This was not a full-scale education costing-out study; its scope was much more limited. Established by the legislature, the New Hampshire Adequate Education and Education Financing Commission charged the cost-study consultants specifically with:

Identifying what factors might be inhibiting the state’s ability to offer an adequate education to all students;
Identifying and developing strategies to address these factors and improve student achievement;
Suggesting strategies to evaluate the effectiveness of targeted programs and funding changes.

“An Exploration of Educational and Demographic Conditions Affecting New Hampshire’s Adequacy Aid”

October 2000

The study does not attempt to cost out a specific level of achievement.

N/A

The stated philosophy behind the recommendations is a three-part “systemic reform,” which recommends that the state: (1) specify expected student outcomes; (2) hold educators, schools, districts, and students accountable to these expectations; and, (3) provide the resources to educators, schools, and districts to meet expectations.

Develop more accurate data collection regarding student demographics and student performance. Establish consequences to accompany poor achievement results.
On the low-income adjustment, provided to schools based on the percentage of low-income children enrolled:

reduce the adjustment by making it available only to schools with concentrations of low-income students of 25 percent or more;
reduce the adjustment to $1,157 per eligible pupil, down from between $1,652-$3,304;
eligibility for the adjustment should be made on a school, not district, level and student counts should be based on where students attend school, not where they live.

The Commission accepted the vast majority of the study’s recommendations, but it has also endorsed changes that would result in lower cost estimates, including rejection of adjustments for inflation. Nonetheless, the Commission also rejected the recommendation to discourage intentionally small schools. Many of the Commission’s suggestions were incorporated into law in 2005, but the resulting state school funding system was declared unconstitutional in March of 2006 by a Hillsborough County Superior Court. The state has appealed the decision.
The three-part recommendation above regarding specifying and providing resources for expectations has not been implemented.

The analysis is not a traditional cost study in that it is more closely focused on analyzing the context and results of systemic state-level funding reform and proposing funding priorities rather than estimating the cost of an “adequate” education. Nonetheless, generally it follows what is often referred to as the “evidence-based” approach by analyzing previous research on effective programs and interventions.

The analysis did not review transportation or facilities capital funding/debt service. Also, it did not include any mention of preschool education.
Because only the city of Manchester has a consistent population of ELL students, the study recommended that this situation be addressed separately.
The study also found “no compelling reason” to add an adjustment for gifted/talented programs.
The study found that the adjustment to compensate districts for higher regional costs is not warranted in New Hampshire, since the associated costs outweigh the “added precision” of the adjustment.

None.

New Hampshire Adequate Education and Education Financing Commission