CONCORD, NH — A group of four former members of the 2020 education funding commission has criticized a recent ruling by Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David Ruoff regarding education funding, particularly the ConVal School District case. The ruling is currently under appeal before the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Judge Ruoff concluded that the state is not providing sufficient aid for an adequate education, estimating an additional $500 million annually would be required to meet constitutional obligations. He also ruled that the state’s method of administering the Statewide Education Property Tax is unconstitutional, as it disproportionately favors wealthier communities.
Rep. Dave Luneau, D-Hopkinton, who chaired the commission, emphasized that the commission prioritized increasing state budget funds for less affluent areas to improve equity and reduce property tax burdens. The group filed an Amici brief urging the Supreme Court to confirm the Legislature’s constitutional duty to enact comprehensive public school laws that define educational standards, ensure accountability, and integrate funding to enhance equity and achievement.
The commission’s findings highlighted disparities in student performance between property-poor and property-wealthy communities, noting that students in the latter often receive significantly more funding per pupil. The commission suggested that instead of focusing solely on inputs like teacher salaries and facilities, the state should consider the funding required to elevate student performance to the statewide average.
The Amici brief, authored by Luneau and fellow former commission members Reps. Mary Heath, Richard Ames, and Mel Myler, argued that Ruoff’s decision erroneously limited the examination of the public school funding system to “base aid” and disregarded “differentiated aid,” which is designed to assist poorer communities. They contended that Ruoff’s ruling undermines the court’s earlier Claremont decisions, which support differentiated aid and a broader interpretation of adequate education funding.
In contrast, a brief filed by House Speaker Sherman Packard and 30 Republican lawmakers challenged the notion that the state is responsible for funding adequate education, asserting that the obligation lies with local municipalities. They called for the Supreme Court to overturn the Claremont decisions, arguing that local school districts should bear the responsibility for meeting educational requirements.
The four Democratic lawmakers also noted that their brief does not propose specific relief but emphasizes the need for a program focusing on improving educational outcomes for all children. They support legislation aimed at reforming the public school funding system, which would increase aid to the districts most in need.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court is not obligated to consider Amicus briefs unless they are deemed relevant to the appeals. Oral arguments for these appeals are expected to take place next year. The related Rand case, which concerns the constitutionality of the Statewide Education Property Tax and the implications of shifting costs to local property taxes, is set to resume next week in Rockingham County Superior Court.
For further updates, you can reach Garry Rayno at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.
