New Hampshire Supreme Court Requires State to Define an Adequate Education

On September 8, 2006 the New Hampshire Supreme Court ordered the state to define a “constitutionally adequate education” by June 2007, in Londonderry School District v. State. After recounting the state’s years of failing to establish this definition, the court concluded that it is willing to defer to the legislature one more time, and that “in the absence of action…, a judicial remedy is not only appropriate, but essential” in order to vindicate the constitutional rights of New Hampshire’s students.

Citing Claremont

When they filed their case in 2005, the Londonderry plaintiffs relied on the supreme court’s 1997 Claremont v. Governor (Claremont II) decision, in which the court ruled the state’s education finance system unconstitutional and ordered the state to follow a four-part remedy: (1) define a constitutionally adequate education; (2) determine the cost of such an education; (3) fund an adequate education throughout the state; and (4) ensure its delivery through an accountability system.

The state is responsible, the Claremont court held, for ensuring sufficient funding for an adequate education, while local school districts may raise additional funds to provide an education above the adequacy level. Under this division of funding obligations, Justice Gary E. Hicks, writing for the Londonderry majority, stated that without a definition of constitutional adequacy there is no way “to know where the State’s obligations to fund…education begin and end,” rendering any state school funding system “impervious to meaningful judicial review.” Therefore, before ruling on the extent of the state’s funding responsibilities and the constitutionality of the funding system in question, the court requires a definition. Articulation of that definition, the court said, is the duty of the legislature.

Since the Claremont II ruling, the legislature has revised the state’s school funding formula several times. The latest revision, enacted in 2005, caused some districts to receive less funding; several of them joined together to file the Londonderry case. Citing the state’s failure to comply with the Claremont II remedial order, the Londonderry trial court declared the revised funding system unconstitutional. On appeal, the supreme court agreed that the legislature has failed to define a constitutionally adequate education and stayed consideration of the other remedial measures because, the court explained, they follow from the definition.

Lawyers for the state argued that New Hampshire state law already defines a constitutionally adequate education, but the court, after considering at length the definitions of adequacy arising from cases in other states, ruled that the state’s definition fails to meet even “broad constitutional guidelines” because it does not articulate the “substantive content of the educational program” for an adequate education.

The court gave the legislature a deadline of June 30, 2007 to define educational adequacy. Absent action by the legislature, the court indicated that it could implement several possible remedies, including invalidating the current school funding system, appointing a special master to determine the definition of an adequate education, or remanding the case to the trial court for “a determination of whether the State is providing sufficient funding to pay for a constitutionally adequate education.”

Reactions

As reported in the New Hampshire Union Leader, legislators were divided in their responses to the court’s ruling. Senate President Ted Gatsas has called upon Governor John Lynch to call a special legislative session for the purpose of passing a constitutional amendment that would prevent the judiciary from ruling on school funding cases; if passed, such an amendment would be on the ballot in November. James Coburn, Lynch’s challenger in this year’s gubernatorial race, also called for a constitutional amendment.

Other legislators opposed such quick action or opposed an amendment entirely. Senate Majority Leader Robert Clegg, while saying that he personally disagreed with the court’s decision, advocated a more patient response. Senate Minority Leader Sylvia Larsen said that she believes the legislature should establish a state educational adequacy commission when it reconvenes in January, and that this commission should discuss possible definitions of adequacy or constitutional amendments. Governor Lynch flatly rejected the idea of an amendment, pledging that he “will not support proposals to walk away from the state’s responsibility to education.”

According to the Concord Monitor, Bill Chapman, an attorney for the school districts, was pleased that the lawsuit succeeded in “get[ting] the issue back to into Legislature.”

Andru Volinsky, an attorney for the Claremont plaintiffs who submitted an amicus brief on their behalf, believes the ruling is a positive sign, reaffirming that “all five justices are committed to the Claremont principles.” He does not expect a constitutional amendment to pass but has “little confidence” that the legislature will pass a plan by the court’s deadline.

Prepared by Matthew Samberg, September 14, 2006