Turner v Clayton On July 16, 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court released a decision overturning a summary judgment granted in the School District of Claytons.

Turner v ClaytonOn July 16, 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court released a decision overturning a summary judgment granted in the School District of Clayton’s favor in the matter of Turner v Clayton.

Turner v Clayton

Part of the ruling stated that accredited school districts have no discretion and must accept students from unaccredited districts within the same or adjoining counties.

Turner v Clayton

• The original suit was brought on behalf of the families of six students who live in the St. Louis Public School District.

Turner v Clayton

• The students were previously enrolled as tuition students in the School District of Clayton prior to the St. Louis Public Schools losing its accreditation in 2007.

Turner v Clayton

• The suit sought to require the School District of Clayton to bill the Saint Louis Public Schools, and not the students’ parents, for their respective tuition.

Turner v Clayton

• The suit also sought to require the St. Louis Public Schools to make tuition payments to the School District of Clayton on behalf of the students.

Turner v Clayton

• One doesn’t have to look too hard to see the potential implications of this ruling, which could reach well beyond the Clayton School District.

Turner v Clayton

• Receiving school districts do not have the legal authority to choose what schools incoming students attend, or to limit the amount of students who may attend.

Turner v Clayton

• The Supreme Court’s opinion was not a final resolution of the matter. The court remanded the case back to St. Louis County Circuit Court for further proceedings.

Turner v Clayton• Districts become unaccredited as

a result of action from the State Board of Education. Criteria for unaccredited status are low student test scores and poor performance on the Annual Performance Report.

Turner v Clayton

• Currently, Riverview Gardens and the St. Louis Public School District are the only two unaccredited school districts in Missouri.

Turner v Clayton

Nine (9) additional school districts are provisionally accredited.

Turner v Clayton

•Approximately 72,000 students are eligible to transfer.

Turner v Clayton

• The impact of an undetermined number of students enrolling in county school districts could have a significant impact upon both accredited and unaccredited schools.

Turner v Clayton

• Resources for staffing, materials , facilities, special education and transportation would be a major budgeting concern for the receiving and sending school districts.

Turner v Clayton• This is not just a St. Louis County

issue. If a large number of St. Louis City private and parochial students also transfer to public county schools, all districts in the State would lose a percentage of their funding due to the increase public school influx.

Turner v Clayton

Our district welcomes racial diversity and has accepted

students through the Voluntary Transfer Program for many years.

What affect will this have on the Voluntary Transfer Program?

Turner v Clayton

• My biggest concern is the loss of local control regarding the number of non-resident students allowed to enter our district. I believe that smaller class sizes lead to better leaning opportunities for all students.

Turner v Clayton

• I am also concerned about the impact that losing significant numbers of students and resources will have on the students left behind in the unaccredited school districts.

Turner v Clayton

•What is next?

Turner v Clayton

• The St. Louis County Circuit Court has scheduled a case management meeting for sometime in late May.

Turner v Clayton

• Our district has been working with other educational groups from across the State to encourage the Missouri General Assembly to find a legislative “fix” for the Turner case.

Turner v Clayton

• There have been several bills presented in both the House and Senate that differ greatly on a “fix” for the Turner Case.

Turner v Clayton

• Some of the bills include charter school expansion, vouchers, scholarships, and/or virtual schools as solutions for the Turner “fix”.

Turner v Clayton

• I would recommend you contact your representatives and senator to share your thoughts regarding the Clayton v Turner case.

Turner v Clayton• Representative John Diehl• [email protected]• 314-751-1544• Representative Stacey Newman• [email protected]• 314-751-0100• Senator John Lamping• [email protected]• 573-751-2514