#

In 2002, the first Harry Potter movie hit the big screen, Gov. Jeanne Shaheen was making her first (unsuccessful) bid for U.S. Senate, and Nelly was singing it is “Hot in Herre.”

And the per-pupil school revenue for a New Hampshire public school student was $14,184.

Twenty years later in 2022, that number was $22, 738 — an increase of 60.3 percent and the third-biggest jump in inflation-adjusted revenue per student in the country. Only Illinois (61 percent) and  New York (81.4 percent) rose more.

And yet, despite the explosion in spending, New Hampshire Democrats at the state and local level say taxpayers need to pay even more.

In Nashua, the school board has approved a new $131,061,021 budget, a 4.49 percent increase over the prior year’s operating budget, on top of record spending.

In Concord, residents will see a 2.9 percent education tax increase thanks to the $107.9 million school budget. That total is 1.58 percent higher than Concord’s previous school budget — once again, already a per pupil record.

Manchester is also considering a record $227.9 million school budget. Mayor Jay Ruias calls the school total a compromise figure, and part of his overall effort to get the school and city budgets under control after years of former Mayor Joyce Craig’s leadership. 

At the state level, both former Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig and Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington support even more tax dollars for public schools. Craig is running on a pledge to “boost the state’s investment in public education.” And Warmington wants to shut down Education Freedom Accounts entirely and add that funding to public schools.

Neither Craig nor Warmington responded to a request for comment about soaring school spending, or the fact that it coincides with standardized test scores that are flat or falling.

The reason for New Hampshire’s high rank in per pupil spending is its decline in enrollment.

“Since 2002, student enrollment numbers in the Granite State have dropped from 207,684 to 165,095, which represents a decrease of 42,589 public school students, or about a 20.5 percent decline during the past 21 years,” the state Department of Education reported last year. The state’s public schools lost another 2,262 students (1.4 percent of enrollment) in 2022 alone.

Drew Cline, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, says nobody should be surprised by these numbers.

All that spending for public school students comes as the state faces a potentially expensive court case on education funding. The ConVal decision, currently appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, almost doubles the state’s portion of per pupil spending.

The ConVal decision increases the state’s adequacy aid grant $4,100 per student to at least $7,300. If the decision stands, it would represent a minimum $500 million annual tax increase.

Both Craig and Warmington have been endorsed in prior political campaigns by the state’s two teachers unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Educators Association. The union presidents, AFT’s Deb Howes and the NEA’s Megan Tuttle, also did not respond to a request for comment.

Warmington, Craig, and the unions, are all staunch opponents of New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Accounts, the school choice program that allows families to opt out of the public school system.

“We don’t take taxpayer dollars to subsidize private schools,” Warmington told WMUR last year. 

Both of Warmington’s children attended the elite Tilton School for secondary education, an independent boarding and preparatory school in New Hampshire. Tilton charges $38,500 for day school and nearly $67,000 for boarding school.

Craig said earlier this year if elected governor, her first budget would see an increase in spending for public schools.

“We need to fund public education in this state,” Craig said. “Right now, we are not.”

Accused by media outlets of interfering in classrooms and spreading misinformation, New Hampshire Department of Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut’s public records release is silencing critics.

For now.

The cache of documents Edelblut recently made public includes the investigative report on a New Hampshire public school teacher who brought a student to an abortion clinic during school hours — and without notifying the girl’s family. The veracity of the abortion incident was questioned in The Boston Globe soon after Edelblut first made mention of it in an April op-ed. 

“Was that accusation found to be true? He did not say,” the Globe’s Steven Porter wrote. “Two days after Edelblut’s op-ed was published on the department’s website, officials still have not provided any additional information to substantiate the abortion-related claim. It’s not clear when or where that allegation may have been raised, who investigated it, and whether it was deemed credible.”

The documents Edelblut released in May make clear the abortion incident did, in fact, happen, and was reported to the Department of Education. On Monday, the DOE released another document, the letter informing the teacher that a formal, departmental investigation had been opened.

The teacher was subsequently fired by the school district.

The letter released Monday states the teacher was to be investigated for a code of conduct violation of alleged “failure to properly supervise and abide by ethical standards regarding student boundary protocols.” The letter does not make mention of any alleged criminal conduct, such as violating the parental notification law for minors seeking an abortion.

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office is declining to comment on the matter, and referring all questions to Edelblut’s office.

The name of the teacher, the student, and the school district are all redacted in the public documents. Also unknown is the age of the student involved.

Edelblut’s office is declining any comment on the matter.

Reached Monday, Porter would not answer directly if he was planning to write a follow up to his initial piece questioning whether Edelblut’s abortion story actually happened.

The current dust up between Edelblut and the media started in April when NHPR published a story accusing the commissioner of using his office to wage a culture war. 

“Edelblut has leveraged his oversight powers to elevate grievances against the public education system and, at times, individual educators,” the leftwing outlet claimed.

Edelblut’s op-ed, the one questioned by Porter, was a defense of his work as commissioner. In it, he cited examples of a student being called a “white supremacist” for having a Trump flag, an art teacher using class time to promote Black Lives Matter, and a school gender survey that tells students teachers will keep their gender preferences secret from parents.

“When I assumed this role in 2017, I committed to being 100 percent focused on the children. Thank God someone is looking out for the children,” Edelblut wrote.

All of these incidents, like the abortion incident, are detailed in the May public release.

Edelblut, a conservative Christian who homeschooled his children, has been a lightning rod for controversy since starting as commissioner. Teachers unions have been quick to accuse him of interfering in the classroom, even taking him to court over the state’s anti-discrimination law.

Last month, a federal judge ruled the law was too vague to pass constitutional muster, and its implementation too reliant on Edelblut’s opinions. The New Hampshire chapter of the American Teacher’s Federal and the National Educators Association of New Hampshire were both plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

However, the same unions have been scarce since the release of the report on the abortion incident and other complaints. The fired teacher had to be represented by one of the two unions operating in the state, but neither Deb Howes, AFT-NH president, nor Megan Tuttle, NEA-NH president, responded to requests for comment.

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that New Hampshire’s law barring the teaching of discriminatory content in schools is too vague and, therefore, violates the constitutional rights of educators. 

“The Amendments are viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” wrote United States District Court Judge Paul Barbadoro. The judge based his ruling on the 14th Amendment protection against vague laws, and declared New Hampshire’s legislature passed a law that was nearly “unintelligible.”

The law’s supporters disagree.

Under the law tossed out by Judge Barbadoro:

• You can’t “teach, advocate, instruct, or train” people that one group is inherently superior or inferior to another.
• You can’t teach that people are inherently racist, sexist, etc., based on the group they’re in.
• You can’t teach that people should be discriminated against based on their group.
• You can’t teach people not to even try to treat people in other groups equally (the “race shouldn’t matter/colorblind” approach)

As a result, school districts like Manchester, Litchfield and Laconia could no longer use Critical Race Theory-based curriculum in their classrooms. Striking down the law will allow that content to return.

Barbadoro said the attempt to prevent teachers from telling students they are racist, sexist, etc. crossed the line into viewpoint discrimination.

“The most obvious vagueness problem is presented by the fourth concept, which prohibits teaching that individuals of one group ‘cannot and should not attempt to treat others without regard to’ their membership in another group. As other courts have observed, this language is ‘bordering on unintelligible’ because it employs the dreaded triple negative form,” Barbadoro wrote.

The judge argued the law created an untenable mix of subjective instructions and severe punishment under the law.

“Potential disciplinary sanctions include reprimand, suspension, and revocation of the educator’s certification,” Barbadoro wrote. “In other words, an educator who is found to have taught or advocated a banned concept may lose not only his or her job, but also the ability to teach anywhere in the state.”

New Hampshire Department of Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut’s office declined to comment.

Nixon Peabody attorney Morgan Nighan, who represented the plaintiffs, said a law so unclear that it cannot be followed is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

“No ordinary person can understand what is banned,” Nighan said. “Laws like this have been routinely struck down across the country.”

Teachers could not speak about affirmative action legal cases, Israel’s war against Hamas, or any potentially hot button current events issue for fear of breaking the law, Nighan claimed. That meant teachers avoided large sections of history or current events out of fear that could lose their licenses without knowing why.

“For example, teachers may attempt to stimulate discussion by asking students pointed questions or encourage debate by presenting students with ideas contrary to their own. When such techniques are used to explore a banned concept, it is impossible to know whether a banned concept has been impermissibly taught,” Barbadoro wrote.

Supporters of the law dismiss that claim, saying the line between teaching that racism exists and actually advocating racism is easy to see.

Attempts by Edeblut to clarify the law backfired, according to Barbadoro’s ruling. Edelblut tried to explain his views in a June 2021 newspaper oped, but that only added to the confusion and fear, Barbadoro said.

“The threat of arbitrary enforcement based on Edelblut’s personal views has impacted teachers even in the absence of a formal complaint,” Barbadoro wrote.

One incident noted in Barbadoro’s ruling involved Keene Middle School scrapping a plan to teach Ibrahim X. Kendi’s “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and  You” after the district bought 250 copies of the books. According to the ruling, Edelblut’s column was why Keene abandoned Kendi’s book.

According to Kendi, “There’s no such thing as a ‘not racist’ or ‘race neutral’ policy,” and any person who doesn’t embrace what he calls “antiracism” — overtly treating white people differently from people of color — is engaged in racism. Some parents objected to the notion that their children would be taught that their skin color makes them inherently privileged and racist.

New Hampshire passed the anti-discrimination law as a set of amendments to the biennial budget in 2021. Rather than banning specific “divisive concepts,” the amendments sought to bar teachers from “teaching, advocating, instructing, or training” students that one group is inherently superior or inferior to another; that people are inherently racist, sexist, etc., based on the group they’re in; that people should be discriminated against based on their group; to stop people from treating other equally.

While the law allowed for teachers to discuss issues like racism and sexism in class, there was no clear legal line that distinguished such discussions from actual teaching, opponents complained.

Megan Tuttle, president of the New Hampshire NEA teachers union, said the law “stifled New Hampshire teachers’ efforts to provide a true and honest education. Students, families, and educators should rejoice over this court ruling which restores the teaching of truth and the right to learn for all Granite State students.”

Michael Garrity, spokesman for New Hampshire’s Department of Justice, said the state is reviewing Barbadoro’s ruling.

“The state is currently reviewing the court’s order and will consider next steps, including whether to appeal.”

Opponents of New Hampshire’s popular Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs) suffered yet another setback when union chief Deb Howes’ lawsuit was tossed out of court by a Merrimack Superior Court judge.

Judge Amy L. Ignatius’s order dismissing the lawsuit was a rebuke to the arguments put forward by the plaintiff, Deb Howes, president of the New Hampshire chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. 

Parents like Amy Shaw were thrilled by the ruling.

“The EFA program helps my daughters attend a school that meets their unique needs and in which they are thriving,” said Shaw, one of the parents who intervened in the lawsuit. “It is a great relief that the program will continue to support educational options that work for my kids and for so many other families across the state.”

EFAs allow parents to use the state’s share of per-pupil funding for their children to choose educational alternatives, including a different public school, private school, or home school.

Howes called the dismissal disappointing but not surprising. She blames the EFA program for taking money away from public schools despite the state increasing public education spending.

“Vouchers have exacerbated an already disparate burden placed on local property taxpayers to fund the basic right to a quality public education,” Howes said.

In fact, because EFAs only use the state portion of a student’s funding — usually around one-third of the total — school systems that lose students through EFAs increase their per-pupil funding.

The key allegation in Howes’ lawsuit was that the EFA program was unconstitutional.

Jason Bedrick, a Research Fellow in the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, said the judge’s ruling ended that debate.

“We knew from the outset that this legal complaint lacked any merit. The court agreed,” Bedrick said. “The judge decisively rejected every single one of the plaintiff’s frivolous claims. This is a massive win for Granite State families whose children benefit tremendously from the Education Freedom Accounts.”

Senate Education Committee Chair Ruth Ward (R-Stoddard), who helped craft the EFA program, said Howes and the teachers unions don’t want parents to be able to choose the best education for their children.

“Currently, 4,200 New Hampshire students are using Education Freedom Accounts to build a better education. The teachers’ union sued because it wanted every student to take the same path. I’m glad that Judge Ignatius sided with parents,” Ward said.

Senate President Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) called the decision a victory for Granite State families.

New Hampshire’s Department of Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut said EFAs are making a positive difference for families and children throughout the state.

“The court’s decision underscores the legality of the EFA program previously approved by legislators, but more importantly allows New Hampshire students and families to find the best educational pathway available for their unique needs,” Edelblut said. “The value of this program continues to be far-reaching, with numerous success stories emphasizing just how impactful EFAs have been statewide.”

Ignatius wrote in her order Howes completely failed to show any of her complaints about the program had any legal merit.

First, Howes tried arguing that EFAs are unconstitutional since the state uses money from the Education Trust Fund to award the EFA grants to parents. Howes claimed since the Education Trust Fund includes lottery revenue, any payout from the fund to the EFA program violates the state constitution.

New Hampshire’s constitution restricts lottery revenue to fund only public schools. But, Howes failed to show any proof any lottery money is going towards EFAs.

“Howes does not meet this burden, even with the allegations in her complaint taken as true and viewing all reasonable inferences in her favor,” Ignatius wrote.

The Education Trust Fund took in more than $1.1 billion in 2022. Of that, lottery revenue was $125 million. The EFA program was budgeted to take $9 million from the Education Trust Fund in 2022. Howes bears the burden to show lottery money is being unconstitutionally used for EFAs, Ignatius wrote, and she didn’t come close to doing that.

Next, Howes claimed EFAs allow the state to avoid its constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education by delegating the job to parents. The Supreme Court’s Claremont decisions from the 1990s found the state must provide an “adequate” public education to all New Hampshire children.

But Ignatius flatly stated Howes was wrong again. The Claremont obligation is limited to public schools, not private education. Further, EFAs don’t keep students out of public school. Families in the EFA program can leave and enroll their child into a public school at any point or use the EFA funding to attend a different public school.

“(T)he Court finds that the State did not delegate its duty to provide an adequate education because it has no duty to students not enrolled in public school and RSA 194- F (the EFA law) does not prevent students from attending public school,” Ignatius wrote.

Finally, Howes argued that the EFA program unconstitutionally allows parents to buy educational materials without government oversight. However, the organization administering New Hampshire’s EFA program, the Children’s Scholarship Fund, is delegated to make sure all spending adheres to the law. Ignatius wrote Howes failed to show proof of any improper EFA spending and failed again to show any legal problem.

“The legislature delegated the authority to approve expenses extraneous to the specific items listed to the scholarship organization but required those expenses be ‘educational,’ and Howes has not identified any expenditures that are not educational,” Ignatius wrote.

Now that she has lost in court, Howes wants lawmakers to spend more on public education instead of EFAs.

“The legislature should be focusing far more time and resources on the needs of the 160,000 Granite State public school students who deserve a robust curriculum and fully staffed schools, not on the 4,000 students whose families choose to take state-funded vouchers,” Howes said in a statement.

In a battle between educational content and political rhetoric, it appears content may have won the day at the State Board of Education Thursday.

At issue is a video course on financial literacy offered by PragerU that the board is considering adding to the curriculum of the state’s Learn Everywhere program. Board chairman Drew Cline said the content “has a lot of value” and is suitable for the flexible, self-directed education that is part of the non-traditional Learn Everywhere model.

Critics, like Deb Howes, president of the New Hampshire chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, had not watched the videos and were not familiar enough with the content to discuss it. Instead, they objected to the source of the content — PragerU, a politically-conservative nonprofit founded by media personality Dennis Prager.

Asked by Cline if the 15-video course met the appropriate educational standards, Howes, the head of the second largest teachers union in the state, declined to answer and appeared not to have viewed any of the content.

“I cannot speak to whether it goes into depth enough; I am not a financial literacy teacher,” Howes said.

State Rep. David Luneau (D-Hopkinton) bashed the board’s handling of the application and called PragerU a “racist propaganda mill.”

“I find it outrageous and unacceptable that this board would take a controversial subject and slip it into a meeting on Aug. 10 when hopefully nobody’s watching,” Luneau said.

However, when asked about the specific content, Luneau also appeared to be unfamiliar with it and pointedly refused to say if he watched any of the videos under consideration about the board.

Some critics, however, had taken the time to review the materials. Mark MacLean, executive director of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association, watched all 15 videos in the “Cash Course” series and said there is plenty of good material in the class.

“I don’t think there is anything wrong with the videos I watched,” MacLean said.

But MacLean did express concerns about the depth of the content and whether or not it is sufficient to be an accredited high school class. PragerU’s proposal sought to have students who took the class earn a half credit.

“The content is good; I just don’t think as a standalone it’s enough to provide students with a comprehensive financial literacy unit,” MacLean said.

But elected Democrats and progressive activists who attacked the board’s consideration of the content weren’t interested in the course but rather the source. They denounced PragerU and expressed concerns that curious students might become intrigued and begin exploring other content from the conservative nonprofit.

“Students and parents who view the first video in PragerU’s financial literacy course are one mouse-click away from a ‘Parent Action Guide’ that urges scrutiny of any public official who parents suspect is involved in topics related to diversity, equity, and inclusion,” the left-leaning Boston Globe warned.

Both Democrats running for governor in 2024, Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig and Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington, have announced their opposition.

Via social media, Warmington urged the board to reject what she called “radical & unaccredited PragerU into New Hampshire schools,” though she has also not indicated what part of the proposed course is objectionable.

And House Democratic Caucus Leader Matt Wilhelm (D-Manchester) claimed PragerU has content “that suggests slavery was ‘no big deal,’” and “peddle anti-LGBTQ+ hate.” Despite repeated requests, Wilhelm declined to provide any examples to bolster his claims.

Ultimately, it appeared the solution may be technology, not politics.

Brandon Ewing, with PragerU, told the board Thursday that the organization planned to create a separate website for the New Hampshire Cash Course class, one that was not linked to the wider PragerU site. It was a detail the board had not been made aware of.

“We’re working through the format details on the technical end,” Ewing said.

Cline said removing the Cash Course class from the PragerU main website would allow families to view it without concerns over the rest of PragerU’s content.

“We heard a lot of testimony that the content is strong, but a lot of concerns about the context. Having it as a standalone entity could change the whole conversation,” Cline said. Cline also asked Ewing to show the board more of the materials that will be used to access student progress in the course.

Ultimately, the board voted unanimously to table the application until next month, when it can see the proposed website and review additional materials.

“This is good financial literacy content, and we need to make sure that all of our young people have that skill going forward in life,” said Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut told WMUR after the board meeting. “I think that it got overly politicized, and I think there was some interest in doing that, and I’m disappointed that this is where we ended up.”

New Hampshire House Speaker Sherm Packard (R-Londonderry) has ordered an investigation into tactics being used by House Democrats to pressure members over Thursday’s vote on parental rights legislation. Some of those tactics, including offering to pay for a member’s plane ticket for a flight from Florida, appear to violate House rules and, possibly, state law.

“We are looking into the matter, and we are concerned about the appearance of impropriety. Should there be evidence of a statutory or ethical violation, it will be referred to the appropriate enforcement authority,” Packard’s office said in a statement. 

At the center of the controversy is SB272, also known as the Parents Bill of Rights, which would force some public schools to end their current policy of refusing to answer parents’ questions about their children’s behavior regarding sex and gender.

“It says that schools and school employees cannot lie to parents,” said state Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) when the bill passed the upper chamber in a 14-10 vote.

Now the bill is coming to the House, setting off a round of fear and loathing in Concord with Democrats offering carrots (in the form of a free plane ticket) and sticks: threatening a primary challenge if a House member supports the parents’ rights bill or fails to show up for the vote.

When Rep. Robin Vogt (D-Portsmouth) took to Twitter to say he was on a long-planned family vacation and won’t be in Concord to vote against SB272, Granite State progressives responded angrily.

“There is no one who supports a work/life balance more than me — but real allies show up,” tweeted Monica Venzke, until recently a spokesperson for the state Democratic Party. “Session ends in June. When you were elected, you knew that. These are the responsibilities you take on as a legislator; clearly, you cannot handle them.”

And progressive activist Linds Jakows told Vogt he had no excuse to miss Thursday’s session, as money is available to fly him back to New Hampshire in time to vote.

“No. It is a luxury to actively choose to be in Florida for nearly a week now when there are funds to fly you to New Hampshire and back,” Jakows wrote to Vogt in a now-deleted tweet.

Jakows is head of 603Equality, an LGBTQ nonprofit which is not registered as a lobbyist with the New Hampshire Secretary of State’s Office, and it appears she’s offering something of value to a lawmaker to encourage him to vote. Not surprisingly, 603Equality’s behavior sparked concerns.

“I am outraged that an unregistered Democrat lobbying organization would offer to fund travel expenses for a legislator in order to influence the outcome of a vote,” said House Majority Leader Jason Osborne (R-Auburn). “The ease at which this was offered leads us to believe that offers like Jakows’ seem to be the norm on the other side of the aisle.

“This is an example of Washington-style politics at its worst and does not represent Granite State values,” Osborne added.

It could also be a crime. Legal sources pointed NHJournal to New Hampshire’s criminal codes 640:2 “Bribery in Official and Political Matters;” and 640:5 “Gifts to Public Servants.”

Jakows declined to respond to questions from NHJournal regarding the source of these “funds” to pay for legislators’ travel or whether other lawmakers are getting funding as well. In a follow-up tweet, Jakows claimed a group of concerned community members was crowdfunding the money, though Jakows would not say who those people were.

“How many members of the New Hampshire House Democrats will be there tomorrow to vote against parental rights because a lobbying group paid for them to be there?” asked Rep. Ross Berry (R-Manchester). “Probably worth finding out.”

Thus far, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office is staying out of the drama, saying Wednesday it is currently a matter of the Speaker’s Office.

Meanwhile, House Democrats are also being threatened by a representative of one of the state’s largest teacher’s unions, who warned not showing up or voting the wrong way could result in a primary challenge.

“ANY @NHSenateDems and @NHHouseDems who do not make a point to show up to vote NO on #SB272 and stand UP for young #queer lives on the line do not deserve our support,” tweeted Ryan Richman, vice president of the state chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. “Especially if they primaried out @NHDems that showed up to protect Granite Staters from evil.”

Vogt pushed out long-time Democratic Rep. Jacqueline Cali-Pitts in last year’s Democratic primary and won favor with the AFT. The union endorsed him in the general election.

Vogt now faces the prospect of being pushed to take dark money plane tickets, which may or may not be legal, and could be made an example of by his union benefactors and see his political career cut short.

What is unique about Vogt’s drama is the public display of the pressure brought to bear on one representative, leaving voters to guess how many other representatives were being threatened and offered financial benefits behind closed doors. Or at least off Twitter.

Vogt, still vacationing, did not respond to a request for comment.

Math class is hard. Just ask Deb Howes.

The head of New Hampshire’s American Federation Teachers chapter, Howes garnered attention last month when she filed a lawsuit against Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut claiming he was breaking the law by using lottery revenue to fund the Education Freedom Accounts.

But the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office Howes’ arithmetic is all wrong. According to the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Howes didn’t come close to proving any actual violation of the law or the New Hampshire Constitution, largely because her numbers don’t add up.

“The Court should dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety because the plaintiff fails to state a claim for either a constitutional or statutory violation,” the state says in its motion to dismiss.

The state is funding the Education Freedom Accounts with the Education Trust Fund. Howes based her lawsuit on the fact the fund takes in lottery revenue, and uses lottery money for anything other than public schools violates the law.

The problem is Howes never cited any evidence showing that money going to the EFA program is lottery money. The reality of the funding makes it unlikely she could, according to the state.

“The burden is not on the state to prove that lottery money is not used for EFAs; rather, the burden is on the plaintiff to allege and prove that lottery funds are used for EFAs,” the state’s motion says.

In 2022, the state sent $125 million in lottery revenue to the Education Trust Fund. That same year, the EFA program used $9 million of trust fund grants for parents who want to send their children to a private school or homeschool program.

The problem for Howes is the fact that the Education Trust Fund was budgeted at more than $1.2 billion in 2022 with revenues that come from a variety of sources.

The state’s Education Trust Fund got $128 million from the business profits tax; $265 million from the business enterprise tax $10.3 million from the rooms and meals tax, another $108.9 million from the tobacco tax; $65.3 million from the real estate transfer tax; $38.2 million from the tobacco settlement fund; and $40.6 million from the utility property tax.

The statewide property tax generates another $363 million for education, though that money does not go into the trust fund.

“Lottery money is one source that makes up a small portion of the education trust fund,” the state wrote.

Nearly all the money raised for education through the trust fund goes back to local public schools, according to the state. In 2022, that amount was $1,084,530,891, just shy of the $1.1 billion total fund.

Without a direct link between EFA funding and lottery revenue, Howes was unable to demonstrate Edelblut broke any law, according to the state.

“The plaintiff advances no allegations capable of showing that this $9 million comprised any letter dollars rather than being paid entirely from business profit tax or enterprise tax dollars or another education trust fund revenue source,” the state’s motion said.

Teachers unions and their Democratic allies have been working to kill the popular school choice program since Gov. Chris Sununu first signed it into law. They have repeatedly claimed the program takes money from local schools, a factual error that has been repeatedly pointed out. In fact, the EFA program gives local schools more money per pupil when a student chooses a different education option.

In their latest move, Democrats in the state House used a temporary majority last week to pass a bill mandating EFA recipients who are not entering school for the first time must have spent at least one year in their assigned public school if they want to access EFA funding.

That bill is unlikely to make it through the GOP-controlled Senate.

The state’s new Senate president has a message to the teachers union activists hoping the courts will shut down the state’s popular Education Freedom Accounts.

Good luck with that.

The lawsuit claiming the EFA program is unconstitutional was filed last week by the president of the New Hampshire American Federation of Teachers (AFT) Deb Howes, “as a citizen taxpayer,” according to an AFT press release, not by the union itself. Senate President Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) told NH Journal podcast he’s not too worried.

“Good luck with the lawsuit. I don’t think it’s going very far. I don’t expect that the AFT is going to win,” Bradley said on the NHJournal podcast.

The premise of Howes’ lawsuit is that lottery revenue must go to public schools and, she argues, cannot be used to fund EFAs, which allows the state’s share of education funding to follow the student to any school they choose: Public, private, or homeschool. But Bradley dismissed that argument

“I think (the EFA program) is carefully designed to meet the constitutional test,” Bradley said.

Bradley is not alone in his view of the lawsuit, as the conservative nonprofit Institute for Justice has announced it plans to fight Howes in court.

“Halfway through the school year, opponents of Education Freedom Accounts are trying to take away parents’ educational options,” said IJ Educational Choice attorney David Hodges. “The New Hampshire legislature’s mechanism for funding the accounts is constitutional and the Institute for Justice is ready to defend it.”

The Institute for Justice has been part of the fight for school choice nationwide. Hodges said the organization has successfully argued for school choice before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Institute for Justice will represent real New Hampshire families in court who are currently using the EFA program to send their children to private schools. Karl and Ellen Jackson of Pembroke are already set to be part of the fight in court.

“Without the Education Freedom Account our children would be forced to leave the schools they attend right now,” said Karl Jackson. “We are eager to defend our children’s access to a good education and also stand up for other families.”

More than 3,000 New Hampshire students are taking advantage of the EFA program. It awards need-based grants that families can use toward tuition or homeschool supplies. Bradley, who sent one of his four children to a private school, said the program is needed because not every child succeeds in a public school environment. Before the EFA program, only families with the financial means to send their children to private schools had any real choice, he said.

“Now the AFT is targeting lower-income students and their parents to try and end the opportunity and choices their parents feel are important for them.”

Of the 3,025 students who enrolled in the EFA program this year, more than 1,500 come from low-income households eligible for free or reduced lunch. And 187 of the participants are special education students, according to Commissioner of Education Frank Edelblut.

“Half of the children enrolled are living below the poverty level. These families are seeking a nontraditional instructional model for their children who may not have found educational success,” said Edelblut.

The AFT is not a direct party to the lawsuit, as Howes filed it as an individual under New Hampshire’s law that allows citizens to sue the government. However, her legal fight has the backing of AFT’s national president Randi Weingarten.

“Any scheme to divert public funds into a voucher program without fully funding public schools first is an insult to the students, teachers, and families of New Hampshire, not to mention a violation of the law,” Weingarten said. Her suggestion that EFAs are undermining public school funding is a common complaint among its opponents. 

And according to Bradley, it is completely false.

“In the last two budgets we’ve increased funding on public education by over a quarter billion dollars,” Bradley said. And the increased spending comes as enrollment in public schools dropped by about 10,000 students. 

A New Hampshire’s teachers’ union is going to court to stop the state’s popular Education Freedom Account (EFA) program that some families use to escape failing public schools. The move comes as data show traditional public school enrollment falling while the number of students choosing charter schools and other alternatives is rising.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) announced Thursday it filed a lawsuit against Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut in the Merrimack Superior Court in Concord challenging New Hampshire’s EFA program. The complaint argues the program violates the New Hampshire Constitution and state law by using state lottery dollars and money from the Education Trust Fund to fund the EFAs.

“The state specifically earmarked this money for public education. Instead, the state is stealing from public school students in plain sight to pay for its private voucher program,” said Deb Howes, president of the AFT-NH, who brought the suit “as a citizen taxpayer,” according to an AFT press release.

Families earning less than 300 percent of the federal poverty level can use the EFA program to take their share of state per pupil funding – about $5,000 a year — and use it for alternatives to public school, like private school, homeschooling or tutoring. The public school they leave behind keeps its portion of local per-pupil funding, which can range from $10,000 to $20,000 or more.

EFA expenses must be approved by the Children’s Scholarship Fund (CSF), a private scholarship organization that oversees the program. In September CSF reported that families of more than 3,000 New Hampshire children completed EFA applications, up from more than 2,000 children who used EFAs in 2021-22.

“It underscores a growing demand from Granite State parents for educational alternatives,” CSF reports.

The national AFT’s controversial union president Randi Weingarten weighed in Thursday on behalf of the lawsuit. “New Hampshire can’t fund its voucher program by illegally putting its hand in the taxpayer cookie jar that’s intended for public school students,” Weingarten said. “It’s as simple as this: No matter what program the state wants to fund, it has to do it legally.”

The complaint is based on the premise that EFAs are illegal because the state constitution says “all moneys received from a state-run lottery [shall] be appropriated and used exclusively for the school districts of the state… and shall not be transferred or diverted to any other purpose.”

But supporters respond that EFA spending has been authorized by the legislature and that revenue from sources other than the lottery go to funding k-12 education. Since money is fungible, there’s plenty of revenue to pay for the EFA program without using lottery dollars.

“This lawsuit appears to be without merit,” said  Jason Bedrick, Research Fellow at the Center for Education Policy at the Heritage Foundation. “The Education Trust Fund has long been used for purposes beyond school districts, such as to place students with special needs in private schools. The state’s constitutional duty to cherish the interest of education is best fulfilled when all children have access to a wide variety of learning environments. Education Freedom Accounts further that interest.”

Howes claims the EFA program is denying public schools millions in money from the Education Trust Fund.

“Public school students are losing out on millions of dollars that are needed to fix leaky old buildings, purchase and maintain modern computer equipment, buy books and materials published at least in the last decade to support student learning, and provide more social and emotional assistance and other needs that will help students excel,” Howes said.

Representatives for New Hampshire’s Department of Education declined to speak about the lawsuit and instead issued a brief statement.

“The New Hampshire Department of Education is aware of the complaint filed today by Deborah Howes at Merrimack County Superior Court. At this time, the department is not commenting on the pending litigation,” a DOE representative said on behalf of the department.

Kate Baker Demers, the executive director for the Children’s Scholarship Fund NH, which administers the EFA program for the state, said the program gives parents the freedom to make their own educational choices, and is totally in line with the state constitution.

“Empowering parents to make educational decisions for their children does not violate any state law or our New Hampshire constitution,” Baker Demers said.

And, supporters note, parents are free to use the funding to transfer their child to a different public school as well.

“This is a desperate attempt by the union to block families from being able to access a wide variety of education options,” said Bedrick. “Thousands of New Hampshire families are using Education Freedom Accounts to give their children the education that best meets their individual needs. It’s sad to see the union putting their politics ahead of kids’ learning needs.”

The head of the Timberlane Teachers’ Association says teachers should be able to do their job “without interference from parents,” the latest expression of anti-parent sentiment from teachers unions.

Coral Hampe is a Spanish teacher and head of the teachers union at Timberlane High School in Plaistow, N.H. In a message to legislators opposing HB 1015, she described parental and legal oversight as “interference.”

“Your calling is to the legislature. Others are called to medicine. Teachers are called to teach. Let us do our jobs without interference from parents and laws,” Hampe wrote.

Hampe did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday, nor did Timberlane School Board Chair Kimberly Farah. The district and the union are currently involved in contentious contract negotiations. 

The law in question, HB 1015, would allow parents to swap out, at their own cost, any material being taught to their child that they find objectionable. The law would require parents to give the school principal written notice about their objection, and it would have the parents and school administration work together to find appropriate replacement material.

“It is appalling, although not surprising, that a teachers’ union believes they are above the law,” said House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, R-Auburn, of the bill’s cosponsors. “They want to indoctrinate our children in the same Marxist theories they hold without any recourse. If teachers were actually teaching the facts and leaving their opinions out of their curriculum, they would have nothing to fear. Clearly, that is not the case in our public schools.”

Teachers unions and their allies have become more open in their rejection of the legitimacy of parental involvement in public education. New Hampshire House Democrats are trying to overturn state education rules preventing schools from going to remote learning with some buy-in from parents.

On Monday, the Warner, N.H. Democratic Party tweeted a political cartoon mocking parents who want to review curricula as Confederate-Flag-wearing Trump supporters. The tweet was forwarded by state Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth) and several other Democratic committees around the state.

The Timberlane Teachers’ Association is part of the American Federation of Teachers – New Hampshire. Deb Howes, president of AFT-NH, did not respond to a request for comment. The AFT-NH’s legislative bulletin includes a misleading statement on the proposed law, claiming it is aimed at stopping current events from being taught in the classroom. 

“We cannot think of anything more damaging to our students than removing a teacher’s ability to use current events to emphasize a topic and help our students relate so they can better understand the material. Are teachers supposed to forgo using current events in the classroom?” The bulletin states.

Current events are not mentioned in the text of the law. Instead, it requires teachers to give parents two weeks’ notice on what will be taught to their children, in order to give parents an appropriate amount of time to review material and ask questions.

Osborne said Hampe’s message betrays how out-of-touch the unions have become in public schools.

“In what world could a business live above the law and not have to answer to the very people who fund them, whether it’s a school, a private business, or even the government? I can’t imagine Market Basket would survive much longer if they wanted to sell groceries without interference from customers,” he said.

The AFT-NH, along with the other teachers’ union, the NEA-NH, are suing the state over the new anti-discrimination law that prohibits teaching any one group is superior or inferior by virtue of their race, creed, or sexual orientation. The lawsuits falsely claim that the state law prohibits teaching “divisive concepts.”

Rep. Kimberly Rice (R-Hudson), another co-sponsor of HB 1015, questioned whether or not Hampe’s statement actually speaks for teachers in the Timberlane district.

“I feel like we have parents and educators pitted against each other and that’s not the way it’s supposed to be,” Rice said.