Democratic lawmakers ask Supreme Court to enforce needs-based school funding model • New Hampshire Bulletin

As the New Hampshire Supreme Court prepares to hear a legal challenge to the state’s approach to school funding, a group of House Democrats wants the court to consider a new model.

In a petition filed with the court Monday, lawmakers are asking the court to impose a “needs-based adjustment” to school funding, under which the state distributes funding based on what each district needs to be successful.

The request dovetails with the work of a 2020 legislative commission tasked with finding a better way to fund schools. After nearly a year of work, that commission concluded that student performance in New Hampshire’s public schools is directly related to the wealth of school districts. The commission concluded that the state should direct its funding to improve student outcomes district by district, not just distribute resources equitably.

Citing Roe overturn, Republicans call for Claremont school funding decisions to be overturned

The commission’s findings have been largely 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 — and Democratic attorney Bill Ardinger are taking their case to the Supreme Court.

“…This Court should take this opportunity to clarify that the Legislature has the constitutional authority to enact a comprehensive public school initiative that progressively allocates state aid to increase student equity across the state, consistent with the findings and recommendations contained in the Commission’s final report,” the brief states.

The high court is considering two separate lawsuits that claim New Hampshire’s school funding model is unfair to both school districts and taxpayers and fails the state’s constitutional obligations to provide adequate education.

A case, Contoocook Valley School District et al v. State of New HampshireHe argues that the state does not provide school districts with a reasonable amount of funding per student and does not allow them to run their own districts, so districts are forced to turn to local property taxes to make up the difference. Another argues that Steven Rand et al v. State of New HampshireHe argues that the system creates unfair differences between taxpayers in different towns.

Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in both cases in November, finding that the state had failed to meet its constitutional obligations. He said the base funding of $4,100 per student should be increased to $7,356.01 and that the statewide education property tax was not equitably distributed and was unconstitutional.

But Democratic lawmakers argue Ruoff made a mistake by limiting his decision to the $4,100 per student “basic qualification” state funding amount. Ruoff should have also taken into account differentiated aid, which is targeted funding that goes to students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, those who need special education services and those who are learning English, the lawmakers say.

The state appealed Ruoff’s rulings, arguing that the system provided an adequate education and that state courts did not have the authority to seek expenditures from the Legislature because of the constitutional separation of powers.

The cases stem from two key state Supreme Court decisions from the 1990s, known as the Claremont decisions, in which the court ruled that the state has an affirmative constitutional duty to provide and support adequate education.

Earlier this month, a group of 30 Republicans, including House Speaker Sherman Packard, filed their own amicus brief arguing that those decisions, which have been the foundation of New Hampshire’s funding system for nearly 30 years, were wrongly made and should be overturned.

The House Democrats’ petition argues the opposite: that the Claremont decisions are correct and that the court should clarify their meaning by requiring a need-based funding system.

“Only a program that includes such a needs-based regulation can meet the State’s fundamental duty under the NH Constitution, Title II, Section 83, as established by Claremont I,” the summary states.

The Supreme Court has received written submissions from both the state and the plaintiffs. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.