Live Free and Learn: A Case Study of New Hampshire's Scholarship Tax Credit Program

8/12/2019 Live Free and Learn: A Case Study of New Hampshire's Scholarship Tax Credit Program

1/24

C A S ES T U D Y NUMBER 19 February 2014

I. INTRODUCTION

It has long been recognized thata democratic society requires aneducated citizenry. Educationnot only confers benefits to theindividual, such as higher incomeand greater life expectancy, but alsoto society. Education enhances civicengagement,1reduces crime,2andincreases GDP.3However, differentchildren have different educationalneeds and the international evidencesuggests that the superior educationsystems are those that provide choiceand competition.4For these reasons,policymakers have sought innovativemethods of expanding educationalopportunities, including scholarshiptax credit (SC) programs.

An SC program grants tax creditsto individuals and/or corporations

who contribute to approved, non-profit scholarship organizations(SOs) that help low- and middle-income families send their childrento the schools of their choice.Tere are currently more than150,000 students participatingin 14 SC programs operatingin 11 states, including Arizona(individual, corporate, and specialneeds), Florida, Georgia, Indiana,

Iowa, Louisiana, New Hampshire,Oklahoma, Pennsylvania (low-income and failing schools), RhodeIsland, and Virginia.5

In order to facilitate a betterunderstanding of how SCprograms work in practice, this

ADVANCING LIBERTY WITH RESPONSIBILITY

BY PROMOTING MARKET SOLUTIONS

FOR MISSOURI PUBLIC POLICY

Live Free and Learn:A Case Study of New Hampshires

Scholarship Tax Credit Program

By Jason Bedrick


2/24

CASE STUDY I SHOW-ME INSTITUTE

2

Tere arecurrently morethan 150,000students

participating in14 scholarshiptax credit

programsoperating in 11states.

paper summarizes the available researchon SC programs in general and presentsa case study on New Hampshires SCprogram in particular.

As discussed in Section II, the

overwhelming consensus of high-qualityresearch finds that educational choiceprograms improve student outcomes forboth participants and those students whoremain in their assigned district schools.Tis is one of many reasons that parentsgive for their extraordinarily high levelsof satisfaction with educational choiceprograms, along with teacher quality,school responsiveness to parental needs,improvement in student behavior, andmore. Moreover, fiscal impact studies haveconsistently found that scholarship taxcredit programs produce these benefitswhile saving money for taxpayers.

In 2012, the New Hampshire Legislaturepassed the Opportunity Scholarship Act(OSA), the first scholarship tax creditprogram to allow scholarships to covercertain homeschooling expenses. SectionIII details the OSAs program design and

outlines the legislative and legal challengesto the program.

Te OSAs first-year implementationis discussed in Section IV, includingthe results of a survey of the parents ofscholarship recipients. Since the OSA wentinto effect, the Network for EducationalOpportunity, New Hampshires first andso far only active scholarship organization,distributed $128,340 in scholarships to

103 students for the 2013-14 school year.Ninety-one percent of those recipients arefrom families with income low enough toqualify for the federal National SchoolLunch program.

Te survey found that 97 percent ofparents of scholarship recipients aresatisfied with their chosen private or home

schools, 68 percent noticed measurableacademic improvement since receivingthe scholarship, and 74 percent ofprivate school parents reported that theywould have been unable to afford tuition

without the scholarship. Tese findingsare consistent with previous research anddemonstrate once again the promise ofeducational choice programs.

II. RESEARCH ON

EDUCATIONAL CHOICE

Educational Choice Leads toImproved Student Outcomes

Few policies in the realm of education habeen studied as extensively as educationalchoice. Te research literature providesstrong evidence that educational choiceprograms raise student performance.6Eleven of 12 random-assignment stud-iesthe gold standard of social scienceresearch7found that educational choiceprograms had a positive impact on theacademic performance of some or allcategories of participating students.8Onl

one study found no statistically significanpositive impact. No gold standard studyhas found a negative impact. Other recenstudies have found that educational choicprograms produce higher graduation ratehigher college enrollment,10and evenincreased civic-mindedness.11

Educational choice programs can alsobenefit district school students becausethey create an incentive for schools tocompete for students. A recent study ofFloridas SC program found that it hada small but statistically significant positiimpact on the academic performance ofdistrict school students in response to thincreased competition.12

A global literature review of studiescomparing education systems that are


3/24

Number 18 I February 2014

Te survey foundthat 97 percent

of parents ofscholarship

recipients aresatisfied with

their chosen

private or homeschools.

more market-like (i.e., those with minimalregulations that are at least partiallyfunded directly by the parents) againstthose with more centralized governmentcontrol found that it is the least regulated

market school systems that show thegreatest margin of superiority over stateschooling.13Among other outcomes,the more market-like education systemsproduced higher student achievement,greater parental satisfaction, andhigher attainment levels than the morecentralized education systems, on average.

Families Are Highly SatisfiedWith Educational Choice

A chief measure of the success of educationalchoice programs is parental satisfaction. Ina recent study of Georgias scholarship taxcredit program by the Friedman Foundationfor Educational Choice, 98.6 percent ofrespondents reported being satisfied orvery satisfied with their chosen schoolsrelative to their previous experience in anassigned district school.14In 2010, a surveycommissioned by the Florida Department ofEducation found that 75.1 percent of familiesin their SC program said their schoolswere excellent and 20.3 percent said theywere good, for a combined approval ratinggreater than 95 percent.15A 2009 FriedmanFoundation study went further, askingscholarship recipients about their satisfactionregarding a variety of factors relative to theirprevious experience in the governmentdistrict school system. Te report found:

80 percent of the parents were very

satisfied with the academic progresstheir children are making in their chosenindependent schools, compared to 4percent in their previous public schools.

80 percent were very satisfied withthe individual attentiontheir childrenreceived at their chosen schools,compared to 4 percent in public schools.

76 percent were very satisfied withthe teacher qualityin their chosenschools, compared to 7 percent inpublic schools.

76 percent were very satisfied with

their chosen schools responsiveness totheir needs,compared to 4 percent inpublic schools.

62 percent were very satisfied withthe student behaviorin their chosenschools, compared to 3 percent inpublic schools.16

Tat such high levels of scholarshiprecipients reported being more satisfied

with their chosen schools than with theirassigned district schools does not meanthat public school parents in general areunsatisfied with their childrens school.However, this clearly demonstrates thatdistrict schools are not meeting the needsof a significant segment of the population.Educational choice programs allow suchfamilies to select educational alternativesthat do meet their childrens needs.

Even where survey data is not available,the behavior of parents indicates a strongdemand for educational choice. InPennsylvania, for example, demand farexceeds available scholarships. Just a singlescholarship organization, the ChildrensScholarship Fund Philadelphia, had toturn away more than 90 percent of themore than 125,000 scholarship applicantsover the last 12 years.17

Te Friedman Foundation study of

Georgias SC program also sheds light onwhat parents value most about education.Not surprisingly, different parents prioritizeddifferent things. Te study found:

Te top five reasons why parentschose a private school for theirchildren are all related to schoolclimate and classroom management,


4/24


4

including better student discipline(50.9 percent), better learningenvironment (50.8 percent), smallerclass sizes (48.9 percent), improvedstudent safety (46.8 percent), and

more individual attention for mychild (39.3 percent).18

What parents value can depend on theindividual needs of their children orthe circumstances they would otherwiseface at their assigned district schools.For example, the parent of a studentwith learning disabilities might seek outa school that provides more individualattention while a parent whose child wasbullied might seek a school with better

student discipline. Likewise, when aparents child is assigned to an unsafedistrict school, safety naturally becomes

a top priority. By contrast, parents wholive in areas where safety can be taken fogranted are likely to place a higher prioron other matters. Educational choiceprograms allow parents to select the

schools that best meet their childs needsScholarship ax Credits Can ExpanChoices While Saving Money

Te existing scholarship tax creditprograms were designed to save statesmoney. Tough the tax credits decreasetax revenue, states save money for eachchild who switches out of the governmeschool system. In each state, the averagescholarship size is significantly less than

the average per-pupil expenditure forpublic schools (able 1). Tis means thaSOs could award a considerable number

Te researchliterature

provides strong

evidence thateducationalchoice programsraise student

performance.

Like any mom, ia Fader wants whats best forher two girls, Leah (age 12) and Candace (age 7).When Fader discovered that her older daughter

was being bullied, she reached out to the schoolfor help but school officials failed to protect herdaughter. Te school officials would force thebullies to write apology letters but the bullyingwould not stop and Leahs work suffered.

When she began exhibiting signs of depression,Fader pulled her daughter out of school for nearlya year. ia spent several months in a private school,but it was a long drive and too expensive for Fadersmodest income. She spent several more monthshomeschooling her daughter until she was ready to

return to public school to be with her friends again.

Leah never fit the mold and teachers seemedeither unable or unwilling to work with her. Shenever had anyone who cared about anything shedid, explained her mother, because she neverlearned the same way. After she failed two terms,the school wanted to give Leah remedial mathinstruction and discouraged her from taking a

language, claiming that shed be eaten alive.

Fortunately, Fader heard about Pine Hill Waldorfand the Network for Educational Opportunity. Te

school would have been out of reach financially, butNew Hampshires scholarship tax credit programmade her dreams for her daughters a reality.Because were low-income, I would not have hadthe opportunity to send my children to a schoolthat mirrors my parenting style.

With the aid of their scholarships, both herdaughters are now thriving at their new school. Leahis at the top of her math class and she is learning twolanguages. She used to be shy but she made two

best friends in the first two days of school and she iseven in the school play, Fader said. Her teacherscare about her and she comes home and wants to doher homework. Its just night and day!

Faders younger daughter, Candace, did well in publicschool, but even she has shown improvement. Sheskips up to me every day and says, I just had the bestday ever, and thats all a mother ever wants.

estimonial: Te Fader Family


5/24


of scholarships to families already sendingtheir children to independent schools andthe state would still break even.

Researchers have calculated the fiscalimpact of the three oldest and largestSC programs and each study foundthat they saved money by decreasinggovernment expenditures more than thedecreased tax revenue.

Arizona: In 2009, Baylor Universityeconomist Charles North estimatedthat Arizonas SC program reducedexpenditures between $99.8 million and$241.5 million.21Even under the studysmost conservative assumptions, the statesaved nearly twice as much as the $55.3million in forgone revenue.22

Florida: In an official report in 2010, theFlorida Legislatures nonpartisan Office ofProgram Policy Analysis and GovernmentAccountability (OPPAGA) estimatedthat Sunshine State taxpayers saved $32.6million, which is approximately $1.44 instate education funding for every forgonedollar of corporate income tax revenue.23OPPAGAs estimate used census data toaccount for children who would haveattended an independent school even in

absence of the program. While Floridasstate government collected $82.2 millionless in tax revenue as a result of the taxcredits, the state reduced its expendituresby $118.4 million.

Pennsylvania: A 2011 study by theCommonwealth Foundation estimated

District schoolsare not meeting

the needs ofa significant

segment of thepopulation.

Educational

choice programsallow such

families to selecteducational

alternatives thatdo meet their

childrens needs.

ABLE 1: Comparison of Average Scholarship Size and Per-Pupil Expenditures in Public Schools

This chart uses the most recent data available from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice (column 2, except for New Hampshire),the Network for Educational Opportunity (NH average scholarship size) and the National Center for Education Statistics (column 3). Column4 is based on the authors calculations. The chart excludes Arizonas STC program for special needs students and the STC programs inLouisiana, Oklahoma, Virginia, and Pennsylvanias failing-schools program, which only recently launched or have yet to launch. Tableincludes the most recent data available in each category.

AverageScholarship

Size19

$1,861

$2,077

$3,664

$3,494

$880

$1,031

$1,246

$990

$2,727

Public School AveragePer-Pupil Expenditures

(2009-10)20

$9,273

$9,273

$10,283

$10,684

$10,704

$11,590

$13,963

$14,531

$15,322

Scholarship SizeAs Percentage of

Public School PPE

20.1%

22.4%

35.6%

32.7%

8.2%

8.9%

8.9%

6.8%

17.8%

State

Arizona (corporate)

Arizona (individual)

Florida

Georgia

Indiana

Iowa

New Hampshire

Pennsylvania (low-income)

Rhode Island


6/24


6

that Pennsylvania saves $512 million ayear as a result of its SC program, whilereducing tax revenue by only about $40million.24Tough the study did not take intoaccount students who would have attended

independent schools anyway, there still arevery likely substantial savings because theaverage scholarship size is only $990, lessthan 7.5 percent of the then-$14,531 averagecost-per-child in Pennsylvania district schools

(able 1). Moreover, a majority of scholarshrecipients in Pennsylvania come from low-income households, which cost more to thestate and are less likely to attend independeschools without financial assistance.25

While there have not been formalevaluations of the fiscal impact of otherSC programs, Floridas experience inparticular suggests that savings are likely.

Being the proud parents of twins (later in life)we have experienced the full spectrum of publiceducation. Our daughter was blessed with

exceptional intellect and spent years in elementaryschool not understanding why she had to conformto the pace of her other classmates. Our son waslearning at a non-typical pace and was diagnosed aslearning disabled in the second grade.

As parents with limited financial resources we hadno choice but to accept the mandates of our publicschool system. Yet, as parents who questioned thelack of alternative educational options for ourchildren, through due diligence, we were able to

locate a small independent school for our daughterthat had a most generous scholarship program.Even with this, we had to make major financialsacrifices to allow her to attend.

Her twin brother continued in public schoolthrough junior high and started his freshman yearat a large regional high school. Even though hereceived the available support from the SpecialEducation Department, he was overwhelmed. Afterhaving struggled through his first year, he begged usnot to send him back for his sophomore year.

His Individual Educational Plan prepared bythe Special Education Department stated thathe needed the benefit of hands-on education.Unfortunately, the regional school could notprovide this. Again we searched for an alternativeschool for him and found a small independentschool that would work within our financialabilities. During his first year, he flourished. He

became confident and realized that he could do aswell as others as a result of the hands-on teachingmethods of his new school.

Everything looked so promising. However, thingstook a turn for the worse as a result of an industrialaccident that left me disabled and our financialcondition became dire. We knew that we would not beable to send the twins to their respective schools anddreaded the thought of having to explain it to them.

We desperately sought funding options yetconventional bank loans were out of the question.During our search for a remedy, we discoveredthe scholarship program that the Network for

Educational Opportunity offers and promptlyapplied. We have been most fortunate to have beenawarded scholarships for the twins that allowed us towork out financial arrangements with their schools,allowing them both to complete their senior year.

Te twins have flourished at their respectiveschools. Our daughter has obtained high honorsand plans to be a veterinarian. Our son has becomea respected member of the student body and is wellliked by his fellow students and faculty. He plans to

be a writer and is already completing his first novelwith the support and encouragement of the school.

We hope that readers will help any way they canto allow others in need of financial assistancethe opportunity to find the best educationalopportunities for their children.

-Te Burke Family

estimonial: Te Burke Family


7/24


As noted in able 1, Floridas SC programis the least likely candidate for realizingsavings because it offers the maximumpossible tax credit (100 percent), has boththe largest average scholarship size, and the

highest ratio of scholarship size to averagepublic school per- pupil expenditures.26SC programs in seven of the other 10states offer only partial credits, as low as 50percent in Indiana and Oklahoma.

III. NEW HAMPSHIRES

SCHOLARSHIP TAX CREDIT

PROGRAM

Te Opportunity Scholarship Act

In 2012, the New Hampshire Legislatureenacted the Opportunity ScholarshipAct27(OSA), a pioneering scholarshiptax credit program that moves beyondschool choice to educational choice.Whereas voucher programs and previousscholarship tax credit programs haveprovided a choice among private schools,the OSA was the first SC programin the nation to allow scholarshipsfor homeschoolers to cover certaineducational expenses.

Te OSA grants tax credits to corporationsworth 85 percent of their donations tonon-profit scholarship organizations thatare registered with the New HampshireSecretary of States office. (Some states alsogrant tax credits to individual donors, butNew Hampshire has no personal incometax.) ax credit rates in other states rangefrom 50 percent in Indiana and Oklahoma

to 100 percent in Arizona, Florida,Georgia, and Louisiana.28

Scholarship organizations may use nomore than 10 percent of the tax credit-eligible contributions for administrativeexpenses. Scholarship organizations mustdisburse the remainder as scholarships

in the year that the credits are claimed.Starting in the second year of theprogram, scholarship organizations maycarry forward up to 10 percent of theirunused eligible contributions.

Scholarship organizations have theprerogative to set their own eligibilitycriteria and to decide how to prioritizethe allocation of scholarships, withincertain guidelines. Te OSA requiresthat all scholarship recipients bebetween the ages of 5 and 20 and havean annual household income no greaterthan 300 percent of the federal povertyguidelines,29which was $70,650 for afamily of four in 2013. According tothe most recent data provided by theU.S. Census Bureau, New Hampshiresmedian household income is $64,664.30

Additionally, in the first two years of theprogram, the scholarship organizationsmust allocate at least 70 percent ofscholarship funds to switchers whoattended a public school in the previousschool year. Starting in the third yearof the program, this requirement is

phased out by 5 percentage points eachyear. Any student who initially receivesa scholarship as a switcher continues tocount toward the required percentage ofswitchers in subsequent years. Moreover,the law requires that at least 40 percentof the switchers qualified for the U.S.Department of Agricultures NationalSchool Lunch program (185 percent ofthe federal poverty guidelines) in theirfinal year of public school.

Scholarship organizations also have thediscretion to determine the amount ofeach scholarship, but the law requires thatthe average of all scholarships granted tostudents attending private schools mustbe no greater than $2,500 in the first year.Te maximum average scholarship forhomeschooling families is one quarter of

States savemoney for

each child whoswitches out of

the governmentschool system.


8/24


8

As parentswith limited

financial

resources wehad no choicebut to acceptthe mandatesof our publicschool system.

the private school maximum average, whichis $625 in the first year. Te minimumscholarship for special needs students is 175percent of the maximum average scholarshipsize. Starting in the second year of the

program, the maximum average scholarshipamounts will be adjusted annually using theU.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics ConsumerPrice Index for All Urban Consumers,Northeastern Region.

Most states cap the total value of eachscholarship to ensure that the programsaves the state money by reducingexpenditures by more than the reductionin tax revenue. By capping the averagescholarship amount, New Hampshiresimultaneously ensures that the programwill produce savings for the state whilegranting scholarship organizationsgreater flexibility than in other states totailor scholarship amounts to the specificneeds of specific families. Te cap onthe average amount allows scholarshiporganizations to grant smaller amountsto families that only need a littleadditional support in order to givelarger amounts to families that are inmore dire financial straits due to illness,unemployment, or other factors.

Te OSA also caps the total number oftax credits availableto $3.4 million inthe first year and$5.1 million inthe second year. Insubsequent years,whenever the total

amount of creditsclaimed exceeds80 percent of theavailable credits,the amount ofcredits availablein the following

year increases by 25 percent. Terefore, foexample, if the amount of credits claimed year two exceeds $4.08 million, the amounof credits available in year three will be$6.375 million. Tis escalator provision,

which is similar to the statutes in Arizonaand Florida, allows the program to growover time to meet demand.

Repeal Effort and Lawsuit

Te New Hampshire Legislature passedthe OSA by overwhelming majorities,overriding the governors veto in the processHowever, when the composition of the NewHampshire Legislature changed dramaticallin the wake of the 2012 election, opponent

of the OSA sought to repeal the law. Inlate February 2013, the New HampshireHouse of Representatives voted 188 to 151to repeal the law.31However, two monthslater, the New Hampshire Senate blockedthe repeal with a 13-11 vote. wo senatorswho had voted against the original bill alsovoted against the repeal, explaining that theprogram should be given the opportunity toprove itself, noting that hundreds of studenhad already applied for scholarships.32

Simultaneous with the repeal effort, theOSA faced a legal challenge. In Januaryof 2013, the American Civil LibertiesUnion and Americans United for theSeparation of Church and State sued thestate, claiming that the law violated theNew Hampshire Constitutions No Aidprovision, which prohibits the publicfunding of parochial schools.* Te NewHampshire Attorney Generals office and

the Institute for Justice, a civil liberties lawfirm that represented NEO and parentsseeking scholarships under the OSA, bothdefended the OSA in court. Tey arguedthat the New Hampshire courts shouldfollow the precedent that the United StatSupreme Court set inACSO v. Winn

Quick Facts

ax CreditValue

Recipient Maximum

Eligible Income

Maximum AverageScholarship

Maximum Year 1ax Credits

85% of corporatedonation

300% of federal

poverty line

$2,500 (homes-choolers: $625)

$3.4 million

*Te provision states that the legislators and public officials should cherish the interests of education, [p]rovided, nevertheless, that no money raised by taxationshall ever be granted or applied for the use of the schools or institutions of any religious sect or denomination. New Hampshire Constitution, Section II, Article 8


9/24


TeOpportunity

ScholarshipAct was thefirst in the

nation to allowscholarships for

homeschoolersto cover certain

educationalexpenses.

(2011), which held that private moneydoes not become public money until ithas come into the tax collectors hands.33

Moreover, they argued that even a voucherprogram that clearly used government

funds to aid low-income families wouldbe constitutional under New Hampshireprecedent because the program has a secularpurpose and any money used at a religiousschool arrives there in an indirectmannerthat is incidentalto the choices of parents. In1955, the New Hampshire Supreme Courtdeclared that a voucher program for studentsattending nursing school was constitutionaleven though some students may choose toattend religiously affiliated schools:

Our state Constitution bars aid tosectarian activities of the schoolsand institutions of religious sects ordenominations. It is our opinion

that since secular education serves apublic purpose, it may be supportedby tax money if sufficient safeguardsare provided to prevent more thanincidental and indirect benefit to a

religious sect or denomination. We arealso of the opinion [] that membersof the public are not prohibited fromreceiving public benefits because of theirreligious beliefs or because they happento be attending a parochial school.34

Unfortunately, in a flawed andunprecedented decision in June of 2013,a trial court in New Hampshire bannedscholarship organizations operating underthe OSA from issuing scholarships tostudents for use at religious schools.35Tedecision relied on the dissent in Winnandthe dissent of the Arizona Supreme Courtin Kotterman v. Killian(1999), as wellas a selective reading of New Hampshire

Te Harris family knows very well that no one schoolis right for every child. When they first moved to New

Hampshire from Georgia more than five years ago, Mr.Harris got a job teaching advanced mathematics as apublic school teacher and eight of their 10 children, nowages 6 to 20, spent between one and five years in publicschool. However, the public schools often failed to meettheir needs. Now, Mrs. Harris homeschools five of their10 children (ages 6 to 12) and tutors other children onthe side. wo of their children are in college and threeattend a boarding school in Connecticut.

In some cases, the public school lacked a program for

gifted students but the Harrises did not want to movetheir children up a grade, as the school suggested, forsocial reasons. One daughter is homeschooled dueto health issues and another was like a zombie, shehad no joy in school. Te Harrises also had concernsabout negative social influences.

Te Harrises always strove to give each of their childrenthe education that was right for them, but that was

often financially difficult, especially on a teacherssalary. (Te Harris children qualify for the federal

National School Lunch program.) Te childrenattending boarding school received scholarships, butthe remaining tuition and travel expenses, includingvisits, were still significant. o save money, Mrs. Harrisbought the bare minimum homeschooling supplies.Tough it was frustrating for her children, she evenhad them write on separate papers instead of in theworkbooks so that they could be re-used.

When the Network for Educational Opportunityawarded the Harrises scholarships for their five

homeschooled children, they described it as ablessing, especially because knee surgery for onechild this year had involved thousands of dollarsin out-of-pocket expenses. I cant tell you theexcitement that I felt when I just placed my hugeorder of homeschool materials, wrote Mrs. Harris,For the first time in our homeschool career, I didntcringe at the thought of purchasing curriculum! Icould get workbooks for my children to write in!

estimonial: Te Harris Family


10/24


10

precedent. Prior to this decision, everycourt to consider a challenge to ascholarship tax credit program had foundthem to be constitutional, even if someparents choose to send their children

to religious schools. Te decision isbeing appealed to the New HampshireSupreme Court.

IV. YEAR ONE OF THE

SCHOLARSHIP TAX CREDIT

PROGRAM

Implementation of the OpportunityScholarship Act

Te Opportunity Scholarship Act tookeffect on January 1, 2013. In the first year,only one scholarship organization, theNetwork for Educational Opportunity(NEO), distributed scholarships. At thebeginning of the 2013-14 school year,NEO awarded $128,340 in scholarshipsto 103 students from 62 families out ofa total of 1,006 applications.36Nearlyhalf of the scholarships (46 percent) weregranted to students to attend secular

private schools while slightly more thanhalf of the scholarships (54 percent) were

for homeschooling expenses, includingbooks, homeschool curricula, educationalsoftware, museum/aquarium visits, andsewing lessons.37Scholarship recipientsattended all K-12 grade levels with a

plurality (15.5 percent) attending firstgrade (Figure 1). Recipients were nearlyevenly divided by gender with 53 femalesand 50 males.

Tough the law allows recipients toearn up to 300 percent of the federalpoverty line, scholarship families areoverwhelmingly lower income. Morethan 91 percent of scholarship familieshad an annual household income belowthe threshold necessary to qualify fora free or reduced price lunch underthe federal National School Lunchprogram, which is 185 percent of thefederal poverty guidelines ($43,568 fora family of four). Moreover, 73 percentof scholarship recipients had an annualhousehold income less than 130 percentof the federal poverty guidelines ($30,615for a family of four), which would qualifyfor a free lunch under the federal program(able 2 and Figure 2).38

We prioritized scholarships based onhighest financial need, takinginto consideration both incomeand family size, explainedKate Baker, executive directorof NEO, Tere were manymore families than we couldhelp this year. We look forwardto growing the organizationso that we can help even more

children get the educationthats right for them.

Scholarship recipients weremore racially diverse than thegeneral population in NewHampshire. Non-Hispanicwhites make up 91.9 percent o

Te escalatorprovision allowsthe program to

grow over time tomeet demand.

FIGURE 1: Scholarship Recipient Grade Level


11/24


New Hampshirites39but only 84.5 percentof scholarship recipients. Non-Hispanicblacks were overrepresented at 4.9 percentof scholarship recipients compared with 1.4percent of the state population. Scholarshiprecipients were 2.9 percent Asian, 1.9percent Hispanic, and 1.9 percent multi-racial compared with a general populationthat is 2.4 percent Asian, 3.0 percent

Hispanic, and 1.5 percent multi-racial.

But for the lawsuit andrepeal effort, NEO wouldlikely have raised evenmore money and certainlywould have issued morescholarships. Both efforts toeliminate the OSA generatedan uncertainty about thefuture of the program that

made fundraising difficult.Businesses were enthusiasticabout the opportunity toinvest in education, butmany were concerned thatthe program would disappearbefore we were able todistribute scholarships,Baker lamented. o be

eligible for a tax credit, the donationshad to be reported to the Department ofRevenue Administration by June 15. Inaddition, fighting to keep the programalive in the legislature and the courtsdiverted resources away from fundraisingand promoting the program.

Te lawsuit had an even greater negative

impact because the lower courts flawed

Prior to thisdecision,

every courtto considera challenge to ascholarship taxcredit program

had foundthem to be

constitutional.

Scholarship

RecipientsSecular

Private School

Home School

otal

Qualifies for

Free Lunch

32

(31.1%)

43

(41.7%)

75

(72.8%)

ABLE 2: Free or Reduced Price Lunch Status of Scholarship Recipients

otal47

(45.6%)

56

(54.4%)

103

(100%)

Qualifies forReduced

Price Lunch7

(6.8%)

12

(10.7%)

19

(18.4%)

Does Not Qualifyfor Free or Reduced

Price Lunch

8

(7.8%)

1

(1.0%)

9

(8.7%)

FIGURE 2: Income Levels of New Hampshireax Credit Scholarship Recipients 2013-14


12/24


12

ruling prohibited NEO from issuingscholarships to students who wanted toattend religious schools. Because the lawrequired that 70 percent of donations goto switchers in the first year, and because

most of the switchers wanted to attendreligious schools, the outcome of the lawsuitgreatly impaired NEOs ability to fund low-income students. Tough nine corporationshad donated a total of $235,000, NEOwas only able to distribute $128,340 toscholarship recipients as a result of the trialcourt decision. Moreover, because the lawdid not allow carrying over funds in thefirst year of the program, NEO had torefund $96,660. NEO kept only $10,000

for administrative costs, well under the 10percent of donations that the law allows.40

According to Baker, had the programfunctioned as the legislature had intended,NEO would have been able to provide atleast 216 scholarships using their fundingformula.41Tat is more than twice the103 scholarships that NEO actuallyissued. If the New Hampshire SupremeCourt follows its own precedent and theUnited States Supreme Courts precedent,

the scholarship program is likely to morethan double in size in the next year, evenholding all else constant.

Likewise, no matter how the court rules, tend of the court and legislative battles mea

that NEO will be able to spend more timeon fundraising and promoting the programNEO will start with a base of previousdonors and the uncertainty about the futuof the program will have dissipated. It alsopossible that new scholarship organizationwill form to provide for even more studenTese factors make it highly likely thatthe scholarship program will experiencetremendous growth in the next year.

Survey of Scholarship Recipients

Tis section contains the result of a surveof the parents of scholarship recipientsconducted online in mid-October 2013.4

Te Opportunity Scholarship Act requireall scholarship organizations to conducta survey of the parents of scholarshiprecipients. Te survey includes specificquestions regarding parental satisfactionwith their current and (where applicable)

previous schools, the studentsacademic achievement sincestarting participation in the Sprogram, their ability to affordprivate schooling without theprogram, and the amount theyspent on education beyond thescholarship. Tis survey fulfillethe Network for EducationalOpportunitys obligation byincluding the legally mandated

questions, among others. Telaw mandated a minimumresponse rate of 90 percent.Te survey had a response rateof 92.2 percent (95 of 103scholarship recipients).

Before applying forscholarships, potential

When theNetwork forEducationalOpportunityawardedthe Harrisesscholarships

for their fivehomeschooledchildren, theydescribed it as ablessing.

FIGURE 3: How did you find out about the scholarship program?


13/24


1

More than91 percent of

scholarshipfamilies had

an annualhousehold

income below185 percent

of the federalpoverty

guidelines.

recipients must know that the programexists. Because the government does notadminister the program, it relies on theefforts of the scholarship organizationsand word of mouth. he survey results

indicate that most homeschoolers (55percent) found out about the programthrough a friend or family memberwhile most parents of private schoolstudents (62 percent) found outthrough a private school staff member.he second-largest source for bothgroups (25 and 14 percent, respectively)was the scholarship organization itself,tied with friends and family for privateschool parents. About 5 percent of all

recipients heard of the program fromnewspaper articles or the radio while anadditional 5 percent, which answeredother, heard through a homeschoolinggroup or Facebook (Figure 3).

Te vast majority (73.7 percent) ofscholarship recipients indicated that itwas very easy, easy, or somewhat easy toapply for a scholarship. Only 1.1 percentsaid that it was very difficult and 12.6percent reported that it was somewhatdifficult.

Homeschooling familiesappeared to have moredifficulty, with about 21percent saying that it wassomewhat or very difficultcompared to less than 5 percentof private school families whosaid it was somewhat difficultto apply (Figure 4).

Te Opportunity ScholarshipAct required scholarshiporganizations to ask recipientsto report how much moneythey spent on students toattend school beyond whatthe scholarships covered, notincluding expenses related

to participation in athletic programs,transportation expenses, extracurricularactivities or clothing. Te median amountthat private school scholarship recipientsspent beyond the amount of their

scholarships was $3,575. Four familiesspent nothing beyond the scholarshipwhile the most any one family spent was$37,000 beyond the scholarship. Tesecond-highest amount was $14,100. Aplurality of families spent between $1,001and $2,000 more than their scholarships(Figure 5).

Te OSA also required scholarshiporganizations to ask recipients to statewhether they agreed or disagreed with thefollowing three statements using a five-point scale:

1. My child would have been unableto attend the school of his or herchoice without the education taxcredit program.

2. I am satisfied with the school mychild is attending as compared to theschool my child attended prior to

FIGURE 4: How easy or difficult was it to apply for a scholarship?


14/24


14

the availability of the education taxcredit program.

3. My child has seen a measurableimprovement in academic achievement.

Te vast majority (73.8 percent) ofprivate school parents reported thatthey would not have been able to send

their children to the schools of theirchoice without the scholarship programOnly 14.3 percent disagreed while 11.9percent were neutral (Figure 6).

Only 16 scholarship recipients attended

a public school in the previous year andused the scholarship funds to switch to a

private or home school andof those, 14 responded to thesurvey.All of the respondentsreported greater satisfactionwith their current school with78.6 percent answering thatthey strongly agree (Figure 7).

In addition to the required

questions, the survey askedrespondents to describe theirlevel of satisfaction with theschool their children used inthe year before enrolling in thescholarship program. Some ofthe responses included:

I was not very satisfied,it was not a good fit for himand the distance was much

[too] far. I wish I had known aboutthe scholarship program earlier.My daughters were bullied for 4months in a public school andthe school expected my 5 yearolds to defend themselves. Terewas not enough protection. Forexample, another 5 year old[told] my daughters to get outof town and [pushed] themaround. Te school [brushed] itoff [and that] did not settle withme. It upsets me so much that Ifelt like I had no other option orchoice but to continue to bringthem there. Im so happy nowthat I know there are programs

FIGURE 5: Out of Pocket Expenses Paid by Families

FIGURE 6: My child would have been unable to attend the school of his or herchoice without the education tax credit program.

Tere were 15 switchers confirmed with the New Hampshire Department of Education. In addition, there was one student whoattended a public school in the 2012-13 school year but whose student identification number was not submitted in time to verify.


15/24


16/24


16

and 2.1 percent were neutral (Figure 9).

Te survey further asked respondentsto describe their level of satisfactionwith the school their child currentlyattends. Te following include someof the responses from private schoolfamilies:

[My son] is thriving and theschool is the perfect fit for hisneeds to continue to improve as astudent and individual.

I feel like the private school saved

my daughter. After being bullied andharassed so severely in public schoolI made the choice to move her, nomatter the sacrifices I had to maketo afford it. She is accepted, loved,and thriving at her new school.

We are thrilled with theimprovement we have seen in ourson both academically and socially

Tis school is incredible. Mydaughter has already shownimprovement in confidence andis becoming more outgoing. Sheis participating more in classesas they are small. Her teachersare all connected to her in manyways as advisors or coaches. Shefeels part of a community at thisschool. She is taking courses likeMandarin and getting an A. Tis

would not have been possible inthe public school option. I amextremely happy and grateful thatmy daughter is at this school. Ihave cried more than once as Iwatch her reach new highs.

[We are] very happy to have [ourdaughter] attend. [She] was unableto last year and she was lookingforward to getting back to school.

My son is immersed in achallenging and rigorous academicprogram. He is thriving and veryhappy in his new school.

Our school has always tried very hardto make it possible for my daughter toattend, but with a modest income andgrowing basic family expenses (such

FIGURE 8: My child has seen a measureable improvement in academicachievement since participating in the scholarship program.

FIGURE 9: How satisfied are you with the [private/home] school that thescholarship student presently attends?

Very Dissatisfied


17/24


18/24


18

Te only negative responses included:

Tey need more organization to theschool.

Tere is a lot of disorganization at

the school right now that we are nothappy with.

Te following include some of theresponses from homeschooling familiesregarding their level of satisfaction:

We were able to build a homeschoolcurriculum based upon our childsneeds and learning style. We are verysatisfied with the result.

Because we received funds from theNetwork for Educational Opportunity,we were able to afford an excellentcurriculum for our sons first grade year.We are enjoying a rich and productiveschool year so far, and we look forwardto the days and weeks to come.

I find our home school to be very well-rounded, fun and has the added benefitof developing strong family bonds.

Tese funds allowed us to obtainbetter and more books and materialsused in home schooling, which hasmade the planning easier for mom,and the learning more fun, in depth,and interesting for the student. Weare very satisfied with what has beenmade available to us and the factthat we can continue in home basededucation for our family.

We are very pleased to have theincredible privilege of teachingour child at home. Te scholarshipprogram has enabled us to purchasethe additional classes that we desiredto strengthen his education.

I am satisfied with [the states virtuallearning program], added curriculum,

and other classroom learningopportunities that my child is ableattend outside the home.

I love the [states virtual learning]program, and it is making a profound

difference in allowing my childrenmore options for classes even at themiddle school level.

We use a mix of textbooks, workbooksand online curricula for ourhomeschool. Our child is reading abovegrade level and loves to do school!

[Te scholarship funds] allowed forenrollment in an online classical

school. Te emphasis on history andliterature based curriculum meetsher interest and need to be morechallenged academically. It also allowsus the opportunity for this to takeplace as a home school. We are verysatisfied with this approach.

Te materials purchased through thisgrant have been extremely helpful inmeeting my sons educational needs,which are atypical.

I am very pleased with the materialsthat we were able to purchase due tothis grant. Tey are well suited to herlearning styles and are helping her tobe successful.

He is homeschooled and participates inoutside classes as well as a co-op. I amvery satisfied with these options he has.

I love being able to teach my daughterat home using a curriculum of myown choosing that focuses on ourvalues as a family.

Te survey also asked families whetherthere was anything they would like tochange about the scholarship tax creditprogram, besides increasing funding. In

Te vast majority(73.8 percent)of private school

parents reportedthat they wouldnot have beenable to send theirchildren to theschools of theirchoice without

the scholarshipprogram.


19/24


1

addition to those who did not answer,23 respondents with a child attending aprivate school wrote that they would notchange anything. Te following are someof the responses from the remaining

private school families: I would like public support, more

visibility and advertising, celebration ofthe program, support and investmentfor families who are struggling anddoing everything possible to providethe right thing for their child.

More publicity.

More notification of area towns about

availability. I would like to see it expanded to all

eligible students & awareness andsupport of it increased.

I have to sign a contract for tuition inFebruary! It would be nice to find outif we got a scholarship a little earlierso I can see if I can keep her in herschool.

I believe that the scholarship moniesshould be able to go to any schooleven if they have a religious affiliation.

Te timing of the scholarship makes ita little challenging but hopefully thelevel of funding will remain about thesame each year. Te tuition process isfinished by May and parents are notmade aware of the amounts they willreceive from the scholarship programuntil late July. Tis means parentshave to just hope and pray.

Tough the question asked whatscholarship recipients would like to seechanged besides an increase in funding,a few respondents nevertheless took theopportunity to state that they would liketo see more generous scholarships:

I would like the funding limits to beraised significantly.

Of course the increase in fundingwould make it not a token programbut a real help in helping families

make the right choice without extremefinancial stress. Te scholarship hashelped a little bit. Our son would notbe able to attend for much longer. Wehave refinanced out house twice topurchase this education.

Among homeschooling families, thetiming of the program and the difficultyof the application process were the mostfrequent complaints:

It would be helpful if we had moretime between the initial award noticeand when we had to have all of ourreceipts sent in. I was late in sendingin my information due to how longit takes me to put together all of mycurriculum orders. I have four children,and generally purchase curriculum asI go along through the year, for bothfinancial as well as organizational

reasons. Our total award for thefamily was $1,000, and I found it verydifficult to come up with this amountof money in the time allotted.

iming knowing you will receive thefunds and then time to go purchasethe materials, because I would not buysome of the stuff if we didnt get thescholarship. Cant afford to.

Given our financial situation, it was

challenging to front the money tomake the purchases for the scholarshipand then submit receipts. I fullyunderstand your reasoning, I justwanted to express this thought.

It would be great if it was not areimbursement program OR if people

All of thescholarship

recipients who

attended apublic school in

the previous yearreported greatersatisfaction with

their currentschool.


20/24


20

would at least be advised in advancethat it is in fact a reimbursementprogram so that they can be betterprepared for saving receipts etc.

[I wish] that the scholarship be

distributed earlier in the summer.

It would be better if the applicationprocess were simpler.

Te format for filling out thefinancial information is nottailored to the scholarship and abit challenging in completing andmaking contact with, however, Iknow that [NEO is] aware of this.

I wish that you used the [School andStudent Services (SSS)] financialaid application by [the NationalAssociation of Independent Schools].It was a pain to do a separate one for[NEO] when most private schoolsrequire the SSS. It cost extra moneywhen people already are lower incomeand it is a pain to have to complete twoseparate [financial aid] applications.

I think parents with children whoattend religious schools should be ableto apply for the scholarship as well.

Let it go towards out of state schoolsas well. Te best option for ourchildren in high school is a boardingschool in C, so that should be anoption for us.

Tere were also 14 homeschoolingrespondents who wrote that they wouldnot change anything about the program,including the following:

I think that the program is awesome.I dont think there is anything I wouldchange.

No it is well-managed and has greatcommunication.

No. It is a wonderful resource that hasenabled us to expand the curriculumand resources used in our home school

No, I am very grateful for a little extrahelp.

I think that the program seems to bepretty fair, but as you say, increasedfunding would be nice.

I think the program is excellent andwould definitely recommend thisprogram to friends and others who arelooking for an alternative to failingpublic schools.

CONCLUSION

Families participating in NewHampshires pioneering scholarship taxcredit program report near-universallevels of satisfaction because it enablesthem to choose the best educational fitfor their children. Whatever parents areseeking for their childrenimprovedacademic performance, more engagedteachers, social acceptance, freedom from

bullying, special needs programming,and so onthey are more likely to findit if they have more than one choice.Policymakers across the country whoare seeking to expand the educationalchoices available in their state shouldlook to New Hampshire as a model.

About the Author:Jason Bedrick is a policy analyst with the

Cato Institutes Center for EducationalFreedom. He previously served in the NewHampshire House of Representatives andwas a research fellow at the Josiah BartlettCenter for Public Policy, where he focusedon state education policy.

Teoverwhelmingmajority

(96.8 percent)expressedsatisfaction withtheir childscurrent privateor home school.


21/24


2

Appendix: Survey Questions1. Which grade does the scholarship student currently attend?

2. What is the age of the scholarship student?

3. What is the gender of the scholarship student?

4. Has the scholarship student ever been diagnosed with a learning disability?

5. What is your familys total household size (including ones spouse and all dependents)?

6. What is the race/ethnicity of the scholarship student?

7. How did you find out about the scholarship program?

8. How easy or difficult was it to apply for the scholarship?

9. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: My child

has seen a measurable improvement in academic achievement since participating inthe scholarship program. [Te following two questions were asked to private schoolfamilies only.]

9a. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: My childwould have been unable to attend the school of his or her choice the without theeducation tax credit program.

9b. Excluding the education tax credit scholarship, how much did you pay out ofpocket for your child to attend school this year? Do not include fees or expensesrelated to participation in athletic programs, transportation expenses, extracurricularactivities, or clothing.

10. Did the scholarship student attend a public school in the 2012-13 school year?[If Yes to last question, then continue to 10a and 10b. If No then skip toquestion 11.]

10a. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statement: I amsatisfied with the school my child is attending as compared to the school my childattended prior to the availability of the education tax credit program.

10b. Please describe your level of satisfaction with the school your child used in theyear before enrolling in the scholarship program in the space provided below.

11. How satisfied are you with the private/home school that the scholarship studentpresently attends?

12. Please describe your level of satisfaction with the private/home school thescholarship student currently attends in the space provided below.

13. Besides increasing funding, is there anything you would like to change about thescholarship tax credit program?

Familiesparticipating in

New Hampshirespioneering

scholarship taxcredit program

report near-universal levels

of satisfactionbecause it

enables them tochoose the best

educationalfit for their

children.


22/24


22

NOTES1Organisation for Economic Co-operation

and Development. Education Indicators in

Focus. January 2013. View online here: http://

www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/EDIF%202013--N%C2%B010%20(eng)--v9%20

FINAL%20bis.pdf.

2Lochner, Lance, and Enrico Moretti. The

Effect of Education on Crime: Evidence from

Prison Inmates, Arrests, and Self-Reports.

University of California at Berkeley. October

2003. View online here: http://emlab.berkeley.

edu/~moretti/lm46.pdf.

3Hanushek, Eric A., Paul E. Peterson, and

Ludger Woessmann. Endangering Prosper-

ity: A Global View of the American School.

The Brookings Institution. 2013.4Coulson, Andrew J. Comparing Public,

Private, and Market Schools: The Internation-

al Evidence, The Journal of School Choice,

Volume 3, Issue 1. 2009.

5The Friedman Foundation for Educational

Choice. 2013. The ABCs of School Choice.

View online here: http://www.edchoice.org/

CMSModules/EdChoice/FileLibrary/965/The-

ABCs-of-School-Choice---2013-edition.pdf.

6This section draws on studies of both STC

programs and voucher programs. Research-

ers have conducted scores of studies onvoucher programs, but STC programs have

received little attention. Because of their

design, it is easier to study and draw con-

clusions from voucher programs. Voucher

programs are often designed such that when

the number of applicants is greater than the

number of available vouchers, the vouch-

ers are distributed by lottery. This allows

researchers to conduct random assignment

studies, the gold standard of social science

research. STC programs, by contrast, are not

centrally administered and different schol-

arship organizations handle oversubscrip-

tion differently (e.g., considering merit or

financial need). However, while significantly

different in administration, the effect of both

voucher programs and STC programs is es-

sentially the same: students receive money

to attend the school of their parents choice.

Hence, it is possible to draw conclusions

about the effect of STC programs from stud-

ies of voucher programs, though it is import-

ant to interpret the results cautiously.

7Random assignment studies are the gold

standard because they compare two groups

that are almost exactly similar except for the

treatment. In this case, the studies compare

students who applied for a voucher and won

the voucher lottery against students who ap-

plied for a voucher but lost the voucher lot-

tery. Because the lotteries were random, the

only important difference between the two

groups was the offer of a voucher. Therefore,

any observed difference in performance be-

tween the two groups can be interpreted as

being caused by the treatment of winning

the voucher lottery.

8Forster, Greg. A Win-Win Solution: The Em-

pirical Evidence on School Choice. Friedman

Foundation for Educational Choice. April 17,2013. View online here: http://www.edchoice.

org/Research/Reports/A-Win-Win-Solution-

-The-Empirical-Evidence-on-School-Choice.

aspx.

9Peterson, Paul E. Graduation Rates

Higher at Milwaukee Voucher Schools.

Education Next. January 10, 2011. View

online here: http://educationnext.org/grad-

uation-rates-higher-at-milwaukee-vouch-

er-schools/.

10Brown Center on Education Policy & Har-

vards Program on Education Policy and Gov-ernance, Chingos & Peterson. The Effects

of School Vouchers On College Enrollment:

Experimental Evidence from New York City.

August 2012. View online here: http://www.

hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Impacts_of_

School_Vouchers_FINAL.pdf.

11Wolf, Patrick J. Civics Exam: Schools of

choice boost civic values. Education Next.

Summer 2007. http://educationnext.org/civ-

ics-exam/.

12Figlio, David and Cassandra Hart. Does

Competition Improve Public Schools?Education Next,Winter 2011. View online

here: http://educationnext.org/does-competi-

tion-improve-public-schools/.

13Coulson, Andrew J. Comparing Public,

Private, and Market Schools: The Internation-

al Evidence.The Journal of School Choice,

Volume 3, Issue 1. 2009.

14Kelly, James P., and Benjamin Scafidi.

More Than Scores: An Analysis of Why

and How Parents Choose Private Schools.

Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice

November 13, 2013. View online here: http://

www.edchoice.org/Research/Reports/More-

Than-Scores--An-Analysis-of-Why-and-How-

Parents-Choose-Private-Schools.aspx.15Figlio, David. Evaluation of the Florida Tax

Credit Scholarship Program: Participation,

Compliance, Test Scores and Parental Satis-

faction. University of Florida. June 2010.

16Forster, Greg, and Christian DAndrea.

An Empirical Evaluation of the Florida

Tax Credit Scholarship Program. Friedman

Foundation for Educational Choice. August

2009. View online here: http://www.edchoice.

org/Research/Reports/An-Empirical-Eval-

uation-of-the-Florida-Tax-Credit-Scholar-

ship-Program.aspx.17Childrens Scholarship Fund of Philadelphia

website. Program Description. View online

here: http://www.csfphiladelphia.org/about-

us/program-description.

18Kelly and Scafidi. Page 1.

19Average scholarship size data for New

Hampshire collected from the Network for

Educational Opportunity. Data for all other

states from The Friedman Foundation for

Educational Choice. 2013. The ABCs of

School Choice. View online here: http://

www.edchoice.org/CMSModules/EdChoice/

FileLibrary/965/The-ABCs-of-School-Choice--

2013-edition.pdf.

20National Center for Education Statistics,

Digest of Education Statistics. 2011. Total

and current expenditures per pupil in fall en-

rollment in public elementary and secondary

education, by function and state or jurisdic-

tion: 2007-08. View online here: http://nces.

ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_193.

asp.

21North, Charles M. Estimating the Savings

to Arizona Taxpayers of the Private School Tu-

ition Tax Credit. Baylor University. Novembe

2009. View online here: http://www.azpolicy.

org/sites/azpolicy.org/files/downloads/Arizo-

naSTOTaxCreditCMNorth.pdf.

22Butcher, Jonathan. Giving Arizona Chil-

dren Better Opportunities In Education: A

Case Study of the Nations Oldest Tax Credit

Scholarship Program. Show-Me Institute


23/24


2

Case Study. January 2014.

23Office of Program Policy Analysis and Gov-

ernment Accountability. Florida Tax Credit

Scholarship Program: Fiscal Year 2008-09 Fis-

cal Impact. March 1, 2010. View online here:

http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/

Reports/pdf/0868_1rpt.pdf.

24LeFevre, Andrew. A Decade of Success:

Pennsylvanias Education Improvement Tax

Credit. Commonwealth Foundation. Policy

Brief, Vol. 23, No. 8. August 2011.

25Pennsylvania Legislative Budget and

Finance Committee. Pennsylvanias Tax

Credit Programs. June 2010. Page 31. View

online here: http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/re-

ports/2010/49.PDF.

26Bedrick, Jason. The Continuing Debate

Over Scholarship Tax Credits. Education

Next blog. March 8, 2013. View online here:

http://educationnext.org/the-continuing-de-

bate-over-scholarship-tax-credits-2/.

27Senate Bill 372, New Hampshire General

Court, 2012. View online here: http://www.

gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0372.

html.

28DeGrow, Benjamin. A Scholarship Tax

Credit Program for Colorado. Independence

Institute. February 2013. View online here:

http://education.i2i.org/wp-content/up-

loads/2013/02/IP_2_2013_a.pdf.

29U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary

for Planning and Evaluation. 2013 Poverty

Guidelines. View online here: http://aspe.

hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm.

30United States Census Bureau. 2013. State

and County QuickFacts: New Hampshire.

View online here: http://quickfacts.census.

gov/qfd/states/33000.html.

31Evans-Brown, Sam. N.H. House Votes to

Repeal School Choice Tax Credit. New Hamp-

shire Public Radio. February 20, 2013. View

online here: http://nhpr.org/post/nh-house-

votes-repeal-school-choice-tax-credit.

32N.H. Senate rejects attempt to repeal

education tax credit program. Fosters

Daily Democrat. April 20, 2013. View

online here: http://www.fosters.com/

apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130420/

GJNEWS_01/130429958/-1/FOSNEWS.

33Arizona Christian School Tuition Organiza-

tion v. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436 (2011).

34Opinion of the Justices, 99 NH 519 (1955).

35See: Bedrick, Jason. 2013. NH Court: You

Can Choose a School So Long as Its Secular.

Cato at Liberty Blog. June 17. View online

here: http://www.cato.org/blog/nh-court-you-

can-choose-school-so-long-its-secular. See

also: Bedrick, Jason. 2013. New Hampshire

Courts School Choice Decision Was Flawed

and Unprecedented. Cato at Liberty Blog.

June 24. View online here: http://www.cato.

org/blog/new-hampshire-courts-school-

choice-decision-was-flawed-unprecedented.

36Data provided by the Network for Educa-

tional Opportunities.

37Email from Kathleen Lauer-Rago, opera-

tions director of the Network for Educational

Opportunities. October 22, 2013.

38U.S. Department of Agriculture. Child

Nutrition Programs; Income Eligibility Guide-lines. 78 Federal Register61 (29 March

2013). p. 19179. View online here:http://www.

fns.usda.gov/cnd/Governance/notices/iegs/

IEG_Table-032913.pdf.

39United States Census Bureau. 2013. State

and County QuickFacts: New Hampshire.

View online here: http://quickfacts.census.

gov/qfd/states/33000.html.

40Email from Kate Baker, executive director

of the Network for Educational Opportunity.

October 30, 2013. In addition, 120 individuals

donated about $150,000 that did not qualify

for tax credits in order to cover NEOs admin-

istration costs.

41Email from Kate Baker. October 31, 2013.

There were 88 applicants who qualified as

switchers under the Opportunity Scholar-

ship Act. By law, 70 percent of the donations

raised must go to switchers. That would have

been $164,500 of the $235,000 raised. At

$2,500 maximum per scholarship recipient

on average, that amount would have covered

approximately 66 switchers with $70,500

remaining for other students. NEO gave

$10,800 to 54 homeschoolers and averaged

$625 per pupil for existing private school

students. Using that average, they could

have awarded scholarships to approximately

96 non-switcher private school students for a

total of approximately 216 students.

42Survey conducted via Kwiksurveys.com, an

online survey builder, Oct. 8-24, 2013.

Acknowledgements:Te author wishes to thank Kate Baker and Kathleen Lauer-Rago of the Networkfor Educational Opportunity for the invaluable assistance they provided. Teirprofessionalism and transparency is commendable and their dedication to expandingeducational opportunities for those most in need is inspirational.


24/24

4512 West Pine Blvd. I Saint Louis, MO 63108 I 314-454-0647 I www.showmeinstitute.org

View State Government Spending:

showmeliving org

Read Our Blog:

showmedaily org

Find Us on Facebook:

facebook com/showmeinstitute

Use Our Interactive Database:

showmedata org

Follow Us on Twitter

twitter com/showme

Live Free and Learn: A Case Study of New Hampshire's Scholarship Tax Credit Program

Documents

Transcript of Live Free and Learn: A Case Study of New Hampshire's Scholarship Tax Credit Program