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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)