NHcafe

The state Senate today overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment Gov. John Lynch says he needs to have better flexibility in sending state aid to local schools.

By a vote of 19-5, the Senate approved CACR 34, which would allow the state to send different amounts of state school aid to each district, depending on its wealth and other factors. The measure needed 15 votes — a three-fifths majority — to pass. It won support from 11 Democrats and eight Republicans.

Lynch argues the amendment will let the state take a common sense approach to distributing state aid, and end its obligation to send equal aid to school districts no matter how wealthy or poor they are. The amendment says aid can be distributed in a way the Legislature “reasonably determines to alleviate local disparities.”

Lynch applauded the Senate vote, saying “We must continue moving forward with this same bipartisan spirit, to pass an amendment that will allow us put in place the best education policy for our children.”

Opponents of the measure say it frees the Legislature to begin backsliding on school aid commitments, which will push up local property taxes. They said Claremont and Londonderry school lawsuit rulings by the state Supreme Court already allow school aid to be targeted, once the state meets its basic responsibility of funding an adequate education for all children.

Click HERE for the full story in the Union Leader by Tom Fahey

As we all wait in anticipation to the newest magical formula for adequacy, wondering if we will be on the losing or the winning end of the state’s allotment of funds for education, knowing well that it will not begin to cover the mandated education laws thus requiring local taxes to be increased.

There have been several formulas used in an attempt to solve the funding issue for education. None have succeeded. The “Augenblick Formula”, which called for state aid to be shared based on a district’s property wealth, income wealth and tax effort , failed due to a lack of funds being appropriated to fully fund the formula. This led to the Claremont lawsuit. The attempts to solve this problem have gone from denial, the proposed unconstitutional ABC plan, to our present unconstitutional Gastas plan. Each plan has diminished the Claremont plaintiff towns ability to provide an adequate education without raising their local taxes.
While I do not have the necessary statistics to accurately show the state aid amounts for 2008, had Augenblick remained as the formula to these towns, this is a hypothetical analyses.
In 1990 the total Foundation aid given under Augenblick was $45,236,179. Claremont received $2,028,104, or 4.45% of this aid. Manchester received $1,433,485, or 3.2% of the aid. Nashua received $451,188 or less than 1% of the aid.

In 2007 the state grant funds increased to $527,360,567, an increase of 1066%.
Under the Gastas plan, which of course factored in elements affecting his district, Claremont received $10,863,620, 2.05% of the aid, an increase of 436% from 1990.
However had Claremont received 4.45%, as it did in 1990, they would have received $23,731,225, $12,867,605 more in state aid.

Manchester received $49,357,620,9.3% of the aid, an increase of 3343% from 1990.
Had Manchester received 3.2% , as it did in 1990, they would have received $16,875,537, a loss of $32,482,083.
Nashua received $31,303,454, 5.9% of the aid, an increase of 6838% from 1990.
Had Nashua received the .99%, as they did in 1990, they would have received $5,257,784, a loss of $26,045670.

Property wealth and tax effort, and income wealth being essential parts of the criteria for the distribution of aid, is significant. In 1998 Claremont had property valuation of $491,042,102. Their tax effort locally was $20.21. Manchester had property valuation of $3,739,882,250, their tax effort was $18.47 locally. Nashua had property valuation of $3,999,095,691. Their tax effort was $17.76 locally.

In 2006 Claremont had property valuation without utilities of $699,403,608, an increase of 52%. Their tax effort locally was $14.37 a decrease of $3.39. Manchester had property valuation of $9,443,837.146, an increase of 152%, their tax effort was $5.36 locally a decrease of $13.11. Nashua had property valuation of $8,996,058,857, an increase of 125%. Their tax effort was $7.70 locally, a decrease of $10.08.

In 1990 per capita income was, Claremont, $11,552, Manchester, $16,278, Nashua, $18,725. The 2000 census showed per capita income as Claremont, 20,267, Manchester, 21,244, and Nashua, $25,209.

The Supreme Court decision of 1997 used these arguments when rendering their decision.
‘The question then is whether the school tax as presently structured is proportional and reasonable throughout the State in accordance with the requirements of part II, article 5. “Evidence introduced at trial established that the equalized tax rate for the 1994-1995 school year in Pittsfield was $25.26 per thousand while the rate in Moultonborough was $5.56 per thousand. The tax rate in Pittsfield, therefore, was more than four times, or over 400 percent, higher than in Moultonborough. Likewise, the equalized tax rate for the
1994-1995 school year in Allenstown was $26.47 per thousand while the rate in Rye was $6.86 per thousand — a difference in tax rates of almost 400 percent. We need look no further to hold that the school tax is disproportionate in violation of our State Constitution.”
Indeed, the trial court acknowledged that the plaintiffs “presented evidence that the school tax may be disproportionate if it is a state tax.”

“There is nothing fair or just about taxing a home or other real estate in one town at four times the rate that similar property is taxed in another town to fulfill the same purpose of meeting the State’s educational duty. Compelling taxpayers from property-poor districts to pay higher tax rates and thereby contribute disproportionate sums to fund education is unreasonable.”

The 2006 equalized tax rates were (Allenstown $11.45, Rye $2.93) {393%}, (Pittsfield $11.12, and Moultonborough $1.63) {682%}.
Does this show that the court decision was weighed when concocting these new funding schemes ? If anything the tax rate has become more disproportionate.

The court also ruled;
“Regardless of whether existing State educational standards meet the test for constitutional adequacy, the record demonstrates that a number of plaintiff communities are unable to meet existing standards despite assessing disproportionate and unreasonable taxes. “If modern conditions make ancient divisions or plans for distributing the tax burden inequitable, it would seem to be a plain legislative duty to enact such constitutional laws as will remedy the defect.” Opinion of the Justices, 84 N.H. at 581, 149 A. at 332-33; see State v. Express Co., 60 N.H. at 247 (Doe, C.J.) (”methods of dividing the public expense, equitable enough for practical purposes in the last century,
would now be good cause of complaint”).

“In addition, we conclude that the school tax as presently assessed is unreasonable. The word “reasonable” as used in part II, article 5 means “just.” Opinion, 4 N.H. at 569. “[T]he sense of the clause [is], that taxes shall be laid, not merely proportionally, but in due proportion, so that each individual’s just share, and no more, shall fall upon him.” Id.
The court could be suggesting that a solution for equitable funding would require that all properties throughout the state be taxed at the average tax rate for education which in 2006 would have required a tax rate of $7.68 at equalized valuations plus the present state tax.
It is obvious that the court would not accept anything lower than the present educational standards as being an adequate education. It is obvious that the court would accept another challenge to the definition of adequacy being proposed and that the court would find that once again the state has not met their constitutional duty in funding of state obligations.
Why wouldn’t this be argued once again in court ?

New Hampshire is ranked in the top 7 states with per capita income. Education is constantly referred to as the most important issue among our legislators, however they quickly sidestep the funding of education with the rhetorical “local control” argument. Somehow if the state funds their mandates it would seize control from the towns. Wow!
We are spending $2.2 billion a year for public education in this state, most of the funds are raised locally through local taxation. Clearly we don`t have a spending issue, however we do have a fairness in funding issue.

Shamefully we do not have “local control” of our schools. We must first fund the mandates which the legislators refuse to fully fund.

Taking the court out of educational issues can quickly allow the legislators to return to reneging on educational funding agreements or quickly widen the disparities in education.

We do not pick the headlines, not exactly a “School Funding Vote” do not get your hopes up.

The New Hampshire Senate could vote on a school funding constitutional amendment as soon as next week, after a bipartisan proposal passed committee review on a 3-2 vote.

Gov. John Lynch, members of both parties and several spokesmen for business told the Senate Judiciary Committee that an amendment sponsored by Senate leaders is the right move for education funding. Critics said the state should forget constitutional amendments, end a decade of delay and fund education fairly.

Click HERE to read the rest of the story in the Union Leader by Tom Fahey

Senate leaders from both parties unveiled a constitutional amendment on school funding yesterday they said will give the state wide flexibility to target school aid.Senate Majority Leader Joseph Foster, D-Nashua, and Minority Leader Ted Gatsas, R-Manchester, have agreed to co-sponsor a 50-word amendment they say they wrote in a way that is easily understood by voters.

The state Supreme Court said in a landmark Claremont lawsuit ruling that the Constitution requires the state to pay the cost of an adequate education for every child.

Gov. John Lynch has said the ruling locks the state into sending equal amounts of aid to all communities no matter how able they are to handle their own school costs. He wants an amendment that will free lawmakers to send more aid to poorer communities than to wealthier ones.

Click HERE for the full story by Tom Fahey in the Union Leader

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In fulfilling the requirement of HB 927 to make recommendations to the legislature and the governor for costing the opportunity for an adequate education, the Committee undertook an intensive five-month process to gather and review extensive amounts of data and educational costing studies from New Hampshire and around the country. Over the course of 18 meetings from August, 2007 to February 1, 2008, the Committee heard testimony and received information from the public, education stakeholders and professionals in education policy and finance.
On the basis of all of the information it reviewed, the Committee selected a legislative cost methodology to determine the cost of an opportunity for an adequate education. Utilizing this methodology, the Committee first engaged in a detailed analysis to determine the universal cost of such an educational opportunity. The Committee determined that the universal cost represents the per pupil resources to provide a public school student in New Hampshire with the educational opportunity required under RSA 193-E:2-a where no additional differentiated aid is needed to address the increased costs of this educational opportunity for students who have special educational needs, who have limited English proficiency, or who are economically disadvantaged, or are in schools with significant concentrations of economically disadvantaged pupils.
The Committee determined the universal cost to be $3,456 per pupil. The universal cost includes amounts for teacher salary and benefits; principal and principal assistant salary and benefits; guidance counselor; library media specialist; technology coordinator, custodians; instructional materials; technology (e.g. computers); teacher professional development; facilities operation and maintenance, and transportation. It is important to note that this universal cost represents the cost attributable only to the subset of education that is included in the definition of the opportunity for an adequate education.
In addition, the Committee found that students with greater educational needs required additional aid above the universal cost in order to provide these students with the opportunity for an adequate education. The Committee characterizes these additional monies as “differentiated aid.” Such differentiated aid is needed for three distinct categories of pupils: (i) English language learners (ELL); (ii) special education students, and (iii) economically disadvantages students and students in schools with significant concentrations of economically disadvantaged students.
The Committee determined that based upon an appropriate student – teacher ratio for ELL students additional differentiated aid in the amount of $675 per student who received ELL instruction should be provided.
In regard to special education students, the Committee determined that additional differential aid should be made available in the amount of $1,798 per special education student in grades kindergarten through 12 who is educated in a modified regular classroom and/or resource room. For special education students in the same grades who are educated in a self-contained or other restrictive placement program, the amount of differentiated aid should be $3,610.
The Committee determined that eligibility for the federal free and reduced-price lunch program (FRL) should be used to identify economically disadvantaged students. Here, the Committee further determined that as school concentration of students eligible for FRL increases, schools need an increasing amount of differentiated aid above the universal cost. Schools with the highest concentrations of FRL pupils need an additional amount of differentiated aid equal to the universal cost so that, combined, the universal cost and differentiated aid will equal twice the universal amount.
In order to ensure effective use of differentiated aid, the Committee also determined that schools that receive significant amounts of such aid because they have high concentrations of FRL pupils should implement one or more enhanced educational programs to support their students may be selected locally from a list of effective programs or interventions.
Underpinning the Committee’s determinations concerning both the universal cost and differentiated aid is the informed position that the State should utilize a school-based allocation and accounting formula in calculating the cost of adequacy. Out of respect to the long tradition of local control, the Committee recommends that the legislature continue to distribute funding to the school district as is currently the case, but that the amount of adequacy should be allocated by school. School based costing, allocation and accounting will require administrative and accounting changes. The Committee recognizes and recommends that the legislature designs an implementation plan that is not administratively burdensome.
Part of the Committee’s mandate was to study transition assistance for the school districts that do not presently provide a public kindergarten program. A specially designated sub-committee undertook a comprehensive review of this issue with the assistance of the Department of Education and input from affected stakeholders and the public. On the basis of the sub-committee work, the Committee makes several recommendations to implement kindergarten transition assistance for the 11 school districts for programs beginning in 2008 or 2009, including (i) reauthorizing the Kindergarten Construction Aid program; (ii) providing 100% financing to lease and set up portable classrooms on a temporary basis; and (iii) providing state funding for supplemental aid payments for projected half-day kindergarten enrollment in the 11 affected school districts that are prepared to implement a kindergarten program beginning in 2008.
Finally, the Committee recommends to the legislature and the governor that they accept the findings made by the Committee in this report and move expeditiously to introduce legislation that will cost the opportunity for an adequate education beginning for the 2009-2010 school year based upon all the Committee’s findings and determinations.

To read the entire report download this PDF file Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Costing an Adequate Education.

Gov. Lynch says change to constitution is needed

The New Hampshire School Board Association voted 47 to 4 against a constitutional amendment to support educational funding at its annual meeting on Saturday, Jan. 19.

Steve Young, the Londonderry School Board representative at the meeting, said this vote gives a clear direction to the School Board Association to lobby against an amendment.

Young is president of New Hampshire Communities for Adequate Funding of Education, or NHcafe, the group of 18 communities that has been challenging the Legislature’s education funding formula.

NHcafe is demanding that the state define the cost of an adequate education and fund it by June 2008.

Read the full story by Suzanne Laurent in the Derry News

School Board Association to Challenge Constitutional Amendment

Two-and-a-half years after the latest group of school districts sued the state over inequitable education funding, the cost of an adequate education may come down to a number that’s only slightly higher than past calculations. A group of lawmakers charged with putting a price tag on an adequate education released a report of its findings yesterday, calculating the per-student cost at $3,456.

By comparison, the state distributed $3,311 in 2002, according to the Department of Education.

The report, which is a draft, also recommends the state direct extra aid to schools with low-income, special education and non-English-speaking students. The group is expected to vote today on whether to submit the report to the full Legislature. Senate Education Chairwoman Iris Estabrook said she’s already begun work on a bill that would turn the group’s recommendations into law.

Meanwhile, other lawmakers have crafted a constitutional amendment that would give the Legislature the sole authority to determine the level of state education aid. The group, on the other hand, was commissioned as part of lawmakers’ response to the latest Supreme Court decision, which directed the state to define an adequate education and pay for it.

Read the Rest of the story by Melanie Asmar in the Concord Monitor

CACR33
Session Year 2008

Title: relating to funding a public education. Providing that the legislature shall define standards for education, determine the level of state funding thereof, establish standards of accountability, and allocate state funds in a manner that mitigates disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity, provided that every school district receives a reasonable share of the state funds on a per pupil basis.
SENATE JUDICIARY

Next/Last Hearing:

02/12/2008 at 02:02 PM    SH 100

Richard Elliott

In 2008 the state with 198,968.9 students received $890,426,556. Average per student = $4,475

Claremont with 1916 students received $12,658,340. An average of $6,606.60 per student.

Using the same figures for number of students each receiving at least $3500 per student = $696,391,150.

Using the same total revenue from last year = $890,426,556 minus $696,391,150 = $194,035,406.

$194,035,406 is the amount to be divided among the towns that have issues that have been factored into the formulas such as free lunch, non- English speaking students, incomes. This is the grant dollars Claremont received under the previous formulas. About 34 towns received $0 in grant funds and many more received little. Their only state funding was from the state property tax (which was not really a state tax last year).

In 2005 Alton had 683.5 students. The adequacy cost was $3,293,632 which equals $3,782.80 per student (interestingly this is more than the adequacy base cost that they are using for 2010, which is $3,500). The state tax rate was $3.33 per thousand which in Alton raised $3,293,632. They sent $708,079 to the state. They received $0 in grant funds.

Claremont, in comparison, had 1918.2 students. The cost of adequacy totaled $9,569,685, an average of $ $4,988.88 per student. Claremont raised $ 1,784,819 through the state tax. We received an additional $7,784,866 in grant aid.

If Claremont, in 2010, receives $3500 in base amount we would only receive $6,713,700. A potential loss of $5,944,640 or $7 increase in local taxes.

If the state decides to divide the additional revenue spent last year ( $194,035,406) as a per student amount it would mean $97.52 per student or $186,849 more for Claremont.

More likely is the proposition that, once again, they will pick losers and winners, as has always been done. It would only take the highest 12 aided communities in the state to consume the additional revenue that the state spent on education last year. Manchester alone would consume over 20% of the $200 million. Manchester, Derry, and Nashua received $98 million in aid last year. That is half of what is left in the pie for education. I can expect that those voting on any formula will ensure that they receive a generous share, that is if they want to be elected again. These three towns carry the most weight in Concord.

I hate to believe it but we are going to see the good old days again. One lawsuit too many or to many elected officials without the fortitude to raise taxes for more education spending ? Merle Haggard sang “are the good times really over, for good” it certainly appears likely for many towns.

Richard Elliott

This afternoon Attorney’s for the 18 member communities and schools of NHcafe filled a sharp response to the State’s response to the Courts order of July 20th.  The State requested and was granted the opportunity to file a response after they could review our position.  Pleased with the “Good Faith” efforts so far we offered an olive branch.
Our complete position and filing on August 14th can be seen HERE.
We, NHCafe, had agreed to drop our case without prejudice if the State would make a good faith effort to cost an Adequate Education, fund it and ensure that there was an appropriate accountability system in place by July 30, 2008.  We were deeply dismayed by the State’s response and the Amicus Briefs filed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House that indicated that they were not willing to determine the cost, fund and ensure an accountability system at any time in the foreseeable future.  This inability or lack of desire to comply with a series of court rulings over the past 20 years is detrimental to the continued health and viability of the public education system and in turn, the economy of our great state.

Thus, we are pursuing today’s filing and requesting that the court take reasonable and appropriate action to ensure that the costing and funding of an adequate education for all children is done in an reasoned and expeditious process no later that June 30, 2008.  It’s time to do the right thing.

NHcafe

Click HERE for a PDF file of the NHcafe document submited Sept 5th, 2007  (this is a searchable text document) 

The Londonderry lawsuit towns, successors to the towns that sued the state in 1991 in the Claremont education funding case, say they are satisfied that the state is following through on the court’s mandate to define and fund an adequate education. The state says that because it is complying with the last court ruling, the case can be dismissed.

In short, the state has conceded. The dismissal request means the state has agreed that it is constitutionally obligated to define and fund an “adequate education.”

Click HERE for the full story in the Union Leader

Briefly states the following;

• The State has fulfilled its obligation to define a constitutionally adequate eductaion
• The State will Cost out and report on Feb 1, 2008

That’s it!  Silence on Funding and holding themselves acountable!

Click HERE to read the AG document as a PDF scan

Click HERE to read the Senate President and Speaker of the House document as a pdf scan

Concord – The state has asked the New Hampshire Supreme Court to dismiss a school funding lawsuit now that the state is moving ahead with a new effort to determine its share of education costs.

The state says it no longer will contest Londonderry and other towns’ claims that a 2005 school aid law is unconstitutional — noting that an interim funding plan has replaced it and will be in place through the 2008-2009 school year.

The state told the court in a brief filed Thursday that lawmakers and the governor will act by June 30 to determine a cost of an adequate education, which the court has said repeatedly is the state’s duty to fund.

Click HERE for the full Union Leader story by Norma Love of the AP

But there’s some question as to whether the committee will simply cost out an adequate education or go further and determine a way to fund it. Rep. Emma Rous, chairwoman of the House Education Committee and one of the 10 committee members, said yesterday that she’s not sure.

“I don’t know that we have set a deadline for the funding,” Rous said.

But Young hasn’t ruled out future lawsuits. If lawmakers fail to do what the court has repeatedly told them to do - define, cost out and fund an adequate education - Young said the issue could end up back in court. In the instance that the high court drops the lawsuit, Young said the coalition will ask the court to return its legal fees, about $160,000 in all, so it can stock what he called the “war chest.”

For the full story by Melanie Asmar in the Concord Monitor click HERE

A coalition of communities has agreed to dismiss its long-standing court case against the state over adequate education.

Three years after suing the state to define, cost out, fund and hold local schools responsible for an adequate education, the New Hampshire Communities for Adequate Funding of Education (NHCafe) said it believes the Legislature will act within a year to complete mandates set by the Supreme Court.

“What they have done, in our opinion, is made a good faith effort to define an adequate education,” said Steve Young, president of the watchdog group representing Londonderry, Merrimack and other communities.

Click HERE for the rest of the story in the Union Leader by Trent Spiner

Yes that is a big IF! They (General Court and the Governor) have made a good start with a definition of an adequate education that points to detailed supporting documentation, that the average person on the street will understand. In the court filing submitted to the New Hampshire Supreme court today, we are willing to support a dismissal if the State makes a good faith effort to fulfilling the remaining three mandates by June 30, 2008.

• Our request of the State to fulfill the three mandates is reasonable and, in fact, is no more than the State, itself, has agreed it is required to do.

• The legislature and governor acted in good faith during the 2007 legislative session by enacting Chapter 270 to define an adequate education and to establish a process and timetable for determining its cost. It is reasonable to believe they will act responsibly during the 2008 legislative session by addressing the remaining mandates, and there is no reason for the court to be further involved at this time.

• We have told the court we would assent to a dismissal without prejudice to ensure that a dismissal in no way would prejudice NHCafe and its members in the event the legislature and governor act in a manner we believe is unlawful, or fail to act. As a practical matter, any further legal action we might take would have little, if any, relation to the present case and would be based almost entirely on Chapter 270 and what happens during the 2008 legislative session.

• Should the State not commit to making a good faith effort to fulfill the remaining mandates, we will reassess our position and consider whether to ask the court to retain jurisdiction of the case as it has done up until now.

That’s it, we have filled well before the deadline requested by the court for our position on this issue. The Attorney Generals office last week asked the court for permission to file after it has an opportunity to review our position (that was granted). Next step, we see how the State feels about this and how the court feels about both of our positions.

As soon as we find out we will post it here at NHcafe.org

For a PDF file of the Appellees’ Brief Memorandum click HERE (this is a scan pdf file, as soon as we have a text version available we will post it) 

We didn’t comply with the court and we didn’t stand up to it. We created a definition, but with no specifics. We spent some tax money but haven’t decided how or how much or to whom. See, nothing to complain about.

Click HERE for a op-ed by Charlie Arlinghaus, president of the Josia Bartlett Center.

The great conspiracy theorists see an income tax lurking behind every tree. For decades, some activists have attacked every proposal and every candidate as part of a secret plan for an income tax. This year alone, passage of a constitutional amendment was said to guarantee an income tax and defeat of the same amendment was also said to guarantee an income tax. 

As the little boy who cried wolf found out, raising the alarm too often causes you to be dismissed as an alarmist when a real threat presents itself.

New Hampshire’s fiscal structure could be overtaken by an income tax or another vehicle of government expansion, but the threat doesn’t come from any one source.

 Click HERE for the rest of the story by Charles Arlinghaous of the Josiah Bartlett Center in the Union Leader

That really made it possible not to compromise this session was this: There was no deadline to act. It was not a now-or-never moment. The state is acting irresponsibly in basing its payments to local schools on an unconstitutional formula, but the Supreme Court seems unlikely to intervene on that basis. It continues to defer to the other two branches in such matters.

Most likely, the Legislature’s efforts to define an adequate education this past session will satisfy the court. Next the Legislature will determine the cost of an adequate education. A commission yet to be named has a February deadline for that task.

If the Legislature is relatively honest about the cost - and it probably will be, given its makeup and its record this past session - the dollar figure will raise the state contribution to public schools significantly. This will create urgency for a constitutional amendment on the 2008 ballot.
Click HERE for the Concord Monitor story by Mike Pride, a nice analysis

By adopting the definition, lawmakers beat a June 30 deadline the state Supreme Court set in a ruling it made in a school funding case last September.

If the Legislature had not acted, the court said it would step in and put its own definition in place. The measure easily passed, by votes of 205-115 in the House and 15-9 in the Senate.

Next, lawmakers will figure out the cost of an adequate education and fund it in the session that begins in January. Estimates are that it will be close to $1.2 billion, about half of total school spending statewide.

Gov. John Lynch hailed the action, saying, “This is an important step for New Hampshire and our children, and I look forward to signing it into law.”

“This is a step New Hampshire can be proud of,” Rous said.

She said the bill meets all of the court’s criteria in terms of “specificity, comprehensibility, costability and accountability.”

The bill adopts many of the standards the state Board of Education has in place, and includes English, math, science, social studies, health, and technology among areas of study in which students must be skilled.

Click HERE for the full story by Tom Fahey in the Union Leader

umors abounded yesterday that Senate Republicans may attempt to bring back a constitutional amendment on education funding for another vote today. The news stirred fear among Democratic leaders, who worry about voting on the amendment before backers have time to build consensus for the plan.

Earlier this month, the Senate attempted to revive the amendment after it failed in the House. But the plan fell one vote short in the Senate, prompting leading Democratic senators to say that lawmakers needed more time to work on the proposal. Democratic senators had attempted to resurrect the plan after it failed in the House. Rather than killing the proposal, senators voted to table it; at any point, they can vote to bring it off the table.

Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate released statements yesterday in response to “reports” that the amendment could come up for a vote.

“The members of the Senate agreed two weeks ago to table this bill so it could be worked on this fall and be brought in next year with wording we can all stand behind,” said Senate Majority Leader Joe Foster. “We don’t want to risk the future of this critical piece of legislation by sending this constitutional amendment to a House that’s not comfortable with the wording as it is currently proposed, nor do they have time to work constructively on this on the last day of session.”

House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner issued a similar statement, this time in response to “reports” that House Republicans may attempt to suspend House rules today to reintroduce the amendment.

Click HERE for the rest of the story by Dorgan Liebowitz in the Concord Monitor

Step 1 Define an Adequate Education

Good work by the State of New Hampshire General Court!

The following is the text of the unanamous Committee of Conference;

——
Committee of Conference Report on HB 927-FN, an act relative to the specific criteria and substantive educational program that define an adequate education.

Recommendation:

      That the House recede from its position of nonconcurrence with the Senate amendment, and concur with the Senate amendment, and

      That the Senate and House adopt the following new amendment to the bill as amended by the Senate, and pass the bill as so amended:

Amend the bill by replacing all after the enacting clause with the following:

      ­1  Statement of Purpose.

            I.  The general court embraces its duty to define the opportunity for a constitutionally adequate public education for every child in the state.  The Encouragement of Literature clause of the New Hampshire constitution declares that knowledge and learning spread through a community are “essential to the preservation of a free government,” and that “spreading the opportunities and advantages of education” is a means to preserving a free, democratic state.  Beyond competencies in reading, writing, and arithmetic, a broad exposure to the social, economic, scientific, technological, and political realities of today’s society is essential for New Hampshire students to compete, contribute and flourish in the twenty-first century.

            II.  The general court finds that the opportunity for a constitutionally adequate education in New Hampshire consists of the substantive education programs from kindergarten through twelfth grade that deliver the essential opportunities to acquire skills, competencies, and knowledge in the subject areas of English/language arts and reading, mathematics, science, social studies, the arts, world languages, technology, information and communication technologies, health and physical education.  The general court finds that an adequate education shall provide every child in New Hampshire with the opportunity to receive these substantive education programs in accordance with the specific criteria and high standards for such education programs that are set forth in the applicable school approval standards.  The opportunity for an adequate education includes a range of services, educational supports, and instructional resources.

            III.  In September 2006, the New Hampshire supreme court ruled in Londonderry School District SAU #12 & a. v. State of New Hampshire that the state had not met its duty to define a constitutionally adequate education for New Hampshire’s public school students by not identifying the specific criteria and the substantive education program that delivers the opportunity for an adequate education.

            IV.  In responding to its responsibility to determine the specific criteria and substantive education program that delivers the opportunity for an adequate education, the general court analyzed the current education delivery system established jointly through the legislative and executive branches.  Specifically, the general court reviewed the standards for public school approval and the state’s curriculum frameworks.  As part of its review, the general court determined which of the standards and curriculum frameworks provide the opportunity for an adequate education.  In analyzing the school approval standards and curriculum frameworks, the general court recognized that they were developed with the widespread participation of educators, business people, government officials, community representatives, and parents.  As a result of the quality of both the standards and the frameworks, the general court identifies the standards in RSA 193-E:2-a and the curriculum frameworks that support those standards as the specific criteria for an adequate education.

            V.  The general court reviewed and debated numerous bills attempting to determine the specific criteria which constitutes the opportunity for an adequate education.  An integral part of this legislative process was the gathering of public input through forums throughout the state at which educators, government officials, and members of the public offered their opinions on draft legislation.

            VI.  The specific criteria for an adequate education, as enacted in this act, are formulated to permit common understanding, foster meaningful application, and allow for objective measurement and assessment.

            VII.  This act is not intended to stand in isolation from the other statutes and rules relating to educating New Hampshire students as required by state and federal law.

      ­2  New Sections; Substantive Educational Content of an Adequate Education; cost of an Adequate Education; Resource Elements; Legislative Committee on Costing an Adequate Education.  Amend RSA 193-E by inserting after section 2 the following new sections:

      193-E:2-a  Substantive Educational Content of an Adequate Education.

            I.  Beginning in the school year 2008-2009, the specific criteria and substantive educational program that delivers the opportunity for an adequate education shall be defined and identified as the school approval standards in the following areas:

                  (a)  English/language arts and reading.

                  (b)  Mathematics.

                  (c)  Science.

                  (d)  Social studies.

                  (e)  Arts education.

                  (f)  World languages.

                  (g)  Health education.

                  (h)  Physical education.

                  (i)  Technology education, and information and communication technologies.

            II.  The standards shall cover kindergarten through twelfth grade and shall clearly set forth the opportunities to acquire the communication, analytical and research skills and competencies, as well as the substantive knowledge expected to be possessed by students at the various grade levels, including the credit requirement necessary to earn a high school diploma.

            III.  Public schools and public academies shall adhere to the standards identified in paragraph I.

            IV.  The school approval standards for the areas identified in paragraph I shall constitute the opportunity for the delivery of an adequate education.  The general court shall periodically, but not less frequently than every 10 years, review, revise and update, as necessary, the standards identified in paragraph I and shall ensure that the high quality of the standards is maintained.  Changes made by the board of education to the school approval standards through rulemaking after the effective date of this section shall not be included within the standards that constitute the opportunity for the delivery of an adequate education without prior adoption by the general court.  The board of education shall provide written notice to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, and the chairs of the house and senate education committees of any changes to the school approval standards adopted pursuant to RSA 541-A.

            V.  The general court requires the state board of education and the department of education to institute procedures for maintaining, updating, improving, and refining curriculum frameworks for each area of education identified in paragraph I.  The curriculum frameworks shall present educational goals, broad pedagogical approaches and strategies for assisting students in the development of the skills, competencies and knowledge called for by the academic standards for each area of education identified in paragraph I.  The curriculum frameworks shall serve as a guide and reference to what New Hampshire students should know and be able to do in each area of education.  The frameworks do not establish a statewide curriculum.  It is the responsibility of local teachers, administrators, and school boards to identify and implement approaches best suited for the students in their communities to acquire the skills and knowledge included in the frameworks, to determine the scope, organization, and sequence of course offerings, and to choose the methods of instruction, the activities, and materials to be used.

            VI.  In this section, “school approval standards” shall mean the applicable criteria that public schools and public academies shall meet in order to be an approved school, as adopted by the state board of education through administrative rules.

      193-E:2-b  Cost of an Adequate Education.

            I.  The general court shall use the definition of the opportunity for an adequate education in RSA 193-E:2-a to determine the resources necessary to provide essential programs, considering educational needs.  The general court shall make an initial determination of the necessary specific resource elements to be included in the opportunity for an adequate education.

            II.  The general court shall create a process for the periodic determination of the specific resource elements essential to providing the substantive educational content of an adequate education.  This review should occur no less frequently than every 10 years.

            III.  The general court shall complete the determination of the cost of an adequate education in accordance with the provisions of this chapter as expeditiously as possible following submission of the findings and recommendations of the joint legislative oversight committee pursuant to RSA 193-E:2-d but no later than the end of the 2008 fiscal year. 

      193-E:2-c  Resource Elements.  The general court recognizes that schools with greater educational challenges will benefit from varying resources.  Schools with varying educational challenges often exist within a single school district.  The general court is committed to addressing the varying educational challenges that exist among the schools of the state.

      193-E:2-d  Legislative Committee on Costing an Adequate Education.

            I.  There is hereby established the joint legislative oversight committee on costing an adequate education.  The members of the committee shall be as follows:

                  (a)  Five members of the house of representatives, which shall include at least 2 members of the house education committee and at least 2 members of the house finance committee, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives.

                  (b)  Five members of the senate, which shall include at least 2 members of the senate education committee and at least 2 members of the senate finance committee, appointed by the president of the senate.

                  (c)  The governor or designee as ex officio member of the committee.

            II.  The committee shall review and study the analytical models and formulae for determining the cost of an adequate education and the educational needs and resources needed to deliver an adequate education for children throughout the state.

            III.   The committee shall also study and review transition assistance for school districts that as of the effective date of this section do not provide public kindergarten in order to enable those school districts to provide public kindergarten in accordance with RSA 193-E:2-a.

            IV.  The general court recognizes that the ability to benefit from educational opportunity varies from school to school.  Schools with varying educational challenges often exist within a single school district.  The committee shall develop and propose criteria for identifying schools with enhanced needs and identify and propose any resources these schools may need.

            V.  Following a public hearing, the committee shall report its findings and recommendations as required by this section, no later than February 1, 2008 to the governor, the speaker of the house, the president of the senate, and the state librarian.

      ­3  Reference Changes.  Amend the following RSA provisions by replacing “equitable” with “adequate”:  RSA 21-N:1, II(c); RSA 193:1, I(c); RSA 193-E:1, II; the section heading and introductory paragraph of RSA 193-E:2; the section heading of RSA 193-E:3; RSA 194-B:3, II(i); RSA 195:14, I(c); RSA 195:14, I(d)(2)-(3); RSA 195:14-a, I; RSA 198:41, II(b); RSA 198:41, III; the section heading of RSA 198:42; RSA 198:42, I-II; RSA 198:43; RSA 198:48; and RSA 198:48-a, VII-VIII.

      ­4  Effective Date.  This act shall take effect upon its passage.

Lawmakers yesterday met a key deadline the state Supreme Court set last year, adopting a definition of an adequate definition specific enough that its costs can be determined.

The definition states that an adequate education includes kindergarten through grades 12, marking the first time that New Hampshire has required kindergarten as part of a public school education.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled in September 2006 that the state had not met its constitutional obligation to define an adequate education in a way that its cost could be determined. The definition on the books was too vague, the court said. Justices gave the state until June 30 to adopt a clear definition, saying it would act if the Legislature failed.

The bill, HB 927, includes a commission that will work to find the cost of adequacy in time for adoption next year.

Click HERE for the full story and quotes from several lawmakers.

By Tom Fahey in the Union Leader

Two leading Republicans predicted gloom and doom last week after a constitutional amendment on school funding fell one vote short in the Senate.

They said the towns that sued with Londonderry last year will rush back to court.

“Not us,” the group of towns said Friday.

At a meeting last week, the Londonderry-led N.H. Café group decided against going back to court. Its executive board thinks the state is making progress.

Attorney Chuck Douglas and analyst Charlie Arlinghaus, who pushed as hard as Gov. John Lynch for an amendment to pass, said the Senate vote leaves the courthouse door wide open for more legal challenges.

Douglas predicted that after Lynch signs a bill that defines an adequate education, N.H. Café (for Communities for Adequate Funding of Education) will ask the courts to order more state aid.

Click HERE for the Sunday story by Tom Fahey in the Union Leader

Most lawmakers deem the amendment dead until January, but Lynch met Monday with six top lawmakers to mount one last try this term. It would have to pass both houses with 60 percent majorities next week.

Rep. Mike Whalley, R-Alton, attended the high-level strategy session as House minority leader.

“The governor made it pretty clear he doesn’t want to give up,” Whalley said. “The House would need a two-thirds vote to take action because we indefinitely postponed the bill. The Senate could take it up without two thirds, because it has suspended its rules.”

 Click HERE for the full story in the Foster’s Daily Democrat by Chis Dornin of Golden Dome News.