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

A uniform statewide building code would speed development times and lower costs

, , ,

Home building is tough throughout New England, but Massachusetts gives its builders an advantage that builders in New Hampshire don’t enjoy. Massachusetts uses a uniform building code statewide. Builders there know exactly what every town’s code is because they’re all the same.

That’s not so in New Hampshire, where municipalities can tack their own rules onto the state building code. This random patchwork of building codes raises costs and slows projects.  

“It’s just all over the place,” builder Matt Blanc of Charlestown said. “Just getting things standardized would be huge for us.”

The local requirements themselves can add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of a new home or apartment building. That can be a particular problem for small contractors. 

“Some communities will require a full-blown commercial fire alarm system in an apartment with two units in it,” Blanc said. “That could be a $10,000-$20,000 cost.”

More frustrating are the surprises and delays. Towns can adopt new codes anytime, and builders don’t necessarily find out about them until construction has begun.

“We get into building stuff and the plans are approved, and then we’re ready for our first inspection and all of a sudden we’ll find out that local jurisdictions have some other requirements that we haven’t done and we didn’t even know about it,” Blanc said. “It causes project delays.”

And every delay adds to the cost of a project.

“When we have guys standing around not producing, it gets very, very expensive in a hurry,” Blanc said.

Even small builders can have projects in multiple towns at once. The variations can be a planning nightmare.  

“When you have it for 10-12 projects going on, it really adds up,” Blanc said.

That’s why New Hampshire builders are keeping a close eye on House Bill 428 and Senate Bill 94, companion bills that would forbid municipal amendments to the state building code. 

SB 94 was retained in the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee this week in the hope that the Senate would agree to pass HB 428. The House amended HB 428 one to allow local variations in administrative procedures, but not the technical substance of the code. 

Building codes are not the same as land use regulations (zoning rules). A building code is a set of minimum standards for building construction. Local governments often adopt amendments that set higher standards than the state code. And those aren’t always for safety reasons. Extreme energy efficiency standards are a trendy local code enhancement which can push already high home prices out of reach even for upper-middle-class families. 

“It tends to be things that some member of code enforcement heard about at some convention and thought it was a great idea and the town implemented it,” Blanc said.

Because the purpose of building codes is to establish minimum safety standards, the case for local boutique additions is not strong. A building code is a highly technical set of regulations of structural and electrical engineering. Allowing local variations does not enhance individual freedom, but limits it. The only enhancements localities can make are additional restrictions on top of basic safety standards.

As Matt Mayberry, executive director of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, said in a Senate hearing this month, “I put my trust in 424 individuals to make those policy decisions for our state of New Hampshire versus a five-member town council or select board, who may be more socially driven than policy driven.” 

The National Multifamily Housing Council and the National Association of Home Builders estimate that regulations account for 40.6% of the cost of multifamily housing and that changes in building codes in the last decade are the single largest contributor, accounting fro 11.1% of costs.

Switching to a statewide standard building code would lower costs and speed development times for both residential and commercial development. And it would eliminate one of the advantages Massachusetts has over New Hampshire.

/by

Norm Major’s eternal advice: budget cautiously

, ,

The House, Senate and governor are divided over the very foundation of the state budget. (No, not liquor outlet ghost drops.) Revenue estimates. 

Including adjustments for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2025, the gap between the governor’s and House’s revenue estimates exceeds $800 million (with all revenue adjustments, including the House’s removal of lottery revenue from the Education Trust Fund). Both sides insist their estimates are accurate. 

In the middle of this, former House Ways & Means Chairman Norm Major quietly passed away at age 91, on Tax Day of all days. Had he been back in his old saddle, he would’ve offered wise counsel, although his guidance and example are evident in the House’s lean budget.

Norm Major, the Josiah Bartlett Center’s 2023 Libertas Award winner, was the quiet hero of New Hampshire public policy during his years on and then heading the Ways & Means Committee. Budget after budget, Norm carefully analyzed loads of economic data to figure out how much revenue the state could expect to collect in the future. Woe be to those who tried to cajole him into raising his estimates so they could raise spending.

Norm held the line on state spending like Col. Joshua Chamberlain on Little Round Top. Wave after wave of spending requests would charge up the lightly manned hill, only to be repelled. Legislative leaders, lobbyists, activists, governors… none could break through. 

Norm was a supremely kind man. He didn’t tell people “no” out of meanness. Norm just lived in the real world, and he insisted that the state budget live there too. 

He called unrealistic revenue estimates “wishful thinking.”

In a 2016 Union Leader column, he retold the story of 2007, when legislators made the mistake of overestimating revenues for the express purpose of inflating spending.

“In 2007, we witnessed what happens when legislators disregard data, and choose revenue estimates that fit their spending needs, rather than choose spending limits to fit their expected revenue. 

“While the Ways and Means Committee worked diligently to develop appropriate estimates, a Democrat leader on the Finance committee asked us to “look to the sky” to identify a way to raise those estimates so they could spend more. The House majority at the time bowed to the partisan political pressure and adopted over-ambitious revenue estimates that led the state down a path of overspending. Then-Gov. Lynch was forced to call the Legislature back to Concord for a special session where millions of dollars in appropriations had to be cut or reallocated. When Republicans regained the majority in 2011, they were left with an $800 million structural deficit, which required a massive budget overhaul.”

Balancing the next state budget was disruptive because lawmakers had to fill holes created by irresponsible budget gimmicks. Our then-President Charlie Arlinghaus summarized in 2010 how the budget written with inflated revenue estimates had to be patched when the fantasy revenue didn’t arrive:

“Although the total budget increased over the last four years by $2 billion, the increase in general and education funds was about $700 million while state tax revenues declined slightly. That revenue decline put a lot of pressure on the state budget. Ordinarily, without the money to pay for it, spending would need to have remained flat as well.

“To keep increasing spending as if they had the money, legislators and the governor were forced to turn to three temporary sources for $597 million of one-time revenue. The largest chunk of temporary scaffolding came from the federal stimulus. Some stimulus money is meant for dedicated projects like paving. However, the current budget for FY10 and FY11 includes $351 million in state bailout funds to be used for whatever we wish. It goes away next year.

“The budget also includes $90 million in one-time state revenues like the sale of state assets. Obviously you can’t sell things twice so that revenue also goes away next year.

“Finally, the most dangerous thing we did was to borrow $156 million to plug what would have been a deficit including borrowing more money to pay the interest on money we borrowed in the past. As an added bonus, under state accounting, if you pay for a program with borrowed money it doesn’t count as spending so you can claim it as a spending cut.”

Norm, who served 26 years in the House, considered it his solemn duty to avoid putting the state in that situation. His loyalty was to the taxpayers, state employees and citizens who relied on him to lay a stable, reliable foundation for the budget so it wouldn’t collapse in two years, causing chaos and disruption. 

The next two months could give budget writers good reason to raise revenue estimates. That would be welcome, in no small part because that would indicate greater economic strength than current events seem to suggest. We’ll see.

The primary cause of large, disruptive budget cuts is the mismatch between revenues and spending, and the primary cause of that mismatch is “wishful thinking” about state revenues. To avoid the next budget ending in more chaos and disruption, budget negotiators should let themselves be guided by a simple acronym: WWND What Would Norm Do?

One thing Norm would do is advise, as always, that caution is prudent because caution today averts catastrophe tomorrow. 

/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

Legislature moves 15 housing bills in one day

, , ,

New Hampshire’s housing shortage, and the price spike that it created, has made housing the No. 1 problem facing the state, according to University of New Hampshire polling. Fixing the state’s housing shortage is such a priority for voters that a 2024 UNH poll found more than 1/3 of voters rating it as the top problem, with the No. 2 problem a full 29 points behind. In response, the state House of Representatives has created a standing Committee on Housing to deal with the issue. 

Forty-eight housing-related bills have been introduced to the House Housing Committee (22) and Senate Commerce Committee (26) this session. Nearly 1/3 of those bills were considered by the House and Senate on Thursday, March 20. 

Below is a brief summary of each of those 15 bills. Eight were placed on the consent calendar, which means they received unanimous votes out of committee. (One was pulled off the House consent calendar Thursday morning.) To give the reader a sense of how the committees prioritized each bill, we list them by their position on the calendars. We also include how each chamber voted on each bill.

Thursday’s action suggests that legislators have gotten the message that voters want action to increase the supply of housing, and they want it now. 

 

SENATE

Consent Calendar

  • Senate Bill 90, allowing high-density residential development on land zoned for commercial use. Re-referred to committee. 

SB 90 defines a “high density residential zone” as one that allows at least 20 residential units per acre, and it adds to RSA 674 the requirement that “municipalities shall allow high-density residential development on land zoned for commercial use, provided that adequate infrastructure, including roads, water, and sewage systems, shall be available or provided to support the development.” 

  • Senate Bill 170, relative to development and related requirements in cities, towns, and municipalities. Passed by voice vote. 

SB 170 incorporates multiple proposals into a single bill. It:

  1. Prohibits municipalities from mandating that occupants of housing units be related by blood or marriage;
  2. Prohibits cities, towns, municipalities, and counties with unincorporated places from mandating more stringent test-pitting requirements for septic systems and more stringent well-siting requirements than the Department of Environmental Services does;
  3. Prohibits municipalities from imposing maximum road lengths to impede development, provided that the proposed roadway or extension complies with the state fire code;
  4. Prohibits municipalities from capping the number of housing lots on dead-end streets; 
  5. Requires municipalities to permit utilities (including septic systems, wells, electric systems, drainage structures, and other utilities) to be placed in open spaces or perimeter buffers of subdivisions as applicable; provided that such open spaces or perimeter buffers are not wetlands or shoreland areas protected by RSA 483-B;
  6. Requires municipalities to stamp and accept changes to plans within three days, after an initial review, when requested by that city, town, or municipality, provided the developer has made the requested alterations based on the initial planning board review; 
  7. limits road frontage requirements and setbacks for lot lines to no more than 50 feet.
  • Senate Bill 173, relative to residential property subject to housing covenants under the low income housing tax credit program. Passed by voice vote.

Rent-restricted residential housing enrolled in the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program can be assessed under state law in one of two ways. It is either taxed at 10 percent of income generated by the property, or subject to the following formula:

“The assessed value shall be calculated using an income approach whereby the net operating income is divided by the overall capitalization rate and, except when the municipality has updated its assessment values to equate to market values, multiplying that value by the previous year’s equalization ratio.”

SB 173 eliminates the formula so that the simpler 10% tax will be used. Because it eliminates a complicated formula inconsistently applied by municipalities, it has the support of assessors, municipalities and developers. 

  • Senate Bill 175, relative to the use of covenants by municipalities. Re-referred to committee.

SB 175 would prohibit municipalities from “requiring or encouraging the establishment of covenants as a condition of any zoning or land use approval.” Existing covenants created by landowners or homeowners associations would be grandfathered. The Senate Commerce Committee concluded that the bill needed more work and recommended that it be sent back to committee.

  • Senate Bill 281, relative to property adjacent to Class VI roads. Passed by voice vote.

SB 281 allows homes on class VI roads if the property owner signs a waiver acknowledging that the road is not maintained and the municipality is not responsible for damages. Buildings on the property also must be insurable. A Class VI road is an unmaintained road.

  • Senate Bill 282, relative to stairway requirements in certain residential buildings. Passed by voice vote.

SB 282 allows multifamily buildings of up to six stories to be built with a single staircase, provided certain safety requirements are met.  Mandates for dual staircases increase building footprints and costs. Single staircase designs are common in most of the rest of the world, at heights considerably taller than six stories. 

  • Senate Bill 283, relative to the calculation of floor-area-ratios under local building ordinances. Passed by voice vote.

SB 283 exempts below-grade ares from the calculation of floor area ratios. Floor area ratios are the portion of floor area of a building relative to the size of the parcel of land. Municipalities use floor area ratios to limit how large a building can be relative to its lot size.

Regular Calendar

  • Senate Bill 84, relative to zoning procedures concerning residential housing. Passed 13-10. 

SB 84 caps minimum lot sizes at 2 acres in areas not served by water or sewer, 1.5 acres in areas served by water only, and half an acre in areas served by both water and sewer. 

  • Senate Bill 163, repealing the temporary moratoria and limitation on building permits and the approval of subdivisions and site plans. Passed by voice vote.

SB 163 repeals the portion of state law allowing municipalities to impose temporary moratoria on the issuing of building permits or on the approval of subdivisions and site plans.

  • Senate Bill 174, prohibiting planning boards from considering the number of bedrooms a given unit or development has during the hearing and approval process. Passed by voice vote.

SB 174 prohibits planning boards from favoring or disfavoring housing proposals based on the number of bedrooms per unit.

  • Senate Bill 284, relative to the required maximum number of residential parking spaces. Passed by voice vote.

SB 284 prohibits municipalities from requiring more than one parking space per housing unit, with one exception. Workforce housing developments with studio and one-bedroom units of fewer than 1,000 square feet can be required to have 1.5 parking spaces.

 

HOUSE

Regular Calendar

  • House Bill 351, requiring landlords to give tenants of at-will tenancies at least 60-days notice to evict. Tabled.

HB 351 would require landlords to give tenants who are on at-will leases at least 60 days notice before eviction. 

  • House Bill 558, creating a public county registry of the monthly rent charged by landlords for each owned unit and prohibiting landlords from using algorithms or software to determine rental rates. Voted inexpedient to legislate on voice vote.

HB 558 would require county registers of deeds to create an annual registry of rents charged in the county and prohibit landlords from using algorithms or software to determine rental rates.

  • House Bill 628, prohibiting landlords from discriminating against prospective tenants holding certain vouchers under the housing choice voucher program. Voted inexpedient to legislate on a 213-152 vote.

HB 628 requires landlords to rent to anyone enrolled in the Housing Choice Voucher Program (federal Section 8 vouchers).

  • House Bill 631, permitting residential building in commercial zoning. Passed 204-134.

HB 631 would allow multi-family housing on commercially zoned land, provided the infrastructure (such as water and sewer) is available.

Download this policy brief here: JBC Policy Brief 15 Housing Bills in One Day

/by

Legalizing residential uses in commercial zones can strengthen N.H. communities

, , ,

In many areas of New Hampshire it is literally illegal for shop owners, employees and customers to live in an apartment above or next to a business. Yet places that do allow such mixed uses are among the most vibrant and desired areas in the state, for both businesses and residents. 

As state and local officials consider ways to create more housing and improve the economic and social life of New Hampshire communities, legalizing residential housing in existing commercial zones offers an easy and harmless way to do both. 

Portsmouth regularly shows up on lists of New Hampshire’s and America’s most beautiful towns. In 2016, National Geographic speculated that it “might be America’s greatest small town.” It isn’t just the colonial architecture. It’s the vibrancy. In Portsmouth, living above or adjacent to shops, restaurants, taverns and coffee houses has been common for much of the community’s four centuries. 

Before the rise of automobiles and industrialization, towns and cities generally weren’t separated into residential and commercial areas. Almost everyone worked within walking distance of their homes, and many operated shops from their homes. Cities and towns as old as Portsmouth and Exeter offer a window into this pre-zoning past. And they  offer insights into the value of allowing residential development in commercial zones. 

No tourists, shoppers or diners come to Portsmouth—or any other town— to marvel at the residential subdivisions created by 20th century zoning ordinances. Strip malls in exclusively commercial zones attract shoppers who pop quickly in and out, but not tourists and residents seeking to experience the charm of an old New England town. People flock to mixed-use zones to enjoy a thriving community, a place brought alive by the mix of residential and commercial activity in one compact area. 

Municipal bans on residential uses in commercial zones outlawed the creation of new communities like those found in downtown Portsmouth or Exeter. Only by lifting those bans can New Hampshire towns and cities recreate these lost places. 

Instead of protecting homeowners from encroaching businesses, these bans “protect” businesses from encroaching residents. Yet this “protection” actually harms businesses, residents and communities. Ending these misguided municipal bans would provide much-needed infill housing while reinvigorating communities.

Property values

A major misconception commonly used in defense of banning residences in commercial zones is that the strict separation increases property values. The opposite is true. Commercial real estate professionals have recognized for years that commercial properties close to residential properties tend to be more valuable, not less.  

Residential properties also tend to command higher prices when located closer to economically active commercial areas. Contrary to popular belief, housing built near an economic activity center is significantly more valuable. (A 2022 study found a 26% price premium for housing built near activity centers in 2/3 of cities studied, and a 50% premium in a few high-growth cities.) 

As a general rule, mixing residential uses into commercial zones increases the value of both types of properties. These higher values are a result of higher demand. Many people want to live close to shops, restaurants, nightlife and other “third places” where they can build social and economic connections.

Safety

Half a century ago, author Jane Jacobs noticed that crime in U.S. cities seemed to be lower in neighborhoods that enjoyed more activity in public spaces. Her “eyes on the street” theory held that more people on the streets, or watching from shops and homes, deterred crime. 

This is a widely accepted view, though research is limited. But some researchers have found the theory to hold up under testing. 

A 2013 study of crime in Los Angeles found that “single-use commercially zoned blocks in Los Angeles have crime rates that are 45 percent higher than similar blocks that include residential uses.”

A 2017 study of zoning and crime in Chicago found that commercial areas with higher-density housing were associated with lower crime rates. “Zoning which allows for mixed use structures may be preferable to more restrictive rules that aim for solely residential or commercial use,” the author concluded.

Opposition to legalizing housing in commercial zones often comes from the assumption that new residential units will be high density developments aimed at low-income renters, and will therefore reduce property values and increase crime. On the contrary, because this type of housing is in high demand, it is typically not targeted at low-income renters. That doesn’t mean it will raise overall rents. Mid-range and higher-priced rentals attract people who leave lower-priced units, freeing those units for people with smaller budgets. This filtering effect is why the construction of additional housing units, even at the luxury end of the market, brings down overall rents over time. More supply lowers prices.

Community 

The American Planning Association recommends mixed-use zoning as a way of improving community health and vibrancy. “Mixed-use development provides a variety of environmental, economic, social, and health benefits that can align with existing community priorities, including increasing physical activity,” the association writes.

Far from harming communities, mixed-use development brings numerous benefits. Legalizing residential uses in commercial zones is a way to generate those benefits without imposing costs on existing residential neighborhoods. Because housing is being added to commercial areas, not vice versa, there are no concerns about bringing commercial activities into residential neighborhoods. 

When the Ioka Theater in downtown Exeter closed, it left a void on Water Street. This year, the renovated building is back to life as a mixed-use space anchored by eight condominiums. With demand for office and commercial space still down after the pandemic, the housing portion of the redevelopment was important. All but one of condos sold before the coffee house opened in December, according to the Union Leader. The restaurant and retail space were unfilled at the start of this year. Had the town not allowed housing above the shop and restaurant space, the redevelopment might never have happened. 

By giving property owners multiple streams of revenue, mixed-use zoning serves as a hedge against downturns in commercial and office markets. A building zoned exclusively commercial is at a higher risk of becoming completely vacant than one zoned for both commercial and residential uses. Vacant buildings bring down property values, increase crime rates and fracture communities. Mixed-use zones reduce the risk of building vacancies while bringing people closer together. 

Mixing residential uses into commercial zones also creates more walkable places where businesses and customers mutually benefit from their close proximity to each other. It can reduce traffic congestion, commute times and feelings of isolation.

Conclusion

The colonial downtowns that make Portsmouth and Exeter iconic New England towns were once common throughout New Hampshire. Downtown Concord and Manchester also represent attractive, popular mixed-use districts that developed before zoning separated residential and commercial activities. These are the kinds of vibrant community centers that zoning made it difficult to recreate elsewhere. 

A century after New Hampshire gave local governments the power to separate land by use, it’s clear that municipalities took that authority too far. A power created to keep industrial activities out of residential neighborhoods has been used to keep neighborhoods from popping up in commercial areas. That makes no sense.

There simply is no public health or safety justification for creating commercial-only zones. As long as adequate infrastructure exists to support housing, its inclusion in commercial areas harms no one while creating numerous benefits. 

The benefits of legalizing residential uses in commercial zones include strengthening property values, providing additional housing, increasing economic activity, lowering crime rates, creating a hedge against contractions in the commercial and office markets, and building stronger communities. These are all things elected officials say they want. If they really do, adding residential uses to commercial zones would help.

Download this policy brief here: JBC Policy Brief Residential in Commercial

/by