Members of the ConVal community are cautiously celebrating the state Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the ruling in the ConVal school funding lawsuit, in which Superior Court Judge David Ruoff ruled that the state was not meeting its constitutional obligation to provide an “adequate education” for students.
In November 2023, Ruoff found that the state was not meeting its constitutional obligation because the minimum per pupil amount provided to school districts, about $4,100 per year, does not cover the cost of educating students in New Hampshire. Ruoff wrote in his decision that New Hampshire should spend at least $7,356.01 to account for realistic public school expenses, including food services, nurses and administrators such as superintendents.
The state appealed the decision, and the state Supreme Court ruled July 1 that base adequacy for students in the state is $7, 356.01, as opposed to the $4,182.00 per student that the state currently provides. According to state law, any school costs not covered by the state must be raised by local property taxes.
Although the state Supreme Court upheld Ruoff’s decision on base adequacy funding, did not uphold his ruling that base adequacy funding be increased immediately. Three of the five justices opted to defer to the legislative and executive branch to determine how and when adequate funds will be provided to school districts. Two justices dissented, arguing that the courts should take a more-active role in enforcing its decision to protect the rights of New Hampshire students to a state-funded, constitutionally adequate education.
“We’re very excited that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has found that education in our state not funded at appropriate level, and that they actually set a level that they believe is necessary to provide an adequate education for our students,” said ConVal School Board Chair Mike Hoyt of Bennington.
The ConVal School Board has repeatedly stated the position that the state’s inadequate funding of education creates an unsustainable burden for taxpayers.
“I think this decision justifies what everyone has felt all along— that the property tax burden is too high, because education in the State of New Hampshire is mainly supported by local taxpayers and not by the state,” Hoyt said. “Obviously, with the decision that came down, we have to wait to see how the Legislature is going to react.”
Hoyt, who was a principal in Franklin during the Claremont decisions — which stated that the state is required to provide an adequate education for all students — said he hopes this current decision will have an impact.
“It will be interesting, because when I was in Franklin we went through the Claremont lawsuit. We’ll see how this stacks up to that,” he said.
ConVal Superintendent Ann Forrest credited her predecessor, Kimberly Rizzo Saunders — who left the district in the summer of 2024 —for initiating the lawsuit.
“I am extremely grateful for the landmark decision handed down by the New Hampshire Supreme Court affirming that the state’s underfunding of base adequacy is factually unconstitutional. This is a victory not only for our students, but for every community in New Hampshire. The court has affirmed that the state must do more to ensure every child has the resources they need to succeed,” Forrest stated. “I want to thank former Superintendent Dr. Kimberly Rizzo Saunders, former and current members of the ConVal School Board and our legal team, Dean Eggert, Michael Tierney and Elizabeth Ewing from Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, for their leadership in this case. We also want to thank all the school districts that joined and supported the action. We look forward to the state acting expeditiously to provide full funding.
The Mascenic School District was also a plaintiff in the suit. Superintendent Liz Pogorzelski said that the ruling is a victory for the taxpayers of New Ipswich and Greenville.
“The courts have repeatedly affirmed that the state has a constitutional responsibility to adequately fund education and using current funding formulas, the state has not been fulfilling its duty. Increasing the aid from $4,265.64 per student to a minimum of $7,356.01 per student more accurately reflects the cost of a basic education,” said Pogorzelski.
However, Pogorzelski added, she still has concerns about how and when schools will see that change taking effect.
“Without legislative action and a clear implementation timeline, the burden on the local taxpayer will continue under the current model,” Pogorzelski said.
Ashley Saari contributed to this story.