nhsba

New Hampshire School Boards Association

Legislative Bulletin

May 13, 2011 

  

A Brief Summary of Education Issues at the State House  

__________________________________________________________ 

Schedule and Deadlines

As the end of session approaches, and the Committee of Conference process begins, legislators will be closely watching established rules and deadlines for the coming weeks. Both the House and Senate have until Thursday, June 2, to act on any Senate or House bill (respectively), within their purview. This means that Committee recommendations that go before the full body (House/Senate) must be completed by May 26. The last day to form a Committee of Conference on a bill is Wednesday, June 8. All Committee of Conference work must be completed by Thursday, June 16 so reports can then be acted on by the legislature no later than Thursday, June 23.  

__________________________________________________________ 

House Education Committee Recommends Significant Revision to Tenure Law

The House Education Committee voted 13-4 in favor of adopting proposed changes offered by Senator Forsythe to NH's "tenure" law (189:14-a). The committee recommendations included in SB 196, changes from three years to five years the time necessary to be eligible for additional rights ("tenure") as provided in RSA 189:14-a. Additional revisions to the statute proposed in SB 196 strengthen the authority of local school boards and hold teachers accountable. NHSBA supports the proposed amendment, which accomplishes the following:

  1. Maintains the bill's proposal to increase the number of years from 3 years to 5 for the additional rights and protections provided in 189:14-a. This allows more time to assess a teacher before making a final decision. A longer probationary period makes sense due to the potential for incurring high termination costs for poor performing employees;
  2. Narrow the scope of appeals available for nonrenewals, making any request for review by the State Board of Education the exclusive remedy.
  3. Prohibit any form of arbitration or other binding resolution for grievances on nonrenewals. Any such provision would become null and void upon the expiration of the contract. These are local issues that require local solution, and should not be subject to an outside third party making decisions that impact school districts. Under the State Board review, local decisions would be upheld unless found to be clearly erroneous;
  4. Prohibit Reduction in Force (RIF) language based solely on seniority for nonrenewals and layoffs. Such "Last In First Out" language hampers many of our school districts, where contractual provisions require layoffs to be determined by seniority, not quality. Barring the use of such seniority clauses will help keep the best teachers working with our students.

NHSBA testified in strong support of these reform measures that streamline the process of nonrenewal while maintaining rights for teachers, including notice requirements.

 

ACTION ITEM

The committee recommendation now goes to the full House for a vote next Wednesday, May 18. It is important to contact your local representatives and voice your support for this proposal. Adoption of the majority amendment restores many provisions that existed from 2003 - 2008 and were based on findings of a task force created by Governor Shaheen. The proposal gives more local discretion to school boards, streamlines the process of appeal for teacher contract nonrenewals, and will benefit student performance. RIF clauses based solely on seniority will be prohibited, allowing retention of the best-qualified staff for our students. It maintains rights for teachers, including notice requirements, and for any hearing on a nonrenewal, the burden of proof is on the superintendent by a preponderance of the evidence. Urge your representative to support the majority committee recommendation of Ought to Pass as Amended (OTP/A).

__________________________________________________________ 

Pension Reform Update

SB 3: The Committee of Conference on SB 3 continues to meet and work on reaching compromise relative to several areas of differences between the House and Senate versions of retirement reform. Focused deliberations have included discussion of the effective date for reform changes, age requirements for both Groups I and II, part-time employment and return to work issues, special duty pay, definitions of both earnable compensation and average final compensation, and the composition of the NHRS Board of Trustees. 

 

Budgetary Concern with Retirement

While reform to the retirement system continues to be reviewed within the Committee of Conference on SB 3, the state share of retirement contributions remains a key topic of discussion within budget deliberations. Both last year and this year saw reductions in the state share, from 35% to 30% last year, and down to 25% this year. While current law returns the state share to 35% in July, most school districts budgeted conservatively for the state share to remain at 25%. As state budget deliberations continue, preliminary indications are that the state is assuming any savings accrued to the pension system based on reform provisions and increased employee contributions can be considered as representing the state share on behalf of local employers. Any direct share in the state paying a percentage of local rates this July may potentially be eliminated. The total rate for teachers will increase 30% in July. With retirement reform, increases will be moderated, but without any state contribution, any actual local savings will be lost since local governments could potentially assume the entire state share.

 

HB 462, modifying the method of calculation of the retirement system employer assessment under RSA 100-A:16, III-a for excess benefits paid to retirees (spiking penalty), was amended in Senate action this week. The bill phases in the required payments over 4 years, and now extends to July 1, 2012 until the penalty assessments are implemented. The amended bill also requires NHRS to develop and implement on the NHRS website an interactive estimator for employers to evaluate probable costs under the new spiking penalty provision. The bottom line on spiking is really addressed by retirement reform provisions contained in SB 3 and HB 580, which both address revisions to the definitions of earnable compensation and average final compensation. The Senate version of SB 3 recognizes this and provided for the repeal of the spiking assessment. HB 462 has been sent to Senate Finance for further review.

__________________________________________________________ 

Education Funding and Constitutional Amendment

SB 183, amending the calculation and distribution of adequate education grants, remains under review by the House Special Committee on Education Funding Reform. A proposed committee amendment deletes most provisions of the bill, replacing it with provisions from the House position adopted in HB 337. Committee deliberations have focused on the Senate inclusion of an additional stipend for 3rd grade students who have not tested at proficiency or above. The proposed change is to provide an additional stipend of $200 for those 3rd grade students who ARE at proficiency, and a $200 penalty for any 3rd grade student NOT testing at proficiency or above. The committee is scheduled to continue meeting next week with a decision expected next Thursday.

 

CACR 12: The House proposal for a constitutional amendment had a public hearing before the Senate Internal Affairs Committee. The proposed language gives the general court "full discretion to define reasonable standards for elementary and secondary public education, to establish reasonable standards of accountability therefore, and to mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity. Further, in the exercise thereof, the general court shall have full discretion to determine the amount of, and methods of raising and distributing, state funding for education."

 

ACTION ITEM

Contact your senator and voice your opposition to this proposal. Specifically share NHSBA's resolution that opposes any effort to amend the constitution in such a way that is contrary to the current interpretation of, and court rulings in, both the Claremont and Londonderry decisions. Local implementation of education programs comes within parameters established both by law and rulemaking. The state is a partner in this venture, and adequate education funding plays an integral role in the support and delivery of education to our children.

 

Targeting aid is already legal and has been included in our recent formulas. The only need for an amendment is to provide 'Targeting' in place of the current base commitment to ALL children, thereby implying that some children in NH are not entitled to a state basic commitment of an adequate education. The proposal seeks to allow providing aid to certain communities at the expense of other, less "needy", communities. While a few outliers of towns in our state may be given as examples of high income and/or low property taxes, the simple fact is that the bulk of our communities are not wealthy towns. Different measures of wealth (property wealth, income wealth, percent of students at-risk, etc.) simply result in different rankings: it is only a relative position on a continuum. Average wealth districts will experience uncertainty resulting from not knowing one year to the next whether they "fall off" the funding continuum or remain as a receiver of needed state aid. The reality is that the majority of districts in our state rely on state funding to help implement the educational programs offered within their schools. Significantly reducing the amount of aid directed to these communities will place significant strain on the local property tax, if those lost revenues are indeed replaced. If not replaced but followed by budget cuts, losses and reductions in educational programs will lead to fewer educational opportunities for our youth. 

___________________________________________________________

For the complete text of any bill, go to the general court web site and enter the bill number, e.g. SB1, HB34 or CACR3 (no spaces!), and make sure the Session Year is 2011.

For more information on specific legislation, please call Dean Michener, NHSBA Director of Governmental Affairs at 603-228-2061, or email: [email protected] 

Dean Michener
NHSBA Dir. of Governmental Affairs