On June 8, 1989, in an unprecedented judicial decision, the Kentucky Supreme Court declared the state’s public school system unconstitutional. Although the lawsuit filed in 1986 by 66 mostly rural school districts sought more equitable and adequate funding for public schools, the high court went beyond these fiscal issues and found the entire system of public education deficient and unconstitutional. The Kentucky Supreme Court decision abolished every vestige of the existing system of public schools. The court ordered the Kentucky legislature to create a new system of public schools no later than April 15, 1990, the end of its next biennial session.
The
task facing the Kentucky legislature involved more than making what existed
better. An entire statutory code recreating a system of public schools had to
be written. Throughout the 1980s many states had undertaken various reforms of
public education, but none had actually recreated their institution of public
education. Kentucky had a unique opportunity to “start from scratch” and build
a new system based on the best wisdom and knowledge about teaching and
learning.
The Kentucky General Assembly met its responsibility and enacted the most comprehensive education legislation in modern American history known as House Bill 940 or the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 (hereinafter referred to as KERA). The challenge for Kentucky then became one of implementing the massive changes in how schools are to function and children are to be taught.
The
Kentucky legislation drew national attention when it was enacted. Many years
after its enactment, interest in KERA remains high in Kentucky and nationally.
The law and its implementation have been the subject of hundreds of speeches,
articles, political debates, and research. However, as time passes, the
original intent of this historic legislation can be lost. The purpose of this
book is to set forth the policy assumptions underlying KERA and to understand
the successes and difficulties Kentucky experienced in implementing these
policies.
Special
attention is given to whether a specific policy proved to be unsound or whether
its implementation was flawed in some way. In some instances there are
significant differences between what was intended and what actually happened.
It also has become obvious that the legislation had some serious omissions that
still have not been adequately addressed. Hopefully this assessment will give policy
makers, educators, and the general public an authoritative understanding of
what Kentucky tried to do, and thereby provide a context for interpreting what
followed after KERA was enacted.
The
analysis presented in this book is one of a “participant observer.” I was
Governor Wallace Wilkinson’s Secretary of Education and Humanities from 1988
through 1991. In that position I provided education policy advice to him and
was an advocate for the school reform initiatives he proposed. Governor
Wilkinson named me as one of his six appointees to the Task Force on Education
Reform created to respond to the court requirement that a new system of public
education be created. In this role I participated in the development of HB 940
as a member of both the Curriculum and Finance Committees. I also was a member
of the Council on School Performance Standards created by Governor Wilkinson
prior to the court decision.
Following
the enactment of KERA, I was appointed to the Council on Education Technology
and served on the panel that reviewed the first contract to implement the
Education Technology plan. I also served on the panel that selected the first
Commissioner of Education and the panel that reviewed the initial contract for
the design and administration of the state accountability system.
After
leaving public office in 1991, I had the opportunity to work with over 50
Kentucky schools to help them understand how to implement the policies and
programs of KERA. Under the sponsorship of the Kentucky Valley Education
Cooperative and the Bell South Foundation, I was able to work with some of
these schools for three or more years. Thus I also bring to the book my
experiences of working with people at the school level as they tried to understand
and implement this massive legislation. Their achievements, frustrations, and
problems have given me valuable insight into just how hard it has been to make
the transition. I am deeply indebted to the personnel in these schools for the
understanding they have given me.
However,
I bring to this endeavor more than the perspective of an insider. During the
six years prior to my appointment as Wilkinson’s Secretary of Education and
Humanities I was involved in school reform efforts in other states. As a managing
partner in State Research Associates, a national consulting firm based in
Lexington, Kentucky, I participated in projects leading to major education
reform legislation in Mississippi and Indiana, and was consulted by policy
makers in other states on various education issues. My personal views on many
of the issues addressed in KERA are set forth in If I Could Make
a School published in 1991.[1]
This
book is not a mindless defense of KERA. At some points my observations are
critical of the law as originally written or the manner in which it has been
implemented. However, nothing I have written should be interpreted as an attack
on the thousands of people who have worked so hard to implement it. The only
objective is to take a hard but constructive look at what Kentucky did in 1990
and what happened thereafter.
Many
years as an educator, public policy analyst, and researcher have taught me that
policies need to be continuously reevaluated in the light of experience and new
research. Only time can determine the efficacy of any policy regardless of its
research base at the time it was adopted. KERA was based on sound research and
practice, but good policy sometimes just doesn’t work the way it is intended.
Obviously we are delighted when it works exactly as we wanted and with the
expected result. However, a policy may turn out to be ill conceived or perhaps
unworkable. Sometimes the implementation is flawed. The intent here is to
examine all of these possibilities.
Although
this book is published more than nine years after KERA was enacted, it is still
too early to make a final judgment on many of its elements. Some aspects of the
law were to be implemented over a period of up to six years and just now are
reaching the point of full implementation. Therefore, the findings and
observations put forth in this book should be considered interim rather than
the final word. Nonetheless, many important lessons have already been learned
that can be beneficial to anyone interested in knowing the impact of KERA on
public schools in Kentucky. Hopefully, this book will serve this purpose.
Citations
referencing the legislation are shown with the location in HB 940 and the
current Kentucky Revised Statutes. The purpose of the dual references is
historical. Over the years the original language has in some cases either been
amended or repealed. Since the intent of the book is to reflect on the initial
intent of the legislation as enacted in 1990, the language of the original bill
is the most accurate reference rather than the statutory citation.
The
observations and findings reported in this book are representative but not
exhaustive. I wanted this book to be interesting, informative reading to a wide
audience. For this reason I have not burdened it with references to everything
that has been written on KERA. However, I believe the book accurately reflects
the consensus of those who have studied various aspects of KERA since its
enactment in 1990.
A
final caveat. Attributing intent to legislation is a matter of point of
view. It would be foolhardy to suggest
that every legislator or even every member of the Task Force on Education
Reform that shaped the legislation would share the perspectives in this book.
Therefore it is incumbent on this author to alert the reader that some views I
express in this book about legislative intent may be subject to other
interpretations. I can only express what I believe was the consensus
understanding at the time.