HCS HB 1939 -- PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT OPEN ENROLLMENT

SPONSOR:  Cunningham, 86 (Hunter)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Elementary
and Secondary Education by a vote of 8 to 6.

This substitute establishes a procedure to permit students to
attend school in a district other than their district of
residence, as of July 1, 2007.  The parent or guardian must
notify the sending and receiving school districts by January 15,
except for good cause, of the intent to enroll the student in a
district other than the district of residence.  If there are more
applicants than spaces available, a random method of selection
must be used.  Requests that miss the deadline without good cause
and are denied can be appealed.  The substitute contains a
formula for the distribution of school funds for these students,
limited to the lower of the per-pupil cost in either district.
Open enrollment may also be used when a change of residence would
otherwise be required due to the parents' or guardians' marital
status or the child's adoption or placement in a substance abuse
program, among other situations.  Provisions concerning special
education, transportation, sufficient classroom space, assignment
of assessment scores, and enrollment procedures for suspended or
expelled students are also included.  The substitute clarifies
how open enrollment affects small schools grants and
court-ordered settlements and requires intradistrict transfers to
be offered on the same principles of open seats and parental
provision of transportation.  Vocational-technical education, to
the extent practical, will provide open enrollment.

FISCAL NOTE:  No impact on state funds in FY 2007, FY 2008, and
FY 2009.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters say that open enrollment works well in
Iowa and Ohio.  About 1% of students take advantage of it, more
in rural than suburban or urban areas.  Intradistrict transfers
are fairly common in many Missouri districts, and interdistrict
transfers can work on the same principles of available seats and
having parents provide the transportation.

Testifying for the bill were Representative Hunter; Dr. Mark
Hargens, Assistant Superintendent, St. Joseph School District;
and Dr. Norm Ritter, Superintendent, Springfield R-XII District.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose the bill say that especially in the
case of special education students, the sending district needs
more control over expenses.  Calculation of class size and the
effect on small schools receiving the grants under Senate Bill
287 need to be addressed.  Mobility can disrupt learning.

Testifying against the bill were Missouri School Boards'
Association; Missouri School Administrators Coalition; and
Missouri National Education Association.

OTHERS:  Others testifying on the bill say that the tuition of
high school students in K-8 districts needs to be addressed, as
does transfers to, from, and within the Special School District
of St. Louis County.

Others testifying on the bill was Missouri State Teachers
Association.

Becky DeNeve, Senior Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
93rd General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session
Last Updated November 29, 2006 at 9:45 am