Committee Summary for Senate Education Finance (03/13/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB659 00:09:50.574 - 8:05:41 AM	Public Hearing	relative to education financing.	Carson, Sharon(R)[B]2025
HB1815 03:11:28.921 - 11:07:19 AM	Public Hearing	relative to education financing.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
HB1815 04:40:50.655 - 12:36:41 PM	Executive Session	relative to education financing.	Lynn, Bob(R)[B]2025
SB659 04:46:00.000 - 12:41:51 PM	Executive Session	relative to education financing.	Carson, Sharon(R)[B]2025

SB659: Senator Sharon Carson, Senate District 14 (Londonderry, Hudson, Auburn) Support00:09:50.574 - 8:05:41 AM; Senator Carson introduced SB 659, which clarifies the definition of an adequate education in response to judicial interference in education funding, as seen in the Conval case. The bill reaffirms that raising and spending tax dollars for schools is a legislative and executive responsibility, restoring checks and balances. It focuses state support on core academic programs in 11 areas: English, math, science, arts, world languages, health, physical education, engineering, personal financial literacy, and computer science. The bill maintains differential aid for special needs students, English language learners, and low-income areas, addressing the Conval court's oversight. It does not reduce state funding, which exceeds $1 billion annually despite declining enrollment, nor raise local property taxes, emphasizing classrooms over administration while preserving local control.
SB659: Representative Tracy Brickey, Merrimack District 15 (Penacook), Chair of Merrimack Valley School Board Oppose00:15:00.000 - 8:10:51 AM; Representative Brickey opposed SB 659 (and HB 1815), arguing it shifts the responsibility for funding an adequate education from the state to local communities without defining the state's share, potentially allowing minimal state contributions. She highlighted that public schools must educate all students but receive only partial state funding, with the rest borne by local taxpayers amid calls for property tax relief. The bill removes language guaranteeing an adequate education opportunity, weakening standards and the state's obligations, similar to concerns with last year's HB 283. Brickey urged voting inexpedient to legislate, emphasizing that communities, students, and taxpayers deserve better without increased state funding or tax relief.
SB659: Representative Dan McGuire, Epsom Support00:39:50.574 - 8:35:41 AM; Representative McGuire, co-sponsor of identical HB 1815, supported SB 659 as a reaction to the wrongly decided Claremont cases. He explained New Hampshire's Dillon's Rule status, where towns and school districts are subdivisions of the state without independent law-making power, ensuring uniformity. The bill posits education as a state system with local components, an argument not previously raised in court. McGuire argued the court is not the sole interpreter of the Constitution, citing its history of creation and amendment by the people through town meetings and conventions, not requiring legal expertise. He advocated for state spending to equalize resources across communities, providing more aid to poorer areas like Claremont via the funding formula, without sending funds to wealthy towns like New Castle.
SB659: Richard DeMarc, Meredith Oppose00:54:50.574 - 8:50:41 AM; Richard DeMarc opposed SB 659 (and HB 1815), expressing deep concerns over rising property taxes and public education's future. The bills rewrite education funding laws, redefining adequate education, the state-local relationship, and limiting courts' role in constitutional obligations. As a taxpayer, he viewed the bills as workarounds shifting burdens to locals without clarifying the law or providing relief, especially amid pleas for lower taxes. At his town meeting, a petition article passed overwhelmingly, messaging legislators to stop downshifting costs and reducing state revenues that burden cities and towns. The 'shared responsibility' language lacks definition of the state's share, allowing technically minimal contributions like $1 while claiming fulfillment.
SB659: Marianne Springer, Danville Oppose01:09:50.574 - 9:05:41 AM; Ms. Springer strongly opposes SB 659, arguing that school districts are locally governed and not extensions of state government. She highlights that local property taxes fund 70-80% of school budgets, driven by state and federal mandates, despite constitutional prohibitions on unfunded mandates. She criticizes the lack of shared responsibility, noting that local governments are at the mercy of state decisions. In her town of Danville, high property taxes related to education are causing residents to leave. She contends that the bill's language on page 2 absolves the state of full responsibility for funding adequate education by including local taxes in the calculation, which is fundamentally wrong.
SB659: Dr. James Newcomb, Henniker, Chair of John Stark School Board and Vice Chair of SAU 24 Oppose01:15:00.000 - 9:10:51 AM; Dr. Newcomb opposes SB 659 and HB 1815 on behalf of the entire SAU 24 board. He expresses concern over language that could allow the legislature to downshift costs to local taxpayers while increasing state demands, exemplified by 50 bills passed last year requiring action without additional funding, constituting unfunded mandates. He argues that local control over education is becoming a myth as school boards must comply with state requirements funded primarily by rising property taxes. He recommends sending the bills inexpedient to legislate and encourages collaboration to address public education funding.
SB659: John Tobin, Concord Oppose01:22:11.299 - 9:18:02 AM; Mr. Tobin, a lawyer involved in the Claremont and RAN school funding cases, opposes the bill for ignoring the New Hampshire Constitution's requirements. He argues that the state has a duty to fund core public education components with taxes levied at the same rate statewide, and local property taxes cannot fill the gap at varying rates. The bill pretends constitutional principles do not exist and allows future legislatures to minimize state contributions while claiming shared responsibility, exacerbating property tax burdens without providing relief. He emphasizes that statutes cannot amend the constitution and urges voting the bill inexpedient to legislate, then addressing funding compliantly. During questioning, he notes the bill's vagueness invites more litigation and reaffirms the state's bedrock responsibility to all children equally.
SB659: Miriam Cahill Yetton, Epsom Oppose01:44:07.482 - 9:39:58 AM; Ms. Cahill Yetton, a senior citizen, veteran, and nurse, opposes SB 659 and HB 1815, focusing on their failure to address real community struggles. In Epsom, residents face doubled property taxes, longer food pantry lines, and financial hardships forcing seniors to mortgage homes. Children arrive at school hungry, with teachers and schools providing weekend backpacks for food-insecure families. Over 250 tax liens were recently issued. She criticizes the bills for creating loopholes to avoid state accountability for education funding, ignoring constituent needs for property tax relief and uniform resource support. She notes New Hampshire ranks low in state education funding, covering only 22% of regular education and 11% of special education.
SB659: David Trumbull, Ware Oppose01:49:29.458 - 9:45:20 AM; Mr. Trumbull opposes the bill, arguing it violates the constitutional state duty to fund public schools, established since 1784. He outlines historical pillars: the 1784 Constitution, 1789 Act funding via state taxes, 1919 legislation recognizing state obligation, and current RSA defining state funding as adequate education. Shared responsibility applies to local enhancements above the minimum, not the core adequacy, which is the state's duty. On differentiated aid, including all $1.1 billion state spending ignores additional costs like special education ($1 billion total, state covers 11%) and other needs, raising the obligation to $2.3-2.4 billion. He recommends addressing the full scope rather than rewriting history.
SB659: Laura Vinson, Loudon, NH, Merrimack Valley School Board Oppose01:56:28.921 - 9:52:19 AM; Laura Vinson opposes SB 659 and HB 1850, arguing against diminishing minimum standards for curriculum requirements including fine arts, foreign language, and advanced math and sciences. She emphasizes the need for shared responsibility with substantial state funding, suggesting at least $7,000 per student as a starting point given the average cost of $20,000 per student. She highlights that increasing from $4,000 to $7,000 would provide significant relief, similar to post-Claremont increases, and ideally should be indexed to inflation.
SB659: Zach Sheehan, Executive Director, New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project Oppose02:00:00.000 - 9:55:51 AM; Zach Sheehan opposes both bills, noting their unclear intended outcomes regarding school funding. He argues they do not provide property tax relief, ensure excellent education, or direct more funding to high-need communities like Claremont. Addressing rationales tied to court cases like Claremont and Conval, he points out that last year's budget already clarified legislative roles versus courts. The bills introduce ambiguity around shared responsibility, potentially inviting more lawsuits and allowing state funding reductions. He echoes calls for equitable funding, property tax relief, and genuine discussions without undermining local control, urging ITL for both bills.
SB659: Michaela Demeter, Dover School Board Oppose02:05:00.000 - 10:00:51 AM; Michaela Demeter, on behalf of the Dover School Board, opposes SB 659 and HB 1850, stating they risk weakening public schools and state funding. Referencing opposition to HB 283 last year, she notes residents reject weakening academic standards. The bills blur the distinction in RSA 193-E between state-set minimum standards and local implementation by deeming them 'indivisible,' potentially absolving the state of sole funding responsibility and allowing reductions. She expresses deep concern over a sponsor's refusal to assure against minimal state funding like $1 per student, distrusting verbal assurances from legislators.
SB659: Unnamed Speaker (GDP Funding Perspective) Oppose02:11:28.921 - 10:07:19 AM; The speaker opposes the bills but offers an alternative perspective linking education funding to a percentage of the state's GDP for direct reinvestment. She argues education drives GDP growth, citing research on per-pupil spending increasing wages and economic impact. New Hampshire ranks high in achievement but last in state share of funding, relying on property taxes that create inequities. Tying funding to GDP would reflect modern costs, reduce fiscal drag from underfunding, address demographic challenges, and retain young talent. She urges collaboration across aisles for better outcomes for children and the state.
SB659: Christine Downing, Superintendent, Grantham School District SAU 75; Goshen School District; Chair, NH School Administrators Association Legislative Committee Oppose02:15:00.000 - 10:10:51 AM; Christine Downing opposes SB 659 and HB 1850, focusing on lines 11-14 creating confusion between 'indivisible' state-school ties and shared responsibility in RSA 193-E, which defines adequate education without a funding formula. She clarifies state roles in standards, approval rules, assessments, and accountability, versus local implementation. The new language muddies this, potentially leading to state control over curriculum and instruction, contradicting local flexibility and 306 rules. Using examples like mandating a single literacy program, she warns it undermines diverse approaches tailored to student needs, eroding New Hampshire's top rankings. She advocates supporting the Department of Education with resources like improvement coaches.
SB659: Heather Robitaille, Merrimack, NH, Chair School District Budget Committee Oppose02:30:00.000 - 10:25:51 AM; Heather Robitaille opposes SB 659, sharing community concerns about strong schools and property tax relief, which the bill fails to address. In Merrimack, state aid decreased by $327,000 for the upcoming year despite rising costs like 15.5% healthcare increases, resulting in cuts to 21 staff positions, gifted programs, and after-school clubs. State aid has dropped nearly $500,000 since 1999-2000 despite inflation. She criticizes reliance on property taxes, where 80% of bills go to schools, leading to blame on schools for perceived waste. Frustrated by EFA voucher expansions for wealthy families while 90% of students in public schools are underfunded, she urges ITL.
SB659: Sinhan Kerman, Epsom, NH Oppose02:45:00.000 - 10:40:51 AM; Sinhan Kerman opposes SB 659 and HB 1850, sharing her success story from low-income background via strong public education in Derry, leading to UNH degrees and career stability. Despite achievements, rising property taxes strain her finances. She notes community struggles in Epsom, including potential home losses, and budget cuts like suggested removal of teacher healthcare. People seek meaningful property tax relief and fair funding for strong schools; the bill ignores this, risking reduced opportunities for students. She urges ITL for both bills.
SB659: Steve Fay, Laconia, NH Oppose02:50:00.000 - 10:45:51 AM; Steve Fay, a parent and grandparent, opposes the bill, citing observed struggles like children receiving bag lunches to avoid siblings taking them, indicating widespread hardship. He views the legislation as agenda-driven to undermine public schools, introduced ambiguously. He contextualizes it with broader issues like reduced business enterprise tax funding for education, prioritizing tax returns over public services, exacerbating economic discussions.
SB659: Amanda Carter (Mandy), Conval Region, NH, Kinship Navigator, River Center Family and Community Health Center, Moms Rising Member Oppose02:52:00.000 - 10:47:51 AM; Amanda Carter opposes SB 659, emphasizing adequate education includes basic conditions like heat, lights, transportation, and functional buildings. As parent of a child with disabilities placed out-of-district due to resource lacks, she highlights delays in special education services and overwhelmed staff. Regional districts face pressures, like Francestown leaving Conval, shifting costs to remaining taxpayers via property taxes, burdening moderate homeowners and seniors. State shifting constitutional responsibility leads to classroom impacts, service gaps, and displacement; she urges ITL.
SB659: Casey Neale reading for Corey Tebbetts, Plainfield, NH Oppose02:54:00.000 - 10:49:51 AM; Corey Tebbetts, a parent, wife, and taxpayer with a master's in education, opposes the bills, asserting every child's right to fair public education. She emphasizes needs of diverse learners, including those like her requiring trained teachers, supportive education, materials, and individualized services like IEPs, which are currently unavailable due to staffing shortages. Sharing family experience of relocating from Manchester to Merrimack for autism support, she stresses no family should leave communities for better education. Decisions affect daily lives, and adequate funding is essential to retain youth and investment in New Hampshire.
SB659: Deborah House, President, American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire Oppose02:58:00.000 - 10:53:51 AM; Deborah House opposes both bills for walking back the state's constitutional obligation to fund adequate public education in-district for all students, including those with special needs, English learners, or from poverty. Public schools serve all, but costs vary; the bills fail to commit to meeting needs, shifting burden to property taxes, forcing cuts, larger classes, program reductions, and school closures like in Pittsfield. This disadvantages children, families, businesses, and communities. Even unchanged content standards require funding for teachers; ambiguity risks lowering clarity. She urges prioritizing student needs over arbitrary funding caps.
HB1815: Representative Gary Lynn Support03:11:28.921 - 11:07:19 AM; Representative Lynn, a former Chief Justice, testified in support of HB 1815, arguing that the bill appropriately reasserts the legislature's constitutional role in defining and funding an adequate education, countering what he views as judicial overreach in cases like Claremont and ConVal. He emphasized the democratic process where elected legislators, informed by constituents, should determine funding levels rather than a single judge making factual findings on costs, which could undermine legislative control over the state budget. Lynn highlighted the bill's provisions establishing shared responsibility between state and local entities, with the state funding the core academic program (e.g., English, math, science) while localities handle collateral matters like facilities and nurses. He drew analogies to past Supreme Court decisions on unfunded mandates and retirement contributions, stressing that local spending variations should not drive up statewide costs, and urged the committee to support the bill to clarify legislative authority and prevent future court interference in policy matters.
HB1815: Lorna Carlisle, Salisbury Oppose03:56:28.921 - 11:52:19 AM; Lorna Carlisle expressed opposition to HB 1815, describing it as too ambiguous and questioning its true intent amid other legislation perceived as harmful to public education funding. She cited Representative McGuire's prior efforts to limit education to the 'three Rs' as evidence of distrust in the bill's motives, arguing it does not address the real issue of overburdened property taxpayers who need relief rather than measures that exacerbate problems.
HB1815: Becky Wilson, New Hampshire School Boards Association Oppose04:01:00.000 - 11:56:51 AM; Becky Wilson, Director of Governmental Relations for the New Hampshire School Boards Association, opposed HB 1815, viewing it alongside SB 659 as a strategy to narrow adequacy definitions, limit state liability, and decouple funding aspects. She argued that even funding just the listed academic content areas would exceed current state contributions when accounting for direct instruction costs, such as training for science of reading programs. Wilson noted the bill's failure to include essentials like school buildings, transportation, special education, CTE, and unified sports—elements previously legislatively endorsed—and questioned how adequacy could exist without approved school standards. She highlighted federal funding flows and urged exploring revenue sources to offset property taxes instead of restricting local provisions, emphasizing inconsistent risk tolerance in budgeting for education versus other programs.
HB1815: Zach Sheehan, New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project Oppose04:06:00.000 - 12:01:51 PM; Zach Sheehan opposed HB 1815, pointing to overwhelming public opposition (1,033 against vs. 8 for) and noting all non-sponsor testimony against it. He challenged claims of legislative compliance with Claremont by highlighting the state's failure to provide evidence in the ConVal lawsuit over seven years, leading to the court's benchmark ruling. Sheehan argued the bill would reduce local control by mandating state-defined curriculum, contrary to current systems, and emphasized that increasing state funding could enhance local decision-making by easing property tax burdens on low-wealth districts without shifting to full state control. He advocated for targeted revenue mechanisms, like homestead exemptions, to shift burdens progressively without harming constituents.
HB1815: Heather Robitaille, Merrimack Oppose04:11:28.921 - 12:07:19 PM; Heather Robitaille reiterated her opposition to HB 1815, echoing the lopsided online feedback and expressing shock at suggestions excluding school nurses from adequate education. As the child of a school nurse and parent of a medically needy child, she stressed nurses' necessity for daily health needs and IDEA compliance, arguing their omission could increase costs via one-to-one aides. She viewed the bill as part of a pattern penalizing public schools, failing to solve funding crises or provide property tax relief, and urged opposition to ensure children receive promised education without families choosing between housing and futures.
HB1815: Mr. Trubin Information Only04:16:00.000 - 12:11:51 PM; Mr. Trubin provided additional context on court decisions, urging the committee to read Claremont and ConVal opinions to appreciate their respectful tone toward the legislature and pleas for legislative action on funding. He noted the state's lack of evidence or justification for the $4,100 adequacy figure in trials, creating a vacuum that led Judge Ruoff to set a benchmark, repeatedly stated as non-binding and subject to legislative adjustment. Trubin emphasized the decisions' context in districts like ConVal facing high local costs without state defense, portraying the rulings as opening benchmarks rather than fixed mandates.
HB1815: Mr. Trumbull Oppose04:26:28.921 - 12:22:19 PM; The speaker addresses concerns about the bill's implications, arguing that it establishes a legal foundation allowing the state to potentially cut education funding in the future by making it constitutionally permissible, even if it does not directly cut funds now. He clarifies that the bill shifts power away from judicial oversight on constitutional adequacy. He refutes claims that the bill does not affect funding levels, emphasizing the state's obligation to fund an adequate education while locals can exceed it. He discusses historical precedents from 1789 and 1834 affirming local spending rights above minimums. Regarding differentiated aid, he explains that including all expenditures requires accounting for all obligations, including special education, which would increase the state's required spending to about $2 billion. He responds to questions from Senator Lang about legislative prerogatives versus judicial roles, asserting that courts ensure actions stay within constitutional bounds without creating taxes themselves.
HB1815: Senator Rosenwald Oppose04:40:50.655 - 12:36:41 PM; Opposes the motion for ought to pass, arguing that the bill removes the judicial branch's ability to decide on the constitutionality of state education funding appropriations and perpetuates rising property taxes that burden seniors and young families. She references Mr. Trumbull's point on including all obligations in adequacy calculations.
HB1815: Senator Altschiller Oppose04:42:00.000 - 12:37:51 PM; Opposes the motion, emphasizing the Supreme Court's repeated confirmation of the judiciary's role in enforcing the right to adequate education and preventing hollowing out of constitutional rights. She notes the legislature's inaction over decades, the ConVal case where the state provided no testimony on adequacy, and the court's provision of a number as a conservative floor. She argues the bill allows abdication of responsibility, does not lower property taxes or address funding issues.
HB1815: Senator Rosenwald Oppose04:44:00.000 - 12:39:51 PM; Adds that nothing presented during the hearing addressed improving educational standards or outcomes for children.
HB1815: Committee Chair Vote04:45:00.000 - 12:40:51 PM; Calls for vote on motion of ought to pass; 3 ayes, 2 nays; motion passes.
SB659: Senator Altschiller Oppose04:46:00.000 - 12:41:51 PM; Opposes the motion, describing SB 659 as a companion bill that does nothing to raise funding, lower property taxes, or amend the constitution. References Judge Ruoff's 2023 ruling that RSA 198:40A is unconstitutional, with base adequacy below constitutional minimum. Argues the legislature has ignored constituents and court efforts to prompt action on inadequate funding.
SB659: Senator Rosenwald Oppose04:47:00.000 - 12:42:51 PM; Opposes, sensitive to balancing revenues and spending but unwilling to exclude the judiciary from determining constitutionality. References Senate floor discussion dismissing court decisions and requests updated sign-in numbers: 11 support, 504 oppose.
SB659: Senator Lang Support04:48:00.000 - 12:43:51 PM; Supports the bill, asserting it reserves legislative authority to create and raise taxes without judicial interference, while courts retain power to deem actions unconstitutional. Argues the bill responds to a court decision the legislature disagrees with, requiring consideration of differentiated aid (e.g., Claremont receives over $13,000 per student). Views it as setting a new baseline for future discussions on funding without cutting spending, similar to past legislative adjustments to court rulings.
SB659: Unnamed Senator Support04:49:00.000 - 12:44:51 PM; Clarifies position, stating that complying with the Claremont decision and subsequent rulings would violate their oath to the state constitution, which they believe was wrongly decided, and they will not do so.
SB659: Committee Chair Vote04:50:00.000 - 12:45:51 PM; Calls for vote on motion of ought to pass; 3 ayes, 2 nays; motion passes. Assigns Senator Lang to carry the bill.