1. United States
2. Mo.
3. Letter

I urge you to oppose HBs 2404 & 2172 (Hruza & Terry). These bills represent another coordinated effort to redirect public resources toward charter schools at the expense of the communities those resources were built to serve. Missouri taxpayers funded these school buildings. Local elected school boards should have full authority over how that property is used, sold, or transferred. This legislation strips that authority away. The bill effectively forces political subdivisions to accept charter school use of publicly-owned property, voiding any deed restrictions that would limit educational use to district-run schools. This is not about expanding opportunity. It is about compelling communities to subsidize a parallel, largely unaccountable school system with assets the public spent generations building. The language concerning right of first refusal raises equally serious concerns. While framed as a right of first refusal for "public entities," charter schools routinely qualify under broad definitions of public entity in Missouri law. This bill could allow charter operators to acquire unused school buildings at or below fair market value, permanently removing those assets from district control and from the communities who paid for them. The vision for public education is a fully-funded, democratically-governed system that serves every child in a neighborhood. Charter expansion, particularly when driven by legislation that overrides local decision-making, undermines that vision. Research consistently shows that charter proliferation pulls funding and resources from traditional public schools without producing systemwide improvements in student outcomes. Locally elected school boards are accountable to voters. Charter operators are not. When we remove a school board's ability to control its own surplus property, we are not expanding educational freedom. We are transferring community wealth into systems with far less public oversight. Public school buildings belong to the public. Decisions about their future use should rest with the communities that built them, not be dictated by the state on behalf of an industry that has long sought to privatize public education from the inside out.