Every January, I join my neighbors at our local school district annual meeting. We debate budgets, ask tough questions and vote on what we believe our children’s education is worth.
In 2025, more than 1,500 people packed in the Kearsarge Regional School District’s annual Deliberative Session. It was the largest turnout anyone could remember. One question dominated: Should we cap school spending?
The answer wasn’t close: 92% of voters rejected the proposal.
This was more than just a budget vote. It was our community saying that these decisions need to be made locally. More than that, they voted in support of strong public schools and reaffirmed the high value of public education.
Yet today, some lawmakers in Concord want to override votes like ours with a statewide school spending cap. They say they’re protecting taxpayers. Their proposal undermines what would be a gross overstep in the local rule that defines our Granite State and runs contrary to the decision voters have made with conviction.
As a member of the Kearsarge Regional School District Municipal Budget Committee, I’ve seen how these decisions are made. School budgets are developed with care and surgical precision. They are debated line-by-line by nonpartisan community members, educators, parents and taxpayers who all want the same thing: a great education at a price we can afford.
The real question is why local communities are being forced to pay so much in the first place.
New Hampshire spends nearly $22,700 per student each year, ranking among the top states in the nation. For the Kearsarge District, the most current figure is higher at roughly $27,600 per student largely due to the realities of operating in a rural region — such as longer student transportation routes spread across approximately 300 square miles and fixed operating costs spread over fewer students. Some people hear that, and without doing the math, conclude that our schools already receive plenty of funding.
But that’s only half the story.
When you look at how much the State of New Hampshire contributes, we rank last in the nation. Dead last.
The State of New Hampshire contributed only 29% compared to a national average of 44%. In turn, local property taxes cover roughly 72% of education costs. And even that “state share” is misleading, because a significant portion of the State’s Education Trust Fund is derived from the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT) — a tax also raised directly from local property owners and then redistributed through Concord.
When you separate true state revenue from local property taxes routed through the state, the state’s real contribution to education is even smaller — leaving homeowners to carry most of the cost of educating our children.
Adequate state funding for education is not a partisan policy preference. It is codified in the New Hampshire Constitution. Part II, Article 83 which requires the state to cherish the interest of public schools and to encourage and support education. In practice, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean the state has a constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education and to fund it in a way that does not rely primarily on local property wealth.
Currently, that constitutional obligation is not being met.
The result is easy to see every time a property tax bill arrives in the mail.
Families, seniors, and first-time homebuyers are being squeezed harder every year. When local budgets increase because costs continue to rise, current state leaders point the finger at towns and accuse them of overspending. That’s backwards.
To reduce property taxes, we must address the source of the problem.
That starts with the state meeting its responsibility to fund public education.
It also means spending existing taxpayer dollars more responsibly.
I do not support a broad-based income tax or sales tax. We don’t need one. Instead, we need to re-enact income limits on Education Freedom Accounts and return the program to its original purpose, helping families who otherwise could not afford another educational option. This would reallocate roughly $100 million in state funding back to local public schools over a two-year period. Resulting in real benefits to our children and felt by homeowners through lower property taxes.
We should also look at modest increases to taxes on tobacco and vaping products. We also have a responsibility to make sure the largest corporations benefiting from New Hampshire’s workforce and infrastructure are paying their fair share.
These are practical and immediate steps to reduce pressure on property taxpayers and strengthen our public schools, without creating new taxes.
When the state meets its constitutional responsibility, local communities don’t have to make up the difference. Property taxes will become more manageable. Local voters retain local control.
Until then local homeowners will continue paying the price.
Rebecca Harned is a mom, scientist, and resident of Sutton. She serves on the Kearsarge School District’s Municipal Budget Committee.