Schools Face Uncertain Future if Open Enrollment Ruling is Allowed to Stand

Local school districts are looking to state lawmakers to provide a fix to a recent Missouri Supreme Court ruling that allows students from unaccredited school districts to transfer to neighboring schools and districts.

Opponents say the ruling could result in a rapid influx of students to some suburban St. Louis County public schools. 

That possibility is the result of the court's July opinion in the Jane Turner vs. School District of Clayton case that mandates schools accept any student from an unaccredited district and that the districts have no say in the matter. There are several bills currently proposed in the Missouri General Assembly addressing the topic.

In the St. Louis area, both the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) and Riverview Gardens School districts are unaccredited. Under current law, students from these districts can choose to attend an accredited school in the same or an adjoining county. 

Lindbergh School District Superintendent Jim Simpson said he has two primary concerns about the court's decision leading to open transfers. One, he said this week, is whether there would be additional funding for districts to educate transfer students? Two, is the question over how many students to expect as transfers?

In the first instance—the funding—Simpson pointed out the St. Louis city school district has said previously there is no money that would follow its students to a new district. This is troubling to receiving districts.

In the second instance—the number of students—Simpson said it takes "pretty detailed planning" every year for a district to operate within budget and provide quality education.

Some predict a drastic uptick in student population with open enrollment.

"That's still an unknown," Simpson said, but balancing the number of teachers with students, providing classroom space, keeping class size low and other key factors were at stake with open enrollment.

"These are all practical, real issues dealing with the Turner case," Simpson said. 

The Rockwood School District is “monitoring” the issue, said Kim Cranston, the district’s chief communications officer. “There are still several points that need to be clarified and some questions that need to be answered. We are currently waiting for final clarification on the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling."

Turner vs. Clayton: The case at the forefront of the controversy

Shortly after the St. Louis school district lost its accreditation in 2007, Jane Turner and three other parents, representing six students attending the Clayton School District, sued the Clayton and St. Louis districts and the City of St. Louis Board of Education. The students, who live in the SLPS district, were attending Clayton schools based on personal tuition agreements.

The plaintiffs claimed that because the SLPS district became unaccredited, it should pay their children’s tuition and that the Clayton district should send the tuition bills to the transitional district. The parents pointed to a state statute that requires unaccredited districts to pay the tuition costs of its students who choose to attend an accredited school in an adjoining district. 

The St. Louis County Circuit Court ruled in favor of both school districts, finding that the statute was inapplicable to the SLPS district. After several appeals, the case ended up going to the Missouri Supreme Court. In July, it issued its opinion and subsequently, sent the case back to the lower courts to decide.

Chris Tennill, a spokesman for the Clayton School District, said the St. Louis County Circuit Court has stayed the case until May 31. That’s when state lawmakers end their current legislative session. He said the Supreme Court weighed in on three key issues. In a nutshell, they include:

1. The state law the plaintiffs cited does apply to the SLPS district. Contrary to the lower court's judgment, the Supreme Court maintains that unaccredited districts should pay the tuition for students who choose to attend accredited districts. Its ruling stated that: "It is clear that (state law) applies to the transitional school district, that it requires the Clayton school district to admit the students and that it mandates the transitional school district pay the students' tuition." 
2. Tuition agreements supercede the plaintiffs' rights for restitution. The Supreme Court decided that the parents are not entitled to restitution for tuition paid to Clayton because the St. Louis public schools became unaccredited because of existing tuition agreements. Court documents state: "By arguing that the Clayton School District is now required to seek payment from the transitional school district and that the parents are entitled to restitution for tuition previously paid to the Clayton School District, the parents are attempting to bind the district beyond the terms of their tuition agreements."
3. School districts are required to accept any student from an unaccredited district. On a 4-to-3 vote, the court concluded that other state laws giving districts discretion in deciding whether or not to admit students from unaccredited districts do not apply under existing state law. Furthermore, it noted that legislators in 1993 removed a section of the statute that read: "but no school shall be required to admit any pupil." The court's interpretation states: "The plain and ordinary meaning of the language in (the statute) that 'each pupil shall be free to attend the public school of his or her choice' gives a student the choice of an accredited school to attend, so long as that school is in another district in the same or an adjoining county, and requires the chosen school to accept the pupil."  

Tennill said the third issue is what's causing all of the concern on the part of local school districts. He said the interpretation affects all but five Missouri school districts.

"It's a major local control issue and school capacity is at stake," he said, noting the Clayton district currently has an enrollment of about 2,500 students. "All districts want to be able to manage that. It's why people buy houses and move."

And at least one Supreme Court judge agrees. In a dissenting statement, Supreme Court Justice Patricia Breckenridge said the majority's interpretation of the statute avoids the "absurd consequences" that could occur if the opinion prevails.

"To interpret (existing law) as placing a mandatory obligation on the Clayton School District to accept all pupils from the City of St. Louis who apply for admission would mean there is no limit to the potential influx of pupils that Clayton or any other school district in St. Louis County could face," she said in the statement.

Additionally, Breckenridge stated: "Under the majority’s interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, school districts in St. Louis County would be required to accept pupils from the transitional school district even if the number of pupils seeking admittance exceeded their capacity or if St. Louis County school districts have difficulty collecting tuition payments from the transitional school district."

Lindbergh's Simpson said a flight of motivated students from St. Louis' city schools would hurt the district. He said private school students could also switch to public schools in accredited districts, potentially raising even higher numbers of transfers in any one year.

A current bill in the Missouri House of Representatives (HB 763) sponsored by State Rep. Rick Stream, R-Kirkwood would essentially return to school districts local control in deciding how students from unaccredited districts would be accepted.

Simpson said if the state Legislature does not find a fix, the debate would be played out in the courts.

Editor's note: St. Louis' students in the unaccredited school district for the past two years did not meet proficiency targets in communication arts, math, attendance and graduation, according to the state Department of Education. One in five students drops out before completing high school in the district.

Jean Whitney contributed to this article.