Thanks, Judy. I am proud of my degrees also, and of all those who earn them. By state mandate, districts will continue to reward teachers who advance their education with graduate degrees, and graduate degrees will continue to be required for additional certifications like administration. The only change is that teachers will no longer be forced to earn them if doing so does not make sense for them or fit with their career plans.

All good points. Every research study and methodology has its limitations. My own review of this research leads me to the conclusion that we just can't say with confidence that the Master's degree does, in fact, have a measurable impact on student learning. And therefore it shouldn't be a mandated requirement, no matter what other positive benefits advanced degrees may bring.

I don't believe the task force has considered Option 6 at this point. I don't believe the state requires a master's for Option 6. Rather, I think that's just the way universities typically package such programs. With the change in the Rank 2 requirement I wouldn't be surprised if universities rethink that approach.

The same EPSB task force that recommended waiving the Rank 2 requirement has also recommended removing the requirement that one must have a master's degree for admission to a principal certification program. I'm hopeful that will be approved in coming months. This will allow universities to offer principal certification as either a Rank 2 or Rank 1 option (or cert only).

One of the recommendations the committee is expected to make to EPSB is to remove the Master's requirement for admission to principal certification programs (a return to the same policy we had before 2013). I support that change also. Many outstanding administrators earned their principal licensure at the master's level, and that sets them up to continue toward additional certifications at the Rank I or doctoral level. I believe that change will broaden the pool of potential principal candidates, which will be beneficial to districts.

Leo, I really appreciate your thoughtful comment here. You are right that Montessori and classical education are different in significant ways. But I think there's more compatibility here than meets the eye. For example, I think the Montessori curriculum is a lot more specific than people sometimes realize (though perhaps not as comprehensive as classical tends to be), and while children move at their own pace in Montessori, I think there's an implicit assumption that most children will eventually master a specific body of knowledge and skills. So I think it's possible to substitute the classical curriculum for the Montessori curriculum but still utilize features of Montessori like student choice, long work times, and flexible pacing. At any rate, I'd love to see more experiments in this approach, both in homeschool and traditional school settings.

Beverly, I'm not sure how your comment relates to the post above, but I'm always eager to engage in discussion on charter schools. First, I would agree with you that choice is not a panacea. We should have more choices because it works, it is fair, and it's more consistent with how we deliver other highly personal public services. Please see more about how charter schools work, and the argument for school choice, here: http://schoolleader.typepad.com/school-leader/2018/04/kentucky-charter-school-basics.html

Glenn, much of what you say here is simply not true under Kentucky law. Charters in KY will have to take and serve all students, including those with disabilities. Lotteries will ensure that charter schools cannot be selective in who they admit. And charters must abide by the exact same accountability framework as traditional public schools. Read more here: http://schoolleader.typepad.com/school-leader/2018/04/kentucky-charter-school-basics.html

Georgi, Dr. Pruitt supported charter schools for Kentucky. For me, school choice is not about privatization. It's about giving low-income families additional options, which is something affluent families already enjoy. I believe we can do that and still have great public schools. See my other posts on this blog for more information as to why I am a school choice supporter and public school advocate.

Lynn, I cannot speak for other Board members. Whatever they might have said elsewhere or on other occasions, I was the only vote against this agreement.

Richard, schools have always had to supplement with fundraising, and charter schools are no exception. For more on the argument for charters, and especially on the argument that they "drain money" from traditional public schools, see this post and the embedded links: http://schoolleader.typepad.com/school-leader/2018/04/kentucky-charter-school-basics.html

If such were the "government's plan" then it failed spectacularly since charter students were denied the chance to bring their education dollars with them to a new school and education spending was actually expanded.