The Legislature Does Not Want to Lower Your Property Taxes

March 16th, 2026

One Thing to Know this Week: 

In a week when the House had dozens of education bills on the Floor calendar, I didn’t expect to be writing about a Senate hearing. But for supporters of public education, I think the most important thing to know this week is what happened in the 4-hour long Senate Education Finance Committee hearing on Friday. 

The Committee heard testimony on HB 1815 (Rep. Lynn) and its twin bill SB 659 (Sen. Carson). As we wrote last week, these bills are essentially the legislature’s response to the (repeated) court ruling(s) that the state is not adequately funding its public schools. 

Sponsors said as much on Friday, with Rep. McGuire, a cosponsor of 1815, saying that the bill is a reaction to the Claremont decisions, which he claimed were wrongly decided, and Sen. Lang, a cosponsor of 659, calling the bill “a conversation with the court.” Sen. Rosenwald challenged that the bill is simply a “cosmetic change,” making it look like the state is meeting the court’s demands without actually changing anything. 

But of greater concern is what the other consequences – intended or unintended – of this legislation might be. Rep. Lynn said on the House floor last week, and repeated in the committee hearing, that the bill would limit the state’s obligations to the cost of offering an “academic program” across 11 subjects (defined in current statute). It’s not entirely clear how the legislature would define the cost of the academic program – does offering health insurance for your teachers count? – though a separate bill, HB 1121 (Rep. Ladd), does attempt to define the components of an adequate education under a different statute than the ones addressed in 1815. (Notably, HB 1121 was amended by Rep. McGuire to drop nurses from the components of an adequate education; nurses were explicitly included in the latest court ruling.) 

HB 1815 and SB 659 also include differentiated aid – that is, funding schools receive based on the number of students enrolled who are eligible for free lunches or who receive special education services – in the calculation of adequate funding. 

Mechanically, this might not change much – at first. Adequate aid and differentiated aid amounts are still listed in statute. But the changes certainly seem to create the space for the state to claim it is providing more than adequate funding, or to downshift costs to districts as part of the shared responsibility. When asked if this bill meant the state could pay $1 and meet its obligations, none of the sponsors gave a straight answer.

The public has made very clear it doesn’t want that. On HB 1815, 1033 people submitted testimony in opposition, while only 8 supported the bill. Not a single member of the public testified in support on Friday. And yet, the committee voted ought to pass on both bills 5 minutes after testimony ended. 

Most of the testimony Friday came from school board members, who are the ones being asked to balance the needs of their community’s students with the pressures facing their community’s residents. We saw in town votes this week that in many places, these pressures are getting to be too much. Budgets failed in multiple districts this week, likely forcing cuts to teaching positions, extracurriculars, and curricular options like AP courses. Deb Howes, president of AFT-NH, one of the teachers unions, testified that the legislature is “forcing communities to choose between affordability and a thriving community.” 

The state could ease the pressure on local property taxes in a number of ways. Increased adequacy aid is one option, but the legislature could also reimagine the Statewide Education Property Tax and make it an actual statewide tax; increase its contribution to special education funding; increase business taxes to offset property taxes; or consider a limited income tax to increase revenue and shift funding burdens. 

Instead, legislators are editing minor details in funding statutes to be able to say they have met their obligations. Whether HB 1815 and SB 659 ultimately decrease state funding or not, they certainly will not increase funding. The result will be increased property taxes in the least wealthy communities, fewer educational offerings, and, ultimately, poorer outcomes for students and for the state.