The bill passed after much debate on the effects of the legislation on struggling rural school districts.  During the initial approval process, an amendment was adopted to limit who could sponsor charter schools in provisionally accredited districts to alleviate some of these concerns.

The amendment only allows, in these districts, sponsors who meet quality standards set by the State Board of Education, the local school board or the newly created Missouri Charter Public School Commission.  The district would have to be provisionally accredited for three years before one of these sponsors could open a charter school.

HB 473 calls for expanding charter school sponsoring organizations to include:

• Any public four-year college or university.
• A community college with a service area that encompasses some portion of an eligible school district.
• Any private college or university with its primary campus in Missouri.
• A two-year private nonprofit vocational or technical school.
• The Missouri Charter Public School Commission. which would be created by this legislation,
• A nonprofit or charitable organization meeting specified requirements.

In fully accredited districts only the local school board could sponsor a charter school.

The bill also greatly increases the accountability standards on charter schools.  Provisions in HB 473 allow the State Board of Education to close a school and suspend a sponsor for poor performance or financial management.  Sponsors must also apply to be allowed to open a charter school and all current sponsors must reapply.  Reporting requirements on student performance and financial management were also increased.

CECM was glad to work with lobbyists from the Missouri Charter Public School Association and Pelopidas, LLC to pass this legislation.  The bill now moves onto the State Senate where it will likely be heard in the Education Committee on Wednesday.

Included in the two omnibus bills, SB 243 and SB 147, are provisions to replace teacher tenure with multi-year contracts and increase options for virtual schooling across the state.  The  bills would also create mechanisms for student choice and transfers, both inside unaccredited districts and outside of them,  as a result of the Turner v. Clayton Missouri Supreme Court opinion.

These bills now move to the House floor for debate.

The bill’s provisions for replacing tenure with multi-year contracts are similar to HB 628, which CECM supported during the bill’s hearing in the House Education Committee.

For this reason, State Director Earl Simms testified in favor of HB 994 sponsored by State Representative Cole McNary. This bill would create means for students in unaccredited districts to transfer to accredited ones, but also adds two key provisions to give options close to the students’ homes.

One provision allows for accredited traditional public school districts to sponsor charter public schools in an unaccredited district.  The second key additional provision would create a voucher program for students in the city to use at private schools.  The bill specifies that no student would be mandated to take religious classes.

Below is the testimony in support of the bill:

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Earl Simms and I am the State Director for the Children’s Education Council of Missouri.  I would like to go on record in favor of House Bill 994. We think that the bill provides a remedy to the Turner v. Clayton case that is practical by seeking options for children to stay close to their homes and receive an accredited education.  It also would solve the concern raised about students flooding out to neighboring districts.

We do not oppose having a piece of a solution being a mechanism for students wishing to transfer to neighboring districts, such as in Representative Stream’s House Bill 763 that you heard this morning.  But I do share Representative McNary’s and others concerns with how to help students who are unable to transfer to an adjoining district.

I would also like to point out that I called St. Louis County School districts this afternoon to ask what their non- resident tuition rates are.  These were sixteen districts that received a fully accredited score based on 2010 Annual Performance Reviews (APR).  Out of these sixteen districts, seven of the sixteen districts do not accept non- resident students, even under a tuition agreement.  I heard back from four districts who had average non- resident tuition rates of between almost $10,500 and almost $12,000 depending on grade level.

I’m also concerned about this being the only solution because we heard seemingly contradictory testimony this morning that 1,200 students applied for 1,400 open seats in the Co- Operating School Districts, yet we still have waiting lists in these districts.  Representative McNeal stated this morning that 200 were on a waiting list to transfer to Hazelwood.

House Bill 994 presents solutions that would undoubtedly cost the unaccredited districts less money than to pay for these tuition costs AND transportation for these students to attend districts in the same or adjoining county.  You heard this morning that St. Louis Public Schools has 2165 seats in schools making AYP.  Why should we not have non- public quality options on the table to serve students as well?  SLPS already contracts with private providers to serve students, mainly with IEPs, and similar contracts could be made here to keep students inside of the city and not flood county districts.  To my knowledge, no Blaine Amendment concerns have been raised by these contracts.  There are provisions in HB 994 that no students opting for a voucher under the bill would be required to take classes in a particular religion.

There has been previous testimony in the Senate Education Committee that Catholic Schools in St. Louis City have an estimated ____seats that they would be willing to work with to also alleviate this concern.  We also support allowing accredited districts to sponsor charter public schools inside of an unaccredited district.  We also would like to see charter public schools further expanded to alleviate concerns of students rushing out to neighboring traditional public school districts.

House Bill 994 is a practical solution to the Turner v. Clayton case.  We should not let ideological concerns keep us from this practical solution.  Thank you for hearing my testimony and I would be happy to take any questions.

In addition, any school district that owns school buildings that have not been used for classroom instruction for two consecutive school years must either sell them or make them available for use by an accredited school district, charter school, virtual school, or nonsectarian nonpublic school, free of charge. The sale or lease terms must not include a restriction on using the facilities for educational purposes.

The bill sponsor, Senator Jane Cunningham, said that she will fight to keep the rights of students affirmed under the Supreme Court’s opinion in the case and that students deserve to be educated in an accredited school district.

Provisions in SB 370, also sponsored by Senator Cunningham, were rolled into the committee substitute for the bill and would set up a scholarship program for students in unaccredited districts to enroll in a nonpublic school, charter school, virtual school, or accredited school district. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education would administer the scholarship program.

CECM has testified this session in support of multiple school choice bills that would be practical solutions to the ruling in the Turner case and help students receive a quality education and escape their unaccredited district.  We will continue to support this type of legislation throughout the session.

This path toward tenure reform has been met with fierce resistance by Missouri’s teacher unions, but is supported by the Missouri School Boards’ Association and reform groups, like CECM.  During the committee debate on the bill, HB 628, a provision tying pay to performance was removed.

While the House Education Committee in Missouri debates tenure reform, it is worth noting that multiple states have moved quickly in their legislative sessions to address the issue.  In Florida, Governor Rick Scott has already signed a reform package that eliminates the state’s tenure system and creates a merit- based pay system for all teachers in the state.  In Idaho, Governor Butch Otter has also signed similar legislation for teacher contracts and merit pay.

Additionally, governors in Indiana, Tennessee, Nevada and New Jersey have all heavily pushed packages to reform teacher pay and tenure systems in their states.  Even Illinois, a traditionally strong union state, is pushing reform of its teacher tenure system.

Lawmakers in both chambers and both political parties should join the states that are reforming or eliminating their teacher tenure and pay systems.  These reforms are long overdue in making it easier for school districts to remove poor performing teachers.  These reforms also benefit teachers — and treat them like the professionals they are — by rewarding high performance and removing barriers to growth.

These are important bills that will help curb social promotion, the practice of just moving students to the next grade level each academic year, whether or not the student has learned the material. A recent report by the Missouri Department of Higher Education shows that 40% of Missouri high school graduates entering Missouri universities need at least one remedial course.  Seventy- two percent of students graduating from St. Louis Public Schools fall into this category.  Remedial courses typically cost the same as regular courses, but do not count toward credit for a degree.

Both pieces of legislation were held over for additional hearings this week in the House Education Committee.

The bill was also supported by Missouri Education Reform Council’s Joe Knodell, a retired superintendent from Southeast Missouri.  Also, the Missouri School Board Association testified in support of parts of the bill stating that they favor single- year or multi- year contracts over the policy of granting tenure after five years.  The longest contract term they would support is three years.

Teacher tenure has come under fire nationwide as examples pile up of the policy making it hard, or almost impossible without great expense, to fire under performing teachers.  Teachers themselves are showing willingness to forgo tenure in favor of performance based compensation.  Teachers in Washington, D.C. and Baltimore, MD have recently signed contract agreements with local school districts loosening tenure provisions in favor of merit pay options.

The bill will be worked on heavily during the coming legislative week and could be voted on soon.

Lawmakers are lining up behind the idea of giving parents taxpayer-paid vouchers to send their children to schools of their choice.

Trying to stop a voucher bill advancing in the Senate is seen by some as futile, so backers are focusing on ways to make it more palatable.

On Tuesday, when the Senate Education Committee will vote on the voucher bill, a myriad of amendments is expected to be offered to address opponents’ concerns with the bill, known as Senate Bill 1.

There are proposals to build in more accountability for student performance.

Another wants to provide more taxpayer transparency about vouchers’ impact on a district.

Another would allow the state to audit how nonpublic schools use voucher money.

Another would bar public or private schools’ recruitment of students for athletic reasons.

Another is aimed at lowering the cost of the plan, which some estimate could rise to $1 billion a year.

These and more are among the ideas to tweak the bill sponsored by Sen. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin County. This bill would initially make vouchers available to low-income students in failing schools to attend another public or nonpublic school. By the third year, eligibility would expand to any low-income child in the state.

The plan also boosts funding to $100 million, up from $75 million, for the Educational Improvement Tax Credit program that gives tax cuts to businesses that finance tuition scholarships for children in low- and middle-income families.

Piccola, the chairman of the chamber’s education committee, figures the first year’s cost of the vouchers to be about $50 million since it will be limited to students in 144 failing schools.

Democrats project that price tag will soar to $850 million to $1 billion annually by the third year. That assumes Pennsylvania’s experience mimics Ohio’s, where 15 percent of low-income families use vouchers for school choice.

Gov. Tom Corbett listed school choice as a priority for his administration during his campaign last year and in his inaugural address.

While the idea was defeated three times when pushed by former Gov. Tom Ridge in the 1990s, many predict a different outcome this time.

While it’s unlikely all of the amendments will make it into the bill, Sen. Andrew Dinniman, R-Chester County, said some of them could be considered when efforts are made to cobble a House-Senate compromise on vouchers.

Dinniman said he supports the first two years of the voucher bill’s plan, aimed at helping kids in failing schools that have shown no improvement over the last decade. It’s the third year of the plan that troubles him.

Instead of making vouchers available to all low-income students, one of the amendments he will offer would increase the funding for the education tax credit program to $150 million.

Another would lower the value of the highly coveted tax breaks businesses receive for a one-year donation to 65 cents for every dollar donated from the current 75 cents on the $1. Commitments to make donations for two consecutive years would result in tax breaks of 80 cents for every dollar donated, down from the current 90 cents.

This would expand the program’s reach to include more students, while allowing more companies to receive the tax breaks, Dinniman said.

Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery County, is conditioning his support on acceptance of his amendments. Among them are ones that would require voucher students in private schools to take the same state assessments that public school students take, and another that allows voucher students in religious schools to opt out of religious ceremonies or instruction.

Sen. James Ferlo, D-Allegheny, meanwhile, doesn’t intend to support the bill even if his amendments are included. He is proposing to require school districts to note on property tax bills the voucher program’s net cost to the district.