The result of a collaboration between several area school districts, a luncheon forum recently held at West Plains High School gave educators and district administrators a chance to ask state legislators about an upcoming vote on a law that would expand school choice for parents.
The law, presented as Missouri House Bill 711, would allow parents to enroll students in neighboring districts, but raises concerns about added costs to the nonresident district when considering possible special services and transportation obligations.
Legislators in attendance at the March 7 meeting were 143rd District Rep. Bennie Cook, 155th District Rep. Matthew Overcast, 154th District Rep. Lisa Durnell and 33rd District Sen. Brad Hudson.
After they introduced themselves, West Plains R-7 Superintendent Wes Davis asked about the transportation cost to nonresident districts. Cook acknowledged there are questions about transportation, and he thought the bill, as it is currently written, specifies transportation would be provided to the student by the nonresident district as long as student lives within 35 miles of an adjacent district. However, he said, it is encouraged that the student be taken to the nearest nonresident bus stop to cut down on the cost to the nonresident district.
It was a lack of clarity on the requirement that Davis questioned, speaking on behalf of the West Plains district and others. He noted it is already difficult to staff bus drivers, and wondered about the added cost to provide transportation to just one or a few students who might attend a school as far away as 35 miles.
The bill, as it's now written, allows for a nonresident school district to enter into an agreement with parents or guardians that the student will be transported by the parent "to an existing bus stop location convenient to the school district if the school district has capacity available on a bus serving that location," plus an opportunity for the nonresident district to claim a "transportation hardship."
The nonresident district is also not required to provide transportation to students living outside the 30-mile range from the school of attendance, or more than 5 miles into the contiguous school district, whichever distance is greatest.
The bill also allows for parents or guardians to be reimbursed at a set rate per mile for transportation from a parent public school choice fund, provided funds are available and the student meets other guidelines. Examples of such guidelines are qualification for a free or reduced lunch, or being provided transportation in connection with an individualized education program (IEP).
Public school districts are responsible for keeping a balance between local and state funding and reimbursements and paying for the faculty and staff, buildings and maintenance, transportation, and special services needed to deliver an education that meets state regulated requirements for accreditation, including minimum standardized test scores meant to evaluate academic success for all students, regardless of ability.
With educators already alarmed by the possibility that districts will get less funding as charter schools now receive a share of state revenue after a law was passed in 2022, plus a more recently passed law mandating an increase in teacher base pay, funding of programs for special education students was another topic brought up at the forum.
A majority of district funding comes from local tax levies, approved by each district's voters and historically unpopular and difficult to pass. That is supplemented by some state funding and, to an even lesser extent, federal funding. However, the actual amount of state funding disbursed to districts depends on annual appropriations, leaving most districts to plan their budgets without a guarantee of state reimbursement.
Bakersfield Superintendent Amy Padgett emphasized the transportation issues, and said a guarantee that funds collected from local tax levies stay in the local district needs to be clarified in the bill. Further, she asked, what incentive there would be for district patrons to raise local tax levies if it isn’t certain the money will stay in the district?
Padgett reminded legislators that funding for capital projects, as an example, is solely funded by local tax levies.
Overcast addressed questions about special education services by telling attendees to the meeting that nonresident districts would not be obligated to start or expand a program to meet the special needs of a particular student, but would need to communicate its capabilities or limitations to parents before accepting or rejecting an application of a student served by special education.
Overcast, a practicing lawyer, said he is relatively confident districts would be safe from litigation by parents of special education students as long as they demonstrate accommodations accommodations are not reasonable under the district's current programs and staffing.
Parameters for the number of additional students accepted as nonresidents, under the current bill, are to be set by districts ahead of the application process and allows for control of student counts and student to teacher ratios, in part to prevent districts from having to add staff to meet legal requirements.
The forum concluded with further reassurance from legislators they would take district concerns and needs to state officials, and encouragement to educators to continue to advocate for their students and keep the lines of communication open about those needs.
