|
The Constitutional
Amendment
To: Members and friends of
public education, children and taxpayers
Re: Talking Points - Constitutional Amendments regarding
school funding.
From: Dr. Mark V. Joyce
Date: February 12, 2011
Also see attached that
describes how the current law works
What are they?
During
this legislative session there are again several
proposed constitutional amendments (CACR’s) that seek to
change the NH constitution in similar ways. (E.g. CACR
12…..). They all seek to weaken the constitution as it
relates to the state’s responsibility to define and fund
an “adequate” education for all children and to give the
legislature the nearly total control over defining and
funding.
Why do proponents want
them?
The no
doubt well intentioned proponents, seek to remove or
lesson the Supreme Courts’ role in protecting a basic
constitutional right and allow for targeting aid to
certain “poor” communities. The changes are
theoretically designed to allow the Legislature to
determine who “reasonably” needs money and how much they
will get. The obvious result is that the state’s
responsibility will be more manageable and adaptable,
and not require any significant payment to some school
districts.
Who are the proponents?
The
proponents include the Governor, and influential members
of the Senate and House from both political parties.
What happened to the
past attempts to amend the constitution in similar ways?
Over
the years we have had repeated attempts to accomplish
the same goals. In each case one or both bodies of the
Legislature have failed to approve the CACR by the
required 60% + vote. In prior years, the NH Senate
approved one version on several occasions but the NH
House did not.
What is wrong with these
amendments?
The
problems are numerous and significant for public
education, children and taxpayers.
To Amend or Not
Amend the Constitution or To Pass the Buck or
Tackle the Real Challenges…By Dr. Mark V. Joyce 2/12/11
As
anticipated, a series of new constitutional amendments
that are now before the New Hampshire Legislature. What
is unusual about this year’s versions, is that it is
sponsored by individuals that previously opposed any
measure designed to limit the rights of all
children to an adequate education, at the state’s
expense, and/or limit the Supreme Court’s oversight over
an adequate education.
The
CACR’s, championed by Governor Lynch and legislative
leaders, purport to solve the education-funding problem
once and for all. This is accomplished, according to
the amendments’ proponents, by allowing “targeting” of
educational aid to the most needy school districts, in
“an affordable and sustainable manner”. This action will
then lead to equal educational opportunity for all
students. Supporters assert that this change in our
Constitution will lead to a permanent solution to this
perennial challenge. I, for one, would suggest that
these assertions are likely to be inaccurate or at least
incomplete. At the onset, I would acknowledge that I am
but one voice, a citizen of New Hampshire, who has
closely followed the Legislature for fifteen (15) years,
and has spent thirty-eight (38) years serving public
education. I'd like to humbly share my perceptions of
why the benefits may be overstated or misunderstood.
Let me explain.
1.)
Targeting Educational Aid
First
of all, targeting of educational aid is already legal
and permissible under state laws and our Constitution.
Therefore, in my mind, we only need a constitutional
amendment if we choose to target aid, in place of or
instead of, providing basic adequacy aid to all New
Hampshire’s children.
On
the other hand, the New Hampshire Supreme Court
recognized several important facts regarding public
education in its “ Claremont and Londonderry, et. al.
decisions”. Foremost among these are that public
education is a fundamental right of all children
everywhere in our state and the Legislature has the
obligation to define, cost, fund and be accountable for
an adequate education. In addition, they found that
public education is highly regulated, defined by state
laws and rules, and that it has been historically funded
by a regressive state tax system (grossly uneven
property tax). I, for one, agree with these assertions.
Public education is fundamentally important for all
children (and I would say taxpayers too). It is highly
regulated by state laws and rules, and it has and is
funded by largely uneven (or non-uniform) property
taxes. In my mind, targeting is desirable only in
addition, to basic adequacy funding for each child, not
in place of it.
2.)
Affordable Solution
The
notion of limiting state aid to schools solely because
available dollars are limited by existing revenues, I
believe, is flawed both morally and logically. By
basing the rationale of the solution on “what makes it
affordable or easier for the state”, simply fails the
logic test. The amendment’s proponents argue that not
all school districts "need" state money, only some do.
That would lead any citizen to ask, “Which ones need
money?”
It is
estimated that New Hampshire citizens pay annually over
2.8 billion for public education. It is important to
note that current state adequacy aid grants total
$578,236,605 plus $363,653,009 raised on state property
tax equaling $891,013,576
in FY 11.
In fact, the state actually pays less than 25% in
non-property tax aid to schools. Therefore, it is
possible, and in fact probable, that if an amendment is
approved less overall aid will be given to
schools and taxpayers and with targeting fewer number of
school districts will receive any money. This
possibility then poses the questions, “who gets the
money?” and “what about those that lose money?”
In practice
then, the state can require high requirements and
standards, and the local community must pay the bill on
an already overburdened property tax. They must pay
“the bill” because why? Because the state wants to make
it affordable for the state’s budget But actually at
the same time that make it more costly for local
taxpayers. Even a casual observer can see that each
time the state Legislature has “adjusted aid” it has
sought to lower the amount of assistance to taxpayers.
3.)
Equal Opportunity
There
is no mistaking the fact that educational opportunities
vary among school districts; and that the amount of
money spent per student also varies significantly. This
is most apparent if we look at the extremes, highest to
lowest, in both expenditures per pupil and tax rates.
These
amendments appear to adversely effect a large number of
what I call "middle-tier" communities and communities
that, because of the advantages of location (e.g. lakes,
ocean or mountains), may have high equalized valuation
of property. Communities that now get some aid (and
previously got more) will no doubt get little or no
adequacy aid under these amendments.
What
happens in those middle-tier communities (e.g. Dover,
Concord, Merrimack, Londonderry, Rochester and more…) as
their aid ends and millions of dollars is shifted onto
the local school tax rate? My guess is that taxpayers
will quite logically object, and seek ways to limit or
cut expenditures. These reductions (or reluctance to
invest in new contracts and bonds) will drive these
districts towards mediocrity, not excellence. Move them
towards fewer opportunities for students, not equal
opportunity for all children. What happens in those
school districts that have high equalized valuation
(Portsmouth, Moultonborough, Rye….), as they lose all
state assistance. From my observations they too have
citizen taxpayers on fixed incomes and limited means.
My guess is that they too will reduce expenditures. It
is interesting and important to note that these
amendments have no assurance that there will not be
“donor towns”. After all “donor towns” are a product of
the state choosing to pay its fair share based on a
statewide property tax and they will still have the
ability to do it again.
4.)
Permanent Solution
The
proponents of these amendments assert that this
amendment will lead to the establishment of a lasting
solution to this nagging problem. I think logic and past
experience predict that the opposite will happen. The
net effect of this desired change would leave the New
Hampshire Legislature and Governor, in charge of
defining adequacy, costing it out, deciding "need", and
distributing the dollars each year. All of this will
occur with more limited oversight by the
Judicial Branch of our government.
Furthermore it is important to remember that the New
Hampshire Legislature meets every year from January
through June. Each year there have been numerous
attempts to alter, tweak, fix or completely change
educational funding laws. These changes were attempted
even with the Court’s oversight. In addition, these
changes occurred during, and often after, school
district voters already decided budgets. Why would any
reasonable person think that this practice wouldn't
continue and perhaps become more frequent or expansive,
if oversight is limited? It would appear quite logical
to me that as new majorities come together, the votes
will be there to: change, tweak, adjust, funding again
and again and again.
In
closing, I, for one, believe that public education is a
fundamental right of all children, regardless of where
they may live. I, for one, believe that the State
Government largely dictates what the requirements are
for public education and that they have a major role in
paying for what they prescribe. It is my belief that we
don’t need to amend our constitution to limit that right
to just children (and taxpayers) who may live in certain
school districts.
I pray our legislators will
recognize that fact, tackle the tough challenge (not
avoid it or pass on the challenge) and stand up to be
real champions for all New Hampshire’s children (AND
Taxpayers)! If you agree, contact your representative
in the
House of Representatives . If you disagree, let's
hope my perceptions are wrong. As always, I welcome
your thoughts and ideas. Mark (mark@nhsaa.org) |
a.jpg)
