The New Hampshire legislature is pushing forward with a voucher bill (HB 20) without regard to cost or research.
The research is clear: students who leave public schools to use vouchers lose ground compared to their peers in public schools. Vouchers won’t close achievement gaps; they will widen them.
The cost, according to a New Hampshire think tank, is likely to be $100 million. Reaching Higher New Hampshire speculates about what else the state might do with $100 million.
Lawmakers will continue to hear testimony on HB 20, the statewide voucher bill, on Thursday, February 11.Reaching Higher NH’s analysis has found that as proposed, HB 20 could cost the state up to $100 million per year in new state spending because the state would begin paying for private-school and home-school students.
As proposed, HB 20 would provide those families with between $3,700-$8,400 per year in a taxpayer-funded “education freedom account,” or voucher, to pay for private school tuition, homeschooling costs, and other education-related expenses.
Money wasted, that could be used to reduce class size, or lower taxes.
The pandemic has taken an especially difficult toll on our young people. Prior to the pandemic, experts estimated that 20% of school aged youth need mental health support; yet, most don’t have access to mental health professionals. Most of those who do receive care, receive it in their school. In fact, research suggests that youth are more likely to receive counseling when services are available in their school — and in some cases, schools are the only places that students can receive care. The need for mental health support has never been greater. For about $57 million per year, the state could place a mental health counselor in every school — public and charter — in New Hampshire.
[…] New Hampshire: Voucher Bill Will Cost $100 Million per Year — Diane Ravitch’s blog […]
Thought the attached oped might be of some interest to you. Appreciate you and your work more than words can say. Deanna
>
New Hampshire residents should also realize that the public schools will be forced to lose $100 million in funding. It will mean a larger class size for students and fewer services for vulnerable students. Privatization robs the public schools that serve all students so that money can be spent on under performing voucher schools. So many students will fall through the cracks in unaccountable private schools.
Last I checked I was in moderation, but I’ll give it a shot anyway: When’s the last time a commenter here expressed serious concern about the fact that millions of students have not seen the inside of a classroom since last March? Weeks? Months? Longer? Is this a taboo subject for fear of playing into the arguments of those who want open schools?
Living near Chicago, I have been able to track the public fight between City Hall and the teachers union. Petty and vindictive. The problem, as I see it, is the desire to treat every school and every neighborhood as a part of one homogeneous system. It isn’t. Everyone wants to be back in school SAFELY! The science is clear that certain criteria have to be met for that to be possible. For some people that is impossible. for some school buildings that is impossible. For some neighborhoods that is impossible. I am sure I am getting these numbers wrong, but the absurdity should be evident. 30% of students want in-person instruction but the city wanted all staff in the buildings. Some teachers whose students are staying fully remote were being forced to return to school buildings. Staff requests for waivers because of health issues for themselves or household members were being denied for some. agreement has been reached for the time being, but I don’t think anyone will forget.
https://www.forevermissed.com/richard-elmore/about#|gallery|photo|2301853
>
Can the money be used for college savings?
I know the cost of college must be on your mind now, but I hope you are not even thinking that taking $100 million from K-12 public schools would be at all justified by diverting some to college savings. Schools are already underfunded. Taking funds means cutting services.