Connect with us

New Hampshire

NH Democrats consider new school funding approaches, with differing opinions

Published

on

NH Democrats consider new school funding approaches, with differing opinions


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. 

Advertisement

“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. 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

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

Advertisement

New Hampshire

High number of NH households lack emergency savings – Valley News

Published

on

High number of NH households lack emergency savings – Valley News


A broken furnace, medical bill, or car repair could quickly become a financial crisis if it were to happen in any one of over 120,000 New Hampshire households with very little savings. An analysis recently published by the Urban Institute found that nearly one in four New Hampshire households lacked at least $2,000 in non-retirement savings in 2022, representing a basic financial cushion for weathering emergencies. According to the analysis, about 23% of New Hampshire households did not have non-retirement savings, such as money in a checking or savings account, totaling more than $2,000 in 2022. That figure rose to 30% for Granite Staters in rural northern and western New Hampshire, 32% for Manchester residents, and 31% for Granite Staters of color statewide.

The Urban Institute published this analysis in November 2025 using the latest consistently available data for each type of financial well-being measured. A previous version of the analysis, published in 2022, found about 26 percent of New Hampshire households lacked $2,000 in emergency savings in 2019, although the $2,000 threshold was not adjusted for inflation between those two years. The researchers also measured overall wealth, income relative to key expenses, and certain other metrics.

Unpaid debt

Researchers at the Urban Institute also found that about 16% of Granite Staters had some form of debt that was at least 60 days past due in 2023. Two percent of all residents specifically had delinquent student loan debts.

Advertisement

Housing expenses

About 87% of all households with less than $50,000 in annual income, which was about one in four New Hampshire households in 2023, paid more than 30% of their incomes for their housing costs, such as rent or mortgage payments, utilities, property taxes, and insurance costs. For Granite Staters of color, about 96% of households with these lower incomes were cost-burdened, or paying at least 30% of income, by housing costs.

This percentage varied for different areas within the state as well. While about 78% of all residents with lower incomes in Coos, Grafton and Sullivan counties combined were cost-burdened by housing, about 95% of Manchester residents and 91% of Strafford County and northern Rockingham County residents were cost-burdened in this manner.

Utility costs

About one in five New Hampshire households paid more than 10% of household income solely on utility costs, including electricity, water, gas, and heating fuels. While the lowest percentage of households facing these utility costs were near Nashua and a few other relatively urban parts of the state, about 46% of households in Coos, Grafton, and Sullivan counties, and 41% in eastern central New Hampshire encompassing Carroll and Belknap counties, paid more than 10% in utility costs.

Access to emergency savings varies throughout New Hampshire

Savings can be difficult to accumulate for a variety of reasons, and the primary factors include income and expenses. Both lower incomes and higher expenses make saving more difficult, while their opposites enable more opportunities to set money aside for a time of need. Some of the variations in savings across New Hampshire could be rooted in both factors.

The approximately 23% of Granite State households without at least $2,000 in savings during 2022 represents about 129,600 households of the estimated 557,200 in New Hampshire that year. In Coos, Grafton, and Sullivan Counties, which include the two counties (Coos and Sullivan) with the highest poverty rates in the state, about 30% of households lacked that level of savings. Coos County also had a median household income that was only slightly more than half of Rockingham County in southeastern New Hampshire. The cost of buying a house has also increased fastest in rural parts of New Hampshire, although the overall cost is still lower than in southeastern New Hampshire.

Advertisement

In Manchester, where 32% of households did not have at least $2,000 in emergency savings (the highest rate of the measured areas in the state) in 2022, the cost of renting the median two-bedroom apartment increased 31% from 2020 to 2024 to $1,838 per month. Median household income, at about $77,000, was below the statewide median of about $95,600 during the 2019 to 2023 period. Increasing costs, particularly regional housing costs, likely made saving very difficult for households in Manchester and elsewhere, particularly the families that are more likely to see incomes fall short of expenses than ten years ago.

Wealth is a critical factor and difficult to measure

Most common measures of financial well-being are based on income. Income is often measured through surveys and tax returns, and income from employment is also reported by businesses and other employers. As a result, income is more commonly measured than wealth. Income measures the money coming into a household in a given time period, while wealth measures the assets owned by the members of a household.

Wealth provides a form of economic security that promotes resilience, including the ability to weather a job loss or an unexpected expense, such as a car repair or medical costs from an illness. Even a higher income does not provide the security of having a substantial amount of money in a bank account, as that income could change, or new costs could appear, relatively quickly. Wealth provides a financial cushion that can be critical for individuals and families in times of need.

Local data difficult to access

While national measures provide insights into wealth and wealth inequality, which has risen substantially over the last six decades, local data are much harder to collect than data about the income of residents in states and counties. Researchers at the Urban Institute used publicly-available data and collaborated with a major credit bureau, employing anonymized data, to get a sample of about 10 million people nationwide. They also utilized models to understand the likely conditions facing people in less-populated areas and in smaller population groups when the sample sizes themselves were too small to create reliable estimates.

These data and methods allowed the Urban Institute researchers to estimate the percentage of households that had less than $2,000 in their bank accounts, stocks, mutual funds, and other non-retirement assets. However, the data were not granular enough to allow for consistent town- or county-level analyses in New Hampshire. The data were organized by regions of the state (and country) with a total of 100,000 people or more. While data for Manchester can be separated from the rest of the state with this strategy, every other city or town is combined with at least one other community in these data.

Advertisement

Different than other surveys

This methodology is notably different from a commonly-cited national-level survey conducted by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Household Economics and Decisionmaking, which asks U.S. residents nationwide a series of questions. These questions include asking about the methods the individual would use to pay for an unexpected $400 expense.

The latest survey indicates that 37% of U.S. adults would not have paid for an unexpected $400 expense with cash, savings, or a credit card to be paid off by the end of the month. While that indicates more than one in three U.S. adults do not have the savings to easily cover this expense, 13% said they would be unable to pay it by any means; others indicated they would carry a balance on a credit card, borrow money from a friend, family member, bank, or payday lender, or sell something to help pay for the expense. That suggests many adults would not spend their bank account down to zero, perhaps to preserve some wealth cushion for other unexpected expenses or to avoid fees.

While these survey data offer key insights and annual updates allowing for helpful comparisons over time, the Urban Institute’s methods seek to measure the actual balances in household accounts. The Urban Institute’s data also provide insights into the financial resilience of New Hampshire residents specifically.

Financial situations fragile for many Granite State families

Without $2,000 in savings, a Granite Stater could quickly spend their liquid assets to pay for an unexpected car repair, needed fixes for a house or an appliance, the deductible on their health insurance after an injury or illness but before coverage begins, losing a job, or other factors that could effectively require immediate, unforeseen costs. That would potentially lead to debt that could be difficult to pay off, unpaid bills, or forgone health or housing needs.

Housing, utility, health care, and child care costs have increased across New Hampshire. These rising costs have made building emergency savings increasingly difficult. With nearly one in four New Hampshire households in this fragile situation, small changes in physical or financial well-being, expenses facing families, public policy, or the economy overall could have big impacts on many Granite Staters.

Advertisement

The New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute is sharing these articles with the partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. NHFPI is an independent nonprofit organization that explores, develops and promotes public policies that foster economic opportunity and prosperity for all New Hampshire residents. For more information visit nhfpi.org. These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.



Source link

Continue Reading

New Hampshire

5-year-old injured in New Year’s day Manchester, New Hampshire apartment building fire dies

Published

on

5-year-old injured in New Year’s day Manchester, New Hampshire apartment building fire dies



The child who was injured during a New Year’s Day apartment building fire in Manchester, New Hampshire has died, the New Hampshire State Fire Marshal announced on Saturday.

The 5-year-old girl had been found unresponsive in a fourth-floor bedroom by firefighters. She was rushed to a Boston hospital in critical condition and passed on Wednesday. The Massachusetts Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has performed an autopsy to determine her cause of death.

The fire began just 30 minutes after midnight on Union Street. The flames raged on the third and fourth floors before spreading to the roof. One man was killed in the fire. He was identified as 70-year-old Thomas J. Casey, and his cause of death was determined to be smoke inhalation, according to the medical examiner.

Advertisement

One woman was rushed to a Boston hospital in critical condition. Five other people received serious injuries and were hospitalized. All the victims have since been discharged, according to the fire marshal. 

Residents could be seen waiting in windows and on balconies for firefighters to rescue them. 

“I kicked into high gear. I got my family rallied up. My son, my daughter, my wife. And I tried to find a way to get down safely off of one of the railings by trying to slide down one of the poles. But that didn’t work out,” said resident Jonathan Barrett. 

Fire investigators believe the fire is not suspicious and started in a third-floor bedroom. The building did not have a sprinkler system but did have an operational fire alarm, the fire marshal said. 

Around 10 families were displaced by the fire and are receiving help from the Red Cross. Around 50 people lived in the building.  

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

New Hampshire

New Hampshire services respond to 7-car crash

Published

on

New Hampshire services respond to 7-car crash


SPRINGFIELD, N.H. (ABC22/FOX44) – After an icy morning on Interstate 89 that saw multiple cars in a crash in Springfield, New Hampshire, responders say that they are thankful that only one person sustained injuries.

According to Springfield Fire Rescue, they originally were called at 7:40 a.m. on Friday for a reported two-car crash between Exits 12A and 13 – but arrived to find 7 vehicles involved, including 6 off the road.

According to authorities, all of the occupants of the cars were able to get themselves out and only one needed to be taken to the hospital. Their injuries were reported to be non-life-threatening.

“Springfield Fire Rescue would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to slow down and move over when emergency vehicles are in the roadway. The area where this incident occurred was very icy and we witnessed several other vehicles almost lose control when they entered the scene at too great a speed.”

Advertisement

Responders from New London, Enfield, and Springfield, as well as NH State Police, helped respond to the incident and clear the vehicles from the road, as well as to treat the ice to make the road safe.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending