Legislative Session Yields No Fix to Unaccredited School Debacle

Much to the dismay of local school districts, state lawmakers were unable to come up with a resolution to a recent Missouri Supreme Court ruling that could result in a rapid influx of students from unaccredited schools transferring to neighboring districts.

That possibility is the result of the court's July opinion in the Jane Turner vs.  case that students from unaccredited districts can choose to attend any accredited district in the same or adjoining county. Furthermore, the court contends that the accepting district has no discretion in the matter.

Local school officials are concerned that the lack of local control would force them to increase class size and add classrooms, which could ultimately result in tax increases for district residents. In the St. Louis area, both the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) and Riverview Gardens School District are unaccredited.

"We pride ourselves on our small class sizes," Webster Groves School District Superintendent Sarah Riss . "Several of our schools are already at full capacity. Who's going to pay for the extra classrooms we'll need?"

Several bills were proposed in the last legislative session to address the topic, but none were approved.

Chris Tennill, chief communications officer for the Clayton School District, said the case, as well as all issues that evolved from the Supreme Court ruling, is now in the hands of the St. Louis County Circuit Court. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the St. Louis County Court to decide. Now, the County Court and is charged with resolving all issues involved in the case, according to Tennill.

"We're concerned about the issue, but we'll have to wait and see what happens in court," said Cathy Vespereny, a Webster Groves School District spokeswoman.

Earlier this year, the Webster Grove's Legislative Advocacy Committee worked to educate the community on the potential impact the court ruling could have on the district. The committee's website has a wealth of information on the subject, as well as sample letters community members can send to legislators.

Turner vs. Clayton:  History of the case

Shortly after the St. Louis school district lost its accreditation in 2007, Jane Turner and three other parents, representing six students attending the School District of Clayton, 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 the SLPS district should pay their children’s tuition because it had become unaccredited 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 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.

Tennill said the Supreme Court weighed in on three key issues. In a nutshell, they include:

1. The state law that 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. 

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. 

3. School districts are required to accept any student from an unaccredited district. On a 4-3 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."

“We’re back in court May 31 to continue to pursue a resolution,” Tennill said. “We’ll have a better idea of our next steps and the direction we’ll take after that conference.”