1 / 9

MASSACHUSETTS & NEW HAMPSHIRE CASE STUDIES

This presentation explores the school finance reform cases in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, highlighting the key components and differences between the two states. It also discusses the tax and expenditure limits and the state and local tax burden in both states.

eparker
Download Presentation

MASSACHUSETTS & NEW HAMPSHIRE CASE STUDIES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MASSACHUSETTS & NEW HAMPSHIRECASE STUDIES Presentation to the Connecticut Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee October 26, 2005 Daphne A. Kenyon Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

  2. School Funding Decisions of Highest Courts • New Hampshire • Claremont I (1993): State has responsibility to provide an adequate education • Claremont II (1997): Local property tax cannot be used to fund an adequate education • Massachusetts • McDuffy (1993): Current school funding system denies plaintiffs an adequate education

  3. Key Components of School Finance Reform: Similarities • For both states, apparent large increase in state role in financing education

  4. State Aid as a Percent of K-12 Revenue, 2003-2004

  5. State Aid as a Percent of K-12 Revenue, 2003-2004 (Adjusted)

  6. Key Components of School Finance Reform: Differences • NH enacts a state-wide property tax (MA doesn’t ) • MA enacts an accountability system (NH doesn’t) • MA targets aid to neediest districts (NH doesn’t)

  7. Key Components of School Finance Reform: Differences • MA: Highest court takes itself out of school funding (Hancock, 2005) • NH: the litigation continues

  8. Tax and Expenditure Limits (TELs) • MA enacts Proposition 2 ½ in 1980 • NH appears not to have a TEL, but really does • Lack of broad-based income or sales tax • Philosophical commitment to utility of a structural deficit

  9. State and Local Tax Burden • Best measured relative to personal income • In 2002, MA ranks 39th • In 2002, NH ranks 50th

More Related