Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Senate committee hears case to raise New Hampshire special‑education aid from $2,100 to $16,000 per student
Loading...
Summary
Supporters told the Education Finance Committee that New Hampshire underfunds special education and shifts the cost onto local property taxpayers; sponsors say SB 584 would raise differentiated aid from $2,100 to $16,000 per student and narrow the funding gap, with preliminary fiscal estimates near $450 million to the Education Trust Fund.
Pete Mulvey, director of policy and communications for the Senate minority office, introduced Senate Bill 584 on behalf of absent sponsor Senator Prentiss, saying the bill “increases state funding for students receiving special education services in New Hampshire by substantially raising the per pupil differentiated aid amount” and explicitly raises the per‑pupil differentiated aid from $2,100 to $16,000.
Supporters from small towns and school boards said the current $2,100 state contribution bears little resemblance to actual costs and forces local property taxpayers to absorb large, unpredictable expenses. Marjorie Porter of Hillsborough told the committee that special education can represent more than 22% of a district budget and that local revenues provide the lion’s share: “62% of our revenue comes from local property taxes,” she said, urging the committee to act.
Curtis Hamilton, vice chair of the ConVal School Board, presented decade‑long district data showing special education spending rising from about $9.5 million in 2016 to $17.5 million in 2025 and said the state share of those costs fell from roughly 12.2% to 7.6% over the same period. He said SB 584 ‘‘responds to this reality by recognizing special education as a vital part of education today, not a cost to be disputed after the fact.’’
Zach Sheehan, executive director of the New Hampshire School Funding Fairness Project, supplied statewide context: more than 31,000 students (roughly 20% of public students) receive special education services and recent data put the average additional expenditure at over $31,000 per special‑education student. Sheehan and other witnesses linked the funding debate to recent litigation, citing a RAND‑era ruling that found state funding levels for special education inadequate and potentially unconstitutional.
Mark Manganiello of the Department of Education’s Bureau of School Finance delivered the committee’s preliminary fiscal estimate: raising the adequacy/differentiated aid as proposed would require roughly $420 million for district adequacy and about $15 million each for charter and Education Freedom Account state aid — a total Education Trust Fund ask near $450 million. He noted a formal fiscal note was still being prepared.
Committee members asked whether the bill would cover transportation and high‑cost out‑of‑district placements and pressed department staff on modeling assumptions. Witnesses emphasized the bill’s partial nature — SB 584 would not fully reimburse all special‑education costs but would significantly narrow the gap between state support and local expense.
The committee closed the SB 584 hearing after receiving additional written testimony and copies of introducers’ fiscal material; no vote was recorded at this session.
