HCS HB 842 & 831 -- CHARTER SCHOOLS

SPONSOR:  Cunningham, 86 (Robb)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Elementary
and Secondary Education by a vote of 11 to 4.

This substitute permits sponsorship of charter schools by private
universities with their primary campuses in the metropolitan area
of a district where charters are authorized if the college has at
least 1,000 students and an approved teacher preparation program,
as well as by the University of Missouri-Rolla.  The mayor of the
City of St. Louis may request the sponsorship of a workplace
charter school, as defined in the substitute.  The Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education will disburse to the sponsor
1.5% of a charter school's aid allocation to defray the costs of
sponsorship.  The chief financial officer of a charter school
must maintain a surety bond in an amount determined to be
sufficient by the school's board based on its cash flow.  The
current maximum of 5% of a district's buildings being available
for conversion to charter schools is repealed, as is the
provision that a charter school cannot be located on district
property without the district's consent.

Charter sponsors must ensure that criminal background and child
abuse registry checks are conducted for all members of the
school's governing board.  Charter school governing board members
must not be employed by the charter school or any company that
provides substantial services to the charter school.  Board
members are considered to be decision-making public servants for
financial disclosure purposes, and companies managing the schools
are to be considered quasi-public governmental bodies.  Board
members are subject to liability as if they were members of
school boards, and charter schools may participate in the
Missouri Public Entity Risk Management Fund.  The State Board of
Education may require remedial action for a sponsor that it finds
is not discharging its responsibilities correctly.  If the state
board removes the sponsor's authority to operate a school, the
state board becomes the temporary sponsor for up to three years.

The substitute specifies several technical changes to the charter
application process, clarifying what items must be submitted and
on what timetable.  Sponsors must take all reasonable steps to
confirm compliance.  Alternative charter schools will be judged
on their performance on measures selected by the sponsors, as
well as standardized public school measures.  Charters must be
reviewed when operation or management is transferred to another
entity and may be amended if a charter school decides to become a
local education agency (LEA) for purposes of seeking direct
access to federal grants.  If a charter school becomes an LEA, it
may receive its aid payment directly from the department rather
than from the district.

Charter schools offering a foreign language immersion program are
not required to meet the minimum percentage for certificated
teachers, but any teachers who teach in a foreign language must
have proper credentials from the country in which they received
their teacher training.  No charter school may employ a teacher
whose certificate has been revoked or is suspended.  An employee
of an entity providing service to a charter school may elect to
participate in the retirement plan of the employer.  Currently, a
district employee who contracts as a teacher with a charter
school may retain seniority in the district indefinitely; the
substitute limits the period to three years.

FISCAL NOTE:  Estimated Effect on General Revenue Fund of a Cost
of $35,000 in FY 2006, an Income of $0 in FY 2007, and an Income
of $0 in FY 2008.  No impact on Other State Funds in FY 2006, FY
2007, and FY 2008.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters of HB 842 say that incidents have brought
to light where there are weaknesses in oversight
responsibilities.  The bill attempts to close loopholes and will
give the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education more
authority to prevent failures from happening.  Supporters of HB
831 say that many charter schools would welcome the changes in
sponsorship and oversight requirements in the bill because good
charter schools are willing to be open about their work.
Occasionally, conflicts with school districts and confusion about
state requirements cloud the relationship between school and
sponsor.

Testifying for HB 842 were Representative Brooks; Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education; St. Louis Board of Education;
Kansas City Board of Education; Office of the Attorney General;
Missouri National Education Association; and Missouri State
Teachers Association.  Testifying for HB 831 were Representatives
Robb and Muschany; University Academy Charter School; Ethel
Hedgman Lyle School; Academie Lafayette; and Damen Paul.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose HB 842 say that the purpose of
charter schools is to free schools from unnecessary regulation;
in trying to close loopholes, the bill runs the risk of making
charter schools into copies of other public schools.  Those who
oppose HB 831 say that without rule-making authority, the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education lacks authority
to address some situations.  The State Auditor's report on the
situation recommended rule-making authority.

Testifying against HB 842 was Missouri Public School Charter
Association.  Testifying against HB 831 were Department of
Elementary and Secondary Education; and School Administrators
Coalition.

OTHERS:  Others testifying on the bill say that HB 831 has
beneficial features, but the lack of rule-making authority is
problematic.  Some said the sponsorship remuneration is a bad
idea, while others say the sponsors need to have the expenses of
oversight defrayed.

Others testifying on HB 831 were Missouri National Education
Association; Missouri Public Charter School Association; St.
Louis Board of Education; Kansas City Board of Education; and
Doug Thomas.

Becky DeNeve, Senior Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
93rd General Assembly, 1st Regular Session
Last Updated August 25, 2005 at 1:20 pm