The original amendment exempted the districts of St. Louis and Kansas City, but Representative Don Calloway, a Democrat from the St. Louis County area of Bel- Nor, successfully added an amendment that would have included the St. Louis Public School District.  Representative Calloway argued that St. Louis is the “flagship failing school district” in the state and children there should be able to leave the district if they choose to do so.  Representative Dieckhaus was in favor of this amendment and also asked a Representative from Kansas City to propose an amendment that would include that city’s district as well.

Opponents of the amendment argued hypothetical, and often seemingly one in a million chance, problems with the policy of open enrollment.  These objections ranged anywhere from schools not being able to plan budgets to concerns that students would essentially endlessly jump around from school to school.  This despite the fact that students have to apply to the receiving school well in advance of the next school year and students could only go open enroll to a school outside of their assigned zone district one time.  Opponents even tried to call this a voucher system which is ridiculous considering that vouchers are illegal under the Missouri State Constitution.  Proponents of the amendment stuck to the simple philosophy that a child stuck in a school district that is failing or not a good fit should have an opportunity to go to another district.

While the amendment failed by a vote of 34 – 122, the debate on the issue put education reform and school choice front and center in the Missouri House for most of the day’s session.  The issue is not dead for the year, as there is an Open Enrollment bill in the Senate Education Committee that has been heard, but has yet to come up for a vote.  The Children’s Education Council of Missouri hopes that the debate on this important issue continues sometime during the session.  Children trapped in failing schools deserve the opportunity to look for alternatives in order to receive an appropriate education.

The item earning the most attention at the beginning of the session is the issue of open enrollment.  Open enrollment is a policy that allows students to transfer to a school in a district outside of where the student lives, so long as the receiving district has the capacity for the student.  This policy could be beneficial to parents seeking to move their child from a failing school district to a higher performing one.  Many parents are also frustrated by being assigned to a school based on zone boundaries, often decades old, when they have a school in another district much closer to their home.

The Joint Committee on Education conducted a study on the issue in the interim session, hearing from parents and advocacy groups who were in favor of open enrollment and school administrators and teacher union representatives who were opposed.  The main opposition was over one of the four areas of special education, transportation, funding and planning for capacity.  But, the study released by the committee shows that almost all 14 states studied have policies that deal with these topics.  These topics are also covered in the first bill filed in the 2010 session on open enrollment, Senate Bill 603, by Senator Rob Meyer.  The bill was referred to the Senate Education Committee but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing.

The Children’s Education Council has previously discussed how open enrollment can benefit special needs students.  In addition to being able to move their child to a district with better services, the parent would also be able to find a district that practices policies that a parent believes is best for their child.  For example, I had a conversation recently with the organizer of an anti- seclusion website in Missouri, and she was very interested in open enrollment.  She explained that she pulled her autistic child out of her zone district and is now homeschooling due to the district’s policies on seclusion and restraint.  She also cited Missouri as being one of the few states that still allows districts to use corporal punishment on students.  She would like to take part in this policy so she could look for a public school district close to her who has better policies on these issues.

The Missouri Education Reform Council (MERC) has taken the lead on this issue and has received a great deal of media attention around the state. MERC is a group of former school superintendents and administrators who support education reform.  The Children’s Education Council will continue to support MERC and the passage of open enrollment during the 2010 session.

In some cases, as Meta, MO mother Lois Wankum testified to the committee at their October 20th hearing, students are much closer to a school in an adjacent district than the one to which they are assigned. In other cases, parents are simply looking to remove their child from a failing school district and enroll them in ones that are better performing. For many special needs parents this policy could unlock the doors of educational opportunity for their child that is trapped in a district that does not have the appropriate services to help their child.

Open enrollment would allow for these parents, who often do not have the means to send their child to a private education service such as TouchPoint or Giant Steps, to move their child to a district that may have better services. For example, the Rockwood School District in suburban St. Louis County gave an excellent presentation on their special needs services at the St. Louis meeting of the Interim Committee on Autism Spectrum Disorders. At the same hearing a mother gave desperate testimony on how her autistic child was having many problems in his local school district and she could not afford to send her child to a specialized private school. “I am drowning here” was the phrase that she repeated over and over. Why should her head continue to be held under water by outdated school district lines? Why should these district lines trap her son in the boundaries of receiving an ineffective education instead of receiving a possible lifeline of intervention leading to a productive, healthy life?

A study in Minnesota, one of 25 states that have open enrollment, shows that “the families of special-needs students are increasingly using the open-enrollment option and are satisfied with their choices.” This same option could be a reality for the families of 133,000+ IEP students in the state of Missouri, should the state choose to allow this policy. These families are not concerned with outdated school boundaries, only with seeing that their child has the best possible education options, and thus the best chance for leading a productive life.