New Hampshire is currently looking to define education. This need was bought on by a few lawsuits funded primarily by those who would benefit from increased educational spending. The increased in spending that is a result of these lawsuits is primarily an increase in salaries and an increase in bureaucratic positions. Increased spending for education as a result of these lawsuits never results in increased achievement by students. It will result in an increase in the amount of taxdollars coming out of your pockets.
K-12 SPENDING AND ACHIEVEMENT IN KANSAS
Discussions about education in Kansas typically involve two assertions. The first is that schools are performing well. The second is that Kansas taxpayers are excessively frugal. John R. LaPlante, in his new research paper, "K-12 Spending and Achievement in Kansas: 2007 Edition," challenges both assumptions by laying out some basic facts about the history of school spending and achievement for Kansas schools.
According to LaPlante, since 1993, changes in student enrollment have been modest:
In the 2006-07 school year, Kansas government-run public schools had a full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment that was just 1.8 higher than the same number in 1993.
The infusion of an additional $2.5 billion to the yearly budget has meant that per-pupil funding has increased from $5,987 to $11,558, or 93 percent.
While Kansas schools have achieved modest gains, their performance on mathematics in the fourth grade, progress has stalled, he says. Currently, half of all students are not proficient on math. If possible, performance on reading has been worse.
In the 1997-98 school year, per-pupil spending was $6,828; two out of three students were not proficient in reading.
During the 2006-07 school year, per-pupil spending was 69 percent higher, at $11,558; two out of three students were not proficient in reading.
Local school districts have had a privileged position as recipients of tax dollars spent on education. This is in contrast with both pre-school and higher education, in which families have a much larger say in where their children use those dollars. It is time to give those families a larger say in K-12 education by promoting truly independent charter schools and letting the funds follow the child to any school, private or public, says LaPlante.
Source: John R. LaPlante, "K-12 Spending and Achievement in Kansas: 2007 Edition," Flint Hills Center, Vol. 4, Issue 10, December 31, 2007.
Showing posts with label CACR - 18. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CACR - 18. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
The Teacher Unions: Enemies of Reform
One of the main groups behind the lawsuits in Claremont and Londonderry were the teachers unions. The end result of the lawsuits is CACR 18 which will lead to a broad base income tax without any reduction in property taxes. The article below is from the Education Policy website
and requires no further explanation.
The Teacher Unions: Enemies of Reform
by Charlene K. Haar, EPI President
From the school house to the White House, the teacher unions are the most formidable foes of meaningful education reforms -- reforms, which I believe are necessary to achieve superior educational outcomes for children at lower costs to parents and other taxpayers through competition.
Despite their rhetoric, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, like other labor unions, were established to redistribute income from employers to employees and the unions. There is no incentive to reduce costs when taxpayers must pay upon demand. There is no reason to excel when the best employees are paid what the worst are paid. For decades, the NEA/AFT have negotiated highly inefficient contracts covering such items as
*hours of employment and compensation
*teacher work load and duties
*teacher qualifications
*teaching assignments and seniority
*benefits
*teacher evaluation and tenure
*taxpayer subsidies to the unions, such as paid time off for union work, use of school mail system, payroll deduction for dues and NEA/AFT PACs at no cost to the unions, and retirement credit for full-time service as a union employee.
With incredible specificity, the teacher union/school district contract heavily influences the day-to-day operations and morale of a school. In their study, researchers Howard Fuller, George Mitchell and Michael Hartmann reveal that the 174-page contract between the Milwaukee Public System and Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, is an almost "impenetrable document". Making it even more complicated, they discovered "...a 'contract behind the contract' comprised of nearly 2,000 amendments ('memoranda of understanding'), grievance-arbitration rulings, and various state declaratory rulings."
Like legislators who don't read a bill before voting on it, neither school board members nor teachers are likely to read the labor union contract. However, highly paid union officials and political operatives, known in the NEA as UniServ directors, not only read the contracts, but craft them. The AFT local officers negotiate AFT affiliate contracts, sometimes with the assistance of AFT national representatives.
Consequently, with no competition and no incentives for excellence, teacher unions have a government school monopoly which constantly seeks increased taxes and more government expenditures for teachers and union bureaucracies. In fact, union bureaucracies benefit more than teacher union members according to Myron Lieberman. In The Teacher Unions (Free Press, 1997), Lieberman points out that over 3,000 NEA/AFT staffers earn more than $100,000 a year in salary and benefits. It is these highly paid negotiators/political operatives who insist on maintaining the current system. And their job security comes partly from crafting a document that most citizens cannot decipher. Teacher union control of the process is the result of nearly four decades of political power during which the teacher unions have successfully pressured elected lawmakers and school board members to shape education policies, laws, and contracts in their favor.
Teacher union contracts, policies, and laws exclude or severely restrict parental involvement. Because it is completely subservient to the teacher unions, even the National Congress of Parents and Teachers will not speak up for parental interests when teacher union interests are at stake. Almost 30 years ago, the PTA leadership adopted a position of "neutrality" on teacher strikes and terms and conditions of employment negotiated in teacher union contracts. As often happens in negotiations, school boards sacrifice parent interests to teacher union interests. As a result, parents are relegated to fundraising or helping teachers. As the purported representative of children's best interests, the PTA has failed.
With continued talk about parent representation on site-based management councils, parents need reliable, accurate information about how to review school budgets, curricula, contract provisions, personnel evaluations, and other data. In some ways, local parent groups (PTOs) can be more effective than the PTA, but lack the necessary training to become effective leaders.
Who can help roll back teacher union power? Taxpayer and small business groups, which already have expertise in these areas, could expand their watchdog activities and provide training to parents interested in challenging the status quo. Persistent school boards can cut out taxpayer subsidies to the NEA/AFT. Lawmakers can eliminate legislation which micromanages education and school boards. Instead, they should provide a framework within which real competition takes place, thereby permitting and encouraging
*subcontracting with private providers for delivery of services,
*for-profit schools,
*charter schools with liberal waivers and flexibility,
*universal vouchers, or
*any combination of the above to offer superior educational opportunities to children and efficiency and choice to their parents.
The frustration of long-ignored parents is manifesting itself in the profusion of charter and for-profit schools that do not have school boards, negotiators, teacher unions, or PTAs. What these schools do have are effective, engaged parents in independent PTOs, and enthusiastic teachers unleashed from contract restrictions. Were such coalitions armed with more knowledge about the workings of the teacher unions and the weaknesses of the PTA, imagine what they could accomplish.
and requires no further explanation.
The Teacher Unions: Enemies of Reform
by Charlene K. Haar, EPI President
From the school house to the White House, the teacher unions are the most formidable foes of meaningful education reforms -- reforms, which I believe are necessary to achieve superior educational outcomes for children at lower costs to parents and other taxpayers through competition.
Despite their rhetoric, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, like other labor unions, were established to redistribute income from employers to employees and the unions. There is no incentive to reduce costs when taxpayers must pay upon demand. There is no reason to excel when the best employees are paid what the worst are paid. For decades, the NEA/AFT have negotiated highly inefficient contracts covering such items as
*hours of employment and compensation
*teacher work load and duties
*teacher qualifications
*teaching assignments and seniority
*benefits
*teacher evaluation and tenure
*taxpayer subsidies to the unions, such as paid time off for union work, use of school mail system, payroll deduction for dues and NEA/AFT PACs at no cost to the unions, and retirement credit for full-time service as a union employee.
With incredible specificity, the teacher union/school district contract heavily influences the day-to-day operations and morale of a school. In their study, researchers Howard Fuller, George Mitchell and Michael Hartmann reveal that the 174-page contract between the Milwaukee Public System and Milwaukee Teachers Education Association, is an almost "impenetrable document". Making it even more complicated, they discovered "...a 'contract behind the contract' comprised of nearly 2,000 amendments ('memoranda of understanding'), grievance-arbitration rulings, and various state declaratory rulings."
Like legislators who don't read a bill before voting on it, neither school board members nor teachers are likely to read the labor union contract. However, highly paid union officials and political operatives, known in the NEA as UniServ directors, not only read the contracts, but craft them. The AFT local officers negotiate AFT affiliate contracts, sometimes with the assistance of AFT national representatives.
Consequently, with no competition and no incentives for excellence, teacher unions have a government school monopoly which constantly seeks increased taxes and more government expenditures for teachers and union bureaucracies. In fact, union bureaucracies benefit more than teacher union members according to Myron Lieberman. In The Teacher Unions (Free Press, 1997), Lieberman points out that over 3,000 NEA/AFT staffers earn more than $100,000 a year in salary and benefits. It is these highly paid negotiators/political operatives who insist on maintaining the current system. And their job security comes partly from crafting a document that most citizens cannot decipher. Teacher union control of the process is the result of nearly four decades of political power during which the teacher unions have successfully pressured elected lawmakers and school board members to shape education policies, laws, and contracts in their favor.
Teacher union contracts, policies, and laws exclude or severely restrict parental involvement. Because it is completely subservient to the teacher unions, even the National Congress of Parents and Teachers will not speak up for parental interests when teacher union interests are at stake. Almost 30 years ago, the PTA leadership adopted a position of "neutrality" on teacher strikes and terms and conditions of employment negotiated in teacher union contracts. As often happens in negotiations, school boards sacrifice parent interests to teacher union interests. As a result, parents are relegated to fundraising or helping teachers. As the purported representative of children's best interests, the PTA has failed.
With continued talk about parent representation on site-based management councils, parents need reliable, accurate information about how to review school budgets, curricula, contract provisions, personnel evaluations, and other data. In some ways, local parent groups (PTOs) can be more effective than the PTA, but lack the necessary training to become effective leaders.
Who can help roll back teacher union power? Taxpayer and small business groups, which already have expertise in these areas, could expand their watchdog activities and provide training to parents interested in challenging the status quo. Persistent school boards can cut out taxpayer subsidies to the NEA/AFT. Lawmakers can eliminate legislation which micromanages education and school boards. Instead, they should provide a framework within which real competition takes place, thereby permitting and encouraging
*subcontracting with private providers for delivery of services,
*for-profit schools,
*charter schools with liberal waivers and flexibility,
*universal vouchers, or
*any combination of the above to offer superior educational opportunities to children and efficiency and choice to their parents.
The frustration of long-ignored parents is manifesting itself in the profusion of charter and for-profit schools that do not have school boards, negotiators, teacher unions, or PTAs. What these schools do have are effective, engaged parents in independent PTOs, and enthusiastic teachers unleashed from contract restrictions. Were such coalitions armed with more knowledge about the workings of the teacher unions and the weaknesses of the PTA, imagine what they could accomplish.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
LIPSTICK ON A PIG
The following was sent to us by Tammy Simmons of The New Hampshire Advantage Coalition at www.thenhadvantage.com.
LIPSTICK ON A PIG
One of the arguments being advanced in favor of the constitutional amendments presently percolating in the House, the most prominent of these being the Whalley and Smith amendments (I’ll call them the House amendments), is that they would restore the status quo prior to the Claremont decisions. This argument is stunningly wrong.
The status quo ante Claremont, in terms of constitutional law, was that the representative branches had plenary power to set education policy. It was not that the Legislature had to utilize a centralized, top-down system of public education or, more specifically, that the Legislature had to define curriculum, set standards and determine funding for the entire State, which is what the House amendments would write into the Constitution.
Advocates of the House amendments argue that, because there has been State control of public education for a really long time, there really has never been any such thing as “local control.” It’s just a myth. So, according to them, we’re not really losing anything by giving up local control to forestall a potential court-ordered income tax. They couldn’t be more wrong.
While it is true that there has been a State Board of Education and State standards since 1919, the important point is that these things have never been constitutionally compelled. The House amendments, however, would constitutionally compel this bureaucratic, top-down approach to public education. Thus, such an amendment would permanently enshrine in our Constitution a failed, obsolescent 19th century model of public education. No future Legislature or Governor would be able to affect any meaningful change by, for example, devolving authority to local decision-makers.
Further, there is such a thing as “local control” and the House amendments would surely kill it. While the State may have been setting standards for a long time, it has been local decision-makers that have decided how much to spend to implement these standards. This degree of local control is what has kept New Hampshire’s tax burden low relative to the other states.
The House amendments, however, would kill local control because the Legislature would be required to determine how much should be spent in each school district. The passage of any of the House amendments would result in the proverbial race to the bottom.
Efficient and frugal school districts would be forced to spend up to the level set by the education mandarins in Concord, even though they could do it cheaper and better. Taxpayers would no longer be able to vote with their feet by moving to a different school district to escape overspending, mismanagement and waste because overspending, mismanagement and waste will be ubiquitous. The only relief from high taxes and bad public schools will be to move out of the State.
The irony in all this is that one of the arguments ventilated for the House amendments is that sacrificing local control is a small price to pay to prevent an income tax. Ending what local control we have over public education will not prevent an income tax, as there is nothing in the House amendments prohibiting an income tax. Just the opposite, killing local control makes an income tax much, much more likely. The inevitable result of the loss of local control over property taxes is that the income tax will be seen as the only potential source of tax relief.
The House amendments are policy and tax pigs, no matter how much lipstick their advocates apply.
Fortunately, there is an alternative. It is the Ingbretson amendment. Instead of writing the failed policies of the past into the Constitution, as the House amendments would do, the Ingbretson amendment builds on what has worked and allows us the flexibility to make real improvements to education. And unlike the House amendments, it does not grease the skids for an income tax.
Undoubtedly one of the knocks on the Ingbretson amendment will be that it was not crafted by the “expert legal minds” that crafted the House amendments. But remember what caused our present state of affairs: five expert legal minds took it upon themselves to impose their views on education policy on the rest of us. Isn’t it about time that the lawyers went back to lawyering and left public education to those who actually know something about it?
If the goal is to pass an amendment that preserves what is good and unique about New Hampshire while allowing us to meet the challenges of the future, the only choice is the Ingbretson amendment.
Tammy Simmons
Executive Director
The New Hampshire Advantage
(603) 235-9998
www.theNHadvantage.com
LIPSTICK ON A PIG
One of the arguments being advanced in favor of the constitutional amendments presently percolating in the House, the most prominent of these being the Whalley and Smith amendments (I’ll call them the House amendments), is that they would restore the status quo prior to the Claremont decisions. This argument is stunningly wrong.
The status quo ante Claremont, in terms of constitutional law, was that the representative branches had plenary power to set education policy. It was not that the Legislature had to utilize a centralized, top-down system of public education or, more specifically, that the Legislature had to define curriculum, set standards and determine funding for the entire State, which is what the House amendments would write into the Constitution.
Advocates of the House amendments argue that, because there has been State control of public education for a really long time, there really has never been any such thing as “local control.” It’s just a myth. So, according to them, we’re not really losing anything by giving up local control to forestall a potential court-ordered income tax. They couldn’t be more wrong.
While it is true that there has been a State Board of Education and State standards since 1919, the important point is that these things have never been constitutionally compelled. The House amendments, however, would constitutionally compel this bureaucratic, top-down approach to public education. Thus, such an amendment would permanently enshrine in our Constitution a failed, obsolescent 19th century model of public education. No future Legislature or Governor would be able to affect any meaningful change by, for example, devolving authority to local decision-makers.
Further, there is such a thing as “local control” and the House amendments would surely kill it. While the State may have been setting standards for a long time, it has been local decision-makers that have decided how much to spend to implement these standards. This degree of local control is what has kept New Hampshire’s tax burden low relative to the other states.
The House amendments, however, would kill local control because the Legislature would be required to determine how much should be spent in each school district. The passage of any of the House amendments would result in the proverbial race to the bottom.
Efficient and frugal school districts would be forced to spend up to the level set by the education mandarins in Concord, even though they could do it cheaper and better. Taxpayers would no longer be able to vote with their feet by moving to a different school district to escape overspending, mismanagement and waste because overspending, mismanagement and waste will be ubiquitous. The only relief from high taxes and bad public schools will be to move out of the State.
The irony in all this is that one of the arguments ventilated for the House amendments is that sacrificing local control is a small price to pay to prevent an income tax. Ending what local control we have over public education will not prevent an income tax, as there is nothing in the House amendments prohibiting an income tax. Just the opposite, killing local control makes an income tax much, much more likely. The inevitable result of the loss of local control over property taxes is that the income tax will be seen as the only potential source of tax relief.
The House amendments are policy and tax pigs, no matter how much lipstick their advocates apply.
Fortunately, there is an alternative. It is the Ingbretson amendment. Instead of writing the failed policies of the past into the Constitution, as the House amendments would do, the Ingbretson amendment builds on what has worked and allows us the flexibility to make real improvements to education. And unlike the House amendments, it does not grease the skids for an income tax.
Undoubtedly one of the knocks on the Ingbretson amendment will be that it was not crafted by the “expert legal minds” that crafted the House amendments. But remember what caused our present state of affairs: five expert legal minds took it upon themselves to impose their views on education policy on the rest of us. Isn’t it about time that the lawyers went back to lawyering and left public education to those who actually know something about it?
If the goal is to pass an amendment that preserves what is good and unique about New Hampshire while allowing us to meet the challenges of the future, the only choice is the Ingbretson amendment.
Tammy Simmons
Executive Director
The New Hampshire Advantage
(603) 235-9998
www.theNHadvantage.com
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Estabrook's fantasy: Schools with limitless resources
Hmm. How did we miss this great editorial in the Union Leader.
The Editorial below is dead on correct. Not only is this Estabrook's fantasy it is the fantasy of all NEA and AFT members. Government school employees have an insatiable appetite for money and no amount of money will satisfy these greedy individuals.
The Education Intelligence Agency is a must read for all those who want to follow the antics of the unions who are destroying America's public education system.
Estabrook's fantasy: Schools with limitless resources
Friday, Jun. 1, 2007
SEN. IRIS ESTABROOK, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has crafted a definition of adequate education so comprehensive that it would either bankrupt the state or require the immediate imposition of a sales or income tax. Or both.
Estabrook has amended House Bill 927, which would define an "adequate education," as mandated by the state Supreme Court in last year's Londonderry decision. For "enhanced needs schools," it would mandate experienced teachers, smaller class sizes, full-day kindergarten, "student support services, including special education, guidance, nursing, psychological services and speech/language services," staff training and development and "instructional resources, including library and technology." All of this the state must finance.
It also would remove the modifier "half day" from the bill's kindergarten requirement for all schools.
Having committed the state to a huge spike in school aid, Estabrook then leaves for future legislatures the "determination of the specific resource elements essential to providing the substantive educational content of an adequate education." Oh, and the cost, too.
If these elements are "essential," then why not attach a price tag to them? If we cannot do without them, their cost matters not. But of course, we can do without them. New Hampshire consistently posts among the best test scores in the nation, year after year, without these costly mandates of questionable value.
The Senate Education Committee, if it is wise, will vote down this thinly veiled attempt to create a broadbased tax.
The Editorial below is dead on correct. Not only is this Estabrook's fantasy it is the fantasy of all NEA and AFT members. Government school employees have an insatiable appetite for money and no amount of money will satisfy these greedy individuals.
The Education Intelligence Agency is a must read for all those who want to follow the antics of the unions who are destroying America's public education system.
Estabrook's fantasy: Schools with limitless resources
Friday, Jun. 1, 2007
SEN. IRIS ESTABROOK, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has crafted a definition of adequate education so comprehensive that it would either bankrupt the state or require the immediate imposition of a sales or income tax. Or both.
Estabrook has amended House Bill 927, which would define an "adequate education," as mandated by the state Supreme Court in last year's Londonderry decision. For "enhanced needs schools," it would mandate experienced teachers, smaller class sizes, full-day kindergarten, "student support services, including special education, guidance, nursing, psychological services and speech/language services," staff training and development and "instructional resources, including library and technology." All of this the state must finance.
It also would remove the modifier "half day" from the bill's kindergarten requirement for all schools.
Having committed the state to a huge spike in school aid, Estabrook then leaves for future legislatures the "determination of the specific resource elements essential to providing the substantive educational content of an adequate education." Oh, and the cost, too.
If these elements are "essential," then why not attach a price tag to them? If we cannot do without them, their cost matters not. But of course, we can do without them. New Hampshire consistently posts among the best test scores in the nation, year after year, without these costly mandates of questionable value.
The Senate Education Committee, if it is wise, will vote down this thinly veiled attempt to create a broadbased tax.
Monday, June 4, 2007
New Hampshire Advantage Coalition - CACR Announcement
Compromise Amendment Drafted to Preserve Local Control
NH Advantage reiterates argument against CACR18
June 4, 2007
For immediate release
Manchester, NH – Local control of the educational process in our schools has New Hampshire ranked third in the nation in academic achievement, though the critical issue before the NH House this week will be the matter of amending the NH Constitution to somehow improve the chaos caused by the Claremont/Londonderry decisions. All amendments currently on the table – Lynch’s, Whalley’s, Kurk’s, Smith’s – eliminate or diminish local influence over the education of our children. They hand over all control to the State...permanently and fatally.
New Hampshire Advantage Coalition announced today that the new amendment that has been drafted and that will be presented on the House floor on Wednesday by Rep. Paul Ingbretson, R-Haverhill, is not only a compromise we can live with, it is one we can support.
The amendment reads as follows: (new Article 83-a, Part II) [Local Education] The local political subdivision responsible for providing public education shall have the power to determine curriculum, to set standards and to determine the amount of funding thereof. The Legislature shall have the power to provide supplemental funding and to determine the amount and the allocation of these state funds.
“While NHAC holds the opinion that the Supreme Court has overstepped their bounds, we believe that this compromise amendment recognizes the supremacy of local control and will once and for all end the continuous lawsuits that have plagued our state,” said Mike Biundo, NHAC Chairman. “This amendment also protects the NH Advantage by avoiding the need for an income tax,” he continued.
We understand the reasoning on why many on both sides of the aisle have been of the opinion that a constitutional amendment was not needed, however, this amendment reaffirms local and legislative authority over our schools.
“If passed, this ‘big picture amendment’ would assure that New Hampshire's schools would remain for the future, under the close influence of those who entrust the care and education of their children for seven hours of each day of the work week – parents,” commented NHAC Legislative Director Paul Mirski.
For more information, contact Tammy Simmons, Executive Director, at 235-9998 or visit our website at www.theNHadvantage.com.
Tammy Simmons
Executive Director
The New Hampshire Advantage
(603) 235-9998
www.theNHadvantage.com
NH Advantage reiterates argument against CACR18
June 4, 2007
For immediate release
Manchester, NH – Local control of the educational process in our schools has New Hampshire ranked third in the nation in academic achievement, though the critical issue before the NH House this week will be the matter of amending the NH Constitution to somehow improve the chaos caused by the Claremont/Londonderry decisions. All amendments currently on the table – Lynch’s, Whalley’s, Kurk’s, Smith’s – eliminate or diminish local influence over the education of our children. They hand over all control to the State...permanently and fatally.
New Hampshire Advantage Coalition announced today that the new amendment that has been drafted and that will be presented on the House floor on Wednesday by Rep. Paul Ingbretson, R-Haverhill, is not only a compromise we can live with, it is one we can support.
The amendment reads as follows: (new Article 83-a, Part II) [Local Education] The local political subdivision responsible for providing public education shall have the power to determine curriculum, to set standards and to determine the amount of funding thereof. The Legislature shall have the power to provide supplemental funding and to determine the amount and the allocation of these state funds.
“While NHAC holds the opinion that the Supreme Court has overstepped their bounds, we believe that this compromise amendment recognizes the supremacy of local control and will once and for all end the continuous lawsuits that have plagued our state,” said Mike Biundo, NHAC Chairman. “This amendment also protects the NH Advantage by avoiding the need for an income tax,” he continued.
We understand the reasoning on why many on both sides of the aisle have been of the opinion that a constitutional amendment was not needed, however, this amendment reaffirms local and legislative authority over our schools.
“If passed, this ‘big picture amendment’ would assure that New Hampshire's schools would remain for the future, under the close influence of those who entrust the care and education of their children for seven hours of each day of the work week – parents,” commented NHAC Legislative Director Paul Mirski.
For more information, contact Tammy Simmons, Executive Director, at 235-9998 or visit our website at www.theNHadvantage.com.
Tammy Simmons
Executive Director
The New Hampshire Advantage
(603) 235-9998
www.theNHadvantage.com
Sunday, June 3, 2007
The big NH issue isn't presidential
There are three flaws in the editorial below with regard to the amendment.
First, it writes the very flawed Claremont decision into the constitution. Second, it will guarantee an income tax or other tax to cover the educrats spending addiction. Third, it will not prevent future lawsuits by the Big Ed establishment. If Democrats and Republicans really want to work together they need to fight the education interest groups. There is no logical explanation as to why school money should not follow the child instead of the institution except to pander to education special interest groups. If teachers and administrations really cared about New Hampshire's children they would write school choice into the constitution instead of this dreadful court decision. Claremont I, Claremont II and the Londonderry Decision were about greed not about the best interests of New Hampshire's Children.
New Hampshire is ranked number 3 in student performance in the nation at it's current rate of spending and with its funding structure. Why change the funding system to one that is failing students in other states? Our Government Schools have a spending problem and not a funding problem. Unless we stop the spending spree no amendment in the world will fix the underlying problems plaguing New Hampshire government schools.
The below editorial appeared in the Union Leader.
Editorial: The big NH issue isn't presidential
By JOSEPH W. MCQUAID
New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher
10 hours, 43 minutes ago
A lot of national attention will be paid New Hampshire this week, underlining our important role in presidential primary politics. But there is a much more vital local issue facing our state. If it is not handled in reasonable, bipartisan fashion, the timing of primaries will be the least of our worries.
Key legislators from both parties appear close to acceptable wording on a constitutional amendment proposal that would, finally, allow the PEOPLE of New Hampshire to affirm their belief that the state's role in education funding is to target limited aid, not pick up the whole tab.
We believe the people would wholeheartedly ratify such an amendment and would give credit where it would be due -- to the Republicans who have long favored it and also to Gov. John Lynch and those Democrats who have now agreed that an amendment is needed to negate a far-wrong state supreme court ruling.
The amendment proposal may not satisfy everyone. We have heard that one side worries that the other will claim all the credit for it.
This is way too important for New Hampshire to be viewed in partisan terms. If the amendment proposal is to succeed, it is going to take Republicans and Democrats who appreciate the New Hampshire Advantage.
Believe it or not, on this most important issue, that sort of consensus was once the norm. If Republican leader Mike Whalley and Democratic Finance Chair Marjorie Smith -- along with Gov. Lynch -- put their heads together this weekend, it can be done again. If they don't, New Hampshire will have lost its best chance to finally resolve this long, wasteful battle that threatens the very essence of our state.
First, it writes the very flawed Claremont decision into the constitution. Second, it will guarantee an income tax or other tax to cover the educrats spending addiction. Third, it will not prevent future lawsuits by the Big Ed establishment. If Democrats and Republicans really want to work together they need to fight the education interest groups. There is no logical explanation as to why school money should not follow the child instead of the institution except to pander to education special interest groups. If teachers and administrations really cared about New Hampshire's children they would write school choice into the constitution instead of this dreadful court decision. Claremont I, Claremont II and the Londonderry Decision were about greed not about the best interests of New Hampshire's Children.
New Hampshire is ranked number 3 in student performance in the nation at it's current rate of spending and with its funding structure. Why change the funding system to one that is failing students in other states? Our Government Schools have a spending problem and not a funding problem. Unless we stop the spending spree no amendment in the world will fix the underlying problems plaguing New Hampshire government schools.
The below editorial appeared in the Union Leader.
Editorial: The big NH issue isn't presidential
By JOSEPH W. MCQUAID
New Hampshire Union Leader Publisher
10 hours, 43 minutes ago
A lot of national attention will be paid New Hampshire this week, underlining our important role in presidential primary politics. But there is a much more vital local issue facing our state. If it is not handled in reasonable, bipartisan fashion, the timing of primaries will be the least of our worries.
Key legislators from both parties appear close to acceptable wording on a constitutional amendment proposal that would, finally, allow the PEOPLE of New Hampshire to affirm their belief that the state's role in education funding is to target limited aid, not pick up the whole tab.
We believe the people would wholeheartedly ratify such an amendment and would give credit where it would be due -- to the Republicans who have long favored it and also to Gov. John Lynch and those Democrats who have now agreed that an amendment is needed to negate a far-wrong state supreme court ruling.
The amendment proposal may not satisfy everyone. We have heard that one side worries that the other will claim all the credit for it.
This is way too important for New Hampshire to be viewed in partisan terms. If the amendment proposal is to succeed, it is going to take Republicans and Democrats who appreciate the New Hampshire Advantage.
Believe it or not, on this most important issue, that sort of consensus was once the norm. If Republican leader Mike Whalley and Democratic Finance Chair Marjorie Smith -- along with Gov. Lynch -- put their heads together this weekend, it can be done again. If they don't, New Hampshire will have lost its best chance to finally resolve this long, wasteful battle that threatens the very essence of our state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)