In general, students who wish to attend Kentucky charter schools will be admitted. If the number wishing to attend exceeds the charter school’s capacity, some preferences will apply:

• For students who already attend the school, their siblings, and students who live in the district where the school is located
• If the school chooses, for students who are eligible for free or reduced-price meals, who attend persistently low-achieving schools, or whose parents are board members or full-time employees
• At conversion charter schools, for students who attended the school before the conversion
• At urban academy charter schools, for “ students who live in close proximity to the school as defined in the charter contract”

After the preferences are applied, remaining slots will be awarded by lottery.These rules leave no place for a school to compare two applicants and choose the learner with higher test scores, better auditions, stronger recommendations, or fewer reports of behavior challenges.That said, the rules do not create a fully level playing field. Families that know where they will be living next year will have an advantage over those with unstable housing. Similarly, families with more ability to explore options will be more likely to find and apply for charter options. Both advantages will often be tied to socio-economic privilege. And school decisions about when and where and how to advertise may also affect who applies.Two additional enrollment issues look like they still need attention.First, late admissions. if a student moves into the area on July 1 and wants to attend a charter school that has space, will the student have to be admitted? The lottery step is a solution for when there are too many applicants during the regular application season. But what if there are fewer applicants than seats, or if some who are admitted later move away or change their minds, making some seats available again? Will those seats be open to students who seek admission later on? For charters to be as public as other public schools, the answer has to be yes, but I don’t think Kentucky law says that.Second, removals. Our earlier post on legal requirements that apply to charter schools mentioned the need to clarify Kentucky’s procedures for suspensions, expulsions, and services after expulsion, particularly regarding roles and responsibilities at schools not governed by an elected school board. Those clarifications are needed for health, safety, civil rights, and disability rights. The clarifications are also needed to build toward fairness in who attends charter schools, making sure that being admitted is not an illusion for students who are quickly pushed out for reasons or using procedures that would not be acceptable in other public schools.

Series Links:

Charter schools: taking on the questions (Introduction)

1. What is a charter school?

‍2. What student results are charter schools expected to deliver?

‍3. Which school laws do charter schools have to follow?

‍4. How can students be admitted to charter schools?

‍5. Who can authorize charter schools?

‍6. Who can apply to start a charter school?

‍7. How can charter schools be closed if they do not deliver?

‍8. What funding can charter schools receive?

Adding new questions about charter schools (Conclusion)

In charter school operation, the authorizer is a government body that approves an application to form a charter school, enters a contract with the school’s board, provides oversight, and decides on renewal or closure of the school.

Options and Appeals

Kentucky law allows multiple authorizers for Kentucky charter schools:

• The local school board in the district where the school will be located.
• A collaborative of local boards formed to set up a regional charter school.
• The Lexington/Fayette County mayor and the Louisville/Jefferson County chief executive
• Either the trustees of Northern Kentucky University or a “collective” appointed by school boards in that region (see the Pilot Project discussion below for more detail.)

The Kentucky Board of Education will hear appeals of rejected applications. That Board can change the outcome based on whether the application met the legal requirements and whether the denial was "contrary to the best interest of the students or community."

Pilot Program

In 2022, House Bill 9 mandated a “Kentucky Public Charter School Pilot Project” that requires the approval of two “urban academy” charter schools, one in Jefferson County and one in Kenton or Campbell. As urban academies, each will give admissions preference to students who live near the school. The authorizers for each school will report each year to two legislative committees on how it is overseeing the required charter school. In addition, the Office of Education Accountability will review the school’s performance each year and report to the same two committees.For the Jefferson County charter school, the Jefferson County school board is directed to authorize a charter school by July 1, 2023. The Jefferson board will face an added challenge in its authorization and oversight work: 2022’s House Bill 1 only allows that board to meet once every eight weeks.For the Northern Kentucky charter school, there are two authorizer possibilities:

• Through January 1, 2023, the Northern Kentucky University Board of Regents can choose to be the authorizer by adopting a resolution. The board will then be required to authorize a charter school by July 1, 2023.
• On July 1, 2023, if NKU’s board has not become an authorizer, a “collective” will be created, with two members from the local boards in each of the nine school districts in Kenton and Campbell counties. The collective will then be required to authorize a charter school by July 1, 2024.

Ongoing Responsibilities

The authorizer’s work does not end with approving an application.Contract drafting will be an important legal challenge. Oversight to see if performance goals and operating requirements are being met will come after that. Decisions about renewal based on those issues will also be an important responsibility. If there are health and safety concerns, action may be needed to close the school. If there are other substantial weaknesses that are not legal grounds for closure, the authorizer will be responsible for raising those concerns with the charter school and perhaps for looking into other remedies.Authorizing and oversight looks like a moderately heavy lift. A school board authorizer at least starts out with a staff that knows education law, finance, and operations. If a mayor or a university board wants to take on the role, that choice seems likely to require some new staff or a commitment of time from existing staff as well as from the officials themselves. And if a collective of school board members must form to authorize the northern Kentucky pilot, it is not clear how they can get staff or logistical support for the initial authorizing decision. To get a further sense of the scale of effort involved in authorizing, one helpful resource may be the “Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing” offered by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Once the authorizer contracts for a charter school, it will be able to retain 3% of the charter school’s revenue. As a loose estimate, think of that being about $300 per student, available to cover part of the cost of this oversight work.

Legal Sources: KRS 160.1590 defines the authorizers. KRS 160.1594 sets authorizing process, and KRS 160.1595 provides for appeals, with some modifications made by 2022's House Bill 9. Section 11 of House Bill 9 sets the rules for the pilot program.

Series Links:

Charter schools: taking on the questions (Introduction)

1. What is a charter school?

‍2. What student results are charter schools expected to deliver?

‍3. Which school laws do charter schools have to follow?

‍4. How can students be admitted to charter schools?

‍5. Who can authorize charter schools?

‍6. Who can apply to start a charter school?

‍7. How can charter schools be closed if they do not deliver?

‍8. What funding can charter schools receive?

Adding new questions about charter schools (Conclusion)

Kentucky law specifies that “teachers, parents, school administrators, community residents, public organizations, nonprofit organizations, or a combination thereof” will be able to apply. Applications for charter schools controlled wholly or partly by religious denominations will be rejected.Each charter application will include by-laws and initial members of the school’s board of directors, which must include two parents of students at the school and must not include employees of the school or employees of educational service providers that will serve the school. The board will be sworn in after the application is approved.Once a charter application is approved, the charter school will official be a “body corporate and politic” run by its board of directors. Legally, a Kentucky public charter school will be “a public body corporate and politic,” which will make it a kind of government agency, rather than a private corporation subject to for-profit or non-profit regulations. Kentucky has other entities that are set up as “public bodies corporate and politic, including the Kentucky lottery corporation, water commissions, and urban renewal and community development agencies. Formally speaking, the charter school cannot be owned by any other group or company.For-profit corporations cannot apply to form Kentucky charter schools: they are not on the list of allowed applicants. For-profit corporations also cannot own charter schools, because each charter school must be a “body corporate and politic.”However, for-profit corporations can be “education service providers,” and a charter school board can sign a contract with that sort of provider. If a charter school plans to contract with an education service provider, the planned terms of the contract will be included in the charter application. Kentucky law defines an education service provider as “an education management organization, school design provider, or any other partner entity with which a public charter school contracts for educational design, implementation, or comprehensive management." This provision means that for-profits can play a major role in how a charter school is started, though only with some type of agreement with others.The contract will determine what the provider does for the charter school and its board. That means that the charter might buy or rent its facilities, furniture, equipment, technology, books, and supplies. Many of those things can be used over more than one school year, so there is a valid question about who gets to keep those items if the school closes or chooses to work with different providers. Yes, a skilled and experienced provider can push a less-well prepared charter school board toward a contract that gives big advantages to the outside company. At the same time, it’s worth noticing that a charter school starts from scratch. It does not have a financial reserve or bond proceeds it could use to buy any of those big-ticket items, so rental contracts may be the only way the school can begin.

Legal sources: KRS 160.1593 governs applications to run a charter school. KRS 160.1593 governs charter applications, including how education service providers are to be identified in applications. KRS 160.1590 establishes charters’ “body corporate and politic” status and defines education service providers.

To look at look at other “bodies corporate politic,” good starting places may be KRS 65.355 for land bank authorities, KRS 74.450 for water commissions, KRS 99.350 for urban renewal and community development agencies, KRS 154A.020 for the Kentucky Lottery Corporation, KRS 262.010 for soil and water conservation districts and KRS 342.803 Kentucky Employers' Mutual Insurance Authority.

Series Links:

Charter schools: taking on the questions (Introduction)

1. What is a charter school?

‍2. What student results are charter schools expected to deliver?

‍3. Which school laws do charter schools have to follow?

‍4. How can students be admitted to charter schools?

‍5. Who can authorize charter schools?

‍6. Who can apply to start a charter school?

‍7. How can charter schools be closed if they do not deliver?

‍8. What funding can charter schools receive?

Adding new questions about charter schools (Conclusion)

This Charter School Q & A series took on the Kentucky questions we’ve heard repeatedly. In trying to answer those questions, we’ve surfaced some new questions, and I want to conclude the series by sharing those issues as a set:

• Accountability: How will charter schools with the weakest results in the state accountability system receive support and improvement help? The existing system again calls for a district superintendent and an elected board to be key agents of change. Charter schools will not have outside people with those titles, and there isn’t an obvious equivalent mechanism to take on those change agent roles. See also the xx post
• Admissions: Will students who move to the area after a charter school completes its annual admissions cycle still be admitted? First, will they be admitted if the school has open seats? Second, will be the admitted when the school does not have open seats (as they would be to the public schools run by their local school district)? See also the xx post
• Removals: How will Kentucky’s rules on suspensions, expulsions, and services work for charter schools? I’m taking it as settled that charter school students will get the protections those rules provide, but there’s a mechanical problem. In other public schools, disciplinary actions by principals under council policy move to a higher level when the biggest consequences apply. Superintendents and elected school boards provide fresh eyes and some worthwhile checks and balances. For charter school students, who will provide that additional set of checks and balances? See also the xx post
• Funding: What is clear and what will be contested in the new legal rules? After trying to apply those rules, I’m confident there are legal ambiguities that will matter, and I’m also confident that I haven’t spotted all of those points of uncertainty. Those issues can be talked through this year, next year, or the year after. They can be engaged with a lot of collaborative thought, a little, or none. They’ll ultimately be resolved by litigation or legislation, but some serious discussion now could help those outcomes be wiser and more workable for all the affected students and schools. See also the xx post.

Whlle the questions above are about laws, procedures, dollars, and topics already discussed in this series, I do want to add one more about the larger social environment from which Kentucky law now expects charter schools to emerge:

• Visionaries: the charter school approach is pitched as creating opportunities for novel approaches. So, who’s bringing the big ideas that will work differently for students and better for at least some of them? What are the concepts? Who are the people excited by them? Who is on fire to make them really happen? There has been an assumption that those folks will appear. If that’s going to happen, it should probably start happening soon.

I definitely don’t know what charter schools will turn out to be in Kentucky. We’re about to make a big investment in capacity to apply, authorize, contract, implement, and oversee these schools. To me, two main things are clear:

1. The return we want on the investment is greater excellence with greater equity
2. We can only hope to see that sort of return if Kentuckians put serious effort and thought into the charter process in the coming months and years.

Series Links:

Charter schools: taking on the questions (Introduction)

1. What is a charter school?

‍2. What student results are charter schools expected to deliver?

‍3. Which school laws do charter schools have to follow?

‍4. How can students be admitted to charter schools?

‍5. Who can authorize charter schools?

‍6. Who can apply to start a charter school?

‍7. How can charter schools be closed if they do not deliver?

‍8. What funding can charter schools receive?

Adding new questions about charter schools (Conclusion)

In 2022, House Bill 9 added rules for funding Kentucky charter schools. Those new provisions call for each charter school to share in most of federal, state, and local revenue available in their “district of location.” With that intent quite clear, the implementation is still going to be challenging. My big suggestion for working on the challenges is that we start building prototypes: models of what sample charter schools might receive based on the students they serve and the districts where they are located. Here, I’m going just dive in and show my understanding of key calculations, starting with SEEK base funding.

SEEK Base Basics

SEEK is short for Support Education Excellence in Kentucky, our main formula for funding public education. With only small modifications, we’ve used this approach since 1990, with a base guarantee for every pupil and a set of add-on amounts for students with additional needs. Here’s an illustration for an imaginary district. It starts with total students, counted based on average daily attendance, and then shows each group of students that receives an add-on. For simplicity, it uses the $4,000 guarantee amount being used this fiscal year.

Local school boards use their taxing powers to raise 30¢ for every $100 of taxable property in their districts, and that taxation raises varying amounts depending on districts’ assessed property values. The state then pays whatever is needed to complete the guarantee, which means state contributions are higher in districts with less property wealth and lower in districts with more.

SEEK Base For Charter Schools

Under HB 9, a public charter school is to receive:

“The amount that is proportional to the public charter school's enrollment or average daily attendance in comparison with the overall district qualifying numbers for:Funds that are related to students' attendance and enrollment and allocated to the district of location pursuant to KRS 157.360.”

KRS 157.360 is the statute that sets up the base part of the SEEK formula, so here’s my prototype of that step for two imaginary charter schools. These schools have matching numbers of total students but quite different student needs. Like the district numbers above, it begins with total students in average daily attendance and follows with the add-on amounts that go with the current $4,000 base guarantee.

This part of the funding will be the same everywhere in the state, though in future years the amounts per pupil will likely be at least little higher. Each charter school will receive these dollars from its “district of location,” but the amounts won’t vary based on the school’s address.

Tier 1 Optional Equalization

In addition to the guaranteed base, the SEEK formula allows districts to get some further state equalization called Tier 1, up to a maximum of 15% of the district’s SEEK base total. All districts are taking that maximum. The part the district puts in depends once again on its taxable property, but this time I want to illustrate how that works at three different levels of property wealth:

Because of the equalization, the property wealth doesn’t matter to what districts receive. Will it matter when districts pass dollars to charters? Maybe.

Tier 1 for Charter Schools

When Tier 1 dollars are shared out:

• Will charter schools get shares based on qualified enrollment with all the weighting, giving Charter A 6% or the revenue and Charter B 3.8%? That would add about $283 thousand for Charter A and $179 thousand for Charter B.
• Or will each get 5% and $236 thousand, based just on the count of pupils and ignoring the add on needs?
• Or (take a deep breath), will they get the state dollars based on qualified enrollment and the local dollars per pupil? If it’s done that way, the district’s property assessments will matter. The richer the district, the more revenue will be local. The more the revenue is local and handed out without weights, the less the Charter A’s higher need students will receive.

As an advocate for equity that meets student needs, I definitely prefer the qualifying enrollment approach.Here’s the thing: after a week of reading HB 9’s funding provisions over and over again, I see how others could argue for either of the other methods. xI also think the stakes are big enough that key players are likely to argue hard for the version that works best for the students they expect to serve. Here's a table showing how differently the three approaches could work.

Other Puzzles

For each other part of school funding, my hunch is that there will be other puzzles to work through. Those other parts include:

• SEEK transportation
• SEEK Tier 2 (unequalized local dollars capped at 30% of base plus Tier 1)
• SEEK-funded stipends for National Board Certified Teachers
• SEEK funds for a variety of facilities costs
• State funding for school technology
• State funding for other categorical programs
• Federal funding for categorical programs

Each of these streams is worth prototyping the charter allocations and discussing with care. This is about big money and there will be big concerns. The best time to start working on those big issues is now, with maximum time to think through implications, consider any proposals to clarify the legal language, and (if possible) dependable information for all concerned.

Impact on Other Schools

None of this is going to be easy for any district where families choose a charter option. For example:

• Districts have multi-year commitments to staff, equipment, utilities and building upkeep, and none of those commitments will shrink by 5% if enrollment changes by that proportion.
• For any “district of location” where a charter school opens, in addition to amounts to be paid, there will be timing issues. Local revenue often comes from property taxes paid between November and January, so it will matter how much has to be paid out to each charter school before that November cash flow arrives.
• For those districts of location, there will also be the disruption of having their local tax revenue divided up to pay for students whose homes (and family tax contributions) are in other school districts.
• For other districts, when students leave to go to charter schools in other areas, there will also be disruptions. Eligibility for each kind of state and federal funding may decline. If local revenue is stable, that will offer the most cushioning to districts where the highest taxable property produces the largest local contribution.

At least for moment, try thinking of this as similar to the financial implications of a divorce with children involved. To give just one example, even if the division of property and income is done perfectly, the money that paid for one home will not pay for two homes at the same level of comfort. Dividing education revenue among more schools is going to require stretching the same dollars to cover more spaces and equipment and sorting out those changes will involve new negotiations, drafts and revisions, compromises and conflicts.Some readers are sure to think charters will have benefits worth the effort. Others are sure to think they won’t. Over time, some on either side may move toward the other view. For now, I want to offer a simpler point: funding charter schools is going to take effort. There are puzzles to be solved, and those solutions are likely to generate more puzzles. That work is right in front of us, and it needs attention.Adding a caveat: The prototype possibilities shared above are the best I can figure out on my own. It’s completely possible that readers who follow school funding will immediately see flaws in my reasoning. That’s kind of the point of sharing a prototype: it lets us find the glitches early. So please, bring on the questions, concerns, and alternate views of how this will work.

Legal sources: In 2022's House Bill 9, Section 7 has the rules for funding charter schools. (See pages 30 to 35). KRS 157.360 shows most of the rules for SEEK base funding, with the add-on for students with limited English proficiency shown only in budget legislation like 2022’s House Bill 1. House Bill 1 also provides that the SEEK base guarantee will move up from $4,000 to $4,100 next year and $4,200 the year after: the calculations above kept the $4,000 figure because it makes the arithmetic easier to follow. KRS 157.440 shows the Tier 1 and Tier 2 rules.

Series Links:

Charter schools: taking on the questions (Introduction)

1. What is a charter school?

‍2. What student results are charter schools expected to deliver?

‍3. Which school laws do charter schools have to follow?

‍4. How can students be admitted to charter schools?

‍5. Who can authorize charter schools?

‍6. Who can apply to start a charter school?

‍7. How can charter schools be closed if they do not deliver?

‍8. What funding can charter schools receive?

Adding new questions about charter schools (Conclusion)

Exemption from legal requirements is regularly listed as a key way that charter schools can be different, usually followed by quick disclaimers that some rules will still apply. This post will offer some likely specifics on that.

Here are some important examples of Kentucky rules that charter schools probably will not have to follow:

• Primary talent pool identification and services for K-3 students (gifted and talented services for older students have to be described in the charter school application)
• Response to intervention systems for K-3 students
• Individual learning plans for grade 6-12 students
• Accelerated learning for students with identified deficiencies or strengths based on state assessments
• Advanced coursework options (Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, dual enrollment, or dual credit)
• Class size caps
• State teacher evaluation rules, continuing contracts (tenure), and single salary schedule
• 2% financial contingency reserves

Charter schools will also be “exempt from administrative regulations governing public schools for purposes of zoning and local land use regulation.” That exemption is direct from state law, and it seems likely to mean that a charter school can select space in any building that meets health and safety rules, without having to fit within existing rules on where homes, businesses, factories, and other uses are allowed.

These kinds of exemptions leave many other rules in place. Legally, “the public charter school shall adhere to the same health, safety, civil rights, and disability rights requirements as are applied to all public schools,” as well as other statutes that specifically say they apply to charter schools. Here are my starting lists of rules that look to me like they will definitely apply.

‍

‍

That’s not a minor set of obligations!

Reasons and procedures for suspensions, expulsions, and services after expulsionmay well be the most important item on those lists. I put them under health and safety because the rules were substantially revised in 1998 as part of the School Safety Act. I also put them under civil and disability rights because education is a fundamental right in Kentucky. That isn’t true in all states, but it’s true here under Article 183 of our Constitution.

Suspension, expulsion and services after expulsion also top my list of legal requirements that should get further attention to work effectively for charter school students and leaders. Under current law, expulsion from public schools is a decision taken by the elected local board of education after a formal hearing. The board also has the obligation to provide services to students after expulsion (unless doing would be dangerous). How will those steps work for a charter school? The law should be clear, but this part of state law was written with no plan for charter schools to exist. Thoughtful amendments ought to be built, with veteran administrators, board members, and student advocates as key players in thinking through consistent and complete approaches.

A concluding note: Here’s an over-arching point about why there are substantial lists of rules to consider: education is a huge undertaking. Of Kentucky’s 4.5 million people, roughly 1 in 6 is actively engaged in that one huge effort: more than 780 thousand students and nearly 70 thousand teachers and other school staff members. Also, the work is profoundly important work: the development of young humans who will be the main builders of our shared future. No one should expect the rules to fit on a cocktail napkin.

Legal Sources: KRS 160.1592 provides the overall exemption and the specific zoning and land use exemption. KRS 160.1592 provides charter schools’ overall exemption, and most of the other requirements. KRS 161.141 specifies that charter school employees will participate in state retirement systems. The other explicit requirements for charter school operation are found in 2022’s Senate Bill 1 (concept and texts), in KRS 158.4416 trauma), and in KRS 158.038 (hotline numbers).

Series Links:

Charter schools: taking on the questions (Introduction)

1. What is a charter school?

‍2. What student results are charter schools expected to deliver?

‍3. Which school laws do charter schools have to follow?

‍4. How can students be admitted to charter schools?

‍5. Who can authorize charter schools?

‍6. Who can apply to start a charter school?

‍7. How can charter schools be closed if they do not deliver?

‍8. What funding can charter schools receive?

Adding new questions about charter schools (Conclusion)

The Prichard Committee’s position on charter’s schools has been consistent since 2015: Kentucky doesn’t need charter schools to improve student outcomes. However, if done well, research shows public charter schools can be a tool in the toolbox to increase student outcomes, particularly for historically marginalized students in urban areas. To ensure public charter schools are done well, legislation should require high levels of transparency, strong and effective oversight, and accountability equal to or greater than that of traditional public schools. ‍

The pilot program in House Bill 9 is not set up with legislative language ensuring these initial charters will be done well. With the expected passage of House Bill 9 by the Senate, it’s important that legislative sponsors send a clear message regarding the quality of these pilot applicants for a public charter in Louisville and northern Kentucky. There should be no less expectation that these early public charter schools meet the quality criteria laid out in Section 4 of the bill. In fact, nothing less than quality should do – and surely nothing less will do for Kentucky’s students.A key principle of our position on charter schools is that funding for public charter schools should not diminish the resources available to school districts to educate and increase achievement for all students. Any proposal must guarantee that schools and districts are adequately and equitably funded according to Kentucky law as outlined in Rose v. Council for Better Education.

‍We urge the House and the Senate to come to a budget agreement that fully funds kindergarten and school transportation – helping pull Kentucky out of the bottom third of the nation for investment in K-12 education and freeing up local taxpayer dollars, currently going to pay for those services. Preparing each and every student for success in the future economy must be an imperative – for our communities and policy-makers alike. Nothing less than good policy, effective practice, and strong investment will do to ensure a prosperous future for all Kentuckians.

Brigitte BlomPrichard Committee for Academic Excellence

Statement by Brigitte BlomPresident & CEO of the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence

The Prichard Committee has not been a proponent nor an opponent of public charter schools. We believe that is the wrong question. Rather, the question we ask is: How do we close longstanding and persistent achievement gaps in our state?When analyzing the research on charter school effectiveness, The Center for Research on Student Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University is still the gold standard. Their research shows clear evidence to support charter schools as a tool in closing achievement gaps for historically marginalized students, particularly in urban areas. CREDO found that the typical student in an urban charter school receives the equivalent of 40 additional days of learning growth in math and 28 days of additional growth in reading.Further, CREDO’s research outlines important components to ensuring strong legislation, including high levels of transparency, oversight, and accountability. As the public charter sector has evolved in other states, it’s clear that local collaboration between the charter and the public school district where students reside is important. I layout the parameters for a high-performing charter sector in this op-ed with John King, former United States Secretary of Education: Set high standards for Kentucky charter schools, July 2017.Research shows there are also some components of charter sectors which have potentially negative impacts on student outcomes. They include: The creation and management of charter schools by for-profit entities and virtual charter schools. We are opposed to those allowances in any Kentucky charter bill.The Committee believes strongly that Kentucky’s law must have the clear goal of closing gaps in student achievement and that Kentucky charter schools should be required to meet the same standards of rigor regarding teaching, learning, and accountability to which all public schools across the state are held.Funding for charter schools should not diminish the resources currently available to school districts to educate and increase achievement for all students. Any proposal must guarantee that schools and districts remain adequately and equitably funded according to Kentucky law as outlined in Rose v. Council for Better Education.In reviewing HB9, we ask legislators to do the following:

1. Require public charter schools to make free breakfasts and free lunches available to students who qualify for federal free breakfasts and free lunches and reduced-price lunches.
2. Require that postsecondary authorizers are Kentucky public or private postsecondary institutions only.
3. Require charter school contracts to include provisions to revoke or not renew based on measures of adequate education progress, poor fiscal management, or violation of law – in addition to health and safety violations.
4. Remove the inclusion of Education Opportunity Accounts from House Bill 9.

The continued inclusion of Education Opportunity Accounts would lead us to oppose HB 9 in its entirety. To date, no comprehensive, unbiased research exists to support EOAs as a wise use of state investment to improve overall education outcomes. Further, private schools are not held accountable for education progress as the public system is.As one of very few states left without charter schools, Kentucky is in an excellent position to learn from the experiences of other states and incorporate into legislation what has worked to ensure quality in other states. With the amendments requested above, HB 9 does that. It is crucial that House Bill 9 serves to close identified achievement gaps and increases Kentucky’s education outcomes. The amendments we recommend will help assure Kentuckians the charter sector is operating with those priorities as the goal.The Prichard Committee does not believe public charter schools are necessary in Kentucky to continue to improve education outcomes and close persistent achievement gaps. However, as a tool in the toolbox, a strong and effective charter school may be able to significantly increase student academic success – and begin to close achievement gaps. Therefore, we do not oppose the concept and urge policymaker focus on ensuring well-regulated and fully accountable charter schools.

Greater Owensboro has a strong heritage of joining together to solve challenges and build better lives for our citizens. We are a community rich in opportunity, poised for growth in the years and decades ahead because of our can-do spirit.

The time is right to build upon these successes and take the next steps to make Greater Owensboro the best place to learn, live, work, and play. The research is clear – the path to opportunity for all begins with the start we provide to our youngest children ages 0-8.

Access to early childhood education is critical to the success of Greater Owensboro. Exposure to high quality early childhood education has shown to close gaps in achievement for all children throughout their educational and life experiences. Children who participate in early learning arrive at kindergarten prepared, ultimately increasing their likelihood of securing proficiency in reading and math by the close of the third grade. Such gains in early learning mean that these same children are 40% less likely to drop out of high school.¹

Providing early childhood education access builds the future workforce of the community, while supporting Greater Owensboro’s current workforce. The lack of available early childhood education has substantial annual costs in lost earnings, business productivity, and tax revenue. In Kentucky, the lack of high quality and affordable early childhood education for working families accounts for $573 million in lost earnings, business productivity, and tax revenue. ²

‍

‍

Investments in high-quality early childhood education result in higher rates of educational attainment, a reduction in health costs, a reduction in the incidence of crime, less demand for social welfare services, and a more competitive local economy for Greater Owensboro.

All in the community stand to gain from this work. Nobel Laureate economist James Heckman released research in 2016 that found: Every dollar spent on high-quality, birth-to-five programs for disadvantaged children delivers a 13% annual return on investment. Children are not the only beneficiaries – the economic benefits of the additional wages earned by parents with access to high-quality care are capable of paying for any costs associated with developing a high quality early childhood education system.³

‍

In response to this data, The Public Life Foundation of Owensboro asked a broad array of local stakeholders to join the Greater Owensboro Partnership for Early Development, which over an eight-month period:

• Met seven times for in-depth discussion and review of early childhood education (ECE) research.
• Examined Greater Owensboro’s ECE landscape and access to ECE programs for children from birth to age 5.
• Considered opportunities, challenges, and costs to re-imagine the early childhood ecosystem of Greater Owensboro.
• Discussed lessons learned from other communities with innovative ECE models; and
• Developed recommendations to significantly expand access to ECE programs over the next 5 years, creating a pathway forward for all Greater Owensboro children to have the opportunity for quality early learning to thrive in school and life.

‍

‍

‍

‍

Current ECE Landscape

To gauge the current accessibility of high quality early childhood education throughout Greater Owensboro, the committee consulted with The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence and The Martin School of Public Policy at the University of Kentucky. The Greater Owensboro ECE landscape analysis found:

‍

1. Significant gaps exist in Kindergarten-readiness for children throughout Greater Owensboro.

• On average, approximately 49% of Greater Owensboro students arrived at Kindergarten unprepared as reported by the Brigance screener in 2019-2020.
• On average, approximately 59% of economically disadvantaged students, 76% of students with disabilities, and 75% of English learning students arrived at kindergarten unprepared in Greater Owensboro.

Source: 2019-20 Kentucky School Report Card

‍

2. Greater Owensboro students who score below the kindergarten readiness level have a strong likelihood of failing to reach proficiency on the 3rd grade reading test.

• On average, 46.9% of Greater Owensboro students failed to reach reading proficiency by the close of 3rd grade as reported by 2018-2019 K-PREP scores.
• On average, approximately 55% of economically disadvantaged students, 69% of students with disabilities, and 63.5% of English learning students failed to reach reading proficiency by the close of 3rd grade in Greater Owensboro.
• Students who do not score Ready on the kindergarten readiness screener have a weaker likelihood of scoring proficient or distinguished on the 3rd grade reading test.

Source: 2018-19 Kentucky School Report Card

‍

‍

Students who scored below the readiness threshold in 2016 were highly likely to be retained before 3rd grade or to score novice or apprentice on the 3rd grade reading assessment. Meanwhile, students who met the kindergarten readiness standard were more likely to meet proficiency.

‍

3. Only about 20% of Greater Owensboro children under age 5 have access to ECE services.

• The U.S. Census estimates that 6,773 children under the age of 5 reside in Greater Owensboro.
• Kentucky’s 2020 Early Childhood Profile estimates that across Greater Owensboro:
  • 267 children receive care in self-contained Head Start or Early Head Start programs.
  • 383 children are served through Head Start and Public Preschool or in blended programs.
  • 700 children are served in a self-contained Public Preschool program.
  • Of 6,773 children in Greater Owensboro, only 1,350 are enrolled in the above ECE services.
• Additionally, there are 39 licensed child care centers that serve children under the age of 5, as well as one certified family child care home in Greater Owensboro.
• While collectively these providers are permitted to enroll no more than 3,787 children, it is likely that actual enrollment is below this capacity limit.
• The Early Childhood Profile indicates that 613 Greater Owensboro children received support through the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) in 2021. These data are our only indicator of private child care enrollment.

‍

Public Preschool

• Daviess County Public Schools has Public Preschool classrooms in 12 elementary schools. Owensboro Public Schools operates the program in partnership with Head Start in the Hager Preschool and Seven Hills Preschool.
• The standard state model includes a half-day program four days a week, with the fifth day reserved for teachers to meet with families, prepare curriculum materials, and evaluate data.
• Prior to March 2020, Daviess County used the standard half-day, 4 day a week model, Owensboro has been able to operate a full-day, 5-day-a-week model through its partnership with Head Start.
• The 2019-20 Kentucky School Report Card shows that a total of 720 children attended preschool in Daviess County and 218 attended preschool in Owensboro Public Schools.

‍

‍

Child Care

• Data from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services as of July 2021 includes 39 licensed child care centers that serve students under the age of 5, as well as one certified family child care home.
• In total, these providers are permitted to enroll no more than 3,787 children.
• While Daviess County is not a child care desert, the data broken down by Census tract suggest that certain areas of the county may be child care deserts, most dramatically in the northwest part of the county.
• The Early Childhood Profile indicates that only 613 Daviess County children received support through the Child Care Assistance Program despite 3,434 children under age 6 living at or below 150% of the federal poverty level.
• On average Daviess County families pay about $7,800/year for infants, $7,670 for toddlers, and $7,280/year for preschool children to attend private child care centers.

‍

Early Head Start and Head Start

• Audubon Area Community Services is one of 25 programs in the nation to receive national Program of Excellence designation by the National Head Start Association. It offers full-day, year-around services in 10 sites across the county, as well as a home-based visiting model.
• Gaps are most pronounced for infants and toddlers, with the number of eligible children well exceeding the availability of Early Head Start slots.
• According to Audubon’s 2018 Needs Assessment for Daviess County, an estimated 822 infants and toddlers in Daviess County are eligible for Early Head Start, with funding for 120 slots.
• 551 young children in Daviess County are estimated to be eligible for Head Start, with 357 funded slots.

‍

4. Access to Quality ECE Services is Not Universal

• A range of quality in licensed and certified ECE services exists in Daviess County as defined by programs participating in Kentucky’s All STARS system.
• Daviess County has 8 child care providers at four or five stars (these include licensed Early Head Start and Head Start sites).
• 14 public preschool programs have reached five stars.

‍

‍

5. Disparities in Workforce Development & Professional Pay Create Gaps in Access to Quality ECE Services

• According to the Labor Market Information Report from the Kentucky Center for Statistics, across the Green River Local Workforce Area, an estimated 650 individuals are employed as child care workers.
• Their mean hourly wage is $10.21 and median is $9.77. In Kentucky, child care educators must have a high school diploma or equivalent, but they can access state-funded scholarships to receive a Certified Development Associate (CDA) credential.
• In Head Start and Early Head Start programs in Daviess County, all teachers have bachelor’s degrees and all assistants must receive a CDA in their first year on the job.
• Preschool teachers in the public schools receive the same salaries and benefits of K-12 teachers according to each district’s salary schedule and compensation package.
• They must have a bachelor’s degree with an Interdisciplinary Early Childhood Education (IECE) teaching certificate, which prepares them in early childhood development and special education.

‍

The Greater Owensboro Partnership for Early Development’s 6-Point Plan ECE Services

Recommendation 1: Launch a public advocacy campaign to encourage community-wide support of quality Early Childhood Education.

Every community member in Daviess County – families, educators, business owners, and community leaders – must understand how access to quality ECE services benefits not only parents with young children, but the community as a whole.

Recommendation 2: Implement Early Childhood Education talent development and retention strategies to meet Early Childhood Education workforce needs.

The Governor’s Office for Early Childhood developed an innovative apprenticeship program aimed at developing high quality ECE educators for students in their final two years of high school. Students can earn an ECE credential under the direction of an ECE mentor during a co-op experience. A similar program exists for adults interested in earning a child care director credential.

Individuals enrolled in either program are eligible to receive a full-tuition scholarship for an Associate’s Bachelor’s, and/or Master’s degree in Early Childhood Education through Kentucky Higher Education Assistance Authority.
State resources currently exist to build a high quality ECE workforce in Daviess County.

Recommendation 3: Implement employee-based child care partnerships among employers and child care centers.

Small, midsize, and large businesses can be incentivized to offer child care employee-benefits to all employees. Public-private partnerships, federal tax incentives, and a matching grant available through the Kentucky Division of Child Care are each pathways to growing child care benefits for Greater Owensboro employers.

Recommendation 4: Identify and enroll all families eligible for the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) subsidy and sustain CCAP eligibility to 200% of the federal poverty level and make all children within 200% of the federal poverty level eligible for public preschool.

Innovative community partnerships with organizations such as The Center of Owensboro, Audubon Area Community Services, and/or Owensboro Public Schools/Daviess County Schools can close gaps in access for enrollment in the Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) for families at or below 200% of the federal poverty level.

Additionally, community groups such as the Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce can advocate for the Kentucky Legislature to make CCAP eligibility at 200% of the federal poverty level permanent and to raise public preschool eligibility to 200% of the federal poverty level to reduce barriers to ECE learning for low and middle income families.

Recommendation 5: Raise the quality of all child care centers to 3 STARS or above and clear the Head Start, preschool, and child care waiting lists for all children under age 5.

The Daviess County Child Care Community Council can partner with entities such as Child Care Aware and/or Lakeshore Learning to coach child care centers rated below 3 STARS to raise their quality ratings.

Audubon Area Early Head Start and Head Start, Owensboro Public Schools, Daviess County Schools, and the Daviess County Child Care Community Council can be surveyed to compile a list of families currently on their waiting list. Local philanthropy can be utilized to minimize barriers to ECE entry and secure a funding source to clear waiting lists.

Recommendation 6: Utilize data to monitor for continuous improvement of educational outcomes for children enrolled in Early Childhood Education programs.

The research is clear that access to high quality ECE services for children under the age of 5 increases kindergarten-readiness and proficiency in literacy and numeracy by the close of the 3rd grade. Kindergarten-readiness and proficiency in literacy and numeracy by the close of the 3rd grade must be evaluated using the appropriate state mandated measures in the years following the implementation of the above recommendations.

‍

A Call to Action

Quality of life begins with the start we provide to our children. The community partners represented in this body of work stand united to develop an early childhood education system capable of preparing all children to thrive.

The Greater Owensboro Partnership for Early Development understands that the release of this report is only a first step. The change we seek is an investment in the community’s most precious resource – its next generation.

We invite all to join us as we take the next steps together in creating a community in which all children have the opportunity for quality early learning to thrive in school and life. In doing so, we make Greater Owensboro the best place to learn, live, work, and play.

‍

‍

Greater Owensboro Partnership for Early Development Members by Name and Organization

Dr. Matthew Constant, Superintendent, Owensboro Public Schools
Matthew Robbins, Superintendent, Daviess County Public Schools
Dr. Scott Williams, President, Owensboro Community and Technical College
Dr. Stacy Edds-Ellis, Dean of Academic Affairs, Owensboro Community and Technical College
Pat Jones, Board Member, Owensboro Community and Technical College
Amanda Epley, Director of Child Care, Owensboro Family YMCA
Erica Wade, Executive Director, The Center of Owensboro-Daviess County, Inc.
Sherry Baber, Preschool Coordinator, Owensboro Public Schools
Chris Westerfield, Preschool Coordinator, Daviess County Schools
Candance Castlen Brake, President and CEO, Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce
Hannah Thurman, Director of Talent Programs, Communications, and Events, Executive Director of Leadership
Owensboro, Greater Owensboro Chamber of Commerce
Brandon Harley, Deputy CEO, Audubon Area Community Services
Amanda Huff, Director, Daviess County Early Childhood Community Council
Keith Cottoner, Executive Director, The H.L. Neblett Community Center
Janet Land, Preschool Director, Settle United Methodist Church
Linda Wahl, Director (Retired), Building Stronger Families
DJ Johnson, Representative, Kentucky House District 13
Suzanne Miles, Majority Caucus Chair, Kentucky House District 7
Clay Ford, Partner, EM Ford
Dr. Thomas Mitzel, President, Kentucky Wesleyan College
Dr. Larry Hostetter, President, Brescia University
Dr. Ashley N. Holland, Chair School of Education, Brescia University
Dr. Nick Brake, Director of Doctoral Studies, Western Kentucky University
Susan Montalvo-Gesser, Executive Director, Catholic Charities of Owensboro
Doug Eberhart, Vice President, Ohio Valley United Way
Stephanie Bertram, Director of Resource Development and Marketing, Ohio Valley United Way
Amy Silvert, Executive Director, Green River Area Community Foundation
Rosemary Conder, Executive Director (Retired), CASA Ohio Valley
Candi Kamuf, R.N. HANDS Program Manager, Green River District Health Department
Keith Sanders, Executive Director, Hager Educational Foundation
David Boeyink, President (Retired), Public Life Foundation of Owensboro
Joe Berry, President, Public Life Foundation of Owensboro
Bruce Hager, Chair, Public Life Foundation of Owensboro
Debbie Zuerner, Director of Community Engagement, Owensboro Health

Partnership Staff:
Benjamin M. Gies, Director of Early Childhood Policy & Practice, The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence

References

Audubon Area Head Start – Daviess County Community Assessment – 2018 https://www.audubonarea.com/documents/headstart/assessment/18-19%20CA%20Daviess%20County.pdf

Bishop-Josef , S., Beakey, C., Watson, S., & Garrett , T. (2021, June 2). Want to Fix the Economy? Fix the Child Care Crisis: Workers and Employers Feel Pain in Pocketbooks and Productivity . The Infant-Toddler Child Care Crisis Inflicts Economic Damage Across the Nation. https://strongnation.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/602/83bb2275-ce07-4d74-bcee-ff6178daf6bd.pdf?1547054862&inline;%20filename=%22Want%20to%20Grow%20the%20Economy?%20Fix%20the%20Child%20Care%20Crisis.pdf%22

Cost of Child Care – https://www.costofchildcare.org/ Heckman, J., Garcia, J., Leaf, D., Prados, M., Center for the Economics of Human Development at the University of Chicago. The Life Cycle Benefits of an Influential Early Childhood Program. Working Paper 2016-035. (Dec. 2016). https://heckmanequation.org/assets/2017/01/Garcia_Heckman_ Leaf_etal_2016_life-cycle-benefits-ecp_r1-p.pdf

Kentucky School Report Card – www.kyschoolreportcard.com Early Childhood Profile – https://kystats.ky.gov/Latest/ECP

Kentucky Strengthening Families Profile https://cssp.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/KentuckyState-
Profile-2021.pdf

LWA Wage and Employment – https://kystats.ky.gov/KYLMI

Progress and Next Steps for Early Childhood in Kentucky: Birth Through 3rd Grade. The Prichard Committee: Early Childhood Education Study Group, 2015. https://prichardcommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/ECE-Study-Group-Report-2015.pdf.

Sherif, V., Rous, B., & Rojas, J. (2019). Kentucky’s 2019 child care workforce study. Lexington, KY: Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky. https://www.childcareawareky.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/2019-KY-Workforce-Report_Updated_9032019.pdf

2020 Market Rate Report – https://chfs.ky.gov/agencies/dcbs/dcc/Documents/2020marketrate.pdf

‍

“Participation on the state assessment was lower due to COVID-19 and in-person testing requirements. Comparisons with previous years are not appropriate because number of test takers, changes to the assessment, and modified instructional settings.”

‍

That’s what the 2021 Kentucky School Report Card website tells you first when you look for this year’s assessment results. The Department of Education clearly think that’s important, and after studying the data for a while, I agree.

Let’s use elementary reading as an example. Kentucky assesses reading in grades 3, 4, and 5. The key facts are that:

• 140,305 students were enrolled in those grades in our public schools last year
• 124,790 of them participated in the elementary reading assessment
• 88.9% is the resulting participation rate (participants divided by enrolled students)
• 11.1% –the other 15,505– did not participate

One big point that there isn’t state-level information on how those 15,505 students are doing in reading.  (May I underline “state-level” for a moment? Classroom teachers observe students as they read and gather evidence that way every day. Many schools also use interim assessments like MAP to get a further look at reading skills. What’s missing is the state assessment data and the easy access community members are used to getting at kyschoolreportcard.com.)

Adding an equity lens, there are definite disproportions in elementary reading, as shown in this chart.

In middle and high school reading, the rates are all lower and the differences are all more severe, as shown in charts at the end of this post. It also looks like the rates are pretty consistently lower in Jefferson County, our largest public school district.

This definitely shapes how I’m thinking about the data on the percent of students who reached proficiency or above in 2021. Those numbers were summarized in Brigitte Blom’s statement this morning [Link: https://prichardcommittee.org/academic-recovery-from-pandemic-will-require-all-hands-on-deck-approach-by-our-communities-families-and-state-leaders/] as well as being available at kyschoolreportcard.com.

First, I read the reporting with caution, now that I understand that many thousands of Kentucky students in the tested grades did not participate. Especially, I’m wary of comparing to past years’ results that assessed more than 95% of students. Those trend comparisons have long been my very first analysis, but this participation issue has changed my approach. That caution is especially strong for thinking about Jefferson results.

Second, I read the numbers with concern: the thousands who didn’t participate may be struggling more than those who did. For example, they may include many of the students who found virtual learning especially hard, whether the issue was broadband access, sharing devices with siblings, being responsible for sibling care, or some quite different challenge.

Third, I remember the thing I said earlier: these results are not the main way educators or families or students themselves work out how the learning is going. Every day in the classroom provides evidence on that: evidence that’s more timely and more nuanced than the test scores will ever be, and evidence that can be used for effective responses in the next hour, next day, and next week.

Finally, though, things get simple again:

• We’re working to provide every learner with the right resources to move forward: resources that include relationships and opportunities as well as supplies and facilities and funding.
• The 2021 results tell us firmly that we need to invest to equip our rising generation. Creating a big bold future will require more than we have invested before and more than we expected before the pandemic: more of our energy and attention and innovation, as well as more of our dollars.
• Whether we’re thinking about the students with no scores, the students with low scores, or the students whose better scores don’t indicate much about their depth of understanding or capacity to put knowledge to work, the last two years have added dramatically to the challenges we must meet.

It’s time to show up for the big new work. It’s time for all hands on deck.

‍

September 16, 2021

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For More Information Contact:
Jessica Fletcher, Senior Director, Communications & External Affairs
(cell) 859-539-0511
jessica.fletcher@prichardcommittee.org

LEXINGTON, Ky. – Bonnie Lash Freeman, a Jefferson County education champion described as “believing in the power of parents,” is the recipient of the 2021 Beverly Nickell Raimondo Leadership Award from the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.

“Bonnie has been dedicated to the same principles that Beverly held dear, that every parent has a voice,” said Tony Raimondo, husband of the late Beverly Raimondo.

Freeman is retired from the National Center for Families Learning (NCFL). She managed various projects and grants in the areas of family literacy program development, family engagement, trainer development, and elementary and early childhood language and literacy development. Her expertise in program development included NCFL’s Toyota Family Learning Program, the Kentucky Reading Project, the Head Start Family Literacy Project, the Parent-Child Interaction Project, the Prichard Committee Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership, and the Chase Building Readers Project. In 2001, Freeman traveled to New Zealand to support the creation of family literacy programs for Pacific Islander and Maori families.

She also served as a commissioner representing Kentucky on the Education Commission of the States. From 2004 to 2008, Bonnie served on the Kentucky Board of Education, where she held leadership roles as chair and vice-chair of the Curriculum and Assessment Committee. Additionally, she has developed and implemented parent workshops and has consulted with citywide family engagement efforts, such as the Annie E. Casey Making Connections Project and the Leadership Louisville Bingham Fellows Program.

Bonnie served on the Prichard Committee Board of Directors from 2018 through September of this year.

“Bonnie is an incredible educator and advocate for equity and racial justice,” said Prichard Committee Member Mary Gwen Wheeler.

The Prichard Committee award is named in honor and memory of Beverly Nickell Raimondo, who was instrumental in the development of the Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership in 1997. Since its founding, the institute has trained and supported hundreds of parents as advocates for educational excellence.

“Bev believed that if parents were united in their call for change, it would lead to a Groundswell of improvement that would sweep across the state. Her legacy continues to live through Bonnie’s efforts and parents across Kentucky who work in her honor to advocate for excellent education for each and every student,” said Brigitte Blom, President and CEO of the Prichard Committee.

###

The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence is an independent, nonpartisan, citizen-led organization working to improve education in Kentucky – early childhood through postsecondary.

‍

In September, the Prichard Committee called for urgent attention to Kentucky’s failure to deliver for Black students, saying “The learners bring talent, knowledge, culture, experience, energy, and potential to our classrooms, and it must be our shared work to ensure that their many gifts are nurtured and richly developed.” While this year’s Kentucky’s 2020 School Report Card provides limited data on student performance, it offers important updates on some of our ongoing failures to nurture and empower Black students in our public schools, including failures in staffing, discipline, gifted and talented identification, advanced coursework, and identification of disabilities.

First, our schools have too few Black teachers. Black students are 10.6% of our public school enrollment, but Black educators are only 3.3% of our faculty. With research showing student benefits from teachers who look like them, this failure of recruitment and retention is a clear weakness in our schools. (In these charts, three shades of purple spotlight African American percentages that are 25%, 50% and 75% below African American students’ share of statewide enrollment. Shades of orange show African American rates that are 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% greater than the students’ share of enrollment.)

Second, Black students receive wildly disproportionate disciplinary consequences: they are less than 11% of all students, but receive more than 30% of reported consequences. Expulsions are the only consequence anywhere near proportionate application. This pattern cannot continue: it signals injustice and exclusion at levels that are clearly systemic failures to welcome, serve, and empower Black Kentucky.

Third, Black students are dramatically underrepresented for most gifted and talented categories, likely meaning that students with important and distinctive abilities are being overlooked and denied opportunities to develop their standout capacities. Dance is the only category in which Black students are included at rates above their share of enrollment.

Fourth, Black students are underrepresented in advanced coursework and more sharply underrepresented in earning potential college credit from that work.  This part of our system is not offering Black learners solid and effective support.

Finally, Kentucky schools identify surprisingly few Black children with speech language impairments and identify disturbingly high numbers of Black children with emotional behavioral disabilities.  Both issues deserve attention to be sure that students are getting supports they need and that they are not being subjected to inappropriate placements and interventions based on implicit bias or overt hostility.

The Kentucky School Report Cards offer similar data for each school and district, though you may need to do your own calculations and comparisons of percentages. I hope you will explore, looking for good news of full inclusion and taking seriously any signs of failure to deliver for the Black students of your own community.

The Prichard Committee’s September statement also offered a starting list of how to dismantle these failures and build more just approaches, calling for “deep work on implicit bias, cultural responsiveness, consistent inclusion, respectful collaboration, sustained leadership, robust funding, and shared commitment to a society that empowers us all.” The newly released 2020 School Report Card places the need for that deep work right in front of us, ready for our steady, intensive engagement so that we can build a big, bold future for Black learners.

‍