For more than two decades, the state of New Hampshire has operated under the convenient fiction that it is meeting its constitutional obligation to fund an adequate education for all public school students.
That myth was
Ruoff’s 98-page ruling was issued in a lawsuit brought by the ConVal, Mascenic, Winchester and Monadnock school districts. He agreed with their argument that the current funding formula does not take into account the true costs of transportation, facilities or employing teachers. Indeed, the base adequacy grant provided by the state is $3,562 per student, while the average per pupil cost throughout the state is more than $18,000.
“The Court expects the Legislature to respond thoughtfully and enthusiastically to funding public education according to its obligation,” the judge wrote. Given state government’s long history of shirking that duty, we are not holding our breath. Indeed, Gov. Chris Sununu’s response to the decision signaled clearly that he has no intention of cooperating, enthusiastically or otherwise. “The State is reviewing the order, but we continue to believe these critical funding decisions are best left to local elected leaders — who represent the people of New Hampshire — not judges in a courtroom,” the governor’s spokesman declared.
This, of course, ignores the central finding of the state Supreme Court in a series of rulings dating back to the 1990s: The state has a constitutional obligation to provide the funds to pay for an adequate education for all students and to do so through equitable taxes. Broadly speaking, New Hampshire’s political class has never recognized any such obligation, for one very obvious reason: Fully funding an adequate education would almost certainly require enactment of an income or sales tax, producing a broad-based and sustainable flow of revenue. And for far too many lawmakers and governors over the years, preserving New Hampshire’s cherished tax-averse culture was more important than providing quality public education for all children.
The result is that schools in the state still depend heavily on local property taxes, which bear the funding burden when state aid falls short. They are inequitable on the face of it because it is far easier for communities with great property wealth to raise money for schools than it is for property-poor communities. The result is that a New Hampshire child’s educational opportunity continues to be defined by an accident of geography.
Ruoff declined to say what he believes the right amount of the basic adequacy grant should be, properly deferring to the Legislature. But he included what could be interpreted as a warning. “As discussed below, the Court stops short of picking its own number as the appropriate cost for an adequate education — at this point,” the judge wrote. “Such a decision should not rest in the hands of judges. However, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly warned in school funding cases: Constitutional rights must be enforced or they cease to exist.”
And if the governor and the Legislature continue to ignore the right to an adequate education, we hope the judiciary will at last take steps to enforce it.