Andru Volinsky’s weekly newsletter, “A Book, an Idea and a Goat,” focuses on national efforts for fair school funding and social change. He warns educators, parents, students, and others about New Hampshire Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut’s new proposal to cut funding for special education while shifting the costs onto local taxpayers. The issue was highlighted by Peter Greene, who writes the “Curmudgucation” column.
In New Hampshire, Edelblut suggests cutting the state’s special education aid program by almost a third. However, special education services are required by law and won’t decrease, leaving local districts to cover the costs. This could lead to higher taxes in towns with less wealth, creating unfair financial burdens on communities with lower property values.
New Hampshire spends about $915 million on special education, with federal funding covering $50 million and the state contributing about $100 million. The remaining $750 million is paid for by local property taxes. Edelblut’s plan could increase this burden by $12 to $13 million.
New Hampshire’s special education funding is divided into two streams. One, called differentiated aid, adds $2,100 for each child receiving special education. The other, previously called “Catastrophic Aid,” supports districts with the highest special education costs but only after spending over $70,000 on a student. Edelblut wants to reduce this fund by about $12 million.
Edelblut has also proposed vouchers for special education, but this approach is flawed because private schools often don’t want to serve children with special needs, and charter schools still leave the cost burden on public schools. Volinsky argues this could harm public education by concentrating high-cost students in public schools, while private institutions avoid these expenses.
While New Hampshire’s special education funding system is problematic, it is also important to compare it to systems in neighboring states. Maine and Vermont have different models. Maine uses a per-pupil funding system and supports special education at double the rate for eligible students, while New Hampshire’s funding is far lower. Vermont, on the other hand, heavily funds education through the state, reducing local burdens and cutting unnecessary bureaucracy.
Volinsky suggests that New Hampshire should change its funding model to cover more direct program costs for special education rather than arbitrary amounts. This shift would streamline funding and reduce unnecessary paperwork. He has called on the court to recommend this change to the state legislature.
