The GOP In The US House Make Changes To The 30 Hr Work Week In ACA. They Could Not Be More Wrong

Image from NObamaNoMas on Flickr

Image from NObamaNoMas on Flickr

This week marked the six-month anniversary of the Healthcare.Gov and healthcare exchanges going live.  The anniversary also marks the closing of the first open enrollment period for people to sign up for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act.  To the surprise of everyone, the healthcare exchanges signed up over 7.1 million people.  Including the millions of young adults who now have continuing healthcare coverage under their parents plan, the White House estimates that the ACA has helped nearly 10 million people gain quality affordable healthcare.

Aside from the great news about the ACA, the GOP is going full bore in their attempts to derail the ACA.  This week the US House voted for the 55th time to repeal key provisions of the law in an attempt to dismantle it piece by piece. Not to mention that the 55 different attempts to repeal the ACA has cost us the taxpayers over $50 million dollars.

This week, House Republicans voted to change the ‘full time work’ provision of the ACA.  Under the ACA employers must provide access to health insurance to all employees who work full time, or more than 30 hours a week.  The new bill that House GOP passed, mostly along party lines, changes the definition of full time to those who work 40 hours a week or more.

This is in response to GOP legislators, like NH congressional candidate Gary Lambert who told a group of college students at Plymouth State University, that the ACA is “killing the 40 hour work week.”  They claim that by forcing employers to offer healthcare coverage to employees that work 30 hours a week, employers have reduced employee work hours to less than 30 hours.  Corporations are doing anything they can to avoid offering healthcare to their employees.

It is not Obamacare that decides how much somebody works, it’s the person who runs the company,” Rep. James McDermott (D-Wash.) told the Washington Post Thursday.

The GOP is bowing down to their corporate masters by changing the law to allow corporations to have employees work full time, and still not be required to offer employees healthcare.

The Washington Post also reported that President Obama has already issued a veto threat to this bill – which has a snowballs chance in hell of getting through the Senate – due the fact that over 1 million people would loose healthcare coverage from their employers pushing the number of uninsured Americans up another 500,000 if this bill passed.

This move by House Republicans’ is exactly the opposite of what we needs to be done.  If they are afraid that workers are going to loose their full time status because the ACA says full time is 30 hours a week, they should remove the provision completely.  They should pass a law that requires employers to offer healthcare to all employees, not just those that are ‘full time’.

This is exactly what the AFL-CIO has been calling for since the law was first passed, and reaffirmed their position in a convention resolution passed in 2013.

The labor movement has pushed for a requirement in the ACA that all employers assume responsibility for contributing toward the cost of health care for their employees….

We all know full well that the corporate lobbyists in Washington would never agree to this, and that means the GOP would never entertain an idea to make access to healthcare a requirement.

House Republicans will continue to work to repeal this law….” stated Speaker John Boehner in a recent press release.

Mark my words, the GOP is going to use the Affordable Care Act as the major theme in their mid-term campaign strategy. Just like they did in 2012, they are going to stump around telling people if they are elected they will repeal the ACA.

It has already begun. “On April 1st Gary Lambert made a trip to Plymouth State University to meet with students,” said Brandon Lemay a student from PSU who attended Lambert’s meet and greet. “When discussing why he should replace Representative Anne Kuster, he cited his opposition to Obamacare as a great reason to remove her.”

Former Senator Lambert is no different than the hundreds of Republicans in Washington who do not want make incremental changes to the ACA and make it better; they only want to repeal it.  Over 55 times, the House GOP has voted to repeal the ACA.   By repealing the law they want to kick the 10 million people off their new health insurance, allow insurance companies to deny coverage to people when they get sick, take away the option for young adults to stay on their parents’ plan, take away the mandate for insurance companies to fully cover preventative care, and remove the cap on insurance companies profits.

Do we really want to go back to the way it was before? No of course not, but the GOP is obsessed with moving our country backwards, rather than pushing forward. The GOP believes that voters are stupid. We know that if they were elected that they couldn’t repeal the ACA, and we also know that repealing the law would hurt millions of Americans.

“I think the recent comments by Senator Lambert, and many of those in the GOP, about the ACA, show just how out of touch they are with real Granite Staters,” said Brandon Lemay.

This repeal Obamacare campaign strategy works great, just ask Mitt Romney.

MLK A Devoted Labor Leader And Leader Against The Death Penalty

MLK’s First Campaign was against the Death Penalty

Bus segregation was not the first issue that grabbed the attention of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. when the young pastor moved to Montgomery, Alabama in 1954. His first campaign in his new home focused on a sentence of death for Jeremiah Reeves, a 16-year-old black boy convicted of raping a white woman, which512px-Martin_Luther_King_Jr_NYWTS_6-wikicommons became his first civil rights campaign in his new home. Reeves had confessed under duress, but later recanted, a claim widely believed in the black community. King joined the NAACP’s efforts to save Reeves’ life.

So did Claudette Colvin, like Reeves a student at Booker T. Washington High School. Colvin, who the next year would be arrested for refusing to give up her seat on a segregated bus nine months before Rosa Parks did the same thing, recalled, “Jeremiah Reeves’s arrest was the turning point of my life. That was when I and a lot of other students really started thinking about prejudice and racism. I was furious when I found out what had happened.” [1]

“In the years that [Reeves] sat in jail,” Dr. King wrote in Stride Toward Freedom, his book about the Montgomery movement, “several white men in Alabama had also been charged with rape; but their accusers were Negro girls. They were seldom arrested; if arrested, they were soon released by the Grand Jury; none was ever brought to trial.” [2]

Reeves was found guilty by an all-white jury and put to death on March 28, 1958.

A week later King addressed a “Prayer Pilgrimage” rally in front of the State Capitol building. “The issue before us now is not the innocence or guilt of Jeremiah Reeves,” King told a crowd of two thousand. “Even if he were guilty, it is the severity ad inequality of the penalty that constitutes the injustice. Full grown white men committing comparable crimes against Negro girls are rare ever punished, and are never given the death penalty or even a life sentence.”[3]

Such gerrymandered justice was a well established fact of life in the South, going back to the days of slavery when blacks were commonly executed or lynched for crimes that drew less harsh punishment — or none — when committed by whites. This discriminatory pattern continued after emancipation, as Stuart Banner documents in his book, The Death Penalty: An American History. “In the first half of the [twentieth] century,” he writes, “the southern states punished many crimes by death only if they were committed by blacks, in the second half of LR&Mark11-14-12 019the century they accomplished the same result by delegating to all-white juries the discretion to choose capital or noncapital punishment.”

“The death penalty was a means of racial control,” observes Banner, a UCLA law professor.

Sadly, the role played by race in decisions about the death penalty persists. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, recent studies “add to an overwhelming body of evidence that race plays a decisive role in the question of who lives and dies by execution in this country. Race influences which cases are chosen for capital prosecution and which prosecutors are allowed to make those decisions. Likewise, race affects the makeup of the juries which determine the sentence. Racial effects have been shown not just in isolated instances, but in virtually every state for which disparities have been estimated and over an extensive period of time.”

New Hampshire is a case in point.

Michael Addison was charged with capital murder for killing Michael Briggs, a police officer, in 2006.

John Brooks was charged with capital murder for hiring three men to assist him in killing Jack Reid, a handyman, in 2005.

The trials took place in adjacent counties in 2008.

Addison, a poor black man with a prior criminal record, was found guilty and sentenced to death.

Brooks, a white millionaire businessman, was found guilty but spared the death penalty.

Monica Foster, Brooks’ attorney, said of her client after the sentence was announced, “He’s not the kind of people juries routinely kill,”

Racial disparities in the use of the death penalty have been a focus of scholarly research for decades. According to Justin Levinson, Robert Smith, and Danielle Young, authors of a 2013 study, “The most consistent and robust finding in this literature is that even after controlling for dozens and sometimes hundreds of case-related variables, Americans who murder Whites are more likely to receive a death sentence than those who murder Blacks.” They note as well that “Black defendants are sentenced to death more frequently than White defendants, especially when the universe of studied cases is narrowed to include only those cases that result in aexecutejustice11-14-12capital trial.”

What Levinson, Smith, and Young found ought to be a wake-up call for anyone interested in the fairness of our judicial system. After studying 445 jury-eligible citizens in six states where the death penalty is most actively used, they concluded that “implicit racial bias does have an impact on the administration of the death penalty in America.”

“We found that death-qualified jurors implicitly valued White lives over Black lives by more rapidly associating White subjects with the concepts of ‘worth’ or ‘value’ and Black subjects with the concepts of ‘worthless’ or ‘expendable.’ This finding could potentially help to explain why real capital juries impose death sentences more regularly for White victims: at least at an implicit level we value White lives more than Black lives, and thus, perhaps, we seek to punish those individuals who have destroyed those whom we value most.”

The implications of this finding go far beyond the death penalty.

As for Dr. King, it is worth noting that his comments on the prosecution, conviction, and execution of Jeremiah Reeves did not directly reject capital punishment, just “the unequal justice of Southern courts.” As King matured into the leader we honor today, his critique of injustice deepened and blended with a prescription for change.

“Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that,” he famously said.

“Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time: the need for man to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence,” King told the world on the day he received the Nobel Peace Prize. “Man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.”

The realization of King’s vision is far off. Abolition of the death penalty would be an excellent step in the right direction.

To get involved, join the NH Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

 


 

[1] Phillip Hoose, Claudette Colvin: Twice Toward Justice, Farrar Straus Giroux, 2009, p. 23-24

[2] Martin Luther King, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom

[3] Martin Luther King, Jr., “Statement Delivered at the Prayer Pilgrimage Protesting the Electrocution of Jeremiah Reeves,” April 6, 1958

Shea-Porter Calls for Congress to Remain In Session and Work on Jobs Bills

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter spoke on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives asking Congress to extend its current session in order to end sequestration and pass job-creating legislation. On August 2rd, the House is scheduled to leave for summer recess for over a month before returning in September.

Shea-Porter criticized Congress’ inability to pass legislation that grows the economy and strengthens the middle class.

We did not pass a single jobs bill, not one,” Shea-Porter said.

It’s been 212 days since the start of the 113th Congress. Only 22 bills have been signed into law, and none are jobs bills or legislation to replace the devastating cuts of sequestration.

A CNN analysis shows Congress has spent less time on Capitol Hill so far this year than in any of the previous five years.

“Congress is not coming back until September. Did we get everything done? No, we did not…I urge Congress to stay here. I urge the Speaker to call us back and make us do the job the American people sent us here to do,” Shea-Porter said.

37 Attempts At A Repeal Of The ACA And Still No Jobs Bill

The fiscally responsible Republican party is always looking for ways to reduce government waste.  They search for any ‘fraud, waste and abuse’ inside the federal government in an effort to reduce the budget.  Even after they make statements about how we need to become more focused on jobs in Washington, they once again vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act.  This makes attempt number 37 for those counting.

“This vote was a waste of New Hampshire taxpayers’ time and money,”  Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter said.

The act of voting on this repeal has already cost the taxpayers over 60 million dollars (37 votes times 1.75 million in cost per vote equal 64.75 million).  I wonder what 60 million dollars would do to help some of the programs the sequester is cutting.  In fact the money wasted on repealing the ACA is more than enough to cover the cuts made to the meals on wheels program (41 million).  I wonder if this $60 million would be enough to keep the 70,000 kids in the head start programs that they are being forced out of.

Wasting our time and money aside the ACA is a good start.  According to the White House, the ACA will help over 30 million Americans who do not already have healthcare.  Right now over 86 million Americans have added protections to their healthcare coverage thanks to the ACA.  They can no longer deny you for a pre-existing condition. They can no longer charge different amounts for women or men.  They have helped millions of seniors save an average of $600 a year by closing the prescription drug ‘donut hole’.  These are just of a few of the benefits we Americans are gaining thanks to the ACA.

Congresswoman Annie Kuster stated after the vote:

“I am extremely frustrated that House leadership is more interested in refighting old political battles than actually solving problems. Instead of wasting more time and money on another vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, both parties should be focused on growing the economy, helping create jobs and opportunity, and strengthening the middle class.

Congresswoman Shea-Porter chastised the House leadership in her statement.  “Instead of voting 37 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Republicans should listen to the American people who want Congress to help create jobs and end sequestration. Republican House Speaker John Boehner should stop political posturing and put a jobs bill on the floor.”

Congresswomen Kuster and Shea-Porter are exactly right. They have voted 37 times to repeal the ACA and wasted 15% of their time in Washington in a futile attempt to repeal the law.

Congresswoman Kuster continued, “voting to undo these vital reforms will do nothing to improve our health care system, and only serves to reinforce peoples’ worst assumptions about Congress’s willingness to put politics ahead of middle class families.”

I want to see Congress do something to help the working families in America by pushing for a comprehensive jobs bill, not another repeal attempt.  Almost all of the people in Washington ran on creating new jobs and yet there has not been one vote on a jobs bill.  And you wonder why the Congressional approval rating is so low.

An Update On School Vouchers From Bill Duncan (@ANHPE)

Now the Senate has two voucher repeal opportunities

The House yesterday passed its budget.  Item 58 says, “Repeals the education tax credit against the business profits tax and the business enterprise tax.”  That means that your advocacy with senators for voucher repeal does double duty.  You are asking them to support voucher repeal as a free standing bill, HB 370.  But if HB 370 fails, you are also giving your senators reasons to accept voucher repeal as part of the inevitable horsetrading that will happen in June on the budget.  So even if you are talking to a senator who will surely not vote for HB 370, be not deterred!  Make the many reasons for voucher repeal clear and know that those factors will carry weight when the time comes.

And what are those factors?  Many of the issues were discussed at the very successful Senate Health, Education and Human Services Committee hearing, where supporters of voucher repeal greatly outnumbered supporters of vouchers.  Lack of business and public support has led to very low donations, even with a dollar-for-dollar subsidy from the tax credits.  Advocates blame that on the controversy but I say they brought it all on themselves.  Lack of oversight has made program administration an embarrassment.  And you must see Kathy Sullivan’s funny and hard hitting piece in the Union Leader about how bad the participating schools are.  Here is more fodder for discussion with your senator.

Funding for new charter schools is uncertain

There has been much coverage of the moratorium on new charter schools, leaving four new ones in an uncertain status.  Here is a good NHPR report summarizing the status.  And here is more background on the role of charters in New Hampshire.  The House Education Committee and the House Finance Committee have both established subcommittees that will review the role of charter schools in New Hampshire over the coming months.  The process is healthy and will enable New Hampshire to resume authorizing charter schools within a clear policy framework.

Final action on funding of new charters will now not be settled until the budget negotiations are complete in June.

New Hampshire’s pull-back is part of the national rethink on private school vouchers (@ANHPE)

As we move toward repealing the ill-conceived New Hampshire voucher program, a pseudonymous commenter toward the bottom of this Patch thread encapsulated the debate this way:

 All this focus on having “choices” makes me ask: why do taxpayers who are already providing a structure to educate every child in a given community need to also pay for additional choices based on nothing but the desire of the parent? I distinctly recall those who put this law in place two years ago telling us that churches and charities were the proper way to fund programs for “the poor.” Why is this different?

New Hampshire is one piece, but an important piece, of the national debate on privatization of public schools.  Here is today’s New York Times on the occasion of the Indiana Supreme Court decision upholding the state’s voucher program, reviewing the national state of play in the push for vouchers in Republican dominated states:

“This movement is doing more than threaten the core of our traditional public school system,” said Timothy Ogle, executive director of the Arizona School Boards Association. “It’s pushing a national policy agenda embraced by conservatives across states that are receptive to conservative ideas.”via States Redefining Public Schooling – NYTimes.com

But public school privatization is trench warfare on a state-by-state basis.  Here is Kansas, turning back a voucher program, with each side making the familiar arguments:

 The Kansas House defeated legislation on Monday that would create a school choice scholarship program funded by corporate donations.

….
“We are sacrificing their future because we are protecting a system,” said Kelley, an Arkansas City Republican.

“What we’re really talking about is diverting public funds to private or parochial schools,” said Rep. Nile Dillmore, a Wichita Democrat opposed to the measure.

And, under the headline, “Idaho lawmakers dump private school tax credits:”

A Senate panel ended hopes of private and religious schools that were pushing for Idaho to extend a tax break to people who donate to scholarships meant to defray the cost of tuition.

“The donor is going to profit off making this donation at the cost of the public,” Hill said. “That’s just not fair.”

Private, religious school officials who flew to Boise from northern Idaho for Tuesday’s hearing argued these scholarships would boost school choice for more students who wanted an alternative to the traditional public school classroom, but didn’t hail from families with the financial means to foot the bill.

Vouchers advance in lopsided Republican legislatures and are defeated in more balanced legislatures.  We need to correct the errors our last Legislature.

Reposted from ANHPE Blog

Rep. Mary Stuart Gile’s Senate testimony on her voucher repeal bill, HB 370

“Good afternoon. For the record, I am Mary Stuart Gile and I represent Merrimack District 27, which includes Concord Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, & 7. I am the prime sponsor of HB 370-FN, an act repealing the education tax credit program. There are multiple reasons for doing so. Mine are as follows:

1. Constitutionality, The NH Constitution (Part I-Art 6 and Part II-Article 83) specifically prohibits public funds from going to religious schools. The Education Tax Credit program as enacted is dependent on revenue intended for the general fund as Business Profit Tax (BPT) or Business Enterprise Tax, (BET) and diverting it through an intermediary, non-profit, scholarship organization, to be used as tuition to private schools, out-of-district public schools and possibly religious schools. Currently, the constitutionality of the education tax credit/voucher is before the Superior Court with a decision anticipated in mid-April.

2. Fiscal impact – 3.4 million this year; 5.1 in 2014 and up to 135 million in a decade, given our current fiscal constraints, can NH communities afford this? And the $2500/student scholarship may sound tempting to parents but it falls far short of tuition for secular schools, which range from $5000/student to $25,000/student in NH.

 

3. Research – Studies over twenty years show no statistical difference in student achievement between students attending private school on vouchers and those in public schools. In fact public school students in Milwaukee, Cleveland and Washington, DC outperformed students with vouchers when test scores were weighted to reflect socioeconomic level, race and disability. Further, in a 2011 audit report on Milwaukee‘s parental choice program, which is the nation’s oldest, established in 1990, little difference was found in the achievement scores between students in the City‘s private school voucher program and a matched sample attending Milwaukee‘s public schools. But the voucher program cost more per pupil.,

4. Accountability -Prior to the Education Tax Credit/voucher legislation, the BPT and BET went into the State Education Trust Fund and General Fund and were accountable to NH tax payers. There is absolutely no educational or fiscal accountability plan in the 2012 Education tax credit statute for any of this money to anyone!

5. History: The education tax credit is risky education policy and a poorly conceived piece of legislation that was initiated in 2011 by the Network for Educational Opportunity, (NEO), formerly known as the ‘Alliance for the Separation of Schools and State.’

The Alliance or NEO was incorporated in California in 2000 as a non-profit organization and its current board of directors all reside outside of NH. NEO’s stated purpose is ‘provide and support a variety of educational programs and promulgate publications designed to increase public understanding and acceptance of school systems independent of government funding and control.’ Many of the Proclaimations asserted by NEO or the Alliance are particularly inflammatory regarding our Nation’s public schools. The legislation creating NH’s education tax credit was crafted in collaboration with NEO and introduced and passed in both the House and the Senate in 2012 .

After the legislation passed, NEO registered as a non-profit in NH in August, 2012 and is the only non-profit scholarship organization that has applied so far. Beyond their stated purpose, NEO’s goals are to discredit and preferably dismantle public education. In their literature, this is because public schools are controlled by the government and subject to all the ills of government bureaucracy and power, including the ‘use of force to secure their audience,’ (their language, not mine).

Obviously, NEO was unfamiliar with the fact that NH is a local control state, that while local, state and federal funds provide support for educational programs, decisions about accepting such funds, curriculum, teacher evaluation, student activities etc are all made by local school boards made up of community folks who dedicate their time to ensure that their students have the best education possible. Often at the same town meetings that have just been held around NH. Hardly big government

NEO/ Alliance promotes parent choice. NH parents already have choices…publicly funded charter schools, including the Virtual learning Academy School which is a model for the country, home schooling , open enrollment schools, public schools and any combination of these. All of these opportunities are inclusive to students of all income levels, and learning styles and abilities. Public schools unlike private schools are not selective

NEO may also have been under the impression that NH students are behind others in the nation which is far from the truth. NH students in the most recent NAEP tests scored in the top ten in the country in mathematics and reading. NH is not a Mississippi, or Alabama or even a Louisiana.

Of Course there’s always room for improvement, but 20 years of research and data do not support vouchers or education tax credits as the way to improve student learning.

The education tax credit legislation was created by an organization from California that knew nothing about our education system, How it was funded or how it worked. They proposed a plan that disregards our commitment to funding an adequate education for every NH child and includes targeted funds for children receiving free and reduced lunch, and that students who meet specific criteria receive the support that they need.

And the irony in all of this is, as a non-profit organization registered in NH, there is nothing to stop NEO from raising funds and establishing a foundation to provide scholarships to anyone. It would take more time and the scholarships might be much smaller in amount, but they could do it, without taking money from NH’s general fund and Education Trust Fund. There would be no limitations on how the scholarships were distributed and many of the religious schools could benefit.

In closing, I have served in this House for 17 years. In December, 2012, I was appointed chair of the House Education Committee, which tells you that my primary concern is Education Policy in NH. I have been an educator for over 45 years, including 17 years in the classroom, preK-college, (all income groups); 16 years as a consultant with the NH Dept of Education in ECE and Title 1,ESEA; ( state-wide responsibilities and parent involvement); 6 years as VP for Education and Development for the AAS (gifted and talented)and chair and professor of Early Childhood Education at NHTI, Concord’s Community College. I have three degrees including a doctorate in Educational Leadership from Vanderbilt University. I am also a Mother of 4 adult children and 2 adult grandchildren, (all graduates of Concord’s public schools, with some private school and home schooling as well). I am a parent, an educator and an advocate for public education. History has proven that with all its challenges, our Nation’s commitment to public education is what has made America, the greatest Nation in the World.

Lastly, our primary responsibility as legislators is to ensure that our public schools and the students who attend them are receiving the best education that we can provide and the financial assistance as required by current law, which includes adequacy funding, catastrophic aid, vocational education tuition, transportation and building aid. These are our priorities. It does not make sense to continue a program where we voluntarily decrease state revenue collection in business taxes. We cannot ask our local communities to absorb any more loss of funding and we should not continue a program that so far has proven of no educational value.

Madam Chair, and Honorable Senate Colleagues, the education tax credit is bad legislation that we simply cannot afford. I hope you will support the House of Representatives majority vote of OTP on HB 370. Thank you

Reposted from ANHPE

There are more statements on the ANHPE site

1. http://wp.me/p2OKqy-BA

2. http://wp.me/p2OKqy-Br

3. http://wp.me/p2OKqy-Bm

Voucher Repeal (HB 370) Passes NH House. An ANHPE Update From Bill Duncan

Voucher tax credit

Repeal The New Hampshire House passed HB 370, repeal of the voucher tax credit, yesterday by a vote of 188-151.  It was almost a party-line vote, with a few switches on each side and a lot of absentees.  See how your representative voted here.  The schedule from here is not set.  It could go to the Senate as late as March 28th.  When it get’s there, it will go to the Senate Health, Education and Human Services Committee, Chaired by Sen. Nancy Stiles (R, Hampton).  The committee will hold a public hearing at some point in April and then decide what to recommend.  Voucher repeal is also part of the governor’s budget, so that could affect the committee’s action.

Court Case The hearing (it is called a hearing, but it is really the trial) will be at 11:00 AM at the Strafford County Courthouse on April 26.  The whole trial will be on this one day and Judge Lewis will issue his opinion at some point after that.   There is no need for a show of numbers here, but the trial will probably last only several hours so it would be easy to attend if you are interested.  Here is our court challenge.  And here is a mapshowing the courthouse location.

There’s more about voucher repeal here.

Charter Schools

NHPR’s The Exchange broadcast today was on charter schools.  The program was notable for the consensus expressed in support of charter schools done “the New Hampshire way,” as Scott McGilvray, president of the National Education Association of New Hampshire, put it, The New Hampshire way, in this context, was seen as establishing charters that serve specific needs supplementing what the traditional public schools already do.  Governor Hassan had supported that idea in her budget address, saying that the she would give the New Hampshire Board of Education authority to “prioritize new charter school approval to underserved communities.”  Sen. Stiles, House Education Committee Chair, Rep. Mary Gile, Board of Education Chair Tom Raffio and NEA NH President McGilvray all sounded supportive of the governor’s approach but also felt that this was a good juncture at which to step back, review charter and public school performance and clarify state charter school policy.

There is more about charters here.

Bill