Fast facts
The formula is only one part of the bill
In 2024 to 2025, Adequate Education Aid supplied 25.6% of school revenue while local property taxes excluding SWEPT supplied 63.5%. The approximate FY2027 base adequacy amount is $4,351 per student before differentiated aid.
How the structure works
- The state formula begins with a base amount and adds differentiated aid for qualifying students and communities.
- SWEPT is established by state law and counted within the adequacy system, but it is assessed on local property and retained where it is raised under current law.
- District voters or elected bodies approve school budgets. Local taxes raise the amount not covered by state, federal, tuition, reserve, and other revenue.
- Property value per student differs sharply. The same tax rate can therefore raise very different sums in different communities.
Claims versus the complete picture
What the shorthand leaves out
“Schools spend too much and that explains high taxes.”
True: spending affects the local levy. Missing: a property poor town may need a much higher rate than a property rich town even when it spends less per student.
“State education funding went up.”
True: nominal statewide aid has risen. Missing: the state share fell from 34.9% in 2007 to 2008 to 25.6% in 2024 to 2025, and 145 municipalities received less State Adequacy Aid in FY2026.
“SWEPT is state funding.”
True: state law creates it. Missing: local property pays it, it is retained locally, and property rich towns can raise far more per student at the same statutory rate.
“The state pays for an adequate education.”
True: the state calculates and distributes formula aid. Missing: that amount is not the full operating cost, and the constitutional sufficiency of the contribution remains disputed.
“More state aid fixes the system.”
True: well-designed aid can reduce local pressure. Missing: distribution, local budget choices, cost growth, and whether aid replaces or supplements local revenue determine the result.
“Cost per pupil proves efficiency or waste.”
True: it is useful for trends. Missing: district size, student needs, facilities, staffing, enrollment, and excluded costs affect the number. It does not measure outcomes or tax capacity.
Four community comparison
Operating cost is from 2023 to 2024, tax rates are from 2025, and equalized value is from the Department of Education property wealth report. These figures show structure, not a one-year accounting equation.
- Moultonborough: $35,664 operating cost per pupil, $2.90 education tax rate, $14.9 million equalized value per student.
- Claremont: $23,288, $17.45, and $873,788.
- Berlin: $24,138, $13.90, and $959,957.
- Pittsfield: $21,649, $11.52, and $1.07 million.
At the listed rates, a $400,000 property produces about $1,160 in education tax in Moultonborough and $6,980 in Claremont before exemptions and other tax-rate components.
Questions to ask
- Is the number statewide or community specific?
- Is SWEPT separated from other state aid or counted twice?
- Are the comparison years clearly labeled?
- Does the claim account for property value per student and student needs?
Sources
A spending number answers what was spent. A tax rate also reflects how much taxable property exists to carry the cost.