The state Supreme Court has given the legislature until July 2007 to define an adequate education. The ruling says that if deadline is not met, the court could step in and set educational adequacy and its cost.
The ruling was prompted by a lawsuit filed by about two dozen school districts. They argued current law fails meet the requirements of past Claremont rulings…….Specifically, that the legislature define, cost out and fund an adequate education using taxes of a uniform rate across the state…..Writing the opinion, Associate Justice Gary Hicks said setting such polices are the legislature's job but that the courts have repeatedly deferred to the legislature on this score and that deference has it's limits…….To Nate Greenberg -- superintendent of schools in Londonderry -- the lead plaintiff community in the case -the ruling was vindication.
"We're just extremely gratified and we look forward to working with the legislature and the governor in developing something that will meet constitutional muster and we believe that this a wonderful opportunity for every child in the state."
For Governor Lynch, meanwhile, the ruling presents a large challenge -- perhaps the most daunting of his thusfar charmed political life. ……At an afternoon press conference the Governor called on lawmakers to put partisanship aside, roll up their sleeves and join him in resolving school funding once and for all……Lynch also took pains to stress he plans to well beyond what the court says is sufficient.
"I don't agree with the approach the court suggested. That as a state we should look at the minimum required to educate our children…..Which is what they asked us to do --go back and determine the absolute minimum that you all can offer for an adequate education. I don't agree with that approach. I think we should be looking at the quality education that assures excellence in public education here in nh."
Lynch was circumspect when asked precisely how he plans to do that……The governor indicated he'll likely resusitate the funding scheme plan he proposed last year that failed to make it through both bodies of the legislature…..That plan, targeted aid to needy schools, eliminated donor towns and the statewide property tax……Its constitutionality, however, is far from clear…..The Governor says he looks dimly on the idea of sending plans to the courts for advisory opinions…..He further make plan he's ruled out some other possible approaches to the issue.
"We are not going to have an income tax or sales tax -not on my watch. We are not going to walk away from our schools or walk away from our children. And I am not going to support a broad constitional amendment that eliminates the state's responsiability to education."
The governor, who two years ago ran on a promise to not support changing the constition to deal with school funding, didn’t elaborate about what kind of amendment he might now be game to stomach……He was similarly mum when it came to answering direct questions about his willingness to raise other taxes to fund schools…..Senate President Ted Gatsas, for his part, allowed the state already spends plenty on schools and says he'd like someone to prove they've been harmed by the current law before major changes are contemplated……Gatsas proposed ed funding constitioanl amendments in the past and authored of the plan that produced today's ruling. and remains insistent that, contrary to what the court says, it does define adequacy.
"There's no question. I think we put it in when we put the standards in……They are there. I don't know how much clearer they can be."
Gatsas says the definition is found in the constellation of laws and regulations that govern everything that happens in state schools -- ranging from the state's minimum standards….to adminstrative rules and the no child left behind act……Today's ruling, however says that logic falls short. The court wrote that if that's the case there would be no need for any local education taxes as the state would be bound to pay all education costs
