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
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
Governor Lynch signed a bill yesterday designed to assess how the state's school districts are handling their adequacy grants. This is the final bill passed by the NH state legislature to comply with a series of court decisions, beginning with the first Claremont Decision in 1993.
The NH Supreme Court set out four mandates: define an adequate education, set the cost, fund it, set up a system of accountability.
It's important to note that before the Democratic majority in the legislature, the only ideas to deal with Claremont, etc., were constitutional amendments aimed at taking the state out of education funding all together. They never passed, even with Republicans in control. But the Republicans couldn't come up with anything else to deal with the decision. The state was paralyzed. I was amazed that other states faced with similar lawsuits, such as Vermont, dealt with it in one legislative session. The lack of compliance with the first decision led to more lawsuits, more decisions, more parameters.
It took a Democratic majority at the state level to tackle this issue, whether one agrees or disagrees with all aspects of the policy. We need to remember this going forward.
When I think of New Hampshire's ongoing school funding crisis, I am reminded of the children's classic movie "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. If you remember, Mr. Potts (played by Dick Van Dyke) tells a tale within a tale about a greedy Baron who wanted to steal the great flying, floating and driving car Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
The Baron, a comical figure, no doubt, as part of his policy agenda, had all the children of his country put in a dungeon. As I recall the story, his wife, the Baroness, thought children were pesky, and the Baron saw them as competition for toys. He wanted all the toys for himself.
Governor Lynch has responded to the House rejection of the amendment and variants yesterday by saying he is still committed to an amendment and will campaign in favor of one in 2008.
I'm confident Lynch will win with or without that platform.
But meanwhile, I fully expect House and Senate candidates to be asked by voters to commit to reject any school funding amendment.
I expect enough of them to so commit that any amendment would be dead on arrival.
The bottom line is: the state is now required to provide every student in every district with an adequate education. The amendment eliminates that. Instead the state will be required to spend just as much as it would cost for universal "adequacy," but can distribute the money unequally.
The legislature has already adopted a definition of "adequacy" that costs out to $3450 per student - about 38% of what the poorest schools spend today. The amendment continues the process of touching up the X-rays. It just provides more flexibility in divvying up inadequate aid.
A major issue affecting the direction of New Hampshire education will be debated this Wednesday at the State House. A proposed amendment to the State Constitution, "CACR 34," will be up for vote in the House. The Senate has already voted for a variation of the Amendment, and is expected to agree with whatever the House approves.
The discussion about this issue of "to amend or not to amend" really has come down to do we work toward just an "adequate education," or do we work toward "excellence?"
I don't think CACR 34 will pass, but whether it does or not the discussion on this issue will impact the "education funding" debate in the upcoming election. A lot of the Democratic leadership is for it, and it appears some Republicans will support it too. After a lot of thought and discussion, and much listening, I will vote for it. I would like to say why I do so.
WHAT the Amendment actually does, or doesn't, and whether it really means much, or not, is the bigger question we should focus on. If the Legislature approves CACR 34, it goes to the voters in November, where 2/3rds approval -- two out of every three voters -- is needed for it to become part of our Constitution. IF approved, THEN WHAT? If defeated, THEN WHAT?
All good questions.
Here is the Amendment, exactly as it will be voted on this Wednesday:
"Are you in favor of amending the second part of the constitution by inserting after article 83 a new article to read as follows:
[Art.] 83-a [Public Education.] The legislature shall provide every child the opportunity for a public school education in fulfillment of the legislature's duty with respect to public education provided for in Part II, Article 83. The legislature shall have the responsibility to define the content of an adequate education to prepare the student to become a productive and contributing citizen and to determine the total statewide cost of providing that education to all public school students. The legislature shall have the authority and responsibility to raise the funds that total the statewide cost of this education and to distribute these funds in a manner that alleviates local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity, provided that every school district shall receive a meaningful share of these funds."
That's it. That is exactly what will be printed on our November ballots.
The UL reports this morning that a compromise has been reached on the language in the school funding amendment. The new language is endorsed by party leaders Dan Eaton (D) and Neal Kurk (R). The new language is:
[Option D:]
The state shall provide every child the opportunity for a public school education, which opportunity fulfills the state's duty with respect to public education provided for in Part I, Article 83. It shall be the duty of the legislature to define the content of an education adequate to prepare the student to become a productive and contributing citizen and to determine the total statewide cost of providing that education to all public school students. The legislature shall have the authority and responsibility to raise the funds that total the statewide cost of this education and to distribute these funds in a manner that alleviates local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity, provided that every school district shall receive a meaningful share of these funds.
Looks like Speaker Norelli has engineered an amendment to the Lynch Amendment that would keep court oversight in play.
Norelli said the new amendment would not stop any individual or community from challenging the constitutionality of the state's definition of adequacy or its aid system.
The Democratic speaker said weakening court oversight would be a deal-breaker for her party.
"Most Democrats in the House would not support that," she said.
Though future is uncertain...
Lynch
Lynch applauded the House for crafting an amendment that allows targeting, but did not say whether he supports its passage.
"I have to review it in more detail," he said.
Hess
"We have told the governor with a properly worded amendment we can deliver 120 votes," he said.
But Hess said the House leaders' proposal may not meet that test.
Poor odds
Over the past decade, 33 school funding amendments have died in the Legislature, Norelli said. Each house must pass an amendment by a three-fifths margin for it to reach voters, two-thirds of whom must endorse it for it to become part of the constitution.
More of the same?
Dean Michener, associate director of the New Hampshire School Boards Association, said the new amendment would return to that era {Claremont}.
"I see no protection here for the average district of the state. We would be back where we were similar to foundation aid," he said.
Kudos to Norelli for insuring court oversight remains, a point stuck in the craw of many I have spoken with about the issue. Only time will tell if it is enough to garner the needed support to get it out of the House. And then, of course, if the solution is up to the problem.
One of eight scenarios will play out in New Hampshire state politics this November. Which will occur depends largely on three factors: the current House; John Lynch's re-election stance; and the 2008 voters.
The Amendment, the Pledge, and the Lynch campaign will get increasing attention over the next seven months. In this diary I'm trying to help structure this discussion by capturing the different scenarios based on where they place New Hampshire in late November 2008.
None of my scenarios has Lynch losing to a Republican candidate. Perhaps I should include that for completeness' sake, but I don't see any likelihood of that happening (and the state GOP doesn't seem to, either).
An unlikely coalition of school funding activists and broad-based tax opponents has announced a new plan to allow New Hampshire to fund public education statewide without instituting a new tax. Governor Lynch and the House Democratic and Republican leadership have endorsed the proposal. It is expected to sail smoothly through both chambers later this month. Lynch spokesperson Colin Manning confirmed that the Governor is therefore asking the House to table the proposed Constitutional amendment.
Currently the state spends some $860 million on public education with local communities raising another $1.45 billion, almost entirely though local property taxes. The proposal is expected to increase overall spending on public education in New Hampshire from $2.4 billion to $2.8 billion while reducing local school taxes by an average of 73%. "We expect actual spending next year to be substantially higher, because the annual grants will allow many towns to finally move forward with long-delayed school construction bonds. This should create a one-time blip," explained Commissioner of Education Lyonel Tracy.
The proposal will also reinforce New Hampshire's unique role in Presidential elections. "We've seen the New Hampshire primary come under increasing pressure from other states in recent years," observed Rep. James Splaine, D-Portsmouth. "This proposal changes our role in Presidential elections, but if anything it gives New Hampshire a greater say than before."
Details of the proposal and further reactions below the fold.
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.
The school funding plan - this is the current one, before any Constitutional amendment, that gives each school some $3450 per pupil in state aid then adds extra depending on local conditions - comes up in the House soon. The Monitor discusses its chances and likely rocky road. One of the most controversial aspects: it revives the "donor town."
Maybe I'm missing something here.
As I understand it, a donor town is a community that sends more tax money to the state for school funding than it gets back for its own schools.
Hoo, boy. This is tangled. Fortunately Kevin Landrigan helps clarify things with real-world examples.
Get another cup of coffee. This will take a bit.
Status Quo
The state is sending about $900 million per year to cities and towns that are having particular difficulty paying for their school systems. Their difficulties arise from a mix of factors: low property values, low median incomes, and minimal commercial real estate.
But the state Supreme Court has ruled that this violates the state Constitution, which makes public education a responsibility of the state, not the cities, towns, and districts. That has resulted in two current news stories: the definition of "an adequate education" and the proposed constitutional amendment.
The Constitutional amendment that overturns the Claremont decisions passed the Senate Judiciary Committee this week.
It passed on a party line vote: three Democrats supported it, the two Republicans opposed it. This despite the public support of Senate Minority Leader Gatsas and the state's biggest business lobby.
When it comes to voting, though, the GOP is staying quietly on the sidelines. Whalley is already saying the amendment lacks key language he believes is necessary.
After all, John Lynch and the Democratic leadership is doing their work for them.
They are splitting the Democratic Party coalition asunder. The teacher's union opposed it. The poorer towns will presumably oppose it. Liberals / progressives will presumably oppose it.
The Keene Sentinel takes note of two hearings and two numbers this week.
Charter school advocates warn that ten charter schools may have to close if the state doesn't increase the funding it provides above the current $3,709 per pupil. "There isn't any kind of school that can operate on that amount of money," one leader complained.
Meanwhile Democrats in the legislature are moving forward with their costing out of an adequate education. The base cost they have calculated is $3,460.
The Senate Finance Committee narrowly passed yet another minor variant of the school funding amendment yesterday.
The three votes for were from Democrats, the two against were from Republicans.
The politics of this is clear. Any amendment will be controversial. It will split the Democratic Party: many progressives (including me) will consider it reneging on the state's obligation to fund schools, others will consider it a good faith effort to improve things over the current situation. Meanwhile the GOP will sit on its hands and smile as the Governor looks ineffectual.
Last night the House Finance Committee amended the Constitutional amendment that the Senate passed at Governor Lynch's recommendation.
The big change is: there is no longer a requirement that the state pay for 50% of an adequate education statewide.
The effect of the amendment now appears to simply be: the state will no longer be required to ensure an adequate education. It may choose to chip in, or not.
The amendment was approved by the Finance committee on a party line vote: every Democrat supporting it, every Republican opposed.
It must now be passed by the 2/3rds of the House (I am not clear on whether the Education committee will make its own recommendation) and then go back to the Senate. If it gets that far it goes on the ballot in November 2008.
Per today's Union Leader, the Senate leadership has postponed a vote on the civil unions bill indefinitely, for no known reason, and people suspect it is at the request of Governor Lynch.
Senate President Sylvia Larsen said the decision was hers. "I didn't want the senators to be rushed when it came time to be voting on civil unions," she said...
Spokesman Colin Manning didn't answer directly when asked yesterday whether Lynch was involved in the delay.
Now, Larsen was not worried about Senators having enough time to consider Lynch's constitutional amendment, approved weeks after its unveiling.
My question: are Larsen and Lynch trading Senate approval of civil unions for House approval of his amendment? If the House approves it, will the Senate calendar suddenly free up?
In 1954 the United States Supreme Court reached a very inconvenient decision: Brown v. Board of Education. It held that segregated schooling was a violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees to every American "equal protection under the law."
It was inconvenient because the Court had previously ruled in 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson that "equal protection" could be provided through segregated facilities. Separate public facilities were not inherently unequal, said the Court; it was easy to imagine the legislatures fully funding equally excellent schools or hospitals for every race or other group of people.
Thurgood Marshall was the lead lawyer for the NAACP. He built a case that relied on sociological experts and statistics. He convinced the Supreme Court that the history of "separate and equal" facilities was "separate but unequal." Colored schools (in the language of the era) didn't get as much money; outcomes from those schools lagged far behind outcomes in their white counterparts.
How did the United States respond to Brown? The federal government dragged its feet. There were follow-on Court decisions warning the Feds and the states to proceed with "all deliberate speed," taken as a cave-in by those who focused on "deliberate" and as a reaffirmation of Brown by those who focused on "speed." There was a fringe "Impeach Earl Warren" movement.
The relevance to New Hampshire and the shame of our state Democratic Party is covered below the fold.
Also: the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to recommend the civil union bill 3-2 (Dems in favor, Republicans opposed. It goes to the full Senate next Wednesday.
