About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


The Masthead
Managing Editors


Jennifer Daler

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
 susanthe
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Susan the Bruce

Politicos & Punditry
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch

Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
John DeJoie
Ann McLane Kuster
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin

The Big Lie from the UL on School Funding

by: elwood

Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 08:11:05 AM EDT
Today's Union Leader makes you wonder why anyone is pushing for a Constitutional amendment at all.
With the simplest of language, the amendment explicitly reaffirms the duty McEachern says it would erase.

McEachern correctly states that the amendment would gut the state's commitment to education.  The UL helpfully provides the full text of the amendment:
In fulfillment of the state's duties set forth in the preceding article, the general court shall have the authority and responsibility to reasonably define the content of an adequate public education and to distribute state funds for public education in the manner that it reasonably determines to alleviate local disparities.

What the UL glosses over below the fold.
elwood :: The Big Lie from the UL on School Funding
First, the context. The amendment is not intended to change the "cherish" language - it is intended to change the state Supreme Court's interpretation of that language. Since the original Claremont suit the Court has held that the Constitution requires that New Hampshire ensure every child in the state has access to an adequate education.

This language eliminates that. It declares that "fulfillment" of the state's obligation ends at reasonable action to make things a little better - whether or not it achieves adequacy.

Second, the weasel words. "Reasonably" tells the state Supreme Court: "You can no longer just determine that the legislature and governor are wrong: before you overturn their laws you must conclude that they were unreasonable."

"Alleviate: to make easier to endure; lessen; mitigate." The amendment institutionalizes local disparities - with no threshold of adequacy involved. All that the state must do to remain in compliance is make a reasonable attempt to make things less bad.

This amendment reduces the state's commitment from ensuring that kids get an adequate education, to making an honest attempt at making things less bad than they would be otherwise. You can drive a truck through its language.
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Big Lie from the UL on School Funding | 4 comments
Fourm in Keene tonight (0.00 / 0)
Do or not Do, There is no try... (0.00 / 0)
(quote stolen from Yoda.. ;))

So we are not expecting to educate our children. We just want to "attempt" to educate them. If we can't afford it then they can all just pump gas for a living?

Just like a Republican to advocate this type of language. In many states, the fight over education funding is non-existant. It's a clear entitlement of our children to be given a full publicly funded education through high school. It's not some sort of extravagance. It is a fundamental right for our children. And its our duty as a state to fund it. If we fail to do so, the future of our state, our economy, and our society fails to grow. There is no shortcut to this issue.

Just saying,
Wynter

Unfortunately our own party (0.00 / 0)
is pushing this too, from John Lynch to most of the state Senate.
[ Parent ]
The faux ammendment (0.00 / 0)
Excellent discussion on Political Chowder with Arnie Arnesen if you want to hear what this education ammendment would really accomplish. And then there is Charlie Arlinghaus silver tonguing along while hoping that the whole education system will lose its funding so we can get on with vouchers. Volinsky (and Arnie, of course) is acute and telling. Hope the house dumps this bogus attempt to tie the hands of the court which will have the effect of putting any decision off till after November and then allow any old thing that anybody wants without the ability of the court to say no. No use in actually working out a fair method of funding education. It's only been twenty years so far.  
The Big Lie from the UL on School Funding | 4 comments
Connect with BH
     
Blue Hampshire Blog on Facebook
Powered by: SoapBlox