HTC voucher presentation

I gave a brief report on vouchers for the town council this evening. My intention was not to propose a system but to introduce the options. I also suggested that they create a panel to create a list of options.

I began be describing the process. The town collects approximately $8000 per student from local revenues. Another approx $4000 comes from the state. We could put a line of text into the Hopkinton Charter that says something to the effect of – ‘any parent that does not want their child attending Chariho or a charter school will receive an education voucher in the amount determined by the Hopkinton Town Council…’

There were several questions from the council – enrolment numbers, weighting formulas, participation with chariho, bond obligations, transportation, legal authority, homeschoolers and others I’m probably forgetting. Use this post to ask questions and I will try to answer. Here is what we did cover.

I was asked to get raw enrolment numbers. I suggested that we could get census data to find the number of school aged kids, then pull out Chariho, and estimated home schoolers and drop-outs. This could give us a rough estimate of the number of kids in private schools. The church may also be able to provide estimates.

Weighting formulas. This is most common with special ed or English Second Language students in other schools. A formula has been developed for the state that weights students. A ‘regular ed’ student uses a multiplier of 1. A 504 student might be 1.10. A student with an IEP might be 1.25. And RYSE students are already calculated when we tuition in a child from outside the district (approx $50,000).

Participation with Chariho. There is no reason for us NOT to continue our partial ownership and participation with Chariho. Even if, and this is nearly impossible, but even if 100% of Hopkinton students left Chariho, we would still have ownership from our previous investment. We just wouldn’t be paying them any money because we pay on enrollment. If it ever got to this point I would suspect that the other towns would protest and try to force us to change the Chariho Act. Wouldn’t that be an interesting turn of the table.

This was a concern in the last bond. It said we would pay 1/3 of the bond. So even if all of our kids left Chariho, we would still be obligated to pay 1/3 of the debt if that bond language was approved.

Transportation. RI is unique in that the current law requires that the local public district provide transportation for a student to go to any school in the region (larger than the district). So transportation would continue to be covered by the district – HOWEVER- If you recall a previous school committee meeting, we found out that we pay $442 a day ($78k to $98k per year) to run a small bus up to providence with 1-2 students. At that time we suggested that Ricci go to the parents and ask them if we could buy them a new car if they could get the kid to Providence every day (tongue in cheek but it would be much cheaper). Nothing happened and when I asked Ricci about it he said that they had not done anything because transportation is going to become a statewide expense. So to answer the concern brought up by Bev Kenney, if transportation goes the way suggested by Ricci, it won’t be an issue for the voucher program.

Legal authority. The Zelman case (listed in footnotes of letter below) said that as long as a parent has 100% control over the where the money is spent then there is no church and state violation.

RI constitutional law supports this ruling:

“except in fulfillment of such person’s voluntary contract”

And Bowerman notes that the RI’s Compelled Support Clause is no more restrictive than the federal Establishment Clause.

So the feds say its ok, the RI constitution uses similar language and case law says we can’t use CSC to a greater restriction than the EC.

Home Schoolers. Personally, I would like to offer reimbursement to home schoolers for expenses. But having spoken with a couple of them, I think they would only take it if it is guaranteed to NOT come with any restrictions or reporting requirements. We do provide them with books, but it’s not always done. They do have travel expenses for trips besides the normal assortment of pencils, paper, etc that could be part of the program.

There were other questions but those were the bulk of it. Basically, the town makes two decisions – 1) who will get vouchers and 2) for how much. As an example, do you provide a small voucher for everyone, including people who are already in a public school? Or do you provide larger vouchers for just a small population, perhaps parents who make less than $XXX. There are many variations of vouchers and I tried to just provide options without putting too much of my opinion on what features to use.

Town Manager Bill DiLibero asked the practical financial worst case scenario question (which we should expect from his position). If we had 50 students already in private school and we gave out $4000 vouchers – that would total $200,000 in new expenses. We would need 50 students to leave Chariho in order to save enough money to pay for vouchers for all 100 students. I suggested that in many areas they mean-test the vouchers for a period of time to allow the savings to take hold. It stands to reason that most kids in private schools now are in higher income homes (simply because of the costs). By means testing eligibility for the first year or two, it will essentially grandfather in the parents for enough time for the parents to react to the vouchers.

There are several options – some vouchers aren’t vouchers at all but simply tax credits. Some vouchers are only good for special ed – some for those under poverty times X – many many options.

Finally, there was one negative concern from the public, Doreen Dolan to be specific. She expresses the same concerns as does commenter CharihoParent. She did not want her taxes going to a religious establishment that she might not agree with. I explained that it currently already happens but she said it was just her property taxes that she was concerned about. So I tried to explain that taxes are fluid and money paid to the state has an impact on money given and gotten from the feds and one should look at all taxes in the same light – but that didn’t change her position. So then I explained the law and that these are settled issues. It is understood that taxes are fungible and all our money already goes to Muslim, Catholic, and anti-religious exploits such as the famous “Piss Christ” piece of “art.” Anything that is non-profit by definition is subsidized by taxes. I did not bother to explain that there are parents here who do not like their money going to support certain social advocacy groups at Chariho. I don’t think it would have mattered.

Finally, I offered the resources that I had found – for legal help there is the Friedman Foundation and the Institute for Justice. I also said I was willing to look for a school to occupy the 1904 building if we get to that point.

I hope that the council decides to move forward with this option. You might consider telling them how you feel.