State representative Jonah Orion Wheeler lives in Peterborough.

Even before the November decision in ConVal School District v. State of New Hampshire, I filed House Bill 1583 seeking to codify the base adequacy increase that the ConVal plaintiffs were arguing for.

Since the first Claremont decision, the courts have been clear that the state has a responsibility to fund an adequate education for New Hampshire students. But, the amount the state currently pays in base adequacy aid, to fulfill that responsibility, falls far short of the actual cost of education.

Local school districts had an average total expenditure of over $24,000 per student in the 2022-23 school year. Meanwhile, base adequacy was increased in the state budget passed this past spring to only $4,100 per pupil.

The ConVal plaintiffs argued that base adequacy needed to be increased to at least $9,900 plus transportation costs. This number was developed by ConVal Superintendent Dr. Kimberly Rizzo Saunders as a conservative estimate for the true cost of delivering a constitutionally adequate education, and the evidence presented at trial supported the conclusion that base adequacy must be increased.

During the three-week-long trial in the ConVal case, we heard from superintendent after superintendent that they would not be able to operate their school district on adequacy alone. Meanwhile, the court wrote in its decision that it felt that “The State presented no evidence to justify the current base adequacy amount.”

The major difference between the state’s adequacy number and what was calculated by Dr. Saunders includes the cost of non-classroom services that are necessary to be able to ensure students can actually access that instruction. The main cost drivers that Dr. Saunders focused on were student transportation, school nurses, food service, and building and facilities costs.

There should be no debate that all of these are necessary for students to be able to fully access their right to a constitutionally adequate education. Just this week we’ve had a big snowstorm, and school districts had to clear snow and ice from around their buildings so students and staff could enter the building safely. But the current position of the state, which it argued for in the courtroom, is that expenses like snow removal, heat, and electricity, were not part of an adequate education.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Neighboring landowner objection stalls Steeplegate redevelopment approval

How has Hopkinton, one of the smallest public schools in New Hampshire, become such a lacrosse powerhouse?

For some older Jewish professors at Dartmouth and UNH, opposition to campus arrests feels personal

Northeast Coffee Festival comes to Concord this weekend

Driven by capital projects, city budget proposal would boost spending by $40 million

Henniker Handmade & Homegrown

Following the Claremont rulings, the state Legislature has not acted to sufficiently fulfill its constitutional mandate to fund an adequate education, downshifting the responsibility for funding onto local property taxpayers. When you include the Statewide Education Property Tax, which has been collected and retained locally for over a decade and is in effect a local tax, local property taxes accounted for over 70 percent of all school revenue in New Hampshire last year.

That means communities with lower property values are saddled with higher tax rates while being able to provide their students with fewer educational opportunities than communities with high property values, and rates differ wildly between towns based on their property values. Just in the ConVal district, tax rates ranged from $11.33 per $1,000 in Antrim to $20.47 in Greenfield last year.

HB 1583 would shift more of the responsibility of funding public education to the state and off the backs of local property taxpayers. Education is clearly established in the New Hampshire Constitution as a state responsibility, and increasing base adequacy would provide significant relief for the majority of taxpayers in the state while opening doors to new opportunities for students.

The court wrote in its decision that it relied heavily on Dr. Saunders’ analysis in setting a new adequacy floor of no less than $7,356.01 per student.

My experience as a graduate of the ConVal school district has proved this change in adequate funding is needed. ConVal is one of the better performing schools in the region, with a lot more opportunities than surrounding schools. The best example of that is the Conant district, ten minutes down the road, which has significantly less opportunities because of its funding. This is a fundamentally unfair reality and puts New Hampshire’s students who happen to live in property-poor districts in a worse-off position than their peers in neighboring towns.

With that experience, I know the impact that this bill would have on ConVal schools and students around New Hampshire.

The Legislature does not need to wait for the ConVal case to make its way to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The precedent of Claremont is clear that we have the prerogative and duty to fund education, and we can do that this session with HB 1583.

Join me in calling for the Legislature to increase state funding for education. This is an investment in the future of our state and our students, one that we cannot continue to undervalue and underfund.