Welcome to the New Hampshire Center for School Reform

EDUCATING ALL RESIDENT PUPILS:
The Duty to Provide Opportunity
May 1, 2008

A school district’s statutory “duty” is to provide an education “to all pupils” who are district residents until graduation or age 21 (RSA 189: 1-a). And from this statutory duty comes local taxation that supports each town’s education program.

But what does this “duty to provide to all” really mean? (“It shall be the duty of the school board to provide, at district expense, elementary and secondary education to all pupils who reside in the district...”) Does it mean resident pupils attending public charter schools can be excluded from local public school funding?

Our state funding policy says public education funding responsibility is “an integrated system of shared responsibility between state and local government” (RSA 193-E:1). Does a statutory “shared responsibility” policy allow students in public charter schools to be excluded from local public school funding?

The main legislator argument against chartered public schools is they take money from the school district--implying that the purpose of education taxation is to support the district. But that’s not really true. The “duty” to all students is to provide the students education “opportunity” (RSA 193-E: 1). And today, states and communities are providing diversified “opportunities” through magnet schools, charter schools, and scholarship programs.

Actually, nothing in the “Duty to Provide Education” statute says a town’s education dollars must be used just one way. The law doesn’t even require “the district” to be the schooling provider. Many New Hampshire towns outsource whole grades to other providers. A few towns have no schools at all and outsource all education, K to 12.

The charter school law says a district’s funding its students in a state-authorized charter school is dependent on the district’s policy (RSA 194-B: 11, V). But if district policy must comply with state law, and state law obligates local funding for all district students, what policy allows districts to exclude one or a few students from local public school funding? For that matter, what law allows district students with IEPs to receive no special education services or funding? Seems like risky district policy.

Our elected Senators will decide chartered public school funding for next year and the future this session. One bill (House Bill 1642) essentially provides weighted state aid for charter schools for one year. Communities receive weighted state aid, so why not these few schools so strapped for public funding? Add a portion of local funding, even if as small as $1,000 to $3,000 per student, and the state’s charter school program is sustainable.

Representative Ken Weyler (R-Kingston) has an amendment for HB 1642 he says will bring the state's cost very low. Weyler’s amendment integrates state and local funding for students attending authorized charter schools (the law, as it happens). He suggests a state-level transfer of district state aid to the charter school. “The amount is so small, it almost wouldn’t be noticed,” he says. Could this be true? Would a district notice $4,000 transferred from 2.4 million? Or $30,000 from $19.5 million? This much variation in state aid happens every year anyway, even without charter schools. One outcome of Weyler’s proposal is that all school districts would then meet the “duty” to provide for this small percent of “all pupils.”

The Weyler amendment might not cost the state any new money, but it also might not cost the districts any new money. School districts, apparently, are continuing to receive state aid for charter school students long out of their system. If so, essentially the proposed district aid transfer might use money the district receives only for the transferred out charter school students.

We get so busy debating who pays and how, we don’t ponder the most important questions: What kind of different school opportunities do we need today? Why do we want to spend hard-earned taxpayer funding on programs students want to leave? Why can’t a school district fill seats vacated by students wanting to leave with new students wanting to attend (allowed under the Open Enrollment Act of 1995)? Then, if someone leaves and takes a bit of funding, someone else could join the school and bring a bit of funding.

New Hampshire Senators have the opportunity for leadership to finally and equitably fund the charter school program. We could then have time to consider different “opportunities” needed for today’s students. Or, Senators can use their vote to basically end the charter school program it took 13 years to establish. The argument about taking money from districts doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

Opinion polls show a nationwide appetite for new types of choice schools. They cost a little less. They can serve students dropping out for which districts are still responsible (until a diploma or age 21). They provide specialized schools that fit certain student interests. They allow smaller schools to emerge for students who need smaller schools. And then teachers and their administrators can better focus on students who want to be in the district schools.

In these times when every dollar we spend and the future of every young person we educate has to count, we need school model innovation.

A “shared responsibility” to “provide opportunities” to “all resident students” sounds like a vision for schooling in the future. How fortunate these words are the statutory framework for providing public education in our state.

Susan Hollins, Ph.D.