Warrant Article 3 requests that the School Board investigate contracting with Public or Private Kindergartens.
The ability for a school district to contract with another public or private kindergarten is governed by RSA 198:48-a Alternative Kindergarten Programs.
There is a key section of this RSA that seriously limits the possibility that enough viable programs will be found that meet the requirements.
RSA 198:48-a II. states that "An alternative kindergarten program shall satisfy the same criteria established for public kindergarten programs in the New Hampshire standards for school approval." This means that the alternative program will have to meet all the standards found in Ed 306 Minimum Standards for Public School Approval"
The alternative program needs to be non-sectarian, be staffed by qualified teachers, and provide for accessibility of students with disabilities, among many other requirements.
There is a grandfathering section in the article that exempts programs that had been contracted prior to 1999, but that does not apply for Milford, and we have to meet all the requirements.
Based on this RSA rule, it is almost certain that there will not be enough programs in the nearby area to meet all the needs of the district. There may be some programs that will meet the requirements, but we will have to provide for the rest of the requirements by having some in-district classes.
If we are going to have to provide for a large portion of the requirements internally in any event, then it makes sense to me to just handle all the requirements internally and not try to split them up. If we have a split program where there are some in-district classes and a few private kindergarten classes, then we will have a problem when we assign students to the various programs as there will be a fairness issue that will need to be addressed. I would prefer to avoid the whole issue and put everyone on an even footing.
There really is no harm in conducting a study, other than the fact that it will consume the efforts of the district administration for a period of time. It doesn't matter if this article passes or not, but I plan to vote against it to minimize the distractions.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Warrant Article 2 - New School at Brox
Article 2 on the Milford school warrant authorizes the construction of a six-classroom stand-alone building on the Brox property.
This article has several problems, and in my opinion, is not a good choice for Milford.
Requires 100% State Funding
The article requires that the state fully fund all the costs of the facility. That is nice in concept, but the practical matter is that the state adequate education costing committee is recommending that the funding be at a 75% level. As I detailed in a previous posting, it is my opinion that the state meets the requirements of article 28-a of the state constitution that bans unfunded mandates.
If the state only provides 75% funding, then this article does not allow the construction of a building since no local money is allowed to be used for the project.
Locks in Extra Overhead Spending
The fact that this is a stand-alone school results in the need for additional overhead spending to make it operational and safe. There are several extra positions that are needed to operate a stand-alone school as compared to an addition as proposed in article 1.
The district administration has estimated the the additional overhead spending will be in the $200,000 per year range. This is due to the need for extra positions such as custodians, nurse, office support, lead teacher stipend, etc. This corresponds to perhaps $30 or $40 per year in extra taxes for a $300,0o0 house.
There is no need for these extra positions, and we should strive to keep our overhead spending as low as possible.
Commits to a Brox Strategy
The Brox master space allocation diagram has reserved space for schools in a broad concept without any specifics. There is a basic understanding that there will be a need for space for schools some time in the future, but the specifics of that need won't be obvious until we closer to the time of need.
Keeping the school portion of the Brox site in unbuilt status keeps our options open for future development. It will be better if at the time of need of a new school that we are able to start with a fresh site and build it out in a manner that meets the needs the best.
If we construct a kindergarten on the site, then we will have locked in that portion of the site to a kindergarten or early learning facility. It would be difficult to use it for later grades such as a middle school since the needs are so different.
In our space needs discussions in the past, we have discussed various potential options for future needs. One concept was that if the overall enrollments in town grew quite a bit, then we would convert the current middle school to extra classes in support of the high school, making the high school a campus arrangement. This concept would require the construction of a new middle school to replace the grades moved out of the current middle school. The Brox property would be a good location for this type of school.
Another option that has been discussed would be the construction of a new school that would be a K-2 school. In this scenario, Jacques would be converted to a K-2 school and Heron Pond would be converted to a 3-5 school. This is more of a mid-term possibility (as compared to the high school expansion scenario), as it would come into play if the there was a more modest increase in enrollments in town. I don't see the need for this within 10 years, but it may happen someday.
It would be better to keep our power dry, so to speak, on the use of the Brox property with regards to schools. Let's leave the space alone and wait until the future needs become clearer.
Vote No on Article 2
The budget committee voted 1 in favor and 7 against this option. The district administration does not favor this article. The school board is split on this article: Len Mannino and Bob Willette (opposed to public kindergarten) are in favor of it, Paul Dargie and Bert Becker (in favor of public kindergarten) are against it, and Peter Bragdon abstained (personal financial conflict).
Please join me in voting against article 2.
This article has several problems, and in my opinion, is not a good choice for Milford.
Requires 100% State Funding
The article requires that the state fully fund all the costs of the facility. That is nice in concept, but the practical matter is that the state adequate education costing committee is recommending that the funding be at a 75% level. As I detailed in a previous posting, it is my opinion that the state meets the requirements of article 28-a of the state constitution that bans unfunded mandates.
If the state only provides 75% funding, then this article does not allow the construction of a building since no local money is allowed to be used for the project.
Locks in Extra Overhead Spending
The fact that this is a stand-alone school results in the need for additional overhead spending to make it operational and safe. There are several extra positions that are needed to operate a stand-alone school as compared to an addition as proposed in article 1.
The district administration has estimated the the additional overhead spending will be in the $200,000 per year range. This is due to the need for extra positions such as custodians, nurse, office support, lead teacher stipend, etc. This corresponds to perhaps $30 or $40 per year in extra taxes for a $300,0o0 house.
There is no need for these extra positions, and we should strive to keep our overhead spending as low as possible.
Commits to a Brox Strategy
The Brox master space allocation diagram has reserved space for schools in a broad concept without any specifics. There is a basic understanding that there will be a need for space for schools some time in the future, but the specifics of that need won't be obvious until we closer to the time of need.
Keeping the school portion of the Brox site in unbuilt status keeps our options open for future development. It will be better if at the time of need of a new school that we are able to start with a fresh site and build it out in a manner that meets the needs the best.
If we construct a kindergarten on the site, then we will have locked in that portion of the site to a kindergarten or early learning facility. It would be difficult to use it for later grades such as a middle school since the needs are so different.
In our space needs discussions in the past, we have discussed various potential options for future needs. One concept was that if the overall enrollments in town grew quite a bit, then we would convert the current middle school to extra classes in support of the high school, making the high school a campus arrangement. This concept would require the construction of a new middle school to replace the grades moved out of the current middle school. The Brox property would be a good location for this type of school.
Another option that has been discussed would be the construction of a new school that would be a K-2 school. In this scenario, Jacques would be converted to a K-2 school and Heron Pond would be converted to a 3-5 school. This is more of a mid-term possibility (as compared to the high school expansion scenario), as it would come into play if the there was a more modest increase in enrollments in town. I don't see the need for this within 10 years, but it may happen someday.
It would be better to keep our power dry, so to speak, on the use of the Brox property with regards to schools. Let's leave the space alone and wait until the future needs become clearer.
Vote No on Article 2
The budget committee voted 1 in favor and 7 against this option. The district administration does not favor this article. The school board is split on this article: Len Mannino and Bob Willette (opposed to public kindergarten) are in favor of it, Paul Dargie and Bert Becker (in favor of public kindergarten) are against it, and Peter Bragdon abstained (personal financial conflict).
Please join me in voting against article 2.
Warrant Article 1 - Four Room Addition to Jacques
There are three warrant articles that deal with the subject of public kindergarten. This post concerns article 1.
This article authorizes the razing of the Bales annex, and the construction of a four-room addition to the Jacques school to allow for the integration of a half-day kindergarten program into the building. The addition will be on the east end of the building.
The kindergarten program will actually be located in the west end of the building, since each of the rooms in that end of the building have in-room toilets as specified in kindergarten facility requirements. The newly constructed rooms will be used for alternate requirements such as first grade classrooms. The actual configuration of the building and allocation of rooms to specific functions will be done at a later date when there is a better understanding of the specific enrollments.
This proposal for providing space for a half-day kindergarten program has several distinct advantages that (in my opinion) make it the best option for the Milford school district.
Unified Programming
Having kindergarten and first grade in the same building will help the staff to collaborate and coordinate their efforts. They will be able to easily discuss issues to insure that the programs are aligned and that they are working towards a common curriculum. There are a lot of benefits from the informal discussions that will happen every day in the staff lunchroom.
Fewer Transitions
Starting school for the first time can be a very scary time for students. Going to a new school, meeting new teachers, meeting new support staff, learning the physical layout, and learning all the new rules can all be difficult. It will be much easier on the students for them to start kindergarten in one building, and then to transition to first grade in the same place. They will have a new teacher, but most of all the other elements will be familiar. They will be able to more quickly adjust from the half-day kindergarten program to the full-day first grade program.
This is especially helpful for those students with the greatest needs. If a student is receiving additional help for some issue in kindergarten, then it is likely that they will be receiving the same help from the same person in the same room or facility in the first grade. It is hard to put a specific value on this, but in some cases, this can be huge.
Lower Overhead
Building a four-room addition to Jacques will help to minimize the overhead associated with the new program. Most of the overhead functions should be able to handle the increased student load with a minimal impact. There are a few areas that will need additional help, but these are relatively few. There will be a need for an extra half-time custodian, and the office will need some more secretarial support.
This is not the case with a stand-alone building as outlined in warrant article 2. If kindergarten is in a stand-alone building, then there are many duplicate support functions that need to be provided. It needs to be scoped out to see if it can be pared back, but an initial estimate by the district administration showed extra overhead costs that are above the baseline costs for the Jacques addition proposal of about $200,000 per year. This includes costs for things like extra custodial services, a nurse, extra office personnel, lead teacher stipend. Perhaps this could be parred down some, but it is unlikely to go below an extra $150,000 per year to support a stand-alone building. This is roughly $0.10 to $0.14 per year on the tax rate, or $30 to $40 per year for a $300,000 house.
The school board and the school administration work closely together to try to provide a quality learning environment for our students while minimizing the tax impacts of the choices that we make. I hate to see us waste money on needless overhead functions since it means that we are not being effective stewards of the taxpayers money.
Money is tight, and we need to focus our spending on areas that make a difference to students. If we were to choose to spend an extra $150,000 to $200,000, then I would much rather spend it where it can do some good. I'd much prefer to spend it on curriculum or teachers or some other area with a direct influence on students. I hate to see it spent on extra custodians, or for an extra nurse when the need for these positions can be easily avoided.
Having good custodians and nurses and other similar positions is very important to a quality experience for students, but if we can structure our organization to keep these positions to a minimum, then we need to do that.
Low Cost
Article 1 authorizes local tax spending of no more than $462,054 for the addition. The balance of the construction spending will come from the state kindergarten construction program. This will be bonded over 10 years, and equals about $0.04 on the tax rate, or about $12 a year for a $300,000 house. This is a modest amount for the benefit of having a nice permanent facility.
This is based on the assumption that the state will fund 75% of the construction as recommended by the state adequate education costing committee. Normal building aid is only 30% of the cost of construction, so we will be getting much more bang for our buck than is normally expected. If we don't take advantage of the kindergarten construction aid soon, then it will run out and we will be back to the 30% match level.
There is a slight chance that the state will increase their funding to 100% of the kindergarten construction cost. If that happens, then the state would fund the entire project, and there would be no construction cost for this option. In any event, there is not a huge difference between $0 per year and $12 per year per property.
Medium Term Solution
Over the past few years, I have tried to find methods to better predict where our school enrollments are heading. This is important since the school board adopts enrollment projections each fall that form the basis of the budget for the next year.
We normally predict enrollments for grades two through twelve by comparing the average cohort survival rate for the past few years, and use that to predict the next year. An example would be if there were on average 200 students in grade three each year and an average of 202 students in grade four the following year, then there is an average pick up of 1% when going from grade three to grade four. If we have 190 in grade three this year, then we would expect to have about 192 in grade four next year.
This approach seems to work well, and is simple to implement.
The problem comes when we need to predict the enrollments for the initial grades where there are no cohorts to compare to. We have been using the birth rates from five or six years earlier, and factoring them up by an average amount to get this years number. A typical calculation would be that 150 births 6 years ago correlates to 200 first grade students this year. This seems to work to some degree, but there are wider variations on the correlation than the cohort survival method since the data is more suspect, and there is a longer period of time between events.
This method does not allow us to go beyond a five or six year forecast, so some other method is needed to forecast for longer periods. Peter Bragdon brought the following report to my attention. The Housing and School Enrollment in New Hampshire: An Expanded View report is a study that was published in 2005 that helps to understand the basic demographics that are driving school enrollments in New Hampshire. The study does not discuss Milford in particular, but it looks at overall demographic trends in the state, especially as they relate to numbers of students per dwelling unit.
One key forecast of the study is found on page nine of the report. There is a chart that shows that the total school age population in New Hampshire grew by 39,700 from 1990 to 2000, it is expected to grow 5,500 from 2000 to 2010, and it is expected to decline 13,600 from 2010 to 2020. The theme of the report is that this overall demographic forecast is the main driver in school enrollments, not the number of new dwelling units as is commonly believed.
This makes sense to me. You can compare this to tides raising and lowering the overall level of boats, while waves, wind, and other local conditions have a supplementary effect. The tides are the key factor and the waves are a secondary factor.
We have seen an easing of enrollments in Milford, and we should see declines in the future as some of our larger class sizes age out of the system. It is my belief that the overall demographic trends of lowered enrollments in New Hampshire for the next decade or so will also apply to Milford. Based on this, I expect that the addition to Jacques will handle our first grade and kindergarten needs at least for the next decade. This assumes that we don't have a disruptive event such as the combination with another school district or the change to full-day kindergarten. I doubt that there will be a statewide move to full-day kindergarten any time soon since we are just now moving to implementing a half-day program.
Trying to forecast out even 10 years is difficult at best, and trying to go beyond that is probably hopeless. But based on everything that I know, we should be set for a while.
Vote for Article 1!!!
It is my opinion that article 1 is by far the best choice for providing space for a public kindergarten program in Milford. The key factor is that it saves $150,000 to $200,000 per year in unnecessary overhead costs associated with a stand-alone building. That is real money that needs to be preserved.
This article is also the one that is favored by the school district administration. The budget committee voted 8-1 in favor of this article. The school board was split on it, with Bert Becker and myself in favor of it (both public kindergarten supporters), Len Mannino and Bob Willette against it (both opposed to public kindergarten), and Peter Bragdon abstaining (he has a personal financial conflict of interest).
Please vote for Article 1 on the March 11th ballot, and bring a quality public kindergarten program to Milford at an affordable cost.
This article authorizes the razing of the Bales annex, and the construction of a four-room addition to the Jacques school to allow for the integration of a half-day kindergarten program into the building. The addition will be on the east end of the building.
The kindergarten program will actually be located in the west end of the building, since each of the rooms in that end of the building have in-room toilets as specified in kindergarten facility requirements. The newly constructed rooms will be used for alternate requirements such as first grade classrooms. The actual configuration of the building and allocation of rooms to specific functions will be done at a later date when there is a better understanding of the specific enrollments.
This proposal for providing space for a half-day kindergarten program has several distinct advantages that (in my opinion) make it the best option for the Milford school district.
Unified Programming
Having kindergarten and first grade in the same building will help the staff to collaborate and coordinate their efforts. They will be able to easily discuss issues to insure that the programs are aligned and that they are working towards a common curriculum. There are a lot of benefits from the informal discussions that will happen every day in the staff lunchroom.
Fewer Transitions
Starting school for the first time can be a very scary time for students. Going to a new school, meeting new teachers, meeting new support staff, learning the physical layout, and learning all the new rules can all be difficult. It will be much easier on the students for them to start kindergarten in one building, and then to transition to first grade in the same place. They will have a new teacher, but most of all the other elements will be familiar. They will be able to more quickly adjust from the half-day kindergarten program to the full-day first grade program.
This is especially helpful for those students with the greatest needs. If a student is receiving additional help for some issue in kindergarten, then it is likely that they will be receiving the same help from the same person in the same room or facility in the first grade. It is hard to put a specific value on this, but in some cases, this can be huge.
Lower Overhead
Building a four-room addition to Jacques will help to minimize the overhead associated with the new program. Most of the overhead functions should be able to handle the increased student load with a minimal impact. There are a few areas that will need additional help, but these are relatively few. There will be a need for an extra half-time custodian, and the office will need some more secretarial support.
This is not the case with a stand-alone building as outlined in warrant article 2. If kindergarten is in a stand-alone building, then there are many duplicate support functions that need to be provided. It needs to be scoped out to see if it can be pared back, but an initial estimate by the district administration showed extra overhead costs that are above the baseline costs for the Jacques addition proposal of about $200,000 per year. This includes costs for things like extra custodial services, a nurse, extra office personnel, lead teacher stipend. Perhaps this could be parred down some, but it is unlikely to go below an extra $150,000 per year to support a stand-alone building. This is roughly $0.10 to $0.14 per year on the tax rate, or $30 to $40 per year for a $300,000 house.
The school board and the school administration work closely together to try to provide a quality learning environment for our students while minimizing the tax impacts of the choices that we make. I hate to see us waste money on needless overhead functions since it means that we are not being effective stewards of the taxpayers money.
Money is tight, and we need to focus our spending on areas that make a difference to students. If we were to choose to spend an extra $150,000 to $200,000, then I would much rather spend it where it can do some good. I'd much prefer to spend it on curriculum or teachers or some other area with a direct influence on students. I hate to see it spent on extra custodians, or for an extra nurse when the need for these positions can be easily avoided.
Having good custodians and nurses and other similar positions is very important to a quality experience for students, but if we can structure our organization to keep these positions to a minimum, then we need to do that.
Low Cost
Article 1 authorizes local tax spending of no more than $462,054 for the addition. The balance of the construction spending will come from the state kindergarten construction program. This will be bonded over 10 years, and equals about $0.04 on the tax rate, or about $12 a year for a $300,000 house. This is a modest amount for the benefit of having a nice permanent facility.
This is based on the assumption that the state will fund 75% of the construction as recommended by the state adequate education costing committee. Normal building aid is only 30% of the cost of construction, so we will be getting much more bang for our buck than is normally expected. If we don't take advantage of the kindergarten construction aid soon, then it will run out and we will be back to the 30% match level.
There is a slight chance that the state will increase their funding to 100% of the kindergarten construction cost. If that happens, then the state would fund the entire project, and there would be no construction cost for this option. In any event, there is not a huge difference between $0 per year and $12 per year per property.
Medium Term Solution
Over the past few years, I have tried to find methods to better predict where our school enrollments are heading. This is important since the school board adopts enrollment projections each fall that form the basis of the budget for the next year.
We normally predict enrollments for grades two through twelve by comparing the average cohort survival rate for the past few years, and use that to predict the next year. An example would be if there were on average 200 students in grade three each year and an average of 202 students in grade four the following year, then there is an average pick up of 1% when going from grade three to grade four. If we have 190 in grade three this year, then we would expect to have about 192 in grade four next year.
This approach seems to work well, and is simple to implement.
The problem comes when we need to predict the enrollments for the initial grades where there are no cohorts to compare to. We have been using the birth rates from five or six years earlier, and factoring them up by an average amount to get this years number. A typical calculation would be that 150 births 6 years ago correlates to 200 first grade students this year. This seems to work to some degree, but there are wider variations on the correlation than the cohort survival method since the data is more suspect, and there is a longer period of time between events.
This method does not allow us to go beyond a five or six year forecast, so some other method is needed to forecast for longer periods. Peter Bragdon brought the following report to my attention. The Housing and School Enrollment in New Hampshire: An Expanded View report is a study that was published in 2005 that helps to understand the basic demographics that are driving school enrollments in New Hampshire. The study does not discuss Milford in particular, but it looks at overall demographic trends in the state, especially as they relate to numbers of students per dwelling unit.
One key forecast of the study is found on page nine of the report. There is a chart that shows that the total school age population in New Hampshire grew by 39,700 from 1990 to 2000, it is expected to grow 5,500 from 2000 to 2010, and it is expected to decline 13,600 from 2010 to 2020. The theme of the report is that this overall demographic forecast is the main driver in school enrollments, not the number of new dwelling units as is commonly believed.
This makes sense to me. You can compare this to tides raising and lowering the overall level of boats, while waves, wind, and other local conditions have a supplementary effect. The tides are the key factor and the waves are a secondary factor.
We have seen an easing of enrollments in Milford, and we should see declines in the future as some of our larger class sizes age out of the system. It is my belief that the overall demographic trends of lowered enrollments in New Hampshire for the next decade or so will also apply to Milford. Based on this, I expect that the addition to Jacques will handle our first grade and kindergarten needs at least for the next decade. This assumes that we don't have a disruptive event such as the combination with another school district or the change to full-day kindergarten. I doubt that there will be a statewide move to full-day kindergarten any time soon since we are just now moving to implementing a half-day program.
Trying to forecast out even 10 years is difficult at best, and trying to go beyond that is probably hopeless. But based on everything that I know, we should be set for a while.
Vote for Article 1!!!
It is my opinion that article 1 is by far the best choice for providing space for a public kindergarten program in Milford. The key factor is that it saves $150,000 to $200,000 per year in unnecessary overhead costs associated with a stand-alone building. That is real money that needs to be preserved.
This article is also the one that is favored by the school district administration. The budget committee voted 8-1 in favor of this article. The school board was split on it, with Bert Becker and myself in favor of it (both public kindergarten supporters), Len Mannino and Bob Willette against it (both opposed to public kindergarten), and Peter Bragdon abstaining (he has a personal financial conflict of interest).
Please vote for Article 1 on the March 11th ballot, and bring a quality public kindergarten program to Milford at an affordable cost.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
State Mandate for Public Kindergarten is Fully Funded
I haven't posted for a while, but I am going to try to get back into it. I want to cover various topics relevant to this year's vote on March 11th.
The key issue on the school side this year is the subject of public kindergarten. There are three petition warrant articles on the ballot that each have a different point of view on the subject. I will discuss each of these in additional posts.
I first want to summarize my understanding and viewpoint on the background of the legislation that governs the situation.
Court Decision
In October 2006 in Londonderry School District SAU #12 v. State of New Hampshire the State Supreme Court held that the previous state education funding schemes were unconstitutional. There is a long history of court cases that preceded this recent case, but this is the one that is currently being implemented.
There were four specific actions that were required based on this decision. They were:
* Define an adequate education , by 2007,
* Determine the cost, by 2008,
* Fund it with constitutional taxes,
* Ensure its delivery through accountability.
These four mandates comprise the state's duty to provide an adequate education. The state's duties do not extend beyond adequacy.
Step 1 - Define an adequate education
In June 2007, the legislature passed an update to RSA 193-E that defines an adequate education. There were a number of changes to this law, but one notable change is that it now appears to include half-day kindergarten as part of an adequate education. There is a bit of controversy on that since the language is not 100% clear, but it is likely that there will be some clarifying changes to make it clear. Certainly, everyone is going on the assumption that half-day kindergarten is included in the definition.
Step 2 - Determine the cost of an adequate education
The legislature set up a committee to determine the cost of an adequate education. The committee issued the Final Report and Findings of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee Pursuant to 2007 Laws Chapter 270 a few weeks ago. The report details the findings of the committee.
The report found that the universal cost of an adequate education was $3,456 per student. Additional funds will be added to this for:
* Students that are English language learners (ELL) ($675 per ELL student)
* Special education students, ($1,798 or $3,610 per special ed student depending on category)
* Economically disadvantaged students and students in schools with significant concentrations of economically disadvantaged students. (They did not quite finish their work in this area. Funds will be allocated based on a formula based on the percentage of students receiving free or reduced price lunches. This aid could go up to $3,456 depending on the formula, which was not available in time for the final report.)
Half day kindergarten will be funded at half the regular adequate education aid level. This equals $1,728 per student plus half of the other applicable funding items.
Section X of the final report was a special section that discussed the findings of the subcommittee that identified "Transitional Assistance for Kindergarten" for the 11 districts in the state that do not currently have public kindergarten. These were some of the key recommendations in this section:
* Implementation of public kindergarten may be delayed to September 2009 from the September 2008 date originally specified in the updated RSA 193-E.
* Full funding of portable classrooms will be made for 3 years.
* The kindergarten construction aid program will be reauthorized. This program pays 75% of the construction cost for kindergarten facilities.
The report will now be reviewed by the full house and senate, and a final definition of the cost of an adequate education is expected in June 2008.
Article 28-A of the State Constitution
In 1984, Article 28-A was added to the state constitution. This article states: "The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision."
There have been very few actual court cases that test the scope of article 28-A, but these are the keys aspects of it as relates to the implementation of public kindergarten.
* Half-day public kindergarten is a new state mandate that has come into existence after 1984. As such, article 28-A applies and the mandated new spending needs to be fully funded.
* The court mandate is for the state to supply full funding for an adequate education, not to fully fund all aspects of public education. This is a key point in determining whether the state is funding the mandate or not.
* There are two types of funding associated with this new mandate. The first is start-up expense, and the second is ongoing operational expense.
* By definition, if the final costing formula for an adequate education is deemed constitutional (and is fully funded), then the portion that relates to public kindergarten will be constitutional and will be fully funded. Therefore, the ongoing operational expense aspect will be fully funded and passes the 28-A test.
* The state is offering to pay for all expendable start-up expense, and they will also pay for portable classrooms to provide the space for the new programs. This covers all the start-up expense at a minimal level, and meets the requirements of fully funding an adequate education. There is one point in that the state is expected to only offer to pay for portables for three years, but the portables could be purchased on a three year lease-to-own basis which would convert the three year time frame to a permanent time frame.
* The offer of 75% funding for permanent classroom construction is in excess of an adequate education funding level, and in my opinion, will meet the requirements of 28-A.
The public kindergarten mandate is fully funded and 28-A does not apply
In my opinion, the fact that the state is paying 100% of the start-up expense at an adequate level, and that they are paying 100% of the cost of an adequate education on an ongoing expense basis, then the new public kindergarten program is fully funded on an adequate education basis, and article 28-A does not apply.
In my opinion, a lawsuit against the state to require additional payments for new public kindergarten programs is doomed to failure and would be a waste of money.
The last phrase of article 28-A in essence states that a favorable vote by the political subdivision will negate the application of 28-A. In my opinion, this is a moot point since the requirements of 28-A are met by the proposed funding levels, so there is no point in applying the second test.
The key issue on the school side this year is the subject of public kindergarten. There are three petition warrant articles on the ballot that each have a different point of view on the subject. I will discuss each of these in additional posts.
I first want to summarize my understanding and viewpoint on the background of the legislation that governs the situation.
Court Decision
In October 2006 in Londonderry School District SAU #12 v. State of New Hampshire the State Supreme Court held that the previous state education funding schemes were unconstitutional. There is a long history of court cases that preceded this recent case, but this is the one that is currently being implemented.
There were four specific actions that were required based on this decision. They were:
* Define an adequate education , by 2007,
* Determine the cost, by 2008,
* Fund it with constitutional taxes,
* Ensure its delivery through accountability.
These four mandates comprise the state's duty to provide an adequate education. The state's duties do not extend beyond adequacy.
Step 1 - Define an adequate education
In June 2007, the legislature passed an update to RSA 193-E that defines an adequate education. There were a number of changes to this law, but one notable change is that it now appears to include half-day kindergarten as part of an adequate education. There is a bit of controversy on that since the language is not 100% clear, but it is likely that there will be some clarifying changes to make it clear. Certainly, everyone is going on the assumption that half-day kindergarten is included in the definition.
Step 2 - Determine the cost of an adequate education
The legislature set up a committee to determine the cost of an adequate education. The committee issued the Final Report and Findings of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee Pursuant to 2007 Laws Chapter 270 a few weeks ago. The report details the findings of the committee.
The report found that the universal cost of an adequate education was $3,456 per student. Additional funds will be added to this for:
* Students that are English language learners (ELL) ($675 per ELL student)
* Special education students, ($1,798 or $3,610 per special ed student depending on category)
* Economically disadvantaged students and students in schools with significant concentrations of economically disadvantaged students. (They did not quite finish their work in this area. Funds will be allocated based on a formula based on the percentage of students receiving free or reduced price lunches. This aid could go up to $3,456 depending on the formula, which was not available in time for the final report.)
Half day kindergarten will be funded at half the regular adequate education aid level. This equals $1,728 per student plus half of the other applicable funding items.
Section X of the final report was a special section that discussed the findings of the subcommittee that identified "Transitional Assistance for Kindergarten" for the 11 districts in the state that do not currently have public kindergarten. These were some of the key recommendations in this section:
* Implementation of public kindergarten may be delayed to September 2009 from the September 2008 date originally specified in the updated RSA 193-E.
* Full funding of portable classrooms will be made for 3 years.
* The kindergarten construction aid program will be reauthorized. This program pays 75% of the construction cost for kindergarten facilities.
The report will now be reviewed by the full house and senate, and a final definition of the cost of an adequate education is expected in June 2008.
Article 28-A of the State Constitution
In 1984, Article 28-A was added to the state constitution. This article states: "The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision."
There have been very few actual court cases that test the scope of article 28-A, but these are the keys aspects of it as relates to the implementation of public kindergarten.
* Half-day public kindergarten is a new state mandate that has come into existence after 1984. As such, article 28-A applies and the mandated new spending needs to be fully funded.
* The court mandate is for the state to supply full funding for an adequate education, not to fully fund all aspects of public education. This is a key point in determining whether the state is funding the mandate or not.
* There are two types of funding associated with this new mandate. The first is start-up expense, and the second is ongoing operational expense.
* By definition, if the final costing formula for an adequate education is deemed constitutional (and is fully funded), then the portion that relates to public kindergarten will be constitutional and will be fully funded. Therefore, the ongoing operational expense aspect will be fully funded and passes the 28-A test.
* The state is offering to pay for all expendable start-up expense, and they will also pay for portable classrooms to provide the space for the new programs. This covers all the start-up expense at a minimal level, and meets the requirements of fully funding an adequate education. There is one point in that the state is expected to only offer to pay for portables for three years, but the portables could be purchased on a three year lease-to-own basis which would convert the three year time frame to a permanent time frame.
* The offer of 75% funding for permanent classroom construction is in excess of an adequate education funding level, and in my opinion, will meet the requirements of 28-A.
The public kindergarten mandate is fully funded and 28-A does not apply
In my opinion, the fact that the state is paying 100% of the start-up expense at an adequate level, and that they are paying 100% of the cost of an adequate education on an ongoing expense basis, then the new public kindergarten program is fully funded on an adequate education basis, and article 28-A does not apply.
In my opinion, a lawsuit against the state to require additional payments for new public kindergarten programs is doomed to failure and would be a waste of money.
The last phrase of article 28-A in essence states that a favorable vote by the political subdivision will negate the application of 28-A. In my opinion, this is a moot point since the requirements of 28-A are met by the proposed funding levels, so there is no point in applying the second test.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
