Students attending the Bedford and Pittsfield school districts in New Hampshire couldn’t have more different educational experiences. Bedford is a well-off, leafy suburb west of Manchester, with a well-supported property tax base. On the other hand, Pittsfield is a small, rural property-poor town and may even have to shutter its high school. The heavy dependence on local property taxes for education funding in New Hampshire makes a huge difference in what kind of education public students receive.
According to the New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project, in 2023, Bedford offered 23 world language courses; Pittsfield, three. Bedford had 26 math courses; Pittsfield, 10. Bedford offered 11 computer technologies courses; Pittsfield, two. Bedford had six English electives; Pittsfield offered none. Bedford had 14 Advanced Placement offerings; Pittsfield had none.
This disparity is exacerbated by the fact that New Hampshire ranks 50th in the nation for its state share of funding for public education.
The Legislature recently passed, and Gov. Ayotte signed, one bill and is considering others that will make things exponentially worse.
HB1815, which is now law, and HB1121, under consideration, are similar and narrow the definition of an adequate education to fund the cost of providing a core list of academic subjects and does not increase state education aid. Yet court decisions have found that the state has a constitutional obligation to provide funding for the resources necessary for an adequate education opportunity. The intent is to make funding a political policy matter, not a constitutional requirement and allow the state to leave school districts dependent on local property taxes, which voters have repeatedly said they oppose.
SB 101 is an open enrollment measure that would give base per-pupil state funding (now about $4,200) plus a $5,000 bonus to public schools that take transfer students from anywhere in the state. This is about twice the regular state per-pupil funding level just for leaving their home district. Remember that old Republican phrase – Leave No Child Behind? This proposed policy would leave behind all the kids who remain in their local public school without any additional state funding that could be used for improvements. Lots of families want their kids to go to school in their district and many don’t have transportation options to go to a school outside their school boundary. Those that can are being incentivized to exit.
So we’re on to you, Republican lawmakers who support this. There apparently is plenty of money available to give to the receiving schools from the Education Trust, but local school districts where kids are staying would be forced to make do without any additional funding for improvements.
You can’t make this stuff up. These bills would provide no property tax relief, which Granite Staters have begged for. They would allow for less state funding for struggling school districts, like Pittsfield, that lose students, which would force harmful cuts to programs, staff and services for those who remain.
They would undermine neighborhood public schools and break apart communities. They would provide bags of money for receiving schools, like Bedford, that are already better funded because of stronger property tax bases and have popular sports, band and other programs that all schools should be able to provide.
The question raised in hearings remains unanswered: what problem does open enrollment solve? It seems only to solve the extremist agenda of creating borderless school districts in order to weaken communities. Is this what New Hampshire voters want?
People care about their local public schools. In fact, nearly 100 communities voted against this kind of state-imposed, unlimited open enrollment in their local town meetings recently.
Rather than fix school funding, lower property taxes and help all students get an equal and well-resourced education no matter where they live, New Hampshire Republicans want to double down on its reputation as the worst funder of public education in the nation. SB 101 offers an unmerited gift to a select few whose families have the time and transportation to move them from a struggling school to an already and yet somehow increasingly better-funded one.
This makes absolutely no sense.
Deb Howes is president of AFT-New Hampshire.