#

New Hampshire families can now choose a new financial literacy course from PragerU through the state’s Learn Everywhere program, and New Hampshire Democrats have a new hobby horse to ride into campaign season.

That was the result after three hours of a contentious State Board of Education meeting on Thursday, where Democrats, progressives, and union activists packed the room to denounce PragerU and its “right-wing” politics.

“This approval disregards the potential harm PragerU’s extreme content will inflict on our schools and the education of our children,” said Democratic Executive Councilor Cinde Warmington, who is seeking her party’s nomination for governor next year.

At issue is a video course on personal finances and financial literacy called “Cash Course,” and produced by PragerU, a conservative content business. The state Board of Education has been considering making the course, which contains no political or controversial content, part of the content eligible to complete course requirements for students in the Learn Everywhere program.

Learn Everywhere, an innovative education program unique to New Hampshire, allows students to earn credit for learning outside the classroom. The program, which has been under development since 2018, was first approved in August 2020 in a 4-3 vote.

The State Board of Education voted unanimously Thursday, with Chair Drew Cline’s abstention, to approve the PragerU content as a half-credit course. The class is offered for free for any student who chooses to take it.

The approval comes despite heavy, organized opposition from progressives and teachers unions against PragerU.

Their opposition is not based on the content itself but rather on the provider. Many of the people who spoke in opposition Thursday did not appear to have seen the Cash Course content under consideration.

“I am appalled by today’s Board of Education decision to allow PragerU to operate in New Hampshire. I will fight for every child in our state to receive a quality education, and I will never allow an extreme right-wing organization to influence their learning,” Manchester Mayor Joyce Craig said.

Craig is also running for the Democratic nomination for governor.

Warmington has been using the PragerU issue to campaign and fundraise for weeks, attacking “their extremist views.” Warmington declined to respond when asked to identify what “extremist views” were in the personal finance content under consideration by the Board of Education.

Warmington suffered a political faceplant early this week with an unfounded complaint that PragerU was falsely presenting itself as an actual university and potentially violating New Hampshire state law. Attorney General John F0rmella dismissed Warmington’s complaint, noting the website explicitly announces PragerU is not a university and that the law Warmington cited only applies to entities incorporated in New Hampshire. It was embarrassing for a career attorney who spent two decades at the Sheehan & Gordon law firm.

“There’s been a lot of misinformation about Learn Everywhere and this course,” Cline said during Thursday’s board meeting.

PragerU is not partnering with the state, getting a state contract, or being paid any taxpayer money, Cline said. Further, the PragerU class is not required for any New Hampshire student. Additionally, PragerU plans to offer its class on a website independent of the wider PragerU offerings.

The association with the conservative media personality Dennis Prager is the major red flag for the Cash Course opponents. Dozens of people who were against PragerU’s application spoke Thursday, accusing the conservative non-profit of pushing an extremist agenda and even likening it to the Ku Klux Klan.

Supporters say that while PragerU is unapologetically conservative in its philosophy, it is far from being an extremist organization. And they note that many of the union members and progressives who say its politics are “too extreme” have supported far-left “critical race theory” content from racists like Ibram X. Kendi in New Hampshire’s K-12 classrooms.

Board Member Richard Sala said the board had approved several Learn Everywhere options and charter schools with decidedly left-wing ideologies. He said the board is not trying to push an agenda other than giving all parents the most choices for their children.

“I trust parents to make good calls for their kids more than I trust the government to,” Sala said.

Sala noted that while PragerU is a conservative, so are at least half the families in New Hampshire.

“A lot of PragerU material is mainstream political thought in this country,” Sala said. “You can’t censor half the ideas in this country.”

It wasn’t all about fears children were being indoctrinated into the Republican Party. Deb Howes, head of the New Hampshire American Federal of Teachers, the state’s second biggest teachers union, claimed that allowing students to take the Cash Course class for a half credit would lower the state’s education standards.

“Watching a video and doing a worksheet doesn’t help you remember it when it counts,” Howe said.

Cline said PragerU’s Cash Course class covers a little more material than another financial literacy program already approved for Learn Everywhere. That program did not receive any public opposition when it was approved.

Board Member Ryan Terrell said the opposition to PragerU is ruled by a bias against all conservatives, which assumes any Republican is a homophobic racist.

“You say you want open dialogue and then attack a whole swath of people’s ideals,” Tyrell said.

The opponents revealed they are ultimately against New Hampshire families having real choices when it comes to educating their children, Tyrell said.

“The overall message was anti-choice. It’s simply that black and white,” Terrell said.

Don’t worry, Ronald McDonald: “Hamburger University” is safe from Cinde Warmington — for now.

It’s no surprise that Executive Councilor Warmington, a progressive Democrat seeking her party’s nomination for governor, isn’t a fan of PragerU. Founded by conservative radio talk host Dennis Prager, PragerU generates short, educational videos on a variety of topics — some overtly political, others basic life skills.

The PragerU content under consideration by the state Board of Education consists of several short videos and coursework covering lessons on basic personal finances, from how paychecks work, how checking and savings accounts work, how to get a loan, and how to invest for retirement. 

What PragerU doesn’t do — and has never claimed to do — is hand out college diplomas. There is literally a message on its website that reads, “No, PragerU is not an accredited university, nor do we claim to be. We do not offer degrees. However, we are the most accessible and influential online resource for explaining the concepts that have made America great.”

But that didn’t stop Warmington from demanding an Attorney General investigation into PragerU, claiming it is attempting to defraud people fooled by the “U.” You know, like those tricky people who run ESPNU (your cable TV home for college sports!).

And, she claimed, she’d found a New Hampshire law the education nonprofit was violating by calling itself PragerU.

Unfortunately for Warmington, the law she cited applies to businesses incorporated in New Hampshire (PragerU is not) that are using terms like “college” or “university” in ways “tending to designate that it is an institution of higher learning” (it’s not), or somehow “invoke the consumer protection rationale” (as the AG put it) of the statute.

By the way, Warmington is a lawyer. Maybe she’s angry because she got hoodwinked by the Jethro Bodine School for Lawyerin’?

As the Attorney General’s office said in a statement Monday: “After reviewing the statute, the AGO does not read RSA 292:8-g to require nondomestic entities that merely have a presence in New Hampshire through the existence of a website to incorporate under the provisions of RSA 292:8.”

In other words, Councilor Warmington literally didn’t know what she was talking about when she demanded the investigation.

Which, by the way, is great news for College Motors and University Donuts — not to mention the Electoral College which, coincidentally, many progressives would like to shut down as well.

There is a strong case to be made that pursuing content from PragerU is a political miscalculation by Commissioner of Education Frank Edelblut and the state Board of Education. Given the current state of the media, it’s hardly a surprise that leftwing outlets were willing to pile on with Warmington’s uninformed complaints, taking them seriously. PragerU is an openly conservative content provider. In the current political climate “conservative” and “controversial” are synonyms, regardless of the facts.

Is it true that the same people attacking PragerU’s completely non-political lessons on personal finance also embrace the blatant racism of Ibram X. Kendi for public school classrooms? Yes. Is it true that media outlets who knew — or should have known — this was a ridiculous ploy by Warmington played along and pretended it was legit? Of course they did.

But those are the political realities of the moment.

Hilariously, Warmington stuck with her bogus claims in response to the AG’s dismissal of her complaint.

“I’m disappointed with the Attorney General’s failure to protect the public from Prager University’s [sic] clearly misleading name,” Warmington said, intentionally misleading voters by using a fake name for “PragerU.”

Warmington is a smart enough political operative to seize an issue like this, real or imagined, and use it for political gain. But why did she make ridiculous, fact-free claims about fraud and breaking the law? Isn’t “I oppose all content to the right of MSNBC” enough?

Did Warmington, an attorney, simply not understand the law she was citing? Or did she understand but, in the cause of political opportunism, simply not care? Either way, Granite Staters have learned something about what kind of governor Warmington would be.

And they didn’t need a college degree to figure it out.

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.”

Kelly Smith is on a mission to change how children are educated, giving them the tools they need to learn and strive for a better life.

Smith is the founder and CEO of Prenda, the microschool company that now has 30 learning pods operating in all 10 counties of the state. He told NHJournal he wants to break the mold when it comes to thinking about how children learn best. And, he said, he rejects the “mind is a vessel” model of education.

“If you think of it as ‘sit in this chair, and I will give you assignments and lessons and education. I’m going pour this into your head,’ that’s one model,” Smith said. And, he believes, it is the wrong one.

“The correct metaphor is a fire to be kindled. We’re asking questions, setting goals, saying, ‘What do you want out of life?’”

Education pods and microschools exploded onto the education scene during the COVID-19 lockdowns as frustrated parents sought ways to get organized, adult-led education for kids otherwise abandoned to “Zoom school.” And test results in the wake of the closed-classrooms lockdowns pushed by teachers unions showed they were an academic disaster.

On the other hand, a study by the Rand Corporation found students using the “personalized study” model similar to microschools experienced significant improvements, often surpassing the national averages in math and reading achievement.

But Granite State public schools are not interested in using the successful model to help their own students.

Prenda has thousands of microschools nationwide, all with the goal of leading children to learn and think and grow. The company works with local parents to set up the microschools by training the teachers, called guides, to lead classes of about five to 10 students per class.

Though similar to the homeschool cooperative systems many families use, Prenda offers a unique approach to increase motivation and engagement in students while also taking care of their emotional well-being and teaching them the ability to work with others. The Prenda approach, Smith believes, sets students up for a life of meaning and purpose.

“If humans individually and society collectively are going to get to where we are capable of, we’ve got to push through. We need learners. And so I’m inviting people, but again, it has to be a choice,” Smith said.

Prenda families tend to be people who hit a brick wall with traditional education, he said. Many of the parents have children in public schools, but they come to realize their child needs something different in order to thrive and be a leader for the future.

In the post-COVID era, parents are exploring the choices now available, choices many didn’t have just a few years ago.

“They’re making choices, and they’re thoughtful choices. These are the people that endlessly research whatever they’re going to do for their child’s nutrition, their child’s healthcare. Of course, they’re going to think about education hard,” Smith said. “I think the difference is, in the past, there wasn’t really a choice. It was just, ‘There’s only one thing I can do.’”

Prenda was introduced into New Hampshire using federal COVID relief funds as a way to help families close the learning gaps created by the pandemic lockdowns. Smith said the company initially tried to build partnerships with local school districts to build up learning pods that would work alongside the traditional schools. For example, Smith told NHJournal, they could set up microschools to assist students struggling in a specific subject, like math or science, to enhance the public school experience.

But Granite State public schools weren’t interested.

“One of the first things we did was we went to all the superintendents. I went to Mount Washington when they had an annual meeting. We talked to everybody,” Smith said. “They’d heard about microschools and pods, and there was definitely interest among many of the school leaders in the state. So, we’ve had ongoing conversations.

“Ultimately, there’ve been roadblocks, and we haven’t been able to get to a completed partnership with any of those,” Smith said.

Prenda’s learning pods can also be funded beyond the COVID program using New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Account program. The aim isn’t to replace traditional schools but to give parents choices to find what works best for their children.

“It really comes down to this decision to learn. What we’re doing is inviting people to be what we call empowered learners. And an empowered learner makes a choice. They say, ‘I’m going to learn things. I’m going set goals for myself,’” Smith said. 

Could the next 60 days see an end to New Hampshire’s school funding system as we know it?

Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff told lawyers Wednesday he is set to rule sometime in the next 60 days on either the final decision in the Contoocook Valley Regional School District adequacy grant lawsuit or the summary judgment for the Grafton County lawsuit seeking to cancel the Statewide Education Property Tax or SWEPT.

“Time is of the essence here for everyone involved,” Ruoff said.

New Hampshire lawmakers, education leaders, and local school boards have been tussling for decades over how to fund a constitutionally-mandated adequate education. Despite hundreds of millions in new funds going to education this year alone, there is still no agreement on how to pay for public schools.

Ruoff is now the one man in the state who could change everything thanks to the lawsuits which landed before him in court. 

The original judge on the Grafton County case, Grafton Superior Court Judge Lawrence MacLeod, recused himself last year, citing a potential conflict of interest. MacLeod is a property owner in one of the property-rich towns pushing to keep the current SWEPT system in place.

MacLeod’s recusal sent the case to Ruoff. Ruoff is also under orders from the New Hampshire Supreme Court to decide in the ConVal case exactly how much the state should pay per pupil.

In both cases, the school districts claim the way the state is currently funding education, using an unevenly enforced SWEPT to pay for adequacy grants that do not cover all necessary expenses, is unconstitutional.

Ruoff initially ruled in ConVal’s favor, agreeing the state is not paying enough per pupil, but he left setting a particular amount to legislators. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled Ruoff needed to hold a trial and set a specific dollar amount.

New Hampshire upped its per pupil adequacy grant this year to $4,100. But the plaintiffs in the ConVal case are looking for just short of $10,000 per pupil. Ruoff listened to weeks of testimony this year; his highly anticipated ruling is pending.

With approximately 160,000 students in the state’s K-12 public schools, a $10,000 adequacy payment would cost state taxpayers $1.6 billion yearly.

Meanwhile, lawyers representing the state and the Grafton County plaintiffs argued in court Wednesday over an injunction to set the SWEPT rate at 0, as the plaintiff wants. Ruoff indicated he would issue a judgment in the case without need for a trial since neither side disputes the facts about how schools are funded.

SWEPT accounts for 30 percent of education funding in New Hampshire. Under a law change in 2011, a loophole was created. Now as many as 30 wealthier communities in New Hampshire are keeping a portion of the money raised through SWEPT, essentially getting to set a negative property tax rate, while poorer communities end up with higher SWEPT rates to make up for their low property values.

Michael Jaoude, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the uneven SWEPT burden violates the Claremont decision from the 1990s, which ruled there is a constitutional right to adequate education and that the cost needs to be shared equally.

“No resident should have a greater burden of funding that constitutional right than another,” Jaoude said.

SWEPT started in 1999 as a response to the Claremont decision, which found the state has a constitutional obligation to fund adequate education. The money raised, more than $360 million estimated in the coming year, is used to fund state adequacy grants. 

Senior Assistant Attorney General Sam Garland said ruling for the Grafton County plaintiffs would have disastrous impacts on local town and school budgets. Garland said the plaintiffs have not shown that the SWEPT system is unconstitutional, and their arguments don’t hold up.

“We don’t think they’ve made that showing, and we don’t think they can make that showing as a matter of law,” Garland said.

Garland said even if the 2011 law creating the SWEPT exemptions might be unconstitutional, the tax itself is not, and Ruoff should allow the rate to be set.

Ruoff indicated the whole SWEPT issue might be moot depending on his eventual ruling in the ConVal case.

Call it the “Don’t Let the Door Hit You” Defense.

During oral arguments in a lawsuit over its policy of keeping parents in the dark about their children’s behavior, the Manchester School District’s attorney told the state Supreme Court that parents shouldn’t be able to challenge the district’s policy. Instead, they should pull their kids out of public school and go somewhere else.

“If the parents want to make a different choice, they can homeschool, or they can send their child to a private school; those are options available to them,” said attorney Meghan Glynn.

The district is being sued over its policy of keeping students’ behavior related to sex and gender secret from their parents.

Richard Lehmann, the attorney for the Manchester mother going by Jane Doe, who filed the lawsuit, said parents have the right to know if their children are being socially transitioned in schools with the aid of school staff.

Manchester School District lawyer Meghan Glynn told Supreme Court justices that parents who don’t like the district’s policies can send their kids to private school.

“The real issue is not a school reporting on what a student is doing in school, but for the school to report what the school itself is doing in school,” Lehmann said.

Lehmann rejected the argument that Doe’s lawsuit was an attempt to force the district to out LGBT students to their parents. He argued that it is about a government entity usurping parental powers and making decisions in place of a parent.

“This is the government substituting its own judgment over a parent’s judgment when it comes to gender identity,” Lehmann said. 

Jane Doe stated in her original complaint that she found out in the fall of 2021 that her child was using a different pronoun and gender identity at school. The school’s name was withheld in court documents to protect the child’s identity.

The mother spoke with school staff, including the student’s guidance counselor. According to the lawsuit, the mother made it clear she wanted her child to be called by the name and pronouns the child had at birth while in school.

Even though the staff she spoke to initially agreed, the mother received an email from the school principal stating that the mother’s instructions were being overridden due to the district’s policy. According to the lawsuit, the principal stated that the district’s policy requires school staff to keep such matters secret from parents if the child so chooses. Even if staffers agree to use the child’s true gender identity when speaking with the mother, they would be obligated to not tell the mother if the child wished to be identified as something else.

The policy states teachers and staff are not to tell anyone about a child’s gender identity without the express consent of the child. School employees are also directed to use the child’s biological pronouns and given name when talking about the child to people who do not know about the nonconforming gender identity.

Last September, Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer ruled in favor of the school district, declaring parents ultimately do not have the right to direct how their children are to be educated in public schools.

“(T)he right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of one’s child is not absolute,” Messer wrote.

Because Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi has recused herself from the case without giving a reason, the court may issue a 2-2 tie decision. If they do, Messer’s original ruling will stand.

On Friday, Glynn maintained the Manchester school staff, and officials did not lie to Doe about her child’s gender identity. They simply followed policy.

“If the issue, in this case, is truly that the district has a constitutional duty to report what the school is doing, the school has met that burden,” Glynn said.

Glynn said that parents have the right to have their voice heard when the district crafts policies, and they have the right to vote out school board representatives who pursue policies they do not support. A comment from Justice James Bassett seemingly rebuked this line of reasoning.

“Constitutional rights are not up for a vote,” Bassett said.  

In fact, parents’ rights are coming up for a vote in the New Hampshire House. Last week, the House Education Committee cast a 10-10 party-line vote on SB272, the Parents Bill of Rights. The full Hous is expected to vote on the legislation, which is supported by Gov. Chris Sununu, later this month.

Glynn cautioned the justices that if they decide in favor of Doe and parents’ rights in this case, more lawsuits will likely come.

“The next case up is going to be the case of a student,” she said.

Parents do not have the right to know their middle school children have access to graphic novels that depict children engaged in sex acts and include links to gay dating apps, nor are they allowed to know teachers are urging kindergartners to draw themselves naked.

That was the case New Hampshire Democrats made as they opposed GOP legislation expanding parents’ rights over their kids’ public school experience.

The battle over the Parents’ Bill of Rights took center stage Tuesday with a packed Representatives Hall for the House Education Committee hearing on SB 272. The Senate passed the bill along party lines last month.

A similar House bill sponsored by House Speaker Sherman Packard, HB 10, died in the closely split legislature this year. Packard said the Senate version needs to pass to give parents the final say over their children’s education.

“Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their own children. We support the parents’ right to know what is happening to their child in school. These are our children, not the state’s or the school district’s,” Packard said.

Emotions ran high during several hours of testimony, as Democrats and left-leaning media outlets have characterized the bill as targeting LGBT students.

The bill is designed to address situations like the one in the Manchester school system in which a mother requested information after hearing rumors her child was identifying as a different gender at school. The Manchester district’s policy is to keep that information secret from parents. The mother was forced to sue, and Hillsborough Superior Court Judge Amy Messer upheld the district’s policy directing teachers and staff not to fully and accurately inform parents about their children’s behavior.

Democrats have responded by arguing parents are simply too dangerous to be given the same information about their children that teachers, students, and school staff have.

“What parents are we helping with a bill like this? Not parents who have good relationships with their kids,” Rep. Alicia Gregg (D-Nashua) said Tuesday.

Progressive Rep. Maria Perez (D-Milford) told the bill’s supporters they should be ashamed of themselves. Perez shared her personal tragedy of having grown up in an abusive home and argued that was proof the bill would hurt children.

“I can tell you parents are not always right,” Perez said.

Perez claimed the bill is part of a national movement to harm LGBTQ children and that parents’ rights supporters are enabling hate and white supremacy.

“This language has given white supremacy groups and the Proud Boys the right to come to our communities to be hateful and tries to scare us,” Perez said.

The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), pushed back on the claim the bill is designed to harm gay youth. The bill is a response to what parents learned during the COVID-19 school closures, she said, when many discovered their children were being exposed to sexually inappropriate material as part of public education.

“Many parents became the teachers for their children, and parents were beginning to see what was happening and started raising questions. Unfortunately, parents were shut out and ignored,” Carson said.

Carson said many parents in the state have since learned their school districts have enacted policies that require teachers and staff to lie about a child’s gender identity, as happened in Manchester.

“Those are the types of policies that parents are upset about and that they want changed,” Carson said. “Parents love their children, they care about their children, and they want the best for their children. Schools can’t provide that.”

Former state Senate president and potential 2024 gubernatorial candidate Chuck Morse (R-Salem) testified on behalf of the bill.

“This may seem simple, but it is often overlooked in our education system. Parents should have access to information about their child’s curriculum, as well as any materials or resources that are being used in the classroom. This knowledge is essential to ensure that parents can make informed decisions about their child’s education and can provide the necessary support at home,” Morse said.

Rep. Peter Petrino (D-Milford) claimed the bill would put LGBTQ children in harm’s way, either from abusive parents or self-harm. He said that parents already have legal rights under New Hampshire law, and SB 272 is unnecessary.

And he added that parents should be satisfied with their current ability to file school board complaints, or lawsuits if necessary. Parents should not feel entitled to be told the truth by their children’s teachers.

“No one has the right to compel someone to do something against their will,” Petrino said.

The bill would also give parents the right to see all of the content being taught to their kids, another policy Democrats oppose. Some parents have expressed horror at learning their school library has books available for children that contain graphic sexual content, such as “Gender Queer” and “This Book is Gay.”

When he testified before the committee, Chris Rivet identified himself as a parent and public school teacher. He said he and his wife have been through the system of filing complaints after learning about the social-emotional curriculum offered for five-year-olds. He read from the curriculum, citing a section where teachers urge students to draw themselves naked, including genitalia.

“‘Now that we have talked about our bodies and our public and private parts, we are going to do an activity. We are going to trace our bodies, and then you can draw your body just as it looks when you come out of the bathtub or shower,’” Rivet read.

“Our school is asking our five-year-old children to draw themselves naked, that’s this curriculum. It then goes on, on the second page, to say, ‘If a child is hesitant about drawing, you can gently suggest adding more parts. Can you add your elbows? How about your fingernails? A penis? Another useful approach is to offer to draw for them. Where would you like me to put the nipples?’”

“Would you consider an adult asking a minor to draw themselves naked abuse?” Rivet asked.

Rivet and his wife complained about the curriculum to both local and state education officials, but nothing was done.

“There was no accountability,” Rivet said.

New Hampshire taxpayers are spending as much as 100 percent more per student as school enrollment continues to slide, and some school districts are fighting to have the state pay more per student.

“The tax burden is incredible, and half of it goes to the schools,” said Dublin’s Leo Plante.

Plante is a local activist who tried unsuccessfully to get his town to withdraw from the Contoocook Valley School District, citing the town’s dwindling student population. As part of the ConVal district, Plante thinks too much Dublin money is leaving and going for students in the eight other towns in the district. 

ConVal has been losing students for 20 years. At the same time, spending on K-12 education has risen. On a per-pupil basis, it’s up more than 100 percent.

And it is not just in Dublin. According to data released by the New Hampshire Department of Education, across the state the cost per pupil has gone up an average of 78.4 percent since 2000. That was faster than the rate of inflation.

The steady increase is coupled with a 22 percent drop in the number of students since 2002. That year, there were 207,648 students enrolled in schools. The number has fallen to 161,755 enrolled for the current school year.

As a result, taxpayers are spending an average of nearly $20,000 per pupil, with the total cost of New Hampshire’s education system coming in at $3.5 billion in the 2021/2022 school year.

ConVal’s 20-year trend has seen a 34.6 percent decline in the number of students while the cost per pupil has shot up 103.5 percent. ConVal started the 2022/2023 school year with 1,969 students, and 10 years ago there were more than 2,200 students in the district.

Taxpayer activists want to know when declining enrollment means lower property taxes for Granite State homeowners.

“Clearly, school boards and SAUs are shrinking class sizes and padding school administration,” said Dan McGuire with Granite State Taxpayers. “If student performance was improving this extra spending might be justified, but unfortunately it is not. Voters need to pay attention to who they put on school boards, and those boards in turn need to rein in their superintendents.”

Janine Lesser, vice chair of the Contoocook Valley School District, has heard the argument that it should not cost more to educate fewer students. She said looking just at enrollment figures and the cost per pupil data is misleading.

“There’s a lot of the perception that if you have fewer students your costs should decrease, that the general budget should somehow decrease, and in some sense that’s true,” Lesser said.

But there are many factors behind the steady cost increases. Pay for employees, health insurance, electricity costs, heating costs, and building maintenance have all gone up in price throughout the economy, and school districts are no different, she said.

Critics note that doesn’t explain how school costs have risen faster than inflation, nor does it factor in the key elements in classroom education whose costs have declined — most notably tech like laptops, tablets, etc. Even the claim about energy costs is dubious. The price of heating oil and gasoline both plunged significantly during the downturns of 2007 and the COVID pandemic. And yet, taxpayer advocates say, somehow school property taxes kept going up.

The student enrollment decline is steady, but usually slight year to year, Lesser said. ConVal shrunk by 13 students this year, not enough to really impact the budget for a district that includes nine towns and several school buildings.

“All of the overhead costs don’t decrease that way. You can’t do away with a bus route for 13 students, you can’t decrease heating costs by 13 students, and you can’t decrease building repairs by 13 students. All of the costs remain,” Lesser said.

Plante doesn’t buy that argument, saying ConVal is top-heavy with too many administrators uninterested in watching out for the taxpayers who fund a large part of the education.

“It’s the inability of the administration to reduce costs in line with enrollment,” Plante said. “Someone has to have the courage on these school boards to say we can’t keep doing it this way.”

In part, Lesser blames lawmakers in Concord and Washington D.C. for fueling the rising cost per pupil by shoving unfunded mandates onto the districts, forcing local taxpayers to pay more.

“The unfunded mandates come down fast and furiously from the legislature, from both sides,” she said.

The federal government mandates local districts provide services for special education students, and it mandates transportation for students, but it does not help the district pay for these services. In 2020, the state started mandating a new STEM curriculum starting in kindergarten, but it does not come close to covering the costs.

Lesser said more is coming, as there are already 218 bills introduced in the New Hampshire legislature dealing with education that could end up costing local taxpayers more. All of this leaves school boards and school administrators struggling to put together budgets that will give students the best education possible, while not spiking local property taxes.

“It’s a fight every year to balance the needs of students with the needs of taxpayers,” Lesser said.

Claremont School Board Chair Michael Petrin is working hard on striking that balance. He’s trying to get the district to put together a budget that includes a needed raise for teachers, and one that won’t give taxpayers any more sticker shock.

“Purse strings are starting to tighten and going to this community to ask for money to help our teachers is really a tough topic,” Petrin said. “My grocery bills at least doubled over the last year and a half. There are families out there struggling to make ends meet.”

Last week, the Claremont School Board sent the district’s budget proposal back to Superintendent Michael Tempesta and his team to find another $1 million in cuts, hoping to bring the total budget number in low enough for voters to support the plan at the ballot box in March.

“We’re working hard to not kill the taxpayers and keep the teachers at the pay rate that keeps them here in the district,” Petrin said.

Petrin’s balancing act is complicated by the fact the Claremont district has also been steadily losing students. Last year’s average daily attendance in Claremont schools was a little more than 1,600 students. The figure was more than 1,700 a decade ago.

During that time, Claremont taxpayers have seen the cost to educate the shrinking number of pupils rise nearly every year, typically around 3 percent a year, according to state data.

Over the past twenty years, the district lost 24.6 percent of its student population while the annual cost per pupil rose 57.2 percent.

Rep. Walter Stapleton, R-Claremont, said part of the rising cost is that the buildings in Claremont’s district are obsolete. They were built for a time when the district had more people, and the city had more jobs.

“We used to be a big industrial town here with a lot of students and a lot of people,” Stapleton said. “It costs a lot to maintain that big infrastructure to support a shrinking number of students. It’s a tough problem.”

Department of Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut said the main drivers of the student decline are New Hampshire’s aging population and the state’s low birth rate. There are simply fewer school-aged children living in New Hampshire. School districts need to understand the decline is likely to continue, he said.

“It is important for school leaders to understand how declining enrollment numbers may be impacting their districts and how to plan accordingly for the future,” Edelblut said.

Zack Sheehan, project director with New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project, said the cost to educate students in New Hampshire will keep rising as long as the state and federal government continue to push down unfunded mandates.

“Schools are providing more services to students today than ever before, many of which are laws and regulations passed by the state that do not include increased funding. Many of these are important standards that support our students and schools, but they are not free,” Sheehan said.

How taxpayers will keep paying for fewer students is still being contested decades after the legal battle that was supposed to settle the question. Claremont’s district became the epicenter of the education funding fight with the Claremont education funding lawsuits of the 1980s and 1990s. That resulted in the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision that found every child has the right to an education and that the state has an obligation to fund that education.

Now, ConVal is taking the state to court claiming that the state’s $3,600 per pupil a year adequacy grant does not come close to paying for all the required services.

“This is our way to say, ‘this is what you require us to do, and yet this is what you actually give us money to do,’” Lesser said.

ConVal wants the state to fund closer to $10,000 per student per year. For a student population of 160,000, adding another $6,400 per pupil would cost state taxpayers more than $1 billion in new spending per year. With no guarantee that new state revenue would be used to reduce local property taxes.

As the ConVal lawsuit moves closer to trial, the original Claremont lawsuit attorneys are suing the state again, this time challenging the way the state-wide property tax is collected and distributed.

Attorney Andru Volinsky declined to comment on this story.

Stapleton said the state has money now in the form of a budget surplus, and he expects that to be used for education spending. He’s not sure what the long-term outlook will be if the ConVal and Volinsky lawsuits are successful.

“I personally can’t give you the forecast,” Stapleton said.

Plante thinks it’s time for New Hampshire to give parents their tax money back to make their own decisions about how to fund schools, but he admits that kind of a proposal is unlikely.

“I would give every parent the right to use school taxes to send their kids wherever they need to go, I would hand over the school tax to the parent and say, ‘take this money and do whatever you want with it.’ But that’s a pipe dream,” Plante said.

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. 

The way New Hampshire funds education could be completely upended as two separate lawsuits advance in court. One suit seeks to halt education property tax rates and the other attempts to increase the amount the state pays per pupil. 

Plaintiffs in the Grafton County education lawsuit are set to argue Friday that the state should not be able to set a rate for the Statewide Education Property Tax (SWEPT), arguing the tax is unconstitutional as implemented.

Meanwhile, Gov. Chris Sununu won’t be forced to sit for a deposition in the Contoocook Valley Regional School District lawsuit. Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff ruled the plaintiff school districts failed to show the governor is in possession of any unique knowledge.

Both lawsuits are attempting to force the state to pay more of the costs for local schools, with plaintiffs in both cases alleging the state has never followed the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s rulings in the 1980s and 1990s Claremont cases.

The Grafton County case involves several state residents who are also commercial and residential property owners. They claim New Hampshire is violating the 1997 Supreme Court’s Claremont II decision.

In Claremont, the court ruled New Hampshire has a constitutional obligation to provide an adequate education. That decision found, in part, that the use of local property taxes with varying rates to pay for the state’s obligation to provide its students with an adequate education is unconstitutional.

The ConVal case, which now includes dozens of school districts as plaintiffs, seeks to force the state to increase the per-pupil grants for an adequate education from $3,600 per pupil to around $10,000 per pupil, alleging the current grant does not cover the necessary services.

According to attorneys in the Grafton County case, Andru Volinsky, John Tobin, and Natalie Laflamme, the state continues to ignore the Supreme Court by using varying rates for the SWEPT, which in effect continues to punish poor communities with lower property values.

“Ever since (Claremont II,) the state has tried numerous mechanisms to avoid implementing an equitable tax system that would have the effect of imposing a fairer tax burden on wealthier towns, requiring the courts to intervene and protect the constitutional rights of New Hampshire citizens. Now, the state is primed to once again impose a tax using the same mechanisms previously held unconstitutional that will result in some taxpayers paying up to seven times as much for education funding as their wealthier counterparts,” the attorneys write in a new filing with Grafton County Superior Court.

The Grafton County plaintiffs are now seeking an injunction to prevent the state from setting a tax rate, asking the court to keep the SWEPT rate at $0. A hearing on the injunction is set for Friday.

The SWEPT accounts for 30 percent of education funding in New Hampshire. The tax started in 1999 as a response to the Claremont decisions, which found the state has a constitutional obligation to fund an adequate education. The money raised, more than $360 million estimated in the coming year, is used to fund state adequacy grants.

According to the plaintiffs, wealthy communities raise more funds per pupil through SWEPT than the state’s low standard for what it asserts is the cost of a state-funded adequate education. And since 2011, the state has allowed those wealthy towns to keep the surplus, which flies in the face of the Claremont decisions, according to the motion.

“The SWEPT tax as currently administered is not uniform in rate as the state allows towns with surplus SWEPT funds to either set a negative local education tax rate to offset the state’s official equalized SWEPT tax rate or retain the excess,” the motion states. “Both of these mechanisms have been previously deemed unconstitutional by New Hampshire courts.”

In the ConVal case, the plaintiffs sought to depose Sununu in order to get him to testify about the reasons he vetoed a bill that would have increased education spending by $140 million. The bill would have paid for the increase by rolling back some of Sununu’s business tax cuts.

Ruoff found the plaintiffs did not articulate how Sununu’s veto was directly related to the issues involved in the lawsuit, like funding for transportation, meals, and other necessary services.

Ruoff has already found the state is not following the Claremont decisions and that it is unconstitutionally underfunding education. The ConVal case is slated for trial in the spring to try and determine what the adequate education grant should be per pupil.