Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Adequacy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gould, Ewing and district superintendents press panel to raise base adequacy in HB 769
Summary
House Bill 769 would raise the statutory base cost per pupil to $7,356.01 and increase the statewide education property tax to generate revenue; sponsors and Conval trial counsel told the committee the figure tracks the superior court's minimum baseline from Conval litigation and that true costs are likely higher.
Representative Linda Gould (Bedford) introduced HB 769 in the Education Funding Committee, asking the legislature to act to set the base adequacy amount at $7,356.01 per pupil, a figure cited by the superior court in Conval v. State as an absolute minimum for a hypothetically efficient district. Gould cited expert testimony from the trial record that more realistic base-cost estimates are nearer $9,900-$10,000 per pupil, excluding transportation.
Elizabeth Ewing, who represented the 18 school districts in Conval, testified she supports HB 769 and noted her calculation of the revenue increase using FY26 counts would be roughly $470 million (and higher if charter and EFA students are included). Newport Superintendent Donna Magoon gave local testimony about staffing shortages, high numbers of students requiring individualized supports, and an operational budget under stress; she urged the committee to support HB 769 to address local needs.
DRA staff provided a quick guide for the committee that showed the bill's illustrative change in SWEP (statewide education property tax) to $2.50 per thousand would generate about $811 million statewide under recent equalized valuation calculations. DRA officials also cautioned committee members that SWEP mechanics and equalization are operational details that would need coordination and that the agency had provided a high-level guide rather than a final fiscal note during the hearing.
Why it matters: HB 769 directly ties the legislature to courts' findings in Conval litigation and would materially increase state education spending and SWEP revenue if adopted. Committee members asked technical questions about which students are included in the ADM counts, fiscal-note assumptions, and how increased SWEP dollars would flow to municipalities and districts.
Next steps: Committee asked LBA and DRA for detailed fiscal notes and town-level modeling; proponents said they would provide the Conval decision citations and costing detail to staff.
Ending: The hearing highlighted the gap between the court's legal minimum and higher input-based cost estimates from education economists; the LBA's fiscal modeling will be decisive for committee action.
