Claremont.
Again.
The Claremont School District was the lead plaintiff in the historic case that resulted in the NH Supreme Court’s recognition of a constitutional right to a state-funded quality education and a finding that NH’s system of funding schools was unconstitutional. Claremont undertook the litigation after losing its high school’s accreditation in 1989. I was the lead lawyer representing Claremont.
Those in power in Concord will use Claremont’s desperate financial circumstances as an excuse to further undermine public education but NH has never complied with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and is largely the cause of Claremont’s problem.
Questions swirled at the Claremont School Board meeting on August 20th which was made more complicated by last minute curve balls. The board planned to share updated financials and provide the community with the board’s recovery plan but couldn’t because up-to-date financial information wasn’t available from the public auditor.
Would the school district open schools this week? If Claremont schools open on time, would they remain open for more than a month or two? What cuts would be made to balance the district’s budget? What should employees expect? What do seniors tell colleges? Would there be fall sports? How did this happen? Who’s to blame?
Five hundred people showed up expecting answers.
Audits have only recently been completed through 2022. Intervening years must be completed before tackling the audit for 2024-2025. Caitlin Davis, the new commissioner of education, weighed in with a letter offering only moral support. The Commissioner and Governor Kelly Ayotte made it clear that the Claremont School District is on its own financially. Not a cent for Claremont but tens of millions for vouchers for the wealthiest families in the state.
What happened?
It appears that expenses and liabilities were not properly accounted for in the 2019 to 2022 timeframe. This resulted in the Claremont School Board reporting to the state that it had a budget surplus that it did not have. The state then lowered Claremont’s local education property tax rates reducing revenues. Claremont relied on future local appropriations to pay last year’s bills until the music stopped.
The Claremont superintendent and business manager were placed on paid leave pending further investigation but neither administrator was in place when the erroneous surpluses were reported. Board members and the auditor publicly claim the business manager refused to cooperate with the audit process but she has been out on a medical leave for most of the summer after surgery.
A Valley News article from May indicates that the school board knew of the problem at least as early as May 21 when the business manager publicly advised the board the phantom surpluses caused deficits of $765,000 in 2020 and $1.27 million in 2021.
Living Paycheck to Paycheck
How did a two million dollar error four or five years ago turn into a catastrophic cash flow problem today when Claremont’s annual school budget is about $40 million? Claremont being off by 5 percent over five years is not good but how is this a catastrophe that might result in 1600 Claremont children not having a public school to attend?
The problem can only be understood in the context of Claremont’s overall school funding challenges caused by decades of constitutionally deficient funding by the state, a point raised by Claremont businessman Andy Lafreniere at the school board’s August 25th meeting. Lafreniere colorfully referred to Claremont’s structural problem as a “turd sandwich” and expressed his deep concern that the state refused to help yet spent millions of dollars defending an inequitable school funding system. He warned that Claremont is likely only the first school district to fail.
Think of Claremont like a working class family living paycheck to paycheck and mum and dad get COVID. They can’t pay rent and are subject to eviction so they miss a couple of car payments and they lose their means of transportation which makes getting to work nearly impossible. Ultimately, the family spirals to bankruptcy. The Claremont School District is the family living paycheck to paycheck.
Claremont’s School Finances in Context
Here's a chart that shows Claremont’s difficult financial circumstances.
Start with the local education tax rates in Column 2. Claremont’s local property taxes for education were almost twice the state average except for the 2022-23 tax year. That year, Claremont’s local property taxes for education were only 56 percent more than the state average. This likely was the year when the erroneous surpluses hit home.
Why are Claremont’s school taxes so high? Look at Columns 5 and 6. Claremont has 40 percent of the property wealth of the average community in NH. In a school funding system like NH’s that depends almost exclusively on local property wealth, not having local property wealth means your district can never keep up. There are ways to fix this, but NH’s elected leaders, Republicans and Democrats, have avoided doing so for the last thirty years.
The problem is also not related to Claremont’s spending levels. Look at Columns 7 and 8. Claremont spends 6 percent higher than the state average cost per pupil but Claremont teachers are paid much less than the state average; $57,714 versus $69,532. Claremont’s costs are higher than average because it has a higher proportion of kids eligible for expensive special ed services than the average NH school district and because 45 percent of Claremont’s school children live in poverty and cost more to educate.
- 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Fiscal Clarem. State Number Clarem. State Clarem. State
Year Tax Tax Students Eq Val Eq Val Cost Cost
23-24 $14.15 $7.31 1513 $870,000 $2,100,000 $23,288
$21,545
22-23 $11.73 $7.50 1615 $840,000 $1,900,000 $21,590
$20,323
21-22 $15.53 $8.30 1628 $630,000 $1,600,000 $19,789
$19,400
20-21 $18.66 $9.63 1609 $520,000 $1,300,000 $20,452
$18,434
19-20 $19.64 $10.08 1681 $470,000 $1,200,000 $17,084
$16,824
Claremont compared to the state, average over five years:
Tax Rates: 185.40%, Property Value per Pupil: 40.6%, Cost per Pupil: 105.80%
Who is responsible for fixing this problem?
The NH Supreme Court wrote in Claremont II (1997):
“We recognize that local control plays a valuable role in public education; however, the State cannot use local control as a justification for allowing the existence of educational services below the level of constitutional adequacy. The responsibility for ensuring the provision of an adequate public education and an adequate level of resources for all students in New Hampshire lies with the State.”
As a matter of NH constitutional law, if Claremont closes schools or slashes services to stay afloat, the state of NH must ensure the school system provides a basic quality education and the state must pay for it.
Also, RSA 186:5 is the statute that created the state board of education in 1919. It provides:
“The state board shall have the same powers of management, supervision, and direction over all public schools in this state as the directors of a business corporation have over its business, except as otherwise limited by law . . . .”
The board of directors of a business would be considered derelict and subject to suit by shareholders if it sat idly by as the business it supervised failed.
What should be done?
The cavalry is not coming. Claremont plans to triage its problems with a loan from the local Claremont Savings Bank while the school district slashes all possible expenses. Nineteen teachers will not be hired. There will be $1.4 million cuts to custodial, secretarial, and para-professional staff. $1.2 million will be “saved” by bringing children who received special ed services out of district back into the district; and they’ll staff up and find facilities to do this virtually over night. The school district will also cut all extra curricular activities, including sports, and try to locally fundraise to bring these programs back.
Claremont is not going to sue the state to force compliance with court orders to increase state funding because they appreciate the state’s technical help. Claremont won’t go into bankruptcy because the state blocked that effort.
The board expects to realize significant savings from terminations and restructuring of programs. This means class sizes will increase and multi-grade classrooms will be introduced. The district, like Franklin before it, will be forced to assign students to multiple study halls each day for lack of faculty. Let’s be honest, Claremont is already in the bottom 25 percent on all assessment scores. The proposed cuts aren’t likely to improve student outcomes.
Residents also cannot afford the $2.50 tax hike necessary to repay the two million dollars lent to them by Claremont Savings Bank. Local businesses and concerned alumni will undoubtedly help but you can’t discharge an important government function like educating children with a Go-Fund-Me page. Claremont should not have to do so in the 9th wealthiest state in the nation.
Claremont’s failure is our collective failure.
Governor Ayotte should call the legislature back into session to begin the difficult process of crafting a sustainable funding plan for NH’s schools that complies with recent court orders. The state should also require school districts to be audited annually.
One final point, shame on Claremont voters if they vote for any politician who doesn’t come with a check and a plan to sustainably fix NH’s school funding problem.
Contribute to Claremont by sending a check to the Claremont School District, 165 Broad Street, Claremont, NH 03743.
Mr. Volinsky was the lead lawyer in the Claremont School Funding case for 20 years. He has also written the book “The Last Bake Sale. The fight for fair school funding.” His next book talk will be at the Manchester Public Library at noon on Saturday, Sept. 6th.
