Concord Monitor
Published: September 09, 2006
States have battled for money, not 'adequacy'
By MELANIE ASMAR
Monitor staff
New Hampshire isn't the only state struggling with
how to pay for education.
Forty-four other states have found themselves
mired in school funding litigation over the past few
decades, according to a study from the National Access
Network, a nonprofit organization that advocates for
good schools. But only a handful have been
in a similar situation as New Hampshire: without an
acceptable definition of what a public education should
be.
"It hasn't typically been a major stumbling
block," said Molly Hunter, managing director of
the network.
New Hampshire, however, has wrestled with it since
1993, when the state Supreme Court ruled that every
child was entitled to an adequate education. The word
"adequate" has proved tricky for state lawmakers
to pin down. Yesterday, the high court ruled that the
Legislature has failed thus far to define it, let alone
determine its cost.
But when arguing before the court in June, lawyers
for the state said the Legislature had, in fact, defined
an adequate education. As proof, they pointed to a 1999
law that spells out seven things students should learn
in school. Among them are reading, math and "skills
for lifelong learning."
The state's lawyers said definitions similar to New
Hampshire's have been upheld by courts in several other
states, including West Virginia, Kentucky, Montana and
Washington. However, in its ruling yesterday, the court
said it found otherwise.
"Although each state provides . . . a general
definition of an adequate education, each state also
establishes a mechanism through which educational content
is identified in fulfillment of constitutional duties,"the
court said.
In West Virginia, parents of schoolchildren sued the
state on the grounds that its funding system did not
provide a constitutionally "thorough and efficient"
education. A trial court agreed, finding the state had
failed to craft "high quality standards for education,"
calling those in place "far to general and minimal."
A special master was then appointed to develop an "extensive
compilation" of standards that critiqued all aspects
of the state's school system.
In Kentucky, the court also declared the state's system
insufficient, and it set forth seven minimum goals that
were to be met in order to provide an adequate education.
The high court in New Hampshire followed Kentucky's
lead in 1997, setting forth what they called seven "aspirational
guidelines." But unlike here, Kentucky lawmakers
followed through by enacting a law that "radically
changed the system of public education," according
to the court.
Montana's lawmakers established a set of five goals
for public schools, as well as "minimum standards
upon which a system of free quality public elementary
and secondary schools is built."
Washington law requires students to develop knowledge
in four broad categories and mandates that the state
board of education establish "essential academic
learning requirements."
Lawyers for New Hampshire argued before the court that
in addition to the 1999 law they say defines an adequate
education, the state has enacted minimum standards for
school approval that are "very detailed and demanding."They
also cited the rigorous requirements of the federal
No Child Left Behind Act, with which New Hampshire complies.
But lawyers went on to say that those standards, which
regulate everything from kindergarten class size to
high school graduation requirements, provide an education
that's beyond adequate. If that's the case, the court
said "the point of demarcation (between adequate
and beyond adequate) cannot be determined."
Furthermore, the court warned lawmakers that whatever
their definition of an adequate education, they'll have
to finance it in its entirety.
"None of that financial obligation can be shifted
to local school districts, regardless of their relative
wealth or need," the court said.
Copyright 1997-2006
Concord Monitor and New Hampshire Patriot
|
