1. Turner v Clayton On July 16, 2010, the Missouri Supreme Court released a decision overturning a summary judgment granted in the School District of Claytons favor in the matter of Turner v Clayton.

2. Turner v Clayton Part of the ruling stated that accredited school districts have no discretion and must accept students from unaccredited districts within the same or adjoining counties.

3. Turner v Clayton The original suit was brought on behalf of the families of six students who live in the St. Louis Public School District.

4. Turner v Clayton The students were previously enrolled as tuition students in the School District of Clayton prior to the St. Louis Public Schools losing its accreditation in 2007.

5. Turner v Clayton The suit sought to require the School District of Clayton to bill the Saint Louis Public Schools, and not the students parents, for their respective tuition.

6. Turner v Clayton The suit also sought to require the St. Louis Public Schools to make tuition payments to the School District of Clayton on behalf of the students.

7. Turner v Clayton One doesnt have to look too hard to see the potential implications of this ruling, which could reach well beyond the Clayton School District.

8. Turner v Clayton Receiving school districts do not have the legal authority to choose what schools incoming students attend, or to limit the amount of students who may attend.

9. Turner v Clayton The Supreme Courts opinion was not a final resolution of the matter. The court remanded the case back to St. Louis County Circuit Court for further proceedings.

10. Turner v Clayton Districts become unaccredited as a result of action from the State Board of Education. Criteria for unaccredited status are low student test scores and poor performance on the Annual Performance Report.

11. Turner v Clayton Currently, Riverview Gardens and the St. Louis Public School District are the only two unaccredited school districts in Missouri.

12. Turner v Clayton Nine (9) additional school districts are provisionally accredited.

13. Turner v Clayton Approximately 72,000 students are eligible to transfer.

14. Turner v Clayton The impact of an undetermined number of students enrolling in county school districts could have a significant impact upon both accredited and unaccredited schools.

15. Turner v Clayton Resources for staffing, materials, facilities, special education and transportation would be a major budgeting concern for the receiving and sending school districts.

16. Turner v Clayton This is not just a St. Louis County issue. If a large number of St. Louis City private and parochial students also transfer to public county schools, all districts in the State would lose a percentage of their funding due to the increase public school influx.

17. Turner v Clayton Our district welcomes racial diversity and has accepted students through the Voluntary Transfer Program for many years. What affect will this have on the Voluntary Transfer Program?

18. Turner v Clayton My biggest concern is the loss of local control regarding the number of non-resident students allowed to enter our district. I believe that smaller class sizes lead to better leaning opportunities for all students.

19. Turner v Clayton I am also concerned about the impact that losing significant numbers of students and resources will have on the students left behind in the unaccredited school districts.

20. Turner v Clayton What is next?

21. Turner v Clayton The St. Louis County Circuit Court has scheduled a case management meeting for sometime in late May.

22. Turner v Clayton Our district has been working with other educational groups from across the State to encourage the Missouri General Assembly to find a legislative fix for the Turner case.

23. Turner v Clayton There have been several bills presented in both the House and Senate that differ greatly on a fix for the Turner Case.

24. Turner v Clayton Some of the bills include charter school expansion, vouchers, scholarships, and/or virtual schools as solutions for the Turner fix.

25. Turner v Clayton I would recommend you contact your representatives and senator to share your thoughts regarding the Clayton v Turner case.

26. Turner v Clayton Representative John Diehl John.Diehl@house.mo.gov 314-751-1544 Representative Stacey Newman Stacey.newman@house.mo.gov 314-751-0100 Senator John Lamping Jennae.neustadt@senate.mo.gov 573-751-2514