Saturday, September 24^th was an agenda filled day for Hispanic families in Northern Kentucky as they attended the 2^nd Annual Hispanic Families Leadership Conference hosted by Learning Grove. Learning Grove Hispanic Family Engagement Coordinator, Theresa Cruz, led the day long event with support from parent leaders, community members and sponsors. Theresa shared the event’s purpose is to “connect the Hispanic community to necessary resources and provide an opportunity for Hispanic families to be seen and heard.”

Prichard Committee Board Member, Leo Calderon served as the Keynote Presenter for the day’s activities. Leo Calderon previously served as the Director of Latino Student Initiatives at Northern Kentucky University, and is a founder of the Esperanza Center in Covington, KY. Leo urged families to unify to address barriers for the Latino community, engage in their student’s education and seek out necessary resources to “be the change”.

Several themes emerged throughout the day. The first, is the need to increase bilingual staff in our schools and communities. Many schools are working to address barriers to language access through English classes and translation of materials, but schools still lack the needed staff that are bilingual. Another theme points to the lack of representation on decision-making bodies and access to opportunities for families who don’t speak English as their first language. Additionally, I witnessed families learning about resources available to them in their communities, for the first time.

The Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership (CIPL) Fellowship Program, expanded in 2020 to include families who speak Spanish. During 2020, a pilot program was launched with the partnership between the National Center for Families Learning-Family Literacy Program, Learning Grove, Boone County Schools and The Prichard Committee. This partnership increased families’ knowledge of the education system including learning-at-home strategies and engaging in service-learning projects. Through this spectrum of involvement, families were offered the opportunity to develop their leadership skills through CIPL as a pipeline to increase confidence for Hispanic families to serve as leaders in their communities and schools. Several parent leaders from the 2020 class were responsible for the coordination and event planning of the conference. This community effort is critical to address inequitable access to quality education and break down barriers to higher education for Hispanic families and their students.

A detailed summary of this initiative can be found in this blog post from Jacqueline Ceboci, 2022 CIPL Fellow, Boone County Parent and FIESTA member.

‍

“Sowing Hope and Cultivating Leaders”

‍

The important thing about this day is to be able to have a space for Latino-Hispanic expression. A space where it is possible to feel all together, where it is possible to think all together.Today I want to share with you, with all of you, who we are:F.I.E.S.T.A;  is a Hispanic community from Northern Kentucky USA. that seeks to give presence, support and voice to our Latino/Hispanic families.Each letter of the word represents the recognition and actions in favor of our Latin American families.

1. F. Family I. Inclusion E. Education S. Society T. Traditions A. Access

Mission:It is to give presence and voice to our Latino\Hispanic Families, promote an Inclusive society, in favor of Education, culture and Tradition of our Society, providing easy Access to existing resources and opportunities, which lead to individual and community transformation.Vision: It is to become an organization that actively advocates for the needs of our community and fair treatment, through the inclusion of the different ranches, associations and social resources.Objectives:

• Provide English language classes for parents.
• Open direct communication channels with schools, government institutions, health centers, churches, libraries, among others.
• Connect and inform with the different associations with a Hispanic presence dedicated to benefiting our community with opportunities and resources.
• Training and support in the education and well-being of our children, through knowledge of the existing programs.  CIPL for its acronym in English Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership, is a program for parents to learn more. We need you. We need more parents who actively advocate and represent our children in and out of their schools.

Also:

• Connect with people from the Hispanic community.
• Actively promote inclusion between cultures.
• Form a great family where we can support each other with respect and freedom.

The members that make up F.I.E.S.T.A are parents, people from different community organizations, schools, state government, agencies, private corporations, religious institutions and higher education.

‍

The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence recently hosted a week-long series of discussions on racial equity in Kentucky’s public schools. The series, titled Black Minds Matter, focused on formulating solutions on how to close academic achievement gaps and postsecondary attainment gaps between African American students and their peers at the state and local levels.

‍

“Through this series on racial equity in education we focused on solutions – specifically finding ways that policymakers, educators, parents, students, and communities can work together to ensure we are delivering on the promise of public education for each and every student,” said Prichard Committee President and CEO Brigitte Blom Ramsey. “In 2015, 45 percent of our entering African American students were reported fully ready for kindergarten, but by 2019, we had equipped only 30 percent of them to score proficient or above in K-PREP reading.”

Blom Ramsey says Kentucky education data also show that our education system isn’t preparing Black students for college and career at the same rate as their White peers.

“In 2019, there was a 32.5 percent gap between Kentucky White and Black students on transition readiness,” she said. “This is clearly a failure of our system to deliver the education that our Black students need to thrive in our economy, and we must collectively own our truths in order to address this inequity.”

‍

Ways to take action

The first installment in a series of Community Toolkits from the Prichard Committee is also available for download. It details what Kentuckians can do in their own communities, schools and districts to help to support the unique needs of students and put an end to systemic barriers that serve to hold students back.

The Prichard Committee has formalized a standing coalition for Equity in Education: Early Childhood through Postsecondary. The coalition will be open to all citizens interested in repair longstanding failures to deliver educational excellence for students who have been marginalized or historically disadvantaged by our systems. An online signup form is available at prichardcommittee.org/equity-coalition.

‍

Black Minds Matter Video Conversations
‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

September 22, 2022

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For More Information, Contact:
Benjamin Gies
502-381-1192
ben@prichardcommittee.org

‍

Kentucky Leaders Warn Tough Times Ahead for Child Care Access Without Significant State Investment

‍

FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY – The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence and a team of statewide partners including Kentucky Youth Advocates, Metro United Way, United Way of Greater Cincinnati,  United Way of Kentucky, Appalachian Early Childhood Network, Learning Grove, 4-C, EC LEARN, and others released their findings today from A Fragile Ecosystem IV: Will Kentucky Child Care Survive When The Dollars Run Out? The survey of Kentucky child care providers underscored how the sector will be impacted once federal American Rescue Plan COVID relief dollars run out.

The survey found that:

• Over 70% of Kentucky child care providers will be forced to raise tuition for working parents
• Close to 40% indicated that providers would cut staff wages
• Close to 30% of child care providers said they would layoff staff
• Over 20% of providers indicated they would permanently close their child care center

“Nearly three years into the pandemic, Kentucky’s child care sector remains on shaky ground and the sector is bracing for more challenging times ahead. The results of A Fragile Ecosystem IV show the need for greater financial support from Frankfort, and for continued substantial, engaged planning with providers,” said Benjamin Gies Director of Early Childhood Policy & Practice for The Prichard Committee.

“As Kentucky rapidly approaches a funding cliff caused by the end of federal American Rescue Plan funding, time is of the essence to ensure Kentucky’s child care and early education infrastructure is sustained and strengthened for working parents immediately and in the long term,” said Brigitte Blom, President & CEO of The Prichard Committee.

The event in Frankfort was joined by statewide early childhood advocates, members of the KY Strong Start Coalition, and legislative leaders.

“Child care is the workforce behind the workforce,” said Representative Samara Heavrin (R-18). “Without access to affordable and quality child care, more Kentuckians will be kept out of the workforce. The lack of accessible child care already accounts for a loss of over $570 million in lost earnings, business productivity and tax revenue each year in Kentucky.  This is why I am an advocate for the private sector to be involved in the process. We need to encourage more of our businesses here in Kentucky to start looking at offering some type of childcare as a benefit to their employees, just as they would insurance or leave time. Our commonwealth cannot afford to see child care access worsen, because we cannot afford to lose more people in our workforce.”

“In these past two years, the vital nature of early childhood education, particularly reliable and accessible childcare, has become more apparent to the public,” Senator Danny Carroll, R-Benton, said. “Kentucky’s child care sector has faced immense challenges. Today’s press conference and dialogue aim to bring awareness to additional challenges on the horizon as federal ARPA dollars supporting centers lapse. I, co-chair  Heavrin and all members of the Early Childhood Education Task Force are working with intent and purpose to identify ways to help providers and families. Across the workforce spectrum, we are seeing businesses, schools, law enforcement and so many more starving for employees. Kentucky’s workforce is the greatest obstacle to continued economic growth, and I consider a solution to childcare needs fundamentally important in addressing workforce needs.

Senator Carroll added, “I appreciate the Prichard Committee being an ally in our efforts to strengthen the state’s childcare sector and bring awareness to the issues facing Kentucky child care providers and those they serve.

Senator Carroll and Representative Heavrin also serve as co-chairs of the Kentucky Early Childhood Education Taskforce, a bipartisan group of state legislators working to develop long term solutions for Kentucky’s early education sector.

Dr. Terry Brooks, Executive Director of Kentucky Youth Advocates added, “Parents cannot go to work if they don’t have access to reliable and affordable child care in their community in which their children are safe, cared for, and learning. Quality child care is the key to a strong future workforce in Kentucky, especially as centers provide an important environment for children to develop problem-solving and other social skills. An investment in child care now is an investment in our future.”

State advocates urged leaders in Frankfort to keep early childhood funding top of mind as legislators plan for Kentucky’s next budget session in 2024. As Kentucky speeds toward a funding cliff caused by the end of federal American Rescue Plan funding, the fate of working parents, and their ability to fully contribute to the commonwealth’s economy, hangs in the balance.

“Kentucky’s child care crisis began long before 2020,” Metro United Way President & CEO Adria Johnson said. “Perhaps the steady pace of closures muted the collective impact. But, in 2020, the closing of doors rang throughout our communities, and today child care providers tell us it will become deafening without action. Metro United Way is deeply grateful to work alongside policymakers and administrative leaders dedicated to ensuring Kentucky families and employers have the accessible, affordable, quality child care sector our Commonwealth needs. We urge them–and all–to hear the voices in A Fragile Ecosystem. They are the sounds of solutions.”

Shannon Starkey-Taylor, Learning Grove CEO added, “We want to thank the Prichard Committee and our Kentucky partners for eliciting these survey results. They provide important insight into the immense struggle in the child care sector to maintain financial viability and quality care and instruction under the pressures caused by Covid and economic stress on wages.

To read the full report, click here.

###

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

Why is mixed-delivery preschool needed? Can’t we just expand the public school system?

‍

Many local school districts lack the personnel and facility space needed to readily expand public preschool to all four-year-olds. Public-private partnerships among already existing private child care facilities and the public school system eliminate barriers to the sustainable expansion of preschool, such as facilities capacity and teacher shortages faced by public school districts.

A full-scale expansion of public preschool without public-private partnerships will crash the private child care industry, leaving limited to no care available for families with children aged 0-3, according to the Early Care and Education Consortium.

• In Tulsa, Oklahoma, where free public preschool accounts for most preschool programming, costs of early care and education increased 33% overall from 2008 to 2018, with spikes of up to 55% for infants and toddlers. And from 2005 to 2018, 43% of all licensed early care and education providers in Oklahoma closed, leaving parents of children aged 0-3 without care and children behind in their early development (Early Care & Education Consortium, 2021).
• California saw the number of home-based-providers decrease by almost 30% from 2008 to 2016, largely due to the increase in state funded 4-year-old Preschool programs. An Early Care and Education Consortium (ECEC) analysis shows that if 4-year-olds are pulled out of their current settings as part of the expansion, providers anticipate having to raise prices in the 0-3 space by ~40% (Early Care & Education Consortium, 2021).
• In New York City, a system many see as the model for universal preschool, one study points to as much as a 20% reduction of available infant and toddler care after the implementation of universal 4-year-old preschool in 2014. Furthermore, all lost slots were found to be in high poverty areas, and the decline was not offset by an increase in provision in the home day care market (Early Care & Education Consortium, 2021).

Additionally, public preschool via a mixed-delivery system better serves the needs of parents in the workforce by offering full-day and full-year preschool services to children that match the work schedules of parents.

For an explainer video on the challenges faced in the expansion of public preschool, watch this video by the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Guest Post by Jill Handley - Principal, Kenwood Elementary

‍

As a principal who grounds her work in leading a school that is a model of inclusivity, I know that optimal student success in achievement, engagement, and sense of belonging occurs when there is a strong partnership between home and school.

‍

Whenever I talk with families, I tell them our partnership is like a triangle with the student at the top, the school on one side, and the family on the other.  If any one of those sides or vertices are broken, optimal student success cannot occur.

Four years ago, I attended a professional development session at the ESEA Conference with Dr. Steve Constantino where he shared ideas from his book, Engage Every Family (2015). In the book, Dr. Constantino outlines five principles of family engagement that schools should consider. Those five principles are closely aligned to Dr. Joyce Epstein’s Framework of Six Types of Parent Involvement and with the Commissioner’s Parent Advisory Council’s (CPAC) overarching objectives outlined in The Missing Piece of the Proficiency Puzzle that was released by The Prichard Committee in 2007.

Hungry for more ideas to better engage our families, I devoured the book and immediately ordered a copy for each member of our Family and Community Engagement (FCE) Committee.  We engaged in a book study and began developing our own understanding of the difference between family involvement and family engagement. Next, we started to reflect upon our family engagement practices by asking the question, “Would every family choose us?” Using this question as a guide, we implemented several of the strategies listed in the book which led to an increase in family engagement and student achievement.

Like many schools, we pride ourselves on the relationships we establish with our families and community partners. We always work hard to initiate positive outreach to develop trust and mutual respect with our families and have used a variety of methods to engage in two-way communication. In 2019, when we were recognized as a State and National School of Character, part of the process involved family interviews.  Listening to the way families responded with pride about their relationship with our school was such a bucket filler and affirmed we were on the right track to engaging our families.

As a Title 1 School with over 84% of our students qualifying for free or reduced lunch and 46% of our students speaking English as a Second Language, creating equitable opportunities for learning has always been a priority for Kenwood Elementary. To help achieve this goal it often means helping remove non-academic barriers for our students and families. We are fortunate to have a Family Resource Center (FRC) Coordinator who helps support this work; but the truth is schools have significant student and family needs that extend beyond the capacity of one family/community-based position.  As a result, we chose to allocate funding to create a certified Family Ambassador position which took effect just before the pandemic began.  During NTI the need to help remove non-academic barriers and provide equitable opportunities increased tremendously and thankfully our Family Ambassador, Aimee McDonnell worked closely with our FRC Coordinator to lead our FCE team in supporting families.

While connecting with and supporting families during NTI allowed us to deepen our relationships, it also highlighted a need to take an even more comprehensive approach to supporting families.  Understanding the needs schools have, our district family engagement specialist, Chrystal Hawkins, partnered with the National Center for Families Learning (NCFL) to provide differentiated family engagement support for schools.  We signed up for individualized support and were partnered with Cindy Baumert from NCFL who helped take our family engagement to a whole new level.  As a result of our work with Cindy, we developed a family engagement committee with parents who met monthly to give feedback and insight.  Our work with Chrystal and Cindy helped us transition from doing school to families to doing school with families by engaging their voice on the front end of planning.

It was during our work with Cindy that we found out about the Family Friendly Certification.  Proud of the work we had been engaging in, we were excited to apply. As the recipient of several other recognitions, we knew that applying would undoubtedly require us to provide evidence of our accomplishments.  Because of the success we had achieved with our families we initially thought, “Of course we are a family friendly school, and we have lots of evidence to prove that.” What we didn’t anticipate was the critical lens we would have to examine our practices through.

We began by conducting the Kentucky Family and School Partnership Self-Assessment and realized that we did have a lot of surface level evidence of our family engagement success; however, the self-assessment caused us to take a deeper dive into our practices to refine and add to what we were already doing. Our FCE Committee developed action plans for each of the five components of the self-assessment that focused on creating sustainable systems and structures to support each of the five areas of family engagement. The plans outlined what we were already doing and what we needed to do and included objectives, strategies/actions steps, timelines, responsible parties, resources/funding, measurements of success, and equity considerations.

Many of the strategies and resources we included in our action plans came from the training we engaged in as a result of the application process, along with the resources in the Kentucky Family and School Partnership Guide and the Kentucky Family Engagement Digital Playbook. Having detailed plans allowed us to have a laser-like focus on immediate actions steps we could take. Some examples of the ways in which we improved our practices because of the process are

• Creating a designated “community center” within the school for families to connect with school staff and other families
• Eliminating all “reserved for staff” parking and instead reserving it for visitors to create a more welcoming environment for families and community members
• Increased family voice through surveys and conversations to inform school needs
• Development of MTSS for Families that connects each family with at least one caring adult from the school (besides their child’s teacher) that acts as a liaison and advocate for the family

Dr. Mapp reinforces the need for schools to prioritize family engagement from being seen as an add-on for student success to being integrated as a core pillar of teaching and learning. Engaging in the process of applying for and becoming the first school in the state to certify as a Family Friendly School not only helped solidify that integrated pillar for us, but also provided resources and support to make it happen.

We are so honored to have earned this distinction and are grateful to our families and community partners who helped make it happen. We also understand that becoming Family Friendly Certified is only the beginning.  Now that we have created a systematic approach to truly engaging all families, we must make sure we examine all decisions for teaching and learning through a family engagement lens. If schools and districts are going to truly engage families as co-producers in their child’s education, then family engagement systems and structures must be re-examined and funding for positions and resources must become a priority.

‍

References

Commissioner’s Parent Advisory Council. (2007). The missing piece of the proficiency puzzle: Recommendations for involving families and community in improving student achievement.

Constantino, S. M. (2015). Engage every family: Five simple principles. Corwin.

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9).

Mapp, K. L., & Kuttner, P. J. (2013). Partners in education: A dual capacity-building framework for family–school partnerships.

‍

‍July 20, 2022

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
For More Information Contact:
Suzetta Creech, 859-940-1790

Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership founding staff recognized with leadership award

LEXINGTON, Ky. – At the recent 25th anniversary celebration of the Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership (CIPL), founding staff were recognized as recipients of the 2022 Beverly Nickell Raimondo Leadership Award from the Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. The gathering was sponsored by Field and Main Bank, Russell Capital Management, and the Raimondo Family.

“Without the staff’s shared commitment and vision CIPL would not have had the unparalleled success it has had of empowering Kentucky parents and families,” said Tony Raimondo, husband of the late Beverly Raimondo.

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 parents as advocates for educational excellence.

“It is such an honor to be named among great parent leaders to receive the Beverly Nickell Raimondo Leadership award. Bev honestly believed every parent could be an advocate and made it her life’s work to train as many parents as she could. She gave us the language and the confidence we needed, not just to see our own children succeed, but every child we met. Thank you Raimondo Family, we will continue to honor Bev’s legacy,” Alana Morton, CIPL Program Associate (2005-2017).

Pictured are Christa Raimondo Cronin, Alana Morton, Maria Kenner, Tony Raimondo, Lutricia Woods, and Laurel Raimondo Martin.

“Bev’s vision allowed us to be ground breakers and innovators,” Maria Kenner, Community Support Coordinator (1998-2004).

“What a special honor to receive the 2022 Raimondo Award! I am proud and grateful to have had Bev as a friend and mentor. She was a natural leader with a servant’s heart and passion for helping parents realize their power in their child’s education,” Lutricia Woods, Community Support Coordinator (1998-2015).

“Bev’s team were the original builders, laying the foundation and vision of the Commonwealth Institute for Parent Leadership. Bev’s legacy continues to live through our continued efforts to ensure parents have a seat at the table,” 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.

‍

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)