Over 150 state bills this session cater to public education
Among the more than 1,000 bills slated to come before the Legislature this year, more than 150 deal with public education.
“We have 107 bills in committee,” said Rep. Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, who chairs the House Education Committee. “Each bill has a public hearing and an executive session. So multiply that 107 by two. Unfortunately, we don’t have a lot of time. We’ll be meeting four days a week.”
He described many of the bills as challenging and controversial and wondered “can we give the time and effort worthy of statutory language? We will have to collaborate and compromise,” Ladd said.
Meanwhile, three decades after the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that the state must fund an adequate education with taxes equal in valuation and uniform in rate, the state has yet to comply. Two lawsuits, one brought by the ConVal School District and the other by six property taxpayers, are wending their way through the courts.
Funding public schools
Only four bills — HB 1586, HB 1686, HB 1583 and HB 1656 — address the issues before the courts. HB 1586 would overhaul the system of funding public schools. The bill originated from the findings and recommendations of the Commission to Study School Funding of 2020, which was shelved by the Legislature in 2021 then codified as HB1680, which was referred for interim study in 2022.
Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, the prime sponsor of the bill, chaired the Commission to Study School Funding.
HB 1586 redefines an adequate education as the opportunity to achieve the average statewide level of student performance measured by assessment scores, graduation rates and attendance records. Funding required to provide this opportunity would be derived from an “education cost model” for each school district.
The model is designed to allocate state dollars to those districts with disproportionate numbers of educationally disadvantaged students but lack sufficient fiscal capacity to provide them an adequate education.
“This bill addresses the court’s decisions in the Claremont cases,” Luneau said. “It defines an adequate education in terms of student outcomes. It costs an adequate education for every district, recognizing that some have greater needs and fewer resources than others.
“It funds the foundation opportunity budget for each district with uniform taxes, including the minimum local contribution, statewide education property tax and state revenues from the education trust fund. And it ensures accountability by measuring the performance of schools and provides a process for overcoming their shortcomings.”
The model incorporates the needs of the student population measured by the number living in poverty, learning English language and receiving special education services. It also accounts for the price of educational inputs, particularly teacher salaries, as well as costs associated with the characteristics of the district, such as geographic size and population density. The estimated expenditures derived from the model inform the district’s “foundation opportunity budget.”
School funding would consist of three components: a minimum local contribution of $5 per $1,000 of assessed property valuation, a statewide property tax set at a rate to raise $363 million, which in 2022 was $1.51 per $1,000 of assessed value, and some $600 million from the education trust fund — a grocery basket of state taxes and fees.
In districts with the highest property values, the minimum local contribution would be sufficient to fund school budgets, while in most districts, state dollars would fund the outstanding balance.
Both HB 1586 and HB 1686, sponsored by Rep. Marjorie Smith, D-Durham, address the situation that arises when, in municipalities with relatively high assessed property valuation, the statewide education property tax (SWEPT) raises more than required to provide an adequate education.
Since 2011 these municipalities have been entitled to retain the excess, which in 2023 amounted to some $27.3 million, and consequently are spared paying the full rate of the tax.
Both bills would require municipalities with excess SWEPT funds to remit the excess to the state for deposit in the education trust fund, which funds the state share of aid to public schools. In November, Judge David Ruoff of Rockingham County Superior Court ruled the administration of the SWEPT unconstitutional, a decision the state is expected to appeal.
HB 1586 would expand the Low- and Moderate-Income Homeowners Tax Relief Program for single homeowners with annual income up to $55,000 and married homeowners with income up to $70,000, with the provision that the maximum amount of relief in any fiscal year not exceed $1,000.
Two other bills would simply increase the funding distributed by the current funding formula.
HB 1583, sponsored by Rep. Jonah Wheeler, D-Peterborough, a graduate of ConVal High School, would amend current law by increasing the per-pupil cost of base adequacy from $4,100 to $10,000, slightly more than the amount the ConVal School District requested in its lawsuit.
Two bills would address the cost of special education services. Likewise, HB 1656, sponsored by Cam Kenney, D-Durham, would increase the differential aid allotted to special education students from $2,100 to $27,000, the average cost of these students.
HB 1176, sponsored by Rep. Mary Heath, D-Manchester, would establish a commission to study the current means of funding special education as well as explore alternative sources of funding.
Ladd said that he will appoint subcommittees, working together with members of the House Finance and Ways and Means committees to deal with the education funding bills.
Expanded education vouchers
The largest share of bills addresses the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program, with Republican lawmakers seeking to expand it and their Democratic counterparts seeking to constrain it. The program — which provides $5,235 per student toward the cost of private, parochial or home schooling — is unique.
Unlike the expenditures of all other state programs, which are limited to the amount of their budgeted appropriations, the cost of the EFA program is driven solely by the number of eligible students choosing to enroll in it. All students residing in the state, including those enrolled in private and parochial schools, are eligible for EFAs.
Enrollment has nearly tripled since the program was introduced in 2021, rising from 1,635 to 4,552 in 2023, and with it the cost, which has increased from $8.6 million in 2021 to $23.8 million in 2023.
HB 1512, sponsored by Rep. Mel Myler, D-Hopkinton, would limit expenditures to budgeted amounts, beginning with $19.8 million in FY 2024.
Although billed as an alternative to public school, more than three-quarters of those enrolled in the program in the 2023-2024 school year were already attending private or parochial school or being schooled at home before enrolling in the EFA program.
Each of these students represents a cost of $5,235 to the state. Likewise, a student enrolling in the program from a public school in a district where the SWEPT exceeds the cost of an adequate education also cost the state $5,235.
When the program began, enrollment was limited to students of households with income of not more than 300% of poverty, or $77,250 for a family of four. Last year, the limit was raised to 350% of poverty, or $105,000 for a family of four.
HB 1634, sponsored by Rep. Alicia Lekas, R-Hudson, would do away with the income qualification altogether, effectively opening the program to every elementary and secondary school student in the state.
HB 1665, sponsored by Rep. Glenn Cordelli, R-Tuftonboro, would increase the income limit to 500% of poverty, or $150,000 for a household of four, which is projected to increase enrollment in the program by 450 students at a cost of $2.4 million.
The income test is applied to eligibility only when a student enrolls in the program and not reviewed and certified in subsequent years.
HB 1594, sponsored by Rep. Myler, would require annual review of the household income of EFA recipients to confirm their continued eligibility. The bill is mirrored by SB 525, sponsored by Sen. Debra Altschiller, D-Stratham, which further requires a random audit of a third of those enrolled in the program to ensure compliance with the income qualification.
HB 1677, sponsored by Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, would stipulate that “no income threshold need be met in subsequent years, provided the student otherwise qualifies.”
The bill is co-sponsored by Speaker of the House Sherman Packard, R-Londonderry, and House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, R-Auburn. It would grant eligibility to students in schools where the average performance is less than 49% proficiency in mathematics, reading, language arts or science.
HB 1677 is largely mirrored by SB 442, sponsored by Sen. Tim Lang, R-Sanbornton. Under both bills, students applying for the EFA program who were denied enrollment the prior year would be granted eligibility without having to satisfy the income requirement.
Osborne, whose wife provides services to students enrolled in the EFA program, also sponsored HB 1561, which extends eligibility to students who have been persistently bullied; identify as lesbian, bisexual, gay, transexual, transgender or non-binary; tested in the lowest 25th percentile; suffer from an eating disorder or mental health illness; live where drinking water exceeds PFAS standards; whose district scores in the bottom 10th percentile; and whose guidance counselor finds the program in their best interest.
HB 1652, sponsored by Rep. Kevin Verville, R-Deerfield, would establish a local EFA program open to all students in the school district aged between five and 20 who have not graduated from high school irrespective of their household income.
Grants to students, worth twice the per-pupil adequate education grant of $4,100, would be funded by the district and could be applied to a wide range of educational expenses, including tuition to public, private and parochial schools. A district would require a three-fifths majority of those voting to adopt the program. A similar bill died on the table last year.
Current state law requires the statewide assessment, either the College Board SAT or the ACT College and Readiness assessments of all public school districts, but not of private and parochial schools or other learning environments. HB 1610, sponsored by Rep. Corinne Cascadden, would require assessment in “English/language arts, reading, and mathematics at minimum” in school districts, public, nonpublic, and all learning environments in the state.”
Revamping the Department of Education
A handful of bills would make changes to both the office of Commissioner of Education and the Board of Education as well as expand legislative oversight over educational programming.
HB 1084, sponsored by Rep. Loren Sellig, D-Durham, would establish minimum qualifications for the Commissioner of Education. The incumbent commissioner, Frank Edelblut — an accountant, auditor and investor — has no professional educational credentials or experience, apart from serving on the board of Patrick Henry College, best known for its conservative politics and religious zealotry. The bill would require a commissioner to have an advanced degree, certification as a school teacher or administrator, and five years of experience working in a public school.
Another bill, HB 1437, sponsored by Rep. Cascadden, would expand the Board of Education from seven to 11 members and strike the clause in the relevant statute excluding members who are “technical educators or professionally engaged in school work.”
To the five members, one from each Executive Council District and two public members chosen at large, the bill would add four public members: a school teacher, a school administrator, a school superintendent and a school student selected from the legislative youth advisory council.
HB 1163, sponsored by Rep. Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, who chairs the House Education Committee, would require the Legislative Oversight Committee of the Statewide Education Improvement and Assessment Program to review and make recommendations to the Board of Education relating to the minimum standards for approval of public schools.
The bill originated last year when the House Education Committee learned that the private contractor engaged by the Board of Education to rewrite the minimum standards was working out of the sight of both the Legislature and public.
HB 1650, sponsored by Rep. Luneau, would require an ad hoc committee to review and approve alternative educational programs like Work-Based Learning, Extended Learning Opportunities and Learn Everywhere, which grant credits toward high school graduation.
The administrator of the office of academics and professional learning at the Department of Education would chair the committee, which would include a member of the department named by the commissioner, a representative of the Extended Learning Opportunity Network and two licensed teachers appointed by the New Hampshire School Administrators Association.
While the committee may work around the clock, Rep. Ellen Read, D-Newmarket, offers students and teachers a respite in HB 1471, which would grant them a holiday on April 8, the day northern New Hampshire will find itself in the path of a total solar eclipse.
While total solar eclipses occur somewhere on Earth every 18 months on average, they recur at any one given place only once every 360 to 410 years on average.
The largest share of bills addresses the Education Freedom Account program, with Republican lawmakers seeking to expand it and Democratic counterparts seeking to constrain it.
Upcoming tax legislation
Following annual reductions in both the Business Profits Tax (BPT) and Business Enterprise Tax (BET) between FY 2015 and FY 2022, Republican lawmakers have proposed a second, more expansive round of tax reductions between FY 2025 and FY 2030.
HB 1422, the Consumer Tax Relief Act, would reduce the rates of the two business taxes as well as the Meals and Rooms Tax, while trimming then repealing the Communications Services Tax in 2027.
Sponsored by Rep. Joe Sweeney (R-Salem) and co-sponsored by House Majority Leader Rep. Jason Osborne.
The BPT, currently levied at a rate of 7.5%, would be reduced by 0.1% each year beginning in tax year 2025 until reaching 7% in tax year 2030. The BET, currently levied at a rate of 0.55%, would be reduced by 0.1% each year over the same period before returning to its original rate of 0.25% when it was introduced in 1993.
The Meals and Rooms Tax would be reduced from 8.5% to 6.0% between FY 2025 and FY 2027. Currently, 30% of the revenue from the tax is allocated to the Meals and Rooms Municipal Revenue Fund, which is distributed to cities and towns based on their population. The bill would increase the distribution to 42.5% beginning in 2025. However, the Department Revenue Administration projects that the reduction in the tax rate will shrink the amount deposited in the fund.
The Communications Services Tax would be halved from 7% to 3.5% for each month from July 2024 to June 2025 and halved again to 1.75% before being repealed on January 1, 2027.
The cumulative fiscal impact would amount to $2.2 billion in foregone revenue.
