In November, a State of New Hampshire Superior Court judge issued rulings in cases related to education adequacy aid and the statewide education property tax (SWEPT) that confirmed what we have known all along – the state has failed to adequately fund public education, instead downshifting costs to local communities.
By way of background, New Hampshire’s public education funding system has been the subject of much litigation and legislation over the past thirty years. As explained by the NH School Funding Fairness Project, in a series of rulings beginning with Claremont School District v. Governor of New Hampshire, in 1997 the New Hampshire Supreme Court found that the state must define an adequate education that includes more than mere basics, determine its costs, fund it with constitutional taxes, and ensure its delivery through accountability. The Court has also determined that, if property taxes are used to fund education, they must be levied at a uniform rate.
While the 2023-24 state budget appropriated more public education funding than ever before, the state still only funds a small percentage of the cost of each child’s public school education. The average price tag of public school education is $22,000 per pupil; currently, the state provides only about $4,800 per pupil. New Hampshire’s share of education spending is actually the lowest in the nation – with local property taxpayers making up the rest. In communities with lower property values, residents shoulder a disproportionate burden.
In Judge Ruoff’s ruling in ConVal School District vs. State of New Hampshire, he wrote:
“What is the base cost to provide the opportunity for an adequate education 239 years after that fundamental right was ratified in our Constitution? The short answer is that the Legislature should have the final word, but the base adequacy cost can be no less than $7356.01 per pupil per year and the true cost is likely much higher than that. At a minimum this is an increase of $537,550,970.95 in base adequacy aid to New Hampshire Schools. Thus, the current allocation of $4100 per pupil is unconstitutional.”
Reaching Higher NH used the stated figure, combined with the most current enrollment data from the NH Department of Education, to estimate that abiding by the ruling could increase school funding to public schools by about $1.25 billion over the next two years. This includes funding to district public schools only and does not include state funding to public charter schools.
To see Reaching Higher NH’s town-by-town estimates for 2023-24 and 2024-25, click here.
This week, the state signaled its intention to appeal Ruoff’s decision and has asked the court to stay the order until the state Supreme Court has considered its appeal and issued final judgment, in addition to a legislative session after that. As reported in the NH Business Review, “In its motion to stay Judge Ruoff’s order, the state argues that if the order were to take effect immediately, the state would be unable to distribute state aid in the form of adequacy grants to school districts until the Legislature remedied the flaws in the existing system of funding education.”
In a second decision, in Steven Rand et al v. State of New Hampshire, Judge Ruoff ruled that SWEPT is unconstitutional and ordered that the State of New Hampshire no longer allow towns to “keep” excess funds (over the amount of their uniform rate) and instead must send them to the state. In 2023, there are 44 towns in New Hampshire that collect excess SWEPT.
To be clear – neither of these rulings have been implemented or are certain to be implemented. There is still time for the state to file a motion to appeal.
While we are encouraged by the Court’s recognition of the current inadequate public education funding scheme in New Hampshire, we know this is just one more step in the long process of truly adequately funding public education in our state to ensure all students have the opportunity to succeed. Ultimately, it will require our elected officials to finally take action on this decades’ old problem.