Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Charter Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House Education Committee hears bill to authorize public charter schools in North Dakota (Senate Bill 2241)
Summary
A committee hearing on Senate Bill 2241 reviewed a proposal to authorize and regulate public charter schools in North Dakota, with sponsors outlining accountability and proponents highlighting options for families while unions and disability advocates raised concerns about staffing, funding, and protections for students with disabilities.
Senator Michelle Axman, appearing before the House Education Committee, presented Senate Bill 2241 at a committee hearing to create a framework for authorizing, governing and overseeing public charter schools in North Dakota. The bill would place charter school authorization with the state superintendent of public instruction and require performance agreements that set academic, operational and financial expectations.
Axman said charter schools are public schools “There is never a cost to attend. They are open to all students, including students with special needs.” Under the bill, charters must hire licensed North Dakota teachers, follow state academic standards and federal special-education laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504, administer state tests, submit to independent financial audits and report data to the state superintendent. The bill also bars virtual-only charters and requires that charter schools not receive local school tax dollars; rather, state per-pupil funding would “follow the student,” the sponsor said.
The measure requires charter applicants to demonstrate community support, and it includes a transparent, randomized lottery for admission when demand exceeds capacity. The bill permits limited preferences — up to 10% of seats — for children of teachers and siblings of enrolled students, and it authorizes cooperative agreements so charter students can participate in athletics and extracurriculars through the North Dakota High School Activities Association.
Proponents argued the legislation would expand schooling options and spur innovation. Lisa Grover of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools said the bill aligns with North Dakota statutes and stressed performance agreements and accountability: “A public charter school does not open without a performance agreement,” she said, describing metrics for proficiency, graduation and student growth that would be monitored under the charter.
Several witnesses described first-hand benefits. Bobby Smith, a teacher at a rural Utah charter school and a North Dakota native, described small classes and personalized learning and urged the committee to allow similar options in the state. Russ Hansen of the Associated General Contractors recounted a construction-themed charter that increased student engagement. Maria Nessett, chief of staff to the lieutenant governor, testified in support and listed potential advantages including tailored curriculum, parental involvement and increased teacher choice.
Opponents included Nick Archuleta, president of North Dakota United, who urged a “do not pass” recommendation and cited national research on charter closures and mixed academic results. Archuleta raised staffing and retirement concerns, noting the bill says charter employees are eligible for state retirement “if the public charter school elects to participate,” calling that an uncertain outcome for teachers’ pensions.
Disability advocates and protection organizations testified about risks to students with disabilities. Roxanne Romanek, representing an organization for people with Down syndrome, and Anna Rackley of the North Dakota Protection and Advocacy Project asked for stronger, explicit provisions on identification, reporting and provision of high‑cost services and on ensuring charter schools join special education units and comply with least‑restrictive‑environment requirements. Rackley and others warned that spreading limited special‑education staff across more schools could reduce capacity in existing districts.
Committee members asked about teacher shortages, facility funding and whether charter schools would exacerbate rural staffing and building needs. Axman said she expects only modest initial growth and that some retired teachers may reenter the classroom; she also noted charter operators must secure their own facilities and cannot rely on bond referenda, though federal grants and nonprofit fundraising are possible.
No committee vote on the bill occurred during the hearing; testimony concluded after supporters and opponents finished. The hearing record includes multiple technical and policy questions that committee members requested staff and proponents to address in follow-up materials.
