If you want to see why the Republican Party has become and will remain the minority party in New Hampshire, take a look at the constitutional amendment that Minority Leader Mike Whalley has introduced to address education funding. It is a weasel-worded bunch of drivel that writes the antiquated, failed education policy prescriptions of the misbegotten Claremont/Londonderry decisions into the Constitution in much the same manner as the Lynch Amendment.
The Whalley amendment replaces Lynch’s “define an adequate education” with “establish standards for primary and secondary education.” What’s the difference? You’re still talking about a one-size-fits-all formula for public education to be determined by Concord, which means you’re still talking about enshrining a discredited and failed model of public education in the Constitution. Presumably, Whalley and his crack legal team would tell you that this is a small price to pay for ending the lawsuits. But does the amendment even do that?
The Legislature’s authority is limited to setting “reasonable” standards. And who gets to determine whether the standards are reasonable? Apparently, the Supreme Court because the Whalley amendment takes a pass on the issue of judicial review. Can you think of a surer way to ruin public education than to let five lawyers in black robes decide what class sizes and curriculum are reasonable?
The Whalley amendment, like the Lynch amendment, and like the Claremont/Londonderry decisions is based on the discredited notion that the quality of public education is determined primarily by how much we spend. Whalley would create a constitutional requirement that the Legislature “determine the level of state funding” for the “standards for primary and secondary education.” We’ve doubled per pupil spending since Claremont II and there have been no related improvements in the quality of public education. Can you imagine any private sector service similarly increasing its costs to the consumer and staying in business? Yet now we’re going to write this failed policy approach into the Constitution.
And just what does it mean to “determine the level of state funding”? Is it the total cost of the standards? Or is it the cost after taking into account some contribution from the school districts? The amendment goes on to provide that the Legislature must distribute “state funds” on a “per pupil basis,” but can vary per pupil funding between school districts as long as the variations are “reasonable” in the eyes of the Supreme Court.
While it is bad enough that the Supreme Court would get to decide whether the difference in the amounts of per pupil funding between let’s say Allenstown and Windham are reasonable, if “state funding” were determined to mean the entire cost of the standards we’re looking at fiscal lunacy. The Legislature would not be able to reduce the allocation by the amount that it requires local funding to pay for the standards in the so-called rich towns. Rather, the Legislature would have to send the difference to other school districts. This could result in some districts receiving more than it supposedly costs to provide the standards!
Even if “state funds” means only supplemental state aid, the Legislature’s authority to determine the “level of funding” still must be reasonable in the eyes of the Supreme Court. Can you think of a surer way to grease the skids for an income tax than to let a panel of unaccountable lawyers decide what quantum of spending on public education is reasonable?
The Whalley amendment also provides that the Legislature must “establish standards of accountability reflecting a partnership between the state and local communities which supports local control.” Does anybody but the lawyers who drafted this gobbledygook have any idea what this partnership that supports local control is supposed to look like? One-size-fits-all standards of accountability don’t “support” local control. They end local control.
The Whalley amendment, like the Lynch amendment, would ruin public education. It would also ruin what remains of the Republican Party in New Hampshire because it represents an echo not an alternative. If the Republican Party wants to remain an irrelevancy in New Hampshire politics, it should get behind the Whalley amendment. Otherwise, it needs to get working on a dramatic change agenda.
