1 / 62

All of our reports are available on the web: nhpolicy

Education Finance History Presentation for House Continuing Education January 23, 2007 Steve Norton Doug Hall. “…to raise new ideas and improve policy debates through quality information and analysis on issues shaping New Hampshire’s future.”.

Download Presentation

All of our reports are available on the web: nhpolicy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Education Finance HistoryPresentation for House Continuing Education January 23, 2007Steve NortonDoug Hall “…to raise new ideas and improve policy debates through quality information and analysis on issues shaping New Hampshire’s future.”

  2. All of our reportsare available on the web:www.nhpolicy.org New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies Board of Directors Martin L. Gross, Chair John B. Andrews John D. Crosier Gary Matteson Todd I. Selig Donna Sytek Georgie A. Thomas James E. Tibbetts Brian F. Walsh Kimon S. Zachos Staff Steve Norton Dennis Delay Doug Hall “…to raise new ideas and improve policy debates through quality information and analysis on issues shaping New Hampshire’s future.”

  3. School Funding in NH:HistoryRecent StatusProjectionsCurrent Policy Situation November 14, 2006

  4. Who was John Legat?

  5. In what year did theState of New Hampshire take control over the fundingof the public schools? (this is a trick question)

  6. 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

  7. 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)

  8. 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”

  9. School finance reform efforts in NH in the 20th century • 1919 – Initiated by Governorcoupled with content reform goal of 50% of funds from state insufficient funds resulted in pro-rating aid • 1947 – Initiated by Legislaturegoal of 50% of funds from state insufficient funds resulted in pro-rating aid • 1997 – Initiated by Courtsgoal of an “adequacy floor” insufficient funds resulted in cap on growth of aid

  10. “I earnestly ask you to at least approximately solve the great problem.” Governor John H. Bartlett January 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.”

  11. "No power is to be taken from the school boards...except the power to have poor schools." Dr. Ernest Hopkins, PresidentDartmouth College, 1919

  12. School Funding in NH:HistoryRecent Status (1999 – 2005)ProjectionsCurrent Policy Situation November 14, 2006

  13. 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.”

  14. 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

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. Change in Taxpayer Equity The initial increase in taxpayer equity in 1999 has nearly all eroded away. Change in Pupil Equity No change in pupil equity ever occurred.

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

  19. School Funding in NH:HistoryRecent Status (1999 – 2005) ProjectionsCurrent Policy Situation November 14, 2006

  20. School Funding in NH:HistoryRecent Status (1999 – 2005) ProjectionsCurrent Policy Situation November 14, 2006

  21. Recent annual increases in spending as measured by total district spending

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

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

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

  25. 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

  26. 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.“

  27. 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

  28. 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

More Related