OMNIBUS HOUSE BILL 

     In Bulletin No. 13, we described SS #2 for SCS for SB 161 including a number of provisions contrary to good public education policy which school administrators have consistently and strenuously opposed. Those issues and talking points for opposing those issues are repeated below. Now the bill (SS #2 for SCS for SB 161) is on the House calendar for third reading and we are told there is a real possibility that it will be debated on the House floor in the next few days.      SAC feels passage of this bill would have horrendous consequences for
Missouri public schools and for school administrators. It is of the utmost importance that each school administrator contact their state representative immediately and urge him/her to vote no on SS #2 for SCS for SB 161.     HCS for SS#2 for SCS for SB 161 includes the following provisions that weaken support for public education:Authorizes the mayor of the City of St. Louis to sponsor charter schools; Requires school districts to reimburse students’ tuition costs for certain remedial courses taken at higher education institutions; Authorizes open enrollment in provisionally accredited, unaccredited and lapsed districts; Authorizes family support teams to make educational decisions for students in residential care facilities, as outlined above; Authorizes school districts to transport private and parochial school students with parents purportedly paying the excess costs incurred in transporting students; and Requires school administrators “compensation” to be reported to DESE and placed on both the DESE and district website along with information regarding the highest paid teacher’s “compensation” as set forth in HB 771.  

A. Expansion of Charter Schools      The School Administrators Coalition has long opposed the expansion of charter schools, including expansion through sponsoring entities, particularly since the evidence does not demonstrate a substantial improvement in student achievement for students attending charter schools. Concerns with charter schools include:Establishment of charter schools has the potential to create a dual system of education which will compete for students and resources without significantly improving the opportunity for a better education.Charter school enrollments are more likely to be filled by children of interested and resourceful parents than by “at risk” children with uninvolved parents.Charter schools are not subject to the same rules and regulations applicable to public schools. There is no satisfactory rationale for allowing charter schools greater operating discretion than the public schools.In most states, a significant number of charter schools have operated with unqualified staffs, narrow curriculums, and inadequate facilities.A significant number of charter schools have been formed with an emphasis on religious promotion, profitability, or special agenda.A significant number of charter schools do not have the capacity to educate special education students.The establishment of charter schools does nothing to ensure a safety net of high quality educational opportunity for all students. 

B. Payment for Remedial Coursework      Requiring school districts to compensate students for remedial coursework disregards a number of contributing factors that could result in a student opting to take a remedial course such as: (i) the desire for an easy grade; (ii) the differing standards between high school graduation requirements and entrance requirements for post secondary institutions; (iii) interest in completing a refresher course prior to launching into a given area of study; (iv) recommendations from advisors for reasons other than academic performance; and (v) the differing standards among institutions of higher education. Requiring school districts to compensate students for remedial coursework voluntarily selected by students presupposes that the only reason students take remedial courses is poor academic preparation at the high school level. This presumption is flawed. C. Open Enrollment      The School Administrators Coalition has opposed various open enrollment proposals over the past several years and continues to oppose these proposals for a number of reasons, including thefollowing:Open enrollment would have a negative impact on the finances of the home district when students transfer elsewhere.Open enrollment would have a negative impact on the finances of the host district when the sending (home) district’s per pupil expenditure is less than the per pupil expenditure of the receiving(host) district.Allowing transfer students to have immediate eligibility for athletic contests could create a statewide student recruitment epidemic that would emphasize athletic performance above all other criteria. In such an environment, the best interests of the child can easily be overlooked.Because of geography, transportation costs and travel time would eliminate the possibility of students in many school districts transferring to another area school. In small districts where transfers might occur, the loss of even a few students could lead to forced consolidation of the district.An amendment would likely be offered to impose class size restrictions which could force many districts to increase their class size levels. 

D. Transporting Parochial and Private School Students      Efforts to force school districts to transport private and parochial school students have failed in past years as they would violate the strict mandates of the
Missouri constitution. The proposal in the HCS for SS#2 for SCS for SB 161 would allow school districts to transport parochial and private school students but purports to require that parents pay any costs associated with transporting the students in order to avoid a constitutional violation.      Issues of concern include:How to accurately assess costs for transportation services; Collection of fees from parents; Impact on the availability of seats for the public school ridership, particularly with growth in student populations in the public, private and parochial settings; Increased exposure for liability related to accidents, supervision of students, incidents between students, etc.; and Likely violation of the constitutional prohibition against using public monies to support a private or parochial purpose. 

E. Posting of Administrator “Compensation Packages”      Requiring the posting of administrator compensation packages unfairly singles out one sector of public employees and treats them differently. HCS for SS#2 for SCS for SB 161 includes the text of HB 771, and the School Administrators Coalition opposes both bills for the following reasons:The information requested would cause an excessive focus on school administrators’ compensation which could easily discourage needed candidates from choosing to enter the field of school administration. Pools to select candidates for school administrator posts are already less numerous than in previous years and it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract top candidates to the field.The information requested could, also, serve as a distraction from substantive discussions about needs when school districts are engaged in efforts to pass necessary tax levies or school bond issues.The most common complaint about government requirements is the amount of mandated paperwork for public employees which detracts from the ability of individuals to focus on the substantive parts of the job – i.e. improving students achievement. This bill could easily be entitled the “Make Work Act” for school administrators and could ultimately add to the number of employees utilized by the school district.The bill singles out school administrators’ compensation unfairly and includes penalties that seem quite punitive for students and school patrons and unrelated to the requirements in the bill.School administrator salaries are comparatively low in
Missouri. In the current year, the mean superintendent salary is $90,748 and lags far behind the national average salary for school superintendents which was $111,189 back in 2005.When the mandated information is needed or even desired, it can be obtained by contacting the local school district office. 

F. Education Services for Students in Residential Care Facilities      The School Administrators Coalition opposes vesting education decision making authority with non-educators who have little or no expertise and experience in the field of K-12 education.