Judge rules that the state must nearly double per-pupil funding to meet constitutional requirements
In a landmark ruling, a New Hampshire Superior Court judge has declared that the state is not adequately funding public education and must significantly increase its spending per student. The ruling comes as a result of a lawsuit filed by 18 school districts across the state, alleging that the government has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to provide “base adequacy” in education funding. This ruling has been long-awaited and is seen as a follow-up to the historic Claremont lawsuits that have been ongoing for over three decades. The court’s decision highlights the exclusion of crucial costs such as transportation, school nursing, and food services from the state’s current funding formula.
The History of the Claremont Lawsuits
The Claremont ruling in 1993 established that the state of New Hampshire is required to fund “base adequacy” for education. However, the recent court ruling emphasizes that the state’s current formula fails to account for essential expenses, resulting in underfunding. The lawsuit, filed by the ConVal School District and joined by 17 other districts, challenges the state and Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut’s failure to meet these constitutional requirements.
The Inadequacy of Current Funding
The court ruling specifically identifies the exclusion of costs such as transportation, school nursing, and food services from the state’s funding formula. While the state-funded base adequacy for the 2024-25 school year is set at $4,100 per student, the court has determined that this amount falls significantly short. Instead, the ruling mandates that the state must provide at least $7,356 per student to meet constitutional requirements.
Implications for New Hampshire’s Education System
The ruling has significant implications for New Hampshire’s education system. Currently, the average per-pupil cost of a K-12 public education in the state is approximately $19,400, while the state-funded base adequacy is only $3,800. This stark disparity places a heavy burden on local communities, which are forced to shoulder the remaining costs. The court’s decision acknowledges the state’s failure to adequately fund public education and calls for a substantial increase in funding to rectify the situation.
Responses and Next Steps
Representatives for teachers in New Hampshire have welcomed the court’s ruling, viewing it as a long-overdue recognition of the state’s inadequate funding scheme. They hope that this decision will lead to meaningful changes in education funding and alleviate the burden on local communities. The state attorney general’s office has received the court’s order and is currently reviewing it to determine potential next steps. News outlets have reached out to the state, including the education commissioner and governor, for their response to the ruling.
Conclusion: The recent ruling by a New Hampshire Superior Court judge has shed light on the state’s failure to adequately fund public education. With the exclusion of essential costs from the current funding formula, the state is falling short of meeting its constitutional obligations. The court’s decision highlights the need for a significant increase in per-pupil funding to ensure that every student receives a quality education. As New Hampshire grapples with the implications of this ruling, it is crucial for policymakers to prioritize education funding and work towards a more equitable and sustainable system that supports the needs of students and communities across the state.
Leave a Reply