Garry Rayno, veteran journalist in New Hampshire, understands the war on public education. He knows that privatization is meant to diminish public education. He knows that it is sold by its propagandists as a way to help the neediest students. He knows this is a lie intended to fool people. He knows that the children who are hurt most by the war on public education are the most vulnerable students.
You might rightly conclude that the war on public education is a clever hoax.
Rayno writes:
“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
The quote is often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, but is also similar to words from British UN Ambassador Matthew Rycroft.
What better measure of treating the most vulnerable than the public education system open to all, not just those with the resources to send their children to private or religious schools.
Public education is often called the great equalizer providing the same learning opportunities to a community’s poorest children to the richest in stark contrast with today’s political climate driven by culture wars and fear of diversity, equality and inclusion.
Public education has provided an educated citizenry for businesses, government and political decision making for several hundred years.
Public education is the embodiment of “the public good,” as it provides a foundation for a well-lived life that is both rewarding and useful to others.
But for the last few decades there has been a war on public education driven by propaganda, ideology and greed.
While the war has intensified in the last decade, it began with the US Supreme Court’s landmark Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka decision in 1954 declaring racial segregation in public schools a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
The decision overturned the court’s earlier Plessy vs. Ferguson decision which established the separate-but-equal provision for public education.
The Brown decision required the desegregation of public schools sending a tidal wave through the south reaching north to Boston.
The southern oligarchs who never really believed the South lost the Civil War soon colluded with others like them to develop a system to bypass their obligation to pay to educate black kids. Instead they established “segregation academies” where their children could learn in a homogeneous setting.
The system was created with the help of libertarian economist James Buchanan who touted the belief that the most efficient government is one run by the wealthy and educated (the oligarchs) because the regular folks are driven by self interest which makes government inefficient, and most importantly, costly through higher taxes.
This philosophy continues today as libertarians and other far right ideologues want to privatize public education because it takes too much of their money in taxes, and a humanities-based public education induces children to develop beliefs different from their parents, which once was the norm for American families.
It is not by happenstance we see parental bills of rights, opt outs, open enrollment and greater and greater restrictions on what may be taught, along with increased administrative work loads piled onto public education by politicians in Concord as they double down on refusing to do the one simple thing the state Supreme Court told them to do 30 years ago, provide each child with an adequate education and pay for it.
Instead they have pushed a voucher system costing state taxpayers well over $100 million this biennium, with 90 percent of it paying for private and religious school tuition and homeschooling for kids who were not in public schools when their parents applied for grants if they ever were in public schools.
Most of the voucher system expansion occurred under the Chris Sununu administration with his back-room-deal appointed Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut.
Edelblut nearly beat Sununu in the 2016 Republican primary for governor for those with short memories.
Sununu sent his children to private schools while he was governor and Edelblut homeschooled his children.
Public education during the eight years of the Sununu administration was not a priority although 90 percent of the state’s children attend public schools.
And it is not coincidence that after the Republican House resurrected House Bill 675 which would impose a statewide school budget cap, that Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s small DOGE team — led by two “successful businessmen” — issued its long awaited report and one category targeted schools following the legislature’s Free State agenda of greater transparency and efficiencies, seeking Medicaid and insurance reimbursements and reforming school audit requirements.
HB 675 failed to find enough support last session because it violates the once sacred “local control ideal” often touted for local government.
House Majority Leader Jason Osborne, R-Auburn, issued a press release linking the report and the bill.
“HB 675 applies the findings of the report where they matter most. When dollars are committed and taxpayers are on the hook, HB 675 puts power back into the hands of the voter by requiring a higher threshold of consent,” he said.
Yes a higher threshold which means the will of the majority is nullified by a minority.
State lawmakers fail to acknowledge they provide the least state aid to public education of any state in the country. Instead local property taxpayers pay 70 percent of public education costs and should be able to set their school budget and various other realms usurped by state lawmakers without a “higher threshold of consent.”
The battlefield in the war on public education shifts over time. It began with religious and political ideology; moved into gender and sexual identification; parental rights, including who decides whether school materials and books are appropriate; school choice such as open enrollment, which will exacerbate the already great divide between property poor and wealthy school districts; and is now positioned to impact the most vulnerable of public school children, those with disabilities.
Last week special education administrators gathered for their annual meeting and to celebrate 50 years of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to improve access to education and to integrate classrooms to include those with disabilities.
Today’s special education services and supports are lights overcoming the darkness of institutionalization or stay-at-home kids separated from their peers in public schools.
Many children with disabilities were told to stay home and not to attend school as there were no specialized services or therapies for them.
But services are expensive as federal lawmakers knew they would be, promising to pay 40 percent of the cost, but reneging on that promise and paying only about 13 percent.
In New Hampshire, most of the remainder is paid by local property taxpayers.
The state pays little until a student’s costs reach three-and-a-half times the state’s per-pupil average or about $70,000.
But state lawmakers have also failed to live up to their obligation to pay their state of the catastrophic costs, so local school districts are reimbursed at less than 100 percent.
Last session lawmakers approved an 80 percent threshold as the low end of the reimbursement scale.
Special education costs are difficult to predict and a budget can be blown quickly if a couple students needing costly special education services move into a district.
The federal government is potentially moving the Office of Special Education from the Department of Education to the Department of Health and Human Services which local special education administrators said would change the goal from education to a health model which would imply there is a remedy or an illness.
And they said it is the first step back down the road they began traveling 50 years ago when students with disabilities were institutionalized or warehoused in one facility.
Several bills to come before the legislature this session will explore going back to centralized facilities to provide services and supports and explore if the private sector can better provide the services, which is consistent with the libertarian ideal of private education.
Great strides have been made in the last 50 years allowing people with disabilities to lead productive and rewarding lives independently, but that could change as lawmakers focus on costs and greater efficiencies, and the political climate seeks a homogenous environment without minorities, disabilities or vulnerable people.
Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.
Distant Dome by veteran journalist Garry Rayno explores a broader perspective on the State House and state happenings for InDepthNH.org. Over his three-decade career, Rayno covered the NH State House for the New Hampshire Union Leader and Foster’s Daily Democrat. During his career, his coverage spanned the news spectrum, from local planning, school and select boards, to national issues such as electric industry deregulation and Presidential primaries. Rayno lives with his wife Carolyn in New London.

While reading this post, I was reminded of Dr. King’s prescient statement, “Separate is never equal.” School choice is mostly about false beliefs, and it is designed to separate, discriminate and create a tiered system of education. The right wing war on diversity, equity and inclusion promotes a climate that gives license to discrimination and marginalization.
The right wing notion that private contractors can do a better job that professionals that serve the public system is another privatization lie. If it were true, we would see actual miracles in private charter schools, but the reality is all they offer is more disruption and similar results even though they do not have to abide by the same level of oversight and accountability. The few charter schools that achieve better results are those that curate their schools’ enrollment. Despite their claims of saving money, these private contractors cost the public more money resulting in little to no improvement in educational outcomes. Privatization is another big right wing lie, and universal vouchers are even worse. States can pay royally for a program that is just about as effective as lighting a bonfire with their public tax dollars, an epic disastrous waste!
The conservative ideal of local home rule is being shattered by several authoritarian extremists governors that are working against local communities and leadership. Governors in multiple red states are working to consolidate state power by attacking local leaders and negating results of public votes. These right wing governors are not truly conservative, even though they use the term to describe themselves to appease their base. They are power mongers that seek to control, dictate and intimidate local communities and residents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The hostile, corporate takeover of public education in truth hurts every student because it makes a democratic future. held up by the pillar of general education unfair and therefore unsustainable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Attorney General of Indiana is suing the Indianapolis public schools for not allowing ICE to come into the school and take a student. Rokita says that schools have to keep students safe by getting rid of criminal illegal aliens. The district continues to defy Indiana sanctuary laws.
AG’S BEHAVIOR IS DESTROYING OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS!! Children should feel safe in schools, not hunted.
Indiana attorney general sues IPS after it refused to hand student over to ICE in January
Author: Mike Potter, Logan Gay
Published: 12:51 PM EST November 6, 2025
The AG claims that Indianapolis Public Schools have policies and practices “that frustrate federal immigration authorities.”
INDIANAPOLIS — Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is suing Indianapolis Public Schools “for its policies and practices that frustrate federal immigration authorities‘ ability to enforce federal law and violate Indiana law.”
Rokita alleges IPS thwarted ICE efforts to “deport an illegal alien who had voluntarily agreed to leave the country” in January. Rokita said he warned the district in February against its “unlawful policies,” but Rokita says the district has continued to defy Indiana’s anti-sanctuary law.
“Sanctuary policies are bad in any context, but they are especially troubling in our schools,” Rokita said in a statement. “Schools across the country are vulnerable to infiltration by criminal illegal aliens—it’s happened in many other states—and it is essential that ICE be able to take action when that occurs to help keep our kids safe. That’s why my office, with the assistance of AFPI, is suing IPS to enforce compliance with state law and protect Hoosier schoolchildren.”
Indianapolis Public Schools issued a written statement about the lawsuit Thursday evening. The district notes it has been working with the attorney general’s office and wrote, “…we respectfully hope that all concerned parties will recognize the heavy burden that silly litigation and political posturing places on students, families, and taxpayers.”
According to the complaint filed in Marion County Superior Court, IPS has the following policies that defy state law:
IPS policies provide that IPS employees “shall not assist immigration enforcement efforts unless legally required and authorized to do so by the Superintendent.”
IPS and its staff will not collect, maintain, or share any information concerning students’, students’ parents’ or school employees’ immigration statuses.
IPS policies prohibit federal immigration authorities from accessing nonpublic areas on school property in the absence of a judicial warrant or exigent circumstances.
Here is the full statement from IPS:
“Indianapolis Public Schools is committed to ensuring safe, supportive, and welcoming learning environments for all students. As has always been the case, we will continue to uphold the law while keeping these commitments.
IPS affirms that it has been actively collaborating with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office to review relevant policies and procedures. Unfortunately, despite taking six months to craft his opinion on IPS’ policies, Mr. Rokita permitted only five business days from the time IPS received his review to respond, and then refused IPS’ request for any additional time. Yet, these important issues deserve thoughtful, deliberative weighing of important legal rights — not impulsive, superficial efforts for political gain.
LikeLike