Public education group launches listening tour to build campaign for Kentucky schools
LOUISVILLE — An organization that led a statewide campaign against last year's proposed constitutional amendment to allow the legislature to fund nonpublic schools is seeking more insight about education from communities across Kentucky.
Protect Our Public Schools, which has transitioned to a wider education advocacy role following the defeat of Amendment 2 in November, was one of the highest fundraising political action committees against the amendment. Now, the coalition has launched a listening tour in 10 Kentucky cities to gather input and build a campaign for pro-education legislation in Frankfort.
Ahead of a forum in Louisville on Thursday, Jefferson County Teachers Association President Maddie Shepherd told reporters that Protect Our Schools is 'in a unique position right now to chart a course for our kids' future.' She said the feedback the organization collects in the 10 forums 'will inform a larger, broader shared campaign about what all of Kentucky schools need.'
Addison Lowry, a Jefferson County high school student, said that 'community leaders and local voices were the key' to the movement against Amendment 2 last year and argued that the same strategy will be effective in campaigning on behalf of public education in the future.
'This effort won't be led by Frankfort lobbyists, but by the people who live with the consequences of decisions made in Frankfort every day — the folks who drive through the bus, the students who ride that bus, those who teach in classrooms, pack the lunches and raise the kids in our communities,' Lowry said. 'We believe that those closest to the problem should be the ones helping shape the solution, and that's exactly what this campaign is about.'
Protect Our Schools held its first listening stop in Owensboro. The next dates and locations are Bowling Green on June 10 and Lexington on July 15. The organization will announce future dates and locations online at protectourschoolsky.com.
During a forum, those who attend are asked about challenges in their communities and about what they would like teaching and learning for students to be in their areas. They also discuss how to make those goals a reality.
Lowry said that by the end of the year, Protect Our Schools hopes to 'have built a more localized, robust coalition than ever before ready to organize for the future students deserve.'
When lawmakers return to Frankfort in January for the 2026 legislative session, they will deliberate the next biennial state budget and decide which programs to fund with state dollars. Protect Our Schools plans to compile the feedback from its forums into a legislative campaign that focuses on reinvesting in the state's public schools.
Education funding has been a contentious topic between public school advocates and Republican lawmakers in recent years. While some groups like the Kentucky Education Association have argued paying teachers more would incentivize more people to go into the profession, Republicans have argued the General Assembly, controlled by the GOP, has provided a historic level of K-12 education funding.
Public education funding nationwide has faced uncertainty as the Trump administration reviews federal funding for K-12 schools. In Kentucky, all but two school districts signed an agreement with the administration to adhere to new restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in public schools and avoid the possibility of losing federal funding. Recently, the U.S. Department of Education denied a $10.6 million request to extend COVID relief funding submitted by the Kentucky Department of Education on behalf of school districts for nine projects.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
27 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Gov. Newsom criticizes Trump's use of National Guard after removal of some troops
A day after the Pentagon ordered the withdrawal of half of the National Guard troops deployed in Los Angeles, Gov. Gavin Newsom criticized President Trump for wasting hundreds of millions of dollars to appear 'tough' by punishing immigrants. Newsom also accused the president of trying to preserve Republican power in Washington by pressuring Texas to redraw congressional districts to elect GOP representatives. The governor repeated a threat to launch a similar effort in California to favor Democrats. 'Everything has changed, and it's changing in real time,' Newsom told reporters Wednesday. 'I'm not going to be the guy that said I could have, would have, should have. I'm not going to be passive at this moment. I'm not going to look at my kids in the eyes and say I was a little timid.' The comments came at a news conference outside Downey Memorial Christian Church, where Newsom met with the Rev. Tanya Lopez, the senior pastor, to discuss an incident in June where she watched as plainclothes federal agents swarmed and detained a constituent in the parking lot of her church. Newsom criticized the administration's immigration crackdown, saying its only goal was to terrorize families and communities — not to pursue violent criminals, which Newsom said he would support. Newsom said the crackdown was also harming family-owned businesses as immigrants who work and shop at stores stay home out of fear. The governor called the president's decision to deploy about 4,000 National Guardsmen part of Trump's 'rule of cruelty' and said the decision to remove half the troops came after the Pentagon realized the absurdity of its deployment. The government wasted of hundreds of millions of dollars on the deployment, Newsom said. He added that the 'utilization rate' of the National Guard troops was only about 5%, meaning only that percentage was actively engaged with duties while the rest were held in reserve. 'They're a solution right now in search of a problem,' he said of the National Guard. The move to send home some of the troops comes after a legal battle over whether the administration could deploy the troops. A federal appeals court ruled that the president had broad — though not 'unreviewable' — authority to deploy the military in American cities. State and local leaders said the National Guard was not needed to deal with protests over immigration raids that have led to around 3,000 arrests. On a separate issue, Newsom repeated the threat that California could redraw its electoral maps to help Democrats pick up more congressional seats in response to Trump's call for Texas and other states to redistrict to benefit Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections. Republicans currently hold power in both the Senate and House of Representatives, which have been instrumental in enacting the president's policy agenda, including cuts to healthcare and food assistance for Americans in need. 'They can't win by the traditional games, so they want to change the game,' Newsom said. 'We can act holier-than-thou. We can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment.' California voters in 2010 gave an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission the power to determine the boundaries of state voting districts for the U.S. House of Representatives instead of leaving that authority with the state Legislature. Newsom said the California Legislature could pass a bill in the regular session or in a special session that places a proposed constitutional amendment before voters to change state redistricting laws through a special election held in a tight window before the 2026 primaries. The governor said he's also exploring a potential legal loophole that could allow the California Legislature to redraw the congressional maps themselves now with a two-thirds vote and avoid going to the ballot. 'That is an option that is also being considered and both of those are being advanced in real time, not only with members of the Legislature, but others that are interested, because they feel the same pressures I do about the existential threat of what Donald Trump and some of these Republican states are trying to do,' Newsom said.
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Justice Department fires Maurene Comey, prosecutor on Epstein case and daughter of ex-FBI director
She didn't immediately respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday. Advertisement The Trump administration has moved to fire Justice Department lawyers who have worked on cases that have provoked the president's ire, and Maurene Comey was long seen as a potential target given her father's fraught relationship over the last decade with the Republican president. James Comey was the FBI director when Trump took office in 2017, having been appointed by then-President Barack Obama. But his relationship with Trump was strained from the start, and the FBI director resisted a request by Trump at a private dinner to pledge personal loyalty to the president. Trump fired James Comey in May 2017 amid an investigation into potential ties between Russia and Trump's presidential campaign. The Justice Department recently appeared to acknowledge the existence of an investigation into James Comey, though the basis for that inquiry is unclear. Advertisement
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Congress targeted Planned Parenthood, but also affected Maine healthcare provider
Vanessa Shields-Haas, a nurse practitioner, said the organization's clinics have been seeing all patients as usual and completing Medicaid paperwork for visits, but not submitting it because it appears the provision took effect as soon as the law was signed. 'Knowing how hard it is to access care in this state, not allowing these community members to access their care, it's cruel,' Shields-Haas said. Advertisement Maine clinics appear to be only others included in cuts Republican lawmakers targeted Planned Parenthood in one piece of what President Donald Trump dubbed the 'big beautiful' bill that Congress passed and Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up While advocates focused on Planned Parenthood, the bill did not mention it by name. Instead, it cut off reimbursements for organizations that are primarily engaged in family planning services — which generally include things such as contraception, abortion, and pregnancy tests — and received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023. The US Senate's parliamentarian rejected a 2017 effort to defund Planned Parenthood because it was written to exclude all other providers by barring payments only to groups that received more than $350 million a year in Medicaid funds. The non-profit Maine organization asserts in its legal challenge that the threshold was lowered to $800,000 this time around to make sure Planned Parenthood would not be the only affected entity. Advertisement It is the only other organization that has come forward publicly to say that its funding is at risk, too. Federal law already bars taxpayer money from covering most abortions. Instead, the money in question involves other health services, such as cancer screenings and tests, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections. Proponents of that wrinkle in the law say abortion providers use Medicaid money for other services to subsidize abortion. 'This has never been just about Planned Parenthood,' Autumn Christensen, vice president of public policy for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement. 'It's about any Big Abortion business or network that performs abortions. Taxpayers should never be forced to prop up an industry that profits from ending human lives.' The US Department of Health and Human Services, which is named in the lawsuit, declined to comment because it's a legal matter. Maine Family Planning goes beyond abortion Maine Family Planning operates 18 clinics across the state. In 2024, it had about 7,200 family planning patients, plus another 645 who obtained abortions. Services include pregnancy testing, contraception, family planning counseling, breast exams, cancer screenings, and treatment of sexually transmitted infections. Some of the sites also offer primary care services, where there are another 600 or so patients. There are about 800 gender-affirming care patients and about 200 who use its upstart mobile clinic, said George Hill, the president and CEO of the organization. Hill said that for about two-thirds of its patients, Maine Family Planning is the only place they get medical care in a typical year. Advertisement About half of the patients not seeking abortions are enrolled in Medicaid, and the clinics have been receiving about $1.9 million a year in reimbursements, which accounts for about one-fourth of the organization's budget. 'It's a difficult state to provide care in, and now we're facing this,' Hill said. In its lawsuit, the group says it has enough reserves to keep seeing patients covered by Medicaid without reimbursement only through October. Finding health care can be a struggle in this rural state Maine Family Planning says that if it had to turn away patients, it would be more complicated for them than simply finding another provider. There aren't enough in rural areas, the group notes — and many don't accept Medicaid. One patient, Ashley Smith, said she started going to Maine Family Planning about five years ago when she could not find other health care she could afford. While she's not enrolled in Medicaid, she fears clinics could be shuttered because of cuts. 'I am so worried that if my clinic closes, I don't know what I'll do or if I'll be able to see another provider,' Smith said. Maine Family Planning also supports care at more than 40 other health care facilities. Other than the Planned Parenthood locations that receive money from Maine Family Planning, those other providers don't stand to lose their Medicaid reimbursements. But, Hill said, the loss of Medicaid funding for Maine Family Planning would mean the group would have less to send to partners. The Maine clinics say the law violates their right to equal protection The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Maine Family Planning in the challenge, says in its legal filing that the defunding denies it equal protection under the law because it would have funding cut off, but organizations that provide similar services would not. Advertisement 'The administration would rather topple a statewide safety network than let a patient get a cancer screening at a facility that also offers abortion care,' Meetra Mehdizadeh, a Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer, said in an interview.
