School Leader

Kentucky's 15-year education spending trend

The Kentucky General Assembly just wrapped up its most contentious legislative session in modern history, marked by ferocious public debates about state employee pension reform and education spending. Public school teachers flexed their enormous political muscles and forced a compromise pension bill that left the system largely intact for current retirees and active employees, helped override a veto by Governor Bevin of a state budget that increases overall spending on K-12 education, and effectively killed new school choice options for Kentucky families.

A key factor in these debates was the concern that Kentucky has been systematically under-funding its schools. The original budget proposed by Governor Bevin featured massive K-12 spending cuts (offset by investments in the pension plan). And even though the approved budget increased per pupil spending, it also including sweeping reductions for textbooks, preschool programs, professional development, school improvement funds, and operations at the Kentucky Department of Education. All of this will mean more austerity for K-12 schools next year.

Similarly, other states across the U.S. are facing teacher strikes and public protests focused around education spending. In light of this discussion, Neal McCluskey, director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom, recently assembled a set of graphs showing trend lines in inflation-adjusted education spending in several states and for the U.S. as a whole. These graphs track total spending on education (which includes personnel costs, facilities, transportation - everything associated with the operation of K-12 schools) from the 1999-2000 school year until 2014-2015.

For Kentucky, you can see substantial increases in spending until 2007-2008. That's when the Great Recession began. From that point onward, Kentucky's K-12 spending has flat lined and then fallen since 2012, though in 2015 it remained essentially the same as its pre-Recession level in 2006-2007. Remember these numbers are already inflation-adjusted, so you can make valid year-to-year comparisons.

Kentucky has actually fared very well in comparison to other states over the same period of time, as McCluskey's blog post shows. Arizona and Colorado have suffered real declines in school spending, while West Virginia and Oklahoma's were more erratic.

There are several things to keep in mind with all this. First, these charts are total combinations of state and local spending. They do not show how the proportions of state versus local spending have fluctuated. I have not looked at those data trends, but it's possible that in given years the state's commitment to education has waned more dramatically while local governments have borne more of the burden.

Second, it's understandable that states were unable to keep up the kinds of steady increases in school spending made between 1999 and 2007. The Recession deprived states of tax revenues at the same time that costs for pensions and health insurance were skyrocketing. There was simply less money to go around and a lot more needs to cover. And, though there may be very good reasons for it, Kentucky did see a rapid expansion in non-instructional staff during this same period. All of these factors mean that, even though spending has remained stable, classroom teachers are not unreasonable to wonder where all that money has actually gone.

Third, none of this speaks to the question as to how much education spending really is necessary. While there is little reason to think that simply spending more equates to higher levels of student learning, it is also true that for more than two decades now Kentucky (and since 2002 the entire U.S.) has committed itself to an historically unprecedented policy of trying to bring all students to academic proficiency. We aren't making a lot of progress in that regard, but it stands to reason that such a goal will require generous resources, regardless of what improvement strategies we pursue.

What to make of all this? First, I think educators should stop claiming Kentucky's K-12 spending reflects an "attack on public education." Kentucky lawmakers (and local boards of education) should actually be commended for working so hard to maintain spending levels during a time of anemic revenues and skyrocketing pension and health care costs.

But that doesn't make the fiscal forecast for K-12 schools any easier. Very difficult decisions will have to be made and school leaders must be both creative in their use of resources and focused on finding cost savings wherever possible. This is no easy task. It would behoove state policy makers to conduct efficiency studies that help reveal which schools and districts are most effective in doing more with less, but for reasons that are still not entirely clear to me (even as a member of the state board of education), tracking where education dollars actually go and how they are spent is remarkably difficult. We should explore what changes in accounting practices are reasonable and practical to help schools learn from each other how to get more learning out of every dollar.

Likewise, we must be much more deliberate in tracking the actual impact of educational initiatives. This is tricky business, but the consequences of not doing so are real. The Kentucky Teacher Internship Program (KTIP), the one-year mentoring program for beginning teachers, was not funded in the approved budget. This is a real disappointment for many educators who believe that KTIP makes a big difference in new teacher effectiveness. I'm fond of KTIP too, but the truth is that we never invested energy in trying to actually measure the program's impact. We know that Kentucky has a higher than average teacher retention rate compared to other states, and that correlates with other positive outcomes, but it's very difficult to attribute that to KTIP alone. Now the program is likely suspended for lack of funds, and we can lament that, but we've got little to support its funding besides "I like the program and my gut tells me it was worth the money invested." In fiscally lean times, we need more than gut instinct to ask taxpayers for more sacrifices.

Finally, I have no problem with educators lobbying for more education spending. I believe more investments are probably in order if we hope to rapidly improve student learning outcomes. But it would be helpful if educators would approach this issue with a comprehensive view of where tax dollars come from and the economic realities we face. The pension reforms passed by the legislature this year may help in the long-run, but for now the liabilities remain enormous and will require resources that we'd probably rather spend on teacher salaries and classroom costs. Kentucky's tax structure has been inadequate both for generating new revenue and spurring the economic growth necessary to keep those revenues flowing. It's too soon to tell if the hastily-passed tax reforms approved by the General Assembly last month will bring in enough money to meet these wants, but regardless of how we raise taxes, it will be hard-working, ordinary Kentuckians (many with their own financial insecurities) who bear the load, and we need to constantly keep that in mind.

In short, we all could use a much bigger dose of humility as we talk about these issues. No, teachers aren't greedy for expecting the state to deliver on its pension promises and generously fund our schools. But at the same time, our fellow citizens don't hate public education because they see a need for reform and struggle to figure out how we'll pay for all the good things we'd like to have. Let's ease up on the rhetoric of war and get back to working with our neighbors to find common ground solutions.

Usual disclaimer: All views expressed on this website are mine alone. I speak only for myself, and not Western Kentucky University (where I am associate professor of educational administration, leadership, and research) or the Kentucky Board of Education (where I have served as a member since 2016).

Related posts:

• Initial thoughts on pension reform legislation
• Is education in Kentucky "under attack?"
• Does giving parents education options "divert money" from schools?

 

Charter schools and the profit question

Public domain image of students greeting President Obama during a visit to Martin Luther King, Jr. Charter School in New Orleans.

As Kentucky tries to figure out what to do about charter schools, one concern I keep hearing is that charters open the door to for-profit entities to make money off of taxpayer-funded schools. Many people seem to have concluded that this alone is reason to reject charter schools outright (and thus to deny families this option). I'd like to argue that relatively few for-profit entities are going to be involved in Kentucky charter schools, and that we should treat their presence like we regard the many other private businesses that provide products and services to traditional public schools every year.

The first thing to make clear is that, under Kentucky law, only a non-profit entity can apply to open a charter school. That could be a group of parents or teachers, a civic organization, or non-profit charter management chain. But no for-profit entity may ever be the "holder" of a charter (the contract that governs the operation of a charter school and serves as an agreement between the charter's board and an authorizer, which in Kentucky will most likely always be the local board of education).

It is possible, however, for a charter school's board of directors to hire an external entity to actually manage the operations of the school. This could be a non-profit provider chain (in charter jargon typically called a "charter management organization," or CMO; KIPP is an example), or a for-profit entity like Edison Schools (usually called an "education management organization," or EMO). It's important to note that for-profit EMO's are a relative small player in charter school management. Less than 15% of charters nationwide are operated by EMO's. The rest are run by non-profit CMO's or are independent, stand-alone schools.

However, if a charter school does decide to contract with an EMO for management services, I don't think we should automatically view that arrangement with suspicion. For-profit entities provide products and services to traditional public schools all the time. Think of the billions of dollars we spend annually in contracts and purchases for education technology, textbooks and curricular materials, food services, security, insurance, and a wide variety of other services. We typically don't consider these companies to be fleecing the public unless they are engaged in unethical or illegal behaviors, and we use transparent bidding, auditing, and the performance results of these vendors to help weed out bad actors as much as possible.

Moreover, as individuals we engage with for-profit providers all the time and don't presume their profit motivation automatically precludes their capacity to provide reliable, people-driven service. My family pediatrician makes a profit every time my children get sick. And I'm happy for her to do so. My kids love her and she makes them well. If she stops providing good service, I will find another pediatrician.

Of course, this analogy has its limitations. Public entities have a special obligation to protect the common good, and the consequences of poor service providers at the scale of an entire school are considerable. But schools and districts are accustomed to this challenge and Kentucky's charter law provides rigorous oversight and monitoring mechanisms to help minimize risks of provider misconduct.

That risk can't be eliminated completely of course. We can find examples of people behaving badly in the charter sector, but also in traditional public schools and in various non-profit and governmental roles. Profit motive isn't the only reason people engage in selfish or shady behaviors. That's a function of human nature, not a flaw in specific policies.

It's true that every public policy involves an exchange of benefits and risks. Charter schools pose new policy challenges, while the existing system (which generally denies low-income families a choice of education provider) presents other risks and problems. I believe there is sufficient evidence that we need to give families more education options, and the legal and regulatory regime for charter schools in Kentucky helps address the new challenges those options present.

As a final thought here, from time to time I encounter people who presume I must own stock in an EMO or otherwise have some financial stake in this matter, or else why would I support charter schools? It's truly a sign of how ugly and uncivil our public discourse has become that people presume one must have selfish reasons for disagreeing about public policy issues. For the record, I do not have a single thing to gain personally or professionally, financial or otherwise, by bringing charter schools to Kentucky. I have supported school choice for decades and publicly advocated for charter schools for at least eight years (at some risk to my standing at the university and in the K-12 community) because I believe giving families more education options is fair, makes sense, and should be one strategy among many for addressing our stagnant levels of student achievement. Please see more about how charters would work in Kentucky, and the arguments for and about school choice, in the links below.

Usual disclaimer: All views expressed on this website are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of Western Kentucky University (where I serve as associate professor of educational administration, leadership, and research) or the Kentucky Board of Education (where I have served as a member since 2016).

Related posts:

• Kentucky charter school basics
• Lawmakers fail Kentucky families on school choice
• Does giving parents education options "divert money" from schools?
• Why the education establishment feels so deeply threatened by school choice
• A School Choice Primer, Parts I, II, and III

Statement on the resignation of Commissioner Pruitt

As a member of the Kentucky Board of Education I went to Frankfort today to support Dr. Stephen Pruitt. I earnestly hoped that he could continue in his role as Commissioner of Education. Sadly, the meeting concluded with an agreement between Dr. Pruitt and the Board for his resignation. I voted no, casting the lone dissenting vote against the agreement. Vice Chairman Rich Gimmel abstained from the vote.

I'm deeply disappointed by this outcome. I have enormous respect and admiration for Dr. Pruitt and I am grateful for the work he has done on behalf of the students of Kentucky. I wish Dr. Pruitt and his family many blessings as they enter this new time of transition.

While I disagreed with the Board majority on this issue, I believe that all Board members acted today out of a sincere desire to greatly accelerate student learning outcomes. I share this sense of urgency, and welcome the chance to continue working with the Board to build a unified vision for statewide educational improvement.

Usual disclaimer: All views expressed on this website are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of Western Kentucky University (where I am associate professor in the Department of Educational Administration, Leadership, and Research) or the Kentucky Board of Education (where I have served as a member since 2016). 

New TELLKentucky research explores differences between principal and assistant principal perceptions

One of the many things I love about my work is the chance to partner with colleagues from across Western Kentucky University and beyond on a variety of projects. The fruit of one of those collaborations was recently published in the NASSP Bulletin, peer-reviewed research journal of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. 

This research study used the 2011 Teaching, Empowering, Leading, and Learning (TELL) Kentucky survey, administered statewide to all Kentucky educators, to explore how high school principals differed from assistant principals in their perceptions of school working conditions. My co-authors included former WKU colleague Dr. Jie Zhang (now a the University of Houston), WKU Educational Leadership doctoral program graduate Dr. Chunling Niu (now with the University of Kentucky College of Social Work), retired WKU colleague Dr. Stephen K. Miller, and Dr. Tony Norman, director of WKU's EdD program.

The TELL Kentucky survey was developed by the New Teacher Center of Santa Cruz, California, and has been administered every other year since 2011 to all Kentucky teachers and other school-level, certified personnel. The survey collects teacher attitudes toward eight aspects of their working conditions: Time, Facilities and Resources, Community Support and Involvement, Managing Student Conduct, Teacher Leadership, School Leadership, Professional Development, and Instructional Practices and Supports. The survey has always enjoyed a high response rate (80% in 2011) and provides a useful tool for reflecting on factors that impact teacher job satisfaction and school-wide professional culture.

Previously our research team had used the 2011 TELL Kentucky results to examine how implementing school-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) impacts teacher perceptions of their working conditions. In this study, we wanted to focus on school administrators. Specifically, we were interested in how assistant principals might differ from principals in their perceptions.

As I have written previously, the assistant principalship is the gateway for many aspiring principals to enter school administration, but not always a good one. Assistant principals are often relegated to uninspiring, non-instructional managerial tasks that may not prepare them well for the multi-faceted job of school principals. While empirical research is limited, we found evidence from earlier literature that principals and assistant principals often differ in their perceptions of each other's roles. We hypothesized that assistant principals might likewise differ in their perceptions of the school's working conditions. And given that the primary way principals impact student achievement is through developing structures of distributed leadership and by building academic capacity in the school, we speculated that differences between principal and assistant principal perceptions might also be related to student achievement outcomes.

We limited our population to high schools (where the most combinations of principals and assistant principals could be found). Using selection criteria described in the article, our sample included 149 principals and 240 assistant principals representing 133 schools (many schools have multiple AP's and some even have multiple principals). We found that principals and assistant principals had significantly different perceptions of their schools on two TELL constructs: school leadership and teacher leadership. In both cases, principals tended to rate their schools more positively than assistant principals. In other analyses (presented at the Mid-South Education Research Association in 2013), we had found that high school principals tended to rate most TELL constructs higher than teachers.

In this way, assistant principal perceptions were more like teachers on the constructs of school leadership (which has to do with how responsive and collaborative school leaders are with teachers) and teacher leadership (which focuses on how teachers are empowered with decision-making authority). Differences in principal and AP perceptions did not predict differences in student achievement, however.

Limitations abound in every research study, of course. Our school achievement variable was the overall academic index score of the school, which is an amalgamation of numerous student outcome data points. A more fine-grain analysis may have revealed other effects on student achievement. But it's also possible that, by virtue of their mostly non-instructional roles, differences in assistant principal and principal perceptions just have limited bearing on the academic life of the school.

The study also revealed some interesting interactions between parental involvement and discrepancies between principals and assistant principals in their perceptions of working conditions. Schools with high levels of parental involvement tended to also have higher degrees of agreement between APs and principals on TELL constructs. Our earlier research found that higher levels of parent involvement were (unsurprisingly) predictive of higher levels of student achievement in the school.

While we can't draw causal connections among these variables, this research in general suggests there is value in principals working more closely with their assistant principals to calibrate their perceptions of what is happening in the school. Doing so may not only build a unity of purpose but also serve to better empower assistant principals as more significant decision-makers in the school and better prepare them for leadership roles.

I'm continuing to work with colleagues on several additional analyses of TELL data from 2011 and subsequent years, along with results from other teacher perceptions surveys, and how these tools might better predict student achievement outcomes and therefore inform school improvement efforts in more meaningful ways. We hope to begin presenting and publishing those results later this year.

You may download our study on the NASSP Bulletin website (behind a paywall, but you may have access through a university affiliation). Contact me directly for more information on our research.

Usual disclaimer: All views expressed on this website are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of Western Kentucky University (where I am associate professor of educational administration, leadership, and research) or the Kentucky Board of Education (where I have served as a member since 2016).

Related posts:

• Research on TELL Kentucky survey highlighted at MSERA
• TELL Kentucky-PBIS research presented at AERA

Kentucky charter school basics

The image above is from the website of East End Preparatory Academy, a successful Nashville charter school serving high numbers of low-income minority students. Kentucky charters may provide similar opportunities for some our most vulnerable students.

In 2017, the legislature passed a law making Kentucky the 44th state to allow the creation of charter schools, but did not approve a permanent mechanism by which education dollars could follow students to a charter if their parents select that option. The 2018 biennial budget passed last week (and, as of this writing, still awaiting Gov. Bevin's approval or veto) also fails to address this issue, leaving the future of Kentucky charter schools in doubt. 

I wrote about this problem on my blog (which was then picked up as an op-ed for the statewide online newspaper Kentucky Today), and that generated a lot of online discussion, including with several former colleagues from my days as a district administrator. Some folks wanted to argue with me (or just condemn me), but many more posed thoughtful questions about charters and how they work. It became clear that many teachers, and many more ordinary Kentuckians, are largely unaware of what charter schools actually do, particularly under Kentucky's law. Their opinions, to the extent that they have any, are mostly shaped by the rhetoric and misinformation spread by professional educator groups which don't seek to inform others about the pros and cons of charter schools, but rather are dedicated to preventing Kentucky families from having such options.

I have written about this topic in numerous places on this blog and elsewhere, but in this post I'd like to condense all that information to provide an overview of what charter schools actually are, what they'd look like under Kentucky law, and especially to address the many legitimate questions and concerns educators and others raise about charters and their potential side effects. The specific statutes and regulations upon which this information is based are included in the note below.

 What are charter schools?

Charter schools are public schools of choice. Families must choose a charter for their child; no one can be forced to attend, just as no one can be turned away. They may not charge tuition and, specifically under Kentucky law, they must take all comers, including students with disabilities. Charters are operated independently from local school districts which gives them a high degree of flexibility and capacity for innovation. In exchange for their autonomy, charters face a much higher degree of accountability. For one thing, they are entirely enrollment driven. If they cannot attract and retain students, they must close. Secondly, they face all the same testing, accountability, public safety, and civil rights rules as traditional public schools (TPS). Thirdly, they are governed by a performance contract, so that if they consistently fail to achieve certain student outcome targets, they may also be closed.

With 7,000 charter schools nationwide serving over 3 million students, there's no way to talk about a typical charter school, since they follow so many different models, instructional philosophies, and curricular emphases. But charter schools do tend to serve populations of students who have traditionally struggled in TPS, enrolling higher percentages of minority students, students of poverty, and students who perform lower on standardized assessments. I'll discuss the good results of many charter schools, especially in urban areas, below, but charter principals like Jim Lacrone of East End Preparatory Academy in Nashville (which I profiled here) attribute the success of charter schools to their independence from bureaucracy and many of the regulations that stifle innovation, individualization, and rapid change in TPS.

How do charter schools perform in terms of student achievement?

Most educators acknowledge that student test scores are a fairly limited measure of what students have learned. Nevertheless, they represent an important metric for assessing overall progress of students in large groups. Large scale analyses of student achievement comparing all charter schools to all traditional public schools (TPS) do not reveal many differences. Overall, charters and TPS perform about the same. This is actually an encouraging result for charters given that they typically receive lower per pupil funding than TPS while enrolling higher percentages of traditionally at-risk students. But deeper analysis reveals that Black and Hispanic students and students of poverty tend to outperform their  peers who attend TPS, especially in urban areas and particularly when students attend a charter school for more than one year (see the series of charter school research studies conducted by CREDO at Stanford University over a number of years).

There is no doubt that parental involvement plays some role in these effects. But research conducted in Boston, New York, and also in nationwide samples comparing students who won lotteries to attend a charter school (see how lotteries work below) versus students who applied but did not win a lottery (and therefore remained at a TPS) provide a rough way to control for this variable. And these studies also confirm that charter students, especially urban students of poverty, tend to do better overall than their TPS peers.

Of course some charter schools will struggle with student achievement outcomes, just like traditional public schools, while others will be successful. The same goes for individual students. These research studies only confirm general trends for large groups. And I believe there are good reasons to support school choice policies like charter schools, even if we could find no large-scale differences in student test score results. Please contact me for a full list of research references on charter school effects if you'd like to know more.

Why should we have charter schools in Kentucky?

The arguments for school choice are complex and nuanced. I've addressed this question at greater length in a separate post, which I recommend to readers. But to summarize that post, I believe we should provide options like charter schools for Kentucky families for three reasons. First, despite the steady educational progress we've made as a state, the current structures of educational delivery are insufficient to make the kinds of rapid improvements our current economic and cultural situation requires, especially in terms of accelerating outcomes for historically under-achieving groups. There are no single "magic bullet" solutions that will fix all our educational problems. Certainly there is little evidence that simply increasing education funding alone will bring the kinds of rapid results we need. Likewise, there is no reason to assume that educational choice by itself will reverse generations-long trends in low educational achievement. But given the positive evidence for charter schools described above, we would be foolish not to include educational choice as one improvement strategy, among many others.

Lawmakers fail Kentucky families on school choice

In a bizarre reversal of the commitment lawmakers made last year to make Kentucky the 44th state with charter schools, the final state budget approved earlier this week includes no funding mechanism to allow education dollars to follow students when they choose to attend one. This makes it highly unlikely that any applications for charter schools will move forward or be approved for Fall 2018 as originally anticipated. Kentucky will be a charter state with no charter schools.

Furthermore, despite numerous assurances from legislative leaders that they would support the inclusion of scholarship tax credits either in a bill or the state budget, no such action was taken. Unless something unexpected happens during the last two days of the legislative session (April 13 and 14) Kentucky remains one of the few states with no meaningful school choice policy. 

There is no good reason for this failure. Acting House Speaker David Osborne claimed that it was "inappropriate" to allow charters to proceed, "given the environment around public school funding, the shortage of public school funding." But this argument reflects a profound misunderstanding of what charter schools are and how they work. And scholarship tax credits actually have the potential to save taxpayers money. 

The budget lawmakers approved expands per pupil education funding and protects many other vital areas of K-12 education spending, so there is no good reason to deny families this option in communities where it can work, unless you just don't believe that low-income families should have choices in who educates their kids. I have trouble believing that was the case for many lawmakers, so I can only conclude that they either don't understand the basic argument for school choice, or they don't understand these policies sufficiently to defend the idea to constituents. And that's frustrating, because low-income children and their families may have lost a great educational opportunity as a result.

What are charter schools and scholarship tax credits?

Charter schools are public schools. They may not charge tuition and must take all comers. Families must choose a charter for their child; no one can be forced to attend, just as no one can be turned away. Charters are operated independently from local school districts which gives them a high degree of flexibility and capacity for innovation. In exchange for their autonomy, charters face a much higher degree of accountability. For one thing, they are entirely enrollment driven. If they cannot attract and retain students, they must close. Secondly, they face all the same testing, accountability, public safety, and civil rights rules as traditional public schools. Thirdly, they are governed by a performance contract, so that if they consistently fail to achieve certain student outcome targets, they may also be closed.

When a student chooses a charter school, some portion of the dollars allocated by the state and local governments for that child's education flows with them to their new school (the school that is actually educating them now). In most states there is a considerable disparity between the dollars charter school students receive versus those traditional public school students receive, which creates operational challenges for charters and usually requires extra fund-raising (but charging tuition is forbidden).

Charter schools aren't for everyone. Most parents are satisfied with their child's assigned public school. But no school, no matter how good it is, can effectively meet the needs of every single child and expecting them to do so places an unfair burden on hard-working teachers. Research shows that students of poverty and students of color (of which charters accept a disproportionate percentage), especially in urban areas, tend to outperform their peers when they enroll at a charter and stay for multiple years. 

Scholarship tax credits, on the other hand, encourage private donations to scholarship funds that help low-income families choose a private school if they decide that's the best fit for their child. Naturally, people first assume that giving a tax credit for such a donation lowers state revenues and deprives schools of funding attached to students who no longer attend. But, in ways I've described elsewhere in detail, private school students actually create a major cost-savings effect for the state budget. And we can realistically estimate that only about 1% of students statewide will take advantage of such scholarships, which is well within the normal enrollment fluctuations schools experience every day.

Public employees have powerful political clout; poor families do not

Education dollars are for educating kids, and should be able to follow kids to a charter school, just like Pell grants and GI Bill dollars follow low-income students or veterans to the college of their choice, just as Medicare dollars follow patients to the doctors and hospitals of their choice. The only way to oppose letting education dollars flow in a similar way is to believe low-income families should only have access to one education provider. And it really is about denying low-income families options, because affluent families already get to exercise school choice through purchasing homes in the school zones of their preference or by utilizing private education. I'm afraid that yet again we have favored adult professional interests over the best interest of some of our most vulnerable students.

 

The education establishment has proven itself to be the most powerful political lobby in the state of Kentucky. Unfortunately, poor kids and their families do not have a similar kind of political clout, taxpayer funding, communication apparatus, or organization. Educators do so much for their students, and at least part of their lobbying efforts this session were sincerely done in ways they believed would indirectly be of good benefit to kids. But in the case of their opposition to school choice, the education establishment continues to miss a golden opportunity to do something especially powerful on behalf of children who are often struggling to succeed. Giving kids options doesn't undermine traditional public schools. It just provides another mechanism by which we can serve each child's unique needs. 

 

Where we go from here

 

I urge Kentuckians, and especially lawmakers and educators, to learn more about school choice policies and how they work and to consider the ways we have prioritized the value of education dollars for institutions over the value of those dollars to families who have few if any choices in who educates their children. The links below provide further information that addresses these issues and especially the pervasive misunderstanding that one must be either pro-school choice or pro-public education. I also ask anyone who understands these issue to implore lawmakers to take action on behalf of Kentucky families and open up the doors to new education options.

 

Usual disclaimer: All views expressed on this website are mine alone and do not reflect the opinions of Western Kentucky University (where I serve as associate professor of educational administration, leadership, and research) or the Kentucky Board of Education (where I have served as a member since 2016).

Related links:

• Is education in Kentucky "under attack?"
• Does giving parents education options "divert money" from schools?
• Why I support scholarship tax credits for Kentucky - and you should too
• Why the education establishment feels so deeply threatened by school choice
• A School Choice Primer, Parts I, II, and III