My Position on School Choice

I have expressed an inclination to support school choice programs, including vouchers and charter schools. However, I hesitate to endorse any specific program at this time—including New Hampshire’s initiatives—because the details matter. A program’s effectiveness and impact can vary significantly based on its design. Given some questions I have received about this viewpoint, I’d like to explain it in full.

Acknowledgment of Diverging Views

First, I want to acknowledge that many of my closest friends and family disagree with me on school choice, some quite passionately. This group includes, to varying degrees, my wife, parents, law partner, and many friends, relatives, colleagues, and campaign supporters. I will say that if anyone feels they can no longer support my candidacy because of this position, I fully respect that decision and hope we can remain friends.

The Political Landscape of School Choice

School choice is a highly political topic, but I’m not affiliated with a political party. Personally, I see school choice as largely irrelevant to the local school board’s responsibilities, as it is a state legislative issue. I respect that others may disagree. Some may feel that my views on this contentious topic make me unfit for the school board, while others might appreciate them. There’s a third, perhaps larger, group that either doesn’t feel strongly about the issue or agrees it is irrelevant to the board’s work. My stance may hurt my campaign more than it helps, but ultimately, that’s what elections are for. One thing that I can assure you is that I’m not hiding my views or planning to reveal a secrete agenda if elected.

Evaluating the Impact of School Choice Programs

A frequent criticism of school choice programs is that they divert funds from public schools. To evaluate this claim, consider New Hampshire's voucher program (Education Freedom Accounts). When a family participates, the state’s adequacy funding—currently about $5,000 per student (more for higher-needs students, but we’ll leave that aside for this example)—is redirected from the public school district to the family, who can use it for approved educational expenses such as private schooling or homeschooling. As a result, the district loses that amount in state funding. For instance, if 100 students in a district participate in the program, voucher opponents point out that the district has lost half a million dollars it would have otherwise received.

In my opinion, focusing solely on revenue loss is incomplete and misleading. A more meaningful perspective is to consider per-student spending, not just total revenue. With fewer students, the district’s required expenditure should also decrease. While a half a million dollar revenue loss might seem significant, the district also has 100 fewer students to educate, meaning its remaining budget is distributed among fewer students. The Concord school district’s 2024-25 budget is approximately $110 million, serving around 4,000 students, resulting in an average cost of about $27,500 per student (notably higher than the reported cost of $22,000, which only includes operating expenses). If 100 students disenroll to use EFAs, the district’s revenue drops, but per-student funding rises, meaning each remaining student effectively receives more funding on average. This also suggests that the district has ostensibly saved about $2.2 million based on its cost per student, although this figure alone is also misleading.

The Complexity of Fixed Costs

Opponents argue that this analysis ignores the fact that not all costs can be reduced when enrollment drops, which is true to an extent. However, over time, fixed costs can be adjusted—albeit to varying degrees depending on the nature of each specific fixed cost. In a well designed school choice program, the savings per student should account, and provide a cushion, for the time it will take the school to adjust its fixed costs. In fact, school enrollment is declining regardless due to demographic reasons, and school choice programs are just a small part of that trend. If school districts cannot manage fixed costs, they face much larger financial problems than any emphasis on school choice can address.

Understanding the “Switcher Rate”

Another point of debate is that many students using vouchers have never attended public school. A student who does not switch out of public school adds a new cost to the state’s education fund without any corresponding per-student savings for the local district. Knowing how many voucher recipients would have otherwise attended public schools (the “switcher rate”) helps gauge the program’s fiscal impact. The New Hampshire Department of Education estimates the switcher rate at around 37%. Above a certain break-even switcher rate, the savings to local districts will outweigh the cost to the state; below it, there will be net losses. Any school choice program should monitor and adjust based on this switcher rate to ensure a positive net fiscal impact.

Does School Choice Help Students Who Leave Public School?

While I believe that school choice programs benefit nearby public schools, I am less convinced that they provide significant overall advantages for participating students. My review indicates that there is insufficient evidence regarding the impact of school choice programs on those students. I approach the benefits of private schools with some skepticism, although I acknowledge that specific children may thrive in particular educational settings. In most areas of New Hampshire, I believe most, but not all, parents will choose public schools. Nonetheless, it is crucial to respect parents' authority in deciding what’s best for their child. For older, more mature students, their preferences should also be taken into account. Ultimately, parents know their children best and should have the right to make important decisions about their education, barring cases of outright neglect or abuse.

Addressing “Cream-Skimming” Concerns

Voucher opponents also note that private schools accepting voucher students are not required to accept all students, unlike public schools, which are open to everyone within their jurisdiction. This “cream-skimming” effect, as the academic literature calls it, might theoretically mean school choice programs disproportionately enroll students with fewer challenges, leaving behind more higher-needs students in public schools, potentially increasing their per-student costs. However, it’s also plausible that students with specific needs or learning styles are more drawn to alternative programs like charter schools, creating the opposite impact.

This issue has been studied extensively, and I do not believe there is substantial evidence that school choice programs negatively impact the students remaining in public schools. While cream-skimming concerns shouldn’t be reasons to oppose school choice outright, any program should be designed with safeguards to ensure equitable access and undergo regular assessments to monitor outcomes and address equity concerns.

The Issue of Religious Institutions

Another objection to vouchers is that they subsidize religious institutions, as many private schools have religious affiliations. Personally, I do not practice religion, but it’s worth noting that religious organizations have a longstanding history of providing schools and often subsidize tuition through charitable means. Legally, courts have ruled that as long as public funds are applied neutrally and do not specifically aim to support religion, religious institutions cannot be excluded. Religious organizations regularly receive public funds in other areas, such as healthcare, grants, and higher education. Thus, while the state support cannot promote a particular religion, it also cannot discriminate against religious institutions.

School Choice in Practice

It’s also worth acknowledging that school choice effectively exists, as families with more resources are better able to choose their school district by selecting where they live. To take an extreme comparison, Concord has a very similar enrollment as Bedford and Londonderry, yet Concord has about twice the total population as these towns. While differences in available housing stock (primarily single-family homes in Bedford and Londonderry versus a more diverse range, including apartments and condos, in Concord) likely explain much of this discrepancy, they probably do not explain it entirely. In fact, by my tally, Concord’s student-to-population ratio is the lowest among the ten largest cities in New Hampshire, including Manchester and Nashua, which also have many apartments. If Concord is concerned about not having enough students, this relatively low student-to-population ratio is a much bigger factor than school choice programs.

Conclusion: A Balanced Perspective on School Choice

To sum up, my support for school choice doesn’t diminish my commitment to public education because a well-designed school choice program improves, rather than harms, the finances of public schools. I believe that giving parents more options can benefit some children, while most families in New Hampshire will continue to choose public education.