When the Budget Becomes Policy: What This Session Signals for Kentucky School Districts
In legislative sessions, individual bills often attract the most attention. But for Kentucky’s public school districts, the budget is the policy that ultimately shapes everything else. This session is no exception.
The House budget proposal released this week provides an early and important signal about legislative priorities, governing philosophy, and the operating environment districts should prepare for over the next biennium. While the proposal is described as a “bare-bones” budget, the implications for districts are anything but minimal. For superintendents, the key question is not whether education was “protected” in name, but whether the budget creates the conditions necessary for stability, staffing, and sustained improvement.
This moment calls for clarity, not reaction. Understanding what the budget signals, how it will be reviewed, and where superintendent engagement matters most will be critical in the weeks ahead.
A Shift Toward Budget Scrutiny
A defining feature of the House proposal is its reliance on an intensified Budget Review Subcommittee process, particularly for P–12 education. This approach reflects a broader legislative intent to apply a quasi zero-based budgeting lens across state government.
In practical terms, this means programs and funding streams may be examined line by line, with legislators seeking justification not only for growth, but for continuation. The rhetoric accompanying the budget emphasizes spending restraint rather than revenue limitation, reinforcing the expectation that agencies and sectors demonstrate return on investment.
For education, this posture presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Districts have evidence of progress since the pandemic, including improved assessment outcomes and national recognition for recovery gains. These results did not happen in isolation. They are directly connected to targeted policy investments and sustained district-level execution. The budget review process will be the forum where that connection must be clearly and consistently articulated.
“Protected” Education and the Reality of Flat Funding
The House proposal characterizes education funding as protected. In technical terms, several core elements remain intact: full-day kindergarten continues, Tier I funding remains at 17.5 percent, and the actuarially required contribution for the Teachers’ Retirement System is fully funded.
However, protection is not the same as progress. The SEEK base remains flat. Transportation funding is held at current levels rather than being fully funded based on updated data. Tier I does not advance beyond the existing percentage.
For districts, flat funding across these recurring revenue streams has real consequences. Salary schedules are not static. Transportation costs do not hold steady. Inflation erodes purchasing power even when nominal dollars remain unchanged.
A flat SEEK base across the biennium also creates a structural issue in the second year of the budget cycle, effectively reducing state support when enrollment shifts and local calculations are applied. Over time, this dynamic constrains districts’ ability to plan responsibly, invest in staff, and sustain instructional momentum.
Recurring Revenue and the Staffing Reality
One of the most important connections highlighted this session is the relationship between recurring revenue and personnel decisions. Budget language continues to encourage districts to provide raises for certified and classified staff. Yet when the primary recurring revenue sources that support salaries are flatlined, districts are placed in an untenable position.
Providing raises without recurring revenue creates long-term financial pressure. Salary commitments compound year over year as employees advance on the schedule. Without growth in SEEK, transportation relief, or Tier I investment, districts are asked to absorb increasing obligations with static resources.
This tension is not theoretical. It affects hiring decisions, retention efforts, and the ability to compete with private-sector wages. The growing gap between education salaries and other workforce sectors is already reshaping labor markets across the Commonwealth. Budget decisions that fail to account for this reality risk undermining the very workforce stability legislators say they want to support.
Transportation: An Ongoing Pressure Point
Transportation funding remains a persistent concern. Previous efforts to fully fund transportation were based on outdated data, resulting in partial rather than full reimbursement for districts. The current proposal maintains funding at existing levels rather than correcting that gap.
Transportation costs are recurring, unavoidable, and rising. When state funding does not keep pace, districts must divert resources from classrooms to buses, fuel, and maintenance. Fully funding transportation based on current data would free recurring local dollars that could be reinvested in instruction and teacher compensation.
The interest among some legislators in addressing transportation funding suggests this issue is not closed. It will be one of the most important areas for superintendent engagement during budget review discussions.
Tier I and Equity Considerations
Tier I funding remains at 17.5 percent, below the 20 percent level discussed in the previous budget cycle. Tier I plays a critical role in narrowing gaps between districts with differing property wealth and reinforcing the principle that educational opportunity should not depend on geography.
Incremental increases to Tier I are among the most direct ways the budget can support equity while providing recurring revenue that districts can rely on. Holding Tier I flat preserves existing disparities rather than addressing them.
Transparency Bills and Administrative Capacity
Beyond the budget, several bills advancing this session carry operational implications that intersect directly with funding decisions. Financial transparency legislation, including expanded posting requirements for credit card statements and superintendent contracts, has moved quickly.
Transparency is not a contested value. Districts already comply with extensive reporting and open records requirements. The concern is capacity. New mandates require time, systems, and staff to implement responsibly. Without accompanying resources, these requirements increase administrative workload, particularly in smaller districts with limited central office staffing.
This context matters when legislators simultaneously express concern about administrative growth. Policy choices that add reporting obligations while criticizing administrative capacity create contradictory pressures at the district level.
The Importance of Local Fiscal Impact
Several proposals this session raise questions about local revenue, including constitutional amendments affecting property taxes. While state-level fiscal impacts may be documented, the local consequences for school districts are often unclear or unaddressed.
School districts are among the largest recipients of local property tax revenue. Changes that reduce local growth without replacement funding directly affect district budgets, staffing, and services. Requesting comprehensive local fiscal impact statements is not procedural resistance. It is responsible governance.
Why Superintendent Engagement Matters Now
The budget is not final. The most consequential decisions will be shaped during the Budget Review Subcommittee process and subsequent negotiations. Many of these discussions occur outside formal hearings, making relationships and early engagement essential.
Superintendents bring credibility grounded in operational reality. The progress districts have made since the pandemic, the pressures they face in staffing and transportation, and the limits of flat funding are not abstract concepts. They are lived realities in every community.
Clear, consistent messaging focused on recurring revenue, sustainability, and return on investment will matter more than volume or rhetoric. This is the moment to reinforce that education outcomes improve when policy and funding are aligned with implementation capacity.
Staying Steady in a Compressed Session
Legislative sessions move quickly, and budget cycles move even faster. Amid a long list of bills and shifting headlines, the underlying budget framework deserves sustained attention.
For Kentucky’s superintendents, steadiness is the goal. Staying aligned around core priorities, engaging early where decisions are being shaped, and focusing on operational consequences rather than political framing will protect districts and students alike.
The budget will determine what districts can realistically deliver over the next two years. Treating it as the central policy document it is remains the most effective advocacy strategy this session.
