Not connected to the NHcafe case, this bill does funnel funds from the state to private institutions. Why would we do this when we can not appropriately (and constitutionally) fund education now?
Be sure to see the comments for the sponsor’s statement Rep. W. Packy Campbell, the Minority statement, Rep. Emma L. Rous and the response from the Londonderry School Board.
The entire text of the amended bill follows. (as of March 2, 2005)
Amendment to HB 1707-FN-A-LOCAL
Proposed by the Majority of the Committee on Education - R
Amend the bill by replacing section 2 with the following:
2 New Chapter; School Choice Certificate Program. Amend RSA by inserting after chapter 193 H the following new chapter:
CHAPTER 193-I
SCHOOL CHOICE CERTIFICATE PROGRAM
193-I:1 Program Established. A school choice certificate program is hereby established for the purpose of allowing the parent or legal guardian of a child to receive, on request, a certificate that may be used for tuition at an approved public or nonpublic school in New Hampshire selected by the child’s parent or legal guardian.
193-I:2 School Choice Certificate Eligibility.
I.(a) School choice certificates shall be available as set forth in this section for payment of tuition at an approved public or nonpublic school up to the value of the certificate. Funding of school choice certificates shall be from the education trust fund established in RSA 198:39 and as provided in RSA 193-I:5.
(b) Entry into the program shall be limited to those pupils entering grades 1-12. Pupils entering grades 2-12 must have been enrolled in a New Hampshire public school for the full academic year preceding the year of entry into the program.
(c) Only pupils whose family income does not exceed 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines, as established and updated periodically in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. section 9902 (2), are eligible for entry to the program. The department of education shall require proof that a pupil is a legal resident of this state as a prerequisite to participation in this program and shall annually verify the income eligibility of each program participant.
(d) Applications for the program shall be submitted to the appropriate department of education official, on a form provided by the department of education, not earlier than December 1 and not later than May 1 of the academic year preceding the year of participation. The department of education shall notify applicants of acceptance or non-acceptance into the program during the month of July.
II. Certificates shall be made available as follows:
(a) In the first year of the program, to children entering grades 1-12, up to a maximum of 2,000 certificates statewide.
(b) In the second year of the program, to children entering grades 1-12, up to a maximum of 4,000 certificates statewide.
(c) In the third year of the program, to children entering grades 1-12, up to a maximum of 6,000 certificates statewide.
(d) In the fourth year of the program, to children entering grades 1-12, up to a maximum of 8,000 certificates statewide.
(e) In the fifth year of the program, to children entering grades 1-12, up to a maximum of 10,000 certificates statewide.
(f) In the sixth year of the program, to children entering grades 1-12, up to a maximum of 12,000 certificates statewide.
(g) In the seventh year of the program, to children entering grades 1-12, up to a maximum of 14,000 certificates statewide.
(h) In the eighth year of the program, to children entering grades 1-12, up to a maximum of 16,000 certificates statewide.
III. For each pupil’s first year of the certificate program only, the state shall pay to such pupil’s resident school district the per pupil aid amount. Such payments shall be made from the education trust fund established in RSA 198:39.
IV.(a) Except as provided in paragraph VII, the number of certificates allocated to a school district in a given year shall be a percentage of the total number of certificates available in that year. Such percentage shall be calculated by dividing the most recently available average daily membership in residence (ADMR) in the school district as defined in RSA 198:38, VI, by the most recently available total statewide average daily membership in residence as calculated by the department of education.
(b) Notwithstanding RSA 193:12, a pupil participating in this program shall be counted in the ADMR of the pupil’s resident school district for as long as such pupil participates in the certificate program.
V. In any school district where there are more applicants for certificates than certificates available in a given year as determined under paragraph IV, a lottery shall be held by the department of education and certificates shall be allocated according to the following criteria:
(a) First, to pupils who were awarded certificates in the immediately preceding year.
(b) Second, to pupils from families where the family income is below 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines as established and updated periodically in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. section 9902 (2).
(c) Third, to pupils from families where the family income is below 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines as established and updated periodically in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of 42 U.S.C. section 9902 (2).
VI. A parent or legal guardian of a pupil enrolled in the school choice certificate program shall notify the department of education no later than June 30 of each year of his or her intent to remain in the program.
VII. No later than July 31 of any year in which fewer certificates are granted than are available under the program, the department of education shall conduct a statewide lottery for the unused certificates, and shall allocate such certificates to any pupil who is eligible under RSA 193-I:2, and who applied for, and was denied a certificate. Available certificates shall be awarded first to pupils from families where the family income is below 200 percent of the federal poverty guidelines as set forth in paragraph V(b). Any remaining certificates shall be awarded to pupils from families where the family income is below 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines as set forth in paragraph V(c). Certificates issued under this paragraph shall not exceed 5 percent of a school district’s average daily membership in residence for any one year. The department of education shall notify lottery participants of its decision no later than August 10.
193-I:3 Value of Certificate.
I. The value of a school choice certificate for any individual pupil shall be 80 percent of the state calculated per pupil aid for the municipality in which the student resides as determined by the department of education, or 80 percent of the state average per pupil aid amount, whichever is less.
II. In this chapter, “per pupil aid” shall be defined as the total state funding, including that raised by the statewide enhanced education tax under RSA 76:3, divided by the ADMR used for the calculation of state aid for that year, provided that:
(a) No parent shall receive a school choice certificate whose family income for federal income tax purposes is greater than 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines as set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
(b) Parents whose family income for federal income tax purposes is not greater than 300 percent of the federal poverty guidelines as set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services shall be eligible for 100 percent of the school choice certificate amount established in this section.
193-I:4 Participating Schools.
I. Any approved public or nonpublic school operating in this state may participate in the school choice certificate program.
II. A public or nonpublic school may admit a child with a certificate, up to the limit of the school’s capacity, after reserving places for children admitted in accordance with the school’s regular admissions practices.
III. A public or nonpublic school shall establish criteria for the admission of children with certificates that are consistent with the admissions criteria that it regularly applies.
IV. Participating schools shall be permitted flexibility to educate pupils in accordance with the school’s educational mission.
193-I:5 School Choice Payments.
I. The appropriate official in the department of education shall administer the certificate program for each pupil who participates in the program. Each public or nonpublic school which participates in this program shall, no later than May 1 of each year, submit to the pupil’s resident school district verification of each pupil in attendance for the full school year under this program on a form provided by the department of education. Such verification shall list the name, address, dates of attendance, and the tuition cost for each pupil attending under this program.
II. The school choice payment shall be a check issued by the resident school district, made out to the pupil’s parent or legal guardian and mailed by the school district to the public or nonpublic school of choice. The receiving public or nonpublic school shall ensure that a parent or legal guardian endorses the check for redemption by an official of the public or nonpublic school. Payments made under this section shall be made in equal installments on September 1, November 1, January 1, and April 1 of the year in which the pupil is enrolled in a participating school.
III. The payment shall be prorated on a per diem basis for pupils enrolled in public or nonpublic school for less than a full school year.
IV. A participating nonpublic school shall not apply any payments made under this program to the cost of religious classes or other sectarian educational programs or services. The nonpublic school shall return any remaining payment to the pupil’s resident school district.
193-I:6 Transportation. Any transportation costs for transporting a child, including a child receiving special education services pursuant to an individual education plan approved under RSA 186-C:7, to a public or nonpublic school outside of the local school district shall be borne by the child’s parent or legal guardian.
193-I:7 Liability for Special Education Services. The school district in which the child resides shall not be responsible for providing special education programs or services to any child who attends another school pursuant to the school choice certificate program in this chapter.
193-I:8 Testing.
I. Each nonpublic school which accepts a pupil participating in the school choice certificate program shall:
(a) Comply with the statewide education improvement and assessment program pursuant to RSA 193-C for such pupils; or
(b) Petition the department of education to waive compliance with the statewide education improvement and assessment program, and allow the nonpublic school to administer its own standardized testing program for such pupils. The department of education shall render a decision on all waiver requests no later than 15 days from the date of the petition. If a petition is denied for good cause shown, the nonpublic school shall comply with the provisions of the statewide education improvement and assessment program for those pupils participating in the school choice certificate program.
(c) A pupil required to participate in the statewide improvement and assessment program shall do so in the school district in which he or she resides.
II. Each public or nonpublic school which accepts a pupil who is a participant in the school choice certificate program shall submit to the department of education, no later than June 30 of each year, the test scores of any standardized test taken while such pupil was enrolled in the public or nonpublic school. No personally identifiable information shall be released with the test scores. The standardized test shall be a test that is nationally accredited or recognized and which offers an objective, comprehensive estimate of a pupil’s educational development in areas such as language arts, reading, mathematics, and social studies.
193-I:9 Liability Limited.
I. Except as specifically provided in this chapter, a public or nonpublic school shall not be required to comply with additional laws or rules as a result of attendance by pupils whose parents receive school choice certificates.
II. A public or nonpublic school shall not be required to accept pupils whose parents receive school choice certificates.
III. The school district in which the pupil resides shall not be held liable for damages in an action to recover for bodily injury, personal injury, property damage as defined in RSA 507-B:1, or failure to educate pupils, where the action arises out of a parent’s exercise of options under the provisions of this chapter.
193-I:10 Rulemaking. The state board of education shall adopt rules, pursuant to RSA 541-A, relative to the development of forms necessary to implement this chapter.
193-I:11 Severability. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are declared to be severable.
Amend the bill by inserting after section 2 the following and renumbering the original section 3 to read as 4:
3 School Money: Education Trust Fund. Amend the introductory paragraph to RSA 198:39, I to read as follows:
I. The state treasurer shall establish an education trust fund in the treasury. Moneys in such fund shall not be used for any purpose other than to distribute equitable education grants to municipalities’ school districts pursuant to RSA 198:42, [and] to provide low and moderate income homeowners property tax relief under RSA 198:56-198:61, and to make payments to school districts as provided in RSA 193-I. The state treasurer shall deposit into this fund immediately upon receipt:
AMENDED ANALYSIS
This bill establishes a school choice certificate program which makes available a certain number of school choice certificates to be used at participating public or nonpublic schools.
2006-1206h
The follwing is from the House Calendar.
*MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO
LEGISLATE.*
Rep. W. Packy Campbell for the *Majority *of Education: This bill is not an indictment or a criticism of public schools. The majority believes that public schools do a good job for most students, but some students can excel in a different educational environment. HB 1707 is a constitutional and responsible step that gradually introduces school choice certificates over the next eight years in a manner that makes the certificates proportionately available across the state. HB 1707 is constitutional because the money is spent by the parent. The certificate is made out to the parent and sent to the school of the parent’s choice. The parent must then go to the school and endorse the check over to them. There is a philosophical difference with regard to school choice. The majority sees that the greater purpose of public education dollars is to provide the best education possible to students, even if it means leaving a government school. To further that end, parents of limited financial means must be empowered to choose another school for the benefit of the child. This bill is designed to help the needy by giving first priority on the certificates to families whose income is at or below 200% of the federal poverty guidelines. Then, if certificates are left over, families up to 300% of the federal poverty guidelines can utilize this opportunity. During the committee process, the opinion was offered that bills such as this take money away from public schools. HB 1707 does not do that. The first year a student is in the program, the school is held harmless financially. In subsequent years, the sending public school continues to count the student in their ADM-R. Furthermore, they are able to plan ahead to be able to keep 20% of the per pupil aid amount. Thus the public school will benefit as well by getting money for a child they won’t have to educate. For the sake of families of limited means, school choice is an idea that needs to be given a chance in New Hampshire. *Vote 11-9*.
This is also from the house Calendar
Rep. Emma L. Rous for the *Minority* of Education: This bill directly opposes the New Hampshire constitutional provision that “no money raised by taxation shall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination.” (Part 2, Art. 83; also Part 1, Art. 6). Private religious schools are not subject to federal disability laws and are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. In January, Florida’s Supreme Court struck down the nation’s only statewide voucher program because it undermined a uniform system of free public schools. This proposal provides a middle class subsidy at the expense of local school budgets. It requires districts to pay private schools 80% of their “state aid” per pupil or the state average aid per pupil for each certificate awarded. In districts whose only “state aid” is the locally collected statewide property tax, all of this money will come directly from local tax dollars. Under this bill, up to 42% of a district’s population could attend private schools at taxpayer expense and without taxpayer approval. A free democratic society depends on an educated citizenry; we are responsible to educate all of our children, not a few at the expense of many.
This leter was sent to the Londonderry Representatives and the Education Commitee on February 21st, we would appreciate comments from others.
The Londonderry School Board wishes to have you join with them in opposing HB1707 (School Choice Certificate Program), by voting NO on this piece of legislation.
HB1707 is unconstitutional, creates an uneven playing field, directs valuable resources from local school districts, is in conflict with the best interests of the public and last but not least, creates a number of questions and conflicts with the requirements inherent in state and federal laws.
The Londonderry School Board and Administration believe that HB1707 is unconstitutional based on Part 1, Article 6 and Part 2, Article 83, of the NH Constitution, whose provisions were upheld by the NH Supreme Court in 1968 and 1992. This bill would allow the transfer of public resources to private religious schools in direct violation of the NH Constitution.
Sections of HB1707 create an uneven playing field by exempting non-public schools from the provisions of state law that apply to all public schools that receive taxpayer support (e.g. 193-C:8 I and II; 193-C:9). These exemptions and allowances offer a significant advantage to non-public schools by exempting them from past, current and future laws, rules, regulations that the legislature imposes on public schools. In basis of fact, this bill allows some schools to discriminate against families and children by allowing private school practices that are contrary to public law.
This bill would move public money without voter approval. The funding sources in this law are unclear and appear to rely on a reduction of general educational aid targeted for NH school districts and taxpayers in FY08 and beyond. HB1707 would eventually move 80% of per pupil state aid to the parent, though in the first year it is disguised by the state reimbursing the same amount (Year 1 only). This unfunded mandate is even more significant in communities that do not receive state grants. In these cases, the money that is being taken without voter approval is all local money (e.g. state education property tax). The impact of local taxpayer dollars is evident as the DOE impact figures indicate that the cumulative potential cost from FY08 – FY10 would be $38,136,462. Londonderry alone would suffer a potential cumulative impact of $1,040,760 on top of a cumulative loss in state aide under the present funding formula of $15,000,000 during that period of time.
We have continually asserted (e.g. our lawsuit) that the state’s current level of aid in support of public education is woefully inadequate.
The misguided assumption that suggests money is saved when a student uses a voucher to attend a private school fails any reasonable analysis. If several children leave a particular grade level, there will be no measurable savings. We will not be able to save on salaries, transportation, heating oil, electricity, etc.
Further, we and our administrators believe that this bill is poor public policy. We believe our public school system is predicated on the principle that education is a public good, not a private right of an individual citizen. Thus, taxpayers serve an important role in not only generating resources, but to define and govern the publicly owned and operated school system.
The transfer of public funds should face the direct approval of the local taxpayer. This legislation would have public tax dollars transferred to private institutions without local voter approval or oversight.
Lastly, this bill will cause conflicts with existing laws and shift costs to certain communities. The most significant issues are those related to special education services. The language in the bill states that if a parent chooses a voucher, the school district of residence will not have to provide special education services. The bill does not indicate that the individual will need to voluntarily forego their rights and technically refuse services under IDEA.
It should also be noted that under IDEA 2004, a public school district that has a (or multiple) private school(s) within its boundaries must now assume expanded responsibility to assess and meet the needs of students who attend that/those private school(s) regardless of where the child or parent resides. Thus, it is very safe to assume that communities like Manchester, Dover, Nashua, etc. that have a number of private schools, will be burdened with increased special education costs.
In summary, we strongly urge you as our elected representatives to vote NO on HB1707. It is unconstitutional, creates an uneven playing field, removes local public dollars from the public schools and directs same to private schools, will increase local tax burdens, remove control of tax dollars, is in conflict with the best interests of the public and is in conflict with state and federal laws.
Sincerely,
Steve Young, Chair and Members of the Londonderry School Board
Packy Campbell, there you go again.
Remember it was his bill (HB616) that was passed in 2005 by three votes (Londonderry State Reps Dumaine, Head, and Smith pushed it over the top) that robbed millions from Londonderry, AUburn, and scores of other towns where tens of thousands of working men and women struggle to provide their children with shelter, food, and the best education they can in their local community schools. Since the state can’t currently meet its constitutional requirement to fund an adequate education in 2006, then how can they possibly divert even more money in 2007 and beyond into the religious and private schools that operate as private businesses in NH? Some of these schools are attended by students from the wealthiest 1 or 2 % of parents, and some from out-of-state. Many of these private/religious schools have multimillion dollar endowments and some have unfortunately been rocked by the largest and most corrupt child abuse scandel in modern history that continues to stretch around the globe.
This taxpayer money may now be diverted in direct contradiction of the state constitution to privare and religious businesses with little or no taxpayer oversight.
Evidently there are several reps (led by the likes of folks like Rep Packy Campbell and Rep Dan Dumaine) that are no longer willing to adhere to the sworn oath they took to uphold the constitution upon their swearing-in ceremony for office. They should be held accountable at the next election and promptly removed from public office. How can they be trusted when they publicly refuse to live up to their sworn oath of office? Do they care?
(Pay attention to how you cast your vote. Character counts.)
If they don’t like the constitution, then they should change it via the legal process in place for that course of action. Simply disregarding it just disrespects all citizens who try hard everyday to play-by-the-rules, pay their taxes, and live honorable lives as NH residents. May I ask: Have some of these state Reps allowed their religious zealotry to cloud their judgement? Why are they so eager to stuff large sums of public monies into the bank accounts of their favorite religious kin? And why have they so forgotten about the basic principle of the separation of church and state that they are willing to recklessly turn over scarce education tax dollars to those that have no accountability for it; no election to face the voters; no public audit; no Right-to-Know laws?
Would it surprise you to learn that the religious leaders that will happily gobble up these public tax dollars are in the vast majority the same religion as those state Rep zealots that author the legislation and support it? I wouldn’t be.
Ask them.
The ever-increasing pork barrel now seems to have religions at the trough looking for their share of our tax money, too. And some of our elected officials in Concord seem overly eager to make them fat.
Something is seriously wrong with this picture; and this legislation.
Tom Dolan
Londonderry
[Article] 6. [Morality and piety.]
“But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any sect or denomonation”. My god did these members not read this when they voted on this bill? Do they not understand the written word?
Dick Elliott
Please stay tuned to a floor amendment offered by Reps. L’Heureux, Hess, Campbell and Asselin for more information and accurate language. It is available in the House Amendment calendar, available online now at gencourt.state.nh.us
It’s been my experience that those legislators that support & sponsor “school choice” (vouchers, certificates et. al.) legislation, do not care what the NH constitution has to say about not using public funds to subsidize religious schools. In fact, it’s quite the opposite. The same goes for the lobby groups that work along side them in Concord.
The current argument being spun by school choice backers is that providing public funds to the parent directly eliminates “any” constitutional barrier. Simply put, once the parent has the money they can do as they wish including handing it over to a religious school of their choice.
Logic would dictate that it can’t be that easy, right? Afterall, if the money being at the start belongs to all of us collectively (i.e. public funds), how is possibly OK that it can end up in the coffers of someone else’s individual religious school of choice? Whether state funds pass thru a parent first like a broker, should not matter. You would think where the public money trail ends matters the most.
Obviously that’s not the case for those that want a school choice bill passed at “any cost”, including the principal of separation of church and state and the NH constitution.
Michael Brown
Londonderry
Thanks to Paul Smith we will keep an eye on the session. The bill posted is from the Latest calendar March 2, 2005. We made bold the only amendment we could find on the bill. Afternoon session on Tuesday and Morning sessions on Wednesday are scheduled this week. See the main Blog page http://www.NHcafe.org\blog for the latest information.
Being a controversal issue please bear with me. First, HB-1707 is constitutional — I spent alot of time researching this one aspect of the bill. Federal court cases and State court cases with similar wording in their State constitution have won verdicts that if the money is directed by parental choice, then it is constitutional. In NH there is one additional constraint created by our State constitution and that is that the legislation must restrict religious schools from spending public money on teaching religious issues. HB-1707 was amended to meet both conditions. There have been four NH Supreme Court opinions on school choice and HB-1701 is consistent with their rulings. Former NH Supreme Court Justice Charles Douglas wrote a position paper in 2004 for the Barlett Institute which analyzed the four NH Supreme Court opinions and the wording in the NH State Constitution. As with the Claremont ruling, the reading of the constitution sometimes isn’t literal — who today would have thought “cherish” included State funding of education. Judges have to go back to the legal intent when the constitution was written. The original version of HB-1707 was not constitutional, but the amended version is.
Most people feel that school choice will cause higher taxes. However, the bill’s effect is the opposite. NH school population increases on average about two percent per year — this is where the 2,000 yearly vouchers came from. The goal is to avoid future costly building programs (and the operational and teacher costs that go with building programs) by shifting the annual growth in the number of kids into the private school system. Millions of dollars of public money will be saved by avoiding future building programs.
The shift of students to the private school system is voluntary. The program is limited to 2,000 students per year whose parents earn less than $57,000 per year. The only ones who will do this will be those kids and parents who feel that the public school system is not a good fit for their child. If a child is unhappy in the public school, I suspect they will not do well and may be among those who drop out at age 16.
If this program was open to all kids, then the doom and gloom predictions might be true — but given how small this program is, the financial impacts are truely small. The cumlative long term effect of having the public school population stable will save the taxpayers millions of dollars.
This bill is one tool to avoid the NH Center of Public Policy prediction that public school tax burden will double in five years if ways of shifting the tax burden are not implemented.
Finally, private schools in NH use public funds already. Many of the worst case special education students are sent to private schools at public expense. Some public schools pay tuition to send students to other schools (including religious) due to the lack of space. The key here is that public money cannot be used to teach religion.
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/hoskins.htm
Try this web site for confirmation of Rep. Asselin`s comments. I disagree with the rulings, however, I must respect them. I wish the legislators in New Hampshire would do the same and define and fully fund adequacy as our court has ruled.
I do find the $57,000 cap excessive. The low and moderate income for families is capped at only $40,000. Shouldn`t any amount over $40,000 be considered above moderate?
I would like someone to explain how there will be any savings for taxpayers in any school district unless a large number of students transfer.
Dick Elliott
Hi Dick — The savings for tax payers will come from the tax avoidance related to not having to build new schools and staffing them in the future. If the certificates are used, the 2,000 certificates per year will shift the annual increase in the number of students from the public school sector to the private school sector. The NH student population in public schools should stabilize and stop growing since the private sector will be accepting 2,000 students per year. Taxpayers will save millions of dollars over the long term since they won’t need to build more school classrooms and hire more teachers and staff that would go with the new classrooms.
-Mike
Rep. Asselin’s reply relative to the constitutionality of public money being applied at religious schools, is exactly the type of “school choice lobbying spin” I was referring to in my earlier comments.
Just tick off a list of previous court cases that support funneling public funds to religious schools thru a “parent middleman”, and all is well with the legislation. Don’t worry about whether taxpayers (regardless of relgious beliefs) have any “choice” whether they want their money ending up at someone else’s religious school. At the same time, side-step the core principal behind the separation of church and state.
The fact that this legislation would restrict religious schools from spending public money on teaching religious issues, is suspect at best. One would be hard pressed to think that the curriculum at a religious school would be totally absent of any religious teachings or concepts. If I sent my child to the school associated with my religion, I would expect them to provide relgious teachings.