Study committee reviews national administrative‑cost comparisons, asks Department of Education for assessment briefing

A legislative study committee on Wednesday reviewed a staff memo that compares New Hampshire’s school administrative costs and district structure with selected states and asked the Department of Education to brief the panel on state assessment data.

The Committee to Study Reducing the Number of School Administrative Units in the State examined packets of comparative data prepared by staff and discussed whether the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is the appropriate measure for cross‑state comparisons. The committee asked for a Department of Education presentation at its next meeting focused on the state assessment (SAS) and the state’s use of the SAT as the 11th‑grade assessment.

A presenter for the committee summarized an analysis that highlighted large differences in district size and administrative spending across states. The memo singled out Arizona, Florida and Utah as states with lower administrative costs per pupil. The presenter reported figures used in the packet: New Hampshire’s per‑pupil general administration cost was shown at about $772 per pupil in the comparison table, versus roughly $200 per pupil in Arizona. The memo also noted that Arizona’s total spending per pupil in the cited table was about $11,000 compared with roughly $22,000 reported for New Hampshire. Florida was described as having about 2.9 million public school students and 67 school districts (countywide systems); Utah was described as having larger districts and lower administrative costs in the cited analysis.

Committee members questioned whether raw NAEP comparisons were the right way to measure the education outcomes the committee cares about. Representative Leon asked whether a 5–10 point difference on NAEP is meaningful. Becky Wilson, director of governmental relations for the New Hampshire School Boards Association, advised the committee that NAEP is a random sampling survey designed to illustrate national trends and that it is not a cohort measure. “If you want to evaluate academics in New Hampshire, both over time and compared to states with similar populations, the New Hampshire state assessment follows the same cohort of children from grades 3 through 11 and is the cleanest way to do that,” Wilson said. She also noted the state uses the SAT as its 11th‑grade assessment, with opt‑outs and alternate assessments for students with IEPs.

Members discussed the limits of cross‑state comparisons and the need to compare similar states or subdivisions (for example, county systems in larger states) when assessing economies of scale. Representative Lamb and others suggested examining states with similar rural geographies or population sizes, and Representative Ricky proposed relying more heavily on state assessment data than on NAEP when drawing conclusions.

The committee asked staff to distribute the packet by email and agreed to invite a Department of Education representative to the next meeting to explain SAS and SAT reporting and to show district and cohort results. The committee also requested additional state comparisons and suggested staff expand the memo to include neighboring New England states and middle‑range examples rather than only the lowest‑cost states.

No formal decisions were made; the committee continued its study and scheduled follow‑ups for the next meeting.