Will Kentucky pass up millions in ed funding (again) to avoid charter schools?

The U.S. Department of Education announced today that nine states, including Kentucky, which missed out on millions in federal Race to the Top (RTTT) funds last year may be eligible to compete again for approximately $200 million.  But Kentucky's only obstacle to scoring this money last time was its lack of charter schools, a key stipulation of RTTT funding.  When Kentucky had a second shot at Race to the Top, the state legislature -- backed by superintendents, administrator organizations, and the teacher's union -- refused to consider any legislation that would open the door to charters.  With no change in this policy for the foreseeable future, the Commonwealth is poised to refuse this money a third time.

To be clear: I'm no fan of the Race to the Top program.  While I'm sure that RTTT winners like Tennessee and Delaware are putting the money to (somewhat) good use, and there's no doubt Kentucky needed the extra cash to help fund implementation of Senate Bill 1, I believe our national debt crisis is the single greatest threat to our country's long-term prosperity, including the future of education.  Borrowing money that our children and grandchildren must pay back -- possibly at an exorbitant price -- is irresponsible and does no favor to education in the long run.

Still, Kentucky has been an national education leader for the last two decades, and it's a great shame that we should fail to nab our share of this money simply because the educational establishment is too scared of charter schools to even allow the possibility of giving parents and students such a choice.

Charter opponents say the research on student outcomes is mixed.  They're right.  Some studies demonstrate that charter schools can promote very high levels of student learning.  Other studies suggest that charters do no better than traditional public schools.  But there is no universally-accepted definition of what constitutes a charter school and so generalizing among these varied institutions is difficult.  The case for charters is more complex than the outcomes of any individual school.

Charter schools are no silver bullet that will solve all of education's problems.  Like all schools, some charters will be successful, others won't.  The point is that charter schools are based on the belief that the best educational innovations occur when principals have maximum leeway to build a school culture and faculty team focused on student achievement.  Which is not to say that there should be no accountability of outcomes.  Taxpayers deserve accountability from all publicly-funded institutions, and schools should be no exception.  But a growing consensus is emerging that top-down, bureaucratically-driven, one-size-fits-all mandates for how schools achieve student success have serious limitations.

I support charter schools because I believe in empowering principals and teachers to run their schools relatively free of bureaucratic constraints and mandates as long as they get results.  I believe in giving parents more choices of educational options for their children (especially families of modest means; affluent parents already have these options -- it's the children of the poor and working class who have to live with their local school no matter what their quality).  And I believe that competition from innovative charters will ultimately make all schools better.

I understand why the educational establishment doesn't want charters.  But to turn down millions of dollars that would help all schools just to squash the possibility seems self-defeating.

Comments

[Innervation]

There is, unfortunately, no viable pathway for legislators or KDE to address the deficiency of charter schools during the application timeline for Round Three. After the bad press associated with the special session earlier this year, I doubt legislative leadership or the Governor would push to call for a special session. (Even if Gov. Beshear had a change of heart on charters, he will be far too busy with the fall election to undertake such a task.)
I also do not see a pathway by which Kentucky can recuse itself from the competition with a polite, "Thanks but no thanks." to the good folks in Washington. In this case, Kentucky is left with a critical gap in it's application once more. What's next?

During Round One, KDE made a half-hearted attempt to argue School Based Decision Making (SBDM) councils were an adequate replacement for charters. Round Two saw even less of an argument--and even fewer scorers who believed such an argument was valid. The question, then, is what can KDE argue would meet this need? This rise of early and middle college programs could be the best bet in this case. The program at West Kentucky Community and Technical College, others already in place, and the new programs starting up under a grant could be useful pathways for the second half the application heading "Charters...or Other Innovative Programs." A second inclusion of this case, for which I am personally connected, is The Gatton Academy of Mathematics and Science in Kentucky. Advocates for charters have used the program as a lightning rod in the past--going so far as to call it "Kentucky's illegal charter school." While I do not believe the Academy is a charter school, it certainly does represent an innovative program with useful longitudinal data to support an argument.

Either way, the greatest part of the state's application need not change if the rules stay the same for Round Three. However, if that's the case, some serious brainstorming needs to take place to make the application more than for show.

[Gary Houchens]

Agree with you on multiple counts. Yes, Gatton is not a charter school per se, but it's an excellent example of educational innovation and meets a real, unmet need for students across the region.