#

Granite State taxpayers have broken the $20,000 barrier on school spending, even as K-12 academic performance remains flat and school enrollment declines.

“Last week, the New Hampshire Department of Education released its newest cost per pupil data for the 2022-2023 school year,” the department said in a press release. “The new statewide average operating cost per pupil of $20,323 is a 4.8 percent increase from last year’s average cost per pupil of $19,400. Total expenditures for the 2022-2023 school year were more than $3.8 billion in New Hampshire.”

To put the $20,323 in perspective, tuition to attend Bishop Guertin High School, a highly-ranked private Catholic school in Nashua, is $16,400. Mount Royal Academy is the highest-ranked Catholic school in the state. High school tuition is $10,700.

New Hampshire also spends far more per pupil than most of the nation. Across the U.S., the average cost per pupil is shy of $14,295, putting New Hampshire in the top 10 nationally for education spending. And as state Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut told NHJournal, taxpayer spending on public schools has been soaring for more than a decade.

“The statewide average for New Hampshire’s cost per pupil has increased by nearly 87 percent since 2000 when it cost less than $11,000 per student. During this same time frame, public school enrollment has dropped by about 20 percent statewide,” Edelblut said.

According to Edelblut, student enrollment numbers in the Granite State have dropped from 207,684 in 2002 to 165,095 in 2023. That’s a decrease of 42,589 public school students, or about a 20.5 percent decline during the past 21 years.

Despite the massive increase in spending, Granite State students are struggling on achievement tests like the SAT. House Education Committee vice chair Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R-Tuftonboro) said it’s time to pay attention to the poor return on investment.

“It’s pretty evident that over probably a couple of decades, spending is going up, and achievement scores are pretty much flat,” Cordelli said.

New Hampshire’s 2023 SAT scores dropped off slightly again. The junior class scored 35 percent proficient in math compared to 37 percent in 2022 and 42 percent in 2021. Students also lost ground on reading proficiency in 2023, with 60 percent proficiency compared to 61 percent proficiency in 2022 and 63 percent proficiency in 2021.

Edelblut said the increasing cost per pupil is partly due to increasing costs, and partly due to the steady drop in the number of students. 

“While we have and will continue to work to expand resources for all students, it is clear that we are in a challenging environment of escalating costs and decreasing student enrollment,” Edelblut said. 

Some school districts manage to come in under the new average, with Manchester at $16,636, Nashua spending $18,107, and Bedford at $17,418. Concord is spending $22,190 per pupil, and New Hampshire’s highest cost per pupil is New Castle at $41,754, a little more than the $41,650 tuition at The Derryfield School, an exclusive private day school in Manchester.

The record spending for public school students comes as the legislature is being pressed to find a way to change the way public education is funded. New Hampshire relies largely on local property taxes to fund public education, with the state sending an adequacy grant to districts that average $4,100 per pupil.

The district responsible for New Hampshire’s current school funding scheme thanks to lawsuits in the 1980s and 1990s, Claremont, is spending almost $22,000 per pupil. The Contoocook Valley Regional School District, behind a lawsuit that could change New Hampshire’s funding system again, is spending more than $25,000 per pupil.

The recent decision in the ConVal lawsuit has the state under court order to increase the adequacy aid grant to at least $7,300. Cordelli said that increase puts New Hampshire on the path to an income tax. The ConVal decision is stayed as the state appeals to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, giving the legislature time to find another funding plan.

Parents and homeowners frustrated with high property taxes and poor achievement are going to demand changes, Cordelli said.

“At some point, the public is going to become aware, and something is going to happen,” Cordelli said.

Parents are already finding lower cost, and sometimes better quality, opportunities outside the public school system. Kate Baker Demers, executive director of Children’s Scholarship Fund New Hampshire, said the average Education Freedom Account grant in New Hampshire is $5,255, about a quarter of the new cost per pupil for public school students.

“So, if a parent taxpayer is concerned about the high spending and cost, they could choose an EFA and save the state $14,745 per child. Which is, what, the amount that other states spend in total?” Baker Demers said.

This school year, EFA enrollment went up 20 percent to 4,211 students in New Hampshire. Of that total, 1,577 are new to the program. Taxpayers are now paying a little more than $22 million for EFA grants.

Exeter High School Athletic District Bill Ball said the school respects all students.

But the attorney for an Exeter student who was punished for expressing his opinions about gender said the school needs to respect the rule of law.

During the bench trial in Rockingham Superior Court, Ball and Assistant Exeter High School Principal Marcy Dovholuk explained why they punished a Catholic student for what was a private text sent outside of school.

The football coach benched the freshman student for one game in 2021 over a discussion he had with a classmate. He is seeking $1 in damages. He also wants Ball to admit wrongdoing. The student insists he was punished for defending his view that there are only two genders, male and female.

His attorney, Richard Lehmann, told NHJournal Exeter is another example of New Hampshire school districts running roughshod over anyone who disagrees with the new, extreme gender mores.

“It’s bad enough that children are made to feel uncomfortable expressing traditional views on matters related to gender in school,” Lehmann said. “Or when schools announce they will lie to parents about their children’s in-school gender expression, as Manchester, Exeter, and other schools do. But it’s made even worse when schools reach beyond their gates and into children’s private lives and seek to control their behavior at home or in private communications with other kids that happen entirely outside of any context related to the school,” Lehmann said.

Lehamann’s client, John Doe, is using a pseudonym to protect his identity. He has since left Exeter and is enrolled at a Catholic high school. Doe testified he was talking with friends on a bus after school about another student who claimed to be “non-binary” during Spanish class. Doe testified he thought that odd since the Spanish language relies on feminine and masculine genders.

The non-binary student was not involved or aware, of the conversation at the time.

Instead, a female classmate who was not part of the conversation later confronted Doe, insisting that humans come in more than two genders. Doe and this female student then got into a heated conversation, with Doe arguing the mainstream stance that there are two sexes. Doe based this view on both science and his religious beliefs.

The girl texted him later that evening to continue the argument. At one point, Doe told the girl to “STFU,” which he testified was an attempt to be funny.

The next day, Doe was called in by Dovholuk and informed he would be punished for the conversation he had the night before over text. Dovholuk claimed the punishment was for bullying and bad language and not Doe’s beliefs regarding gender.

“At Exeter, we respect people, and we respect how they identify,” Dovholuk reportedly said.

Ball testified he told Doe, “We respect all.”

Lehmann said the United States Supreme Court already ruled that schools cannot punish students for things they say off campus. In June 2021, the High Court ruled against a Pennsylvania high school that suspended cheerleader Brandi Levy for using the f-word in a social media video about the cheer team.

“Three months before the facts of this case arose, the United States Supreme Court dismissed an athletic sanction imposed by a coach because the authority of the athletic department to penalize students for engaging in free speech could only extend to off-campus, non-school activities in rare circumstances,” Lehmann said.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that school districts cannot police students’ speech when they are not in school.

“From the student speaker’s perspective, regulations of off-campus speech, when coupled with regulations of on-campus speech, include all the speech a student utters during the full 24-hour day. That means courts must be more skeptical of a school’s efforts to regulate off-campus speech, for doing so may mean the student cannot engage in that kind of speech at all,” the justices wrote.

The Doe case is now being considered by Judge Andrew Schulman, who is expected to render a verdict in the coming weeks. Doe is doing well at his new school, Lehmann said.

“He is a great kid from a terrific family, and Exeter High School is a lesser place because of his absence.”

A man once entrusted with teaching Granite State children is going to prison after pleading guilty to raping a student at Rundlett Middle School in Concord.

Primo “Howie” Leung, 40, was employed at Rundlett and Concord High School before his arrest in April 2019 on child rape charges in Massachusetts.

He entered guilty pleas Wednesday in Middlesex District Court in Woburn, Mass., to two charges of aggravated rape of a child with a 10-year age difference; two counts of aggravated indecent assault and battery on a child under 14; and two counts of aggravated indecent assault and battery on a person 14 or older.

The plea agreement will see the disgraced teacher serve at least six years in a Massachusetts prison and then probation for another three years after his release. Leung is required to register as a sex offender, wear a GPS monitor while on probation, and have no contact with the victim or her family. He is also to stay away from the Concord School District.

Leung is further barred from ever teaching again in New Hampshire or likely anywhere else in the U.S. His teaching credentials in New Hampshire were revoked when he was first charged four years ago, and his name was reported to the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education Certification. 

“The Department worked aggressively to ensure that Mr. Leung will never be allowed to work with students again, and it will continue to proactively protect the safety of all students,” said New Hampshire Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut.

Leung reportedly used his position at the Concord middle school to groom the victim, then 13, kissing and fondling her in Concord starting around 2014. He also encouraged her to attend a summer camp for English language learners, where he volunteered. It was at the camp in Newton, Mass., where Leung reportedly raped the girl. The girl spent two summers at the camp.

“There are no words to describe the heinous actions against this young girl and no sentence that could ever bring back her innocence,” Edelblut said. “As educators, it is our job to protect students and prioritize their safety, but Mr. Leung instead chose to deliberately victimize a student entrusted to his care. It is our hope that, now four years later, she has found the strength, support, and purpose to overcome the violence and massive breach of trust.”

The girl and her family received a $1 million settlement from the district in 2022 to settle a lawsuit they brought accusing the district of failing to keep her safe from a predator.

After the accusations against Leung were finally taken seriously by the district in 2018, Concord School District officials decided to hire an independent investigator, who reported district officials ignored clear warning signs about Leung’s treatment of female students for years. At one point in 2014, a seventh-grade girl was suspended for reporting that Leung was having an affair with a student. The district did not investigate her story; instead, she was disciplined for “gossiping,” according to the report.

There were multiple instances of Leung’s behavior with teen girls being discussed among staff, with some saying that he made them feel uncomfortable with the way he treated the girls. But over the years, he was never formally investigated by the district and never brought up for any discipline for his behavior. 

After a group of students reported Leung to officials in 2018 for being intimate with a teen girl in his car, the district finally investigated. However, according to the report, Leung stayed on the job and remained around students for another three and a half months.

Leung has yet to be charged in New Hampshire. The independent report stated there could be multiple victims in the Granite State. 

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.

New Hampshire Democrats say they will keep fighting the Parents Bill of Rights after SB 272 passed the state Senate on a party-line vote. And at least one Senate Democrat says the state should pass a law requiring parents to “support and love their children” instead.

The bill, which passed the Senate Thursday on a 14-10 partisan vote, expands the rights of parents to be informed about the education of their children in areas ranging from the curriculum to their kids’ behavior on the school campus. While the bill would cover a wide range of areas, Democrats focused entirely on its impact on schools that currently refuse to disclose to parents their children’s actions regarding sex and gender.

The law does not mandate that schools proactively inform parents, but it does require them to answer parents’ questions when asked.

“No school should withhold information from parents about a child because the school thinks it knows that child’s interests better than the parents,” said Senate President Jed Bradley (R-Wolfeboro).

Democrats adamantly disagreed, arguing teachers — not parents — should be the “trusted advisors” to children questioning their sexuality or gender.

“It’s just devastating to think that the safety and ability to determine who you are is taken away from our students when our teachers are no longer our trusted advisors,” said Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D-Portsmouth).

“Unnecessarily outing students [to their parents] at the direction of our government through state law opens these children up to a litany of dangers, including hostility, rejection, isolation, and even violence from their parents or other family members,” Kwoka added.

And New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley claimed informing parents will result in “some kids being beaten to death.”

Polls show Granite State voters, including Democrats, overwhelmingly believe parents, not school employees, should have the final say regarding the education of their children.

Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) said the Democrats’ talking points are simply wrong. The bill merely consolidates the rights parents have under the law, requires school district employees to tell parents the truth about their child’s behavior regarding sex and gender when asked, and tightens up requirements for teachers to report suspected abuse or neglect.

“It says that schools and school employees cannot lie to parents,” Lang said.

That was a step too far for Sen. Debra Altschiller (D-Stratham), who said the legislation is 180 degrees off in its approach. In questions for the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), Altschiller said that rather than empowering parents, “Should we not enumerate [in the law] that it is a parent’s responsibility to love them and support them  for who they are?”

Asked to repeat the question, Altschiller said that just as parents are required by law to feed and clothe their kids, “Should we not require parents to support and love and bring up their children to have these close relationships?”

“I think it would be difficult to put that into legislation,” Carson replied.

Sen. Suzanne Prentiss (D-Lebanon) claimed there was no actual need for a bill to give parents the right to be told the truth about their children.

“What is the real need, how did we get here?” she asked.

Carson reminded the Senate the bill was inspired in part by a lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who was told by school employees they could not tell her the truth about her child’s behavior regarding gender.

“Parents shouldn’t have to file lawsuits to find out about their children,” Carson said.

Sen. Dan Innis (R-Bradford) an openly gay man, said the bill does right by parents and children. It will help teachers guide children and families in sometimes emotionally difficult situations.

“This bill is not anti-anything,” Innis said. “This bill is pro-child, pro-parent, pro-family, and, in many ways, pro-teacher,” Innis said.

The House will now take up its own version of the bill next week, and another hotly contested debate is expected.

Citizens may have a lot of questions about Manchester School District’s policy of keeping students’ transgender activity secret from their parents. But thus far, officials in the state’s largest school district are not talking. Asked about the policy, school board officials, including Mayor Joyce Craig, all declined to defend it.

The district is currently being sued by a parent who claims it uses the policy to lie to her and other parents about their children and their gender identification. According to a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the district, the district’s defense is its belief Manchester parents have no right to know what is going on in the schools when it comes to gender issues.

“(T)his motion can be easily resolved by answering one discrete question: Do school districts have a legally enforceable duty to inform parents when a student uses a name or gender pronoun different than that assigned at birth? Because the answer to this question is no, the Complaint should be dismissed,” MSD’s filing states.

Craig, who chairs the school board, declined requests for comment on the policy. She also would not answer questions about whether she supports the policy. None of the members of the board’s policy committee, Leslie Want, Nicole Leapley, Peter Perich, Sean Parr, or Jason Bonilla, would discuss the matter, either.

Andrew Toland, communications director for the district, declined to discuss the lawsuit. Toland pointed to language in the motion to dismiss to counter the claim that the district requires staff to lie about transgender students to their parents.

“In other words, contrary to plaintiff’s characterizations, the district’s policy does not completely prohibit District staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity and expression to parents, nor does it require District staff to ‘lie,’” the motions to dismiss states. “It does not even contain an express mandate at all. It simply recognizes that the student has a right to privacy and that staff ‘should not’ disclose such information unless the student has authorized it.”

Critics note the policy, as stated, expressly strips authority from parents and gives it to children and teachers.

That is not how school board member Ken Tassey understands the policy. Speaking as a parent, Tassey said in practice, the policy would force school staff to use a student’s preferred pronouns and gender identity in school, but use that same child’s birth pronouns and identity when talking to parents who may not know what is going on.

“The policy requires that school staff lie to parents. It usurps the parent’s right to be informed about their children’s health and to exercise their parental love,” Tassey said. “The policy places the school district and the employees above the child’s parent, which is bizarre and arrogant.”

Tassey said the policy is predicated on the idea that all parents are potentially abusive toward their LGBTQI+ children, and that disclosing a child’s nonconforming identity would put that child in danger. That is simply not the case, he said.

“The vast majority of parents are going to hug their kids and say I love you,” he said.

Tassey is also concerned the policy does not have an age range and would apply to students as young as first or second grade. If a child disclosed gender dysmorphia to a guidance counselor or teacher, who may or may not be trained to deal with such a psychologically complex issue, that child’s parents would be kept in the dark if the child wished it.

Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman Fellow in Education with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Manchester parents are not alone when it comes to school districts keeping secrets about their children.

“The issue of school officials hiding information about a child’s confusion about their sex is a real concern. Districts and even state departments around the country have made such secrecy to be official policy, including in New Jersey, Kansas, and elsewhere,” Butcher said. “Except in very specific cases related to a child’s safety, educators should be required to inform parents about any health-related issues concerning their child. Public school officials should not make it a policy to keep secrets about a minor child from his or her parents.”

A proposed legislative solution, the Parental Bill of Rights, would have required schools to make those disclosures to parents. The bill was shot down this year when Democrats and some Republicans objected, claiming that it would put children in danger from their own parents. U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas, D-Manchester, strongly opposed the Parental Bill of Rights.

“This legislation will do real, lasting harm to kids and should not become law. It’s so important that LGBTQ+ youth in New Hampshire know that we see them, we support them, and that they can be themselves,” Pappas said earlier this year when the bill was pending.

The Parental Bill of Rights was also opposed by New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and Gov. Chris Sununu. Assistant Attorney General Sean Locke, with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Unit, testified before lawmakers in May that parts of the bill were legally problematic.

“This language could be construed to require school staff to effectively ‘out’ students–against the student’s wishes–to their parents if and when those students seek to avail themselves of protections pursuant to the school’s gender expression or identity policies,” Locke said in a statement. “This language targets students based upon their gender identity or expression for different treatment from other students, which denies those students the benefits of the particular policies designed to protect them from discrimination in schools.”

Butcher said much of the concern about outing students stems from the actions being undertaken by President Joe Biden’s administration. Biden is proposing changes to the Title IX program to combat bullying against trans students which change the definitions of sex and gender.

“It essentially proposes that schools must treat ‘sex’ to mean ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ [as opposed to biology] and so schools would have to adopt policies to conform or risk an (Office of Civil Rights) investigation,” Butcher said.

Biden recently issued an executive order to increase access to so-called gender-affirming health care.

Butcher said the Biden team is pursuing a radical agenda that rides roughshod over parents when it comes to the care of their own children.

“Such policies could include one that says educators may not tell parents when a child wants to ‘assume’ a different gender at school. Thus, the overall policy does more to advance radical gender ideas instead of affirming parents as a child’s primary caregiver,” Butcher said.

Schools in the Granite State got a concerning message Wednesday from the Department of Safety’s Information and Analysis Center about possible threats in schools set for this Friday.

The bulletin from the NHIAC states there is a rich of online messaging about possible school threats on Dec. 17. The nature of the threats at this time is not considered credible, and the online messaging appears to be a national issue, and not specific to New Hampshire.

“The New Hampshire Department of Education has been made aware of online messaging that was brought to the attention of the NH Information and Analysis Center, calling for possible school threats on Dec. 17, 2021,” said Kimberly Houghton, the communications administrator for the Department of Education. “NHIAC is not aware of any credible threat pertaining to any specific schools or locations, and is urging everyone to please report found threats to local police departments.”

The bulletin prompted many schools in New Hampshire to alert parents to the issue on Wednesday. 

“Although there are no known threats to any specific schools or locations, it is important that we share this information to increase awareness with our staff, our families and our communities,” one district states in an email alert. 

Parents and students are being asked to check social media for anything concerning that should be shared with law enforcement. Any potential threats should be reported to police immediately by calling 9-1-1, according to the alerts. It is not known if any New Hampshire schools are closing on Friday as a result of the threats. 

New Hampshire has not experienced a school shooting. 

The bulletin from the NHIAC comes a day after the ninth anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting in which a gunman entered the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and murdered 20 children and seven teachers and staffers before killing himself.

Opponents of reopening school classrooms and their teachers union allies spent the past year insisting that classroom instruction for kids was just too dangerous.

Over that same year, many parents and medical professionals pushed back, using data from across the globe to show that children faced low risk from the virus.

Two months into the new school year, Granite State data appear to back the second group. Yes, infections among school-aged kids are up — but no more than among the population as a whole.

The cost of the closed classrooms unions and progressives demanded is easy to measure: A lost year of instruction for students and lost income for some parents; an even wider racial gap in academic performance; more physical injuries (schools are the safest place the average child goes); and a setback in socialization and development for younger students.

The impact of opening schools on COVID, however, is harder to measure. For example, the media regularly report the percentage of positive COVID-19 tests among those under age 19 is sometimes around one-third of all positive results.

But what they don’t report is that with schools reopened, the number of tests given to students has soared. They represent a larger percentage of the total number of tests than in the past. So yes, it’s true COVID-19 among children exploded in the first week of the school year. But because of the limits of the state’s available data on the DHHS dashboard, it’s hard to say if that is a result of more testing or the impact of the Delta surge.

Here’s what we do know: While the state does not track data showing the exact positivity rate for school children in New Hampshire, the data on rates for people under age 20 is on track with the rest of the state during the Delta variant surge. 

The most recent daily average showed 9,170 tests administered and a positivity rate of 6.3 percent.

For people nine years old and under, the latest daily positive rate was 7.2 percent out of 944 tests administered.

For those 10 to 19, the positivity rate was 5.4 percent out of 1,695 tests.

No “schoolroom surge.”

NH COVID positivity rate, ages 0-9 years old.

NH COVID positivity rate, ages 10-19

NH COVID positivity rate, all persons.

Dr. Benjamin Chan, the state epidemiologist for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, said the summer and fall Delta wave is driving up cases in every sector of the population.

“The rates of COVID have gone up in all age groups,” Chan said.

This time last year, only about 250 tests were administered on an average day to those under the age of nine, and the positivity rate was under 1 percent. For those 10 to 19, there were about 500 to 700 tests per day, with a positive rate of around 1.2 percent. All similar to the state as a whole.

New Hampshire does not sort out its COVID testing data by specific age group beyond a couple of categories. While there is no specific data set showing the rates among just school-aged children, the state does keep data on children from birth up to age 9, and another set for children 10 through to 19. The state is also tracking COVID cases in schools, but that data includes adult staff who test positive.

Cases spiked in the first week of September just after the start of the school year when there were more than 42 positive cases a day out of fewer than 480 tests on average performed, for an 8.8 percent positivity rate. Testing rose toward the end of September, with an average of 1,200 tests done a day, while the positivity rate declined to 5.6 percent.

The number of tests done has started to come down, and as of Oct. 14, children in this cohort are averaging more than 937 tests per day. But the number of positive cases has stayed around 65, for a slightly higher positive rate of 6.9 percent. Chan noted this cohort is unvaccinated against COVID, as no vaccine has yet been approved for children under the age of 12.

Most schools require students to stay home if they exhibit any cold or flu symptoms, which also double as COVID-19 symptoms. Children must either quarantine until symptoms go away, or they must test negative, in order to go back to school. Chan said the recommendations for testing in schools have not changed from last year. The number of tests per day in the birth to age 9 cohort was averaging a little more than 200 in mid-September 2020, and the tests found a positivity rate of 0.3 percent or about less than one case per day on average.

In the 10 to 19 age group, there were 642 tests averaged per day in mid-July, and 1,579 as of Oct. 14. The mid-July positive rate was 0.9 percent or 5.71 positive cases per day. Once again, generally tracking the state as a whole.

Testing remains an issue for many in the state, with families waiting days in some cases to get a test, and with a nationwide shortage of rapid tests. Last week, DHHS Commissioner Lori Shibinette announced four new testing sites are being set up to help meet the testing needs during the current surge.

Perhaps the most significant number is this: There have only been 34 hospitalizations among Granite Staters under age 19 during the entire pandemic– and zero deaths.

Not only is it National School Choice Week, it’s also New Hampshire School Choice Week. Gov. Chris Sununu signed the proclamation on Tuesday. So naturally, the discussion of school choice in the Granite State is bound to come up. And the Legislature has a slew of bills related to charter schools, public versus private schools, and parent involvement in their children’s education.

With a Republican-controlled State House, expect to see several school choice bills make it through and end up on the governor’s desk. Education reform is definitely a priority for the Sununu administration.

“We’re not trying to blow up education, or battle public education,” he said at an event for National School Choice Week in Manchester on Tuesday. “I love public education. It’s just about actually taking the system that we have, the fundamental structure that we have — and it’s not bad; it’s a good structure — but providing some leadership to really implement those innovations that we always talk about.”

Here are NH Journal’s top school choice issues to keep an eye on at the State House as lawmakers begin to debate these bills:

CHARTER SCHOOLS

There are about 10 bills dealing with charter schools, which is still a contentious topic in the world of education. Here’s a quick run-down of what they are:

• Charter schools are publicly-funded independent schools that are not subject to the same regulations as traditional public schools.
• They do not charge tuition.
• They must accept all students who apply, but if the number of applications exceeds the school’s capacity, a lottery must be held to select students who will be offered a place.
• They are considered part of the state school system and are accountable to state and federal authorities for compliance with the terms of their founding charter, which often includes achievement-based standards (read: testing).
• All charter schools must apply for authorization and receive approval from a local school district, a town vote, or the state board of education. Charters are valid for a term of five years, at which point a school must apply for renewal.

There are currently 25 charter schools operating in New Hampshire, with another one slated to open in fall 2017, according to data from the NH Department of Education. There were 3,011 students enrolled in charter schools, or about 1 percent of the state’s total student population, as of October 1, 2015.

Most charter schools receive funding directly from the state, at a rate of about $6,500 per pupil, which is a lower than average per-pupil expenditure at traditional public schools, which averaged approximately $14,375 in 2015. Data from the current academic year is not available yet.

So why are charter schools so divisive? Charter school advocates want more funding and to raise the cap on admittance. They say the schools create new educational models of teaching and learning that appeal to students who might not learn best in a traditional school setting and give parents more choices in their children’s education.

Opponents say charter schools take away state money that could go to improve traditional schools, and they lack equal proportions of disabled or special needs students, who then are forced into the traditional public school system.

And the argument that charter school students perform better on standardized tests is a moot point. While statewide assessment results generally show that trend, the comparisons can be misleading since charter schools and traditional public schools do not have equivalent student populations in terms of learning ability and special needs.

Out of the 10 bills filed for the current legislative session, seven of them seek to place limits on charter schools or give the state more control of them. They are sponsored by Democrats. Three of the bills look to provide more funding or give charter schools more authority — all sponsored by Republicans. So you can see that this issue largely falls on party lines.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan, D-Durham, appears to be charter schools’ biggest opponent by being the prime sponsor on most of the “anti-charter” legislation. But with a Republican governor and a GOP-controlled Legislature, it’s difficult to see a scenario where any of the Democrat’s legislation makes it far. Especially with a pro-charter school governor who wants to increase funding.

And Sununu’s nominee for education commissioner, former state Rep. Frank Edelblut, is also a school choice, pro-charter supporter. It seems unlikely that any of the limiting charter school legislation will make it out of the House Education Committee.

THE ‘CROYDON’ BILL

For those unfamiliar with the story of the town of Croydon and school choice, let me fill you in.

The town has been in an ongoing legal battle with the courts and state Department of Education over its decision to send some of its students to a nearby Montessori school at taxpayer expense.

Many small communities in the state do not have a local K-12 school district and they contract with larger nearby districts to send their students to school there, usually though a per-student tuition contract paid for by the town where the students come from.

So, the Croydon School District had a tuition agreement with the town of Newport, but that contact ended in 2014. Croydon gave parents the option of choosing public and private schools to send their children, which would be funded by taxpayers.

The state and courts have ruled that the town cannot use public funds to pay for private school. But the school district says there is nothing in state law that prohibits it from using private schools if it’s in the best interest of the students.

Now, school choice advocates are rallying behind House Bill 557, which would allow a school district to send a child to a private school, even a religious one, if there is not a public school for the child’s grade in their home district.

The first hearing for the bill was held on Wednesday and the state Department of Justice said the bill violates the N.H. Constitution for allowing taxpayer money to be used for religious schools and could lead to other court cases in towns where parents are paying for private schools out-of-pocket.

It’s a tricky bill, but if it makes it out of committee and goes through the Legislature, Sununu is expected to sign it. In an op-ed published in the New Hampshire Union Leader during his gubernatorial run, he said, “the issue in Croydon is a clear example of government overreach.”

“Too often, special interests and unelected bureaucrats act as if they know what is right for children over the judgment of parents,” he wrote. “Instead of expanding options for families, the state has unfortunately been working to reduce them.”

And assuming Edelblut is approved by the Republican-controlled Executive Council, he has also indicated that he supports the Croydon School District, so he could make this bill a priority and work with members of the Legislature to get it passed.

COMMON CORE

While not directly about school choice, the issue of Common Core State Standards will be a dividing issue in the Legislature. School choice is all about giving parents a greater role in their child’s education and with Common Core, many parents feel the federal government and state are mandating what their children should learn — even if they don’t believe it’s in their best interests.

Bills in the House and Senate seek to make clear that school districts are not required to implement the standards if they don’t want to.

NH Journal has previously reported on the issue of Common Core in the state and how the state board of education gave towns and cities the flexibility and local control to implement the standards how they saw fit.

Sununu and Edelblut have both said they want to “repeal Common Core.” What exactly that means, is still unclear, but if these bills make it to Sununu’s desk, it’s also likely that he would sign them.

HONORABLE MENTION:

Here are some other bills relating to school choice (or parental involvement) that will appear in during the current legislative session:

• Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 7: “The general court shall have the authority to define standards of accountability, mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity, and have full discretion to determine the amount of state funding for education.”
• House Bill 395: “This bill repeals state board of education rulemaking authority for home education programs and inserts the duties and procedures related to membership in the home education advisory council statute.”
• House Bill 103: “This bill requires school districts to provide advance notice to parents and legal guardians of course material involving discussion of human sexuality or human sexual education.” Here is NH Journal’s story on how that bill came to fruition.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.