Special School District Asks to Enter School Transfers Suit

A judge on Tuesday will consider allowing the Special School District of St. Louis County to intervene in a controversial lawsuit involving the transfer of students from unaccredited St. Louis City schools to accredited schools in neighboring counties.

“We will ensure that our role in educating students is considered,” Special School District spokeswoman Nancy Ide said of the Jane Turner v. case. “What we don’t want to do is have the court consider only one part of this, have kids transfer from other school districts.”

“We would like to have everything in place first before this happens," she said.

The district filed the motion Aug. 11.

The Special School District provides special education to more than 23,000 students throughout the 22 school districts in St. Louis County. The Special School District has a tax levy separate from individual school districts.

Judge David Vincent III will hear the Special School District’s motion at a 1 p.m. hearing Tuesday at the in . The hearing comes just days before the Turner v. Clayton trial—which has the potential to reshape public education in the St. Louis region and Missouri—is set to begin. The trial is scheduled to start Sept. 26.

In July, the Janis Abrams, Judith Glik and Elizabeth Wack. They argue that Clayton couldn’t open its doors to students from unaccredited school districts given the number of students who would transfer and the district's capacity.

They also argue that the Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution doesn’t allow such transfers because they represent an unfunded mandate on Clayton taxpayers.

Their pleading noted that there are more than 50,000 school-age children living in St. Louis City and that the current student body at Clayton rests at 2,500 students. They are concerned that an influx of students would require the neighboring district to spend more money building new facilities and to hire more teachers to manage the new students.

“Transfer of even a small percentage of students living in the city of St. Louis to a small district like School of District Clayton would be impossible,” the taxpayers’ pleading reads. “The School District of Clayton and all the other St. Louis County school districts simply lack the space and other resources needed to accommodate tens of thousands of transfers.”

Under the current law, students from unaccredited districts can choose to attend schools in neighboring counties.

The St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) lost their accreditation in 2007. Turner and three other parents who sent their children to Clayton schools sued the Clayton and St. Louis districts and the City of St. Louis Board of Education.

They claimed that SLPS should pay their tuition because it lost its accreditation and that the Clayton district should send tuition bills to the transitional district. The case cites a state statue requiring unaccredited districts to pay tuition for students who transfer out of the districts.

The St. Louis County Circuit Court originally ruled in favor of the school districts saying the statute didn’t apply to the SLPS district. A series of appeals followed and resulted in July's Missouri Supreme Court decision.

The Missouri Supreme Court stated in its 4-3 decision that the unaccredited districts are required to pay tuition and that the accepting school district has no discretion in the matter. It remanded the case back to the St. Louis County circuit court.

The Missouri General Assembly failed to produce a legislative solution to the problem in its last session and will not address the issue at this week’s special session in Jefferson City.

One legislative solution brokered by State Sen. Jane Cunningham (R-Chesterfield) would have allowed for the expansion of charter schools and virtual schools in the unaccredited district.

“We would allow tuition payments to non-public, non-sectarian schools,” she said. “We would also have districts receive students into the surrounding districts up to the numbers the boards deem available based on their own class size policy.”