House rejects school funding plan

Derry

Discussion

Welcome to our online comments feature. To join the discussion, you must first register with Disqus and verify your email address. Once you do, your comments will post automatically. We welcome your thoughts and your opinions, including unpopular ones. We ask only that you keep the conversation civil and clean. We reserve the right to remove comments that are obscene, racist or abusive and statements that are false or unverifiable. Repeat offenders will be blocked. You may flag objectionable comments for review by a moderator.

comments powered by Disqus

May 16, 2008

By Gordon Fraser

CONCORD — Despite support from leadership on both sides of the aisle, the state House of Representatives rejected a constitutional amendment designed to fix school funding on May 14.

"You had the ultra-right conservative movement against it and you had the ultra-liberal Democrats against it and, combined, it was lethal," said Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Salem, who voted in favor of the measure.

While the vote for the amendment was 222-140 in favor, supporters needed a three-fifths majority, according to House clerk Karen Wadsworth. That required 237 yes votes.

Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, had advocated for the constitutional amendment, which would have let the Legislature target money to needier towns as long as all communities got a "meaningful" amount of state aid.

"I am deeply disappointed that the House failed to pass today a constitutional amendment that would have given the Legislature and the governor the ability to make the right policy choices for our kids," Lynch said in a prepared statement.

But Michael Delahanty, the superintendent of Salem schools, said he was glad to see the idea of a constitutional change fall flat.

"A constitutional amendment was unnecessary," he said.

Delahanty's district receives about $4 million from the state now. He said state lawmakers can get money to schools without rewriting the constitution.

Keith Pfeifer, the superintendent of the Sanborn Regional School District, agreed.

"I believe the state has a responsibility to all children in New Hampshire, not some," Pfeifer said. "Though I certainly am sympathetic to the needs of the school districts most in need, I think we still need to come up with a solution that is equitable for all."

The failure of yesterday's amendment might force lawmakers back to a funding formula crafted earlier this year — a formula the governor has not yet said he will sign.

Under that formula, both Salem and Sanborn stand to gain, with Salem receiving as much as an extra $3 million.

Since a 1997 state Supreme Court ruling ordered New Hampshire lawmakers to provide an adequate education to all students, the Legislature has divided roughly $900 million a year among New Hampshire school districts.

Lynch and his supporters want to send more state aid to the poorest communities.

But the state Supreme Court has called on lawmakers to define an adequate education for all students and then pay for it. That means the state could give extra money to some districts, but only after giving all districts enough to fund an "adequate" education, which the Legislature has never defined.

The amendment would have allowed Lynch and his supporters to change the formula to give most of the money to the poorest towns.

A similar, although not identical, constitutional amendment passed the Senate, 19-5, in February. The House version required all school districts to receive some aid, while the Senate version would have allowed lawmakers to give wealthier districts nothing.

After rejecting Lynch's proposal, the House debated several other proposed constitutional amendments related to educational funding, although none passed.

Staff writer Rebecca Correa and The Associated Press contributed to this report.