Focus Report, Volume 87, Number 4, November 2021 Page: 7
This periodical is part of the collection entitled: Texas State Publications and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
House Research Organization Page 7
have required a public comment period for proposed
expansions, reports on the likely impact of expansions on
nearby public schools, and SBOE approval of expansion
amendments. None of the bills were set for a public
hearing. During the 86th Legislature in 2019, the House
Public Education Committee approved HB 1730 by Y.
Davis, which would have prohibited charter operators
from expanding to locations in close proximity to another
charter school unless the charter school seeking to expand
had been operating at maximum enrollment for the
preceding two years. That bill died in the House Calendars
Committee.
Supporters oflimiting expansion amendments say that
legislative oversight is needed for an administrative process
that is rapidly growing the number of charter schools at a
significant cost to the state. They say that because charter
schools receive all of their funding from the state, each
new student in a charter school costs the state more than
if that student attended a nearby district school funded in
part by local property taxes.
Those who support limits on expansion say the state
should concentrate its education spending on existing
* district and charter campuses in order to maintain the
higher funding levels established by the Legislature in
2019 as part of HB 3 by Huberty. School districts lose
funding when students leave for a new charter school, they
say, but often are unable to lower their expenses for staffing
and building maintenance. Supporters say that current
law vests too much authority in the appointed education
commissioner to approve expansion amendments and that
the elected SBOE should weigh in on charter expansions
as they do on new charter operators. While recent
administrative rule changes improved the expansion review
process, supporters say, statutory procedures could ensure
consideration was given to the financial impact on nearby
public schools.
Those urging limits on expansion say the Legislature
should increase transparency and community notification
requirements for proposed expansion amendments to
ensure fuller consideration of how new charter schools
would impact the enrollments of nearby public schools.
Earlier and more detailed notification requirements would
help districts plan whether to build new schools and how
many teachers to hire, they say.
Critics oflimiting the use ofexpansion amendments say
the amendment process appropriately allows successfulcharter operators to serve more students on their waiting
lists. They say that the state should continue to support
the expansion of high-quality charter schools, some of
which have achieved impressive results compared to nearby
district schools in reducing achievement gaps for low-
income and minority students. Legislation is not needed,
they say, because newly revised administrative rules require
the commissioner to consider the impact of proposed
charter school expansions on all students in the affected
district.
Critics of limiting expansion amendments say that
charter operators already must notify school districts
likely to be impacted by a proposed expansion at least six
months in advance, making it unlikely that district officials
would be surprised by a new charter school opening.
They point out that a specific location for a proposed new
charter school might not be available when an expansion
amendment is submitted because the charter operator
would likely wait for TEA approval before securing a
facility for a new campus.
Municipal ordinances
Issues concerning the location of new charter schools
and municipal land use ordinances have prompted
proposals to require cities to treat charter schools the same
as district schools in zoning and project permitting cases.
Education Code sec. 12.103 subjects open-enrollment
charter schools in cities of more than 20,000 residents to
the municipal zoning ordinances governing public schools,
but some say that certain municipalities are adding
requirements that can increase costs for charter operators.
A June 2021 non-binding attorney general opinion
(KP-0373) determined that a court would likely
conclude that a municipal zoning ordinance that treats
charter schools differently from other public schools was
inconsistent with sec. 12.103. The opinion also states
that a municipality may enforce its "reasonable land
development regulations and ordinances" for certain
purposes as long as it is not done to effectively deny public
schools the right to choose reasonable locations for their
buildings. The validity of an ordinance requiring a public
school, including an open-enrollment charter school, to
obtain a permit or other permission before beginning
construction must be evaluated by Texas courts on a case-
by-case basis, according to the opinion.Page 7
House Research Organization
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Legislature. House of Representatives. Research Organization. Focus Report, Volume 87, Number 4, November 2021, periodical, November 1, 2021; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1507625/m1/7/?q=%22%22~1: accessed July 16, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.