This article originally appeared at JBartlett.org.
K-12 public school spending rises every year, whether enrollment increases or decreases. In this century, K-12 district public school enrollment in New Hampshire has fallen by more than 50,000 students, but spending is up by more than $1 billion, adjusted for inflation.
How does this happen? The short answer is that local voters prefer to spend more on public schools, regardless of enrollment trends, tax rates or anything else. Contributing to these decisions, however, is an often overlooked annual ritual.
Any and every measure of spending restraint, even those that increase school budgets but at a slower rate than proposed by a district administration, is portrayed as a “cut” that will devastate public education. It’s a rite of spring, and the media too often participate.
The current debate over Manchester’s school budget proposal offers a perfect example.
The city school district has proposed a 2025-26 budget of $246 million, endorsed by the school board. Mayor Jay Ruais has proposed a budget of $236.5 million.
School board members have attacked the mayor, saying his budget results in a “$9.5 million cut.”
“If you actually cut the school district budget by $9.5 million, it’s going to be really painful,” one school board member said.
A resident who showed up at a recent Board of Mayor and Aldermen meeting said the mayor’s proposal contained “cuts will have a yearslong negative impact on the quality of education and supports our students will receive.”
The Union Leader story that includes these quotes contains the word “cut” 10 times. The story itself describes the mayor’s proposal as a “reduction” in proposed spending.
Nowhere does the story explain that the mayor’s proposal represents a $2 million increase in school district spending.
Manchester’s enrollment is 11,851, according to its state district profile. The district projects an additional 14 students next year along with an additional $11.7 million in state adequate education aid.
It’s reasonable to ask why a total budget increase of $2 million to cover an increase of 14 students ($143,000 per student) would devastate the school system. But that conversation can’t happen amid all of the name calling and attacks.
The school board vice chairman said the mayor’s budget could lead to class sizes of 30-35 students. But the district’s average class size is 20 now. How would a $2 million increase in spending cause a 50 percent increase in class sizes?
This question, among many others, goes unasked.
The Boston Globe’s story leads with this sentence: “Some school officials are warning Manchester Mayor Jay Ruais’ proposed $9.5 million in cuts to the city’s school budget could lead to layoffs, the reduction of services, or even school closures.”
It’s a $2 million budget increase, not a $9.5 million cut. But that’s how the reporting goes.
To its credit, the Globe acknowledges three paragraphs later that Ruais’ budget increases city school spending. It even reports the growth of the city school budget since 2023, something most stories on school spending never do. But the inaccuracy of the lead sentence, which matches the narrative of the school board members, creates confusion and misunderstanding.
Even when news stories correctly report that a budget increases spending, they can still confuse readers. A WMUR story this week reported that Nashua’s proposed school district budget represents a 3.5 percent spending increase. But in reporting on the claims that it would cause large reductions in teaching positions, the story adopted the rhetoric of opponents, using the phrase “the proposed budget cut.”
Over in the Jaffrey-Ringe Cooperative School District, voters last month approved a genuine cut to the school district budget, voting for a $3 million reduction from the current year’s spending.
The school board chairman there followed the customary script of insulting and demeaning the voters, just as Manchester’s school board members insulted and attacked the mayor. It’s standard practice, and it’s effective.
Any level of spending that does not match or exceed a school district’s proposal is met with attacks, invective and predictions of devastating educational outcomes. All proposals that total less than the district’s proposal are labeled “cuts,” even if they increase spending over the current budget.
The messaging is so good that it usually tricks the press into portraying spending increases as budget cuts. Amid all of the shouting, not even the media, which ought to be scrutinizing elected officials’ claims, questions the budget math or the use of the term “cut” to describe spending increases, even ones that will lead to tax increases. How would a spending cut cause a tax increase? No one ever asks.
Districts might have perfectly good reasons for increasing spending. Those reasons should be given to voters and elected officials as part of a discussion that balances the interests of students and taxpayers. Those kinds of conversations are where savings, efficiencies and improvements can be found. Getting more for less should be a permanent objective, not an annual fight. But it’s hard to get there when even spending increases are called “cuts” and the press just goes along with the narrative instead of asking hard questions about spending.
