New Hampshire

NH Democrats consider new school funding approaches, with differing opinions

Published

5 months ago

January 13, 2024

NH Democrats consider new school funding approaches, with differing opinions

Ethan DeWitt
| New Hampshire Bulletin

House Democrats are advocating for an ambitious bill to change how New Hampshire funds its schools. But not all school funding advocates are supporting it.

Sponsored by Rep. Dave Luneau, a Hopkinton Democrat, House Bill 1586 proposes allocating state money to send to schools based on the goal of boosting the school’s academic performance. The bill would direct the state to determine a “statewide public education opportunity goal” – an overall performance target that all schools in the state would need to collectively meet. Funding would then be given to each school based on what the state determines is needed in order for the school to meet that goal.

The complex, 26-page bill echoes previous efforts by Luneau and stems from the conclusions of a 2020 state commission designed to examine New Hampshire’s school funding approach. That commission found that if schools are funded with an aim to boost their outputs, more students will succeed across the state.

“Our average performing student in New Hampshire performs among the best in the country, but … it’s just not happening in all of our school districts,” he said. “And that’s where right-sizing these budgets really can come in to make sure districts have the budgets they need to be able to to educate their students to a statewide outcome.”

Currently, the state uses a multi-tiered approach that starts with the statewide property tax; if school districts can’t raise enough money through that tax to pay for their schools, they receive per-pupil adequacy funding from the state; and if that adequacy funding is still not enough, the towns make up the difference with more property taxes. State funding is distributed based in part on property values and demographics, such as the number of free and reduced-price lunch students in the district.

Luneau’s bill would change that approach by allocating money based on what each district needs to raise its performance.

The approach would use three outputs to determine which schools are neediest: assessment scores, graduation rates, and attendance rates, according to the bill. Then, to determine how much money each school would need, the Legislature would project the total spending that school would require “to achieve the statewide public education opportunity goal.” Those funding amounts would vary by school district depending on factors including geographical salary differences, student needs, district size, and population density.

To keep the price tag down the bill uses targeted aid; Luneau said no new state revenue streams are needed to make it work.

The bill is co-sponsored by Democrats including Reps. Mel Myler, the former chairman of the House Education Committee, and Richard Ames, the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

But one longtime advocate, Andru Volinsky, is opposed. Volinsky, a former executive councilor who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2020, was an attorney for the plaintiffs in the two Claremont lawsuits, in which the New Hampshire Supreme Court first set a mandate for the state to fund an adequate education.

“Although I respect the sponsors of this bill, their position to me is heartbreaking, because I think the bill violates the New Hampshire Constitution, as it was described and explained in the Claremont and Londonderry decisions,” said Volinsky, referring to a 2008 Supreme Court decision that followed the Claremont rulings.

Volinsky argues the approach does not adhere to the Supreme Court’s conclusions in the Claremont II case, in which the court laid out a series of requirements for school funding. The state must clearly define an “adequate education”; must determine the cost of funding it; must use state funding to do so; must not shift the cost of that adequate education to cities or towns; must apply any tax in a uniform way; and must establish accountability.

To Volinsky, the bill fails the first test, defining an adequate education, because it does not specify what must be funded in order for each school to meet its output target. That lack of clarity, he argued, means the Legislature could not have a reliable metric to keep its funding model on track.

“It tells you the scores that must be achieved without identifying the components in those successful schools that make them successful,” he said. “And so without identifying the components, you can’t fairly and objectively cost out adequacy.”

The House Education Committee dove deeper into Luneau’s bill Thursday in a subcommittee work session.

The bill comes as other state Democrats have proposed sweeping funding bills to respond to a superior court ruling in November that found that the state is funding schools at too low a level and should provide at least $7,360.01 per student.

Other Democratic-led bills heard Wednesday were House Bill 1583, which would raise the base adequacy amount per student from $4,100 to $10,000, and House Bill 1686, which would dramatically increase the amount of state aid that goes to schools for children who need special education – from $2,100 per student to $27,000 per student. Both bills would require major increases to the state’s Education Trust Fund, which currently spends about $1 billion per year on school funding.

Senate Republicans have already thrown water on any attempts to dramatically transform the amount New Hampshire funds its schools this year. At a press conference to kick off the new year, Senate President Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican, dismissed the Rockingham County Superior Court ruling as judicial overreach and said his caucus would not pass additional funding legislation and would await a final Supreme Court ruling.

“It would lead us to an income tax if we continue with differentiated aid,” Bradley said, speaking of the judge’s order. “We have met our responsibility to help towns, help schools, help counties, lower property taxes, and we’ll continue to do that. But the only way we do it is by generating the kind of surpluses that come from a strong economy.”

This story was originally published by the New Hampshire Bulletin

Source link

Click to comment

New Hampshire

Congress silenced free speech in TikTok law, platform tells federal court • New Hampshire Bulletin

Published

2 hours ago

June 20, 2024

Press Room

Congress silenced free speech in TikTok law, platform tells federal court • New Hampshire Bulletin

TikTok and its parent company argued Thursday in a federal court in the District of Columbia that the recently enacted law forcing a nationwide ban or sale of the popular platform violates the First Amendment.

TikTok Inc., which operates the video-sharing service in the United States, and its parent company, ByteDance Ltd., which was founded by a Chinese national, filed a brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit calling the law President Joe Biden signed in April an unprecedented restriction on the constitutional right to free speech.

“Never before has Congress expressly singled out and shut down a specific speech forum,” the brief reads. “Never before has Congress silenced so much speech in a single act.”

Upholding such an “extraordinary speech restriction” would require the court to undertake “exacting scrutiny” of Congress’ action, but Congress provided only a hypothetical national security argument to advance the bill, the companies said.

“Congress gave this Court almost nothing to review,” the brief continues. “Congress enacted no findings, so there is no way to know why majorities of the House and Senate decided to ban TikTok.”

Many individual lawmakers who supported the law raised national security concerns, saying ByteDance’s relationship with the Chinese government meant the country’s Communist Party leaders could demand access to TikTok users’ private data.

They also said the platform, which the company says has 170 million users in the U.S., could be used to spread propaganda.

But under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, labeling speech as foreign propaganda does not allow the government to overlook First Amendment protections, TikTok said in its brief.

Speculation about how the app “might” or “could” be used, rather than any concrete examples of misconduct, do not clear the high bar required to restrict speech, the companies added.

“A claim of national security does not override the Constitution,” the companies wrote Thursday.

A spokesperson for the Justice Department, which is defending the law, highlighted the intelligence community’s national security concerns with TikTok and said the law was consistent with the First Amendment.

“This legislation addresses critical national security concerns in a manner that is consistent with the First Amendment and other constitutional limitations,” the spokesperson wrote in a statement to States Newsroom. “We look forward to defending the legislation in court.

“Alongside others in our intelligence community and in Congress, the Justice Department has consistently warned about the threat of autocratic nations that can weaponize technology – such as the apps and software that run on our phones – to use against us. This threat is compounded when those autocratic nations require companies under their control to turn over sensitive data to the government in secret.”

Response to lawmakers

The brief said Congress had not included any official findings of harm from TikTok, but several individual members raised specific concerns about the kind of speech found on the platform.

The companies said Thursday those specific complaints bolstered the argument that TikTok is being denied free speech protections.

The brief cited several lawmaker statements:

U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican, U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat who is ranking member on the House Select Committee on China, and former Rep. Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican who chaired the panel, said the platform’s algorithm fed an overwhelming share of pro-Palestinian content over videos that favor Israel.

Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, said the platform “exposes children to harmful content.”

Sen. John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said the law would “make TikTok safer for our children and national security.”

Nebraska Republican Sen. Pete Ricketts noted the popularity of the hashtag #StandwithKashmir, which protests a policy of India, a geopolitical rival of China.

“Legislators’ perception of the content reflected on TikTok was misinformed,” the companies said. “But well-founded or not, governmental policing of content differences is antithetical to the First Amendment.”

Oral arguments in September

Both chambers of Congress passed the law with bipartisan votes as part of a package that included aid to Israel and Ukraine. Biden signed the measure April 24.

TikTok pledged to sue and filed its legal challenge last month.

Tuesday’s brief expands on the company’s arguments. The government’s response is due July 26 and oral arguments are scheduled for Sept. 16.

Divestment unworkable, TikTok says

TikTok and ByteDance said Thursday the provision in the bill to avoid a ban by divesting the service to a company without ties to China is unworkable, especially within the nine-month timeline required by the law.

Such a move would be technically complex, requiring years of engineering work, the companies said. It would also isolate the U.S. user base from the rest of the world, limiting revenue from advertisements.

And even if it were feasible from a technical or business standpoint, selling the platform would likely be rejected by the Chinese government, which has the authority to block exportation of technology developed in the country, the companies said.

Source link

New Hampshire

NASCAR returns to New England, offering traditional giant lobster as prize

Published

9 hours ago

June 20, 2024

Press Room

NASCAR returns to New England, offering traditional giant lobster as prize

LOUDON, NH (WWLP) – The NASCAR Cup Series will return to New Hampshire Motor Speedway this weekend.

New Hampshire Motor Speedway (NHMS) is also known as the Magic Mile. As we get ready for the next NASCAR weekend, here are four things to know about Loudon:

#1 New Hampshire is New England’s only NASCAR weekend

What’s more New England than lobster right? That’s exactly what the winner on Sunday gets.

General Manager of New Hampshire Motor Speedway David McGrath said, “Loudon the Lobster is usually a 24-25 pound monster. And it is a unique, unique trophy. Probably the most unique in all of NASCAR.”

#2 The NASCAR Cup Series made its first visit to what has become known as “The Magic Mile” in 1993

The length of the track is 1.058 mi (1.703 km), making it just over a mile per lap.

“The Magic Mile goes back to the early owners of our speedway. They actually went to Disney World to learn about customer service and how to make sure people have a great experience at the Magic Mile,” said McGrath.

#3 Fan experience

There’s a full lineup of events from a Fan Zone to live music and fireworks. People are already camping out at the track enjoying the days leading up to the race including Saturday’s double header of the NASCAR Xfinity Series Race followed by the Whelen Modified Tour Race.

“People are going to need some days off when they get home to rest because they are going to need it! They are going to have a lot of racing, a lot of energy,” said McGrath.

#4 New Hampshire is a flat track

The Loudon track’s corners feature a maximum banking of just seven degrees.

“Nobody just comes to NHMS and dominates our race. You really have to qualify well, position yourself well, have great pit strategy during the race,” said McGrath.

Race weekend in Loudon goes from Friday to Sunday.

Source link

New Hampshire

NASCAR: Full qualifying order revealed for New Hampshire race

Published

16 hours ago

June 20, 2024

Press Room

NASCAR: Full qualifying order revealed for New Hampshire race

This Sunday is set to mark the halfway point of the 2024 NASCAR Cup Series season, with the series set for its annual visit to New Hampshire Motor Speedway for race number 18 on the 36-race schedule.

Sunday’s USA Today 301 is scheduled to be a 301-lap race around the four-turn, 1.058-mile (1.703-kilometer) Loudon, New Hampshire oval. Joe Gibbs Racing’s Martin Truex Jr. is the reigning race winner. Last year’s event was contested in July, and Truex hasn’t won since.

New Hampshire Motor Speedway has been on the Cup Series schedule since 1993. While it hosted two races each year from 1997 to 2017, it has hosted just one race per year since 2018.

The qualifying groups and qualifying order for Saturday’s qualifying session were determined using a four-variable metric that NASCAR implemented in 2020. A full breakdown of that formula can be found here.

Because New Hampshire Motor Speedway is not considered a short track, each driver is set to make a single-lap qualifying attempt, with the fastest five drivers in each of the two groups slated to advance to the second round shootout for the pole position. Round two is also set to feature single-lap qualifying attempts.

The drivers who don’t advance to the second round from the first group are set to start the race on the outside row, while the drivers who don’t advance to the second round from the second group are set to start the race on the inside row, marking a slight change from the series’ most recent visit to Loudon last season.

Group A

Ty Dillon, No. 16 Kaulig Racing Chevrolet

Zane Smith, No. 71 Spire Motorsports Chevrolet

Erik Jones, No. 43 Legacy Motor Club Toyota

Kyle Busch, No. 8 Richard Childress Racing Chevrolet

John Hunter Nemechek, No. 42 Legacy Motor Club Toyota

Corey LaJoie, No. 7 Spire Motorsports Chevrolet

Justin Haley, No. 51 Rick Ware Racing Ford

Austin Dillon, No. 3 Richard Childress Racing Chevrolet

Carson Hocevar, No. 77 Spire Motorsports Chevrolet

Ty Gibbs, No. 54 Joe Gibbs Racing Toyota

Todd Gilliland, No. 38 Front Row Motorsports Ford

Denny Hamlin, No. 11 Joe Gibbs Racing Toyota

Tyler Reddick, No. 45 23XI Racing Toyota

Josh Berry, No. 4 Stewart-Haas Racing Ford

Ross Chastain, No. 1 Trackhouse Racing Team Chevrolet

Joey Logano, No. 22 Team Penske Ford

Christopher Bell, No. 20 Joe Gibbs Racing Toyota

Ryan Blaney, No. 12 Team Penske Ford

Group B

Kaz Grala, No. 15 Rick Ware Racing Ford

Daniel Hemric, No. 31 Kaulig Racing Chevrolet

Ryan Preece, No. 41 Stewart-Haas Racing Ford

Austin Cindric, No. 2 Team Penske Ford

Harrison Burton, No. 21 Wood Brothers Racing Ford

Michael McDowell, No. 34 Front Row Motorsports Ford

Chase Briscoe, No. 14 Stewart-Haas Racing Ford

Noah Gragson, No. 10 Stewart-Haas Racing Ford

Kyle Larson, No. 5 Hendrick Motorsports Chevrolet

Bubba Wallace, No. 23 23XI Racing Toyota

Chris Buescher, No. 17 RFK Racing Ford

Ricky Stenhouse Jr., No. 47 JTG Daugherty Racing Chevrolet

Daniel Suarez, No. 99 Trackhouse Racing Team Chevrolet

Brad Keselowski, No. 6 RFK Racing Ford

Martin Truex Jr., No. 19 Joe Gibbs Racing Toyota

Alex Bowman, No. 48 Hendrick Motorsports Chevrolet

William Byron, No. 24 Hendrick Motorsports Chevrolet

Chase Elliott, No. 9 Hendrick Motorsports Chevrolet

Next. NASCAR Cup Series: NBC announcer out after six seasons. NASCAR Cup Series: NBC announcer out after six seasons. dark

USA Network is set to provide live coverage of the USA Today 301 from New Hampshire Motor Speedway beginning at 2:30 p.m. ET this Sunday, June 23. Begin a free trial of FuboTV now and don’t miss it!

Source link