New Hampshire’s Twenty Billion Dollar Man
Near the beginning of the century, Andru Volinsky persuaded the New Hampshire state supreme court to turn Article 83 of the New Hampshire state constitution on its head [1]. The result? Every school district in the state is now spending more per student per year than any district (except Waterville Valley) was spending before that. Today it is averaging at least $10,000 more per student. And that’s adjusted for inflation.
Today, every district in New Hampshire spends like a rich district.
During this time, we have seen no measurable increases in student achievement. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since Volinsky’s entire crusade was, and is now, to pursue equality of spending instead of quality of results.
That is, he ignores what might be the two most fundamental questions that need to be considered in any serious discussion of education and schooling (which, we must always remember, are two very different things).
First, if a student wants to learn, who can stop him? (No one.) And how much should it cost to educate a motivated student? (Once he can read, almost nothing.)
Second, if a student doesn’t want to learn, who can make him? (No one.) And how much would it cost to educate a student against his will? (There isn’t enough money in the world.)
There are currently about 160,000 students in New Hampshire tax-funded schools [2]. Multiply that by $10,000 per student, and it comes to at least $1.6 billion dollars per year. (Keep in mind that these are the most conservative possible estimates.) That’s the extra amount that we’re paying each year for nothing, except to boost Volinsky’s ego.
It’s left as an exercise to the reader to calculate the total cost of this debacle over the nearly three decades that have passed since the Claremont decisions were handed down. But even a conservative estimate puts it at over $20 billion. [3]
People who read and listen to what Volinsky is now saying should ask themselves: If this is the cost of his previous crusade (billions of dollars in school spending, in exchange for no increases in results), can we really afford his next crusade?
[1] Article 83, Part 2 says a lot of things. One thing it says is that the legislature must ‘cherish’ both seminaries and public schools. This term has never been defined in any court decision, statute, or regulation. But it’s clear that the legislature can’t fund, operate, or regulate a seminary. So the plain language of the document forbids it from doing any of these things for public schools. Another thing it says is that the state has a duty to protect the inherent and essential right of the people to free and fair competition from all monopolies or conspiracies that would hinder or destroy it. Volinsky and the court agreed that this means: It is the duty of the state to fund, operate, and regulate a monopoly to destroy competition in education.
[2] I use the more accurate term tax-funded school rather than the more commonly used term public school. These schools are not public, in the sense that something like a public park or a public thoroughfare or a public accommodation is. In a true public school, any person, of any age, who lives anywhere, could attend the school. Perhaps more importantly, any person who does not want to be in the school – for example, a teenager who feels his time would be better spent in other pursuits — would be free to leave.
[3] Over that time, enrollment has dropped from well over 200,000 students, while both per-student spending and total spending has continued to increase. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation would put the total figure at 25 years times $5000 per student per year times 180,000 students, which comes to roughly $22.5 billion dollars. Again, that’s adjusted for inflation. It just reflects the increases resulting from Claremont, not total spending. And the actual amount would be much larger.