Increases in student enrollment are often used by school administrators to justify increases in school budgets.

Using the rationale that fewer pupils in a classroom generally means students can get more individualized help from a teacher, school officials have traditionally made the case that a vote for more teachers is a vote against overcrowded classrooms.

It has been a persuasive argument, historically, because research shows that smaller classes are better for learning. The battle to keep classroom populations from getting out of hand is one that boards of education have long fought, often by hiring more teachers.

It happens all the time.

Or, at least, it used to.

Now, the student population trend in the region is heading in the other direction, although Nashua is bucking that to some degree.

As reported in a story by The Telegraph’s David Brooks, elementary school populations throughout the region have dropped over the last five years: More than 7 percent in Hudson and Merrimack, more than 8 percent in Milford and Brookline, more than 11 percent in Amherst, more than 19 percent in Litchfield and an eye-popping 25 percent in Mont Vernon.

In Nashua, elementary school population went up slightly in the past five years, as families with school-aged children took advantage of the city’s supply of less-
expensive housing.

High schools throughout the region experienced a decline in enrollment during that time.

Statewide, elementary enrollment fell 4 percent from 2008-12 (statewide figures for 2013 aren’t available) and high school enrollment throughout the state fell 7.5 percent over the same period.

The numbers reflect an aging state population and a largely white, non-hispanic demographic that is having even smaller families than before. The downward trends also indicate a slowdown in the influx of people moving here from elsewhere, partly because the Great Recession of 2008 made it harder for people to sell their homes, which generally made them less mobile. Since New Hampshire is a state that in recent decades has depended on young professionals moving here to offset a low birth rate, the decline in school-age population is one result of that not happening.

You might wonder how school expenditures have tracked during that period of falling enrollment.

According to the state Department of Education website, school districts spent $2.1 billion dollars in the 2007-08 school year – the last before the Great Recession. That doesn’t include things like adult education, summer school, transportation or construction expenses. That’s just for elementary, middle and high school expenditures. The Department of Education reported that 2011-12 spending was $2.35 billion, an increase of about $250 million. That’s an 11 percent increase, which is about the rate of inflation during that period.

On a per-pupil basis, the Department of Education’s figures show schools spent $11,130 per student in the 2007-08 school year. That number for the 2011-12 school year was $13,159.15, an increase of 18 percent. That may not be as bad as it sounds, considering that a drop in school population would tend to drive that number upward.

There are a lot worse places to spend money than in our schools. They are an investment in our future, after all, and there is no reason to think school budgets should mirror school population child-for-child and dollar-for-dollar.

But while figures undoubtedly don’t tell the entire story, the state’s numbers suggest that school spending is, by and large, disconnected from enrollment. In that regard, taxpayers have every right to ask questions, starting, perhaps, with this one: If budgets still go up when enrollment goes down, what’s going to happen when enrollment goes back up?

Newsletter