June 1, 1998

To the Honorable Supreme Court Justices as it relates to the constitutionality of the ABC compromise, herein referred to as ABC, and the "A" Plan. Thank you for offering the public an opportunity to express our thoughts and ideas on this matter.

Constitutional law I do not pretend to be expert, but fundamental rights and freedoms I do everything in my power to preserve. I address this court today advocating separation of school and state in matters of curriculum and instructional methods, in accordance with existing state and federal laws.

Yes, the STATE must cherish a sound education for all children. Most NH citizens would agree that the legislature has been remiss in assisting those communities in NEED (by not fully funding Augenblick). Understanding the NH Constitution and the separate powers of the three branches of our government, most citizens would agree that the legislature, NOT THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, is obligated to ensure necessary supplemental educational funds for those districts with low per capita incomes. Extraneous factors could be distilled from the formula perhaps if the supplemental funds were "attached" to the individual child within said district. IN SHORT, BASED ON PER CAPITA INCOME, SUPPLEMENTAL SCHOOL FOUNDATION AID CAN BE ALLOCATED PER NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITHIN SAID "PROPERTY POOR" SCHOOLS OR DISTRICTS. This is but one example of how our elected representatives can address this court's concerns regarding educational funding. Our ELECTED representatives need to adopt provisions guaranteeing fully funding a modified Augenblick Formula on a perpetual basis, as described in the "A" Plan.

ABC flunks "uniform in rate" clause in the Court's decision. Ultimately, property tax cannot meet demands of the Claremont decision. The Court's findings are advisory in nature and now it is the elected representatives' charge to "fix" the educational funding deficiencies. Establishing mandated ABC-defined adequate education criteria is ill-advised and cost prohibitive. The ABC "state education tax" will soar as it has in many other states in the midst of this battle.

ABC removes local control of education, places schools under direct state control, nullifies authority of local ELECTED school boards, and SILENCES THE VOICE OF PARENTS. PARENTS, not more and more money, are the key component to school improvement success, as Doug Hall's study demonstrated several years ago.

Since my children entered elementary school in 1993, I have been an ardent student of public education reform efforts both as an active parent and as serving as a school board member for three years. I attended the worthwhile Senate hearings on the NH Education Improvement and Assessment Program (NHEIAP) earlier this year at which time the NHEIAP received maybe a C+ or B grade on its Report Card. The assessment program is in its infancy, in need of greater analysis and validation before it can ever be considered a vehicle for sanctions, as in ABC.

Over the past 5 years, I have become familiar with education laws, sometimes out of necessity. The current public education hierarchy is already too cumbersome and many times parent-UNfriendly. Let me take a moment to cite several of these laws. THE FURTHER EDUCATION IS REMOVED FROM LOCAL LEVEL ELECTED OFFICIALS, AS IS THE NATIONAL TREND, THE MORE INEFFECTIVE THE SYSTEM.

Public Law 96-88, Title I, Section 101, no. 3 states: "Parents have the primary responsibility for the education of their children and states, localities, and private interests have the primary responsibility for supporting that parental role; . . ."

In 1970, Congress placed an amendment in the General Education Provision Act to specifically include, again, a "Prohibition Against Federal Control of Education." This prohibits the federal government from exercising: direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system . . .

Public Law 92-318, Section 432 expressly forbids the federal government establishing or developing curriculum, much less nationalizing it. The US-DOE has in fact developed a national curriculum embodied within School to Work and Goals 2000. There is a definite element of federal and state coercion with regard to "voluntary" LOCAL LEVEL participation in these programs. The state mandated NHEIAP (NH assessment program exclusively state-controlled at a tune of over $1 million dollars annually) is the main component of the coercive state/federal strategies.

ABC rewards and penalizes local districts based on an assessment system lacking any system of checks and balances. ABC will remove any and all doubt that NH has infused a federalized educational system, right down to the individual student. It is the final nail in the coffin. Not only is this government controlled systemic approach doomed at the outset like so many other big government social programs, removal of parental controls will only add to further academic decline. As we speak, there is a nonstop infusion of "too many to count" nonacademic priorities further burdening our educators. Educators have 180 days each year and each day must be used to empower students with valued knowledge and skills. ABC selects and compels upon its citizens the STATE'S ideas on valued knowledge and skills.

NH has SOLD OUT to federally-controlled Goals 2000 and to the ever-reaching School to Work (STW) tentacles at a tremendous financial commitment. The radical STW educational overhaul is but one extreme example of how unaccountable, unelected people went ahead and usurped the taxpayer and the parents' fundamental right to be active participants in overseeing public education and associated costs. The state STW application indicates that "NH will redirect $16,837,029.00 in the first year, and an estimated $85-100 million in the full five years in order to bring to fruition a complete School to Work system that effect's all of NH's youth, resulting in a total systemic change in education." In this same paragraph it adds, "This effort is ambitious, so as to create substantial impetus for change across the state among local partnerships and to leverage very significant amounts of local school monies, private resources, other federal, and state dollars during the period of the grant." The contract concludes in August 2000. NH will then fully fund STW.

As a result of the 1984 Constitution Convention, Part I, Article 28-a protects taxpayers from an overzealous government by prohibiting unfunded mandates. ABC NULLIFIES Article 28-a. We, the people, spoke loudly and clearly in 1984. We, the people, continue to remind our NH government that we want local accountability and local control of the purse strings through the ever popular adoption of RSA:40:13, district, by district, by district. Another law demonstrating the NH citizens' desire to have a voice and exemplifies public school accountability is our Charter School law. The ABC compromise compromises this sorely needed option to expedite academic excellence and meeting of the diverse community needs. If you are espousing equal educational opportunity for all students, do not bring NH charter school endeavors under strict ABC state- controlled "adequate education criteria.

Without a local voice, faceless officials make decisions directly affecting our children. This is not good for New Hampshire's children.

Champion children. Preserve NH's tradition of representative government.

Your role is clearly defined in our Constitution. Let's not waste valuable time and energy through endless litigation battling "strict scrutiny difference" with the state upholding its "compelling interest." Let's not create policy through litigation. The Supreme Court process is the least democratic system and cannot be the decision making arm in educational matters.

Say "No" to the ABC compromise. Say "Yes" to the "A" Plan.

Sincerely,

Linda Camarota



Submitted by Linda Camarota on June 1, 1998 to the Supreme Court
former Bedford School Board Member (1994-1997)
parent of elementary aged children
active school nurse for inner city school population