Education funding: the rich towns get richer

[KBCraig]

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Charlie+Arlinghaus%3a+Court+would+shift+education+aid+to+rich+towns&articleId=911591be-2099-461f-b43a-59d90edd2451

Charlie Arlinghaus: Court would shift education aid to rich towns

By CHARLES M. ARLINGHAUS

THE NEW HAMPSHIRE Supreme Court's prescription for education funding is clear, would make New Hampshire's system unique in the country, and would be a disaster for school children and taxpayers in poor communities.

Since the Claremont II decision in 1997 set off the firestorm, elected officials have debated the precise requirements of the decision and looked for loopholes in the language that would allow them to pass plans that would otherwise seem to be prohibited by the initial reading of the court case.

Every state in the country (except Hawaii) funds education in more or less the same way. Local communities raise funds for schools through the revenue sources available to them, largely property taxes. The state government then sends aid to communities to fill in some of the gaps in funding.

Under that system, for example, Wellesley, Mass., receives very little aid and Lowell receives a great deal more. Across the country, state education aid is designed as secondary funding to fill in some of the obvious inequalities. State funding comes in relatively larger and smaller amounts in varying states, but in each case the "aid" is secondary funding designed to address each town's different needs.

Every plan put forward in New Hampshire has adopted this same approach. Whether the old system or the new, state resources are targeted to need with poorer towns receiving a much greater percentage of their funding from the state than wealthy towns receive.

The latest court decision requires a revolution in funding. The court ruled quite clearly that "adequacy" must be defined by cost and that cost must be sent to each and every town without regard to need.

For years, legislators tried to suggest the court didn't really mean "pay for" education in every town. Perhaps it meant "guarantee" or "underwrite." The core of the latest decision did nothing other than address that issue head on.

While the court ruled that the Legislature must "define adequacy," it made clear that it meant a financial number not an education outcome. Adequacy must be defined in a way to "allow an objective determination of cost." Whatever the state defines as the cost, "it must pay for." As if the justices hadn't been clear enough, they added, "None of that financial obligation can be shifted to local school districts, regardless of their relative wealth or need."

Rather than filling in some of the lower spots in a bar graph of education spending, the court's radical new approach would have state spending serve as a foundation, a base level of spending in each and every town. The effect would be that wealthier towns could still spend much more than poorer towns, but poor towns would no longer receive extra help to address the difference. A much greater percentage of education aid would be sent to the richest towns. Not exactly a reform, but a nice windfall if you live in a rich town.

No other state uses its state aid in such a ridiculous way. But if the court decision is followed, New Hampshire will be forced to adopt this unique-in-the-nation system.

Common sense and 48 other states would target state resources to help the towns that need help most. But the Supreme Court's interpretation of "cherish the interest of all seminaries and public schools" will not permit it.

To follow the court decision, we would be required to greatly increase state spending, and raise the taxes to pay for that new mandate. Former Gov. Craig Benson was hardly alarmist when he said such action would "condemn us to job-destroying taxes and the end of New Hampshire's economic advantage."

New taxes will clearly damage New Hampshire's economy and reduce jobs in the state, but the court's foolish plan will also hurt our education system and the opportunities in poorer towns. It's hard to believe that this was what the constitution meant by "cherish" public schools. It might be possible that phrase allows a trifle more flexibility than the court supposes.

Former Gov. John Sununu has been speaking out on this issue for more than two years, calling it a threat to the very character of New Hampshire.

That kind of leadership is hard to come by. I wish he were still governor.

Charles M. Arlinghaus is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy in Concord.

[error]

There's always a loophole. Consider the following proposed law:

I. The state shall provide adequate funding for education for each local school district in the state.

II. Adequate funding for education is defined as not less than one dollar per school district per year.

Probably needs some minor work, but you get the idea.

[KBCraig]

Needs no work at all. I'm with you, error! 

[aries]

There's always a loophole. Consider the following proposed law:

I. The state shall provide adequate funding for education for each local school district in the state.

II. Adequate funding for education is defined as not less than one dollar per school district per year.

Probably needs some minor work, but you get the idea.

That's how it already is, except one dollar is like $500,000

The court said that that is inadequate.

Basically they want the state to cover the whole thing

A rough estimate here but my old high school alone, in a 5 town district where 2 towns have elementary schools, takes in about 3.8-4.5 million per year from the towns alone. So basically an "adequate education" would be well over 7 million dollars for a district of around 1500 students.

[error]

Okay, so we're back to amending the constitution.

[PinoX7]

This article doesnt really tell us anything we dont already know, but it feels good that its acctually being looked into. First off there is a larger amount of Poor neigborhoods, as well as Rich. That is due to the Income Inequality. But that is capitalism, but.. if your poor your less safe? and you don't even have equal schools? Those are things everyone should have, rich or poor, or else, the trend will just continue. Since the beginning there has always been, low med and high income, but the the differnce in these ranges, are getting farther and farther apart every year, the rich get richer while the poor stay poor. Also how about those Zone laws that dont even let poor people live around the good areas. Yup it is the newest form of discrimination, and it seems everyone is just going to accept this.

[Fluff and Stuff]

There are not a large amount of poor neighborhoods or poor towns in NH.  NH has less poor than anywhere else.

Truth be told, counties and cities are agents of the state government.  The state government created them, controlls them, and can take them away.  If a city funds it schools, that is hardly different than a state funding its schools.

The NHSC is so far from the facts are the legalities of government it is sad.  They average lawyer likely knows more about law than the average member of the NHSC.