Carolyn McKinney - Education tax credit bill would improve students' chances of achieving prosperity

Education tax credit bill would improve students' chances of achieving prosperity
By Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire

Right now, businesses contribute about one quarter of the state's revenue in the taxes they pay, and coincidentally, public education comprises about one quarter of the state's costs.

Unfortunately, the money the state is now siphoning away from its most productive citizens is being redistributed to an education system that is failing our children. Even as the state has devoted more hard-earned dollars to government-run education, 71 percent of the state's public schools are in need of improvement, according to a report released by the State Department of Education in April. That doesn't bode well for the prospect of more productive citizens in years to come.

An education tax credit bill that passed the Legislature, but was vetoed by the governor, presents a real opportunity to change the way New Hampshire conducts the business of education. If the governor's veto is overridden by the Legislature, the bill would for the first time allow the free market to work in education—just a little bit—by giving children assigned to a failing public school a chance to attend a better school, whether it is a private school in their home town or a public school in a community nearby. This will forever improve these children's chances for a more productive and prosperous life.

The bill accomplishes this novel goal by letting businesses decide how they want to spend the money they earned, rather than government taking it from them and redistributing it without their input. That's part of the free market component to the idea, which gives businesses an opportunity to decide whether 100 percent of their Business Profits Tax or Business Enterprise Tax payments will continue to fund the broken public education system or whether they'd like up to 85 percent of that money to instead help financially strained parents send their children to a better school. Each business leader will have the opportunity to choose which course to pursue, and the state will actually save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process, according to the State Department of Revenue.

Of the money that is ultimately collected on a first-come, first serve basis from participating businesses, an independent scholarship organization will determine which children receive help to attend the school of their parents' choice, based on various metrics. This is another part of the free market component of the bill. Schools that do a better job educating children will attract more students, and the students the schools attract will receive a better education at a lower cost. 

While each scholarship organization must give an average $2,500 scholarship to each student, the bill allows some children to receive greater than that amount and some less than that amount. This flexibility will help more parents make the decision to enroll their children in a better school and give them an opportunity they wouldn't have otherwise had. And as the program showcases its successes over the years, as similar programs have in at least eight other states, future Legislatures will have the data needed to expand these opportunities to even more children.

It's true, some communities could lose adequacy funding up to a fixed amount for their own public schools if several of their students receive scholarships to attend different schools, but therein lies yet one more free market component of the bill. Clearly, no school will want to lose students and the adequacy grants that go with them, so this bill will motivate failing schools to improve the quality of their education—without using additional money. On a small scale, the bill could create a situation where schools consistently improve relative to other schools to compete for students, all while keeping their costs low relative to other schools—again, to compete for students.  

Experience has shown that public schools will not improve simply because the state spends more money to educate students the same way we're educating them now. In fact, the quality of education has fallen as taxpayers have devoted more of their hard-earned money to the current system. The only way to successfully improve the quality of education is to change the dynamic of the system by allowing competition into the marketplace, and this education tax credit bill does just that. 

By overriding the governor's veto and providing children with real alternatives to poorly performing schools, school administrators at many of today's failing schools will necessarily change their focus from raising as many tax dollars as they can to producing a quality service that satisfies their customers. In this case, those customers will grow up better equipped with the knowledge and skills they'll need to be productive, and that will position them well to contribute to the educational excellence of the generation that follows them.

Carolyn McKinney - Education tax credit bill would improve students' chances of achieving prosperity

Education tax credit bill would improve students' chances of achieving prosperity
By Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire

Right now, businesses contribute about one quarter of the state's revenue in the taxes they pay, and coincidentally, public education comprises about one quarter of the state's costs.

Unfortunately, the money the state is now siphoning away from its most productive citizens is being redistributed to an education system that is failing our children. Even as the state has devoted more hard-earned dollars to government-run education, 71 percent of the state's public schools are in need of improvement, according to a report released by the State Department of Education in April. That doesn't bode well for the prospect of more productive citizens in years to come.

An education tax credit bill that passed the Legislature, but was vetoed by the governor, presents a real opportunity to change the way New Hampshire conducts the business of education. If the governor's veto is overridden by the Legislature, the bill would for the first time allow the free market to work in education—just a little bit—by giving children assigned to a failing public school a chance to attend a better school, whether it is a private school in their home town or a public school in a community nearby. This will forever improve these children's chances for a more productive and prosperous life.

The bill accomplishes this novel goal by letting businesses decide how they want to spend the money they earned, rather than government taking it from them and redistributing it without their input. That's part of the free market component to the idea, which gives businesses an opportunity to decide whether 100 percent of their Business Profits Tax or Business Enterprise Tax payments will continue to fund the broken public education system or whether they'd like up to 85 percent of that money to instead help financially strained parents send their children to a better school. Each business leader will have the opportunity to choose which course to pursue, and the state will actually save hundreds of thousands of dollars in the process, according to the State Department of Revenue.

Of the money that is ultimately collected on a first-come, first serve basis from participating businesses, an independent scholarship organization will determine which children receive help to attend the school of their parents' choice, based on various metrics. This is another part of the free market component of the bill. Schools that do a better job educating children will attract more students, and the students the schools attract will receive a better education at a lower cost. 

While each scholarship organization must give an average $2,500 scholarship to each student, the bill allows some children to receive greater than that amount and some less than that amount. This flexibility will help more parents make the decision to enroll their children in a better school and give them an opportunity they wouldn't have otherwise had. And as the program showcases its successes over the years, as similar programs have in at least eight other states, future Legislatures will have the data needed to expand these opportunities to even more children.

It's true, some communities could lose adequacy funding up to a fixed amount for their own public schools if several of their students receive scholarships to attend different schools, but therein lies yet one more free market component of the bill. Clearly, no school will want to lose students and the adequacy grants that go with them, so this bill will motivate failing schools to improve the quality of their education—without using additional money. On a small scale, the bill could create a situation where schools consistently improve relative to other schools to compete for students, all while keeping their costs low relative to other schools—again, to compete for students.  

Experience has shown that public schools will not improve simply because the state spends more money to educate students the same way we're educating them now. In fact, the quality of education has fallen as taxpayers have devoted more of their hard-earned money to the current system. The only way to successfully improve the quality of education is to change the dynamic of the system by allowing competition into the marketplace, and this education tax credit bill does just that. 

By overriding the governor's veto and providing children with real alternatives to poorly performing schools, school administrators at many of today's failing schools will necessarily change their focus from raising as many tax dollars as they can to producing a quality service that satisfies their customers. In this case, those customers will grow up better equipped with the knowledge and skills they'll need to be productive, and that will position them well to contribute to the educational excellence of the generation that follows them.

Carolyn McKinney - The Legislature Must Assert its Authority Over Education

By Carolyn McKinney, chairman of the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire.

The incumbent Republican Legislature has competently delivered on promises to balance the state budget, reduce the size of government and encourage private-sector economic growth, but in the area of educational funding reform, this Legislature has unfortunately wavered in its commitment to local control of education and must reverse course for the good of the families of New Hampshire.
 
The Legislature is now considering “compromise” language for an educational funding amendment to the state Constitution (CACR 12). But the language being considered risks permanently damaging the founders' intended relationship among children, parents, local communities and the state by firmly establishing a centralized, one-size-fits-all system that will ensure no child's education is ever more than “adequate.” This runs completely contrary to the spirit of the state of New Hampshire.

Granted, the Supreme Court in its infamous Claremont decisions has already sent New Hampshire down the path to centralized control of education, but the Legislature was never bound by the court's erroneous opinion that the word “cherish” in Part 2, Article 83 of the Constitution somehow means “pay for.”

After all, the Constitution is very clear about when the Legislature must pay for something, as it is in Part 1, Article 15 when it says the people have the right to counsel “at the expense of the state.” The Constitution is also very clear that the Legislature has the authority to set state education policy when it says in Part 1, Article 12 that New Hampshire citizens are not “controllable by any other laws than those to which they, or their representative body, have given their consent.”

Thus, the Legislature should act without hesitation on education statutes that slowly restore a system in which local communities pay for their own schools and set their own educational standards, just like Part 1, Article 6 now says: “the several … [local] bodies … shall at all times have the right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support or maintenance, or both.” The Legislature could always decide to supplement the cost of education for local bodies―or not.

If the state were to continue to set standards for education, those standards should be recommendations rather than requirements, which would allow parents, working with local communities, to adjust those standards as they see fit to ensure their children receive an excellent education, and not just an adequate one. Parents and local communities are much better equipped to deal with the needs of local children than bureaucrats in Concord.

If any constitutional amendment is needed, it is one to give the Legislature “full power and authority to mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity” so the Legislature could provide more local aid to communities that need it and less or none to those that don't. CACR 12, this term's constitutional amendment on educational funding reform, should be used solely for this purpose. A resulting funding formula could be based on any number of policies, but in any event, those policies should be set by the Legislature. 

Additionally, the Legislature should present a constitutional amendment to the people that cleans up the language of Part 1, Article 6 to clarify that parents, working with local communities, are responsible for the “support and maintenance of teachers and schools … and of defining and establishing their own curricula.” CACR 8, a constitutional amendment still alive in the House, could be used to advance this language.

Unfortunately, the current compromise language for CACR 12 would permanently enshrine the Claremont decisions in the constitution, giving the Legislature “the responsibility to maintain a system of public elementary and secondary education” (emphasis added). If the Supreme Court can bend the meaning of the word “cherish” to mean “pay for,” what will it do with the phrase “responsibility to maintain”? This language will certainly lead to higher taxation to make sure none of the state's public schools ever fall below their current level of funding.

But that's not the worst of it. The compromise language also gives the Legislature “full power and authority to make wholesome and reasonable standards for elementary and secondary public education.” This change to the constitution could remove parents and local communities from the educational decision-making process, and the state Legislature would take total control over what children are taught at school. To anyone who cherishes the traditional role of parents to raise and educate their own children, sometimes in partnership with local communities, this would be a troublesome development.

Carol Shea-Porter - Save Our Schools

Newly arrived immigrants and American citizens with deep roots always have the same message for their children—study and get a good education because that is how to succeed. Knowledge is power and education is the key to prosperity, and everyone knows it. That is why Thomas Jefferson and others advocated for a public school system and Jefferson founded one of the best public universities in America. As Jefferson said, "Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day. . . . the diffusion of knowledge among the people is to be the instrument by which it is to be effected." Past American leaders understood the role and responsibility of government in education—to make individuals and communities stronger and more successful, businesses competitive and successful, and America safer and able to elevate its citizens' standard of living and quality of life. Do our present leaders share that belief and reflect that vision?

Unfortunately, and rather shockingly, education has become deeply politicized. When I was on the Education and Labor Committee in Congress, some members showed their contempt for public education by saying "government-run” schools, instead of public schools. They worked then, and still do, to discredit educators and dismantle the public school system, or to divert funding to private schools. Schools and teachers have received withering attacks from state legislators across the country who have tried to pass legislation undermining the curriculum, denying science, and trying to force the teaching of creationism.

Some politicians don't take ideological votes against schools; they just find it an easier target when cutting funding, and they don’t fully consider the consequences. Benjamin Franklin's words echo across the ages as a reminder and a warning: "The good Education of Youth has been esteemed by wise Men in all Ages, as the surest Foundation of the Happiness both of private Families and of Common-wealths. Almost all Governments have therefore made it a principal Object of their Attention, to establish and endow with proper Revenues, such Seminaries of Learning, as might supply the succeeding Age with Men qualified to serve the Publick with Honour to themselves, and to their Country."

Cutting school budgets is a short-term solution that will result in an even greater long-term problem. The US was already lagging behind other countries before the tea-party state and national representatives took over state houses and the US House. While NH is still doing well, a 2010 CBS series found that compared to 30 comparable countries, American students were #25 in Math and #21 in Science. Nationally, only 75% of our students graduate from high school. No lofty words can change the meaning here. We are not number one, and as the Vice President's wife, Dr. Jill Biden says, "Any country that out-educates us will out-compete us."

Money alone won’t solve all of our problems. But to cut funding when we’re already in a very precarious state defies logic and reminds me of the old and wise saying, penny-wise, pound-foolish. 

So, how foolish are we being? The Economic Policy Institute prepared a report showing how we under-pay our children's teachers. Almost half of teachers leave within five years, mainly because they cannot get ahead and care for their own families on the low pay. The New York Times highlighted one teacher in a 3/2/11 article. A high-school science teacher in her second year of teaching in a city was only earning $36,000 a year and had $26,000 of school debt, no car, and no house. She had to move home to keep teaching. Sadly, this is not unusual. We are also cutting essential programs that help children catch up or keep up, and we are not preparing students for today’s high-tech and very competitive world.

After high school, it is now even tougher to pay for a technical school or college. The NH legislature cut funding to the university system a staggering 50%.   New Hampshire’s 2010 college graduates were in debt an average of $31,048 (Union Leader 11/8/2011). Deep cuts are being made at public universities around the nation, and the national average debt for the 2010 graduate is $25,250.

It is time to talk to our families, our communities, and our legislators about the value and necessity of education. It is time to defend investments in education because they are investments in our children's future, our business' future, and our nation's future. It is time to save our schools.

######

Former Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter represented New Hampshire’s First District from 2007-2011, she is seeking a third term in the November, 2012 election.  She wrote the proposal for and established a non-profit, social service agency, which continues to serve all ages.  She taught politics and history and is a strong supporter of Medicare and Social Security.

Bill Frist Op-Ed in Politico - Come together on education reform

By Bill Frist, M.D. and John Podesta
Politico, February 9, 2011

Though bipartisanship now feels like a footnote in a history book, both parties have an opportunity to work together again on a big issue: education.

The revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as No Child Left Behind, passed in the Senate and House with overwhelming bipartisan support under George W. Bush. Now, Congress must come together again to reauthorize it.

No Child Left Behind made a good first pass at making school boards and districts responsible for all their students' achievement. But its outdated approach needs to be revised. Strengthening the law in reauthorization could help ensure that every student has the opportunity to succeed through public education.

There are four compelling reasons to act here. First, the law's current accountability framework is outdated. No Child Left Behind provided pressure and political cover for local school boards and district officials to spur improvement. But the way the law measures results is flawed.

School districts are now required to have all students proficient in reading and math by 2014. Each year, however, the current accountability framework penalizes more and more schools that may not have met the standards but actually made real strides in improving academic performance.

Second, our schools need an overarching principle that reflects the challenges we face in the 21st century. In particular, economic competitiveness requires that all students graduate from high school ready for college or a career.

A revamped law, focused on college and career readiness, would reward states for voluntarily developing clearer, higher academic standards consistent with this goal. It should encourage schools to share best practices and implement better assessments to gauge students’ progress. The law must do more than label failing schools based on proficiency rates.

Third, a reauthorized No Child Left Behind law should integrate competitive grant programs, especially ones spurring innovation, which Congress has funded but not authorized. Many states, including Race to the Top winner Tennessee, used data collected under No Child Left Behind to build comprehensive plans to transform K-12 education.

Competitive grants reward excellence and innovation with a less prescriptive federal role. The new Investing in Innovation program, for example, enhanced the country's educational research and development capacity. The Teacher Incentive Fund program overhauled the way we pay teachers and principals in participating states, districts and charter schools.

Finally, it's urgent that Congress act on the most important finding of No Child Left Behind: The caliber of teachers and principals is the most important lever for improving academic achievement.

Action starts with recruitment. We know that countries that draw teaching talent from the top third of their college graduates outperform the United States in student achievement.

Encouraging districts to use meaningful performance evaluation systems for both teachers and principals is also an important step toward putting the best possible teachers in the classroom — particularly for the kids who need the most help. Another is to require teacher preparation programs to track and publish information about the characteristics of candidates entering their programs and these candidates’ success in promoting student learning gains once they begin teaching.

Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind provides an opportunity for Democrats and Republicans to work together to develop important solutions on a key policy issue. Including these initiatives will go a long way toward making sure our children - especially children living in poverty - receive the comprehensive, globally competitive education they deserve.

Bill Frist, a former Republican Senate majority leader, is chairman of the nonprofit State Collaborative on Reforming Education.

John Podesta is president and chief executive officer of the Center for American Progress and former chief of staff to President Bill Clinton.