It seems to me that we have an obvious need for change in our public education system. From what you've pointed out here, it's obvious 'the system' has strayed from the course set for it in our State Constitution. Now, about fixing it...............
Art 83 is in the Second Part of the NH Constitution. It is the "form of government" section. In the First Section, the Rights Section, the constitution clearly notes that the localities have the full power to control their school funding/contracting. Thus, any state interreference that can have an effect on local budget decisions for education is unconstitutional. The original 1993 suit was part of a nationwide attempt to centralize govt-school funding and pedagogy in the central governments of many states. The move was pushed in numerous states, including Texas and NJ, and was promoted by people connected to teachers unions, the heads of which were aware that they could more easily lobby one centralized authority than try to see the results they wanted by having to work in each separate community. The Claremont decisions are two of the worst in NH history. I sat on a panel with former NH Supreme Court Justice Bechelder and he agreed with me (he was a dissenter on the Claremont I ruling) that the control of education is supposed to be in the local hands and that Art 83 is merely a provision that allows state politicians to hand out special gifts to schools, seminaries, etc. If that Article laid out a so-called right to an "adequate" education (as defined by the govt, which is impossible, because valuation is subjective and has to be revealed by market transactions conducted by free people) then the same Article 83 would mean that there is a "right" to some government-determined level of "scientific" research -- the provision of Article 83 pertaining to "scientific research" also being misread to make it a "right". There are no positive rights to anything, only the right to be free from coercion and antagonism from others. Every aspect of the Claremont decisions is wildly improper, but, sadly, few people will stand up against it and for what actually is written in the NH Constitution or for natural rights.
I had to look up inculcation.
It seems to me that we have an obvious need for change in our public education system. From what you've pointed out here, it's obvious 'the system' has strayed from the course set for it in our State Constitution. Now, about fixing it...............
Art 83 is in the Second Part of the NH Constitution. It is the "form of government" section. In the First Section, the Rights Section, the constitution clearly notes that the localities have the full power to control their school funding/contracting. Thus, any state interreference that can have an effect on local budget decisions for education is unconstitutional. The original 1993 suit was part of a nationwide attempt to centralize govt-school funding and pedagogy in the central governments of many states. The move was pushed in numerous states, including Texas and NJ, and was promoted by people connected to teachers unions, the heads of which were aware that they could more easily lobby one centralized authority than try to see the results they wanted by having to work in each separate community. The Claremont decisions are two of the worst in NH history. I sat on a panel with former NH Supreme Court Justice Bechelder and he agreed with me (he was a dissenter on the Claremont I ruling) that the control of education is supposed to be in the local hands and that Art 83 is merely a provision that allows state politicians to hand out special gifts to schools, seminaries, etc. If that Article laid out a so-called right to an "adequate" education (as defined by the govt, which is impossible, because valuation is subjective and has to be revealed by market transactions conducted by free people) then the same Article 83 would mean that there is a "right" to some government-determined level of "scientific" research -- the provision of Article 83 pertaining to "scientific research" also being misread to make it a "right". There are no positive rights to anything, only the right to be free from coercion and antagonism from others. Every aspect of the Claremont decisions is wildly improper, but, sadly, few people will stand up against it and for what actually is written in the NH Constitution or for natural rights.