fbpx

Legislation

Two Quiet Bills. Big Consequences for Public Education and Property Taxes.

Feb 10, 2026

House Bill 1815 & Senate Bill 659: Rewriting how the State defines its responsibility for public education.

Last year, more than 30,000 people from across NH opposed HB 283 which would have gutted the definition of an adequate education. Now, there are two identical bills — HB 1815 and SB 659 — that could have even broader impacts for our public schools and property taxes.

At first glance, these bills may look technical or procedural. They do not increase or decrease funding levels. They do not announce a new tax. But they do something more foundational: they change how the state defines its responsibility for public education at the same moment courts have ruled that the current system is unconstitutional.

That makes them worth close attention.

What problem these bills are responding to 

For decades, New Hampshire Courts have been clear on a core principle: the state has a constitutional duty to define an adequate education, determine its cost, fund it with constitutional taxes, and ensure it is delivered to students across the state. Those rulings were intended to protect students — and also to prevent education costs from being pushed unevenly onto local property taxpayers.

Rather than directly addressing the funding gap identified in the recent ConVal NH Supreme Court decision, HB 1815 and SB 659 take a different approach. They revise the statutory framework itself. 

What the bills change 

HB 1815 and SB 659 repeal and rewrite key sections of New Hampshire’s education adequacy statutes. Among other changes, they: 

  • Redefine public education as an “integrated system of shared responsibility” between the state and local governments 
  • Remove long-standing language tying adequacy to minimum school approval standards 
  • Eliminate statutory language guaranteeing students the opportunity for an adequate education 
  • Change cost language so state aid is only “computed toward” the cost of adequacy, rather than constituting that cost 
  • Add new language asserting that decisions about how education is funded — how revenue is raised, allocated, and spent — are political questions reserved to the Legislature and Governor 

 (We’ve included a side-by-side comparison showing exactly what language is being removed and what is being added.) 

Why definitions matter 

 None of these changes reduce the real-world requirements schools must meet.   

  • Districts are still expected to comply with state standards. 
  • Students with disabilities must still receive services. 
  • Transportation, staffing, safety, and instructional needs do not disappear. 

When the legal definition of adequacy is narrowed or blurred while obligations remain, the financial pressure does not go away. It shows up somewhere else — most often at the local level, through higher property tax rates and growing disparities between communities with very different tax bases. 

In other words, changing the framework does not make education cheaper. It rewrites who is responsible when costs exceed what the state is willing to provide.  

A familiar direction, different drafting 

Last year, lawmakers considered HB 283, a bill that openly removed several subject areas from the definition of an adequate education. The response was swift and intense, because the impact was obvious: fewer educational opportunities for students. 

HB 1815 and SB 659 take a subtler path. The list of subject areas mostly remain (“Computer use and digital literacy” and “Logic and rhetoric” are removed), but the enforceable promise behind them is weakened by removing the language that guarantees students an opportunity to access an adequate education. The practical result can be similar: when districts can’t afford to offer courses or programs, the law provides less clarity about what students are entitled to receive. 

It’s also worth noting that the prime sponsor of HB 283 is now the sole co-sponsor of HB 1815. The approach looks different on the surface, but the direction is consistent. 

Why this matters now 

These bills are moving quickly, alongside other major education proposals, with little time for public understanding or debate. Structural changes like these rarely make headlines when they pass. Their effects are felt later — in local budgets, reduced offerings, and tax bills that continue to climb despite no clear State solution. 

New Hampshire’s education funding challenges were not created overnight, and they won’t be resolved by redefining responsibility instead of meeting it. 

Understanding what HB 1815 and SB 659 do, and what risks they introduce, is essential before these changes become permanent.