The passage of Senate Bill (SB) 727 last year was an important step toward expanding charter access in Missouri, increasing educational options, fostering competition, and driving innovation in our state. However, this year, there are some efforts to reverse that progress, including the proposal of SB 177.
If passed, SB 177 would require any new charter school to receive a certificate of need from the governing board of the local school district or the governing body of the city or county in which it intends to operate. This added hurdle would not only create an unnecessary extra step, but it would also give existing public school districts—which are historically opposed to charter schools—more power to block competition.
The Problem with SB 177’s Requirements
The rationale for certificate of need (CON) laws is that the number of providers in a particular market must be controlled in order to prevent market oversaturation. Such laws are inherently anti-market, as they give regulators, rather than entrepreneurs and families, the ability to determine need and to select who may participate in the market.
SB 177 would require a “governing board of the [local] school district or governing body of the city or county in which the proposed charter school would be located” to affirm that the following conditions apply to the school district in which the charter is proposed:
- Consumer demand for alternative educational options exceeds supply;
- The school district’s attendance area contains sufficient economies of scale to ensure both an adequate supply of high-quality teachers and potential students in order for the proposed charter school to succeed without hurting the school district; and
- The proposed charter school is likely to:
- Alleviate economic and racial inequities
- Improve students’ academic outcomes
- Reduce student–teacher ratios
- Result in a more efficient education service without duplication of services
- Limit the number of schooling disruptions
- Address family priorities including safety, convenience, transportation time, neighborhood walkability, and school culture.
These conditions range from things that are too vague and open to interpretation to things that shouldn’t be considered to begin with.
Little Incentive to Allow Competition
For incumbent school districts, there is little incentive to allow competitors to challenge their market share. In fact, no local school board in Missouri has ever sponsored a charter school in its district, despite having the ability to do so. It seems unlikely then that any district would grant CON approval to a charter school.
What Missouri Should Pass Instead
Rather than passing legislation that stifles charter school expansion, Missouri should focus on removing barriers to entry for charters. SB 398 and House Bill 1044 would expand charter access to additional districts, including those in charter counties or municipalities with more than 30,000 residents. These bills would move Missouri in the right direction. Of course, if Missouri wanted to remove all barriers to access it should allow charter expansion without regard to population requirements. It is a sad note that of the 43 states with charter schools, Missouri is the only state without a rural charter.
Limiting competition and restricting opportunities for students across our state is not how to improve education in Missouri. SB 117 would represent a big step backward in Missouri education policy. We need to continue moving forward.
