New Hampshire

NH Democrats consider new school funding approaches, with differing opinions

Published

2 years ago

January 13, 2024

NH Democrats consider new school funding approaches, with differing opinions

Ethan DeWitt
| New Hampshire Bulletin

House Democrats are advocating for an ambitious bill to change how New Hampshire funds its schools. But not all school funding advocates are supporting it.

Sponsored by Rep. Dave Luneau, a Hopkinton Democrat, House Bill 1586 proposes allocating state money to send to schools based on the goal of boosting the school’s academic performance. The bill would direct the state to determine a “statewide public education opportunity goal” – an overall performance target that all schools in the state would need to collectively meet. Funding would then be given to each school based on what the state determines is needed in order for the school to meet that goal.

The complex, 26-page bill echoes previous efforts by Luneau and stems from the conclusions of a 2020 state commission designed to examine New Hampshire’s school funding approach. That commission found that if schools are funded with an aim to boost their outputs, more students will succeed across the state.

“Our average performing student in New Hampshire performs among the best in the country, but … it’s just not happening in all of our school districts,” he said. “And that’s where right-sizing these budgets really can come in to make sure districts have the budgets they need to be able to to educate their students to a statewide outcome.”

Currently, the state uses a multi-tiered approach that starts with the statewide property tax; if school districts can’t raise enough money through that tax to pay for their schools, they receive per-pupil adequacy funding from the state; and if that adequacy funding is still not enough, the towns make up the difference with more property taxes. State funding is distributed based in part on property values and demographics, such as the number of free and reduced-price lunch students in the district.

Luneau’s bill would change that approach by allocating money based on what each district needs to raise its performance.

The approach would use three outputs to determine which schools are neediest: assessment scores, graduation rates, and attendance rates, according to the bill. Then, to determine how much money each school would need, the Legislature would project the total spending that school would require “to achieve the statewide public education opportunity goal.” Those funding amounts would vary by school district depending on factors including geographical salary differences, student needs, district size, and population density.

To keep the price tag down the bill uses targeted aid; Luneau said no new state revenue streams are needed to make it work.

The bill is co-sponsored by Democrats including Reps. Mel Myler, the former chairman of the House Education Committee, and Richard Ames, the former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

But one longtime advocate, Andru Volinsky, is opposed. Volinsky, a former executive councilor who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2020, was an attorney for the plaintiffs in the two Claremont lawsuits, in which the New Hampshire Supreme Court first set a mandate for the state to fund an adequate education.

“Although I respect the sponsors of this bill, their position to me is heartbreaking, because I think the bill violates the New Hampshire Constitution, as it was described and explained in the Claremont and Londonderry decisions,” said Volinsky, referring to a 2008 Supreme Court decision that followed the Claremont rulings.

Volinsky argues the approach does not adhere to the Supreme Court’s conclusions in the Claremont II case, in which the court laid out a series of requirements for school funding. The state must clearly define an “adequate education”; must determine the cost of funding it; must use state funding to do so; must not shift the cost of that adequate education to cities or towns; must apply any tax in a uniform way; and must establish accountability.

To Volinsky, the bill fails the first test, defining an adequate education, because it does not specify what must be funded in order for each school to meet its output target. That lack of clarity, he argued, means the Legislature could not have a reliable metric to keep its funding model on track.

“It tells you the scores that must be achieved without identifying the components in those successful schools that make them successful,” he said. “And so without identifying the components, you can’t fairly and objectively cost out adequacy.”

The House Education Committee dove deeper into Luneau’s bill Thursday in a subcommittee work session.

The bill comes as other state Democrats have proposed sweeping funding bills to respond to a superior court ruling in November that found that the state is funding schools at too low a level and should provide at least $7,360.01 per student.

Other Democratic-led bills heard Wednesday were House Bill 1583, which would raise the base adequacy amount per student from $4,100 to $10,000, and House Bill 1686, which would dramatically increase the amount of state aid that goes to schools for children who need special education – from $2,100 per student to $27,000 per student. Both bills would require major increases to the state’s Education Trust Fund, which currently spends about $1 billion per year on school funding.

Senate Republicans have already thrown water on any attempts to dramatically transform the amount New Hampshire funds its schools this year. At a press conference to kick off the new year, Senate President Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican, dismissed the Rockingham County Superior Court ruling as judicial overreach and said his caucus would not pass additional funding legislation and would await a final Supreme Court ruling.

“It would lead us to an income tax if we continue with differentiated aid,” Bradley said, speaking of the judge’s order. “We have met our responsibility to help towns, help schools, help counties, lower property taxes, and we’ll continue to do that. But the only way we do it is by generating the kind of surpluses that come from a strong economy.”

This story was originally published by the New Hampshire Bulletin

Source link

Click to comment

New Hampshire

NH lawmakers approve bill that would make judges’ job evaluations public

Published

8 hours ago

March 26, 2026

Press Room

NH lawmakers approve bill that would make judges’ job evaluations public

A bill that would add elements to judicial performance evaluations for all state judges and make those evaluation reports public, cleared the New Hampshire House along party lines Thursday.

The bill’s backers, including Rep. Bob Lynn of Windham, former Chief Justice of New Hampshire Supreme Court, promoted the new requirements as a way to “invigorate” judicial performance, and said fully disclosing the reports is crucial.

“I have to emphasize this provision in the bill as well as the other provisions of the bill were adopted in consultation with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,” Lynn said

Under the bill, which was written with input from Supreme Court Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, all judges – including part-time judges and retired judges who sometimes hear cases – would undergo evaluation at least every three years. Evaluations would include courtroom observations and analyses of how efficiently they process cases. Right now, judicial performance reviews remain confidential unless a judge receives two consecutive subpar evaluations.

The proposal comes at a time of tension between the judicial branch and lawmakers, spurred by recent court rulings finding the state isn’t meeting school funding obligations, and by judicial branch spending and management practices.

Democrats who criticized the new judicial evaluation bill say it goes too far and that the legislature should resist the urge to meddle in court operations.

“Many of us have been frustrated by recent activities coming out of the judicial branch – this is probably a bipartisan sentiment,” said Rep. Mark Paige of Exeter. “But to the extent that this bill appeals as a means to scratch your judicial frustration itch, consider other available remedies.”

Democrats also argued that making judicial reviews public could pose safety risks in an era of increased political violence including against judges.

“Publication would do real harm, inviting harassment of judges as violent threats against U.S judges have surged 327 percent since last year,” said Rep. Catherine Rombeau of Bedford, citing research from the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism.

But Republicans disputed such arguments, and said public reviews are also one of the few tools lawmakers have to make sure judges are performing their duties effectively.

“Judges are appointed once and serve until the age of 70,” said Rep. Ken Weyler of Kingston.

“All employees, including judges, benefit from constructive evaluation.”

Source link

New Hampshire

AI posts, selfies, and dank memes: The very online politics of NH’s Joe Sweeney

Published

20 hours ago

March 26, 2026

Press Room

AI posts, selfies, and dank memes: The very online politics of NH’s Joe Sweeney

The New Hampshire State House, where tradition often reigns supreme, is scarcely more technologically savvy than a couple of still cameras streaming hearings to YouTube.

But like a lot of places these days, political power — and attention — there is increasingly shaped by what’s happening online.

And while plenty of New Hampshire lawmakers maintain busy Facebook feeds and X accounts, perhaps no public official better exemplifies the high speed, high volume, digital-ready approach to politics than Republican Rep. Joe Sweeney.

As the House’s deputy majority leader, Sweeney’s job is to make sure fellow Republicans show up in Concord and support caucus priorities. In many ways, it’s about as old-fashioned as political work gets in 2026. And to see Sweeney in action is to observe a politician who still embraces plenty of his party’s traditional priorities.

“Let the voters see that we oppose income taxes now and forever,” Sweeney proclaimed from the House floor earlier this month.

But Sweeney didn’t stop at merely pledging to oppose income taxes inside the walls of the State House. Soon after, he also posted the video of himself doing so to social media. Sweeney isn’t the first — or only — state politician bent on cultivating an online presence. But his position of power in the Republican Party means he is well-positioned to amplify what he chooses. It could be AI-generated graphics promoting nuclear power, photoshopped images supporting ICE, or Sweeney himself talking straight into a camera.

According to Sweeney, to succeed on social media in politics, it’s best to keep messages short, sharp — and sometimes trollish.

“It’s kind of this perverse incentive to present that sort of profile online, because that’s what’s going to get people engaged,” Sweeney said in an interview last week.

Facebook is one of several platforms where Rep. Joe Sweeney maintains a robust online presence.

Politics as personal

At 32, Sweeney came of age in politics and on the internet. He started earning paychecks for political work in 2012, on the campaign of former Congressman Charlie Bass. Sweeney was a University of New Hampshire student at the time, and won election to the New Hampshire House that same year. Back then, he courted voters on social media with an earnestness that seems far removed from the politics of 2026, welcoming voters of all stripes to reach out and support his candidacy.

“I am running as a Republican, but I promise to represent all of my Salem constituents when elected,” a baby-faced Sweeney said in a YouTube video from that race.

A lot has changed for Sweeney since then. He’s now a top Republican lawmaker in Concord, vice chair of Salem’s town council, and also operates Granite Solutions, a political advocacy and fundraising group.

According to filings with the state, Granite Solutions’ purpose is “Electing Fiscal Conservatives in New Hampshire.” It essentially operates as Sweeney’s personal PAC, raising money, running ads, pushing policies, and urging lawmakers to sign pledges.

As New Hampshire PACs go, Granite Solutions is not exactly flush with cash: It’s reported raising about $60,000 over the past few years. Notable receipts include a $10,000 donation from a trust connected to Joe Faro, the developer of Salem’s Tuscan Village; a contribution from Churchill Downs, which owns the casino at the Rockingham Park Mall; and a smattering of Concord lobbyists.

A state lawmaker running what amounts to a one-man political advocacy organization is unusual, to say the least. But Granite Solutions also serves to boost Sweeney’s personal brand.

Last week, after Sweeney debated tax policy on WMUR’s political talk show, he sent an email to the Granite Solutions’ mailing list, urging people to stream the debate and donate to Granite Solutions.

Sweeney says he sees the work of his personal political committee as an extension of his public service: “I view Granite Solutions as supporting the economic agenda of Republicans in the state.”