Bill would cut Massachusetts charter‑tuition cap from 9% to 5%, remove 18% exception

A bill filed Jan. 17 in the Massachusetts General Court would lower the cap on a public school district’s charter‑school tuition payments from 9% to 5% of the district’s net school spending and remove provisions that allowed higher caps for certain districts. Representative Michael S. Day submitted the bill as House No. 540, with Representatives Lindsay N. Sabadosa and James B. Eldridge listed as co‑petitioners.

Why it matters: The measure would change statutory limits that determine how much of a school district’s budget may flow to commonwealth charter schools, altering the formula that affects district budgets, charter revenue, and local school finance decisions.

House No. 540 proposes several specific amendments to Section 89 of Chapter 71 of the General Laws. The bill replaces numeric references to “9” with “5” in two locations of the statute, effectively reducing the baseline cap in those provisions. It also removes multiple passages that reference an 18% limit for districts that “qualify under paragraph (3).” The language struck includes a sentence limiting a district’s total charter tuition payment to 18% of net school spending for qualifying districts and other clauses that allowed charter payments to exceed the prior 9% threshold up to 18% under certain conditions. The bill further strikes a transitional paragraph that addressed what happens when a district moved out of the “lowest 10 percent,” and deletes subsection (i)(4) in its entirety.

The filing identifies the bill’s subject as “Education” and is presented for consideration in the One Hundred and Ninety‑Fourth General Court (2025–2026). The text as filed does not record any legislative debate, committee referral, or votes; it is a petition to enact statutory change. The bill replaces or removes statutory language but does not by itself take effect unless enacted by the Legislature and signed into law.

What the text shows and does not show: The bill text specifies where numeric and paragraph deletions and insertions would occur within Section 89 but does not state implementation details such as effective dates, transitional funding mechanisms, effects on existing contracts, or administrative guidance for districts and charter schools. Those items are not in the filed text and are therefore not reported here.

Next steps: As filed, House No. 540 awaits action by legislators and any committee assignments or hearings governed by the General Court’s rules. The bill lists “Education” as its subject; committee referral or public hearings are not specified in the filing.