The NH Progressive Newsletter is a weekly sampling of NH political
news, commentary and analysis. If you don't want to receive the
newsletter, email me at mark@markfernald.com. If you know people who
would like to receive it, please forward it to them and have them
contact me to get on the list. Mark Fernald

Greetings!

The Progressive Newsletter is back! Tax season and school vacation
sidetracked me, but I hope to see us through the end of the
legislative season.

In this issue:

Items 1-4: It seems the hottest issue is whether NH should have a law
mandating seat belt use by adults. Nanny State excess, or common sense
to save lives and money. Read the articles and see what you think. In
the future, as you read articles on traffic fatalities, notice how
often the article says the deceased 'was ejected from the vehicle.'
This is code for 'not wearing a seat belt.' In a crash, without a
seat belt, your body becomes a projectile. If there is a rollover,
and you're not belted in, your body may go partway out a door or
window, only to be crushed as the vehicle rolls. Please wear
seatbelts, regardless of the law!

Item 5: The NH Senate takes a more conservative approach to
estimating tax revenue, and to increasing the cigarette tax. The
House objects, fearing cuts to their budget. This will be interesting
as it plays out.

Item 6: A proposal to move all Medicaid nursing home expense to the
counties, in return for the state taking over other expenses. My
guess is that the counties will not want to take the risk of this
idea.

Item 7: Sen. Estabrook speaks out about TANF

Item 8: Op-ed in favor of allowing people to get off the reporting
list of sex offenders after ten years, if the crime was consensual
sex between an underage person and another person under 21.

Item 9: Sen. Larsen suggests a moratorium on new charter schools, so
that limited state funds can be used to fund existing charter
schools. Here's radical idea you won't find in the article: have the
state adequacy funding follow the student to any non-religious school
that meets state standards. If the charter schools make the grade,
they get the money.

Mark

1. New Hampshire could join rest of nation with seat belt law

By James W. Pindell, Globe Correspondent | May 23, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. -- The Live Free or Die state might be poised to join
the rest of the nation in requir ing adults in motor vehicles to wear
seat belts, a measure that has pitted two of New Hampshire's most
deeply held values against each other: its libertarian streak and its
frugality.

After years of legislative defeats, a seat belt bill was approved
last month by the New Hampshire House and will be voted on by a
Senate committee today. The debate is unfolding in the state Capitol
just months after Democrats took control of both chambers, as well as
the governor's office, for the first time in more than a century.

The bill's primary sponsor, state Representative Jennifer M. Brown,
said her goal is not to erode the state's famous motto, but to
prevent serious injuries that drain the public coffers in a state
that is trying to make ends meet without a sales or income tax.

When a person is in an accident and not wearing a seat beat, the
Dover Democrat said, they either die or end up with a catastrophic
injury that the state's Medicaid program must pay for after the
victim's health insurance runs out.

"By that person being stupid and not wearing their seat belt, they
are costing me and my constituents money," Brown said. "And if there
is one thing this state believes in even more than 'Live Free or
Die,' it is no broad-based taxes."

The bill allows for adults to be pulled over and fined if they are
not wearing a seat belt: $50 for a first offense and $100 for a
second offense.

That is more stringent than so-called secondary seat belt laws passed
in many other states, which do not allow officers to pull over drivers
solely because of a seat belt violation. If pulled over for another
offense, however, a driver could also be cited for not wearing a seat
belt.

In 2003, the most recent year for which statistics are available, New
Hampshire had the lowest seat belt usage rate in the nation, at 49.6
percent, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. In states requiring seat belt use, the rate was about
79 percent. New Hampshire already requires that minors wear a seat
belt.

A spokesman for Governor John Lynch, a Democrat, said Lynch favors
the safety value of seat belts, but has yet to weigh in on this
specific bill. If it does pass in its current form, the state could
receive $3.7 million from the federal government for promoting public
awareness of the need to use seat belts.

While the bill may face a fight in the Senate, the fact the seat belt
bill passed the House was a surprising turnaround after years of
rejection.

State Senator Robert J. Letourneau, a Derry Republican, has a simple
two-word explanation: "an election."

In November, for the first time since 1874, Democrats captured
majorities in the House and Senate and won the governor's office.

Since then, a number of previously unlikely initiatives have sailed
through the Legislature, including bills that would increase the
state's minimum wage, mandate part-time kindergarten, establish
same-sex civil unions, and require restaurants and bars to go
smoke-free.

As a result, state Representative Kenneth L. Weyler, a Kingston
Republican, has begun calling New Hampshire "the nanny state."

It is a dramatic shift from a year ago when it was hard to turn on a
local talk radio station, get a haircut, or have a beer in the state
without hearing some discussion about adding "Live Free or Die" to
state highway signs. A bill accomplishing that overwhelmingly passed
the House and Senate and was signed into law by the governor within a
month.

Letourneau, who sponsored the bill to put the motto on highway signs
, is chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, which is slated
to issue its

recommendation on the seat belt bill today. Regardless of the
outcome, the bill will proceed to the full Senate for a final vote.

"This is not about seat belts," said Letourneau . "This is about
whether or not government should be mandating seat belts. It makes
sense to wear a rain coat while it is raining, but the government
shouldn't mandate that you wear one."

##################

2. Panel recommends spiking seat belt bill

By KEVIN LANDRIGAN, Telegraph Staff

klandrigan@nashuatelegraph.com

Published: Thursday, May. 24, 2007

CONCORD  The campaign to mandate the wearing of seat belts stumbled
Wednesday with a Senate panel narrowly recommending the bill be
killed.

Advocates are hoping to reverse the outcome but realize they need to
find votes from Republican senators if this bill is going to survive.


The Senate Transportation Committee voted 3-2 to urge the Senate kill
the bill when it comes up for a final vote next week.

Manchester Democratic Sens. Louis DAllesandro and Betsi DeVries have
declared they oppose the House-approved measure (HB 802).

DeVries said voluntary use of seat belts has gone up 15 percent since
2001.

I personally have no doubt that wearing seat belts makes a
difference in most accidents, said DeVries, a retired firefighter.

I just dont happen to think that a law is going to make a
difference.

Sen. Peter Burling, D-Cornish, disagreed and predicted that if the
mandate became law, it would mean that as many as 20 more motor
vehicle crash victims would survive in a year.

Burling said hes angered by talk that the Democratic majority in the
Legislature risks a voter backlash if it passes this mandate.

To me, this is not about political lives, it is about the actual
lives of people in this state, Burling said.

Sen. Robert Clegg, R-Hudson, said his son would not have lived
through a crash several years ago if he had been buckled up because
the weight of a fallen tree branch bounced him from the driver to the
passenger side of his car.

If he had been wearing his seat belt, my son would be dead, Clegg
said.

Sen. Molly Kelly, D-Keene, said she had been moved to support the
bill by a Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center survey that found New
Hampshire motorists are more likely to wear seat belts when they
drive in the other 49 states that have the mandate.

I was undecided because I do respect individual rights, but during
the six hours of testimony on this bill, I did hear evidence that
made a difference to me, Kelly added.

State law already compels anyone younger than 18 years old to wear a
seat belt.

The bill carries a $50 fine for a first offense and $100 fine every
additional time the violation occurs.

The driver would face the fine if an adult passenger were not wearing
a seat belt.

The bill exempts from the mandate those with a physical or mental
condition that prevents wearing the belt as long as a doctor or
nurse confirms the ailment.

Anyone driving or riding in a taxi or school bus would also not have
to wear a seat belt.

Supporters said they may try to revive the bill by making it a
secondary offense that would mean the police could not pull someone
over and ticket them for not wearing the seat belt.

The fine could be issued only if the stop took place due to a
different violation of motor vehicle laws.

Sen. Robert Letourneau, R-Derry, said he doesnt think that strategy
will make a difference.

Watering this bill down doesnt make sense. Getting rid of it
completely does in my view, said Letourneau, who chairs the Senate
Transportation panel.

Gov. John Lynch has refused to take a position on the bill.

###############################

3. Thursday, May 24, 2007

Buckle roulette?

The New Hampshire House passed a bill last month requiring seat belt
use by adults. The vote was close, 153-140. If the Senate goes along
and the governor signs the measure, neglecting to buckle up will
immediately be a violation punishable by a $50 fine for adults, $100
for a second offense. People under 18 are already required to use
seat belts in New Hampshire.

For reasons of public welfare and public safety, this is a law whose
time should come. However ...

In considering this bill, the House voted down a perfectly reasonable
amendment that would have made seat-belt violations so-called
secondary offenses  that is to say, offenses for which you could
be fined only if you were pulled over for another reason. That may
seem to be a minor matter. But, as we have noted in this space on
previous occasions, consider the implications.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says New Hampshire
is tied with Wyoming for the lowest seat belt use in the nation, at
63.5 percent. Even that figure may be high, as the agencys previous
estimate for New Hampshire, three years earlier, was 49.6 percent.
But lets accept 63.5 percent. If this bill becomes law, that means,
initially, police officers will be authorized to pull over 36.5
percent of the cars on the highway.

That would be an impossible task. So the police would have to pick
and choose. And what criteria might individual officers select? The
make and model of the car? Out-of-state plates? The perceived
ethnicity of the driver? Bumper stickers expressing views that an
individual might find popular, or unpopular?

Even if such considerations are not part of anyones calculus, even
if the stops are decided by pulling petals off daises, wont this law
raise suspicions galore? Why did you pull over this particular person,
a lawyer may ask, when more than a third of the cars on the road
committing the same offense were allowed to zip by? Such concerns
explain why 24 states have decided to treat seat-belt law violations
as secondary offenses rather than primary offenses.

Yes, it is time for New Hampshire to adopt a seat-belt law for
adults. New Hampshire is the only state in the nation without one,
indicating that some earlier legislators may have seriously
misunderstand our state motto. Its Live Free or Die, not Live Free
and Die. Whats more, accident victims who do not die often end up on
the public welfare rolls. That observation may sound crass, but a
compelling case can be made that the simple precaution of using seat
belts should be a civic obligation, not a matter of personal choice.

That said, if drivers shouldnt have random choices on the highways,
neither should law-enforcement officials. It seems unlikely that the
New Hampshire Senate will pass this bill, which was rejected
yesterday by the Transportation and Interstate Cooperation Committee.
But if it does, it ought to do so with a secondary offense amendment.

#################

4. Editorial

Economics and safety argue for seatbelt law

Monitor staff

May 23. 2007 8:00AM

The statistics listed by Safety Commissioner John Barthelmes should
be enough to convince most people that the state needs a mandatory
seatbelt law.

In 2001, 51 percent of all those killed in fatal highway accidents in
New Hampshire were not wearing seatbelts. The numbers went up from
there: 55 percent in 2002, 59 in 2003, 66 in 2004, 69 in 2005 and 77
percent last year.

The first seatbelts were put into cars in 1949 by the Nash-Kelvinator
Corp., the automaker that introduced reclining seats, according to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The restraints were so
effective at reducing death and injury rates that just four years
later the American Medical Association lobbied in favor of making
them mandatory in all vehicles.

Today, a half century later, New Hampshire is the only state in the
nation that doesn't require that all drivers and passengers buckle
up. The House narrowly passed a mandatory seatbelt bill last month.
But with Gov. John Lynch sitting on the sidelines so he can't be
blamed if people no longer have the advantage of killing themselves
more easily when in New Hampshire, the bill looks like it could crash
and burn in the Senate.

"Personal freedom," cry the bill's opponents. "It's . . . against the
libertarian philosophy of New Hampshire," declaimed veteran Democratic
Sen. Lou D'Allesandro. "Nanny state," said Sen. Bob Clegg.

Maybe, before they exit their cars through their windshields, people
who don't wear seatbelts will have a chance to shout one last "Live
Free or Die."

Wearing seatbelts reduces a front-seat passenger's chance of being
killed in an accident by 45 percent, the odds of critical injury by
50 percent. Those figures are even higher for people in pickup
trucks.

But cutting the risk in half hasn't been enough to persuade many
adults to use their seatbelts. Last year, according to the highway
association, adult seatbelt use was 63.5 percent, putting New
Hampshire in a last-place tie with Wyoming.

Nationally, 81 percent of adults wear them. Many do so because it's
the law.

Opponents argue that the state shouldn't step in because adults who
fail to buckle up put only themselves at risk. That's true, perhaps,
of injury to the person, but not to the wallet. When someone is hurt
more gravely or killed because he or she wasn't buckled up, everybody
pays.

In 2000, the public cost in health-care bills, higher insurance
premiums, reduced tax revenue and disability payments for each
critically injured highway accident victim averaged $1.1 million, the
highway association said. Employers pay in higher worker compensation
and life insurance bills, lost productivity and added sick leave.

The impact on an unrestrained driver in a 30 mph collision is the
equivalent of falling from three stories. It explains why hospital
costs are 50 percent higher when accident victims aren't wearing a
seatbelts.

The public pays much of those higher hospital costs because, being
risk-takers, people who don't wear seatbelts are more likely not to
have health insurance. They're also more likely to skip out on their
hospital bills, according to The Journal of Trauma.

Senators who vote against the seatbelt bill will be voting in favor
of higher bills for responsible residents. To justify that, they need
to offer more than shopworn slogans.

#######################

5. Senate: $113 million less to spend than House

By Norma Love, Associated Press Writer | May 22, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. --State agency heads happy with spending in the budget
the House passed last month may not be smiling by week's end.

Senate budget writers learned Tuesday they have $113 million less to
spend from general taxes in the budget they hope to finish this week.
Finance Committee

Chairman Lou D'Allesandro had one word to describe their task:
"Sobering."

D'Allesandro set a Friday deadline to finish the Senate's version of
the $10 billion budget for the two years beginning July 1. He hopes
to bring it to the floor for a vote May 31. Once the Senate adopts a
budget, negotiators from the two chambers will meet to develop a
compromise.

Lempster Republican Bob Odell, chairman of the Senate Ways and Means
Committee, presented the bad news.

Odell said the drop is based on hiking the cigarette tax 28 cents a
pack, as Gov. John Lynch proposed in February, not 45 cents, as the
House proposes. That accounts for $78.5 million of the difference
with the House.

He said Senate forecasters also were more conservative in estimating
income from the tax, which now is 80 cents per pack.

Odell said his committee also was more conservative in estimating
business-tax income to the tune of nearly $37 million.

Senate forecasters were more optimistic about taxes on insurance
premiums, interest, dividends and telecommunications. Those gains
were partially offset by a gloomy outlook for income from the tax on
property sales.

Odell said his committee didn't set out to cut revenue projections.

"We didn't pick a number and back into it," he said.

######################

6. Proposal shifts nursing home costs to counties

By Norma Love, Associated Press Writer | May 22, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. --Senate budget writers are considering shifting the
state's share of nursing home costs onto county taxpayers in exchange
for the state assuming a variety of other costs counties now pay.

Under the proposal, counties would pay both the state and local share
of Medicaid costs of caring for the elderly in nursing homes and at
home.

As a trade off, the state would pay costs the two now share for
medical treatment, assistance to poor, blind and disabled residents
and treatment for troubled and delinquent youth. One variation of the
proposal also would shift skilled nursing services to the state.

A similar, less expansive proposal died last year at the negotiating
table. Critics argued then that the state benefited more by shifting
the growing cost for the elderly onto property taxpayers in exchange
for less expensive services for youth.

Associate Health and Human Services Commissioner John Wallace
outlined the deal Tuesday to the Finance Committee, which told him to
modify it to soften the impact on counties that would pay more with
the shuffled responsibilities.

Wallace said the counties' total cost would be capped each year to
limit their risk. Next year's cap would be $98 million, but the
change would produce winners and losers.

Belknap, Coos, Grafton, Hillsborough and Sullivan would pay less
under the plan. Carroll, Cheshire, Merrimack, Rockingham and
Strafford would face higher costs.

Wallace said he included a credit in the proposal to give a break to
counties with more elderly receiving Medicaid.

"No model makes everybody happy," said Wallace.

Senate President Sylvia Larsen, a committee member, asked Wallace if
he could come back with a modified plan that phases in the changes so
counties hit with higher costs would have time to adjust.

Wallace said the state might be more receptive to increasing rates
for nursing homes and home care if the cost sharing is between the
counties and federal government. Currently, the federal government
pays 50 percent of the Medicaid costs and the counties and state
split the rest.

He suggested trying the change for three years, then revisiting it.

State Sen. Kathleen Sgambati said the idea was to reduce
administrative costs by simplifying the process. She said the
combined state and federal savings would be $1.3 million.

Wallace said he couldn't estimate the counties' administrative
savings. They would not have to deal with thousands of bills, he
said.

The state and counties have shared the cost of Medicaid patients in
nursing homes for years.

In 1999, the counties agreed temporarily to change the arrangement.
They began sharing the cost of helping the elderly poor stay at home
instead of moving into more expensive nursing homes. In exchange, the
state assumed more of the cost for nursing home care.

Since then, the arrangement has been extended -- though sometimes
reluctantly by the counties who say the state isn't paying a fair
share of the costs.

Betsy Miller, lobbyist for the New Hampshire Association of Counties,
estimated Tuesday that the deal cost the counties $21 million last
year alone. She said the association isn't taking a position on
Wallace's proposal because they want the arrangement to expire June
30.

"They want more money," Miller said of the counties.

The House included a one-year extension in the companion bill to the
budget it passed last month.

################

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

7. Community commentary: N.H.'s TANF program can do even better

By Sen. Iris Estabrook

D-Durham

New Hampshire's welfare program should not be a revolving door.

With that in mind, lawmakers in the Senate and House made adjustments
to the state-federal welfare program known as Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families. But already critics are lining up to accuse us of
weakening the reforms of last year.

Far from it. Senate Bill 226, which I sponsored and which passed this
week in the House, makes adjustments that ensure the program will be
successful. We measure success not by the number of families who go
off the program but by the number of families who stay off the
program because they've learned how to support themselves. No one
wants a revolving door  if nothing else, it's not cost-effective.

Last year, the Legislature, under pressure from the federal
government, rushed through changes to the program out of fear of
federal sanctions. At that time, several lawmakers unsuccessfully
pushed to include an accountability provision so the impact of the
changes could be measured.

Since the adoption of last year's reforms, more than 600 families are
off the welfare rolls, according to the Department of Health and Human
Services. It sounds like good news until you ask where they went. Are
they on municipal welfare rolls now, just waiting to reapply to the
state? Or are they in jobs that will pay for rent, child care and
transportation and thus keep them off welfare permanently? We don't
know.

The new bill passed this year means the state Health and Human
Services Department will collect data on what happens to the people
who leave TANF or who lose benefits for failing to meet various
requirements.

Second, the changes introduce some flexibility for the Department of
Health and Human Services in applying certain provisions. Note the
flexibility is for the department not the recipients. These changes
should make it easier for New Hampshire to meet the federal work
participation requirements set by federal law and avoid potential
sanctions.

The bill also provides the department with greater flexibility to
assist families who are dealing with barriers to success. It's hard
to keep a job and care for children when living with the threat of
domestic violence. It's hard to succeed with an untreated mental
illness. If we want families to be successful over the long-term,
these problems need to be addressed. We already know affordable
childcare and reliable transportation are major challenges for
low-income parents. This bill requires that TANF applicants receive
referrals to help them find these services.

Requirements for education, job training, job search and work
participation remain  so does the requirement that participants
attend an orientation session before receiving benefits. The changes
adopted by the Legislature this year have the support of the New
Hampshire Local Welfare Administrator's Association, and the
Workforce Opportunity Council along with almost a dozen other groups.


Don't forget that the primary beneficiaries here are supposed to be
the children. TANF was and continues to be a way to help children.
Allowing children to go hungry, to live in a car or shuttle between
homeless shelters is not and never has been in the public interest.
We provide benefits to help thousands of single parents enter and
stay in the workforce while caring for their youngsters. These are
the parents who did not abandon their children, who chose to stay and
do the best they could to provide for those children.

For 10 years, New Hampshire has boasted of one of the most successful
TANF programs in the nation. As a state, we've earned more than $31
million in federal high performance bonuses. More than 20,000 clients
were placed in jobs through the TANF program between 1997 and 2004.
We're leading New England with our work participation rates under the
new reforms.

We should be proud of our successes with the TANF program and make
sure those successes don't erode in our haste to reach numerical
benchmarks or avoid federal sanctions. We need more information about
who gets off welfare successfully, and we need the flexibility to
adjust the program as we go to build upon what works.

####################

8. Laurie Peterson: Consensual teen sex should not carry a life
sentence

By LAURIE PETERSON

Tuesday, May. 22, 2007

"SENATE APPEARS poised to go easier on some sex offenders who were
under 21" was the headline that greeted us on Sunday atop Tom Fahey's
"State House Dome" column in the New Hampshire Sunday News. While the
headline may appear to be true, it is akin to taking a small section
of the Mona Lisa and saying it is a picture of the starless night (if
that section was taken from her black clothing).

It is the tip of the iceberg.

House Bill 504 does not "go easy" on sex offenders under age 21. To
the contrary, for someone to qualify under the bill he must have no
other convictions, misdemeanor or felony, on his record for a period
of 10 years after the original crime. Should 20-year-olds who are
involved in non-forcible sexual relations with minors be punished?
Yes. But should they be forced to register for the rest of their
lives with no review or relief? No.

Sex-offender registration is about public safety, not punishment. In
order to have an effectual registry that posts predators, there must
be some mechanism for removal, especially for consensual acts. Under
the current registry, the only person who wins is the predator
because he is harder to spot.

The federal Adam Walsh act that is supposed to make sex offender
registration consistent nationwide falls short in several ways.
Registration under the act turns upon the original conviction. A
night of teenage sex in New Hampshire would not be punished the same
way in Maine or Nevada, for example. If the crime is a felony in one
state (such as New Hampshire), it carries a 25-year registration with
online posting under Walsh. But if it is a misdemeanor (as it is in
other states), it carries a 10- to 15-year registration with no
online posting under Walsh. How is that for consistent?

The true and original intent of registration was to post and make
public violent, predatory, child-molesting offenders. Is our registry
being used for this purpose and this purpose alone? No, it is not.

HB 504 is the right thing to do and the House Criminal Justice
Committee was not confused or misled when it voted unanimously to
pass the bill the first time around. To pretend that the committee
was confused or sleeping on such a contentious issue is a damage to
the credibility and intelligence of all the members of the committee.
They should be appalled that their chairman went to the Senate and
asked the bill to be retained after all the hard work and testimony
that was presented in the House.

Teenage sexual experimentation is not child molestation. New
Hampshire's registry should not be watered down with these types of
singular non-violent incidents, nor should any state registry. I will
say it again: Registration is about public safety, not punishment.

Laurie Peterson lives in Manchester.

###################

9. Senate: Put hold on state-approved charter schools

By Norma Love, Associated Press Writer | May 23, 2007

CONCORD, N.H. --Senate President Sylvia Larsen said Wednesday the
state should put a hold on approving new charter schools until
lawmakers figure out how to fund them.

Larsen proposed repealing the state Board of Education's authority to
approve charter schools over the objections of the local school
district.

Her proposal would not eliminate existing charter schools or affect
new ones, as long as they are approved by local voters.

The state board's authority to bypass local school districts will
expire in 2013 if lawmakers do nothing. The Legislature granted the
board that authority in 2003 under Gov. Craig Benson, as part of a
10-year pilot program to approve up to 20 of the schools.

Officials from Seacoast Charter School, Franklin Career Charter
Academy and Cocheco Art and Technology Academy told lawmakers earlier
this year they may have to close if lawmakers don't increase their
state aid to $4,000 per pupil annually.

Larsen presented her proposal to the Senate Finance Committee, of
which she is a member. She suggested shifting $800,000 in seed money
designated for new charter schools in the House-passed budget to the
handful of existing ones that are struggling financially.

Under her proposal, the state board would determine aid levels, but
priority would be given to the Seacoast Charter School, the only
elementary school.

Larsen said her proposal puts a priority on the elementary school
because other money is available in the budget for alternative
programs to prevent students from dropping out of high school. That
could be used to help charter schools for older students, she said.

The charter schools are public, but exempt from some state
regulations. They typically are be designed to serve a certain type
of student, such as those at risk of dropping out or those interested
in the arts or another subject.

Critics argued in 2003 that the schools would face funding problems
because they lacked local support -- though some of their costs would
be paid with state aid. The idea at the time was that the schools
would attract federal, private or local grants to pay the balance.

Since then, some charter schools have had to fight local school
boards for their state aid -- roughly $3,600 per pupil currently. As
federal startup grants run out, the schools have been unable to pay
their bills with the state aid and income from fund raising.

Some estimate they need at least $6,000 per pupil or more to survive.


About 500 students attend charter schools in the state.