Carisa Corrow of Penacook is co-author of “126 Falsehoods We Believe About Education” and founder of Educating for Good.

In Nov. 12th’s Monitor, reporter Jeremy Margolis asserted that “Poorer school districts in Merrimack County [are] lagging on pandemic recovery,” using standardized test scores as his evidence. But what the data clearly shows is not so much the lagging effects of the pandemic, but the long-term and well-documented effects of the education funding gap and the stark disparities in educational opportunities between wealthy and poorer communities.

Pandemic “learning loss” is a distraction from the real story.

This is not to say that the pandemic had no effect on learners, especially those just starting school. Learning the rhythm of the school day, the routines and social expectations that students would normally get accustomed to as five and six-year-olds was certainly delayed. However, in focusing on the goal of at least returning to pre-pandemic test scores, we’ve delayed the necessary conversations about the links between systemic poverty, funding and special education.

In February 2024, Forbes published an article highlighting comprehensive research that clearly draws a line between test performance and poverty. The researchers concluded “The tests are not measuring how much students learned or can learn. They are predominately measuring the family and community capital of the student.”

And that “one could, with a high degree of accuracy, predict the results of the annual test…without actually giving students a single test.” The recently released state test scores for New Hampshire tell the same story.

And just like the adage “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,” wealthier districts get to build on success, while the poorest districts and the students they serve are on a roller coaster of inconsistent funding and resources. They’re asked to do more with less, a Sysphean task.

Let’s talk pay. Educator salaries in New Hampshire fluctuate greatly from district to district. The disparity in pay in Merrimack County is wide. According to collective bargaining agreements, in 2024-2025, first year teachers in Concord make $51,160. At Merrimack Valley, they make $43,632. Franklin teachers, $38,267.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Shamir Darjee immigrated to Concord knowing no English. Now the 20-year-old just bought his family a house.

Squirrels, magic mushrooms and cat claws: A look at New Hampshire’s offbeat bills

Opinion: Let’s keep our forests as forests

‘Woefully unprepared’ hiker refused to leave Sno-Cat atop Mt. Washington

Update: Man arrested in Pleasant Street barricade incident in Concord

Thorne’s of Concord to close storefront, shift toward intimacy coaching and education

Your Daily Puzzles

Cross|Word

Flipart

Typeshift

SpellTower

Really Bad Chess

For teachers with longevity, the disparity is even wider. This year, Concord teachers with a bachelor’s degree and ten years of experience make $76,331. Merrimack Valley $54,632, and Franklin $50,974. Administrator and support staff pay follow similar patterns.

Low pay often means less experience and expertise. It also means higher turnover, which has its own effects on training and relationships. Add that to the stress of low test scores and the feeling that you’re not doing good enough, and turnover is even higher. Districts that are wealthier are able to build and sustain programming, while poorer districts often find themselves starting over with new staff and administrators.

If we actually want to address foundational reading, writing and math skills in schools, we must address the effects of poverty from birth. For children that means providing rich, learning experiences early and often. For parents, it means providing them with resources and support that both help them in their role as a kid’s first teacher and reduce Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). And for school districts, it means significant funding that allows them to hire more staff and increase already low wages, from those that work with youngest kids all the way through high school.

It’s clear, however, that New Hampshire isn’t actually interested in addressing these needs. New cuts to special education funding announced by Commissioner Edelblut recently will take away even more resources from public schools and negatively affect all children and communities, especially communities with higher pockets of poverty.

And, the recent adoption of new Minimum Standards for School Approval will only exacerbate the gaps in opportunity and pay, pushing wealthier families to go to private schools with more options and our most talented teachers to choose to work at districts that pay more.

I recently attended a presentation where educator and author Rhonda Broussard asked the audience, “In what ways do our investments in education reveal our beliefs about the next generation’s role in the world?”

An excellent question for our legislators and lawmakers who have served our communities for the past fifty years. And an excellent question for those of us who elect them. What do our investments in educator salaries and programming over the years say about our desire to actually combat the effects of poverty such as health, housing, stress and food insecurity? What does it say about our commitments to all children and our beliefs about the future?

A lot of time, money and effort is used each year to prepare students for state tests that tell us information we already know. Maybe we need to divest from that scheme and invest those resources to actually address the effects poverty has on learning.