Open Enrollment

A hot topic in the education category, Open Enrollment has found the limelight through Senate Bill 603.

Photo illustration

Rob Mayer

It's a hot topic today among school administrators, parents and parents-to be, and Missouri politicians. The issue of open enrollment is in the limelight for the second time in as many years, with a current proposal in the form of Senate Bill 603 on the table. The bill is sponsored by Dexter's Sen. Rob Mayer.

While Mayer is on an active campaign to "clarify the misinformation circulating about the proposed changes to Missouri law" regarding the bill with his name attached, Dexter Supt. Dr. Ken Jackson openly discussed his opposition to the proposal during a recent meeting with the local Board of Education and during a private interview to discuss the proposal.

By definition, SB 603 "creates procedures for open enrollment of public school students across school district boundary lines starting July 1, 2011, if enacted."

The proposed legislation, Mayer says, "requires the child's parent or guardian to notify both the home district and the receiving district by Jan. 15 of the preceding school year about the change in enrollment."

Mayer says of the bill, "I think this bill solves the issues I have seen all too often, such as parents driving out of their way because of erratic district lines or frustration with academic policies."

According to Mayer, who currently chairs the Appropriations Committee, the bill would require each school district to adopt a policy that outlines what each district determines to be the appropriate class size and teacher-to-student ratios for every grade level, and no school district is required to admit any student if that ratio has been met or exceeded.

"Every denial and transfer allowed would be documented, and if a school is meeting its student-to-teacher ratio, they can opt out of the program," Mayer says.

The senator from Dexter sees this aspect of the bill as having caused considerable misunderstanding, and in an effort to rectify that, he states, "This bill would not create overcrowded classrooms, or cause any extra burden to any teacher. Every teacher would know the maximum number of children they would have in their classroom, and it would be based on that school district's policy."

Jackson's issue with the bill is not so much what it says as what it does not say.

"There are a lot of unknowns when dealing with the issue of open enrollment," Jackson warns.

"To say that you favor open enrollment simply based on the theory that parents should be able to choose which school district their children attend is a very simple statement regarding a very complex issue. It's not as simple as that."

Mayer says the purpose of the bill is "simple" and states that "It gives the parents the freedom to choose a different school district other than the one they live in."

Jackson, who has served as president of the Southeast District of the Missouri Association of School Administrators and as local superintendent for the past seven years, has his own thoughts as to why the open enrollment issue is on the table.

"It's seldom discussed who is behind the open enrollment proposal," Jackson contends. "A very wealthy individual by the name of Rex Sinquefield is known to grant large sums of money to political campaigns in order to further his cause. He is an investor from St. Louis who clearly does not favor public schools. He favors tuition tax credits and vouchers and charter schools and he doesn't like paying taxes to public schools."

According to the Missouri Citizen Education Fund, Sinquefield has spent millions of his own to "shape the political landscape in Missouri".

The Missouri Ethics Commission reveals that Sinquefield contributed $7,500 to the Mayer campaign in 2007.

"We don't often look who's behind these efforts," Jackson continues, "and there are a lot of peripheral issues involved here. The proposal makes it sound like a good thing for public schools because it will increase competition between school districts and give students choices. I don't think that's the reason it's in the Senate."

Mayer, in response to Jackson's statement regarding the push behind SB 603, stated Friday, ""Dr. Jackson's inference and false accusation are unfounded and regrettable. I would have expected better. We have over five-hundred school districts in our state. Some are sitting at half-capacity. Some have lost their accreditation. We have children minutes from a neighboring district's school riding on buses for hours due to archaic district boundary lines. I sponsored this bill because I believe that it will benefit Missouri youth, period."

Jackson, who says he has been disappointed in the lack of response to specific questions he has addressed to Mayer, says, "I think if the real reasons why open enrollment has been proposed, more people would begin to question its validity and its value."

While Mayer states in a recent open letter to educators regarding the bill, "I am working on a provision to incorporate into our bill that would minimize disruption to each school district's per pupil expenditure," Jackson contends that issues with funding and an influx of special needs students to certain districts, as well as issues involving transportation of students, will present problems in the long run.

"There is a lot involved in providing services for special needs students," Jackson states. "Transportation can be a related service provided for special needs students and the price of that is not clearly defined in this bill."

With open enrollment comes the issue of athletics as well, and Mayer defends the bill with regard to athletic transfers, stating, "The Missouri State High School Activities Association will continue to govern athletics, and students who transfer will have to sit out a year, as they currently do."

Jackson, on the other hand, sees potential problems within the realm of athletics.

"I think athletics offers a very competitive situation as it is, and when those boundaries are removed, I think it will get even worse, which will create ill will between school districts."

"Surely our legislators have enough to do in running the state of Missouri that they do not need to get involved in running high school activities," he says. "I don't believe our state government has the time or the energy to invest in fighting the battles that they will have if we go to open enrollment."

"There are a host of scheduling issues, funding issues, and special education issues for which there is no clear direction, and it's very muddy as to who will be footing the bill for these things should this bill pass."

Regarding the funding issue, Mayer says, "If a student moves from a greater per-pupil funding school to a school that receives less per-pupil funding, some of that funding will travel with the student. If the roles are reversed, then the parents would be required to make up a portion of that difference."

Mayer says that pupil movement in states currently operating with open enrollment average about 4.7 percent of students utilizing the opportunity to transfer school districts, and he considers that to be "certainly manageable".

Referring to that percentage, Jackson counters, "To pass legislation that is critical to only five percent of students across Missouri right now, well, I just don't understand the thinking behind this kind of proposal in today's crucial school economy."

Jackson also has concerns regarding survival of the smaller, rural school districts and whether they can survive the potential problems that open enrollment may pose.

"I'm not so sure that unforced consolidation is in the back of some people's minds in this proposal," he says. "It's a complicated topic with a lot more to address than where kids want to go to school."

In somewhat of a surprise announcement late Friday, Mayer said that a provision to the open enrollment bill being considered that will grant each school an option to participate or not participate in open enrollment within their district.

The first reading of the bill was heard in the Senate by Mayer on Jan. 6, 2010. A second reading was heard on Jan. 13, and the bill was then referred to the Education Committee. It was heard in the Education Committee on Feb. 10. A passing vote would send the measure to the full Senate for debate.