Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves schools‑of‑innovation bill after exchange over education service providers
Summary
The House passed Senate Bill 263, allowing local districts to seek waivers for schools of innovation and pilot projects. Members raised concerns about "100% sweep" education service provider contracts and moved, unsuccessfully, to suspend rules to consider an amendment restricting providers barred in other states. The bill passed 75–18 with one abstention.
The Kentucky House passed Senate Bill 263 on March 31, advancing new flexibility for local districts to pursue "schools of innovation" and pilot projects with waiver authority.
The gentleman from Baron, explaining the bill, said it permits flexibility and waivers for districts that want to run innovation pilot projects but emphasized that local school boards retain approval authority. Several members raised concerns about the potential misuse of education service providers that operate under contracts that divert local and state funds; one member described "100% sweep" contracts in which the provider retains most funding and the district is left with a small management allocation.
A floor amendment intended to bar the use of education service providers that had been prohibited from operating in other states required suspension of rules to consider; the motion to suspend the rules fell short of the constitutional 51‑member threshold and was not adopted. The bill passed as amended by House Committee Substitute One by recorded vote: 75 Yeas, 18 Nays, 1 Abstention.
Why it matters: The statute creates a path for districts to experiment with alternative school structures and contractual models while raising questions about oversight of third‑party education providers and safeguards against bad actors.
What happens next: With passage, districts may pursue waivers and pilot projects subject to local board approval and any statutory limits enacted in the substitute.
Sources and attribution: Floor statements are attributed to the gentleman from Baron (sponsor) and members who raised concerns, including the lady from Fet 75 who sought a rule suspension for an amendment.
