Advocates on both side of the voucher issue laid out their basic financial cases yesterday before the House Finance Committee. This is just the opening salvo as the committee begins its analysis of the bill but it included unrealistic assertions by proponents that few children would actually use the generous vouchers and there would be enough extra money in the General Fund to cover any costs there might be. (Here is our assessment, “Virtually every student in New Hampshire could be eligible for a grant from the SB 193 voucher program.”)
The Concord Monitor this morning features the bill’s primary advocate in the House making the case that not many children would even be eligible:
…Republican Rep. Glenn Cordelli, a major proponent of Senate Bill 193, testified before the House Finance Committee that, according to state Department of Education figures, about 84,500 students would qualify for the “education savings accounts” – a voucher-like program – that the bill would create.
That figure includes the number of students who currently qualify for free and reduced-price lunch and who are on special education plans. It also includes an estimate for the number of students who don’t qualify for free and reduced-price lunch but would nevertheless meet the bill’s income eligibility criteria.
But what it doesn’t include is the number of students who might qualify for the program under its other eligibility criteria – like applying to a charter school but not being admitted – and for which it could be difficult to find good data.
How many students would ultimately qualify for the program – and how many would decide to take advantage of it – will be critical questions as the bill moves forward in a notoriously penny-pinching Legislature. The bill would allow families who pull their children from public school and use the state aid that would have gone to the district on private educational expenses instead….
To sway certain moderate Republicans who worried about the bill’s potential impact on local school districts, the bill was amended to include so-called “stabilization grants” to partially reimburse districts for losses tied to the program.
“I do not think that the dollar amount for the stabilization amount is going to be very significant,” Cordelli said. “I believe there is money in the education trust fund or the general fund.”
A study released in December by public school advocacy organization Reaching Higher New Hampshire calculated that the bill would cost the state $31 million in new spending over five years – assuming just under 50,000 qualified for the program, and 3 percent of those eligible used the program.
Opposition to the bill, especially from the public school sector, has mostly focused on the legislation’s potential impact on the finances of local districts. And multiple superintendents reiterated those worries Tuesday, adding that the state’s cuts to existing school aid programs – like building aid and special education funding – made them loath to believe the Legislature would keep its promise where the bill’s hold-harmless provision was concerned.
But how much the legislation could cost the state in new spending will likely become a key debate……