House Education Committee advances bill to cap cyber charter tuition and tighten oversight

At a voting meeting of the House Education Committee, members voted 14-12 to report House Bill 1500, legislation from Representative Isaacson that would set a flat statewide tuition rate of $8,000 for non–special-education students attending cyber charter schools and add new transparency, oversight and fund‑balance limits for those schools.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Isaacson, said the measure is a response to widespread requests for reform: “487 school districts of 500 in this commonwealth have passed resolutions asking for cyber charter reform.” The legislation, as described to the committee, would also align special-education tuition categories with district rates, prohibit cyber charter unassigned fund balances above 12% of total expenditures, require remittance of excess balances to the public school facility improvement grant program, ban enrollment incentives, add residency verification and facility‑ownership disclosure, subject cyber charters to competitive bidding and procurement rules, and increase the extraordinary‑expense special‑education contingency allocation to 2% of the state’s annual special‑education appropriation.

Supporters emphasized taxpayer accountability and cited recent audits. Representative Frio pointed to an auditor general finding that the five cyber schools reviewed increased fund balances to about $619 million and said that treating cyber charters as public schools for financial oversight is appropriate. “To not represent our taxpayers, to not allow our oversight on taxpayer dollars going to private entities is something we should address,” Frio said.

Opponents said the bill would sharply cut funding for current cyber students and limit parental choice. Representative McKenzie called the proposal rushed and said it “falls woefully short,” urging members to oppose the measure and allow more time for amendments and input from families and students. Representative D'Orsay and Representative Gleim said the $8,000 figure is arbitrary and far below per‑pupil spending in many districts; Gleim warned the cap would “relegate students to their home district cyber program.” Representative Kozak, who said she has taught in both brick‑and‑mortar and cyber settings, argued the bill undercounts overhead and technical costs and that many students rely on cyber options for reasons such as mental‑health needs and access to courses not available locally.

Committee members also debated broader funding context. Several speakers cited statewide spending, reserve balances and recent court and audit activity during the hearings that preceded the vote. Representative Nelson urged that state dollars are a public good shared by all taxpayers and framed the bill as an attempt to prevent funds from leaving the public system for private enterprise. Representative Cutler, speaking in opposition, criticized the bill’s $8,000 figure as “arbitrarily” chosen and said the auditor general’s earlier report focused on schools that predated recent cost‑shifting changes.

The committee’s procedural motion to consider the bill under other business was made by Representative Isaacson and seconded by Representative Friel. On roll call at the end of the meeting the bill was reported as committed by a 14‑12 vote. The sponsor urged members the measure be moved promptly so it can proceed through budget negotiations and further consideration.

Discussion only, direction and decision: the record shows extended discussion and multiple requests for more time and data; the committee provided a procedural decision to report the bill as committed, not final enactment. The bill will require subsequent action by the full House (and likely budget and Senate consideration) before any change would take effect.