SB 767 Limits charter school location

Signed into law by Gov. Kotek on 6-6-23, effective immediately
Status (overview) of bill:

Amended – Replaces the measure. Establishes ability of both virtual and nonvirtual public charter schools to open facilities outside their sponsoring districts after obtaining written permission or providing written notification, dependent on specific circumstances. Declares emergency, effective on passage.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This bill limits the scope by which public charter schools may conduct operations in school district that is not sponsor of public charter school.

Sponsored by the Committee on Education, it is hard to understand why it was proposed without researching the schools that would be affected and focused on one charter school. The reason is that the charter school would draw students away from a district that isn’t the sponsor and have an impact on funding. It goes against school choice, however letting larger schools go around the state setting up charter schools so that limitation may be needed.

With nearly a thousand parents writing in opposition, it is hard to find a handful of those in support. Many are charter schools in operation for 14 and 16 years. The construction crisis has hit more than homes, some of these schools have been forced to find locations out of their sponsor district. This bill would force them to close if the new district does not pick up sponsorship even though the majority of the students are outside of the sponsoring district.

Another issue is school district boundaries shift, that leaves charter schools vulnerable to being shifted as well.


SB 767 makes changes to charter schools was opposed by hundreds of pieces of written testimony. This is the old issue of school choice for parents. The idea the committee heard the testimony then amended the original bill so it is OK does not hold water in a democratic process. If the amendment addresses the issues raised in testimony then a second public hearing should not have been held. It was not. That emails to the Carrier not in the public record on OLIS makes it all better then that new testimony should be in the OLIS record, It is not. The citizens who testified in the hundreds deserve a second hearing not a gut and stuff amendment passed with no new citizen input. This will happen in the House.

Comments are closed.