New Hampshire Supreme Court Weighs In on School Funding Case
The New Hampshire Supreme Court recently held hearings to clarify the state’s constitutional duty to provide students with an “adequate” education.
Central to this discussion is the case of Contoocook Valley School District v. State of New Hampshire, brought forth by several school districts claiming that the current funding model is failing to meet their educational needs.
These districts argue that the existing funding structure is insufficient, forcing them to seek additional financial support from local sources to remain operational.
They contend that this lack of funding violates the state constitution.
During last week’s arguments, the three justices—Senior Associate Justice James Bassett and Associate Justices Patrick Donovan and Melissa Countway—posed tough questions to both sides, keeping their positions largely ambiguous.
Concerns About Current Per Student Funding
The essence of the plaintiffs’ argument hinges on the belief that the per-student funding provided by the state is inadequate for fulfilling educational requirements.
Currently, districts unable to generate enough revenue from the statewide education property tax receive about $4,100 per pupil, with extra funds allocated for students from low-income families, those needing special education, and English language learners.
However, evidence introduced at trial pointed out that $4,100 is not enough.
Experts estimate that the level required for an adequate education may reach up to $10,000 per student.
This realization was critical in a ruling from Rockingham County Superior Court in November 2023, which mandated that funding be increased to at least $7,356 per student.
The judge recognized that while this amount may still fall short of ensuring adequate education, it represents a necessary baseline.
In the Supreme Court arguments this month, the plaintiffs’ attorney underscored that the data overwhelmingly supports their assertion of funding inadequacy.
They argued that the state’s current basic adequacy amount simply does not suffice.
Conversely, the state’s representatives challenged these findings, claiming that the analysis overlooks various additional funding sources schools can tap into, including support for special education and assistance for low-income students.
State’s Perspective on Adequate Funding Definition
From the state’s standpoint, the superior court’s ruling was misguided.
The Senior Assistant Attorney General maintained that the Legislature has already defined what constitutes adequate funding for education.
He cited a 2006 Supreme Court ruling that mandated legislative clarification of the state’s funding obligations.
In response, the Legislature enacted RSA 193-E:2-a, laying out the specific subjects that schools must teach, which serves as a framework for determining funding responsibilities.
The state argues that the court’s role should focus on evaluating the statute’s requirements and not venture beyond what is explicitly mandated by law.
By adhering strictly to this statutory framework, the state contends that funding should cover only expenses directly associated with specified educational programs, excluding costs such as transportation or administrative expenses.
The Question of Judicial Intervention
A crucial element of the state’s argument is its view that the Supreme Court should refrain from establishing a minimum funding level, as doing so could violate the principle of separation of powers.
The Assistant Attorney General raised concerns that if the court defines a constitutional minimum, it could severely restrict the legislature’s budgeting choices in the future.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs reject this perspective.
They argue that the superior court’s ruling merely set a necessary funding threshold without restricting legislative options.
Instead of mandating a specific funding path, the ruling only established a minimum amount that lawmakers must adhere to while still permitting a variety of funding methods.
Source: The74million