We’ve Spent Billions. Where Are the Academic Returns for New Hampshire Students?
Over the past two decades, New Hampshire’s public school system has seen a dramatic shift in both spending and instructional practice. Taxpayers now invest more than ever in K-12 education, yet the academic outcomes that matter most — foundational reading and math skills — have stagnated or declined.
According to state education finance data, average per-pupil spending in New Hampshire nearly doubled in real terms between 2001 and 2024, rising from what would be roughly $13,470 (inflation-adjusted) to approximately $26,347 per student — an increase of 96%. Meanwhile student enrollment has shrunk by 26%, amplifying the per-student cost burden on taxpayers.
This surge in spending includes not only salaries and staffing but also a multi-hundred-million-dollar investment in technology — from district-wide Wi-Fi to 1:1 Chromebook and tablet programs. Yet if the stated goal of this investment was measurable improvement in student achievement, the evidence suggests the return on that investment has been underwhelming at best.
NAEP Data Shows Limited Academic Progress
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called the Nation’s Report Card, is the most widely accepted benchmark of student academic performance in the U.S. Unlike state tests, NAEP standards are consistent and comparable over time.
Reading: Fourth-grade reading scores in New Hampshire have hovered above the national average but remain below their pre-2010 peaks. The latest data show a recent score of 221 in 2024 — higher than the national average but below earlier levels seen in the 2010s.
Mathematics: Eighth-grade math scores in New Hampshire averaged 280 in 2024, above the national average of 272. However, this figure is lower than the state’s own high points, such as scores in the late 2000s and early 2010s.
What this tells us is that even with significantly more resources per student, long-term academic performance has been flat or in modest decline in key subjects. Far from transformative, the improvements where they exist have been incremental at best.
Technology Spending Without Strategy
Much of the increased per-pupil spending over the last decade has gone into technology infrastructures — devices, software subscriptions, and the IT support to keep them running. These costs are real, recurring, and substantial. What has been less clear is how these expenditures tie to evidence-based instructional practices that improve learning.
National research consistently emphasizes that technology can support education, but only when integrated with deliberate pedagogy, strong teacher training, and classroom practices that prioritize deep learning over screen time. Rolling out devices without a robust instructional plan is like buying tools without a blueprint: the spending is visible, but the results are not.
The Urgent Question for New Hampshire Leaders
Parents and taxpayers deserve answers:
How much of our increased per-student investment goes to tech devices versus teacher development and core instruction?
What measurable academic benefits have arisen from these technology programs?
Should the state reevaluate the role, scope, and purpose of 1:1 device programs — especially in early grades where research on cognitive impact is mixed?
Investing in schools should mean investing in student learning outcomes, not simply equipment. The data from NAEP, when juxtaposed with spending trends, suggest that throwing more money — particularly at technology — has not delivered the hoped-for academic gains.
Now is the time for educators, school boards, and elected leaders to ask not how to spend more, but how to spend smarter. That means backing strategies proven to elevate literacy and numeracy first — and then harnessing technology as a precise instructional tool, not a default centerpiece.
New Hampshire students deserve better than experimentation without accountability. Our leaders should align spending with outcomes, and focus technology investments where they truly enhance, not replace, foundational learning.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:
The U.S. spent $30 billion to ditch textbooks for laptops and tablets: The result is the first generation less cognitively capable than their parents
Tablets out, imagination in: the schools that shun technology
Sweden Education Shift: From Digital Learning to Pen and Paper
- Academic Outcomes: What Does the Evidence Show?
Large-scale studies over the past decade have found mixed to negative effects from universal device deployment without strong instructional controls.
The OECD (2015) reported that heavy classroom technology use correlated with lower reading performance in many countries.
Research from institutions such as Stanford University and MIT has shown that digital note-taking results in weaker retention than handwritten notes.
A 2021 meta-analysis in Educational Psychology Review concluded that technology improves outcomes only when tightly structured, not when simply distributed at scale.
The core finding across research:
Devices are not inherently beneficial; pedagogy determines impact.
Where 1:1 programs were implemented as hardware rollouts rather than instructional redesign, gains were limited or nonexistent.
- Cognitive & Behavioral Concerns
Neuroscientist Jared Cooney Horvath has testified that increased screen exposure correlates with reduced sustained attention and working memory development. While the claim that “Gen Z is less cognitively capable” is debated, standardized testing declines since roughly 2012–2013 are documented in NAEP data.
Concerns frequently cited in 1:1 implementations:
Increased distraction (YouTube, messaging, gaming)
Academic dishonesty via AI tools
Reduced handwriting and deep reading stamina
Cyberbullying amplification
Early exposure to pornography and sexting risks
These are not fringe concerns; they are operational challenges districts openly acknowledge.
- Fiscal Impact
Nationally, districts spent an estimated $30+ billion transitioning from textbooks to devices over the past decade. Costs include:
Hardware refresh cycles (3–5 years)
IT staffing
Software licensing subscriptions
Cybersecurity
Insurance and breakage
Professional development
Unlike textbooks (7–10 year lifespan), devices require continual capital replacement.
The question taxpayers reasonably ask is:
Where is the measurable academic return?
- International Course Corrections
Sweden has indeed reversed aspects of its digital push.
In 2023, the Swedish government under Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson announced a pivot back toward printed textbooks and reduced screen use in early grades after national reading scores declined. Sweden did not eliminate technology entirely; rather, it recalibrated its usage.
- Silicon Valley Paradox
Schools like the Waldorf School of the Peninsula have historically limited screen exposure, even though many parents work at firms such as:
Apple
Yahoo
The underlying philosophy: build foundational cognition first; introduce technology later.
- AI and Academic Integrity
Generative AI introduces a new problem:
Students can now outsource cognition.
Teachers reporting that students intentionally insert grammatical errors into AI-generated essays reflects an assessment model misaligned with current technology realities. District leadership must now redesign evaluation systems—not simply manage devices.
- Why Haven’t Superintendents Reversed Course?
Institutionally, reversals are difficult because:
Contracts and sunk costs
Federal ESSER funding commitments
Political pressure to appear “innovative”
Equity arguments (digital access framing)
Fear of appearing regressive
Large bureaucracies rarely admit systemic misjudgments quickly.
