The ConVal School District and its co-plaintiffs, which included Mascenic Regional School district, won a court victory in November when Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David Ruoff ruled that the state’s funding formula violates students’ constitutional right to an “adequate education.”

In a 56-page ruling, Ruoff wrote that $4,100 per per pupil falls short of what is required, as “the Legislature should have the final word, but the base adequacy cost can be no less than $7,356.01 per pupil per year and the true cost is likely much higher than that.”

The state is constitutionally required to fund “base adequacy” in education as ordered by the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s Claremont rulings in 1993 and 1997. ConVal filed suit against the state and Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut in 2019, arguing that the state neglected its constitutional obligation. Along with Mascenic, Claremont, Derry Co-Operative, Fall Mountain, Grantham, Hillsboro-Deering, Hopkinton, Lebanon, Manchester, Mascoma Valley, Monadnock, Nashua, Newport, Oyster River, Winchester and Windham signed on as co-plaintiffs.

Ruoff began hearing evidence in April. During the three-week trial, the plaintiffs highlighted the costs of employee salaries and benefits, transportation, maintaining teacher-to-student ratios, food services and facilities operation and maintenance. In response, the state questioned whether and to what extent it must fund those items.

“Today’s decision reflects what has been apparent for years – that the State of New Hampshire has not lived up to its legal and moral obligation to adequately fund public education,” ConVal Superintendent Kimberly Rizzo Saunders stated about Ruoff’s decision. “The state’s formula places an incredible burden on local communities, and creates inequities that deny all students the best possible education. Students succeed because of dedicated teachers and staff.”

Mascenic Superintendent Chris Martin applauded Rizzo Saunders for her efforts.

“None of this would have happened if it were not for Kimberly Rizzo Saunders being so persistent in getting districts involved in this issue,” Martin said.

Martin called the ruling an “enormous win,” but said the district won’t be making any immediate changes based on the new formula, noting that the state’s Legislature has to first vote to allocate the new funding. 

“If nothing else, it gets people thinking about how we fund education in New Hampshire,” Martin said.

In December, the state announced it planned to appeal the decision, asking the court to stay Ruoff’s order until the Supreme Court has considered its appeal and rendered final judgment, and after that until one session of the Legislature has passed. The state is arguing that if the order took effect immediately, it would be unable to distribute state aid in the form of adequacy grants to school districts until the Legislature remedied the flaws in the existing system of funding education. The state is also arguing that the court’s order violates the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the state constitution and past precedent.

Reaction from legislators representing ConVal towns reached by the Ledger-Transcript was split down party lines, with Democrats applauding the ruling and Republican’s decrying it. Democratic state Sen. Donovan Fenton, whose district includes Hancock and Peterborough, stated that New Hampshire “has an obligation to fund public education and its clear we are not doing it.”

“We have massive disparities in education and how individuals are taxed across the state due to this formula,” he stated. “Democrats have been fighting for public education and its funding to help meet the needs of our students. We will review the court decision today and consider legislative action to make sure a constitutional formula is enacted.”

Democratic state Rep. Peter Leishman, whose district includes Peterborough and Sharon, stated that he was not surprised by the decision, as it is similar to previous rulings and the state should do more to support public education.

“The issue that is not easy to answer – where is the half-a-billion dollars (needed to increase the funding) coming from?” he stated.

However, Republican state Rep. Jim Kofalt, the deputy majority leader whose district includes Temple, called the ruling “judicial activism, plain and simple.”

“Left-wing judges have managed to expand the single word ‘cherish’ into a broad spending mandate,” he said. “This moves us one step further away from accountability to local taxpayers, and it vastly increases the pressure for a broad-based income tax or sales tax. I look forward to seeing the Supreme Court overturn this decision.”

Republican state Sen. Ruth Ward, whose district includes Antrim, Bennington and Francestown, stated that she has supported increased education funding, but is “very disappointed in this latest example of judicial overreach.”

“It would increase spending by half-a-billion dollars, forcing New Hampshire into a broad-based tax, bring back donor towns and undermine local control of our schools,” she stated. “The judge also dismissed our efforts to target education aid where it is needed more, such as for special education and communities with a higher number of low-income families. I expect this decision to be appealed the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Judges do not have authority to spend $535 million of taxpayer money.”

If the decision is not overturned, Republican state Rep. Riche Colcombe, who represents Antrim and Bennington, stated she would advocate for the state being involved in the school budgeting process and not leaving it solely with individual districts. Such a move would require districts to give up some local control, but Colcombe said that if districts are saying the state should provide more money, they should expect the state to be more involved in the budget process.

“They’re not using the most-prudent methods they could in building budgets,” she said.

Republican state Sen. Denise Ricciardi, who represents Greenfield, Sharon and Temple, stated that “unfortunately this judicial ruling may lead to the need for income tax or a sales tax or both – which I do not support.”

Regarding a potential appeal, state Department of Justice spokesman Michael Garrity said, “We’ve received the court’s order. We are currently reviewing it, and we will be contemplating our potential next steps.”

Reporting from Ashley Saari and Michael Kitch of NH Business Review and Granite State News Collaborative was included in this story.