The work of the Commission to Study School Funding has now entered a critical new phase. The American Institutes for Research (AIR), the national consulting firm that the Commission hired to conduct detailed statistical analyses of New Hampshire’s education funding system, presented the firm’s initial findings to the Commission during its meeting yesterday.  The findings, which will likely be the focus of the Commission’s deliberations for the foreseeable future, both underscore the problems that plague New Hampshire’s current approach to school funding and begin to sketch out an alternative to that approach. In the weeks ahead, it will fall to the Commission to ensure that the model AIR has developed accurately captures all of the various costs associated with providing an adequate education in New Hampshire and to translate AIR’s findings into actionable legislative recommendations.

Of note, AIR finds that:

• “New Hampshire’s highest poverty school districts [as measured by the share of students in each district receiving free or reduced lunch] spend less per student, on average, than New Hampshire’s lowest poverty school districts.”  More specifically, AIR estimates that, after taking other factors (such as special education costs) into account, “New Hampshire’s highest poverty districts spend approximately $2,000 less per student on average than New Hampshire’s lowest poverty districts.”

• Not surprisingly, “[s]pending per pupil is generally higher in districts with the highest property wealth per student.”  Moreover, AIR notes that “[d]istricts with the lowest property wealth have the highest local education property tax rates, on average” but that such high-rate districts still “often achieve lower spending per student than districts with lower property tax rates.”

• The model it has developed suggests that the amount of funding each school district in New Hampshire needs to ensure its students achieve a given set of outcomes (a combination of attendance rates, graduation rates, and student assessment scores) ranges from about $12,000 to over $25,000 per student.  Where a given district falls in that range depends upon the number of students it serves, the ages of those students, and the needs of those students.

• In particular, “high-need districts would get a boost in funding” under the model AIR has developed.  For instance, Newport and Pittsfield, which respectively spend approximately $18,000 and $19,000 per student at present, would see funding levels of over $22,000 per student under the approach AIR has developed.

It is worth noting, however, that the estimates AIR has produced so far are likely to change as it refines its funding model further in response to feedback from members of the Commission. 

A copy of AIR’s presentation to the Commission can be found here; complete video of AIR’s appearance before the Commission is available here.