Private Kindergarten Allowed for Holdouts

By SARAH LIEBOWITZ

Private kindergartens in some parts of the state could soon see a spike in business.

Yesterday, House and Senate negotiators agreed to allow the state’s 12 kindergarten holdout school districts to contract with private providers for up to three years before offering the program in public schools. The agreement followed a tense standoff between lawmakers, with senators opposed to contracting with private providers and House members pushing to give districts even more time to rely on private kindergartens.

"Students who are served through private kindergartens lose many of the benefits of attending public school; they lose their links to a school community," said Sen. Iris Estabrook, a Durham Democrat who sponsored the original kindergarten bill, which offers the 12 districts various forms of state aid to help them create kindergarten programs.

"We continue to oppose it strongly," Estabrook said of the contracts.

"However, as we know, compromise is the art of what is possible," she added. After House lawmakers refused to limit the contracts with private providers to two years yesterday afternoon, Estabrook asked to be removed from the negotiating committee. Another senator took her place, and lawmakers eventually agreed to the three-year limit, one year less than House members wanted.

The bill now returns to the full House and Senate for final approval before going to Democratic Gov. John Lynch, who hasn’t said whether he will sign the proposal. Lynch will continue to review the bill, Lynch spokesman Colin Manning said yesterday. But Lynch "feels it’s important to give communities a transition, and this bill does that," Manning said.

Senators didn’t walk away empty-handed from the negotiations.

Yesterday, Senate President Sylvia Larsen, a Concord Democrat, asked House lawmakers to tack an amendment to the kindergarten bill to clarify a separate bill. That bill – which would create a school funding plan – recently passed the House and Senate and is now heading to Lynch, who hasn’t said whether he’ll support it.

At issue with the school funding plan are so-called donor towns, the term used by some to describe communities that send some of the statewide property tax, which is raised locally, to pay for education in other communities. Under the Senate amendment, there would be no "donor towns" in fiscal years 2010 or 2011.

The amendment, Larsen said, would simply clarify legislative intent. In addition, it might help assure Lynch, who opposes "donor towns," she said.

"It became apparent after the Department of Education looked at (the spending plan) that they felt there was some ambiguity about whether or not donor towns could be created if there were changes in property valuation," Larsen said. "So to guarantee that there would be no donor towns and to assure the governor that that was our intent, it was important."

Many take issue with the term "donor town," saying that raising money for education is a state responsibility.

Lawmakers crafted the spending plan to comply with the state Supreme Court, which has ruled that the state must pay for the full cost of an adequate education for every child in every district. The plan includes a base amount of state money for every public school student, and additional money depending on schools’ needs. To compensate for shifts in state aid under the proposed plan, lawmakers added money for communities low in property wealth and median family income.

In its original incarnation, the spending plan would have created some "donor towns." But in the House, lawmakers added a two-year transition period before the plan would take full effect. Under that proposal, communities standing to lose money under the new plan wouldn’t see a decline in state aid for several years, and communities due to receive more state aid would see their increases capped at 15 percent. The Senate agreed with the House change.

With that two-year transition period, lawmakers intended to "guarantee that there were no donor towns for these next two years," Larsen said. But although that was lawmakers’ intent, the point needed further clarity, she said.

House negotiators agreed to Larsen’s amendment, but many Republicans weren’t pleased with the change.

"We’re really repairing a problem in" the spending plan, said Rep. Kenneth Gould, a Derry Republican who sat on the negotiating committee. "I will not be able to sign this agreement."

House Deputy Republican Leader David Hess of Hooksett deemed the amendment a violation of House rules, which prohibit committees of conference from adding amendments "which are not germane to the subject matter of the bill as originally submitted." The issue, Hess said, will likely be debated on the House floor.

"It’s like baseball or football or basketball or hockey: You’ve got to play by the rules," Hess said.

The kindergarten bill, meanwhile, is an attempt to ease the transition for the state’s 12 holdout districts.

Last year, lawmakers decided to end New Hampshire’s status as the sole state not to offer kindergarten to every student. This year, lawmakers have grappled with how to bring the 12 remaining districts into compliance with the law.

Under the proposed kindergarten bill, all districts would have to offer public kindergarten by the fall of 2009. To help with construction costs, the bill would allow district officials to choose between a state grant to cover 75 percent of the actual cost of constructing kindergarten facilities or 100 percent of the cost of designing and constructing a basic, code-compliant kindergarten facility.

The state would also help the 12 districts with the cost of temporary classrooms, giving them a little more time to create permanent facilities. Districts could ask the state for financial assistance for furniture and equipment, and the state would dole out per-student grants for kindergarten pupils.

Under the plan, districts could contract with other public school districts to provide the service. Currently, the districts that don’t offer kindergarten are Hudson, Litchfield, Lyndeborough, Mason, Mascenic, Milford, Pelham, Auburn, Chester, Derry, Salem and Windham.

But when the kindergarten bill – which originated in the Senate – came to the House Finance Committee, lawmakers representing several of the holdout districts expressed concern that there wasn’t enough time for districts to construct kindergarten facilities and create programs by the fall of 2009.

Reps. Peter Leishman, a Milford Democrat, and Lynne Ober, a Hudson Republican, proposed allowing districts to contract with private providers.

The House eventually approved a plan that would allow districts to contract with private providers for no more than four years, on the condition that those providers meet state education standards.

In several days of negotiations with senators this week, Leishman held firm on the contracting provision, arguing that districts need the flexibility that contracting with private kindergartens would provide. Senators began the negotiations adamantly opposed to such contracts, but they eventually offered to allow districts to rely on private providers for up to two years.

Leishman, however, pushed back. "I don’t believe that two years is adequate. We heard testimony that maybe four years wouldn’t be adequate," he said. "I know several specific towns – it will be difficult to get this done in three years."

In the end, negotiators agreed to allow contracts with private kindergartens for up to three years. Larsen cautioned that such a solution "should be very temporary."

"I suspect that like all of the other private contracts, it will prove unsuccessful and we will in the long run finally accomplish what is our ultimate goal, which is public kindergarten for every child in a public setting," Larsen said.

Originally published by SARAH LIEBOWITZ Monitor staff.

(c) 2008 Concord Monitor. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.