Courts and Education funding have a sketchy history in New Hampshire. Just say the word ‘Claremont,’ and the left’s eyes glow with adoration. You might even see a tear of joy. But not enough joy. So, the Left is at it again. Both in the legislature and the courts.
A Cheshire Superior Court judge has denied a preliminary request by the ConVal and Winchester school districts for expedited funding from the state.
But it’s not over.
In a cou(r)t order issued Friday, Justice David W. Ruoff said the plaintiffs could not prove irreparable harm to justify the $21 million, but the case is not yet over. Ruoff asked for more information from the districts and the state. He plans to make a final decision on the rest of the lawsuit, including potential increases in state aid, by June 30.
ConVal and Winchester are demanding 21 million dollars in education reparations (my word not theirs). They claim the state has failed to satisfy its requirement to provide an adequate education for every student.
Adequate is an Output, not an Input
Someone needs to make the case (again and again) in court (and everywhere) that “adequate” is an outcome and money does not guarantee that result. And when it comes to public education in New Hampshire (and most places), despite spending more per student per year than state university tuitions, the output is still not “adequate.”
Private and charter schools and even homeschooling deliver better academic results, all for a fraction of what public schools waste. So, money is not the defining characteristic of adequacy.
Any mandate for public schools regardless of the words we choose is not the endless and ever-increasing consumption of revenue. It is the education of children. If better results are obtainable for fewer dollars, “adequate” takes on a whole new meaning.
So, demands for more money in this context mean nothing about outcomes and everything about whether public education has adequately screwed taxpayers. And the answer to that question is always going to be “not quite enough.”
Where’s our redress?
Dollars saved by investing in education options with adequate outcomes can be directed to other purposes, including leaving them in the hands of the folks who earned them. People who are making spending decisions far more important to the community than feeding the dumpster fire of public-monopoly education.
Put another way, if public schools were subject to consumer protection laws, they’d all be under investigation, and someone would be going to jail.
No, I doubt we’ll see these arguments come to our rescue. What we will see is bigger buckets of our money poured on the fire with even less to show for it than the pile of ash had we burned the cash instead.
Unless someone can make the case in an NH Court and win?