For many years the N.H’s Statewide Education Property Tax, otherwise known as SWEPT, has been on trial for its legitimacy.
Many feel that the tax does not actually meet the necessary funding requirement for state schools. It has even been ruled by Judge David Ruoff of Rockingham County Superior Court as unconstitutional and a failure at providing enough funding for an adequate education to N.H students (Kitch).
There are currently three different parties battling over the tax and the resolution of its various issues according to New Hampshire Public Radio (NHPR) and NH Business Review articles both written by Michael Kitch. All three have their grievances to duke out in court, with the only plaintiffs defending the decision by Ruoff being those who actually found SWEPT to be unconstitutional by the courts in the Rand School Funding Lawsuit.
Kitsch writes, “Instead, apart from the failure of the state to comply with the Claremont orders, the administration of the SWEPT has proven the most contentious component of the school funding system, above all by affording financial advantages to the most affluent cities and towns least in need of them at the expense of those most in need of them.”
This is because the SWEPT requires wealthier, property rich areas to provide more income in taxes for their schools than the areas with properties that require less income. This allows the schools who require the most funding to go without due to the disproportionate rate of taxation. As stated in the NH Business Review piece, the base pay for each individual pupil should be no less than “$7,360.01” and yet there are some districts, such as the Conval school district, that have experienced reported incomes as low as “$3,708 and $3,786” per student in previous years.
It is a shockingly low figure. While the SWEPT attempts to provide enough money to schools across the state, it is both failing to provide adequate numbers and charging disproportionate rates to property owners in order to supply these unsubstantial funds. The excess money from these wealthier districts is not even properly allocated to the schools most in need of the outpouring. As Kitch writes, “The plaintiffs argue that the affidavits belie the presumption that excess SWEPT represents an appropriation by the state, which played no part in allocating funding for these infrastructure improvements and equipment purchases.”
There must be another probable way for the taxpayers of New Hampshire to be able to provide adequate funding for state schools while both keeping the tax constitutional and providing enough money for equal education to all students, regardless of where they may live. If the SWEPT is not meeting these standards due to its’ lack of allocation it should either be rerouted to reach them or gutted entirely to make room for a new system instead. More should be done to ensure that a properly funded education is a right insured by the people of N.H to each and every future scholar.
Kara Montagano can be contacted at
kara.montagano@keene.edu
