Lawmakers in the Montana House advanced a pair of dueling proposals this week that outline distinct and contradictory paths toward a K-12 charter school system in the state, hinting at a fundamental divide among Republicans about how to resolve a long-standing debate over educational choice.
The first of those measures to appear on the House floor Wednesday was House Bill 562, which would authorize the creation of “community choice schools” under the jurisdiction of a new, autonomous statewide commission attached to the Montana Board of Public Education. Parents and community groups could, under HB 562, seek approval for such a school directly from the new commission or from an authorized local school board. Choice schools would be subject to the same federal laws as K-12 public schools, but governed at the state level by their own set of curricular, licensing and academic reporting regulations.
“The intent of this bill is to create options that empower parents, encourage students to develop their full educational potential, provide a variety of professional opportunities for teachers and encourage educational entrepreneurship,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Sue Vinton, R-Billings, said Thursday. She added that HB 562 would provide “ample oversight” of newly established community choice schools.
Vinton’s introduction kicked off a heated discussion as Republican supporters sought to promote the bill as a way to improve educational freedom, increase institutional competition and break what Rep. Terry Falk, R-Kalispell, called the “monopoly” of the current public school system. Critics within the Democratic caucus countered that HB 562 would commit taxpayer dollars to an educational model without adequate accountability measures or teacher certification requirements. Rep. Mark Thane, D-Missoula, directly challenged the legality of the proposal, noting that the Montana Constitution vests oversight of public education in the Board of Public Education and locally elected school boards.
Thane and others struggled to comply with procedural rules preventing them from discussing another piece of charter school legislation, sticking primarily to veiled references. That dam broke loose several hours later when the second proposal — House Bill 549 — came to the floor. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Fred Anderson, R-Great Falls, is part of a package of Republican-led education reform bills introduced this session and seeks to place state oversight of charter schools directly in the hands of the Board of Public Education. Anderson’s public charter schools would be governed by the same laws and administrative rules applied to public schools, and be under the local jurisdiction of either an existing elected school board or a locally elected charter school board.
Anderson emphasized in his opening remarks that parents or any concerned group of citizens who “desire educational opportunities that are not being currently provided by their school district” can appeal to local trustees with a charter application. That, he continued, gives the board an initial chance to address those concerns by expanding programming in existing public schools or by approving the charter. If unsuccessful, parents or citizens could then take their request to the Board of Public Education.
“What this does is keeps local control as the first right of refusal with the local board,” Anderson said. “If they decide not to do this, then it allows any outside group to come in with an application.”
HB 549 attracted little criticism on the floor save for one concern about a potential “conflict of interest” if local oversight of a charter school falls to an existing public school board. Supporters took the opportunity, with both bills having been heard, to point out the ways in which HB 549 addresses the constitutional and regulatory concerns voiced over the previous proposal.
related
Lawmakers eye deep changes to K-12 education
During the 2021-22 interim, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle took a hard look at the “case for change” in K-12 education. Now those conversations are manifesting in proposals that could mean major change for Montana’s public school students and teachers.
Both bills passed their initial votes on the House floor — HB 549 on a bipartisan vote of 79-21 and HB 562 on a largely party-line vote of 63-37 — and must now appear before the House Appropriations Committee before a final House vote, as both would require state funding to implement. Due to an agreement among leadership, bills that have passed second reading on the House floor this week but still require an appropriations hearing will not be subject to Friday’s transmittal deadline.
Lance Melton, executive director of the Montana School Boards Association, told Montana Free Press Thursday that HB 549 and HB 562 have now made it farther in the legislative process than any previous charter school proposal in the past two decades. HB 549 is a particularly anomalous entry, representing the first charter school bill in that time to draw support from the bulk of Montana’s public education associations, including Melton’s.
latest stories
Supreme Court puts Butte’s data center initiative back on the ballot
General election voters in Butte-Silver Bow County may now consider a proposed ballot initiative that would require citizen approval of data center development, after the Montana Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling that prevented the initiative from appearing on the November ballot. In a court filing responding to the decision, the county said it intends to comply, but is unsure of how to follow the ruling and remain in compliance with the Montana Election Code, since ballots have already been printed — and some have already been sent and returned — without the initiative.
Staving off development, Madison County passes first citizen-initiated zoning districts
County commissioners passed effort unanimously after three-year campaign by local organizers.
Meet the Flathead Valley judges squaring off for a state Supreme Court seat
11th District Court judges Amy Eddy and Dan Wilson are competing for the state Supreme Court in an unusual race between two judges from the same court. But more interesting than the commonality of the candidates’ current jobs is the politicized flavor of the nominally nonpartisan race. Adding to the race’s ideological dynamic, the campaigns’ partisan overtones are playing out as Montanans will consider on the same November ballot a constitutional initiative — CI-132 — that would require judicial races in Montana to remain nonpartisan, as they have been for decades.
