A recent comment on a letter in our local newspaper made me decide to
discuss the issue of
education and how the proposed budget cuts
recently passed by the House will affect both public education and
property tax payers. The Honorable Romeo Danais stated that “all sides
agreed that the average cost of education for a public school student
was approx. $14,000./student, yet, the state only awards $7,000./student
for charter schools.” He then goes on to give his explanation of
why state aid to education would cost taxpayers less if funding went to
charter rather than regular public schools.
Where Danais misleads, inadvertently I am sure, is that while the state actually awards that $7000 times the average daily student membership (ADM) to the charter school, the state only awards $3561.27 in 2015 adequacy grants x ADM per regular public school student. See education.nh.gov/data.
So, while the average cost of educating a NH student IS $14,000, the difference between what is award by the state and what a community spends is a made up by local property taxpayers.
There is some additional money beyond the $3661.27 awarded by the state for the number of students in a school who meet the following criteria:
1780.63 per child eligible for free or reduced lunch
1915.86 per child receiving certain special needs services
697.77 per child eligible for English Language Learners
697.77 per child not proficient in 3rd grade testing, but only if child not eligible for any of the above.
Thus, a school with one or more children receiving those services could increase the award to the school based on which services and how many students. However only a small number of students fit all three additional award categories and those schools which do educate such students would still be awarded only $7955.53 in state funding per identified child. It turns out that the average amount of state funding awarded in NH per pupil is $2000 more for charter school students than for students attending regular public schools.
I am not opposed to charter schools. I have met parents who are very happy with the ones their children attend and they have seen their children blossom. But with the already inadequate funding for public schools, compounded by the $50,000,000 cut to public education in the recently passed House budget, current funding must be directed to where it is most needed, and that is not new charter schools.
Charter schools do not have the fiscal responsibilities of public school districts. They do not have the costs of owning and maintaining school buildings and grounds. They do not provide transportation or after school sports/programs. The do not bear ELL or special needs costs nor responsibility for outside placement. They do not have expenses related to speech, hearing, and occupational therapy services. These costs are standard in public school budgets because public schools educate every child. And, public schools cannot require as a condition of acceptance that parents actively engage in the education of their child.
Representative Danais also questioned a comment that education and other costs that in the past have been born by the state will now be downshifted to localities. School funding is just one example. On average, each town will lose 10 percent of its stabilization award. Taxpayers in our four towns can pay the cost of meetings to restructure school budgets and try to renegotiate contracts with providers and staff, or they can pay more property taxes to make up the difference. Either way they pay because the state does not meet previously-agreed-to obligations. This is downshifting. [I am planning to write about other downshifting that will affect local property tax payers in the near future.]
These cuts to education were not in the budget originally proposed by the House Finance Committee. The $50,000,000 came about because of the outcry after the $88,000,000 cut to the DOT budget became public. To restore some DOT funding, education was cut instead. Everyone driving on public roads can see potholes. Education costs are more hidden and directly affect fewer of us, so the outcry is less. Indirectly, of course, all of us are affected when our state's children are less able to compete in an expanding world.
education and how the proposed budget cuts
recently passed by the House will affect both public education and
property tax payers. The Honorable Romeo Danais stated that “all sides
agreed that the average cost of education for a public school student
was approx. $14,000./student, yet, the state only awards $7,000./student
for charter schools.” He then goes on to give his explanation of
why state aid to education would cost taxpayers less if funding went to
charter rather than regular public schools.Where Danais misleads, inadvertently I am sure, is that while the state actually awards that $7000 times the average daily student membership (ADM) to the charter school, the state only awards $3561.27 in 2015 adequacy grants x ADM per regular public school student. See education.nh.gov/data.
So, while the average cost of educating a NH student IS $14,000, the difference between what is award by the state and what a community spends is a made up by local property taxpayers.
There is some additional money beyond the $3661.27 awarded by the state for the number of students in a school who meet the following criteria:
1780.63 per child eligible for free or reduced lunch
1915.86 per child receiving certain special needs services
697.77 per child eligible for English Language Learners
697.77 per child not proficient in 3rd grade testing, but only if child not eligible for any of the above.
Thus, a school with one or more children receiving those services could increase the award to the school based on which services and how many students. However only a small number of students fit all three additional award categories and those schools which do educate such students would still be awarded only $7955.53 in state funding per identified child. It turns out that the average amount of state funding awarded in NH per pupil is $2000 more for charter school students than for students attending regular public schools.
I am not opposed to charter schools. I have met parents who are very happy with the ones their children attend and they have seen their children blossom. But with the already inadequate funding for public schools, compounded by the $50,000,000 cut to public education in the recently passed House budget, current funding must be directed to where it is most needed, and that is not new charter schools.
Charter schools do not have the fiscal responsibilities of public school districts. They do not have the costs of owning and maintaining school buildings and grounds. They do not provide transportation or after school sports/programs. The do not bear ELL or special needs costs nor responsibility for outside placement. They do not have expenses related to speech, hearing, and occupational therapy services. These costs are standard in public school budgets because public schools educate every child. And, public schools cannot require as a condition of acceptance that parents actively engage in the education of their child.
Representative Danais also questioned a comment that education and other costs that in the past have been born by the state will now be downshifted to localities. School funding is just one example. On average, each town will lose 10 percent of its stabilization award. Taxpayers in our four towns can pay the cost of meetings to restructure school budgets and try to renegotiate contracts with providers and staff, or they can pay more property taxes to make up the difference. Either way they pay because the state does not meet previously-agreed-to obligations. This is downshifting. [I am planning to write about other downshifting that will affect local property tax payers in the near future.]
These cuts to education were not in the budget originally proposed by the House Finance Committee. The $50,000,000 came about because of the outcry after the $88,000,000 cut to the DOT budget became public. To restore some DOT funding, education was cut instead. Everyone driving on public roads can see potholes. Education costs are more hidden and directly affect fewer of us, so the outcry is less. Indirectly, of course, all of us are affected when our state's children are less able to compete in an expanding world.
