Amendment Amendment?

Speaker Norelli's Media Release (4.00 / 2)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MAY 1, 2008

CONTACT: Speaker Terie Norelli's Office,

(603) 271-3664

STATEMENT FROM SPEAKER NORELLI ON

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

CONCORD - Below is a statement from Speaker of the House Terie Norelli on an amended version of CACR 34 that was offered before the House Finance Committee this morning. CACR 34 is a proposed constitutional amendment on funding of public education in New Hampshire. The complete text of the amendment is below.

"This amendment reflects three core principles," said Norelli. "First, the state has a constitutional responsibility to raise and appropriate 100% of the statewide cost of adequacy. Second, state money for education should be distributed fairly based on educational need and fiscal capacity of local school districts - which allows for targeting within adequacy. Third, it does not change the court's standard of review."

"Over the past dozen years, 33 amendments have been offered relative to education funding," Norelli continued. "Not one of them has passed. But they continue to be offered because of the desire to target funds as efficiently as possible to help those most in need. Unlike previous amendments, we are not going to restrict the court's scrutiny or change our level of commitment to providing an education to all New Hampshire students."

"Legislators from both parties, as well as many in the public, believe we need more flexibility in targeting education dollars, and this amendment accomplishes that."

***

Text of today's proposed amendment:

Amendment 1639:

Every child is entitled to the opportunity for a public school education that prepares the student to become a productive and contributing citizen.  It shall be the duty of the legislature to define the content of an adequate education and determine the total statewide cost of providing that education to all public school students. In fulfillment of the duty to fund this education, the legislature shall have the authority and responsibility to raise the funds that total the statewide cost of an adequate education and to distribute these funds in a manner that alleviates local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity.  

###

Katie List

House Information Officer

NH House of Representatives

 

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 03:41:10 AM CDT

I'm a little bit wary (0.00 / 0)

of what "total statewide cost" could be read as meaning.

And I wonder if "Every child is entitled to the opportunity for a public school education" might be read so that opportunity entitlement puts some handcuffs on home-schooled students or private school students, but I think there's other federal law that protects them dating back at least to Dartmouth v. Woodward.

It's a lot more specific than "cherish the interest" and what that has come to mean, though.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:17:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Where we are today (0.00 / 0)

My best effort at understanding  this...

1. Under the current Constitution as interpreted by the state Supreme Court, the state must pay the full cost of delivering an adequate education to every school age kid.
2. The Senate committee has developed a stripped-down definition of "adequacy" that is lower than any NH community now spends. That definition costs out to about $3500 per student.
3. The state Supreme Court has given some indication (I'm foggy on this) that this definition is acceptable.
4. Therefore: with no amendment, the state must spend about $3500 per student in each district - "Hollis as well as Claremont." That comes out to about $480 million. By itself this would provide Claremont with LESS funding than today.
5. The state can spend more than $3500 in districts that need help, and the Senate bill allocates money for that. But this is not mandated and those funds can be cut to balance the budget.
6. The Foster amendment entirely eliminates the mandate to provide an adequate education. It instead mandates that the state make a "reasonable" effort to make local disparities less bad.
7. The Norelli amendment adopts the mandate for the state to fund as much money as statewide adequacy would cost - about $480 million today. But it allows the state to allocate any and all of that money to make local disparities less bad.

Before getting into the merits, is that an accurate summary?

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:41:08 AM CDT

Point #7 (0.00 / 0)

 That means there may (and probably will) be some school districts that get nothing from the state. Nix. Nada. These "wealthy" school districts will have to pay for everything at the local level. This will of course be voted on, so people who can't afford it--not every town has a means test to see who can live there- and people who simply don't want to pay for public schools will vote budgets down, and so-called "wealthy" school districts may see a fall off in school quality and safety.

At least that's how I understand it.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 06:37:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Please provide an example (0.00 / 0)

All of the information I have seen over the decades shows that the wealthy towns spend the highest per pupil in the state. If you have a new study showing differently please share. It would indeed be troubling if true. Thanks!

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 08:56:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Example (0.00 / 0)

Of the lowest 15 towns in per pupil spending for K-12, 8 of them were "wealthy" defined as follows: above the mean ($130,000) in per capita property assessment (1999 data - I have that from another project).

It's true that Waterville Valley and Newington are the wealthiest towns by this measure, and also have the highest per-pupil spending. But it's also true that other wealthier-than-average towns skimp.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 11:37:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

apples to apples (0.00 / 0)

It is hard to make a sweeping statement without understanding the particulars of each community.

One town with more special needs students will spend considerably more than a town with few.

There are other variables could factor in to effect the per pupil expenditures.

I don't have time today, but I am going to do some work on this.

For now, I am sticking with the information I have been given over the decades but willing to be proven wrong.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 13:31:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

A suggestion (0.00 / 0)

Start by figuring out what metrics would convince you, then look for them. As opposed to: see what numbers are out there, then decide how convincing they are.

People on both sides will have metrics that favor their positions.

In this case, I didn't have the per-pupil numbers - I looked for them in response to your question.

Special needs can explain why a Marlow has a near-top per-pupil spending; it doesn't explain so much why a New Boston is near-low.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 14:10:10 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It doesn't really matter (0.00 / 0)

what "wealthy towns" are doing now. This amendment would change the state Constitution, it will be a permanent change to how things are done. Maybe the scenario you describe is the case, but there is no telling what will happen in the future.

The permanency of putting educational funding policy into the state Constitution is also worrisome to me. Constitutions shouldn't be too specific, IMHO.

The court interpreted the state Constitution and it's up to the state to deal with it.

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 14:43:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correction: $480M => $720M (0.00 / 0)

I think I got that wrong.

I believe the relevant numbers are roughly:

Statewide public K-12 education spending: $2.4B
State government share: $940M
Adequacy @ $3500/student: $720M

---

by: elwood @ Thu May 08, 2008 at 06:50:58 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Court review and the Foster amendment (0.00 / 0)

The Foster amendment that passed the Senate with Lynch's endorsement reads:

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.

People have fixated on the word "reasonably," which is a term of art to the lawyers. That's where the notion that this amendment restricts Court review arises.

But that's the least of the problems. Let's juice up that word:

In fulfillment of the state's duties set forth in the preceding article, the general court shall have the authority and responsibility to reasonablyfully and specifically define the content of an adequate public education and to distribute state funds for public education in the manner that it reasonably determinescarefully calculates to alleviate local disparities.

That pesky "reasonable" is gone. But what is left is:

A commitment to figure out what adequacy means, then to "alleviate local disparities." Period.

Alleviate: Make things a little better.

No mandate to ensure adequacy.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:42:56 AM CDT

It will be interesting to see what the Republican legislators do (0.00 / 0)

I heard two different reports on NHPR this morning, one by Josh Rogers and another by David Darden, repeating the Republican talking points that the "Republican legislators have long supported a constitutional amendment". Never has a majority of the House Republican Caucus voting for an amendment since it was first discussed in December of 1997.

In fact, in the 2003-2004 legislative session Republicans held a three to one majority (18-6 in the senate and 108-292 in the House) and could have passed any amendment they wanted to - without a single Democratic vote and with Republicans to spare. But they didn't.

Last year, not one Republican House member voted for the amendment and only one or two Republican senators did. This spin that "Republicans support an amendment" is simply not true. This is another classic example of how the NH Republicans operate and used to run NH, never actually addressing problems, just putting their head in the sand.

Simply put, if NH Republicans actually supported an amendment they would do so. But they don't.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 09:11:29 AM CDT

The Republican Base (4.00 / 1)

supports an amendment.  Karl Rove used to specialize in this sort of thing - find an issue the base cares about and use it to get out the vote. I fear that if any school amendment (along with John McCain) is on the ballot, it will bring them out to the voting booth and they will vote for Republican candidates for the N.H. House and Senate.  

Add to that mixture the New Hampshire budget problems, I can see the possibility of the Democrats losing control of the House.  After all, straight party voting has been eliminated (rightfully) and voters don't always vote in the down-ticket races.

If the Republicans retake either the House or the Senate, where will this amendment leave us?  

 

"Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose"

---

by: NHFlatlander @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:05:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What indications are there (0.00 / 0)

that the Republican base supports an amendment like the ones proposed?  

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:23:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well, the Business and Industry Assn (0.00 / 0)

is promoting the Foster amendment...

There's a real question about who constitutes the GOP base these days, but that's part of it.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 12:31:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't know (0.00 / 0)

http://www.nhbia.org/index.php...

New Hampshire Historical Society, UNH Manchester, City of Portsmouth, all the major state law firms... BIA seems to have a pretty diverse set of members.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 16:55:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Of course they do (0.00 / 0)

Then there's the Board.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 17:21:52 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Who are those people? (0.00 / 0)

I only recognize three or four names...

Is their partisan alignment very obvious to the better informed?

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 18:58:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just the organizations (0.00 / 0)

As you relied on earlier.

The Historical Society and UNH don't show up here.

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 19:01:27 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's no doubt of their support (0.00 / 0)

Here's their press release .

The Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire, Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, Home Builders and Remodelers Association of New Hampshire, NH Automobile Dealers Association, NH Grocers Association, NH Lodging and Restaurant Association and the Retail Merchants Association of New Hampshire are working together to encourage legislators to support a constitutional amendment that gives the Legislature the authority and responsibility to define an adequate public education and the flexibility to target state education funds.

And then from the Concord Monitor :

This time around, the BIA would "support any constitutional amendment that has the legs to pass both chambers and get to the voters" and that allows lawmakers to target aid, Roche said.

"Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose"

---

by: NHFlatlander @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 18:22:46 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not the amendment bit (0.00 / 0)

but rather their factional influence on the NHGOP.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 18:56:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it is not possible (4.00 / 1)

to make such definitive statements about what will cause who to vote in November. It is too early and too many variables are unknown.

What we do know is that NH Democrats do well in a presidential year.

Democrats solve problems, Republicans sit and say no.

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 13:09:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it is (0.00 / 0)

possible to make educated guesses, but I will concede that all things are possible. Someday, sometime in the future, the Republicans will take back control of the at least one the houses of the Legislature.  Then, what will happen to school funding?  

"Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose"

---

by: NHFlatlander @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 18:35:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What will happen to school funding under Democratic rule? (0.00 / 0)

If the people pass a Constitutional amendment saying that education is no more a fundamental right than trash collection, why should a Democratic representative gainsay them?

---

by: elwood @ Fri May 02, 2008 at 18:39:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]