School Governance in the 2026 Legislative Session: Structure, Authority and Balancing Local Control

During the 2026 Kentucky General Assembly session, school governance was one of the most active and consequential areas of policy debate. Roughly ten bills were introduced proposing changes to how education systems are governed, from school-based decision-making councils to local boards, district leadership and statewide oversight bodies.

A System Designed for Balance: KERA’s Legacy

Many of these structures trace back to the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), which established Kentucky’s modern approach to shared decision-making in education. KERA created school-based decision-making councils (SBDMs) to give parents and educators a direct role in school-level decisions, while reinforcing the role of locally elected boards and statewide bodies in setting direction and ensuring accountability. The result was a governance system intentionally designed to balance local voice, professional expertise and state oversight.

The school governance bills filed this session reflect a shared recognition that governance matters for student outcomes, but they also reflect very different ideas about where decision-making authority should reside and how the systems evolve.

At the center of the discussion is a familiar question in Kentucky education policy: How do we balance citizen voice, professional expertise and statewide accountability in public education?

The range of legislation filed this session underscores both the importance of that question and the lack of consensus on the answer. Some proposals strengthened transparency and accountability systems, while others significantly shifted authority between elected boards, superintendents and appointed bodies. In some cases, bills even moved in opposite direction–highlighting the complexity of governance as both a policy issue and a system design challenge.

Governance Principles for Education

The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence approaches this work with a clear commitment to citizen participation in decision-making regarding public education as a public good. We believe that meaningful engagement in education policymaking matters at every level, local and state, P–12 and postsecondary and is essential to building a stronger Commonwealth.

We seek academic excellence that creates upward mobility for Kentuckians, and we see governance as a critical tool for achieving that goal and for holding ourselves and each other accountable for our shared investment in education.

In practice, effective governance requires both broad participation and relevant expertise. Elected leadership bodies allow for direct engagement by voters, strengthening community ownership of outcomes and vision. Appointed bodies allow for the inclusion of varied expertise and a focus on long-term strategy and accountability. A strong system depends on the balance between these approaches, not the dominance of one over the other.

These principles apply across Kentucky’s education system, from school-based decision-making councils (SBDMs), which engage parents and educators closest to students, to local boards of education that reflect community priorities, to statewide bodies that ensure consistent expectations and accountability.[i]

Preserving Local Voice: The Impact of Senate Bill 152’s Failure

Before diving into the school governance bills that passed this session, Senate Bill 152  did not pass, therefore preserving an important element of Kentucky’s long-standing governance structure. The failure of SB 152 maintains school councils   as decision-making bodies rather than converting them to advisory roles. As proposed, the bill would have shifted nearly all school-based decision making (SBDM) responsibilities to principals, giving them direct control over school-level decisions and requiring school board approval of policies developed at the school level. By not advancing, SB 152 preserves local voice in school governance by keeping these councils intact—the community-level structures that enable hyper-local input from teachers and parents in shaping how schools operate.

House Bill 257, a bill focused on assessment and accountability, will change the work of SBDM. During this legislative session, the bill made superintendents the policymakers on the newly required writing programs. That step will narrow the councils’ formal authority over policies on curriculum and instructional practices. Read more about that change in our post on accountability changes.

What Passed: Shifts in Authority and Structure

Two major school governance bills ultimately passed this session: Senate Bill 1 (click on Current/Final for the full text), sponsored by Sen. David Givens, and Senate Bill 4, as amended in the Free Conference Committee Report, sponsored by Sen. Stephen West.

Senate Bill 1: Redefining District Leadership

Senate Bill 1 makes significant changes to governance relationships in Jefferson County. Key provisions include:

• Strengthening the role of the superintendent in district operations, including greater control over day-to-day decision-making;
• Shifting authority over personnel and operational decisions, making superintendent actions final unless overridden by a two-thirds majority of the board; and
• Adjusting board procedures and thresholds that shape how and when boards can act.

Collectively, these changes move operational authority more firmly into the superintendent’s role, while narrowing the ability of elected boards to intervene in key decisions.

Senate Bill 1 also builds on prior legislative efforts to change governance in Jefferson County Public Schools, some of which have previously been reviewed by the courts. In practice, Senate Bill1 represents a shift in how authority is exercised within districts—placing greater emphasis on executive leadership while maintaining a role for elected boards in oversight and accountability.

Senate Bill 4 (as Amended): Governance Changes Through a Principal Leadership Bill

Senate Bill 4, as amended, includes significant governance changes. The original intent and focus of the bill was on principal leadership but during the final days of the session, amendments made in the House added major provisions that restructure school governance in large school districts—defined as those with more than 300,000 residents and therefore affecting only Jefferson and Fayette Counties. The bill includes an emergency clause, meaning these governance changes took effect immediately upon the bill’s final passage.

For affected districts, the bill reduces school boards from seven members to five, establishes five-member division-based representation, and requires the redrawing of board district boundaries. In Jefferson County, the bill goes further by specifying initial precinct-based maps for the new structure.

Senate Bill 4 also prohibits individuals employed by a school district who work more than 100 days per year from serving on a local board of education. This change only matters for individuals who are employed in one district and live in another; state law already provides that no one can serve on the school board in the district where they are employed. As previously mentioned, this change only applies in Jefferson and Fayette Counties because they are the only districts with populations over 300,000.

What This Means for Families and Teachers

Changes to governance structures are not abstract—they shape how decisions are made about schools, resources, and priorities that directly affect students and educators.

For families and teachers, these changes may influence how representation works at the local level. Fewer board members or restructured districts can affect how accessible elected representatives are and how community voices are reflected. Shifts in authority between boards and superintendents can also shape how decisions are made and how responsive systems feel to local concerns. Governance structures play a key role in how clearly families and educators understand who is responsible and how to engage when issues arise.

As Senate Bill 1 and Senate Bill 4 move into implementation, several factors will shape how these changes are experienced across communities:

• Representation and access: Ensuring families and educators can still meaningfully connect with decision-makers.
• Balance of authority: Maintaining clear roles between boards and superintendents to support both leadership and accountability.
• Transparency and trust: Making sure decisions, and how to engage, are clear and accessible.
• Stability in schools: Supporting consistent leadership and avoiding disruption in day-to-day operations.

As a whole, these factors will influence not just how decisions are made, but how connected families and educators feel to the system that serves their students.

What We’ll Be Watching as Implementation Begins

As implementation begins, it will also be important to ensure that unintended consequences are avoided. Citizen voice should not be diminished through reduced representation or less accessible governance structures. Accountability should remain clear, particularly in large and complex districts. Transparency should not be weakened, and communities should not feel further removed from decision-making processes. Strong governance depends not only on structure, but on whether people feel they can understand, engage with, and influence the system that serves their children.

The 2026 session makes clear that governance will remain a central issue in Kentucky education policy. Senate Bill 1 and Senate Bill 4, as amended, represent meaningful changes to how authority is structured and exercised within the system.

As these changes take effect, Kentucky has an opportunity to reinforce what matters most: a governance system that reflects the voices of its citizens, draws on deep expertise, and remains accountable for delivering better outcomes for every student.

[i] https://oasis.library.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/brookings_capstone_studentpapers/article/1005/&path_info=Llamas_Brookings_Capstone.pdf