Per-pupil spending in NH nearly doubles from 2001-2024 as district public schools spend $1.25 billion more on 54,000 fewer students

,

Average per-pupil spending in New Hampshire district public schools has nearly doubled this century, as student enrollment declined sharply and reading and math assessment scores fell, a new Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy study finds. 

Total public school district spending in New Hampshire increased by an inflation-adjusted $1.25 billion, or 45%, from 2001-2024 as enrollment fell by 54,381 students, or 26%, state data show.

The large increase in total spending combined with the large drop in enrollment caused a near doubling of average per-pupil spending, the new study shows. Total per-pupil spending in district public schools rose by an inflation-adjusted 96% from 2001-2024, meaning that the average district public school student in New Hampshire had 96% more in real resources devoted to his or her education in 2024 than in 2001.

Enrollment and Real (inflation-adjusted) Total Expenditures in NH District Public Schools

2001 to 2024

pastedGraphic.png

In 2001, district public schools in New Hampshire spent only $8,265 per student, but when adjusted for inflation that figure translates to $13,470 per student in today’s dollars. Average per-pupil spending in 2024 came to $26,347, representing an increase of 96%. 

This increase was so large that New Hampshire went from being 4% below the national average in per-pupil spending in 2001 to more than 20% above the national average in 2023, where 2023 was the most recent year with comparable data available.

In 2023, New Hampshire public schools spent $4,026 more per student than did public schools nationally. 

Real (inflation-adjusted) Total Expenditures Per Student in NH District Public Schools

2001-2024

pastedGraphic_1.png

 

“Taxpayers should be asking hard questions about huge spending increases as enrollment continues to plummet,” Josiah Bartlett Center President Andrew Cline said. “These increases cannot be explained by inflation or COVID relief or state spending levels. The hard fact is that it’s impossible to reconcile a 45% increase in district public school spending this century with a 26% drop in enrollment and a large decline in reading and math performance.” 

Looking at all public schools—including public charter schools and public academies—the number of students fell by 21% from 2001-2024, and yet the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) teachers employed increased by 1%, indicating a significant reduction in average class sizes over this time. 

While the number of students served fell by 21%, the number of FTE administrators employed increased by 78%, and the number of FTE “all other staff” increased by 15% between 2001 and 2024. “All other staff” includes all employees not classified by the U.S. Department of Education as either teachers or administrators.

This very large increase in staffing since 2001, coupled with the very large decrease in the number of students served, dramatically increased the number of FTE staff per 100 students in New Hampshire public schools. The number of FTE staff per 100 students in New Hampshire public schools was 13.5 in 2001, but this ratio ballooned to 18.9 by 2024.  Thus, a hypothetical 500-student school in 2024 had 27.2 more FTE staff than it employed in 2001, on average—a massive increase in public school employment relative to the number of students served. 

Teachers might assume that very large increases in expenditures on public schools would translate into significantly larger salaries for themselves. That did not happen. New Hampshire district public schools’ inflation-adjusted spending rose by 45% from 2001-2024, but average teacher salaries increased by only 8%, adjusted for inflation.

As total spending rose by 45% and staffing increased significantly, New Hampshire’s National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and math scores fell by a total of 21 points. Nationally, scores fell by 7 points, which means that New Hampshire fell behind relative to other states despite a massive increase in spending. 

The declines in student achievement from 2003 to 2024 are cumulative across four NAEP exams: Grade 4 Reading, Grade 4 Mathematics, Grade 8 Reading, and Grade 8 Mathematics. A 10-point drop on a single test is approximately a full year less of learning. Thus, across these four exams, New Hampshire students in 2024 averaged about a half-year less learning in both reading and mathematics in both grades 4 and 8, relative to New Hampshire public school students in 2001. For context, U.S. Catholic schools saw a cumulative decline of only 2 points across these four exams between 2003 and 2024.

The study is an update to the Josiah Bartlett Center’s landmark 2023 report “Falling Students, Rising Spending. The center’s 2023 report analyzed data through 2019. Looking at the four years of complete data since then, we see the trends of the previous two decades continued.

In the 2020 academic year (2019-20), New Hampshire district public schools spent more than $3.3 billion on their 167,584 students. By the 2024 academic year (2023-24), New Hampshire’s district public schools were spending about $4.06 billion on only 154,080 students. New Hampshire district public schools spent almost $717 million more ($150 million after adjusting for inflation) in 2024 relative to 2020 to serve 13,504 fewer students.

On a per student basis, these expenditures increased significantly over this very short period—from $19,947 to $26,347 per student, a 32% increase. (Our study looked at fall enrollments, so the $26,347 figure is slightly higher than the state Education Department’s figure of $26,320, which is calculated based on average daily membership.)

The increase in total expenditures per student in New Hampshire district public schools (32%) was almost double the increase in the cost of living (17%), so inflation cannot explain this spending surge.

Federal revenues per New Hampshire student more than doubled between 2020 and 2024, from $965 per student to $2,179 per student (a 126% increase). Yet this increase in federal funding of $1,214 per student accounts for only 19% of the $6,400 increase in total expenditures per student over this time period.

State education spending from 2020-2024 rose by 19 percent, and local spending rose by 29%, as the cost of living rose by 17%.

As with the trend in the decades before the COVID-19 pandemic, local school district spending rose much faster than the rate of inflation despite a sharp and steady decline in enrollment. While enrollment fell by 6.3% from 2020-2024, local spending on district public schools rose by 29%. 

Changes in the number of students from low-income families or with special needs also cannot explain the spending increase. The percentage of students eligible for free-or reduced-priced lunch fell by 0.9% from 2020-2024, while the percentage of students with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) rose by just 1.7% (vs 3.35% nationally). 

Following the national trend during the COVID-19 pandemic, likely due to public school shutdowns, there was a significant amount of learning loss between 2019 and 2024. Across four NAEP tests (Grades 4 and 8 reading and mathematics exams), N.H. students experienced a cumulative drop of 17 points, which was better than the national drop of 22 points. New Hampshire public school districts were required to reopen starting in late spring 2021, which was earlier than most other states. 

Overall, per-pupil district public school spending increased by 32% (4% after adjusting for inflation) from 2020-2024, as enrollment fell by 6.3%. The number of total staff per 100 students rose from 18.2 to 18.9 because staff reductions (2.6%) occurred at less than half the rate of enrollment reductions (6.3%). Teacher pay increases did not keep up with inflation, falling by 4% relative to the cost of living. And reading and math scores continued to decline. The brightest spot during this period was that that public schools reopened earlier than most of their counterparts around the country, limiting the learning loss in New Hampshire vs. public schools nationally. 

Select charts:

Total FTE Staff Per 100 Students, All New Hampshire Public Schools

pastedGraphic_2.png

 

Increase in Real Total Expenditures and Real Teacher Salaries, 2001-2024

“Real” increases take into account the increase in the cost of living, so these increases are in addition to increases that keep pace with inflation

pastedGraphic_3.png

Total Expenditures Per Student, New Hampshire District Public Schools

2019-20 and 2023-24 (Academic Years 2020 and 2024)

pastedGraphic_4.png

Increase in Total Expenditures Per Student and Inflation* (Cost of Living), 2020-2024

* Percentage change in the PCE Price Index, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEPI

pastedGraphic_5.png

Download the full study here: NH Ed Funding Trends 2020-24 (2025) (4)

The Josiah Bartlett Center’s previous Falling Students, Rising Spending report can be found here: https://jbartlett.org/wp-content/uploads/EducationSpending01-19Report.pdf.

/by

EFA expansion compromise achieves universal enrollment with a brake on growth

, ,

Though expanding Education Freedom Accounts to all New Hampshire students is a top Republican Party priority for this legislative session, differences between three competing plans produced an impasse. For weeks, doubts grew about Republicans’ ability to expand the program even though they controlled the governor’s office and both legislative chambers.

On Wednesday, the House Finance Committee voted out a compromise intended to bring all sides together. 

The committee amendment to Senate Bill 295 would:

  • Remove the program’s income cap (350% of the federal poverty level). The program would be open to all New Hampshire residents eligible to attend a K-12 school.
  • Guarantee access to the program for current EFA students and their siblings, children with disabilities, and students with a family income of 350% of the federal poverty level or less. 
  • Cap EFA enrollment at 10,000 students for the 2025-26 school year, excluding the priority categories listed above. For subsequent school years, the cap would be increased by 25% if enrollment during the prior school year exceeded 90% of that year’s cap. 
  • Remove the enrollment cap if applications to the program have not caused the cap to be triggered for two consecutive years.

The amendment achieves universal program eligibility by lifting the income cap, but restrains the program’s growth by establishing a cap that can be raised only once a year, and only if the prior year’s enrollment got within 10 percentage points of that year’s cap. 

Practically, the cap is high enough that it’s unlikely to be hit in the first year or two of the program, if ever. Yet it still would prohibit the program from being flooded in a single year with a massive wave of enrollments. 

One issue with the amendment’s language, as drafted, is that the cap is triggered by measuring enrollment, but lifted by measuring “applications.” This wont matter if the cap is never triggered. But clarity on this language, either from legislators before passage or the Education Department after passage, would be useful. 

This compromise would give all sides a significant win while being easier to implement and manage than the version of SB 295 approved by the Senate. If passed, it would achieve the elusive twin goals of universal EFA eligibility with a restraint on program spending.

/by

Teacher pay in New Hampshire is a casualty of high school staffing levels

, , ,

It’s Teacher Appreciation Week and Granite Staters are again being subjected to the claim that teachers here earn less than they should because legislators are stingy. Given current market conditions, average teacher pay in New Hampshire is lower than it should be to recruit the best candidates. But the state’s contribution isn’t the reason. 

The National Education Association puts New Hampshire’s average teacher salary at $67,170, $4,860 below the national average (not accounting for cost of living or benefits).

If we look at the two decades before the pandemic, total spending on district public schools in New Hampshire increased by 40% from 2001-2019, adjusted for inflation. Removing expenses such as capital and debt service, current spending per pupil rose by 74%, again adjusting for inflation. 

That’s the kind of increase that should lead to large leaps in teacher pay. But it didn’t. Average teacher pay in New Hampshire from 2001-2019 rose by only 12%.

Where did the rest of that money go?

The largest chunk was spent on hiring staff, particularly non-teaching staff. From 1994-2022, New Hampshire district public schools had the nation’s largest increase in staffing relative to enrollment, as we reported here.

District K-12 public school staffing in New Hampshire increased by 55% from the 1994 to 2022 fiscal years even as student enrollment fell by 11.2%. New Hampshire’s gap between staffing growth and enrollment—66.2 percentage points—was by far the largest margin among all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Seven states had larger percentage increases in staffing, but they all had large increases in enrollment as well, which produced smaller gaps between enrollment and staffing than New Hampshire’s.

We just have to look next door to Massachusetts to see how this preference for more staff can affect district budgets.

As of 2019 (before schools received any pandemic funding), New Hampshire public schools had 18.2 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff per 100 students vs. 13.9 per 100 students in Massachusetts public schools.  For a school of 500 students, New Hampshire would have about 21.5 more FTE staff than a school of the same size in the Bay State.

Comparing New Hampshire to the national average as of 2019, a 500-student school in the Granite State would have 26 more FTE staff.

Despite large increases in total K-12 expenditures this century, even before COVID funding, districts have chosen to prioritize hiring, particularly in non-teaching positions, over instructor compensation.

New Hampshire schools are also staff-heavy on the instructional side. New Hampshire public schools employ more teachers per student than those in almost every other state. This also helps to suppress teacher pay. 

The NEA’s own report shows that New Hampshire has the second lowest student-teacher ratio in the nation at 10.5 students per teacher. Vermont is lowest at 10.4. Massachusetts is has 11.8 students per teacher, Maine 11.6, Connecticut 12.1 and Rhode Island 12.7. The national average is 15.1. 

Looking at these numbers, the media missed probably the biggest story in the NEA’s report: New Hampshire employs 44% more teachers per student than the national average.

With 4.6 more teachers per student, New Hampshire public schools spread their labor costs among many more teachers. That benefits teachers unions, which have more dues-paying members per school. But it leaves less money for each teacher.

Though teacher pay in New Hampshire has risen in the last decade, including through the pandemic years, inflation has consumed the value of those raises.

According to the NEA’s report, from 2014-15 school year to 2024-25 school year the number of teachers fell by 4.8% while enrollment fell by 11.4%. In that time, teacher pay rose by 24%. 

Again we see that enrollment declines far outpace staffing reductions. Maintaining high staffing levels can eat into pay rates. We also see that New Hampshire teacher pay raises, on average, have not kept up with inflation, though overall revenue for public schools has surpassed inflation this century. 

All of these data points indicate that school districts have received enough revenue to fund more generous teacher pay increases, but they’ve prioritized higher staffing levels instead.

/by

FAQs about EFAs: The basics

, ,

In 2021, New Hampshire created Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs), a new way of providing families with access to a publicly funded education.  In addition to assigned public schools, chartered public schools, and tax credit scholarships, EFAs offer students the option of purchasing an education from a variety of state-approved vendors. 

EFAs are exclusively for New Hampshire residents who are eligible to attend a public school. To keep the program manageable, lawmakers initially limited eligibility to families with incomes at or below 300% of the federal poverty level. That was later lifted to 350%. This year, the governor and both chambers of the Legislature have proposed expanding EFA eligibility to include most (governor and Senate) or all (House) K-12 students in the state.

This brief answers a few of the most basic frequently asked questions (FAQs) about EFAs.

  1. Is an EFA a voucher?

    No. A voucher is a payment from the government directly to an education provider. With an EFA, the state approves a list of providers, but does not pay the provider directly. Each student’s state adequate education grant amount is deposited in an account managed by a state-approved vendor, in this case the Children’s Scholarship Fund NH. When a parent chooses a provider from the approved list, the parent submits an invoice to the Children’s Scholarship Fund for payment. The payment can be for tuition or tutoring services, or for individual educational expenses allowable by law under RSA 194-F:2. The payment is made from the Children’s Scholarship Fund to the vendor. Every payment is scrutinized for compliance with state rules.

  2. What is the purpose of EFAs?

    New Hampshire has long recognized that not every child thrives in his or her assigned public school. Legislators have created alternative pathways, including chartered public schools and tax credit scholarships, to give students options. Education Freedom Accounts offer the most comprehensive alternative pathway. They allow students  the freedom to choose from among numerous educational options, including public and private schools, community colleges, tutors and home schooling. The purpose of EFAs is to match students to the education that works best for them by empowering their parents to shop for that education among a list of approved providers. By giving families control over their state education dollars, the EFA program also will introduce competitive effects into public education, which has been shown in numerous studies to improve outcomes for students who remain in district public schools.

  3. Aren’t EFAs for lower-income families?

    EFAs were initially intended to be available to all, but an income cap was added as a compromise both to keep initial state costs down and to provide for a successful rollout of the program. Public education is not a means-tested anti-poverty program. No public school denies access to middle-or high-income families. Nor are state adequate education grants restricted by income. By design, any New Hampshire K-12 student, regardless of income, has access to state education funding by enrolling in a public school. Removing the income cap for EFAs simply aligns this education funding pathway with the eligibility criteria for district and chartered public schools.

  4. Would EFAs defund public schools?

    Opponents of school choice have long predicted that giving parents the option to leave their assigned public school would trigger a mass exodus that would collapse school budgets. That low opinion of district public schools is not shared by most parents. “As yet, the growing trend of giving parents public funds for private education hasn’t decimated school budgets,” Education Week reported last year. “Even in states where private school choice is open to all students, the overwhelming majority of K-12 students still attend public school.” A New Hampshire state representative opposed to EFAs acknowledged in legislative testimony this year that “very, very, very, very few students are actually leaving their public school district to take a voucher.” Data compiled by EdChoice show that at the start of 2025 only 2.2% of students nationwide participated in a school choice program. In Florida, which has the highest school choice participation rate, 82.5% of students have enrolled in a public school of some kind, whether a district, magnet or charter school. In Arizona, 86.3% of students have chosen public schools. Just as public schools aren’t a good fit for every child, neither are EFAs. The EFA program is designed to be an alternative for students who need it, not to replace public schools.

  5. Would EFAs leave public school students behind?

    Over several decades of school choice research, one of the strongest findings is that students who stay in public schools after the creation of a choice program demonstrate better outcomes. Multiple studies have found that district public schools respond positively to competition. (See the 123s of School Choice.) As a result, their students tend to exhibit improvements in test scores and other outcomes, such as college attendance and graduation. Using market competition to improve all educational options, including traditional public schools, is one of the primary purposes of school choice programs like EFAs.

  6. What accountability does the EFA program have?

    EFAs have multiple layers of accountability. First is accountability to parents. District public schools are heavily regulated and are answerable to local school boards and the state. The tradeoff is that parents then have less direct input into the curricula and policies of their child’s assigned public school. EFAs empower parents to tailor their children’s education to each child’s specific needs. If a provider fails to live up to expectations, parents can take their education dollars elsewhere.

    Second, the EFA program is administered by a vendor, currently the Children’s Scholarship Fund NH. That vendor won a competitive bid and the contract was approved by the Executive Council. By law, the vendor is subject to annual financial audits and must report any suspected fraud to the state. EFA funds may be spent only on authorized educational expenses. To ensure compliance with state laws and rules, the vendor is subject to compliance and performance auditing by the State Education Department. Though the vendor is allowed under state law to spend 10% of EFA funds on administration, it spends only 7.95%, which is lower than the state average for public school districts. National school choice organization EdChoice has twice ranked the EFA program as having the most effective implementation of any school choice program in the nation.

    Third, state law strictly limits EFA purchases. Parents may purchase only approved educational products from approved providers. The Children’s Scholarship Fund NH checks all purchases to ensure compliance. If non-compliant purchases are found, reimbursement is pursued.

Download the full policy brief here: EFA FAQs.

/by

Shifting education funding to the state probably wouldn’t lead to higher spending

, ,

The movement to shift public school funding from local governments to the state is driven by a core belief that the shift will bring more funding. But that assumption is almost certainly wrong.

The National Education Association’s latest annual report on public school data drew media coverage this week for its finding that New Hampshire’s state contribution to K-12 public school funding ranked the lowest nationwide. 

The implication, pushed by the union’s own advocacy, is that New Hampshire’s system of primarily locally funded education shortchanges students. (Less hyped was the report’s finding that states on average contribute the largest share but still less than half—47.6%—of K-12 public school funding.)

Always downplayed in the coverage of this issue is that New Hampshire’s total combined (state, local. And federal) spending is higher than all but a handful of other states. 

The NEA report pegged New Hampshire’s K-12 public school spending from all sources at $22,252 in the 2023-24 school year. That ranked sixth nationwide and was $5,262 (31%) higher than the national average of $16,990. 

When New Hampshire contributes such a small share relative to other states, how do we spend 31% more per pupil than the national average? If larger state contributions led to higher spending, New Hampshire should be at the bottom in per-pupil expenditures, not near the top. 

Counting all K-12 public school expenditures, including capital and interest, New Hampshire students received on average $26,320 each this year. Counting just operating expenses, it’s $21,545. That’s on par with the average private school tuition in the state, which is $21,935, according to Private School Review.

Many believe that these already high public school expenditures would increase substantially if the state picked up a larger share of the tab. But that ignores the reasons why New Hampshire’s public education spending is so high. 

The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy has tracked public education spending in New Hampshire for decades. We’ve found that regardless of enrollment, local spending on K-12 district schools steadily increases year after year even after adjusting for inflation. 

State spending, which is tied to enrollment and fluctuating state revenues, does not. 

From 2001-2019, total state taxpayer funding to district public schools increased in nominal dollars from about $878 million in 2001 to approximately $1 billion in 2019. However, much of that increase was consumed by inflation. When adjusted for inflation, total state appropriations to district public schools shrank from an inflation-adjusted $1.2 billion in 2001 to $1 billion in 2019—a decline of 17 percent.

Most of that decline (83.9%) was caused by falling student enrollments. State spending is tied to enrollment, so a decline in enrollment means a decline in state funding. The remaining 16.1 percent was due to actual increases in state appropriations coming close to, but not quite keeping up with, inflation.

By contrast, total local appropriations, adjusted for inflation, doubled, going from $1.09 billion in 2001 to $2.19 billion in 2019. That’s a 101% increase in spending as the number of students served fell by 14%.

Supporters of higher state spending claim that local governments spend more because the state spends so little. If that were the case, we’d expect to see local spending rise and fall with enrollment. That would indicate that voters adjust their spending based on need.

Instead, even when enrollment falls significantly, local voters typically approve large increases in public school budgets. Local K-12 public education funding appears driven primarily by voters’ desire to spend money on their own children and their own communities.

For decades, local voters in New Hampshire have demonstrated a pattern of approving larger increases in school budgets than town budgets, even when school populations have shrunk and town populations have grown. 

This dynamic is not evident at the state level. 

The state budget, including the Education Trust Fund, is heavily affected by economic conditions. When those conditions are bad, legislators tighten spending. Local budgets, by contrast, come from property taxes, which are much more stable and reliable. 

Shifting public education funding entirely to the state would divorce it from the two factors that drive most of its increases: the stability of property tax revenues and parents’ desire to invest in their own children. 

The same is true, though to a lesser extent, if a larger portion of education funding is shifted to the state. 

At the national level, K-12 public education spending also has trended up even as enrollment has fallen, as the NEA’s own data show. The teachers union’s report finds that enrollment fell by 2.5% and average daily attendance fell by 4.2% from the fall of 2015 to the fall of 2024 but, adjusted for inflation, current expenditures per student rose by 9.4% and current expenditures per student in average daily attendance rose by 11.4%.

As enrollment fell, the number of instructional staff increased by 5.4%.

Our research found that New Hampshire’s increase in per-pupil spending in the first two decades of this century grew much faster than the national average. That’s likely because local voters here control a larger portion of public education spending. 

Some hope that shifting all public school spending to the state will cause legislators to adopt an income tax. But Granite Staters don’t want an income tax. The more likely outcome is that lawmakers would cobble together funding from other sources and impose the sort of fiscal discipline on K-12 spending that local voters have chosen to avoid. 

/by

It’s hard to restrain education spending when increases are ‘cuts’

, , ,

K-12 public school spending rises every year, whether enrollment increases or decreases. In this century, K-12 district public school enrollment in New Hampshire has fallen by more than 50,000 students, but spending is up by more than $1 billion, adjusted for inflation. 

How does this happen? The short answer is that local voters prefer to spend more on public schools, regardless of enrollment trends, tax rates or anything else. Contributing to these decisions, however, is an often overlooked annual ritual. 

Any and every measure of spending restraint, even those that increase school budgets but at a slower rate than proposed by a district administration, is portrayed as a “cut” that will devastate public education. It’s a rite of spring, and the media too often participate.

The current debate over Manchester’s school budget proposal offers a perfect example. 

The city school district has proposed a 2025-26 budget of $246 million, endorsed by the school board. Mayor Jay Ruais has proposed a budget of $236.5 million. 

School board members have attacked the mayor, saying his budget results in a “$9.5 million cut.” 

“If you actually cut the school district budget by $9.5 million, it’s going to be really painful,” one school board member said.

A resident who showed up at at a recent Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting said the mayor’s proposal contained “cuts will have a yearslong negative impact on the quality of education and supports our students will receive.”

The Union Leader story that includes these quotes contains the word “cut” 10 times. The story itself describes the mayor’s proposal as a “reduction” in proposed spending. 

Nowhere does the story explain that the mayor’s proposal represents a $2 million increase in school district spending. 

Manchester’s enrollment is 11,851, according to its state district profile. The district projects an additional 14 students next year along with an additional $11.7 million in state adequate education aid.

It’s reasonable to ask why a total budget increase of $2 million to cover an increase of 14 students ($143,000 per student) would devastate the school system. But that conversation can’t happen amid all of the name calling and attacks. 

The school board vice chairman said the mayor’s budget could lead to class sizes of 30-35 students. But the district’s average class size is 20 now. How would a $2 million increase in spending cause a 50% increase in class sizes?

This question, among many others, goes unasked.  

The Boston Globe’s story leads with this sentence: “Some school officials are warning Manchester Mayor Jay Ruais’ proposed $9.5 million in cuts to the city’s school budget could lead to layoffs, the reduction of services, or even school closures.”

It’s a $2 million budget increase, not a $9.5 million cut. But that’s how the reporting goes.

To its credit, the Globe acknowledges three paragraphs later that Ruais’ budget increases city school spending. It even reports the growth of the city school budget since 2023, something most stories on school spending never do. But the inaccuracy of the lead sentence, which matches the narrative of the school board members, creates confusion and misunderstanding. 

Even when news stories correctly report that a budget increases spending, they can still confuse readers. A WMUR story this week reported that Nashua’s proposed school district budget represents a 3.5% spending increase. But in reporting on the claims that it would cause large reductions in teaching positions, the story adopted the rhetoric of opponents, using the phrase “the proposed budget cut.”

Over in the Jaffrey-Ringe Cooperative School District, voters last month approved a genuine cut to the school district budget, voting for a $3 million reduction from the current year’s spending. 

The school board chairman there followed the customary script of insulting and demeaning the voters, just as Manchester’s school board members insulted and attacked the mayor. It’s standard practice, and it’s effective.

Any level of spending that does not match or exceed a school district’s proposal is met with attacks, invective and predictions of devastating educational outcomes. All proposals that total less than the district’s proposal are labeled “cuts,” even if they increase spending over the current budget. 

The messaging is so good that it usually tricks the press into portraying spending increases as budget cuts. Amid all of the shouting, not even the media, which ought to be scrutinizing elected officials’ claims, questions the budget math or the use of the term “cut” to describe spending increases, even ones that will lead to tax increases. How would a spending cut cause a tax increase? No one ever asks.

Districts might have perfectly good reasons for increasing spending. Those reasons should be given to voters and elected officials as part of a discussion that balances the interests of students and taxpayers. Those kinds of conversations are where savings, efficiencies and improvements can be found. Getting more for less should be a permanent objective, not an annual fight. But it’s hard to get there when even spending increases are called “cuts” and the press just goes along with the narrative instead of asking hard questions about spending.

/by

Competition and the purpose of educational choice

, ,

On Thursday, decades’ worth of aged, decrepit talking points died in the New Hampshire House. 

Opponents of parental choice in education say the purpose of creating such choice is to “defund,” “privatize,” or “destroy” public schools.

Public money should stay entirely in public schools, they say. 

This year, House Education Policy and Administration Chairman Glenn Cordelli called their bluff. His House Bill 741 creates statewide universal open enrollment for public schools. Students would be able to transfer to any public school, provided it has room. The student’s home district would even get to keep 20% of each transferring student’s per-pupil allotment of public education funds, leaving those districts with more money to spend on their remaining pupils. 

Here is a school choice program that keeps public school funding in public schools. In its debate, those old, reactionary attacks vanished like so many cremated remains scattered to the wind.

Were those attacks true—were the point of school choice really to destroy public schools—then every school choice supporter should’ve voted against this bill. 

As we highlighted in a policy brief published with the Reason Foundation this week, research from states with open enrollment statutes shows that they tend to improve outcomes for both students and public schools. Moreover, open enrollment keeps public school money entirely within the public school system while directly engaging parents to get involved in the system. 

Why would people who want to defund, privatize or destroy public schools vote for a program that would strengthen them?

School choice supporters voted for open enrollment for the simple reason that there’s never been any truth to the ad hominem attacks on them. The point of school choice isn’t to destroy public schools. It never has been. The point is to create a marketplace in which every student is matched with the education that best fits that student’s needs. 

As of January, 34 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia have some form of school choice. In all, 75 choice programs enroll 1.2 million students nationwide, by EdChoice’s latest count. 

And yet public school spending is at record highs and no state or municipality has closed its school system.

Instead, research has shown marginal improvements in overall outcomes for both students who left their assigned public schools and those who remained. When public schools face strong competition, they improve. That’s consistent with economic theory, and it’s how competition works in other industries. 

Last month, a summary of research on competitiveness published in the Journal of Applied Business and Economics concluded that firms subjected to higher levels of competition were more resilient and better able to survive unexpected events. To no one’s surprise, the researchers found that “competition pushes businesses to innovate, adapt, and prepare for crises.” 

The beneficial effects of competition are so well established that when companies achieve or come close to achieving monopoly status, it’s long-standing practice for government to intervene. 

“Right now, too many companies are engaging in behaviors that stifle competition — like blocking new competitors from entering the market or limiting the information and options that give consumers real choice. As a consequence, the rest of us pay higher prices for lower quality products and services,” President Barack Obama said in 2016.

In other words words, robust market competition improves quality and lowers prices.

A 2002 Teachers College, Columbia University study reviewing 41 empirical studies of competition in education found “reasonably consistent evidence of a link between competition (choice) and education quality. Increased competition and higher educational quality are positively correlated.”

Market competition empowers consumers, which in turn improves services and lowers costs. It does this in all industries. Pretending that markets will harm education alone, while benefitting all other industries, is to indulge in self delusion.

The point of school choice is not to steer students to one particular option. It is to create options so that public education will work as well as it possibly can for all students.

Whether a student chooses a chartered public school, an Education Freedom Account, an out-of-district public school or their assigned  public school is immaterial. What matters is that they have the freedom to choose among multiple options.

And choosing among multiple options matters because choice empowers, competition improves, and markets work. 

/by

Universal open enrollment can help students and school districts

,

By Jude Schwalbach and Andrew Cline

In the “live free or die” state, switching public schools is surprisingly difficult. State law gives students only a few options. The one easy way is to enroll in a chartered public school, if one happens to be nearby and a good fit. Every other option is obstructed by a series of hurdles that cannot be cleared without the approval of public school officials.

More than a dozen states offer a better way: K-12 open enrollment which lets students attend public schools other than their residentially assigned ones.

New Hampshire lets school districts reassign students to a different district under limited circumstances. It has a separate open enrollment law, which is cumbersome, vague and seldom used. Districts have to designate a school as an open enrollment school. Yet districts that do this can prevent their own students from going to another district’s open enrollment school. Only one district, Prospect Mountain, has an open enrollment program.

To fix this, legislators have introduced three proposals–House Bill (HB) 741, Senate Bill (SB) 101, and SB 97– that would significantly improve the state’s open enrollment law by letting students attend public schools other than their residentially assigned one.

There are two types of open enrollment: cross-district open enrollment lets students attend schools outside their assigned school district, while within-district open enrollment lets students attend schools other than their assigned one that are inside their school district.

A strong open enrollment law must be statewide, meaning that school districts must admit all transfer applicants so long as extra seats are available. Currently 16 states have strong open enrollment laws.

HB 741 and SB 101 would establish statewide cross-district open enrollment policies which would let students enroll in any public schools with extra seats. Both of these proposals boast strong transparency provisions at the state and district levels, ensuring that policymakers, taxpayers and families have open enrollment information at their fingertips.

If either of these proposals is codified, New Hampshire would be the 17th state to adopt statewide cross-district open enrollment.

S.B. 97 would establish a statewide within-district open enrollment law, letting students attend schools that are outside their assigned catchment area, but inside their district. If codified, New Hampshire would join 14 other states, including Delaware, with this policy.

All of these proposals would significantly strengthen New Hampshire’s open enrollment law. However, the best of them–H.B. 741–would launch New Hampshire’s policy from 25th place to 5th place nationwide per Reason Foundation’s open enrollment best practices, putting the state on par with leaders in open enrollment, such as Arizona, Utah and West Virginia.

Students use open enrollment for varying reasons. Research from Wisconsin, California, Colorado and Minnesota cross-district open enrollment programs showed that students used it to access better academics. Notably, data from Arizona, Florida and Texas showed that students tended to transfer to higher-rated school districts.

Additionally, Ready Colorado’s 2018 report and the California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office’s 2016 and 2021 reports found that students used the state’s cross-district open enrollment program to access specialized courses, such as Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate classes, escape bullying, or shorten their commutes.

Moreover, a 2017 study of Ohio’s cross-district open enrollment program found achievement benefits for consistent participants compared to non-participants. The most significant positive effects occurred among black students and those in high-poverty urban areas. Similarly, a 2023 study of Los Angeles Unified School District’s within-district open enrollment program showed that it had positive effects on student achievement and college enrollment, especially when compared to non-participants

Open enrollment doesn’t just help students. It can help districts improve as well. Research from California, Ohio and Wisconsin showed that competition between school districts can encourage them to improve.

This isn’t surprising since research from Colorado and Minnesota showed that lower-performing districts tend to lose transfers at higher rates. Moreover, small or rural school districts in Wisconsin and California bolstered their enrollments with transfers. These data show that open enrollment can be a win-win for students and school districts.

As California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote in its evaluation of that state’s District Choice Program, “home districts often respond to the program by taking action to gain clarity about the priorities of their communities and by implementing new educational programs. We also found that the home districts most affected by the program have made above-average gains in student achievement over the past several years, although the role of the program in these gains is difficult to determine.”

The evidence from other states strongly suggests that statewide open enrollment would achieve two long-sought goals in public education: elevate individual student outcomes and improve district public schools.

 

Jude Schwalbach is a senior policy analyst at the Reason Foundation. Andrew Cline is president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy.

Download this policy brief here: JBC Policy Brief Open Enrollment

/by

Analysis of governor’s & House EFA bills shows small state costs, bigger local savings

,

The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, in partnership with EdChoice, has released an analysis of the fiscal effects of two Education Freedom Account expansion proposals, one presented by Gov. Kelly Ayotte in her budget and the other in House Bill 115, representing the House leadership plan.

At the state level, the fiscal effects range in year 2 from a savings of $5.6 million to a cost of $5 million. At the local level, the effects range in year 2 from a savings of $21 million to $22.7 million.

The analysis covers the first two years of each proposal and looks at the fiscal effects of EFA expansion only. It does not attempt to predict the fiscal impact of natural enrollment changes in the existing EFA program. 

It’s important to note that the governor’s plan takes effect a year later than the House plan, so it would have no fiscal impact in the first year of the 2026-27 budget. 

Because the governor’s proposal limits expansion to students who have spent the prior year enrolled in a New Hampshire public school, it produces only savings. Every student who switches from a public school to the EFA program saves money for both state and local taxpayers. The estimated savings for the state are $2.3 million in the first year and $5.6 million in the second year. The estimated savings for local taxpayers are $8.6 million in the first year and $21 million in the second year. 

Because the House plan includes students not currently enrolled in public schools, there are small additional costs for the state. Those costs are estimated at $360,000 in the first year and $5 million in the second year. Savings to local taxpayers from the House plan are estimated at $824,000 in the first year and $22.7 million in the second year.

Key findings for the two plans are as follows:

 Governor’s proposal:

·      In year 1, EFA expansion would generate an estimated $2.3 million in net savings for state taxpayers.

·      In year 2, EFA expansion would generate an estimated $5.6 million in net savings for state taxpayers.

·      The fiscal effect on local taxpayers is an estimated $8.6 million in short-run net fiscal benefits in year 1 and $21.0 million in short-run net fiscal benefits in year 2.

Universal House Plan:

·      In year 1, EFA expansion would generate an estimated $360,000 in net costs for state taxpayers.

·      In year 2, EFA expansion would generate an estimated $5.0 million in net costs for state taxpayers. This cost represents 0.1% of total state expenditures on all public services.

·      The fiscal effect on local taxpayers is an estimated $824,000 in short-run net fiscal benefits in year 1 and $22.7 million in short-run net fiscal benefits in year 2.

Download the full report here: NH EFA Expansion Fiscal Brief Final

/by

Gov. Ayotte proposes education freedom for public school students starting in 2026

,

In her proposed budget, Gov. Kelly Ayotte opens New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Account program to all students who’ve been enrolled in a New Hampshire public school (including chartered public schools) for at least a full academic year, the Josiah Bartlett Center has confirmed. The expansion would take effect July 1, 2026.

Students who currently have an EFA would remain in the program. Starting on July 1, 2026, the income cap at 350% of the federal poverty level would stay in place only for non-public school students. 

Ayotte’s proposal would make approximately 98,000 public school students eligible for an EFA starting in the 2026-27 school year. There are currently fewer than 6,000 students enrolled in the program, which would make Ayotte’s plan a 17-fold expansion of the program.

That’s a huge win for school choice supporters and for students who have struggled to succeed in their government-assigned public school. 

New Hampshire’s own state test scores show majorities of students failing to reach proficiency in science and math, and bare majorities performing at a proficient level in English, despite massive increases in school spending in the past quarter century. 

 New Hampshire public schools spend about $4 billion a year on K-12 public education, breaking down to an average of $26,320 per student in total spending. In addition, thousands of students experience bullying and other negative social interactions in schools that they don’t choose but are assigned to by their local governments. While most parents report being satisfied with their local public schools, many families want other options.

Ayotte’s budget would give most public school students the option of spending their state adequate education grant on an alternative education to the one provided by the school district in which they happen to live. 

Because it excludes students who did not spend the full prior academic year in a public school, kindergarteners presumably would not be eligible. 

The prior-year public school enrollment requirement poses some other potential problems. 

It raises the question of whether a student has to be enrolled in the same school for the entire time. Do students whose families move from one district to another still qualify?

In addition, students who are bullied, mistreated by staff or experience a significant decline in academic performance during a school year would have to suffer through the entire year before getting an EFA ticket out. 

Those issues should be addressed by legislators.

Ayotte’s position differs from the positions taken by the EFA expansion bills in the House and Senate. Both of those offer EFA access to all students eligible to enroll in a K-12 school. Yet Ayotte’s budget has given legislators a path to full universal eligibility. 

Her line-item budget raises EFA spending from $29 million in the first year to $44 million in the second year. That $15 million increase would generally cover the cost of universal expansion in that year. 

EFA students who switch from a public school to an EFA save the state money. The average EFA cost is $5,204 this year. Public school students cost the state an average of $6,177 in the 2023-24 school year, according to state data.

We published a study on Tuesday in partnership with EdChoice estimating that making all school-age students eligible for the EFA program would cost the state just $6.5 million in the first year and $11 million in the second year. That’s just a bit above the $15 million increase Ayotte built into her budget for the EFA program in 2027. But because the state spends more on public school students than EFA students, every student who switches from a public school to an EFA saves the state additional money. So legislators could pass universal expansion within the general scope of Ayotte’s proposed budget.

The language in Gov. Ayotte’s budget trailer bill is as follows:

VI. “Eligible student” means any student that is eligible to enroll in a public elementary or secondary school pursuant to RSA 189:1-a, is a New Hampshire resident under the provisions of 193:12, and meets one or more of the following conditions: 

  • Income eligibility.

Any student whose annual household income at the time the student applies for the program is less than or equal to 350 percent of the federal poverty guidelines as updated annually in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under 42 U.S.C. section 9902(2). No income threshold need be met in subsequent years, provided the student otherwise qualifies. Students in the special school district within the department of corrections established in RSA 194:60 shall not be eligible students. 

Any student full-time enrolled in a district or a chartered public school in grades kindergarten through 12 for the preceding academic year from the first day to last day of the school year as reported to the department.

/by