Court ruling calls for nearly doubling per-pupil funding to meet constitutional requirements
A recent ruling by a Superior Court judge in New Hampshire has found that the state is not adequately funding public education. The lawsuit, filed by 18 school districts across the state, accused New Hampshire of failing to meet its constitutional obligations to provide sufficient funding for “base adequacy” in education. This ruling has reignited a long-standing debate over education funding in the state and has significant implications for the future of public education in New Hampshire.
The Claremont Lawsuits and the Fight for Adequate Funding
The recent ruling is seen as a follow-up to the landmark Claremont lawsuits that have been ongoing for over 30 years. In 1993, the Claremont ruling established that the state is required to fund “base adequacy” for education. However, the court found that the current funding formula used by the state excludes essential costs such as transportation, school nursing, and food services. This exclusion has led to a significant shortfall in funding for schools across New Hampshire.
The Minimum Threshold for Constitutional Funding
The court’s ruling sets a minimum threshold for constitutional funding, stating that underfunding below this amount would be deemed unconstitutional. It is important to note that this threshold does not represent the actual cost of providing a quality education but rather the minimum conservative threshold. The court’s ruling emphasizes the need for the state to address the funding gap and ensure that schools receive the necessary resources to provide a high-quality education for all students.
The Impact on Per-Pupil Funding
Currently, the state-funded base adequacy for the 2022 school year is set at $3,786 per student. However, the court ruling calls for this amount to be nearly doubled to at least $7,356 per student. This significant increase in per-pupil funding reflects the court’s determination that the state’s current funding levels are inadequate to meet the constitutional requirements for education.
Local Communities and the Burden of Funding
The ruling highlights the issue of downshifting costs to local communities. While the state’s base adequacy funding falls short, local communities are left to bear the burden of filling the funding gap. This places an unfair burden on property taxpayers, particularly in lower-income communities that may struggle to provide adequate resources for their schools. The ruling underscores the need for the state to take responsibility for funding public education and ensure that all students have access to a quality education, regardless of their zip code.
The Response and Next Steps
The ruling has been met with mixed reactions from various stakeholders. Representatives for teachers in the affected school districts have expressed hope that changes are on the way and that the state will address the funding shortfall. The Attorney General’s office has received the court’s order and is reviewing it to determine potential next steps. The state, including the education commissioner and governor, has yet to respond to the ruling.
Conclusion: The recent ruling in New Hampshire that the state is not adequately funding public education has brought the issue of education funding to the forefront once again. The court’s determination that the state must nearly double per-pupil funding to meet constitutional requirements has significant implications for the future of education in New Hampshire. It is now up to the state to take action and ensure that all students have access to a quality education, regardless of their zip code. The ruling serves as a reminder that adequate funding is essential to provide a strong foundation for the next generation and to promote educational equity throughout the state.
Leave a Reply