The Legislature this week returns to the debate over education funding, when it holds hearings on a constitutional amendment on the matter. Predicting the future of that amendment – or the future of two other similar constitutional amendments still before the Legislature – is tricky. But it’s safe to say that, if passed, all of them would fundamentally reshape the state’s long and tangled debate over education funding and would shift the grounds upon which any future education policy is based.
The amendment under discussion this week was sponsored last month by Governor Lynch. In wording, it is almost identical to the other two versions still alive – one of which has already been approved by the House, the other by the Senate. But it’s the differences between the three that merit special attention.
Below, we’re printed the three versions of the proposed amendment. To make it easier to compare, we’ve bolded the spots where the language varies in a significant way. Though the differences may seem minor, a single world can sway an entire debate in the politically-charged world of school funding.
House’s version
“In fulfillment of the provisions with respect to education set forth in Part II, Article 83, the general court shall have the authority and full discretion to define reasonable standards for elementary and secondary public education, to establish reasonable standards of accountability therefor, and to mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity. Further, in the exercise thereof, the general court shall have full discretion to determine the amount of, and methods of raising and distributing, State funding for education.”
Senate’s version
“In fulfillment of the provisions with respect to education set forth in Part II, Article 83, the general court shall have the authority, responsibility, and discretion to define reasonable standards for elementary and secondary public education, to establish reasonable standards of accountability therefor, and to mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity. Further, in the exercise thereof, the general court shall have full discretion to determine the amount of, and methods of raising and distributing, State funding for education.”
Governor’s version
“In fulfillment of its duties with respect to education set forth in Part II, Article 83, the Legislature shall have the authority and responsibility to define reasonable standards for elementary and secondary public education, to establish reasonable standards of accountability, and to mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity. Further, in the exercise thereof, the Legislature shall have full discretion to determine the amount of, and methods of raising and distributing, State funding for public education.”
Before we get into the differences, let’s first note where the three versions of the amendment are in accord: in the final sentence. All three would give the Legislature (or the “general court,” which is just another term for the same thing) “full discretion” to decide how state dollars are raised and distributed to pay for public education.
That means lawmakers could decide that certain towns (wealthy ones with high property values, for instance) don’t need any help from the state in paying for their schools, while other towns (those with lots of low-income residents and low property values) need extra money to ensure their kids get a solid education. In the language of school funding, this practice is called “targeting aid” – sending more money to poor or otherwise disadvantaged school districts and less (or none) to wealthy ones.
The state does target money to schools to some degree today; for example, districts get more money based on the number of poor children or students who don’t speak English in their schools. But lawmakers have argued for years that a fully targeted approach to school funding makes more sense, and would be a better use of state tax dollars; limiting state money to wealthier districts would allow more money to go to districts with less taxable property. Governor Lynch and Republican leaders in the House and Senate largely share that view today.
But a string of Supreme Court rulings have consistently determined that the New Hampshire constitution requires the Legislature to lay out a base amount of money for every student in the state – no matter how wealthy their school district is. That has resulted in a funding structure in which a statewide property tax covers a large part of the state’s financial obligation to local districts. Districts can then raise more money on their own to cover additional costs.
Critics of the targeted approach say the language of these amendments – “full discretion” – could potentially free the Legislature to spend zero dollars of state money on public education. Supporters of that language counter with several arguments. First, they say that voters would howl with outrage if the state withdrew all support for public schools, since it would likely result in huge increases in local property taxes to compensate for the loss. They also point to the first section of the amendments, all of which specify a “reasonable” standard for public education. A court could find that zero state funding would be “unreasonable” and thus in violation of the amendment, supporters argue.
This brings us to the differences between the three amendments. The main difference lies in the three phrases used to describe the Legislature’s (and by extension, the state’s) duties towards public schools. Does the state have a “responsibility” to support schools financially? Does it have some “discretion” to set the terms of that support? Or does it have complete and “full discretion” in this matter?
These words are packed with legalistic nuance, and predicting how an actual court would interpret any of them is beyond our abilities. But they reflect the degree to which amendment backers would either remove any Court interference in this matter, or maintain some degree of judicial oversight of public school funding.
The House proposal, for instance, which grants “full discretion” to the lawmakers in all education funding matters, would seem to eliminate any role for judges to critique the Legislature’s school funding plans. The Senate’s and Governor’s wording, which describes the Legislature as having a “responsibility” in this matter, would seem to allow room for some judicial review. A court, for instance, could find that a certain funding plan fails to meet the state’s responsibility to “mitigate local disparities in education opportunity.”
In any event, critics of these proposals – including the New Hampshire School Board Association – say they all lower the standard by which the state could be judged to provide an adequate education for its students.
It’s also worth noting that the amendments alone do not determine how much money the state would spend on public schools, or how that money would be divvied up among towns and cities. They simply change the terms for how such a spending plan might be crafted.
Any amendment would need the support of 60 percent of both the House and Senate to go before voters for approval next November. Once on the ballot, the amendment would then need the support of two-thirds of voters to become legally binding. Governors play no official role in this process and cannot veto an amendment. But, given Governor Lynch’s popularity, legislative leaders no doubt would like him to throw his public support behind any amendment that makes it through the House and Senate.
Comments