O P I N I O N
THE SOAPBOX
Stand up. Speak up. It’s your turn.
New Hampshire has always believed in something simple and powerful: decisions should be made closest to the people they affect. It’s why we have local school boards, deliberative sessions, annual meetings, and one of the largest citizen legislatures in the world. We trust our communities — not distant bureaucracies — to govern themselves.
That’s why the proposal to consolidate our 107 School Administrative Units (SAUs) into just 12 should give every conservative, independent, and fiscally minded Granite Stater pause. What is being called “efficiency” is, in reality, a dramatic centralization of authority — one that undermines local control, risks higher costs, and distracts from the real issue facing New Hampshire schools: the lack of adequate state funding.
This plan does not shrink government — it grows it.
Under the proposed system, each county (plus Manchester and Nashua) would elect a single administrator to oversee all administrative functions for every school district in that region. That means one person responsible for:
- transportation coordination across dozens of towns
- human resources for hundreds or thousands of employees
- multiple labor contracts
- accounting and payroll for districts with vastly different needs
- federal compliance across varied local circumstances
- complex special-education management
Consolidation doesn’t eliminate bureaucracy — it enlarges it, centralizes it, and moves it farther from the people who rely on it.
If you believe in limited, responsive government, this plan should concern you. It replaces dozens of locally accountable superintendents with a handful of countywide bureaucrats who answer to voters spread across enormous regions. That is not more accountability. It’s less.
There is no evidence consolidation lowers costs — and real evidence that it doesn’t.
Republican supporters claim consolidation will save money. But Vermont and Maine tried similar approaches, and their administrative costs did not go down. In some areas, expenses rose because larger administrative footprints required:
- new management layers
- new legal teams
- more regional coordination
- expanded transportation systems
- increased special education caseload management
Economies of scale don’t materialize simply because government reorganizes itself. They happen when systems are uniform. New Hampshire’s districts are anything but.
The real fiscal problem is not SAUs — it’s inadequate state funding.
For years, the state has underfunded education while shifting more and more responsibility to local property taxpayers. The courts have said repeatedly that the current system does not meet constitutional standards. Property taxes have risen not because local administrators are reckless, but because the state has not met its obligation.
This consolidation proposal does nothing — absolutely nothing — to solve the funding crisis.
It does not increase adequacy funding.
It does not help lower property taxes.
It does not address teacher shortages.
It does not expand career and technical education.
It does not improve outcomes for students with special needs.
It rearranges the chairs while the ship takes on water. That isn’t reform; that’s avoidance.
New Hampshire voters don’t want this.
A recent UNH Survey Center poll shows:
- 41% oppose consolidation
- Only 31% support it
- The rest are unsure
That is hardly a mandate for a radical restructuring of the state’s education system.
And here’s something worth noting: the number of SAUs has grown over the past twenty years because local voters asked for it. Communities left consolidated SAUs to regain control, flexibility, and responsiveness. That is the New Hampshire way — bottom-up decision-making, not top-down control.
This proposal weakens, not strengthens, local control.
Supporters claim consolidating SAUs will “return control to local school boards.” But how can local boards exercise meaningful control when a countywide administrator — elected by people who may live 50 miles away — controls all major operational decisions?
Local boards would lose leverage in negotiations.
Parents would lose accessibility to administrators.
Communities would lose influence over decisions that affect their schools every day.
Local control is not a bumper sticker. It’s a structure. And this plan dismantles it.
We can improve efficiency without sacrificing who we are.
If the goal is to reduce costs and improve services, there are proven approaches:
- strengthening cooperative purchasing
- modernizing financial and HR systems
- offering incentives for voluntary collaboration
- targeted audits of existing SAUs
- shared specialized services between willing districts
These solutions work with communities, not against them.
This is not the New Hampshire way.
We don’t solve problems by creating bigger bureaucracies.
We don’t abandon local control when it becomes inconvenient.
We don’t ignore the real issue — inadequate state funding — while pretending structural reshuffling will fix everything.
New Hampshire succeeds when we trust our towns, empower our school boards, and maintain direct accountability to the voters who know their schools best.
SAU consolidation is not conservative.
It is not fiscally responsible.
It is not responsive to taxpayers.
And it is not the New Hampshire way.
It’s time to focus on real solutions — ones that strengthen our schools without sacrificing the principles that define us. If we want to protect local control, improve fiscal accountability, and ensure every child has access to an excellent education, this proposal won’t get us there.
It will take us in the wrong direction.
Rep. David John Preece serves in the NH House of Representatives for Hillsborough 17.
Beg to differ? Agree to disagree? Comment below using our DISQUS app. Got issues of your own? Send to publisher@inklink.news or DIY it here.