education finance history orientation presentation to house education committee january 9, 2007...

Education Finance History

Orientation Presentation to House Education Committee January 9, 2007

Steve NortonExecutive Director, NHCPPS

“…to raise new ideas and improve policy debates through quality information and analysis on issues shaping New Hampshire’s future.”

All of our reportsare available on the web:

www.nhpolicy.orgwww.nhpolicy.org

New Hampshire Center New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studiesfor Public Policy Studies


Board of DirectorsMartin L. Gross, ChairJohn B. AndrewsJohn D. CrosierGary MattesonTodd I. SeligDonna SytekGeorgie A. ThomasJames E. TibbettsBrian F. WalshKimon S. Zachos

StaffSteve NortonDennis DelayDoug Hall

School Funding in NH:HistoryRecent StatusProjectionsCurrent Policy Situation

November 14, 2006

Who was John Legat?

In what year did theState of New Hampshire take

control over the fundingof the public schools?

(this is a trick question)

Local Control Re-emerges ~ 1890

1647 – Provincial legislature required all towns with more than 50 households to have a school; funding is left to town meetings and selectmen.

1784 – Voters approved constitution that states “…it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates… to cherish …public schools.”

1789 – State legislature enacted first law on schools under the constitution. It starts by stating “all the (prior) laws of this State respecting schools … hereby are repealed.” In the new law the legislature set the specific amount to be raised for schools in each town and established personal fines for selectmen who did not do so. Tax used was statewide property tax (with different definition of property).

1834 – Supreme Court ruled that any town may raise more money for schools than the legislature requires, but not less.

1906 – Of all public school funding, 2/3 was ordered by legislature; 1/3 added by local choice; many towns still raised only that ordered by the legislature

5,000 Pounds(June 18, 1789)

7,500 Pounds(Dec 10, 1791) …..

$500,0001896

£ Sh P Total

Pence

% of State

Taxes

1789 Pence to Raise for Schools

1791 Pence to Raise for Schools

1896 $ to Raise for Schools

Allenstown 1 8 0 336 0.14% 1,680 2,520 $1,395Amherst 16 4 4 3,892 1.62% 19,460 29,190 $1,795Chichester 3 4 9 777 0.32% 3,885 5,828 $940Claremont 9 0 3 2,163 0.90% 10,815 16,223 $7,395Concord 12 7 11 2,975 1.24% 14,875 22,313 $34,705Derryfield/Manchester 2 10 4 604 0.25% 3,020 4,530 $68,225Dover 14 13 2 3,518 1.47% 17,590 26,385 $21,205Durham 10 16 2 2,594 1.08% 12,970 19,455 $1,375Exeter 15 10 2 3,722 1.55% 18,610 27,915 $6,725Hampton 8 19 7 2,155 0.90% 10,775 16,163 $1,245Hanover 6 1 3 1,455 0.61% 7,275 10,913 $2,525Littleton 1 0 7 247 0.10% 1,235 1,853 $3,680Londonderry 20 15 3 4,983 2.08% 24,915 37,373 $1,465Moultonborough 4 10 10 1,090 0.45% 5,450 8,175 $805New London 2 11 6 618 0.26% 3,090 4,635 $925Pelham 7 4 6 1,734 0.72% 8,670 13,005 $995Pittsfield 5 7 10 1,294 0.54% 6,470 9,705 $2,900Portsmouth 26 15 3 6,423 2.68% 32,115 48,173 $24,655Salem 9 2 1 2,185 0.91% 10,925 16,388 $1,305Stratford 0 10 3 123 0.05% 615 923 $945Winchester 9 8 4 2,260 0.94% 11,300 16,950 $3,105

"Proportion of Public Taxes" 1789(Feb 7, 1789)

State Legislature Establishes School Taxes:Examples of 1789, 1791, …., 1896

(selected towns)

Town

Town of Hanover

Thick black line is the amount ordered to be spent on the Hanover schools by the N.H. legislature.Thinner line with circles is the amount actually raised and spent.Until 1898 the town of Hanover, like most towns, raised and spent exactly what the legislature ordered.

(Source: Walter A. Backofen, “The Town of Hanover as a Window on Public-School Funding in the State of New Hampshire: 1789-1919, Dartmouth College Library Bulletin, November 1998, p.33)

The State Tries to Participate

1919 - set minimum tax rate of $3.50 per thousand and maximum rate of $5.00 per thousand for “standard schools”

1921 - pro-rate state aid if not enough appropriated 1947 - minimum = $3.50, maximum = $6.00; cost set at $100/elementary &

$125/high school student 1951 - maximum tax rate raised to $17.00; again pro-rate state aid if not enough

appropriated 1957 - calculate cost based on amount appropriated 1985 - repeal maximum tax rate; enact “Augenblick” aid formula with automatic

adjustment if not enough appropriated 1999 - $3,201/pupil for adequate education; $3.50 minimum rate raised to $6.66;

Other taxes raised and new formula established 2004 – Statewide tax rate set at $3.33; aid capped 2005 – Statewide rate set at $2.20; “equitable” replaces “adequate”

School finance reform efforts in NH in the 20th century

1919 – Initiated by Governorcoupled with content reform

goal of 50% of funds from stateinsufficient funds resulted in pro-rating aid

1947 – Initiated by Legislaturegoal of 50% of funds from stateinsufficient funds resulted in pro-rating aid

1997 – Initiated by Courtsgoal of an “adequacy floor”insufficient funds resulted in cap on growth of aid

“I earnestly ask you to at leastapproximately solve the great problem.”

Governor John H. BartlettJanuary 9, 1919

“to raise the work of such schools as are now below a reasonable standard, as nearly as practicable, to the level of the better schools of the state.”

"No power is to be taken from the school boards...except the power to have poor schools."

Dr. Ernest Hopkins, PresidentDartmouth College, 1919

% of NH School District RevenueProvided by State Aid 1919-1998

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1919

-20

1924

-25

1929

-30

1934

-35

1939

-40

1944

-45

1949

-50

1954

-55

1959

-60

1964

-65

1969

-70

1974

-75

1979

-80

1984

-85

1989

-90

1994

-95

School Year

School Funding in NH:HistoryRecent Status (1999 – 2005)ProjectionsCurrent Policy Situation

November 14, 2006

Claremont II - December 17, 1997

• The education decision “The responsibility for ensuring the provision of an adequate public education and an adequate level of resources for all students in New Hampshire lies with the State.”

• The tax decision “To the extent that the property tax is used in the future to fund the provision of an adequate education, the tax must be administered in a manner that is equal in valuation and uniform in rate throughout the State.”

The “Adequacy” Reform Began in 1998

• Legislature passed HB999 - new state “adequacy” aid in response to NH Supreme Court ruling in Claremont II

• Old “Foundation Aid” of $66 million was repealed• Raised/introduced taxes for education• Re-introduced statewide property tax for schools in tax

year 1999 at $6.60 rate• Distributed $407 million for school year 1999/2000• Legislature has regularly amended and changed the

amount of aid and the distribution formula.• Goals of plaintiffs were:

• greater pupil equity• greater taxpayer equity

Change in Pupil Equity

How have the differences in spending per pupil among the school districts that were cited by the Supreme Court changed since the reform?

Expenditure Per Elementary Pupil 1999-2000

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 113 120 127 134 141 148 155 162 169 176 183 190 197 204 211 218

Towns sorted in order from low to high

$ Pe

r Pup

il

State Average: $6,254

NOTE: These figures do not include capital costs, debt service, transportation, or food service costs

Highest: Waterville Valley $14,922

Lowest: Weare $5,339


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73 81 89 97 105 113 121 129 137 145 153 161 169 177 185 193 201 209 217


$ Pe

r Pup

il




Lowest: Croydon $4,566


$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106 113 120 127 134 141 148 155 162 169 176 183 190 197 204 211 218


$ Pe

r Pup

il




Lowest: Franklin $5,983

Expenditure Per Elementary Pupil 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$18,000

$20,000

$22,000

1 10 19 28 37 46 55 64 73 82 91 100 109 118 127 136 145 154 163 172 181 190 199 208 217

Towns (each year independently sorted in order from low to high)

$ Pe

r Pup

il

2005200320011999

Before 1999 reform

+61.4%

+66.7%

+81.0%

Expenditure Per Elementary Pupil 1999, 2005

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73 81 89 97 105 113 121 129 137 145 153 161 169 177 185 193 201 209 217

Towns (each year independently sorted in order from low to high)

$ Pe

r Pup

il as

% o

f Sta

te M

edia

n

1999 2005

BeforeReforms

1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/056th lowest $4,223 $4,656 $5,133 $5,657 $6,101 $6,528 $7,08915th lowest $4,668 $5,111 $5,486 $5,878 $6,416 $7,154 $7,554median $5,945 $6,475 $7,210 $7,780 $8,424 $9,184 $9,92815th highest $8,014 $8,625 $9,443 $10,267 $10,908 $12,412 $13,2286th highest $8,904 $9,903 $10,872 $11,704 $12,180 $13,937 $16,297

6th lowest as % of median 71% 72% 71% 73% 72% 71% 71%15th lowest as % of median 79% 79% 76% 76% 76% 78% 76%15th highest as % of median 135% 133% 131% 132% 129% 135% 133%6th highest as % of median 150% 153% 151% 150% 145% 152% 164%

6th highest/6th lowest 2.11 2.13 2.12 2.07 2.00 2.13 2.3015th highest/15th lowest 1.72 1.69 1.72 1.75 1.70 1.73 1.75

AfterReforms

Spending per Elementary Pupil

Different Measures of Per Pupil Equity

Change in Taxpayer Equity

How have the differences in tax rates among the towns that were cited by the Supreme Court changed since the reform?

Equalized Tax Rates for Education 1998

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

one dot for each town (sorted low to high)

Equa

lized

Rat

e (p

er $

1,00

0)

1998

Equalized Tax Rates for Education 1998, 1999

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

one dot for each town (sorted low to high separately for each year)

Equa

lized

Rat

e (p

er $

1,00

0)

1998

1999

Equalized Tax Rates for Education 1998, 1999(compared to median town)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

one dot for each town (sorted low to high separately for each year)

Rat

io o

f tax

rate

to m

edia

n to

wn

tax

rate

1998

1999

Taxpayer equity:In 1998 the tax rate in the sixth highest town was 6.46 times the rate in the sixth lowest town. In 1999 the tax rate in the sixth highest town was 2.55 times the rate in the sixth lowest town. Reform greatly increased inter-town taxpayer equity, primarily by raising the rates in the towns with lower taxes relative to the median.

Equalized Tax Rates for Education 1998, 1999, 2005(compared to median town)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

one dot for each town (sorted from low to high separately for each year)

Rat

io o

f tax

rate

to m

edia

n to

wn

tax

rate

1999

1998 Taxpayer equity:The change in taxpayer equity brought about by the reform of 1999 was almost entirely reversed by 2005. If the trends of 1999-2005 continue for three or four more years, the relative distribution of tax rates for education will be the same as they were immediately before reform in 1999.

2005

Before Reforms

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 20056th lowest $4.65 $8.23 $7.39 $7.24 $6.95 $5.91 $5.26 $3.4615th lowest $8.26 $9.55 $9.08 $8.68 $7.79 $6.94 $6.38 $5.44Median $19.61 $14.13 $14.45 $13.99 $12.94 $12.43 $11.66 $10.5015th highest $27.50 $19.31 $19.80 $19.00 $18.40 $17.03 $15.88 $14.676th highest $30.03 $20.96 $21.25 $20.92 $19.58 $19.32 $16.78 $15.59

6th lowest as % of median 24% 58% 51% 52% 54% 48% 45% 33%15th lowest as % of median 42% 68% 63% 62% 60% 56% 55% 52%6th highest as % of median 153% 148% 147% 150% 151% 155% 144% 148%15th highest as percent of median 140% 137% 137% 136% 142% 137% 136% 140%6th highest as % of 6th lowest 646% 255% 288% 289% 282% 327% 319% 451%15th highest as % of 15th lowest 333% 202% 218% 219% 236% 245% 249% 270%

AfterReforms

Equalized Tax Rate for Schools

Different Measures of Taxpayer Equity

Change in Taxpayer Equity

The initial increase in taxpayer equity in 1999 has nearly all eroded away.

Change in Pupil EquityNo change in pupil equity ever occurred.

% of NH School District RevenueProvided by State Aid 1919-2005

39.7%

54.8%

22.8%

28.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1919

-20

1924

-25

1929

-30

1934

-35

1939

-40

1944

-45

1949

-50

1954

-55

1959

-60

1964

-65

1969

-70

1974

-75

1979

-80

1984

-85

1989

-90

1994

-95

1999

-200

0

2004

-200

5

School Year

Including Statewide property tax

Excluding statewide property tax

Property Taxes By Function 1997-2005

$417 $438 $468 $478 $514 $543 $594 $639 $694

$1,101 $1,174

$537 $660 $718$816

$932$1,147

$1,206$460$458

$499$499

$495

$383$372

$116$116

$116$129

$154$160

$178$180

$192

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Tax Year

Dol

lars

(in

mill

ions

)

CountyState SchoolLocal SchoolMunicipal

Additional NH Property Taxes Collected over Prior Year($ in millions)

$145$122

$132

$50$38

$58 $53$68

$55 $48

$86

($150)

$146$161

$136

$168$150

$116

($200)

($150)

($100)

($50)

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

State Aid as Percent of School RevenueSchool Year 1998-1999

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%N

ew H

amps

hire

Illin

ois

Nev

ada

Virg

inia

Sou

th D

akot

aN

ebra

ska

Pen

nsyl

vani

aC

onne

ctic

utM

isso

uri

Mar

ylan

dN

orth

Dak

ota

New

Jer

sey

Rho

de Is

land

Mas

sach

uset

tsO

hio

New

Yor

kTe

xas

Col

orad

oA

rizon

aM

onta

naM

aine

Tenn

esse

eG

eorg

iaFl

orid

aLo

uisi

ana

Iow

aS

outh

Car

olin

aW

yom

ing

Indi

ana

Wis

cons

inM

issi

ssip

piO

rego

nM

inne

sota

Ark

ansa

sC

alifo

rnia

Okl

ahom

aA

lask

aU

tah

Idah

oA

laba

ma

Kan

sas

Ken

tuck

yW

est V

irgin

iaD

elaw

are

Was

hing

ton

Mic

higa

nN

orth

Car

olin

aN

ew M

exic

oVe

rmon

tH

awai

i

State

Perc

ent S

tate

Aid

Before reform, NH was last in state aid for schools.

State Aid as Percent of School Revenue(School Year 2002-2003)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

New

Ham

pshi

reN

evad

aIll

inoi

sS

outh

Dak

ota

Neb

rask

aM

isso

uri

Pen

nsyl

vani

aC

onne

ctic

utN

orth

Dak

ota

Mar

ylan

dV

irgin

iaM

assa

chus

etts

Texa

sR

hode

Isla

ndM

aine

New

Jer

sey

Col

orad

oFl

orid

aN

ew Y

ork

Ohi

oTe

nnes

see

Mon

tana

Iow

aG

eorg

iaLo

uisi

ana

Ariz

ona

Sou

th C

arol

ina

Wyo

min

gO

rego

nW

isco

nsin

Mis

siss

ippi

Okl

ahom

aU

tah

Ark

ansa

sA

lask

aK

ansa

sC

alifo

rnia

Ken

tuck

yId

aho

Ala

bam

aIn

dian

aW

est V

irgin

iaW

ashi

ngto

nD

elaw

are

Mic

higa

nN

orth

Car

olin

aV

erm

ont

New

Mex

ico

Min

neso

taH

awai

i

State

Perc

ent S

tate

Aid

If locally retained state property tax is considered state aid

State-imposed minimum property taxes that are retained locally are reported as state aid only by Vermont and NH.

School Funding in NH:HistoryRecent Status (1999 – 2005) ProjectionsCurrent Policy Situation

November 14, 2006

Funds for NH Public Schools, 2000 - 2015(assuming 6% annual spending growth & current law)

$0

$1,000,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$4,000,000,000

$5,000,000,000

1999

/200

0

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

2014

/15

School Year

Other SourcesState Adequate/Equitable AidLocal School TaxStatewide School Tax

Actual Projected

State "Adequacy/Equitable" Share of Total Public School Costs(assuming 6% annual spending growth and current law)

26% 23% 23% 21% 21% 19% 20% 18% 19% 18% 20% 19% 20% 19% 21% 19%

28%25% 26%

24%22%

16% 15% 14% 13% 13% 12% 11% 11% 10% 9% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%19

99/2

000

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

2004

/05

2005

/06

2006

/07

2007

/08

2008

/09

2009

/10

2010

/11

2011

/12

2012

/13

2013

/14

2014

/15

School Year

Statewide Property Tax

State Adequate/Equitable Aid

Actual

Projected

State Aid as Percent of Total School Revenue, 1920-2015

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%19

19-2

0

1924

-25

1929

-30

1934

-35

1939

-40

1944

-45

1949

-50

1954

-55

1959

-60

1964

-65

1969

-70

1974

-75

1979

-80

1984

-85

1989

-90

1994

-95

1999

-200

0

2004

-200

5

2009

-201

0

2014

-201

5

School Year

Perc

enta

ge

Cash Aid Only

Actual Projected

Cash & State Property Tax

School Funding in NH:HistoryRecent Status (1999 – 2005) ProjectionsCurrent Policy Situation

November 14, 2006

2005 Spending by School Districts: $2.42 billionFood Service

0.8% All Other6.0%

Facility Construction5.7%

Special Education +16.2%

Instruction 41.4%

Support Services8.4%

Plant Operations7.2%

Transportation3.6%

Interest & Principal on Debt

5.7%

Administration8.3%

Spending 2004-05Function AmountInstruction $944,920,571Special Education + $368,625,189Support Services $203,201,425Administration $199,512,144Plant Operations $173,990,944Transportation $86,207,510Interest & Principal on Debt $137,717,033Facility Construction $138,598,107Food Service $19,937,863All Other $144,723,246Total $2,417,434,032

School YearTotal School

District Spending

Increase Over Prior

Year1998-1999 $1,526,924,0491999-2000 $1,657,228,915 8.5%2000-2001 $1,812,244,528 9.4%2001-2002 $1,961,786,048 8.3%2002-2003 $2,143,731,464 9.3%2003-2004 $2,308,250,839 7.7%2004-2005 $2,417,434,032 4.7%

7.9%Compound Annual

Rate of Increase

Recent annual increases in spending as measured by total district spending

Recent annual increases in spending as measured by average spending per pupil

School YearAverage Per Pupil Expenditure (PPE)

Increase Over Prior

Year1998-1999 $6,009.311999-2000 $6,357.26 5.8%2000-2001 $6,738.36 6.0%2001-2002 $7,233.49 7.3%2002-2003 $7,809.49 8.0%2003-2004 $8,496.28 8.8%2004-2005 $9,098.56 7.1%

7.2%Compound Annual

Rate of Increase

Spending of NH School Districts 1915-2005

$1,000,000

$10,000,000

$100,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$10,000,000,000

1915

-16

1920

-21

1925

-26

1930

-31

1935

-36

1940

-41

1945

-46

1950

-51

1955

-56

1960

-61

1965

-66

1970

-71

1975

-76

1980

-81

1985

-86

1990

-91

1995

-96

2000

-200

1

School Year

Spen

ding

of N

H S

choo

l Dis

tric

ts(L

ogar

ithm

ic P

lot)

This straight line represents a 10.95% per annum compound growth rate 1942-1989.

1989-1999 the compound growth averaged 4.45% per annum.

1999-2005 the compound growth rate has been 7.96% per annum.

Public School Spending asPercent of Measures of the Economy 1972-2005

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

5.5%

1971

-72

1973

-74

1975

-76

1977

-78

1979

-80

1981

-82

1983

-84

1985

-86

1987

-88

1989

-90

1991

-92

1993

-94

1995

-96

1997

-98

1999

-200

0

2001

-200

2

2003

-200

4

School Year

US spending on elementary and secondary schools as % of US Gross Domestic Product

NH spending on elementary and secondary schools as % of NH Gross State Product

School District Revenue 2004/2005

Other State Aid3%

Federal Aid5%

Tuition, Food, and Other2%

Sale of Bonds & Notes

6%

Other0%

State Cash Adequacy Aid

19%

Statewide Property Tax16%

Local Property Tax49%

Revenues of NH School Districts 2004-05Source AmountLocal Property Tax $1,156,083,160Statewide Property Tax $348,495,667State Foundation/Adequacy Aid $454,432,433Other State Aid $68,197,536Federal Aid $126,742,545Tuition, Food, and Other $38,243,560Sale of Bonds & Notes $133,900,706Other $319,914Total $2,326,415,521

Current Year Forecast

Logical Sequence of Steps to Provide and Fundan "Adequate Education"

Sanctions

Claremont Decisions

DefineAdequacy

Cost OutAdequacy

FundAdequacy

GuaranteeAdequacy

Calculate Each District

Select Tax/Revenue Sources Operational Issues

Evaluation Methods

Aspirations Program Definitions Outcomes

Formula

In February 1998 the Center used this graphic to explain the sequence of steps that would logically follow from the Claremont II decision.

This graphic shows the steps that were taken and are in place in 2006.

Current Year Forecast

Logical Sequence of Steps to Provide and Fundan "Adequate Education"

Sanctions

Claremont Decisions

DefineAdequacy

Cost OutAdequacy

FundAdequacy

GuaranteeAdequacy

Calculate Each District

Select Tax/Revenue Sources Operational Issues

Evaluation Methods

Aspirations Program Definitions Outcomes

Formula

Supreme Court Guidelines(December 1997)

• sufficient oral and written communication skills to enable students to function in a complex and rapidly changing civilization;

• sufficient knowledge of economic, social, and political systems to enable the student to make informed choices;

• sufficient understanding of governmental processes to enable the student to understand the issues that affect his or her community, state, and nation;

• sufficient self-knowledge and knowledge of his or her mental and physical wellness;

• sufficient grounding in the arts to enable each student to appreciate his or her cultural and historical heritage;

• sufficient training or preparation for advanced training in either academic or vocational fields so as to enable each child to choose and pursue life work intelligently; and

• sufficient levels of academic or vocational skills to enable public school students to compete favorably with their counterparts in surrounding states, in academics or in the job market.

140 words

Supreme Court Guidelines(December 1997)

“Without intending to intrude upon prerogatives of other branches of government, … we anticipate that they will promptly develop and adopt specific criteria implementing these guidelines and, in completing this task, will appeal to a broad constituency. While the judiciary has the duty to construe and interpret the word `education' by providing broad constitutional guidelines, the Legislature is obligated to give specific substantive content to the word and to the program it deems necessary to provide that education within the broad guidelines.“

RSA 193-E:2(October 1998 and current)

• Skill in reading, writing, and speaking English to enable them to communicate effectively and think creatively and critically.

• Skill in mathematics and familiarity with methods of science to enable them to analyze information, solve problems, and make rational decisions.

• Knowledge of the biological, physical, and earth sciences to enable them to understand and appreciate the world around them.

• Knowledge of civics and government, economics, geography, and history to enable them to participate in the democratic process and to make informed choices as responsible citizens.

• Grounding in the arts, languages, and literature to enable them to appreciate our cultural heritage and develop lifelong interests and involvement in these areas.

• Sound wellness and environmental practices to enable them to enhance their own well-being, as well as that of others.

• Skills for lifelong learning, including interpersonal and technological skills, to enable them to learn, work, and participate effectively in a changing society.

148 words

Supreme Court Decision(September 8, 2006)

“We affirm the trial court’s finding that the State has failed to define a constitutionally adequate education and stay consideration of its remaining findings.”

These trial court findings have been stayed:

• failed to determine the cost of an adequate education

• failed to satisfy the requirement of accountability

• (the current education funding law) creates a non-uniform tax rate in violation of Part II, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution


“RSA 193-E:2 largely mirrors the seven criteria that we cited with approval in Claremont II…. We characterized those criteria as establishing “general” and “aspirational” guidelines for defining educational adequacy and made clear that the legislature was expected to develop and adopt specific criteria for implementing the guidelines. In the years since RSA 193-E:2 was adopted, this court and the State have acknowledged that constitutional adequacy has yet to be defined. Standing alone, RSA 193-E:2 does not fulfill the State’s duty to define the substantive content of a constitutionally adequate education in such a manner that the citizens of this state can know what the parameters of that educational program are. The right to a constitutionally adequate education is meaningless without standards that are enforceable and reviewable.”


“As to the core definitional issues, we will retain jurisdiction with the expectation that the political branches will define with specificity the components of a constitutionally adequate education before the end of fiscal year 2007. Should they fail to do so, we will then be required to take further action to enforce the mandates of Part II, Article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution.”

“Any definition of constitutional adequacy crafted by the political branches must be sufficiently clear to permit common understanding and allow for an objective determination of costs. Whatever the State identifies as comprising constitutional adequacy it must pay for. None of that financial obligation can be shifted to local school districts, regardless of their relative wealth or need.”

Next Steps ?

Supreme Court 9/8/200

6

Constitutional

amendment

Operational definition of “adequate education”

Cost out the definition

Create formula to distribute

aid

Amend “cherish” clause

Amend tax clause

Amend to remove court

Revise definition of “adequate”

Do “Nothing”

Operational Definition

• Input Criteriasomething similar to current state minimum standards, accreditation standards, checklist of conditions, etc.

• Outcome Criteriastandardized testing of knowledge and skills, graduation, employment, entry wages, etc.

Sample Input Criteria Questions

•How many years of school constitute an adequate education?

•What, if any, music programs must be part of the curriculum?

•Are all school sports and clubs “beyond adequate” or not?

•Is there a maximum allowable class size?

•Must school buildings comply with fire, safety, electrical, and ventilation standards?

•To what extent is career guidance a requirement?

•Is a high school adequate if it offers no foreign language courses?

•If textbooks are required, how current must they be in science and history?

• What, if any, minimum academic or experience standards must teachers meet?

•What earth sciences knowledge must graduates have?

Sample Outcome Criteria Questions

•How is it determined if a student is “grounded” in the arts?

•What is the minimum performance that must be achieved by individual students on each standardized test?

•How will fluency in spoken English be measured?

•If schooling beyond 8th grade is required, why are standardized tests not given at higher grade levels to measure adequacy?

•Which students are “educable” and which are not?

•Which “technological skills” must be demonstrated and how?

•Is a high school adequate if it offers no foreign language courses?

•What earth sciences knowledge must a school completer have?

•Is a school providing an adequate education if no students ever successfully complete its graduation standards?

Basic Costing Methods

• Use Existing Schoolsselect a subset of existing schools and use their actual spending history with adjustments (HB999 of the 1999 session)

• Build Model Budgetsblue ribbon committee develops theoretical budgets for schools of different sizes and grade levels (Massachusetts)

Distributing/Targeting Aid

• What do we know about targeting of aid (after the definition of adequate education?)

•The State is responsible for ensuring the resources to provide each student an “adequate education.”

• State aid does not have to be uniform per pupil.

• Cost of “adequate education” may vary based on characteristics of the students to be educated.

• The targeting of aid has nothing to do with the method used to raise the revenue.

• Any proposal to provide $0 in state aid to a particular town has the heavy burden of showing how the cost of an “adequate education” is $0 for the students in that town or how the state is otherwise providing the necessary resources to that town.

• What is the measure of a “poor town?”

3 Political Goals Are in Mathematical Conflict

Cap/limit the total amount of

aid

Target more aid to “poor”

towns

“Hold harmless”

current aid to all towns

What is the Deadline ?

“We affirm the trial court’s finding that the State has failed to define a constitutionally adequate education and stay consideration of its remaining findings.” “… we will retain jurisdiction with the expectation that the political branches will define with specificity the components of a constitutionally adequate education before the end of fiscal year 2007. Should they fail to do so, we will then be required to take further action …”

What powers does a Court Master have?

All of our reportsare available on the web:

www.nhpolicy.orgwww.nhpolicy.org

New Hampshire Center New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studiesfor Public Policy Studies


Board of DirectorsMartin L. Gross, ChairJohn B. AndrewsJohn D. CrosierGary MattesonTodd I. SeligDonna SytekGeorgie A. ThomasJames E. TibbettsBrian F. WalshKimon S. Zachos

StaffSteve NortonDoug Hall

education finance history orientation presentation to house education committee january 9, 2007...

Documents