O P I N I O N
THE SOAPBOX
Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.
Representative Kathleen Paquette is correct about one thing: taxpayers deserve accountability.
What taxpayers also deserve, however, is the complete story.
The debate over Manchester’s school budget is not a choice between supporting taxpayers or supporting public education. In reality, Manchester residents are both. The same people paying property taxes are the parents, grandparents, employers, workers, and community members who depend upon strong public schools.
The question is not whether we should scrutinize spending. We should. The question is whether we are honestly acknowledging the financial realities facing Manchester schools.
Representative Paquette points to increases in state adequacy aid over the past several years as evidence that the state has not abandoned Manchester. But that argument ignores a critical fact: the State of New Hampshire recently reduced education funding to Manchester by approximately $10 million.
That reduction was not caused by wasteful spending, administrative inefficiency, or poor local budgeting. It was the result of decisions made in Concord. When the state withdraws support, the costs of educating students do not disappear. They are simply shifted onto local property taxpayers or absorbed through cuts to educational services. To criticize the district for struggling with a financial shortfall while ignoring the state’s role in creating that shortfall tells only half the story.
More broadly, New Hampshire continues to rank among the states that provide the lowest share of public-school funding. Local property taxpayers shoulder a far greater burden than taxpayers in most other states because New Hampshire has repeatedly failed to meet its constitutional responsibility to adequately fund public education.
Even after recent increases in adequacy aid, the state’s contribution remains far below the actual cost of educating a child. That is why communities across New Hampshire—including Manchester—continue to face difficult budget choices year after year.
The same is true for special education. Representative Paquette argues that because federal underfunding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has existed for decades, school districts should simply budget around it. But no amount of budgeting can make up for millions of dollars in promised federal funding that never arrives.
Congress originally pledged to fund up to 40 percent of the excess cost of special education services. That promise has never been fulfilled. The result is that local districts and local taxpayers are forced to make up the difference. Those costs do not disappear simply because they are predictable. They remain legal and moral obligations to students who deserve the services they need to succeed.
The discussion regarding transportation costs also deserves additional context. Transportation for charter, private, and parochial school students is not an optional expense. It is required under state law. Manchester taxpayers are paying those costs because the Legislature mandates them. If there is concern about those expenditures, the appropriate conversation belongs in Concord, not solely at the local school board.
Representative Paquette also cites the possibility of wrapping food-service vans as evidence of questionable priorities. Even if such a project were pursued, it would represent a tiny fraction of a school budget exceeding $200 million. Focusing on a hypothetical van wrap while ignoring multi-million-dollar funding gaps created by state and federal policies risks missing the forest for the trees.
The proposed tax cap presents another serious concern. A tax cap may sound appealing as a slogan, but in practice it removes flexibility from local voters and elected officials to respond to changing circumstances. Inflation, rising utility costs, contractual obligations, transportation expenses, and special education mandates do not stop increasing because an arbitrary cap has been imposed.
If state aid is reduced, as Manchester recently experienced, and local revenue is simultaneously constrained by a tax cap, the result is not efficiency. The result is fewer teachers, larger class sizes, reduced educational opportunities, deferred maintenance, and diminished services for students. A tax cap does not eliminate costs; it merely limits a community’s ability to address them.
Most troubling, the tax cap undermines local control. If Manchester voters believe additional investments in their schools are necessary, they should retain the right to make that decision through the democratic process. A rigid tax cap substitutes an artificial formula for local judgment and local priorities.
The tax cap debate is often framed as protecting taxpayers from government. But Manchester taxpayers are not separate from Manchester students. They are the parents whose children attend our schools, the employers who need a skilled workforce, the homeowners whose property values are strengthened by quality schools, and the seniors who depend upon a strong local economy. The success of our public schools and the well-being of our taxpayers are intertwined. Policies that weaken one ultimately harm the other.
Most importantly, accountability should apply to all levels of government.
When state lawmakers reduce education funding, divert public dollars to private education voucher programs, and continue to underfund public schools, local property taxpayers inevitably pay more. Those decisions deserve scrutiny just as much as any line item in a school district budget.
As a former urban and regional planner with more than four decades of experience and now as a state representative, I understand the importance of fiscal responsibility. But I also understand that education is not merely another expense to be minimized. It is an investment in our workforce, our economy, our property values, and our future.
We can demand accountability from our schools. We can insist on efficient spending. We can ask difficult questions.
But we should also be honest about why Manchester schools face financial challenges in the first place.
When the State cuts Manchester’s funding by $10 million, when federal special education promises go unmet, and when lawmakers propose tax caps that restrict local choices, those decisions have real consequences. We cannot demand world-class schools while simultaneously limiting the resources necessary to provide them.
The solution is not to pit taxpayers against public education.
The solution is to ensure that every level of government does its fair share so local taxpayers are not left carrying the burden alone.
Manchester deserves accountability. It also deserves the whole truth.
NH State Rep. David Preece represents Manchester in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and is a longtime urban and regional planner who previously served as executive director of the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.
Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Comment below using our DISQUS app. Got issues of your own? Submit to The Soapbox using our DIY feature here.