ARS on Twitter
RSS
Define constitutionally adequate education
Posted by Raven on September 8th, 2006
New Hampshire Supreme Court told the state legislators to define education.
CONCORD – A divided state Supreme Court today told the Legislature to come up with a legally valid definition of a “constitutionally adequate education,” but did not immediately throw out the current statewide funding system.
If a mid-2007 deadline is not met, the court may overturn the funding plan, appoint a special master to define an adequate education, or may decide whether current funding levels are adequate.
“The task of developing specific criteria of an adequate education is for the Legislature,” the court said. But if its new deadline is not met, the court warned, “a judicial remedy is not only appropriate but essential.”
The court said it has repeatedly deferred to lawmakers to write a definition.
What is a “constitutionally adequate education”? anyway? Not something kids get in public schools, surely?
September 11th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Those guys are clearly amateurs when it comes to despotism! Tell them to watch how North Carolina does education — ONE SINGLE judge in NC has self-proclaimed himself King of Education and now gets to determine ALL spending levels of all schools in the state and exactly how much they should teach, who, and for how long.
And no, the fact that the Constitution says that the legislature directs spending, NOT judicial, doesn’t seem to bother him.
September 14th, 2006 at 9:34 am
An excellent web page for studying the Claremont cases and arguments is:
http://www.mainstream.com/nhpolitics/
I personally keep coming back to the fact that the writers of the constitution did not have state-funded public schools. Surely they knew the meaning of their own document better than we do.