Senate committee hears broad support for charter-school transparency bill while members press for deeper system fixes

Senate File 1311, a measure to increase transparency and accountability for Minnesota charter public schools, received broad support during a lengthy March 12 hearing before the Senate Education Policy Committee. The bill, sponsored by Senator Susinski, would require additional authorizer training, new financial-governance steps for charter boards, and expanded public posting of authorizer and charter performance and contract materials.

Sponsor’s intent and amendment Senator Susinski said the bill responds to reporting about lapses in transparency and oversight and seeks to tighten accountability while preserving charter innovation in Minnesota. The committee adopted an A2 amendment; Susinski said the amendment reflected stakeholder engagement and technical fixes.

What the bill would require Among the changes described in testimony, Senate File 1311 would: require annual training for authorizers (including training tied to authorizer performance reviews conducted by the Minnesota Department of Education); require charter boards to establish a finance committee and, when under financial corrective action, to include the authorizer in finance meetings and—on request—retain a financial expert; require authorizers to publish contracts, performance reviews, notices of intent to terminate and unresolved interventions on their websites for five years and for schools to link to those postings; prohibit certain conflicts of interest for affiliate building corporations; and require live-streamed hearings of closure and nonrenewal proceedings (with preserved recordings).

Supporters: authorizers, charter operators and advocates Joey Chenyan (executive director, Minnesota Association of Charter Schools) testified that the charter sector “emphatically agree[s] that all charter public schools need to be accountable, transparent, and held to high standards,” and urged the committee to pass targeted reforms rather than a moratorium on new charters.

Beth Topolock, executive director of Friends of Education (an authorizer), told the committee her organization enforces a performance-based accountability system and supports the bill’s transparency measures. “We do not apologize for holding schools accountable,” Topolock said, noting that authorizers are subject to department oversight and possible corrective action.

Multiple charter school leaders echoed the same view: Neo, which authorizes about 30 schools, supported the bill’s training and oversight provisions; Excel Academy, NOVA Classical Academy, Math and Science Academy, Eagle Ridge Academy and other high-performing charter operators described how additional transparency requirements would align with existing practices and urged the committee to avoid a moratorium that would block access to high-demand schools and planned facility improvements.

Concerns and system-level questions from senators Committee members thanked stakeholders for engagement but asked broader questions about the charter oversight system. Several senators referenced a Star Tribune investigative series highlighting inconsistent authorizer standards, frequent renewals despite poor school performance in some cases, and potential financial conflicts when authorizers receive per-school fees.

Senator Duckworth suggested certain financial-review meetings might need to be monthly instead of quarterly when a school faces financial problems and recommended emphasizing disclosure of conflicts of interest rather than blanket prohibitions to avoid unintended consequences in smaller communities.

Senator Abler and other members urged the committee to consider systemwide solutions — not just incremental fixes — expressing concern that a temporary or limited reform could become permanent without addressing root causes such as authorizer incentives and uneven performance standards.

Procedure and outcome Senator Susinski moved the A2 amendment; the amendment was adopted by voice vote. Senate File 1311, as amended, was laid over for possible inclusion in the omnibus education bill.

What this means for families and students Proponents said the bill preserves family access to high-demand charter options while increasing disclosure and oversight so parents and authorizers can make informed decisions. Opponents of any moratorium warned that blocking expansions would keep families from accessing popular schools and would prevent facility upgrades that benefit current students.

Next steps The bill was laid over for possible inclusion in the omnibus education bill. Committee members signaled interest in continued stakeholder work, additional data and possible companion measures to address systemic authorizer incentives and enforcement.