Committee introduces RS 32420 to adjust charter-school enrollment priority for active-duty military families
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
The House Committee on Education voted to introduce RS 32420, a proposal that adjusts charter-school enrollment priority to place active-duty military personnel third on the list to prevent siblings from being bumped. The measure was recommended for placement on the House second-reading calendar.
The House Committee on Education introduced RS 32420 on a motion that the committee recommended be placed on the House second-reading calendar. Representative David Levitt, a Republican from Legislative District 25, said the bill changes the enrollment priority used by public charter schools to “prioritizes active duty military personnel” and moves military service members to third priority to address concerns that siblings were being bumped from lists.
Why it matters: The change is narrowly focused on enrollment priority rules for charter schools and, according to Levitt, is intended to preserve siblings’ access while still recognizing active-duty military status. The committee moved only to introduce the measure and to place it on the second-reading calendar; it did not enact the change into law at the meeting.
Representative David Levitt described the proposal as an adjustment to prior legislation and said, “it’s changed the priority where military service members are now third in priority and that is the only change that's been made.” Committee members thanked Levitt for addressing concerns that arose during earlier public hearings on related charter-school legislation.
Discussion and next steps: Committee members discussed the narrow scope of the wording and confirmed there was not a substantive policy change beyond the priority reorder. The committee voted to introduce RS 32420 and to recommend that it be placed on the second-reading calendar; members voiced “aye” and the chair announced the motion carried. No recorded roll-call tally or individual recorded votes were provided in the transcript.
No implementation details, effective dates or statutory citations were provided during the presentation; the item was presented as an introduction and referral to the floor for further consideration.
