New Hampshire's state funding for public schools is among the lowest in the nation, even though the state constitution requires the state government to fund an adequate education for all children.
The debate over state school funding has raged in the courts since 1989, but without resolution. Local property taxes vary widely by region, but still pay about 70 percent of public school operating costs.
The New Hampshire Department of Education is currently updating minimum standards for public schools, a process that occurs once every 10 years, and lawyers and educators say the department's revised minimum standards will further reduce funding. claims.
They say the changes would water down adequate education requirements and place more responsibility on local taxpayers who fund public schools.
And critics say the state is ignoring a state Supreme Court ruling more than 30 years ago that ordered the state government to follow the state constitution.
Of particular concern is Andrew, one of the lead attorneys in the Claremont case, in which the Supreme Court ruled that New Hampshire's school funding was unconstitutional and ordered the state to properly pay for public schools. Mr. Volinsky.
“The New Hampshire Department of Education is going far beyond its authority and implementing regulations that violate regulatory law,” Volinski said.
David Trumbull, a former attorney running for the state House in 2022, told the State Board of Education on April 3 that the Supreme Court's ruling would render the changes to the minimum education standards “null and void.” .
Understanding state law
Trumbull says the Department of Education is on the verge of violating state law RSA 193-E.
The New Hampshire Department of Education's website states that the department must “operate in accordance with the duties and limitations outlined in New Hampshire statutes.” 193-E is one of the statutes listed.
This law defines that schools must demonstrate that they are providing an adequate education through both 'input' and 'output' responsibilities.
“Inputs” include: qualified teachers, good equipment, classroom supplies and resources, maximum class sizes, specific program elements needed for each subject taught, operating costs per student, etc. Elements for providing education.
“Outputs” are methods for determining student achievement, such as assessments and tests.
Until Congress amended the law in 2018, the law only required either inputs or outputs when proving accountability. However, both are now required by law.
“It is only by combining both input and output responsibilities that we can ensure that we meet our constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education,” Trumbull told the state commission. “The proposed regulations would eliminate and dismantle these input-based accountability measures.”
Specifically, Trumbull removed maximum classroom sizes from the revised minimum standards, removed requirements for certified teachers in art, music, and health and physical education, and changed the word “shall” when referring to elements to ” He pointed out the change to “may be done.” Eliminate parts of certain programs, making those elements optional rather than mandatory, and thus removing the state's responsibility for funding those elements.
Mr. Trumble argued that the removal of these “inputs” violates the 2018 update to RSA 193-E.
“Taken together, this set of regulations represents a major shift in education policy,” Trumbull said. “This replaces a legally mandated system of both input and performance accountability with vague performance standards. It replaces our understanding of what schools are like with vague performance standards and clear alternative models of what schools are like.”
Trumbull added that the N.H. Supreme Court ruled in 1981 that government agencies such as the Department of Education can “fill in the details” of statutes, but cannot change them. Any proposal by a government agency to amend the law will be considered “null and void.”
Mr. Volinsky made a similar statement, particularly in changing “shall” to “may.”
“By using terms that are not defined and switching from mandatory to optional, it is clear that (the department) is trying to undermine the principles that came from the (Claremont) case,” Volinsky said. “And that's not the agency's role. Government agencies are designed to pass enforcement rules that comply with the law, not conflict with it.”
Some members of the House Education Committee also voiced opposition to the proposed minimum standards revision.
“I can tell you that the Democratic caucus on the House Education Committee is very concerned,” said Rep. Hope Damon, D-Croydon.
“The degree of change that is being proposed here is astonishing. …This is not just administrative cleanup or housekeeping to clarify the rules. This is an absolute shift (in policy). ” said Rep. David Luhnow (D-Hopkinton) during a recent House Education subcommittee meeting.
“My concern with this case is where are the attorneys from the attorney general's office,” Volinsky said.
“In everyone's interest, they argue that what they are proposing violates the constitutional requirements set out in the 2002 Claremont decision and is opening the state to another legal battle. It should be recommended to the state department and the state commission.”
When asked about the legal requirements for minimum education standards, specifically whether they comply with RSA 193-E, Deputy Attorney General James T. Boffetti declined to comment.
how did we get here?
In 1989, a public high school in Claremont, New Hampshire, had its accreditation revoked because it did not have enough funds to comply with necessary safety regulations, let alone provide an adequate education.
Funding from the state government was only a fraction of the cost of a student's education, and city taxpayers did not have the wherewithal to make up the difference.
As a result, Claremont and four other low-resourced N.H. public school districts sued the New Hampshire government in a lawsuit known as Claremont School District v. Governor of New Hampshire.
In 1993, the N.H. Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution guarantees students the right to an adequate public education. In 1997, a court ruled that New Hampshire's education funding system was grossly unfair, with wide disparities from town to town, and unconstitutional.
Overall, state aid is among the lowest in the nation, accounting for just over 8 percent of total public education spending. This is so low that even if New Hampshire tripled her state funding for schools, it would still be the lowest. The court ordered the Legislature and the governor to define what constitutes an adequate education and to pay for it with equal tax dollars across the state.
That never happened.
In 2006, the Supreme Court again ruled that the education funding system was unconstitutional. In response, then-Governor John Lynch unsuccessfully attempted to amend the state constitution to remove the requirement that the state fund the provision of an adequate education to all children.
Decades later, state funding for schools still varies widely by community. And while state funding currently covers about 30 percent of public school costs, state funding for education remains among the lowest in the nation.
The topic of school funding has come to the forefront as state minimum education standards are raised for 10-year revisions.
Secretary's response to criticism over funding
When asked about the criticism surrounding the funding, state Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut said he believes there is a lot of “misinformation” about the document and the revision process, and said he believes there is a lot of “misinformation” about the document and the revision process, and cautioned himself before jumping to conclusions. The public was encouraged to read the document.
“We've received a lot of feedback from people who haven't read the proposal. They only hear what someone said about the proposal, but that's not true,” Edelblut said. “We want their actual comments, not just repeating the gist of the misinformation they throw at us. It's harder for us to respond to it because it's not accurate.” That's why.
Reaching Higher, an education advocacy nonprofit, joined teachers union members, superintendents, and others in the community, including Mr. Volinsky and Mr. Trumbull, to read this document and speak out against the proposed changes. He testified that
Christine Downing, director of curriculum, instruction, and assessment for the Cornish, Grantham, and Plainfield school districts, also held a series of educator review sessions where teachers across the state broadly discussed the proposed changes together. We have read and highlighted areas of particular concern.
In response to questions, Edelblut would not comment on the alleged intent to revoke funding, instead stating that after conducting more than 13 hearing sessions and working with educators, the process was extremely slow. He commented that he felt it was “transparent.”
Educators including Downing, NEA-NH Director Megan Tuttle, and members of Reaching Higher spoke out, saying they had to work harder to have their voices heard. I objected.
“We weren't involved as an organization until late last fall,” Megan Tuttle said of the 306 Draft process, which spanned over three years. “We fought to get a seat at the table.”
A follow-up email was sent to the Secretary asking him again to comment on the removal of funding and the alleged violation of RSA 193-E, but he was unable to do so.
Chairman Drew Klein was also contacted but was unable to be reached.
What's next?
The revised minimum standards must be approved by the Education Oversight Board and the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Regulations before they can be passed.
Lawmakers and community members are now waiting to see whether the Department of Education will make changes to the revised draft based on feedback, or whether the State Board of Education will decide to submit the existing draft to the commission for final approval in June. ing.
Volinski stressed that those who oppose the change should contact not only the governor but also representatives of both commissions to oppose its implementation.
The final draft is expected to be published in May.
These articles are shared by our partners at The Granite State News Collaborative.Learn more about Collaborationnh.org.
