Ths first step in a three step process to eliminate local control of education in NH, and to codify multiple illegitimate Supreme Court rulings, hits the House Education Committee on Thursday, March 22, at 9 AM, in the Legislative Office Building. It must be stopped. Here is its text: http://www.generalcourt.org/bills/2007/HB927-FN

And here is why it must be stopped...

The first major problem with this is in the statement of purpose. The opening is very problematic:

"I. The general court embraces its duty to define a constitutionally adequate public education."

The general court does not have a duty to define a "constitutionally adequate education". In fact, the term "adequate education" doesn't appear in the constitution, only in the court mandates following Claremont II, in 1997. This is an abrogation of Section 1, Article Six, and is also overt acquiescence to the court's 2006 Londonderry ruling, which should have merited the removal of the justices.

But it gets worse:

"II. The general court finds that a constitutionally adequate education in New Hampshire consists of the substantive education programs in elementary school, middle school, and high school that deliver the essential opportunities to acquire skills, competencies, and knowledge in the subject areas of English/language arts and reading, mathematics, science, social studies, the arts, world languages, technology, health and physical education. The general court finds that an adequate education should provide every child in New Hampshire with the opportunity to receive these substantive education programs in accordance with the specific criteria and high standards for these education programs that are set forth in the applicable school approval standards."

The school approval standards are, again, an infringement of Section One Article Six. In addition, the referral to them is a set-up for later legislation that will set the price tag for "adequacy" very high. Later in the actual legislation, the bill stipulates, "(f) The general court requires the state board of education and the department of education to institute procedures for maintaining, updating, improving, and refining curriculum frameworks for each area of education identified in subparagraph (a). The curriculum frameworks shall present educational goals, broad pedagogical approaches and strategies for assisting students in the development of the skills, competencies and knowledge called for by the academic standards for each area of education identified in subparagraph (a). The curriculum frameworks shall serve as a guide and reference to what New Hampshire students should know and be able to do in each area of education. The frameworks do not establish a statewide curriculum. It is the responsibility of local teachers, administrators, and school boards to identify and implement approaches best suited for the students in their communities to acquire the skills and knowledge included in the frameworks, to determine the scope, organization, and sequence of course offerings, and to choose the methods of instruction, the activities, and materials to be used."

Note the section that reads, "The frameworks do not establish a statewide curriculum." This is deceptive at best. The state Curriculum will be established by the Board of Education, and its minimum "adequacy" standards will be given price tags by the legislature, under which no town will be allowed to go. Functionally,
no town budget will be allowed to dip below the state mandated "adequacy" level.

The way John Lynch wants to arrange a price tag for this is the key. He is depending on the board of education to evaluate the best performing schools as it determines its standards. Those standards will then be used to create a price for an "adequate" amount of education spending, under which no town will be allowed to go. This amount will increase each year, placing pressure on the towns' property tax bills. This "ed adequacy" legislation is the first of about three steps to push towards an income tax or a sales tax.

Lynch is also interested in promoting his "targeted" aid amendment in the Constitution. Which is another step towards accepting the Claremont rulings as proper jurisprudence. All of this has to be opposed, on principle and for practical reasons. Otherwise, local control of education will, in a few years, be nearly extinguished. You can see from the text of 927 that no town will be allowed to go under the "adequacy" standards, and it's important to recognize that by using the terminology imposed by the Court, the legislature is folding, and we are one step closer to what the justices want -- state definition and control of education policy.

Note, the standards of the board of ed to which they refer were first implimented after Claremont I, and are, themselves, a form of acquiescence to the Court.

This mindest plays along with improper jurisprudence, and increases the power of the state to negate local education decisions. It also sets us up for a monetary rule for "adequacy" that will force towns to continually raise more money with their property taxes. Once the state standards are established, the price tag will rise and rise, becoming more burdensome on localities. The popular tendency for many property tax payers will be to look to "shift" the burden to someone else. The state will represent an easy out for that, since it will already have been codified that the legislature has "accepted its responsibility" to provide an "adequate education" to all the children in the state. Income tax proponents will be able to then tell their reps to lift the "burdensome and unfair property tax", and replace it with something that "properly" funds this "state" responsibility.

It is clear where that will take us. It is also clear that this is a series of dominoes that the income tax proponents want to arrrange. 927 is the first step. It codifies agreement with the Court, and sets us up for an ever-increasing "adequacy" level to be defined by the board of ed and the legislature.

None of those options are constitutional and they all leave the towns without their power to control their local education policies.

That's the way I see this bill. I think it is very dangerous, and on its face, even if it weren't part of a larger agenda, it institutionalizes an improper Court ruling. It's a very dangerous piece of legislation that deserves more light to be thrown in it, and deserves defeat.