Charter schools; revoke charter if school remains "D" or "F" rated for longer than two consecutive years.
Summary
SB 2619 amends Mississippi’s charter school law to require revocation or nonrenewal of a charter school’s contract if the school is rated “D” or “F” under the state accreditation system for more than two consecutive years. It also bars renewal of any charter school that is in its final operating year and rated “F,” and it preserves existing grounds for revocation or nonrenewal based on contract violations, inadequate academic progress, fiscal mismanagement, or violations of law.
The bill keeps the existing renewal process structure, including performance reports, renewal guidance, school responses, public evidence, and written decisions, but adds a mandatory closure trigger tied to low state accountability ratings. It requires authorizers to provide notice, an opportunity to respond, a hearing-like proceeding, counsel, witnesses, and a written final determination when revocation or nonrenewal is considered. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would amend Section 37-28-33 of the Mississippi Code governing charter school renewal and revocation. Its main legal effect is to make prolonged low state accountability ratings an independent statutory basis for mandatory charter revocation or nonrenewal, limiting authorizer discretion for schools that remain “D” or “F” rated for more than two consecutive years. It also reinforces procedural requirements for authorizers by requiring public reporting, written reasons, and post-decision notice to affected charter schools.
Sentiment
The available context shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a strong accountability-oriented approach toward charter schools, emphasizing performance standards and closure for persistently low-rated schools. The overall tone is regulatory and enforcement-focused rather than expansionary.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the bill’s mandatory revocation/nonrenewal trigger for charter schools that remain “D” or “F” rated for more than two consecutive years. Supporters would likely view this as a necessary accountability measure to protect students and ensure charter schools meet performance expectations, while opponents may argue it reduces flexibility for turnaround efforts, punishes schools based on state ratings alone, and could lead to closures even where improvement plans are underway. Another possible concern is the impact on charter school operators, governing boards, and families if schools are forced to close under a stricter renewal standard.