relative to the cost of an opportunity for an adequate education.
Summary
HB 1826 increases the statutory base cost used to calculate the state’s “opportunity for an adequate education” funding formula for the 2027 biennium. It raises the per-pupil adequacy amount from $4,100 to $4,438 and also increases the additional aid amounts for students eligible for free or reduced-price meals, English language learners, and students receiving special education services. The bill is framed as an update to the education adequacy cost model under RSA 198:40-a and directs the Department of Education to continue adjusting the rates under existing law.
In practical terms, the bill would increase the state’s education aid obligations by increasing the foundation amount and the differentiated aid weights used in the school funding formula. The changes would affect school districts, the state education funding system, and the calculation of aid for economically disadvantaged students, multilingual learners, and students with disabilities. The bill takes effect 60 days after passage, but its operative funding changes are tied to the biennium beginning July 1, 2027.
Impact
HB 1826 would amend RSA 198:40-a to set higher statutory adequacy-cost figures for the 2027 biennium, directly affecting how the state calculates education adequacy aid. The revised amounts would increase the base per-pupil cost and the supplemental amounts for free/reduced-price lunch eligibility, English language learner status, and special education, which would likely increase state education spending and alter district aid distributions. Because the bill changes the formula inputs in statute, it would have a broad effect on school funding calculations statewide.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have faced significant opposition in the House, as reflected by the 192-156 vote to ITL (inexpedient to legislate), which indicates the majority of representatives did not support advancing it. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to identify supportive arguments in detail. The available voting history suggests the proposal was viewed as a substantial increase in education funding and was not broadly accepted by the chamber.
Contention
The main point of contention is the size of the proposed increase in the adequacy-cost figures and the resulting fiscal impact on the state budget. Supporters would likely view the bill as necessary to keep the education funding formula aligned with current costs and student needs, while opponents likely objected to the higher state cost and the larger mandated aid levels. The differentiated aid increases for low-income students, English language learners, and special education students are also likely to have been central to the debate because they directly affect how much additional funding districts receive for higher-need populations.
Relative to the cost of an opportunity for an adequate education, extraordinary need grants, fiscal capacity disparity aid, and determination of education grants.
Increasing the maximum benefits for first responders critically injured in the line of duty, relative to the determination of education adequacy grants and calculation of certain group II benefits within the retirement system.