HOHENSEE: Stolen Rights – Electing and Funding Public Teachers 

In 1968, our state constitution was radically amended. Voters were not fully informed of the consequences of the proposed changes. The voters’ guide said the amendment would “remove obsolete sectarian references.” There were exactly four sectarian terms (evangelical, Deity, protestant, and Christians), yet 140 words were removed from Art. 6 P.1 of the NH Constitution without further explanation. 

That 1968 amendment eliminated: 

(1) the “authorization” to collect property taxes to fund public teachers, 

(2) the “exclusive” right to elect public teachers, and

(3) the prohibition against compelling persons to support public teachers of “another persuasion” than their own.

These are major issues, yet there was no substantive debate. There was none in state newspapers, and there is no record of any committee or floor debate by the representatives who put this amendment on the ballot. There was a weekend meeting dedicated to working on the amendment, but there are no minutes from that meeting.  (See text of the original 1784 article 6 p.1 and amended 1968 versions at the end of this article.)

(1) Taxing Authority 

The 1784 constitutional authority to “empower the legislature to authorize … the towns”and “bodies-corporate” (i.e., school districts) “to make adequate provision at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public … teachers” was removed. In other words, collecting local property taxes to fund public teachers suddenly became unconstitutional. Of course, property taxes continued to be collected as if nothing had changed. Was this change accidental or deliberate?

The term “towns” was removed, but not “bodies-corporate” (school districts). However, a comma was added after the people voted, changing “bodies-corporate” to “bodies, corporate”. The Secretary of State made an unauthorized change to our Constitution: the people didn’t consent to it because they didn’t vote on it. 

The result is that since 1968 it’s been unconstitutional for both towns and school districts to collect property taxes to support public teachers. 

There may be hundreds of tax abatements filed this year as this discrepancy between our state Constitution and local practice has become more widely understood. It may result millions of dollars in tax abatements, which could become liabilities for towns and cities. No one wants to bankrupt their towns or cities. The goal is to take back control of runaways school budgets and controversial instruction. 

(2) “Exclusive” Right 

The term “exclusive” was removed. It safeguarded our exclusive right against any and all State interference in the election of our public teachers. This change has resulted in expensive State mandates and ruinous tax increases with hundreds of families, especially those on fixed incomes, afraid they may lose their homes due to skyrocketing property taxes.

Why the removal of our “exclusive” right matters:

The State requires all public teachers to be State certified. This may be well intended, but certification now requires non-academic training such as competency-based education, social emotional learning, and mental health interventions, etc. It undermines our exclusive right to elect public teachers and expands the purpose of education beyond academics, which has radically increased the cost of education.

The State requires that every school district hire a superintendent to “nominate” teachers. This again restricts our exclusive right to elect public teachers. School boards can only choose amongst the teachers who are “nominated” by the superintendent. This allows the superintendent to build an administrative staff that supports him, not families in the district. The superintendent nominates and promotes teachers and administrators that are beholden to him. Often the best teachers or administrators are never nominated for promotions, especially if they are intelligent, innovative, and independent-minded. 

There are so many State mandates, ranging from behavior modification to data collection of private student information, that districts now hire compliance officers to ensure compliance with State mandates. 

(3) Compelled Support of Public Teachers of “another persuasion” 

Our right not to be forced to support public teachers of “another persuasion,” was removed, leaving only the prohibition against compelling support for public teachers of another sect or denomination. This violates our inalienable rights of conscience. Many objectionable ideas do not have sectarian or denominational labels, yet they are definitively objectionable values from “another persuasion.”

Why compelling support for objectionable instruction matters:

Parents who oppose what their district is teaching their children are trapped. They are forced to fight endlessly at school board meetings over objectionable State programs which introduce questionable programs into our schools, for example restorative justice or white privilege and oppression, etc. Families are compelled to support objectionable instruction. These programs may not have a sectarian label, but they are strongly held beliefs of “another persuasion.” Parents have the right to switch districts rather than fund the instruction of objectionable values. This is in keeping with their rights of conscience. [Related: GROKTALK!: Funding Schools with Property Taxes Is Unconstitutional]

Yet the State blocks our right to switch districts, or create new districts, as was the common practice years ago. At one point our state had nearly 3,000 school districts. The State forced districts to consolidate. Now there are only 105 districts. How many families are being compelled to fund objectionable school districts and forced to fight endlessly? Our time and money would be better spent building stronger communities of like-minded individuals and funding better school districts. 

Years ago parents would simply notify the town clerk that they wanted to switch districts. The education portion of their taxes was then directed to their new district. The family didn’t have to move to switch districts. Switching districts was allowed to respect their rights of conscience. 

This allowed people to build relationships in a new district, to vote and have a voice in the education of their child. School boards listened to parents, or lost “customers.” It was closer to a free market solution than we have now with families trapped in objectionable districts and forced to support them. 

The State creates programs, allowing students to “escape” but forcing families to continue supporting objectionable instruction in their districts. When no one can switch districts, there is very little incentive to address the concerns of parents.

The State’s “school choice” program, designed to help students “escape” objectionable districts, provides state tax funds to private and religious schools by laundering the money through third party program managers. This avoids constitutional prohibitions against the State directly funding sectarian or denominational schools. It expands State control over private education, while keeping families trapped funding the same objectionable districts. 

Another State program is “open enrollment” which allows students to “escape” objectionable school districts, but again keeps families trapped. Open enrollment requires district to pay the receiving district at least 80% of the per pupil cost, despite having already spent or allocated these budget funds. It’s a budget busting unfunded State mandate.

When families switched districts, there was a fixed deadline in April. That came before district budgets were finalized and before property tax bills were paid in June. This allowed for an orderly transition in a respectful manner to accomplish the same goal as “school choice” or “open enrollment” without violating constitutional sectarian prohibitions, without busting district budgets, without creating unfunded mandates, and without compelling people to fund instruction of “another persuasion.”

Conclusion

Voters were misled in 1968. Three substantive changes were made without their knowledge or consent. Whether by deliberate deception or incompetence is irrelevant. We must restore Art. 6 P.1. Otherwise, abatements will be filed, racking up millions of dollars in liabilities against the towns and cities for unconstitutional taxation. Those liabilities will have to be paid.

Restoring Art. 6 P.1 reauthorizes local taxation. It restore our “exclusive” right to elect public teachers, allowing us to control school budgets. It will prevent people, especially those on fixed incomes, from losing their homes. And finally, it will restore our right to leave objectionable districts, and even districts that fail to properly manage budgetary expenses. 

The State may continue to cherish education. They may use lottery money to fund school districts. School districts may voluntarily comply with state or federal programs, or refuse them entirely. 

These changes will create good will between neighbors. No one will need to fight endlessly with anyone else regarding what is or isn’t objectionable instruction.

Proposed 2026 Voters Guide:

Three very harmful changes were made in 1968 to Art. 6 P.1: 

(1) removed local taxing authority to fund school districts, which is likely to result in millions of dollars in tax abatements unless Art. 6, P.1 is restored;

(2) eliminated our “exclusive” right to elect public teachers, which allowed the State to issue mandates that have resulted in vastly increased school budgets and caused many families to fear they may lose their homes; and

(3) restricted our inalienable rights of conscience by compelling us to fund objectionable instruction for our children despite holding “another persuasion,” or belief, on these same instructional issues. 

The proposed amendment resolves all three critical issues:

Provided notwithstanding that the several towns, cities, school districts, parishes, bodies-corporate, and religious societies shall at all times have the exclusive right of electing their own teachers, and of contracting with them for their support or maintenance, or both.

But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of another persuasion, sect or denomination. 

And every person, denomination or sect shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect, denomination or persuasion to another shall ever be established. 

========================================

Original 1784 Article 6, P.1:

275 words

==================================================

As presented to voters in 1968:

But no person shall ever be compelled to pay towards the support of the schools of any set or denomination. 

And every person, denomination or sect shall be equally under the protection of the law; and no subordination of any one sect, denomination or persuasion to another shall ever be established.

131 words

===================================================

As amended by the secretary of state after the people voted in 1968: