CHARTER SCHOOL LEGISLATION 2008: NEW HAMPSHIRE

HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE
HEARING ON HOUSE BILL 1642
Thursday, February 7, 2008

The last speaker was Todd Ziebarth, senior policy analyst with the National Alliance for Charter Schools. He explained that charter schools are public schools that do not charge tuition and do not teach religion. He said that New Hampshire charter schools were trapped in their start-up phase, and, like all states, New Hampshire needed to find a reliable and sustainable funding program to evolve into mature schools.

Ziebarth said a national reality is that consumers want choice schools—and 300 to 400 charter schools are opening each year with 61% having a waiting list, and those students on waiting lists could themselves fill hundreds of schools. The charter school model has become very popular.

Should local school districts share their education funds with their students attending an authorized public charter school? No subject has caused more debate since 1994. Is the local money for “the system” or for “educating all the town’s students?”

HB 1642 proposes that all students in authorized charter schools receive the same funding—80% of what the district spends on education, reduced by state aid and other sources of funding. Old funding arguments were exhumed, but new ideas were advanced, leaving everyone a step closer to a compromise, it seemed.

Representative Claire Clarke, bill sponsor, introduced HB 1642, saying: “We still don’t have justice for charter schools.”

Representative Ken Wyler, bill sponsor, spoke at length, orating that it was time for districts to fund all charter school students the same, whether students went to a district-sponsored or state-sponsored charter school. He estimated that no district would really end up paying more than $5,000 per student since various state and federal funding streams would lower the actual district contribution. He was passionate that towns and the state cannot leave community students in charter schools bereft and with no local support, when the district schools keep adding and adding programs and administrative personnel and costs.

Representative Carson spoke strongly as to how unreasonable it was to ask school districts to share funding of charter schools. Her position was that charter schools should be connected to districts. And for the state-authorized charter schools: “Wouldn’t it be easier if they were funded by the state?” She strongly supported more resources, e.g. for facilities, but only for those charter schools affiliated with districts.

Members of the Education Committee then spoke.
Representative Stiles talked about the needed funding going through the state to the charter school, a proposal mentioned several times by different speakers. She concurred with others that these schools have value for New Hampshire and are helping the state and education institution look at new ways of providing education. She mentioned that the chartered public schools are valuable to the system—they are small labs for making and evaluating innovative changes whereas a district would be unwise to change its whole district program without knowing the change would be an improvement.

Representative Casey voiced concern that any money contributed to a charter school student would draw money away from the district schools. She questioned the comparison often made to regional vocational technical schools—were these local “programs” or independent public schools which are choices for high school students? (This seems important because these regional technical public schools are billed as choice schools with district tuition support…and there is no controversy about these tuitions).

Representatives Casey and Wyler clarified through their questions and answers which bill each thought had the best chance of success this year—Casey’s bill for state funding at $7,000 or Wyler’s and Clarke’s bill for local funding at 80% which they estimate would be $4-5,000 per student.

Dean Mitchner, lobbyist for the New Hampshire School Board Association, said he supported charter schools and then spoke in opposition to HB 1642 and local support. Any required contribution from the districts, he said, would constitute a 28a violation and would be deemed Inexpedient to Legislate (sudden death). He said a school district’s obligation is only to offer a free and appropriate education—not choice. He did not comment on the current demand for choice schools or the number of students in districts that districts admit need other options. He said:--“the state has provided choice but no money.” He offered a suggestion—that the state be the LEA for state-authorized charter schools and pay for these schools, just as they pay for other state schools.

Representative Remick from the North Country said the North Country Charter School is a great success—with all school districts voluntarily sending students and contributing to each student’s funding. He said the northern communities started the charter school together. Rob Tenney from the Department of Education later clarified how North Country Charter School is funded by a combination of local and state resources.

Susan Hollins from the New Hampshire Center for School Reform supported some sharing of locally-raised tax dollars for local students attending chartered public schools but was not sure what that percent or amount should be. She said communities tax local residents to provide a public education for all the community’s children—not all the children except for one or two students who believe a charter school is best for them. She mentioned that many or most districts do pay tuition of one kind or another for local students to attend schools the district itself did not themselves authorize. Whether or not the district authorized the school with tuition is not how districts currently make all tuition decisions.

She said the plain issue is that no one wants to fund these students—the state will not give weighted education aid, even though 100s of students in selected district schools benefit from weighted aid every year, and the local districts do not want to share local resources they have for the community’s children, although they admit some children are served better in some of the chartered public schools. To date there is no agreement about redistributing resources so charter school students have funding.

The fair solution, she suggested, is providing all students in the state with some access to all pools of public funding available for all students—local, state, and federal. She said the number of students in districts is discussed as a constant, with the costs of a few charter school students somehow having huge impact. In fact, districts expand and contract with students joining and leaving all the time—local districts and the state are regularly revising their programs and funding allocations to accommodate changes in student population. The goal should be helping all students find a school where they thrive. Then, whatever is spent has real value--sometimes students just need a smaller school environment.

Currently, students in state-authorized schools do not have 80% of district funding—the original goal of RSA 194-B and the funding percentage HB1642 suggests. Nor do these schools have 70%, or even 50% of total average school funding. Today’s charter schools receive a fixed portion of state aid representing 30% of the total resources other public students have. Many charter schools receive 0% of local funding although increasingly districts are voluntarily sharing resources. She said if there is going to be a district contribution, RSA 194-B: 12 should be revisited; listing charter school tuitions on a separate budget line item for one or a few students could make these students personally identified.

Lastly, Hollins spoke to the new push for all charter schools to be started by school districts. There are schools that will emerge from needs and interests other than district needs and interests, she said, and allowing for regional or statewide open enrollment schools independent of districts was a goal of the state’s pilot program for state-authorized schools. She argued that schools serving students from many towns should not be punished by having no public funding, since regional and statewide schools of choice was the goal.

Representatives from charter schools testified:
Eileen Liponis, a parent and board member from the Seacoast Charter School, spoke of the success of Seacoast Charter School for so many students. She mentioned professional efforts of charter schools to form an association whose goals are noble and include building relationships and sharing with school districts. “Conflicts of interest are avoided when goals are aligned.” She stressed, however, the urgency of legislation that provides for long-term and sustainable funding. She said the situation was critical to address this year.

Cocheco Charter School’s business manager, Ms. Stewart, described the success of CATA as an arts-specialized school. She said approximately 1/3 of districts are sending some tuition to their charter school, and other schools are sharing resources and technical assistance. She said the school is a great success and is meeting needs of students with arts-specialized interests.

Richard Evans, formerly on the Londonderry School Board, reflected on the enormous and costly expansion of public schools taking place in New Hampshire, costing the taxpayers millions in facility add-ons—and all while the number of students is flat. The expansion results from new state policy for lower class sizes—the benefits of which, he opined, were inconclusive. He asked: “What is wrong with considering more than one form of expansion—something that is good financially for taxpayers? Why can there only be one way to spend money—when the charter school model everyone can see is so beneficial, also, to students?” He stressed that charter schools are an efficient approach to education.

The last speaker was Todd Ziebarth, senior policy analyst with the National Alliance for Charter Schools. He explained that charter schools are public schools that do not charge tuition and do not teach religion. He said that New Hampshire charter schools were trapped in their start-up phase, and, like all states, New Hampshire needed to find a reliable and sustainable funding program. When asked about test scores, he said the measured achievement benefits typically are seen when schools are more mature and have moved beyond the day-to-day struggle for financial existence.

Giving a national perspective, Ziebarth said a national reality is that consumers want choice schools—and 300 to 400 charter schools are opening each year with 61% having a waiting list, and those students on waiting lists could themselves fill hundreds of schools. The charter school model has become very popular. Of all the states, New Hampshire has the greatest funding disparity when compared to district student resources.

Mr. Ziebarth offered several examples of how states like New Hampshire fund charter schools. In each model there was a state and local contribution or a state contribution that covered the local contribution (adjustments mad at the state level). Committee members expressed appreciation for an opportunity to share information on national perspectives.

During the hearing, it was clarified that the actual number of students in public charter schools is 0.002%.

There was no action on HB 1642 at this hearing.