration among parents with the public school system in Lexington," said Brandi Carey, a mother of four who says a charter school could provide Lexington students with more choices in language immersion programs.

Talk about charter schools previously has been limited mainly to Louisville, where
some parents are calling for charters as alternatives for students in persistently low-achieving public schools.

Rev. Willis Polk, pastor of Lexington's Imani Baptist Church, told H-L that too many students are falling through the cracks and charters could be a valuable addition, if enabling legislation is properly crafted.

"Many of our children graduate from high school, go to college, and arrive there with great deficiencies. Something must be done. Some people are looking at [charters] and hoping and praying that some kind of alternative is made possible for our kids."

Polk's church serves members from the Booker T Washington, Leestown, Bryan Station, and other areas.

SB 3, which is being called “the voluntary charter school bill,” would allow local school boards to create public charter schools free from many existing state and local rules for operating schools to improve educational opportunities for children attending the charters.

Unsuccessful charter applicants could appeal denials or restrictions required by the local school board to the Kentucky Board of Education, which could overturn them. Charter schools would be given three to five years to demonstrate their impact before facing possible loss of their operating authority.

In committee, Senate President David Williams, the bill’s chief sponsor, argued that charter schools are just another tool for “intervention” in low-performing schools, similar to the transformation options schools now use.

Sen. Gerald Neal, D-Louisville, said that while he’s not opposed to charter schools, he is concerned about how they would be structured and their accountability as outlined in the bill.

Senate Bill 3 sailed out of the Senate Education Committee on Thursday, with all five Democrats on the committee voting against it.

But the bill is not only about charter schools. It also contains provisions that under some circumstances, would allow students to attend the school closest to their home - a measure with questionable consequences. Williams argued,

“The only thing this bill does is to give individual parents some authority to negotiate and say ‘I want my child to attend the school closest to our residence within the school attendance boundary,’ rather than have some bureaucrat decide whether that child goes to that school or somewhere else. This bill does not take local control away, it just guarantees parent control.”

So the whole thing turned into an argument over local control - only this time it was Republicans supporting the state imposition of attendance boundary solutions on local school boards.

KSBA reported,

Sen. Gerald Neal (D-Louisville) urged defeat of SB 3, saying it would indeed negatively impact local decision making, as was argued Thurday by three members of the Jefferson County Board of Education.

“These complex issues will not be resolved by actions taken by the state as opposed by those policy makers who are on the ground. An election was just held (in Jefferson County) and all of those (school board members) were re-elected. That’s a public expression of democracy in action. This body, particularly the (Republican) majority has consistently spoken that decision making should take place on the local level. This is a break from that,” Neal said.

Neal unsuccessfully sought to amend the bill’s mandates with a study of the measure’s impact.

“It’s very important that we identify the districts in the state that are likely to be affected. We don’t know that,” he said. “The potential increase in costs of facilities, student transportation and other operations. We don’t know that. Identification of potential impact on diversity and access to special programs. We don’t know that. This study would be central considering what we don’t know, but what we should know when we take a step like this,” said Neal.

The fun-filled 2011 General Assembly resumes on Feb. 1. The issue now goes to the House of Representatives where Speaker Greg Stumbo harbors doubt over its likely success.

Dyche calls for SB 1 debate in the House

Louisville columnist John David Dyche would have us believe that the motives of Senate Bill 1's sponsors are as pure as the driven snow, and everyone should play nicely. ...otherwise he presents a nicely balanced view of the bill. Maybe Dyche is right. Personally, I think at least one of the key players has worked hard to earn his reputation. But, Dyche correctly outlines the way things ought to be.

Dyche wants to sweet talk Democrats into a lovely floor debate in the House. Kentucky is nowhere near ready to resolve this issue and it's hard to see how SB 1 could be amended without turning it 180 degrees. But, OK ... let's talk about it. It should never move out of committee, however. Better is Commissioner Jon Draud's effort to put a task force together to draft a new plan over time.

If Kentucky's leaders were truly "passionate about the agreed goal of all students achieving at high-levels" we wouldn't be having this conversation. Instead, these "well-intentioned men" would have already supported an adequately funded system of schools throughout the state, producing better student achievement and fewer students needing remediation as college freshmen.

This from John David Dyche in today's Courier-Journal:

SB 1 sparks productive debate

... [Senate Bill 1's] sponsor, Senate President David Williams, R-Burkesville, and two other Senate proponents, Dan Kelly, R-Springfield, and Ken Winters, R-Murray, do not deserve the scorn some ideological adversaries reflexively heaped upon them. Whatever one's opinion of SB 1, these smart and well-intentioned men performed an important public service by challenging old assumptions and forcing high-profile discussion of testing alternatives.

SB 1's supporters sometimes swerved off the legislative high road in ways that distracted from the substantive issues. Still, seeking better student-specific data, more instructional days and savings makes sense.

But the bill's backers failed to make a compelling, broad-based case for the radical change they advocate. There were credible witnesses, like the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce's Dave Adkisson, but insufficient evidence of either urgent need or widespread sentiment among administrators, parents or teachers to immediately abolish CATS altogether.

Among SB 1s opponents, Sens. Gerald Neal and Tim Shaughnessy, both Louisville Democrats, shone in committee, as did Senate Minority Leader Ed Worley, D-Richmond, on the Senate floor. They are open to reform, but they reasonably argued the benefits of CATS.

Other SB 1 foes featured Education Secretary Helen Mountjoy, who is dedicated, knowledgeable and deserving of great respect, if not deference. So are Robert Sexton and the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, which Williams was wrong to impugn in his Friday floor speech.

Roger Marcum, the Marion County superintendent and president of the Kentucky Association of School Administrators, and Brent McKim, representing Jefferson County teachers, spoke with the prudence that real-world experience produces.

Rep. Harry Moberly Jr., D-Richmond, who gave a feisty tour de force in defending CATS on the "Kentucky Tonight" show, says SB 1 may rest in his committee "for years." But the House should hold hearings and vote. Like the stream-saver bill Moberly is helping to liberate, testing reform is too important for any one chairman to kill.

Task forces are frequently farcical or futile, but since SB 1 is probably dead this session, Education Commissioner Jon Draud is correct to convene one on assessment. In the meantime, maybe legislators should let some individual districts, like flourishing Fort Thomas Independent, opt out of CATS as a pilot program.

After watching this robust debate, albeit from a distance, this dad wants both sorts of assessment for his children. Neither CATS nor SB 1 covers all bases, but from a parental perspective, each test type has its virtues. A blended or hybrid assessment strategy seems desirable and should be possible. But time constraints may dictate that there must ultimately be an either-or choice.

Public school families know well that budget woes and partisan politics infuse this issue. They wish more mutual respect would, too. For despite all Kentucky's past policy struggles and present pedagogical disputes, we are grateful so many talented people are passionate about the agreed goal of all students achieving at high-levels.