Kentucky legislator wants to kill bill protecting controversial virtual school
House Bill 241, sponsored by Republican Rep. Timmy Truett, would let the state's education commissioner grant up to five "disaster relief" days during which schools could provide alternative instruction when a district closes "for health or safety reasons." It would also let districts extend student attendance days to meet the legally required minimum instruction hours.
At a Senate Education Committee meeting Thursday, Truett, an elementary school principal, said his bill "started off as a really good bill" and attaching the virtual school legislation would "harm public education. It's going to harm my students."
HB 241 passed out of the House last month with a 82-7 vote. It was assigned to the Senate Education Committee, which initially voted in favor of the bill. However, the bill was returned to the committee on Wednesday, where it was combined with a Senate measure aimed at protecting the Kentucky Virtual Academy.
Senate Bill 268 proposed prohibiting a cap on enrollment for all virtual programs for the next three years. It was filed in response to the Kentucky Department of Education's efforts to limit enrollment at the Kentucky Virtual Academy, which has repeatedly failed to meet staff and testing requirements.
The school, which opened in 2023 through a partnership with Cloverport Independent Schools and Stride, Inc., has experienced rapid growth in its enrollment, drawing thousands of students from across the state.
The Senate Education Committee met a day after The Courier Journal published an article on the school, stating the company running the program has been accused of mismanaging funds and failing students in various ways over the past 15 years.
SB 268 had passed unanimously out of the Senate Education Committee but had yet to be considered for a full floor vote. Republican Sen. Steve West, chairman of the committee, told The Courier Journal there were concerns the bill wouldn't get "as nice of a reception in the House once it went over," and Truett's bill as written didn't have enough support to succeed on its own.
He added it's common for bills to blend together so they can pass both chambers before a veto period begins.
"The reason for that is it's a negotiation process," West said. "It's a compromise process between the House and the Senate. They want what they want. We want what we want, and ... negotiating is what makes it across the finish line."
Truett took issue with the decision to combine the bills, saying he would speak against his own legislation.
HB 241, on its own, "helps just about every district in the state of Kentucky, especially those districts in Eastern Kentucky that are struggling with the extreme weather and the flooding and all of that," Truett told The Courier Journal. "So it's a great bill. But the way politics works, sometimes you get surprised, and there was a amendment thrown on the bill that goes against some of the things that I believe in and that I disagree with."
Truett clarified that while he isn't against the Kentucky Virtual Academy, he is concerned the Senate measure wouldn't allow "any restrictions" to be put in place on the school until 2028.
"The thing about it is I'm afraid that growing at the rate that they're growing and struggling like they are, (along) with the extra students enrolling, I'm afraid (the bill) be more harmful than helpful," Truett said. "So if we could put some guard rails up, I would support that."
Truett added while he respects West and the education committee, no one reached out to him to ask whether it was OK to attach the Senate measure to his bill.
West, meanwhile, said he did not "personally talk to Truett," but Truett knew that "this was happening."
He also pointed out that the virtual academy has only been operating for about one year, and a group of lawmakers want to give it more time instead of shutting it down.
"We understand there are issues there, and we understand those issues will need to be addressed and should be addressed, but our policy consideration was that they needed a little bit more time," West said during the committee meeting. "This is an innovative thing. With any experiment or innovative thing, you're going to make mistakes, and sometimes you don't get it right the first time, so it does take a little time."
HB 241, with the committee substitute, passed out of the committee on an 8-2-1 vote.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Tichenor said she voted no because the bill covers "two very different things." Democratic Sen. Reggie Thomas, who represented the other "no" vote, called the added Senate measure "a poison pill" and cited statistics on the company's performance from The Courier Journal article.
"We should wipe off this amendment. This school should never be allowed to operate here in Kentucky," Thomas said.
If the Senate passes the bill as amended, it will get sent back to the House for concurrence. The House can either vote to accept the Senate's changes and send the bill to Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear's desk, or it could vote not to concur and send the bill to a conference committee made up of members of both chambers.
Reach reporter Hannah Pinski at hpinski@courier-journal.com or follow her on X, formerly known as Twitter, at @hannahpinski.
This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Legislator wants to kill bill protecting Kentucky Virtual Academy
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
5 minutes ago
- Fox News
Europe needs to treat Putin like an ‘existential threat,' Sen. Schmitt warns
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., discusses his take on the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska and more on 'Fox News Sunday.'


New York Post
34 minutes ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.

Politico
35 minutes ago
- Politico
States are trying to keep disasters apolitical in the new Trump era
'This decision was petty. This decision was partisan, and this decision was punishing.' Moore said. And after the Los Angeles wildfires in January, California Gov. Gavin Newsom was quick to propose that politics could play a role in Trump's approval or denial of funding for his state. 'He's done it in the past, not just here in California,' Newsom said on Pod Save America. 'The rhetoric is very familiar, it's increasingly acute, and obviously we all have reason to be concerned about it.' A review by Seattle-based public radio station KUOW in June found that FEMA denied six of the 10 major disaster requests that Democratic states filed between February and June, while denying just one of 15 requests from Republican states. Asked about the analysis, a White House official said that 'Democrat state requests were denied in the first six months because they were not disasters. In the past, states have abused the process. President Trump is right-sizing FEMA and ensuring it is serving its intended purpose to help the American people.' Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs became the rare governor to criticize the federal government's disaster management in mid-July when she called for an investigation following a destructive fire on federal land that burned down a beloved Grand Canyon lodge. Hobbs said that she does not intend her call for an investigation to be viewed as a criticism of the Trump administration. 'I don't, and I think it's really important,' Hobbs said in an interview, adding that good working relationships between officials managing tribal, federal and state land are key. 'This is not intended to undermine that collaboration, but … we need to look at what led to that decision being made.' Steve Ellis, former deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management who worked for the agency and the U.S. Forest Service under multiple administrations, said that any federal agency involved in managing a fire of the magnitude and destructiveness as the one in the Grand Canyon should be launching an investigation without a governor's need to call for it.