Kentucky legislator wants to kill bill protecting controversial virtual school
A bill intended to address lost instructional time from school closures has been amended to keep a virtual school from closing — prompting the bill's sponsor to say he'd "try my best to kill it."
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
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sending money to family in foreign countries may be taxed more
Jun. 9—Families hoping to send money to loved ones in other countries may be hit with additional fees from a tax and spending bill proposed by the Trump administration that would slap a 3.5% tax on remittances sent by anyone who is not a U.S. citizen. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" passed through the House in May and is now being debated by the Senate. The budget bill has several proposed tax changes, which include taxing money sent from an estimated 40 million non-US citizens — including green card holders, temporary workers and undocumented immigrants — to family and friends in other countries. The bill had a 5% tax but was reduced to 3.5%. The bill is another way the Trump administration is hoping to dissuade immigrants, both documented and undocumented, from coming into the country and moving money out of the U.S. economy. Republicans believe the bill would increase the average take-home pay of U.S. citizens, while Democrats believe the bill and increased taxes are "a transfer of wealth from the working class to the rich," said Daniel Garcia, spokesperson for the Democratic Party of New Mexico. What is a remittance? Remittances refer to sending money from one person to another and is typically done between family members from one country to another. A person living and working in the U.S. would send money to family members typically living in a developing country, where this money is a source of income that contributes to the country's gross domestic product (GDP). Payments are typically sent using an electronic payment service or a money transfer app. Banks, credit unions and money transfer services charge a fee for processing remittances, and fees average 10%, according to the International Monetary Fund. Cryptocurrency exchanges are not as heavily regulated and can be a way to avoid additional taxes and surcharges. "Taxing remittances would amount to a form of double taxation, since migrants already pay taxes in the country where they work," Esteban Moctezuma Barragán, Mexican Ambassador, wrote in a statement. "Imposing a tax on these transfers would disproportionately affect those with the least, without accounting for their ability to pay," Barragán added. However, some believe the 3.5% tax fee would give financial support to public services and is the most "pro-worker, pro-family and pro-American legislation we've seen in decades," said Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico. "Let's be clear, this measure is not about targeting individuals," she wrote in a statement to the Journal. "It's about ensuring the 3.5% fee, although modest, would also have a very meaningful impact in helping offset costs associated with public services, border security, and community infrastructure — relieving some of the financial pressure on hardworking New Mexicans who continue to bear the burden of an imbalanced system." Crucial source of revenue Mexico is the second-largest receiver of personally wired money behind India, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In 2024, Latin America received $160.9 billion, with the U.S. accounting for 96.6% of all remittances to Mexico. They also make up 20-30% of GDP in countries like El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras. "Remittance is a very important source of revenue in our government," said Patricia Pinzón, consul of Mexico. "This would affect Mexican families and the economy in general, but I would say the basic needs of Mexican families is the most worrying thing." However, "whatever happens in one economy will affect the other," said Pinzón. "Our economies are so interrelated that everything that happens here has a consequence in Mexico," she said. "Mexicans will not stop sending money; they'll just look for alternative ways to send it." Mexican migrant workers sent 16.7% of their labor income back to their families, and more than 80% of the income remains in the U.S. economy. The average amount of remittance sent to Mexico is roughly $350 every one to two months, which "could seem like nothing for the U.S., but it's money that a whole family lives on and covers their basics in Mexico," Pinzón said.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lopez: Why this overheated invasion of L.A. looks so ugly and feels so personal
I was driving while listening to the news Sunday when I heard House Speaker Mike Johnson justify President Trump's move to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles. 'We have to maintain the rule of law,' Johnson said. I almost swerved off the road. Maintain the rule of law? Trump pardoned the hooligans who ransacked the Capitol because he lost the 2020 presidential election. They clashed with police, destroyed property and threatened the lives of public officials, and to Trump, they're heroes. Maintain the rule of law? Trump is a 34-count felon who has defied judicial rulings, ignored laws that don't serve his interests, and turned his current presidency into an unprecedented adventure in self-dealing and graft. And now he's sending an invading army to Los Angeles, creating a crisis where there was none. Arresting undocumented immigrants with criminal records is one thing, but is that what this is about? Or is it about putting on a show, occupying commercial and residential neighborhoods and arresting people who are looking for — or on their way to — work. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned that U.S. Marines were on high alert and ready to roll, and in the latest of who knows how many escalations, hundreds are headed our way. What next, the Air Force? I'm not going to defend the vandalism and violence — which plays into Trump's hands—that followed ICE arrests in Los Angeles. I can see him sitting in front of the tube, letting out a cheer every time another "migrant criminal" flings a rock or a scooter at a patrol car. But I am going to defend Los Angeles and the way things work here. For starters, undocumented immigration is not the threat to public safety or the economy that Trump like to bloviate about. It's just that he knows he can score points on border bluster and on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), so he's going full gasbag on both, and now he's threatening to lock up Gov. Gavin Newsom. Read more: Reopen Alcatraz as a prison? Yes, but Trump shouldn't stop there To hear the rhetoric, you'd think every other undocumented immigrant is a gang member and that trans athletes will soon dominate youth sports if someone doesn't stand up to them. I can already read the mail that hasn't yet arrived, so let me say in advance that I do indeed understand that breaking immigration law means breaking the law, and I believe that President Biden didn't do enough to control the border, although it was Republicans who killed a border security bill early last year. I also acknowledge the cost of supporting undocumented immigrants is substantial when you factor in public education and, in California, medical care, which is running billions of dollars beyond original estimates. But the economic contributions of immigrants — regardless of legal status — are undeniably numerous, affecting the price we pay for everything from groceries to healthcare to domestic services to construction to landscaping. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that a surge in immigrants since 2021 — including refugees, asylum seekers and others, legal and illegal — had lifted the U.S. economy "by filling otherwise vacant jobs," as The Times reported, and "pumping millions of tax dollars into state, local and federal coffers." According to a seminal 2011 study by the Public Policy Institute of California, 'many illegal immigrants pay Social Security and other taxes but do not collect benefits, and they are not eligible for many government services." In addition, the report said: 'Political controversies aside, when illegal immigrants come, many U.S. employers are ready to hire them. The vast majority work. Estimates suggest that at least 75 percent of adult illegal immigrants are in the workforce.' Trump can rail against the lunatic radical left for the scourge of illegal immigration, but the statement that 'employers are ready to hire them' couldn't be more true. And those employers stand on both sides of the political aisle, as do lawmakers who for decades have allowed the steady flow of workers to industries that would suffer without them. Read more: What happened during three days of protests over immigration raids in downtown L.A. On Sunday, I had to pick up a couple of items at the Home Depot on San Fernando Road in Glendale, where dozens of day laborers often gather in search of work. But there were only a couple of men out there, given recent headlines. A shopper in the garden section said the report of federal troops marching on L.A. is "kind of ridiculous, right?" He said the characterization by Trump of "all these terrible people" and "gang members" on the loose was hard to square with the reality of day laborers all but begging for work. I found one of them in a far corner of the Home Depot lot, behind a fence. He told me he was from Honduras and was afraid to risk arrest by looking for work at a time when battalions of masked troops were on the move, but he's got a hungry family back home, including three kids. He said he was available for any kind of jobs, including painting, hauling and cleanup. Two men in a pickup truck told me they were undocumented too and available for construction jobs of any type. They said they were from Puebla, Mexico, but there wasn't enough work for them there. I've been to Puebla, a city known for its roughly 300 churches. I was passing through about 20 years ago on my way to a small nearby town where almost everyone on the street was female. Where were the men? I was told by a city official that the local economy was all about corn, but local growers couldn't compete with American farmers who had the benefit of federal subsidies. So the men had gone north for work. Another reason people head north is to escape the violence wrought by cartels armed with American-made weapons, competing to serve the huge American appetite for drugs. In these ways, and more, the flow of people across borders can be complicated. But generally speaking, it's simply about survival. People move to escape poverty or danger. They move in search of something better for themselves, or to be more accurate about it, for their children. The narratives of those journeys are woven into the fabric of Los Angeles. It's part of what's messy and splendid and complicated about this blended, imperfect corner of the world, where many of us know students or workers or families with temporary status, or none at all. That's why this overheated invasion looks so ugly and feels so personal. We're less suspicious of our neighbors and the people we encounter on our daily rounds than the hypocrites who would pardon insurrectionists, sow division and send an occupying army to haul away members of our community. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
State employees' civil service protections in doubt as constitutional amendment advances
Louisiana lawmakers may life restrictions on gifts for elected officials and government employees. (Photo by Greg LaRose/Louisiana Illuminator) A proposed constitutional amendment to dismantle a 73-year-old civil service system created to stop politically-influenced job placements in Louisiana government was narrowly approved Monday in the state House of Representatives. Senate Bill 8, sponsored by Sen. Jay Morris. R-West Monroe, cleared the chamber in a 70-28 vote, reaching the very minimum two-thirds support required to put constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot. The measure will return to the Senate for a final vote on some House amendments and. If approved, it will go before voters in the Nov. 3, 2026, election. Confusion over the bill that many hoped would be cleared up only deepened Monday, specifically on whether the proposal would apply only to future state employee hires or if it could be used to remove existing state employees. Morris' bill would change the Louisiana Constitution to give state lawmakers power that currently rests with the Civil Service Commission, a seven-member independent review panel that oversees the hiring, promotion and firing of 28,000 'classified' state workers. The commission, working with state agencies on staffing goals, has the power to create and eliminate job positions and decide which jobs should have a protected classified status and which should not. Classified employees enjoy some degree of protection against politically-motivated or otherwise unfair terminations and disciplinary practices because they have the right to appeal such decisions to the Civil Service Commission, which has the final say on staffing matters for most state agencies. In a previous interview and during committee hearings on the bill, Morris said his bill would allow the legislature to designate classified state employees as unclassified, meaning they could be fired at will. But several changes to the legislation's text and its proposed ballot language have raised questions about whether current state employees will be at risk of losing their jobs. Presenting the bill on the House floor Monday, Rep. Beau Beaullieu, R-New Iberia, repeatedly assured his colleagues the proposal would apply only to future hires. He based his assurances on the argument that the amendment allows only for job positions to become unclassified, not employees. If the Legislature were to unclassify a job position, any state employees currently holding those positions would not be affected, he said. Beaullieu's argument didn't land with several lawmakers opposed to the measure. Rep. Matt Willard, D-New Orleans, reading from the text of the proposal, asked why the ballot language specifically indicates the amendment applies to 'officers, positions and employees' – a phrase that appears twice in the bill. Caught off-guard by Willard's question, Beaullieu couldn't explain the discrepancy, referring questions to Morris, the bill's author. In a later interview, Morris would not offer any assurances as to whether existing classified employees would get to keep their protections. 'Obviously, only employees can be unclassified,' Morris said. 'Positions are employees. You can't unclassify them if somebody's not working.' Morris also refused to say if his intention is for the amendment to apply only to future hires. 'It's not gonna apply to anybody unless we pass a law,' he said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
