The high court is taking up two separate lawsuits that claim New Hampshire’s school funding model is unfair to both school districts and taxpayers, and that the state is failing to live up to its constitutional obligations to provide an adequate education. (Dave Cummings | New Hampshire Bulletin)
As the New Hampshire Supreme Court prepares to take up a legal challenge to the state’s school funding approach, a group of House Democrats is asking that it consider a new model.
In a brief to the court filed Monday, the lawmakers are asking the court to demand a “needs-based arrangement” to school funding, in which the state distributes funding based on what each district needs to succeed.
The request aligns with the work of a 2020 legislative commission tasked with finding a better way forward for school funding. After nearly a year of work, that commission concluded that student performances at New Hampshire’s public schools are directly correlated to the wealth of their school districts. The commission concluded that the state should orient its funding around improving student outcomes from district to district, not just spreading resources equally.
Citing fall of Roe, Republicans ask for Claremont school funding decisions to be overturned
The commission’s findings have largely been ignored by lawmakers in the intervening years. Now, four former members of that commission, Democratic Reps. Richard Ames of Jaffrey, Mary Heath of Manchester, and Dave Luneau and Mel Myler of Hopkinton, as well as Democratic lawyer Bill Ardinger, are taking their demands to the Supreme Court.
“… This Court should take this opportunity to clarify that the Legislature has constitutional authority to enact a comprehensive public school enterprise that distributes state budget aid in a progressive manner intended to improve student equity across our State, consistent with the findings and recommendations of the Commission in its final report,” the brief states.
The high court is taking up two separate lawsuits that claim New Hampshire’s school funding model is unfair to both school districts and taxpayers, and that the state is failing to live up to its constitutional obligations to provide an adequate education.
One lawsuit, Contoocook Valley School District et al. v. State of New Hampshire, argues the state does not give school districts an amount of funding per pupil to reasonably allow those districts to run their districts, forcing the districts to turn to local property taxes to make up the difference. Another, Steven Rand et al. v. State of New Hampshire, argues that the system is creating unfair disparities among taxpayers in different towns.
A Rockingham Superior Court judge, David Ruoff, ruled in November in favor of the plaintiffs in both cases, finding that the state has failed its constitutional obligations. Ruoff held that the $4,100 per pupil base funding amount should be increased to $7,356.01, and that the statewide education property tax is not fairly distributed and is unconstitutional.
But the Democratic lawmakers argue Ruoff made an error by limiting his ruling to the “base adequacy” state funding amount of $4,100 per pupil. Ruoff should have also factored in differentiated aid – targeted funding going to pupils who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, who need special education services, and who are English language learners, the lawmakers argue.
The state has appealed Ruoff’s rulings, arguing that the system provides an adequate education and that state courts do not have the authority to demand spending by the Legislature because of the constitutional separation of powers.
The lawsuits stem from a pair of landmark state Supreme Court decisions in the 1990s, known as the Claremont decisions, in which the court found the state had a positive constitutional duty to ensure and provide for an adequate education.
Earlier this month, a group of 30 House Republicans, including House Speaker Sherman Packard, filed their own amicus brief arguing that those decisions – which have underpinned New Hampshire’s funding system for nearly 30 decades – were wrongly decided and should be overturned.
The House Democrats’ brief argues the opposite: that the Claremont decisions were correct and that the court should clarify their meaning by demanding a funding system targeted to need.
“Only a program that incorporates such a needs-based arrangement can satisfy the fundamental duty of the State under N.H. Const. Pt. II, Art. 83, as established by Claremont I,” the brief states.
The Supreme Court has received written pleadings from both the state and plaintiffs. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.