REPORT

WORK SESSION ON HB 1642 TO FUND CHARTER SCHOOLS
HOUSE BUDGET SUCBOMMITTEE, DIVISION II

Monday, March 10, 2008

“The question is can we support them and move forward,
or do we punish them for having been authorized without an adequate state funding plan?”

Representative Kim Casey, House Education Committee & bill amendment sponsor.

Today’s work session started promptly and formally. The budget subcommittee asked House Education Committee Chairman Emma Rous to please summarize the Education Committee’s 12:2 vote to support charter school funding. Representative Casey—the bill’s primary sponsor—also spoke.

The finance meeting room is expansive with 2/3rds set up formally for the finance committee. The audience is at one end, seated in rows, watching, and facing the committee members. Rous and Casey sat at a small table facing the subcommittee members, backs to the audience.

“We began our work in the Education Committee with several assumptions,” began Rous. “First, we wanted no negative impact on regular public schools “ “Second, we knew the charter schools were without any ability to get local tax dollars and they do need some ability to make up that differential in costs.” “Lastly, we understand the charter schools with no district affiliation need to be supported.”

Specific to fixing charter school funding, Rous said there had been 3 proposals:

• Provide $2700 to each student in these schools. She said a concern was giving the charter schools more than the state gives districts
  (note:...the state already gives many districts targeted aid)
• Giving the same base amount as what other districts will receive
  (note:...this would be less than even now)
• Mandating 80% from districts (there seems to be a new discussion to prevent charter schools having funding—that if the district did not help create the charter school, then the district’s funding for their children should not be shared. Districts pay over $100 million in tuition to other public schools now and some of these schools they did not create).

Rous explained how the committee had tried to create $7,000 per student, because this was the amount the schools said was needed to be sustainable. The committee decided, though, to support a proposal at the $6,500 level per student. This involves only a few hundred of the state’s 225,000 students and the additional amount is, thus, manageable.

North Country Charter School would receive $500 per student under the proposal. The North Country has been hard hit by mills closing and other economic issues, but Rous said the committee had not the time to study regional economics. The committee was advised, however, that the Department of Education is giving the North Country Charter School $200,000 in drop-out prevention funding. This charter school’s funding needs are being addressed.

Casey talked about the importance of focusing on educational policy, and the committee’s extensive discussion of public policy and choice, chartered schools. After extensive deliberation the House Education Committee has voted—yes! Chartered public schools are valuable and should be funded!

“The question is: Can we support them and move forward, or do we punish them for having been authorized without an adequate state funding plan?” She urged the committee’s support for the good of children who needed these schools, and said she would be working next month to consider other legislative changes.

Chairman Smith seemed to have no interest in the discussion from the outset. She sat somewhat steely. Her comments bordered on disrespect for the Education Committee members. “This bill was submitted in a form that did not include a fiscal note! The deadline in house rules for a bill like this has passed!” (pause) “You, as the policy committee did nothing about how issues of state chartering work. But in a policy committee, you passed a bill with very specific costs at a time when the state is looking at decreasing funding.” “Since your committee got into funding, can you tell me WHERE in the Department of Education budget we can cut the budget?” (silence).

The audience seemed taken aback by the confrontational tone to Education Committee Chairman Rous who is as respectful as any member of the legislature and has taken great care to explain all the work by her committee on this charter school bill.

Rous responded: “The bill we amended did address finance, but by adjusting the numbers we were addressing a policy issue. We did not suggest taking money from other programs. There was some thought that on occasion there is a balance or interest in the education trust fund.”

To which Smith firmly replied: “There IS NO education trust fund—it’s a term of art! And no special pockets exist.”

Rous continued: “It was a daunting task this committee had, looking at one very small and important group of schools and finding a way to finance these in a way that is different from the majority of other schools.”

Representative Casey also implored: “I can’t tell you how important it is that these schools be affirmed and funded. In fact, these schools represent and symbolize that New Hampshire is starting to embrace new schools that fit all our children. It’s going to take time to craft really good legislation,” and she stated that she was willing to take on that task.

“There is no question that we inherited a flawed system,” said Rous. And she implored that the legislature needed to make this right.

When the Department of Education provided comment, Administrator Roberta Tenney said: “It’s crucial to address funding for us (the Department of Education) to receive continued money. These charter schools are nicely dispersed throughout the state. They are a safety valve for districts and have proven their worth.”

To which Chairman Smith replied: “How does this one-year solution differ from last year’s one-year solution?”

DOE’s Sarah Browning explained: “Last year only 3 schools got some of the extra state funding. Until there is a solution there will be more one-year fixes. We must find a long-term solution but in the interim we must have a short-term solution.”

With this, Representative Eaton noticed the time, thanked all present for their participation and listening, and dismissed the subcommittee.

At a later time in the afternoon, the House Finance Subcommittee, Division II, met again, heard an appeal from member Ken Weyler, and voted 5:2 not to support House Bill 1642.

This vote now goes to the full Finance Committee, which likely will support the Division II subcommittee unless other members of the finance committee themselves decide the subcommittee’s vote was unreasonable. Either way, the bill goes to the full House for a floor vote between Monday and Thursday, March 17th to 20th. And there, the legislators will decide which committee’s recommendation to support.