Letter to the Editor:
Thankfully, Rep Cordelli proved the purpose of my previous letter was not that obscure since he referenced several applicable purposes. I will add, a primary element of the letter's purpose was informational. I dare say, many, if not most NH parents, are not aware of all the choices they and their children have educationally - many choices that have existed for decades and are in the public sphere.
In fact, I wonder how many of Rep Cordelli's constituents are aware of all the existing options. Cordelli has spent considerable time as a representative developing/supporting ways of providing more options for parents - many outside of public education. Rather than people thinking about what choices to add -- how about more effectively, efficiently and productively using the existing choices?
We don't have to agree on all the examples I listed. Likely we have different definitions of 'choice'. Regardless, there are enough options that even if we disagree with some there are sufficient others remaining. The reality is, most parents do not feel the need to access alternatives and those who might consider alternatives are not aware of the range of existing options. Hence, educating parents and students about existing choices and making those options easily accessible will likely address many if not all needs.
In response to one of his comments, there is nothing insulting about having a child with a disability or having a student who has an IEP. In fact, an IEP provides an opportunity for a parent and the entire educational environment to shape education and resources provided for their child, focusing on opportunities which best support their child's development in the least restrictive environment. Isn't that a good thing? And aren't IEPs an opportunity for a parent to shape their child's education to better address their needs? Isn't that the goal of choice?
I will also note, many parents understand they are not educational experts and do not have a perspective which always allows them to see what is best educationally for their child. Teachers and educational staff can in fact expand the horizons of parents; and a professional view of a child can benefit children immensely. Suggesting parents are the only ones who can understand their child is sadly limiting and in some cases, not just in cases of abuse and neglect but even in very cohesive family environments, detrimental to children.
I also wonder if Cordelli understands, having choices does not mean they are being used by those who most need them. Most often 'choices' serve those who have the time, resources and skills to access them. Again, perhap more choices is not the issue. Instead, support for parents and children in clarifying their real need(s), identifying existing choices that could meet that need, and accessing the chosen resource is the better use of what will always be limited resources. (e.g. limited resources on all fronts: time, family resources, educational resources, etc)
As far as the $ data he listed, the point I raised was not how much money is spent per student by school districts. My point was related to the state's responsibility for funding. It has been clearly determined -- it is the state's responsibility to provide funding which covers an adequate education. Virtually no one says state funding presently covers this.
His argument: if the state provided the funding it is responsible for we would lose local control is specicious. The state isn't providing the funding now and yet the state still has standards in all aspects of education, from facilities to curriculum to administration, for all public schools in the state. In fact the state set standards and regulations before the 'Claremont' decision. Yet we still determine what at the local control. There's nothing which precludes the state from providing the necessary funds and assuming no added control.
There was nothing in my letter about a sales tax or any other tax. I did not insist on or advocate any particular funding mechanism. In fact, I noted the state isn't even sending to the towns all the education funds available. (And I did note: the state is using some funds for choices in which the towns have had little if any input.) Nor did I say nothing else was being done related to education. No doubt time is being filled with many activities -- but it is not being used to address this critical issue.
The legislature could start with distributing all the funds available to towns. And when they do that -- don't represent the 'increase' in funds as if it is a gift --- it is still less than you're responsible for. If you pay a greater part of your rent bill in a month but less than you owe -- your landlord doesn't call the increase a gift. They ask where is the rest of the money.
In fact, the Legislature has had decades to address this issue and have not. If the court finds me responsible for something I don't have the option of saying -- I don't agree with your decision so I'm not going to abide by it; or it is too difficult for me to pay so I'm not going to pay. Neither should the legislature. The court certainly wouldn't accept my argument -- well I thought it was more important to buy x ( or how I used extra funds) so I don't have money for what I knew I owed the school districts.
Yes, it will be difficult --and no I'm not telling you what the solution is -- we elect our legislators to tackle these difficult tasks. Obviously, there is no 'silver bullet'. I will say, it's not necessary to wait for another lawsuit verdict. The focus of the legislature should be on completely meeting the state's responsibility for public education funding.
Karen Burnett-Kurie
Comments