Our schools and SB603: solution or illusion?

by Doug Mager 

Ask the parents of any school age children to name their utmost priorities in life and the word school will be in the top few answers. And rightfully so, as there are approximately 55 million children who attend grade 1 through 12 schools in the United States, which puts about 1/6th of our population behind desks each day.

Now, ask the same parents how they view their local school and you're certain to get a detailed dissertation that includes school politics, money issues, curriculum choices and much more. Whether their overall feelings toward the school are good or not, you're bound to get a lengthy answer as there are truly deep concerns across the board regarding our public schools in general.

Unfortunately our Bates County schools are not immune to problems, and some are big problems. For example, a recent full page ad placed in the Xchanger by members of the Miami R-1 school board was written as to fire a 'warning shot' to patrons of Linn county, as though Kansan's were not aware that so many Missouri residents were attending their schools. While the ad may be considered a plausible try to slow to border jumping, the problem obvisouly goes much deeper. As for now, Kansas schools seem to welcome out-of-state students, as a higher head count simply equates to more money funneled to their district.

Back on the Missouri side, this has a very negative effect. As more students vacate the Miami campus, funds dwindle and programs are cut, which feeds a vicious circle that inevitably will lead to the demise of the school. Parents, disgruntled by diminishing sports programs and class offerings naturally will be inclined to move their children elsewhere-which in turn will only make things worse for Miami school.

Just a few miles away, it's no secret that Butler R-5 schools are facing big issues, too. Financial hardship for the district has resulted in cuts and makes for an ongoing financial juggling act to keep everything in balance. Ditto for Drexel, Adrian, Hume, Rich Hill and Ballard schools. Although the magnitude and types of problems are slightly different for each, it's rough times for all.

And if that's not enough, let's toss something else into the mix-  Missouri bill SB603, sponsored by Senator Rob Mayer of the 25th district which "Creates procedures for open enrollment of public school students across school district boundary lines" according to the official verbiage. To some this bill may sound like the golden egg- if you don't like the school your children attend, simply send them to another district, tuition free. Well, sort of...

First, a closer look at the current bill summary of SB603:

For the school year beginning July 1, 2011, students currently enrolled in a public school may enroll in a public school in another school district. This act does not apply to the Kansas City or St. Louis City school districts.

The student's parent or guardian must notify the child's school district of residence and the receiving district by January 15 of the preceding school year of the intent to change the child's enrollment on an application prescribed the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. If a parent fails to provide notification by January 15, he or she may do so until the third Friday in July of that calendar year provided that the parent has good cause to do so, as described in the act. An application for enrollment may be granted at any time with the approval of the child's school district of residence and the receiving district.

Each school district must adopt a policy outlining appropriate class size and teacher-pupil ratios for all grade levels. No school district is required to admit students if doing so would violate its class size and teacher-pupil ratio. If a school district denies entry to any student, it must state grounds for such denial. School districts must maintain records on the number of transfers requested into and out of the district, the number of pupils it accepts, and the number of pupils it denies.

A parent who enrolls his or her child in another school district under this act may return the child to the school district of residence at a later time. If the parent returns the child to the school district of residence, the parent cannot reenroll the child in the other school district. However, the parent may request enrollment in a different school district by following the procedures in this act.

For students receiving special education services, a request to enroll in another district will only be approved if the receiving district maintains a special education program appropriate for the child. Also, the child's enrollment in the receiving district must not exceed the maximum class size. In addition, a member of the IEP team in the school district of residence must be part of the IEP team in the receiving district for any initial planning sessions. The board of education of the school district of residence must pay the receiving district the actual costs incurred in providing the special education.

Any students who enroll in other school districts under this act will be counted, for state school foundation aid purposes, in the student's school district of residence. The school district of residence must pay the receiving district for the student's attendance as described in the act. If a student enrolled in another school district under this act moves to a different school district during the academic year, the first school district of residence must continue paying the receiving district for the remainder of the school year. The new school district of residence must pay for any subsequent years.

The parent is responsible for providing transportation. A school district may provide transportation to a student to and from a point on an existing bus route provided the parent transports the child to that point.

Participation in interscholastic athletics will be governed by the requirements and eligibility standards of the Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA).

In reading SB603, you might expect to see conditions like the parent is responsible for providing transportation or more importantly no school district is required to admit students. 

However, the underlying statement 'the school district of residence must pay the receiving district for the student's attendance' appears to be the achilles heel of SB603. The logic behind this may be that money from the resident district ends up going to the school that is actually hosting the child to help cover costs. But the school of residency pays for students it doesn't have? Among other things, that's not economically feasible, according to many we have spoken to about SB603...

Bates County Live, through an informal poll of local school administrators, teachers and board members, has gotten a variety of comments about SB603:


“The receiving districts would receive no local funds for transferring students."


"School districts, especially those that rely heavily on local property taxes, would not be fully reimbursed for the costs of educating transfer students.”

"The number of students enrolling each year would be harder to predict, causing difficulties for districts in deciding how much money they need to educate each student. "


"The planning for the school year with regard to class size, number of teachers, instructional materials needed, transportation routes, and other matters would become much more complex with an open enrollment law".

“Open enrollment would flood our classrooms from kids from outside the area. The increased class size would hurt our local kids".


Another comment was that if everyone flocked to a 'good' school, would it continue to be a 'good' school with all the chaos caused by constantly changing conditions?  Quite possibly not. 


Everyone is urged to study and fully understand the impact of SB603 or any bills similar that would allow students to cross into other districts; talk to your local school administrators, get the facts and write your senator with your concerns.