an act establishing an education certificate
program to allow parental choice in the selection of schools
for children.
last updated 02/27/03, 6:00PM
The following information has been provided by a proponent.
The bill has the following features:
-
All children would be eligible for a certificate to send their child
to a any public, private, or home school that wants to participate.
Schools don't have to participate.
-
The certificate would be for approx. $3300 or the cost of an adequate
education as defined by the Dept. of Ed. - NH.
-
A certificate for home schoolers would be $1,000.
-
We specifically put a section into the bill that says - no new
additional government regulations are to be imposed on any participating
school.
-
This is not a rescue bill for a select number of students or a select
number of schools. It is fair and inclusive.
-
We believe it would open up choice opportunities for disabled
children too.
-
The dollar amount is high enough to perhaps encourage new schools to
open.
-
But most of all, it would provide market forces in the form of
competition to improve the level of education in all schools in NH as
well as help the home schoolers.
We are concerned that the House and Senate Education Committees that
review the bill first, will try to water it down to limit the scope of
the bill in order to please the teachers' unions. Thus, individual
citizens must contact the people on these committees to demand that they
not ruin this bill.
If you know of anyone who might be interested in reading the bill and
perhaps contacting some reps., I can send them a packet of information.
I have forms letters that people can just sign, and I can send people the
names and addresses of their reps. and senators.
I appreciate anything you can do!
Kathy Getchell, Co-Coordinator (603-432-3376)
Education Advisory Committee - NH Republican State Committee
02/12/03 -- from Diane LaChance
Dear Elaine, Abbey and Chris,
In the year and a half I have homeschooled I have had the
opportunity to hear each of you express yourselves regarding a
number of homeschooling issues. I have respect for the way you
each have conveyed your opinions with supporting information,
and most importantly with an understanding of the history of
homeschooling here in NH. This is why I write to you today.
In the last week I have been reading, and trying to understand
the full meaning of the proposed Education Certificate Act, HB754
(formerly LSR 218) which is scheduled for a hearing on March 3,
2003. It is my hope that each of you might provide me with
additional insight as to how this bill might benefit or harm
homeschoolers.
My homeschooling experience does not yet outweigh, in time spent,
our public schooling experience. Even though by more important
measures homeschooling has outweighed the public school, many times
over, I still have fresh in my mind the most important factors
which led (drove) me to homeschooling. In reading this proposed
bill I am finding myself in great favor of its passage. My
interest lies not in the possible $1000 certificate for
homeschoolers, but in the dissolution of the governments' monopoly
on our education tax dollars. I remain skeptical about accepting
any tax dollars, as a homeschooler, if the bill should pass as
written. I am not sure the language is strong enough, or that it
has addressed all possible angles. For me, this is not a concern
as long as the option of taking the money still lies in my control.
This is not the "carrot" which lures me to want to support this
bill. Again I am specifically excited about the ability of this
bill to end the monopoly the government has on our education tax
dollars. I agree with the bills' assessment of our current
educational crisis. My position is that the government should not
be in the business of education, but that opinion is a "far cry"
from today's reality. This bill seems to be a very effective way
to begin the process of getting the government out of the business
of education, and putting every child's education back into the
hands of the parents/guardians. My view is that the government
will not be able to compete with private education opportunities.
How that would change things, ultimately, is anyone's guess.
I am of the mind that it can only be better than what we have now.
Attending a couple of HEAC meetings provided me with a great
appreciation for how important it is to understand the history
of homeschooling before leaping ahead with some of the seemingly
good ideas that have come to my attention in the last year and a
half. With this bill I am torn between wanting to support that
which would be a positive change for many children and with
trying to protect the even higher ideal of homeschooling. My
child must live in a world where the majority of his peers are
being educated in ways which I think are detrimental to us all,
as a society. I feel an obligation to do what I can to improve
the opportunities for all children. Anything you could contribute
to my assessment of this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Diane Lachance
02/15/03 -- from Chris Hamilton
There are a number of problems with the bill:
-
There is a conflict between the following parts of the bill:
- No enrollment discrimination based on race, sex, or creed
shall be allowed for schools that accept certificates.
- Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose
additional restrictions on participating schools.
Currently we have single-sex private schools in NH. Will they be
permitted to continue these enrollment policies and accept
educational certificates, or not?
- The bill may require a constitutional amendment in order
to allow the use of education certificates at Catholic and other
religious schools.
-
I believe the following provision is in conflict with federal law.
-
The funding...for educationally disabled students attending
nonpublic schools...shall be the responsibility of the parent.
-
It is not clear that the use of the word "school" in the following
sentence is adequate to protect home education programs from
further regulation:
- Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose
additional restrictions on participating schools.
-
There are a number of places where the language is not appropriate
to the adminstration of certificate for home education programs:
- The appropriate officials for each nonpublic school
or home education program shall decide whether that
school shall participate in the certificate program.
Does this mean that the participating agency gets to decide
if a home education program participates? Wouldn't it make
more sense to have language explicitly stating that parents
decide for home education programs?
- Children do not apply to and are not admitted by
home education programs:
- Nonpublic schools or home education programs may admit
children with certificates who apply...
- Nonpublic schools and home education programs shall
establish criteria for the admission of children with
certificates...
- The parent shall present the certificate for payment
to the nonpublic school or home education program to be
redeemed.
- OK, so the parent presents the certificate to herself...
- The parent shall present the certificate for payment
to the ... home education program to be redeemed.
- Do the sponsors really intend to provide chauffeur service
to all our home education activities?
- The local school district in which a child resides
shall be obligated to provide transportation for a child
to the ... home education program of his or her parent's
choice, provided the or home education program is within
the local school district.
-
Can we take "school-age child" to be a child as defined by the
compulsory attendance law? If so, are 16- and 17-year-olds included
or excluded? If it is not defined in that way, what definition is
to be used? Home education programs do not have grade levels
attached. How do we know that a child in a home-educated program is
in grade K-12? What about the fact that parents of 5- 16- and
17-year-olds are not currently required by state law to create
home education programs? Can they voluntarily create them in order
to be eligible for educational certificates? Can parents create a
home education program for a 3 year-old and use it for a nonpublic
or home education kindergarten program?
-
There's nothing in the bill about how non-public schools
or home education programs apply to the state for re-imbursement,
or even requiring the state to re-imburse them.
-
The funding analysis is incomplete. Yes, total
expenditures by the state will be higher over the next three years.
But after that they will go down somewhat because the
allocations to districts will finally reflect lower attendance
levels from children switching to nonpublic schools and
home education programs. Also, to the extent that public schools
have lower enrollments, local property taxes should decrease
somewhat, because almost all districts need to supplement the
adequate education payment from the state with local property
taxes.
02/17/03 -- from Rep Kenneth Weyler, prime sponsor
HB 754 introduces a new concept to New Hampshire education. That is, the parent should
have the right to make the choice for the child's education, and the state, accepting the role that
the population, collectively, benefits from having all our children educated, will support the parents
choice by giving either the adequate education grant money, or a $1000 stipend for
home-schooling.
Every other choice bill I have seen starts with a presumption that the local school board
must have some say in your choice. I am sensitive to your criticism that some of the references
to home-schoolers in the same sentence with private schools are somewhat misleading. I had to
send the first draft back because it didn't accomplish what we wanted, and the second draft
came out late in the cycle. This left us with little opportunity to perfect it as much as we would
have liked. There is always a chance for the committe to amend. But therein lies the problem that
the opponents will try to make it unworkable with an amendment. Wish us luck, and please try to
support the concept. This may be our last best chance.
Please send any suggestions for change to both
Kathy Getchell
and to
me.
We are very worried that the opponents of the bill will ask to
amend it also. We can be sure that those amendments will be
designed to make it meaningless.
02/19/03 -- from Rep Kenneth Weyler, prime sponsor
Explanation of differences between HB754 and other school
choice/tax abatement bills
HB 754 creates a whole new system, the education certificate. The
program is funded by the adequate education grant. That grant is
the per pupil amount that is presently sent to each town based on
the number of pupils that town has in the public school.In other
words it is state money. Although half of the money is generally
raised by the statewide property tax, it is still considered state
money.
Both HB 603 and HB 756 appear to use municipal money. The intent
of both bills is to give tax abatements. I have seen bills in the
past that attempted to do that get defeated on two grounds. One,
the taxpayers who do not send any children to school could argue
that they too are entitled to a rebate. Two, any time a bill that
has the state telling the municipality how they shall spend their
money is attacked with the statement, "28a." This is a reference
to the constitution that says, if the state wants something done
the state must pay for it.
HB 754 gives the grant to the parent, so that should remove the
argument that the childless must be treated the same. It allows
the parent the choice therfore the court has ruled that if the
parent gives the certificate to a religous school, then it is the
parent and not the state that is supporting religon.
The amounts are vastly different. HB 756 talks about $300, 603
talks about half the cost. HB 754 puts the amount at the biannually
determined adequate grant. For the present biennium that amount is
$3311 for an elementary student, and 1.2 times that for a high
school student, or about $3973. These amounts were expected to be
increased to $3551 for the elementary student, and again 1.2 times
that for the high school student, or $4261, if I did the math
right.
2/25/03 Letter from Jane Grady to Rep Introne
The Honorable Robert E. Introne
8 Everts Street
Londonderry, NH 03053
RE: HB-754
Dear Mr. Introne:
As one of your constituents, I am writing to express concern regarding
the proposed legislation, of which you are a co-sponsor, referenced
above. This bill, as it is presently written, contains serious flaws.
Thankfully, we do not have "government-a-la-carte" in this country.
However, HB-754 uses precisely this approach to education funding.
I believe that HB-754 is a simplistic approach to a complex problem
and will further damage a system already in need of repair.
One of the stated goals of HB-754 is to use competition as a tool to
improve school cost-effectiveness and quality. While this model may
apply in industry when bringing a product to market, legislators would
do well to remember that children are not "products" and that the
processes, techniques, and facilities required for educating young
minds do not constitute an industry. Using subsidized competition
as a motivational tool will only serve to further undermine and
eviscerate educational programs and severely limit public educational
options.
All segments of a community benefit from an educated population.
As long as state government remains in the business of public
education, it is incumbent on each elected representative to formulate
and enact just policies designed to provide and support quality public
education. I am presently in my eighth year of educating my own
children at home. However, as a member of this community it is both
my privilege and duty to contribute to the education of all children
in the community. To paraphrase Franklin D. Roosevelt, when my
neighbor's house is burning, I lend him my hose.
In addition to the concerns briefly discussed above, as a home
educator, I am uncomfortable with the wording in this bill.
Language presently contained in the bill could readily undermine
statutory protections afforded to home education programs. For
example, the use of the word "schools" in the following excerpt
weakens protection for home education programs.
"IV. Participating schools shall be permitted
flexibility to educate pupils in accordance with the school's
educational mission. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to
impose additional restrictions on participating schools."
(emphasis added)
Much of the language contained in the bill makes participation
confusing and difficult for home education programs. If the intent
is to include home education programs, there should be very specific
language explicitly stating guidelines for participation by home
education programs. Simply adding the phrase "home education program"
as a parenthetical afterthought to various provisions in the bill may
seem adequate, but fails to accurately address the valid and unique
needs of home education and is ironically inconsistent with the bill's
stated aim to "reach beyond … adequacy to … excellence".
Am I to expect the Londonderry School District to provide
transportation to the various educational venues for my children
and others in our community who are educated at home? There are
weekly literature groups, practices, instructional programs,
field trips, trips to the library for research, to name just a few,
for groups of children educated at home. Many of these locations
are within the geographical boundaries of the Londonderry School
District. Locations and times for participants in home education
programs frequently change in order to most effectively meet the
educational needs of the individual students. The group sizes can
vary from 2 children to as many as 20 or more children. Additionally,
"home education" generally means that at least one parent is actively
involved in most, if not all, of a child's education. Will parents
be transported courtesy of the Londonderry School District as well,
since they are an integral part of the home education program?
The logistics and expense of an undertaking of this magnitude would
be prohibitive. As a taxpayer, I expect tax revenues to be used in
the most efficient manner possible - I do not believe this proposal
will result in effective or efficient use of taxpayer money.
I am committed to education and am certain of its importance to each
member of society. Furthermore, I am convinced that one of the
fundamental liberties we enjoy in this country and must diligently
protect is access to education for all. However, making education
available to all does not mean that government must provide or mandate
funding for all educational options.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you would like to discuss
these matters further.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Jane A. Grady
cc: The Honorable Kenneth L. Weyler
23 Scotland Road
Kingston, NH 03848