By Judith Reever
When Governor John Lynch signed Senate Bill 180 into law on July 14, it marked the extraordinary completion of an almost 20-year struggle to meet the Supreme Court’s ruling that the State of New Hampshire provide an adequate education for all students.
Senate Bill 180 was the last piece required to meet the state’s obligation to the funding of education. The Court ruled that the legislature define an adequate education, cost it, fund it and put in place measures to ensure we are providing the opportunity for an adequate education.
As I watched Gov. Lynch sign this final piece of legislation, I found myself reflecting on the 21 years I spent on the Laconia School Board and the frustration I felt with the lack of state financial support for education. Even when the legislature passed the Augenblick Formula in the 1980s, the state never fully funded it. Beginning in 1986, I served 11 years on the New Hampshire School Board Associations’ board of directors. School funding was always a part of our yearly resolutions.
In 1997, I left the school board but continued to watch, with incredible interest, the struggle to move the legislature to adopt a funding formula that was fair and constitutional. In 2001, I was appointed to the State Board of Education and then served as chair. It gave me another perspective on how the state financed education.
I left the State Board in 2004, 13 years after the Claremont I decision. I had given up hope. It seemed the state was trying to find a way around the actual funding of adequacy.
In 2006, I was elected as a state representative. The most frequently asked question of me was, “Are you going to solve the education funding mess?” My answer was, “I’d like to be a part of the discussion.”
I was assigned to the Education Committee, where I became a member of the education subcommittee working to define adequacy.
The final definition, which included kindergarten, passed both the House and the Senate and step one of the process was behind us.
When I was asked to serve on the Costing Committee, step two, I was thrilled. I said to my husband, “How cool is this!” When this bill passed, we were half way there.
In the summer and fall of ’08, I served on the Funding Committee and lastly the Accountability Committee. Both of those bills passed in this session.
I am honored to have been at each of those tables and to have been part of the discussion. I would like to list all of the truly amazing legislators involved but I fear missing someone. They know education; they care deeply, work hard and research each piece of legislation that comes before us. I am awed by their dedication.
I am very proud that this work was completed on our watch and that education is at last, fully funded in this budget!
(Judith Reever represents Belknap County District 4 in the New Hampshire House of Representatives. She serves as Vice Chair of the House Education Committee.)
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Bleak Employment Numbers Indicate Recession Is Worsening
With nearly 2 million jobs lost so far this year the prospect for any kind of economic recovery is bleak. Consumer demand for goods and services has plunged, corporate investment has tanked, the housing market is in a shambles, and automakers have been humbled into begging taxpayers for a bailout.
From the New York Times:
Significantly, the loss of jobs has affected men, more than women, due largely to the heavy concentration of women in the healthcare field, education, and other social services.
From economist Dr. Mark Perry:
President-elect Obama's desire to provide economic stimulus by investing heavily in infrastructure should provide a boost to employment in the construction and manufacturing sectors. In addition, it's been reported that he wants to provide some relief to states in the form of increased Medicaid funding and education funding, which would likely aid women.
From the New York Times:
Workers Give Up
By David Leonhardt
How bad was today’s jobs report? The unemployment rate rose to 6.7 percent, its highest level since 1993 — and that understated the weakness in the labor market.
According to the Labor Department, the number of unemployed workers rose by 251,000 in November. But the number of people who were outside of the labor force — that is, neither working nor looking for work — rose by much more: 637,000. These people aren’t counted as unemployed in the government’s statistics, because they are not looking for work. Many of them, presumably, have stopped looking for work because they didn’t think they could find a good job. ...continue reading
Significantly, the loss of jobs has affected men, more than women, due largely to the heavy concentration of women in the healthcare field, education, and other social services.
From economist Dr. Mark Perry:
According to today's BLS report, the U.S. economy has lost 2.352 million jobs in the last year (Nov. 2007 to Nov. 2008). Further analysis shows that 82% of the job losses (1.932 million) were jobs held by males, and only 18% of jobs losses (430,000) were jobs held by females (see top chart above). Further, the November unemployment rate for men is 7.2% vs. only 6% for women, and the gap in jobless rates between men and women has been increasing for the last six months (see bottom chart above).
What's going on?
According to this May 2008 BusinessWeek article:
Men have the misfortune of being concentrated in the two sectors that are doing the worst: manufacturing (70% male) and construction (88% male). Women are concentrated in sectors that are still growing, such as education and health care (77% female). ...continue reading
President-elect Obama's desire to provide economic stimulus by investing heavily in infrastructure should provide a boost to employment in the construction and manufacturing sectors. In addition, it's been reported that he wants to provide some relief to states in the form of increased Medicaid funding and education funding, which would likely aid women.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Making A Choice
I’ve heard from many people commenting on how nasty and negative the Shaheen-Sununu race has become, and I concur that it's really despicable. You'd think both of these candidates are evil incarnate. Allow me to offer my opinion.
John Sununu is a decent man who simply is on the wrong side of the issues. He favors big business, has a long record of opposing corporate and financial regulation, and has consistently voted against legislation that would benefit working families, from an increase in minimum wage to an expansion of health care coverage. He's been unwavering in his support of George Bush, including Bush's horrific foreign policy and his devastating fiscal irresponsibility that has buried us in an oppressive $10 trillion debt. John simply does not reflect New Hampshire's values.
Jeanne Shaheen performed admirably as governor for three terms, working with Democrats and Republicans alike. She's a moderate voice in a nation and a state where too often the extremists are most vocal. I disagree with Jeanne on capital punishment, and I believe she missed an opportunity to change New Hampshire's unfair system of taxation that places an extreme burden on working families. But I also know that she embraces New Hampshire's values, from protecting the environment to expanding access to affordable healthcare, and from improving our children's educational opportunities to strengthening the Granite State's economy. She brings an incredible amount of common sense to the table, and offers a breadth of experience that will prove invaluable to New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that all of our major candidates are decent people and do not deserve the abuse being heaped upon them. This even includes John McCain, for whom I’ve lost nearly all respect since he launched his campaign of lies and distortions, and abandoned all principles of integrity. While today he is but a hollow shell of the John McCain who earned the admiration of millions, one cannot discount his past contributions to his country, nor question his patriotism no matter how misguided he may be today.
I truly hope that voters will not be swayed by the extreme messages with which they’re incessantly being bombarded and will instead choose a candidate based upon his or her positions on the issues.
We are today confronted by serious challenges, from a crumbling financial system and a plunging economy, to global terrorism and two mismanaged wars. We’re being held hostage by our reliance upon foreign oil, and we’re despoiling our environment by neglecting the need for serious investment in alternative sources of energy.
Our infrastructure is crumbling, our health care system is in crisis, and our system of public education is in peril. Gratefully, New Hampshire and the nation are equipped to confront these challenges, possessing the resiliency and the creativity needed as we move forward.
What is clear is that we cannot afford to continue along the course we’ve been following for the past eight years. We cannot endure another decade of war and neglect or of allowing unbridled greed to sap the underlying strength of our economy and put at risk our savings, investments, pensions, and even the value of our homes.
Our state and our nation are at a precipice. How we vote this year will determine whether we plunge into an abyss of despair or leap to new heights of achievement. A vote for Republicans is a vote to “stay the course” - to continue on the path we’ve been following.
By contrast, a vote for Democrats will ensure a change of course. That doesn’t mean it will be an easy ride, nor that every trail embarked upon will lead to success. But what it does mean is that we’ll be free to explore new avenues, to navigate the future with confidence in our potential rather than retreating into the paralysis of fear.
When choosing a candidate this year the first question you should ask yourself is that posed by Ronald Reagan in 1980 - “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The second question you should ask is “Is the country better off than it was eight years ago?”
If you can answer yes to both of those questions, you should vote Republican. Otherwise, the decision is clear.
John Sununu is a decent man who simply is on the wrong side of the issues. He favors big business, has a long record of opposing corporate and financial regulation, and has consistently voted against legislation that would benefit working families, from an increase in minimum wage to an expansion of health care coverage. He's been unwavering in his support of George Bush, including Bush's horrific foreign policy and his devastating fiscal irresponsibility that has buried us in an oppressive $10 trillion debt. John simply does not reflect New Hampshire's values.
Jeanne Shaheen performed admirably as governor for three terms, working with Democrats and Republicans alike. She's a moderate voice in a nation and a state where too often the extremists are most vocal. I disagree with Jeanne on capital punishment, and I believe she missed an opportunity to change New Hampshire's unfair system of taxation that places an extreme burden on working families. But I also know that she embraces New Hampshire's values, from protecting the environment to expanding access to affordable healthcare, and from improving our children's educational opportunities to strengthening the Granite State's economy. She brings an incredible amount of common sense to the table, and offers a breadth of experience that will prove invaluable to New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that all of our major candidates are decent people and do not deserve the abuse being heaped upon them. This even includes John McCain, for whom I’ve lost nearly all respect since he launched his campaign of lies and distortions, and abandoned all principles of integrity. While today he is but a hollow shell of the John McCain who earned the admiration of millions, one cannot discount his past contributions to his country, nor question his patriotism no matter how misguided he may be today.
I truly hope that voters will not be swayed by the extreme messages with which they’re incessantly being bombarded and will instead choose a candidate based upon his or her positions on the issues.
We are today confronted by serious challenges, from a crumbling financial system and a plunging economy, to global terrorism and two mismanaged wars. We’re being held hostage by our reliance upon foreign oil, and we’re despoiling our environment by neglecting the need for serious investment in alternative sources of energy.
Our infrastructure is crumbling, our health care system is in crisis, and our system of public education is in peril. Gratefully, New Hampshire and the nation are equipped to confront these challenges, possessing the resiliency and the creativity needed as we move forward.
What is clear is that we cannot afford to continue along the course we’ve been following for the past eight years. We cannot endure another decade of war and neglect or of allowing unbridled greed to sap the underlying strength of our economy and put at risk our savings, investments, pensions, and even the value of our homes.
Our state and our nation are at a precipice. How we vote this year will determine whether we plunge into an abyss of despair or leap to new heights of achievement. A vote for Republicans is a vote to “stay the course” - to continue on the path we’ve been following.
By contrast, a vote for Democrats will ensure a change of course. That doesn’t mean it will be an easy ride, nor that every trail embarked upon will lead to success. But what it does mean is that we’ll be free to explore new avenues, to navigate the future with confidence in our potential rather than retreating into the paralysis of fear.
When choosing a candidate this year the first question you should ask yourself is that posed by Ronald Reagan in 1980 - “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” The second question you should ask is “Is the country better off than it was eight years ago?”
If you can answer yes to both of those questions, you should vote Republican. Otherwise, the decision is clear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)