CONCORD — What are the components necessary to provide an adequate education for children in New Hampshire?
That question was the root of the arguments presented before the New Hampshire Supreme Court Wednesday morning in the state's appeal of Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David W. Ruoff’s ruling last year in Contoocook Valley School District v. New Hampshire.
The case, filed on behalf of the ConVal School District and others in 2019, argues that New Hampshire’s formula for public school state aid does not provide enough money to districts to pay for an adequate education. In addition to ConVal, three local school districts – Monadnock, Winchester and Fall Mountain – are part of the lawsuit. Attorneys for the state have argued that the court’s decision violated the separation of powers and said the decision should be up to the Legislature.
Tuesday's oral arguments largely focused on what both sides believe to be covered under statute. Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, who was the state’s attorney general when the case was first brought forward, recused himself from the case. Meanwhile, Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi has taken a leave of absence pending a series of criminal indictments filed against her in October.
The state argues that the definition of a "constitutionally adequate education" does not include every cost to operate a school.
"Transportation is not part of the substantive instructional program that the legislature has agreed to pay for," said Anthony Galdieri, the state’s solicitor general. "Facilities are not."
Senior Associate Justice James P. Bassett asked if teachers are excluded from the state's responsibility. Galdieri said that while the statute does not explicitly state teachers, they can be considered as part of the definition for specific instructional materials and curriculum programs. Galdieri said that $3,998 per pupil would be enough to cover instruction, materials, and assessment in the 11 learning areas defined in the statute. Those include subjects such as English, math, and science.
But the plaintiffs say that those other factors must be considered since they are required to calculate the minimum cost for an adequate education program.
"We’re asking whether a school is being provided funding to hire a teacher; to have heat in the building; if the school has enough funding to have a principal for every 500 students, as required by law," said Michael J. Tearney, an attorney for the school districts. "We cannot have a district providing instruction in a vacuum."
The ConVal lawsuit is no stranger to the state's highest court. It was remanded in 2021 to the superior court to determine what services in public schools constitute the minimum requirements. Ruoff ruled in 2023 that the state's baseline funding is unconstitutionally low, and while the Legislature should ultimately establish the correct amount, it should be at least $7,356 per pupil. That is almost double the current guaranteed minimum of $4,100.
Galdieri argued that the level of funding as required by the trial court is well above what is required, and the state should only be on the hook to pay for what falls within its own definition of an adequate education.
The state Supreme Court is also taking up a separate school funding lawsuit, Rand et al. v. State of New Hampshire, in which the plaintiffs challenge the state's school funding "adequacy formula." The court heard oral arguments in one half of that case last month, which honed in on the constitutionality of the statewide education property tax, not the entire formula. The other half, which argues that the formula itself is unfair to taxpayers, has been sent to a superior court for a full trial and could be appealed to the high court later on.
•••
James Rinker can be reached at 603-355-8569, or jrinker@keenesentinel.com.
These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.


(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.