Reaching Higher NH did a full analysis of the community level impact of the new proposed amendments to SB 193 under consideration in the Finance Committee. As part of that analysis, they ran the numbers for two scenarios to show the potential impacts of participation rates in SB 193:
Scenario 1, the conservative scenario, shows the financial impact on the each school district based upon conservative participation rates that consider the availability of private school seats. In this scenario the maximum annual participation rate for any district is 2.5%.
Scenario 2, the maximum scenario, shows the financial impact on districts if the maximum number of students allowable participate in SB 193 (based upon the caps set in the most recent amendments under consideration. Under this scenario participation rates range from 3% to 5% (of eligible students) based upon the size of the district (as we discuss here in our outline of the current proposed amendment).
Here is a summary table that presents the figures for each scenario for each community for both 1 year and the 11 years that legislators want to see.
These financial impact numbers are projections based on a number of legitimate factors but are not firm or inevitable figures. Analysis by both the LBA and Reaching Higher NH shows that property poor communities with large numbers of students qualified for Free and Reduced Priced Lunch (family income at or below 185% of poverty) will be the hardest hit by SB 193. That’s what the summary table shows.
Readers should be sure that their House members are aware of these figures. School districts must be prepared for the kind of impact shown on the summary table. Even if some of these property poort communities were able to cut some education services in response to the reduction in state education aid, the revenue loss over time would be larger than the cuts and taxes rates would rise as a result of SB 193’s sift of adequacy funding to private education.
Biased reporting at its best!! You aren’t showing the savings in getting s kid out of the classroom, and suddenly you care more about the money than the kids education.
When school districts ram tax increases down our throats it’s always. “It’s for the kids” now, any threat of an increase in taxes is unacceptable to you.
Fact, it will not increase tax.
Fact, it will increase the dollars per kid the school district can spend.
If your school district loses a lot of kids over the long term, cost per student will go up but, yes, costs will go down some and the schools shrink. But losing state support for next year can only result in some combination of reduced education quality and increased property taxes. Don’t take it from us. Go to the next meeting of your elected school board or budget committee and ask about the impact of these kinds of cuts. These are the folks you elect to manage the quality of your schools and the tax impact.
There’s no independent foreign entity ramming anything, Jim. It’s your elected folks doing their best for the community’s kids. Whatever the challenges are, sending a few kids to private schools isn’t going to be solution.