Many people don’t know it, but the state has definitively identified the amount of money that a school district should be spending on each student in the district:
198:40-a Cost of an Opportunity for an Adequate Education. –
I. For the biennium beginning July 1, 2015, the annual cost of providing the opportunity for an adequate education as defined in RSA 193-E:2-a shall be as specified in paragraph II. The department shall adjust the rates specified in this paragraph in accordance with RSA 198:40-d.
II. (a) A cost of $3,561.27 per pupil in the ADMA, plus differentiated aid as follows:
(b) An additional $1,780.63 for each pupil in the ADMA who is eligible for a free or reduced price meal; plus
(c) An additional $697.77 for each pupil in the ADMA who is an English language learner; plus
(d) An additional $1,915.86 for each pupil in the ADMA who is receiving special education services; plus
(e) An additional $697.77 for each third grade pupil in the ADMA with a score below the proficient level on the reading component of the state assessment administered pursuant to RSA 193-C:6 or the authorized, locally-administered assessment as provided in RSA 193-C:3, IV(i), provided the pupil is not eligible to receive differentiated aid pursuant to subparagraphs (b)-(d). A school district receiving aid under this subparagraph shall annually provide to the department of education documentation demonstrating that the district has implemented an instructional program to improve non-proficient pupil reading.
III. The sum total calculated under paragraph II shall be the cost of an adequate education. The department shall determine the cost of an adequate education for each municipality based on the ADMA of pupils who reside in that municipality.
That is, a district should be spending at most $8653.30 on any student. But for the typical student — who doesn’t need free meals or special education services, and whose first language is English — the district should be spending the base cost of $3,561.27.
Note that school districts act as if this is a supplement, but that’s not what the RSA says. It says that this is the cost. And not the cost of some stripped-down, bare-bones education, either. This is for ‘an adequate education as defined in RSA 193-E:2-a’. That RSA begins:
193-E:2-a Substantive Educational Content of an Adequate Education. –
Beginning in the school year 2008-2009, the specific criteria and substantive educational program that deliver the opportunity for an adequate education shall be defined and identified as the school approval standards in the following areas:
(a) English/language arts and reading.
(b) Mathematics.
(c) Science.
(d) Social studies.
(e) Arts education.
(f) World languages.
(g) Health education.
(h) Physical education.
(i) Engineering and technologies.
(j) Computer science and digital literacy.
That’s what you should be getting for your $3600.
It’s a good bet that your district is spending more than that. A lot more than that. Probably five or six times as much as that.
If so, this means that your district is either (1) wasting prodigious amounts of money, or (2) trying to provide something other than the opportunity for an adequate education.
All of this suggests that every school board, every year, should be required to prepare two budgets, rather than just one.
The first budget would answer the question: If we had only $3600 per student, and had to make do with that, what would we do? (What would we keep, what would we cut or combine or outsource, what would we pare down to make more efficient and more effective?) This might be called the ‘court-mandated’ budget, or the ‘public benefit’ budget, or the ‘wheat’ budget.
The second budget would answer the question: If the residents of the district feel like giving us more to spend, what else would we do with the extra money? This might be called the ‘optional’ budget, or the ‘private enrichment’ budget, or the ‘chaff’ budget.
Without seeing things separated out this way, it’s impossible for taxpayers to tell the difference between what they’re required to pay for, and what they’re being asked to pay for. Acting as if those are the same is simply dishonest.
In the end, there are only two possibilities. The first is that the legislature was right about what constitutes an adequate education, and what it should cost. The second is that the legislature was wrong — grievously, shockingly, appallingly wrong — about these things.
If the legislature was right, then school districts everywhere are taking unfair advantage of residents by taxing them to pay for what increasingly seems to be mainly a jobs program. If that’s the case, requiring school boards to produce two budgets would be a good first step towards correcting this, by giving taxpayers the information they need to separate the wheat from the chaff.
On the other hand, if the legislature was so unbelievably wrong, then it is clearly in over its head dealing with education, and ought to get out of the education business entirely — not just where funding is concerned, but in every other respect as well. This would allow school districts to roll spending back to pre-Claremont levels (typically about $10,000 less per student per year than now), regain local control over their activities, and still retain the same levels of student achievement.
