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

2. 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. 3 Key Components of School Finance Reform: Similarities For both states, apparent large increase in state role in financing education

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

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

6. 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. 7 Key Components of School Finance Reform: Differences MA: Highest court takes itself out of school funding (Hancock, 2005) NH: the litigation continues

8. 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. 9 State and Local Tax Burden Best measured relative to personal income In 2002, MA ranks 39 th In 2002, NH ranks 50 th