JUNE 11, 2007

LEGISLATIVE ALERT

SENATE ENDS NEW HAMPSHIRE’S CHARTER SCHOOL PROGRAM
WITH DATE CHANGE IN BUDGET DOCUMENT

CHARTER SCHOOL SUPPORTERS
Senate President Sylvia Larsen
is influential on this matter…

	Sylvia Larsen
	(H) (603)225-6130
	(O) (603)271-2111
	sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us

Your Senators Represent You
(link to find your Senator)

In passing its state budget proposal, the Senate changed a date that will bring an end to the state’s charter school program as of July 1, 2007. The Senate's date change advanced the 10-year pilot program's repeal from 2013 to July 2007. This is not a moratorium--this is a repeal of the entire program next month, effectively ending the charter school program in New Hampshire.

This 2007 repeal date, if not removed, ends the 2nd authorizer provision. It will likely end New Hampshire’s ability to bring in federal start-up funding for future charter schools. And it only leaves local authorization procedures that have never worked (even in communities that want charter schools, the local districts use state authorization provisions).

This change ends having charter schools that serve regions or the state as a whole through open enrollment—a purpose of the charter school program in our state.

Our funding policy for state-authorized, open enrollment charter schools needs revision but ending the charter school program in 2 weeks without discussion is unfair and undemocratic.

The proposed change is in the published SENATE CALENDAR ADDENDUM—REPORTS AND AMENDMENTS. The charter school program amendment is the 92nd provision. Click to view the entire amendment. Scroll down to item #92 (page 26).

The pilot program for state authorization is for 10 years—2003 to 2013. The state board of education can authorize 20 schools. (NH’s first pilot program, which repealed, was for 50 schools per year!)

Current statute is printed below:

Section 194-B:3-a
[RSA 194-B:3-a repealed effective July 1, 2013.]

194-B:3-a Charter School Approval by State Board of Education; Pilot Program. I.There is established a 10-year pilot program which authorizes the state board of education to grant charter status under this section. Beginning July 1, 2003, the state board of education shall be authorized to grant no more than 20 state charter school applications during the 10-year pilot program

The Amendment on page 92 changes the repeal date to July 1, 2007—that’s less than a month away. This is a legislative issue that needs to be addressed on its own merits, not included as a minor detail change in the budget.

The SENATE CALENDAR ADDENDUM:, provision 92, is printed below:

92. Approval of Charter Schools by State Board of Education; Repeal Date Amended. Amend RSA 2003,

273:9 to read as follows:

273:9 Effective Date.

I. I. Section 7 of this act shall take effect July 1,[ 2013] 2007.

Question & Answer on This Topic:

What is the problem?
	1. Funding policy for public charter schools. Several schools authorized in 2003 and 2004 are closing because the gap between what is received and a reasonable amount for operations is too wide to overcome, even with fundraising and efficiency. The charter schools receive 70% less (approx.) of the total average statewide cost of education in NH. The charter school model was for 20% less…even 30% less. In terms of state aid, the charter schools that are open enrollment and not tied to one district receive state aid at too low a level to sustain the school, even with strong entrepreneurial efforts. The law did not intend for the charter school students to be excluded from state and federal programs available to districts.
	Also, the state is fatigued from its broader school funding demands. Perhaps this makes a zap gun look like a sensible solution. But it is not.
Why is there a funding problem for chartered public schools with statewide open enrollment?
	1. Funding provisions in statute have changed several times since the law was passed in 2003, when the first schools were state authorized. The amount provided to charter school students is so low, now, it is unworkable for the schools. There is no relief for space costs, although every other public program in the state is funded for space. Even the rate of increase is not connected to rates of increase of other public schools—so the fixed amount received actually shrinks each year in its public school buying power. The House of Representatives sent the Senate a bill to fix funding, but it was set aside until next year.
	2. Also, funding provisions in the law that would support charter schools are not fully enforced (or perhaps understood). The charter school statute requires sharing all the funding available to districts. This should include state and federal funding programs. Some school districts share; some districts do not.
	One superintendent recently wrote: “The law is clear that when the state board of education grants a charter, any and all tuition payments to the charter school come from the Department of Education.” But is the law so clear? The statute actually has multiple provisions for charter school funding, not well understood, that could make some schools sustainable.
	Note these 5 funding provisions:
	A. RSA 194-B:11 Any federal or other funding available in any year to a sending district shall, to the extent and in a manner acceptable to the funding source, be directed to a charter or open enrollment school in a receiving district on an eligible per pupil basis. (To date, there is no clarification of what “federal and other funding” is available.) Any statewide programs in the state budget should be shared, or so it seems.
	B. RSA 194-B:11, X. There shall be an appropriation in the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2003 for the establishment of charter schools under this section. (This grant program, in addition to state aid, was kiboshed after one year and then re-instituted in 2006 in a one-time grant format. Schools forced to close this year have asked for transition grants under B:11, X while the legislature addresses charter school funding. Why, after so much investment, let these schools close?
	C. RSA 194-B: VI. A charter or open enrollment school may receive financial aid, private gifts, grants, or revenue as if it were a school district. (This should also mean being allowed to hold over any saved funding in reserve.) Several schools have active fundraising programs. The gap, however, is the most extreme in NH of any state.
	D. RSA 194-B: III. In accordance with current department of education standards, the funding and educational decision-making process for educationally handicapped pupils attending a charter or open enrollment school shall be the responsibility of the local education agency. (Should the closing charter schools who taught unfunded special education students be compensated?)
	E. RSA 194-B:V. (a) A sending district may provide funds, services, equipment, materials or personnel to a charter or open enrollment school, in addition to the amounts specified in this section in accordance with the policies of the sending school district. (How do the small charter schools ascertain if the local school board has considered its policy, e.g. if the town has no high school and tuitions students out, will the school board tuition to the charter school? (This is a fair question for boards to consider given that 10% of students are allowed by statute to attend a charter school of choice.)
	Ending the charter school program just as the schools are successfully launched is not the solution. Closing down the charter school program by ending the role of the state board of education as an authorizer is surely not the answer. We cannot afford to lose our capacity for federal charter school funding. Look at the result—New Hampshire’s first statewide school for performing arts, our first statewide school for science and engineering, our first drop-out recovery school, our first statewide virtual school, our first re-birth village/community school; our first reading failure prevention elementary school. All these new school models can be reproduced statewide for the benefit of students, taxpayers, and school districts, looking for new ways of delivering public education. The goals are being reached in ways important to the state and its students.
	Our solutions are:
	1. A one-year moratorium on authorizations while the funding is studied.
	2. Providing rent to charter schools that must rent private space—this is the funding policy of the state, apparently, for every government program without public space.
	3. Transition grants through the established state charter school grant program for the few schools authorized before 2005 that are at risk of closing.
	4. State aid that, as was intended in 2003, treats the statewide open enrollment charter schools on par with other property poor schools.
	5. Setting up the state budget to reflect a multi-faceted charter school program with $1.00 in line items to allow for transfers, as the statute intends. This would set the stage for a long-term funding system, including a very small % of state-funded programs, shared.
	Public schools through all eras need at least funding for their essential teachers and a space to hold school. And the charter schools can fund these essentials if the provisions of RSA 194-B and a fair sharing-of-state-funding policy are implemented. If the House rejects the Senate budget (and let’s hope it will) a joint Committee of Conference will meet to work out differences between the two budget versions. Amendment #92 can be removed. It harms the state in many, many ways. And so for all the students who are thriving in these small schools and their parents and teachers, neighbors, and supporters, your democratic option is to make time to call and talk to your elected representatives.
	Senate President Sylvia Larsen Is the most influential Senator to Right this Situation   Sylvia Larsen   (H) (603)225-6130   (O) (603)271-2111    sylvia.larsen@leg.state.nh.us Your Senators Voted for This Provision (link to find your Senator)

 

 

---