The Granite Beat: Following the story — Michael Kitch and the past 30 years reporting on a suit on children’s education

In this episode, reporters Julie Hirshan Hart and Adam Drapcho talk with Michael Kitch, a historian and a writer who for many years was the senior reporter for The Laconia Daily Sun, making the happenings of Laconia City Hall as transparent as possible for our readers. Lately, he's been writing for the New Hampshire Business Review, notably covering what might be one of the most important legal questions in the state's history. That question is, how much should the state be contributing to each child's public education?

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

Adam Drapcho: Michael, your career is an example of what I like to think of as the unconventional avenue into journalism. Could you give us a sense of your professional background and how and why you became a journalist?

Michael Kitch: Well, the simple answer is it was a job. I spent approximately 15 years as a history teacher at the University of London and eventually soured on academic life, and returned to the United States and held a number of jobs in Washington over a period of about, I want to say three or four years. And then one way and another, I came to New Hampshire and started freelancing for what was then the New Hampshire Times and then joined the New Hampshire Business Review. And from there work for, I think, three or four years at New Hampshire Savings Bank Corporation as a corporate communications officer, then went to work for the United States for the New Hampshire Senate. And I got fired twice. After the second firing, I ended up at The Laconia Daily Sun.

Drapcho: How did you get involved in this story about this lawsuit?

Kitch: Well, as it happened, when I worked in the Senate, the very day that the second Claremont decision, I was there in the 1990s. So I was working in the Senate when the first Claremont decision came down in 1993, which we can talk about that decision later. But that was the decision that required the state to provide an adequate education. And then the second decision that came down in 1997, which held that the property taxes funding education were unconstitutional. And I worked in the Senate when both of those decisions were dropped on the Legislature. So I've been following this now for the past, nearly, well, 30 years.

Drapcho: Yeah, I was gonna ask you if you could bring us back to the 20th century and tell us about those initial Claremont cases and what sort of outcome was generated?

Kitch: Well, there were two decisions. The first decision that the court made in 1993 was based on part two, Article 83 of the Constitution, which imposed a duty on the state to provide every eligible child with an adequate education and to guarantee adequate funding. And that decision effectively created a constitutional right to an adequate education. And four years later, the court found that the property taxes that were local property taxes were paying for education and ruled that to the extent that property taxes were used to pay for an adequate education, they must be equal in valuation and uniform and rate throughout the state. And that was based on part two Article 5 of the Constitution. And those were the foundational decisions that the court made. And the state wrestled with that for a number of years, and really only addressed it in 2008. And they passed then two statutes, one that defined the content of an adequate education and the other, which provided the cost of an adequate education.

Drapcho: What was the basis of their argument about it being inadequate and unconstitutional?

Kitch: Their argument was that they listed seven flaws. For example, the state didn't cover the cost of transportation, which was not less than $400 in any district, per student. They base their cost on teacher ratios of 1 to 25, to 30, when teacher-student ratios were nowhere greater than 1 to 17. Teacher benefits, including retirement, health care, etc. weren't factored in. School nurses, which are required, were not factored in. Superintendents services were not factored in. Food services, which run about $70 million a year in costs were only offset by about $37 million in revenues, left the deficit of $33 million, which was borne by the school districts. Nothing, there was no money for operating and maintaining school buildings, which average about $1,400 a student. Those were the specific costs that Con Val came up with, and they suggested that the state should contribute at least just short of $10,000 per student. The other way to look at this and, perhaps it's simpler, is to say that currently, the cost of adequacy is $3,786.66 per student. The average cost per student across the state is $19,399.97.

Drapcho: Yeah, well, I think that gets to an important element of the argument, if I understand it correctly, which has to do with equity, and because that difference between what it costs to actually educate a child and what you get from the state, there are some communities that handle that difference in a different way than their neighboring communities. Would you be able to explain how this plays out from town to town across the state?

Kitch: What happens is that the gap between what the state provides and what the actual costs are is primarily paid for by local property taxes. Approximately 61% of total costs are borne by property tax, local property taxes, another 10% to 12% are borne by the statewide education property tax, which is simply a surcharge on the local property tax. So in effect, property taxes pay for just short of 75% of the cost of public education. And because property values differ so widely across the state, those local property tax rates vary considerably. Some towns pay four times more than others. It's what the Supreme Court in the Claremont decisions called fiscal mischief.

Drapcho: So now we're waiting to find out which arguments sways the judge?

Kitch: Well, the fact of the matter is that whatever judge rule may decide in the ConVal case, it will be appealed, and the decision will rest with the Supreme Court. And the question then is whether the Supreme Court stands by the Claremont decisions and how firmly it stands by those decisions.

Drapcho: You mentioned when we were talking on the phone to set up this  recording that there was also another suit involving public education in the state, I think the Rand suit, is that right?

Michael Kitch: Yes, it's called the Rand suit. It's brought by Andrew Volinsky and John Tobin and Natalie Laflamme on behalf of five property tax payers. And Volinsky and Tobin were both party to the Claremont cases, they litigated both of those. Natalie Laflamme is a young woman who was in second grade when the Claremont decisions came down at Berlin High School. She graduated as valedictorian, went to Georgetown University and Duke Law School and has now joined with Volinsky and Tobin in pursuing the Rand case. The Rand case is different in the sense that the primary thrust of the case is on behalf of property taxpayers in districts that are paying disproportionate property tax. And the challenge there is to the variation in local property taxes. However, the link between the common ground between ConVal and Rand is the cost of adequacy. So, if local property taxpayers are paying approximately 60% of the cost of education, then those tax rates vary from one place to another. It's because the cost of the state is not paying its share. In other words, the cost of adequacy is too low. So the Rand suit also makes the case that the adequacy number of approximately $4,000, a little less than that, means that the burden is passed to local property taxes, which vary in rate throughout the state and are therefore unconstitutional.

Drapcho: Well, Michael, could you give us a sense of what you're working on now? Or what sorts of stories people might want to keep on a lookout for that you're working on?

Kitch: I'm following this. I've got 30 years invested in it. I hope I live long enough to see a conclusion. But otherwise, the only other thing I've got on the horizon is a visit to the Manchester Technical College School where the kids are building an airplane.

Drapcho: Well that sounds like a refreshing alternative to this court case.

Kitch: Yeah. This trial was very difficult to cover, because so much of the testimony was very — the state particularly simply questioned business administrators and superintendents about their expenses. Much of the testimony was very detailed examination of school budgets, and trying to essentially expose these unnecessary expenses. The state at one point did allow that heat and light were generally important.

Julie Hirshan Hart: So let's end with some advice for our listeners. You've been a journalist here in New Hampshire for a very long time and other places as well. What advice would you offer somebody who's interested in starting their career in journalism?

Kitch: Oh, boy, get a good education. That's the first thing abroad education, obviously reading and writing skills, but above all, critical thinking skills and the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff, and follow sometimes complex arguments. I think that in general, a liberal arts education is probably the best background for someone interested in a career in journalism.

•••

This article is part of The Granite Beat, a project by The Laconia Daily Sun and The Granite State News Collaborative, of which Laconia is a partner. Each week Adam Drapcho and Julie Hirshan Hart will explore with local reporters how they got some of the most impactful stories in our state and why they matter. This project is being shared with partners in The Granite State News Collaborative.