Londonderry Sch. Dist. SUA No. 12 et al. v. State, No. 2006-258 (N.H. Sept. 8, 2006)

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has again found that the state has failed to define an adequate education under the state constitution, upholding a lower court decision on that question. The court rejected the state’s claim that a statute setting forth general aspirations is sufficient and accords with definitions upheld in other states. Each of these other states, the court found, also established "a mechanism through which educational content is identified in fulfillment of constitutional duties." For purposes of the state’s appeal, the court accepted the state’s argument that by adopting a comprehensive accountability system to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind Act, it had far surpassed the constitutional floor of adequacy. The problem, the court determined, was that if this statutory scheme exceeds adequacy, then the state has yet to isolate out which parts comprise adequacy. There is thus no way for a citizen or school district to determine what is adequate, no way for the costs of adequacy to be isolated, and no way for a court to review the system. If the state’s regulatory system establishes a constitutionally adequate education, there would be no need for any local education taxes, as the state would be required to pay for the entire scheme. "Whatever the State identifies as comprising constitutional adequacy it must pay for," the court held. "None of that financial obligation can shifted to local school districts, regardless of their relative wealth or need."

Because the definition of a constitutionally adequate education is essential to the other issues reached by the lower court, the high court stayed the portions of the case relating to the state’s failure to determine the cost of an adequate education, its failure to satisfy the requirement of accountability, and the current funding law’s creation of a non-uniform tax rate in violation of the state constitution. The court retained jurisdiction with the expectation that the executive and legislative branches will provide the definition before the end of fiscal year 2007. Failure to do so, the court warned, could prompt more vigorous court intervention, something the court until now has conscientiously avoided. "Deference, however, has its limits," the court concluded. "[T]he judiciary has a responsibility to ensure that constitutional rights not be hollowed out and, in the absence of action by other branches, a judicial remedy is not only appropriate but essential."

Londonderry Sch. Dist. SUA No. 12 et al. v. State, No. 2006-258 (N.H. Sept. 8, 2006)
[Link to full opinion]