04/27/2026
In all matters under consideration, there is often the reason they tell you, and then there is the real reason they will never publicly reveal. Instead, they mask it with rhetoric intended to confuse and deceive in an attempt to win public support.
On the matter of public education in New Hampshire, from my perspective, the issue is not about failing schools or school choice; instead, it is really about money. The main objective of the critics is to destroy public education so the state will not have to step up and meet its constitutional funding obligation.
In New Hampshire, an adequate education is defined by state law as the opportunity for students to acquire specific academic knowledge and skills in 11 defined learning areas. The state sets these minimum academic standards and then must provide base adequacy funding to local school districts, which is a little over $4,000 per student.
However, time and again, the courts have ruled that our state funding is inadequate and unconstitutional. New Hampshire is dead last among all the states in providing state funding for public education. Seventy percent of the cost falls on local property taxpayers, which, of course, is why our property taxes are among the highest in the country. The question, then, is where the state will get the necessary revenue to meet its constitutional mandate. It is a tough question. Bottom line: they shift the focus and pass the buck.
Of course, one way to reduce the cost of an adequate education is to reduce the requirements of an adequate education. Over the past few years, these forces have attempted to remove art, health and physical education, engineering, computer science, digital literacy, and world languages from the core academic domains. For them, quality education is not the issue; it is about providing less in order to spend less. More recently, this past March, Governor Kelly Ayotte signed HB 1815, which redefined the state’s obligation to provide a “constitutionally adequate” education, declaring it a “shared responsibility” between local districts and the state. Again, the objective is to reduce how much the state must spend with more reliance on local property taxes.
One false criticism often heard is that our public schools are failing, yet New Hampshire consistently ranks among the top five states for having the best public schools in the nation. The failing-schools argument is simply not true, but nonetheless, that is what those who do not want to fund public education would have you believe.
Alternative school options play an important role within the mix of educational opportunities. They can provide specific needs that parents may be looking for, but it is a false equivalence to compare them to public schools. The real debate is not a clash between different school options; it is about dollars and cents. Any deficiency within a particular public school should be met with state support, not abandonment.
Consider the state’s school voucher program, the so-called Education Freedom Accounts. As I see it, its real objective was to get the state off the hook from meeting its public school funding obligation. The thought was that, by dangling $5,000 per pupil in front of parents, they would take the money and run—that is, run away from public schools, where the average annual per-pupil spending is $22,252. Of course, their plan backfired. Parents of children in public schools did not flee; instead, most vouchers are going to parents whose children are already in alternative schools. Without an income qualification, the state is needlessly giving away money to wealthy parents as well as everyone else who applies.
These same folks would have you believe that New Hampshire’s public school costs are out of control. The truth is that costs fall in line with many of our private schools. Parents who can afford it pick up the difference in tuition; not so for low-income parents who cannot make up the difference. There is no school choice for them.
And while they rail against the high cost per pupil, according to a 2025 National Education Association report, our neighboring states spend more or about the same per pupil: Vermont spent $28,697, Maine $22,153, and Massachusetts $26,123 in the previous year. Again, the anti-public-school forces deceive.
Then there is the matter of “open school enrollment.” The idea is that parents would be free to send their children out of district to the school of their choice. On the surface, it sounds like a great idea, but in reality, it would have a number of serious consequences, none of which they will tell you. Ultimately, their objective is to force the consolidation of school districts with the hope of reducing costs. Never mind that students would have to travel farther away from their homes or how this would impact school budgets or quality education. In some instances, small and underfunded schools would have to close. There are many reasons why this is an impractical idea, but their hope is that school consolidation would reduce school costs. Instead the state should support the means to address parental concerns rather than having them seek alternative public school options. But again this has nothing to do with quality education but everything to do with reducing costs.
Lastly these are the same folks who eliminated the interest and dividends tax, reduced the meals and rooms tax, and continue to lower corporate business taxes. Clearly they show where their priorities are. It’s not with adequately funding our public schools or reducing our high reliance on property taxes.
Whether you agree with all, some, or none of the points I have raised, as you listen to all the rhetoric regarding public education and related legislation, ask yourself: what is the real motivation behind these discussions?
