CONCORD — What are the components necessary to provide an adequate education for children in New Hampshire?

That question was at the root of arguments presented before the N.H. Supreme Court Tuesday morning in the state’s appeal of a superior court judge’s ruling last year in Contoocook Valley School District et al. v. New Hampshire.

The case, filed on behalf of the ConVal School District in 2019, argues that New Hampshire’s formula for public-school state aid does not provide enough money to districts to pay for an adequate education. In addition to ConVal, three local school districts — Monadnock, Winchester and Fall Mountain — are among the 18 that have joined the lawsuit.

The ConVal lawsuit is no stranger to the state’s highest court. The justices remanded it in 2021 to the superior court to determine what services in public schools constitute the minimum requirements for adequacy.

Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David W. Ruoff ruled in 2023 that the state’s baseline funding is unconstitutionally low, and while the Legislature should ultimately establish the correct amount, it should be at least $7,356 per pupil. That is significantly higher than the current guaranteed minimum of $4,100.

Attorneys for the state have argued that Ruoff’s ruling violated the separation of powers between the court and the Legislature and said the decision on how to appropriate educational funds should be up to the Legislature.

Tuesday’s oral arguments before the state’s top court focused largely on what facets of school programming both sides believe the state is responsible for funding. Chief Justice Gordon MacDonald, who was the state’s attorney general when the case was first brought forward, recused himself from the case.

Meanwhile, Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi is on a leave of absence. In October, criminal indictments were filed against her, alleging attempted interference with a criminal investigation of her husband, Geno Marconi, according to the N.H. Attorney General’s Office. She has been on administrative leave since July.

The battle over education funding in the state has been a long one. In the 1990s, the N.H. Supreme Court issued a pair of rulings — known as Claremont I and II — which held that the state government has a constitutional obligation to fund an “adequate education” and struck down the existing funding system.

The state argues the definition of a “constitutionally adequate education” does not include every cost to operate a school.

“Transportation is not part of the substantive instructional program that the Legislature has agreed to pay for,” Anthony Galdieri, the state’s solicitor general, said during Tuesday’s oral arguments. “Facilities are not.”

Senior Associate Justice James P. Bassett asked if teachers are excluded from the state’s responsibility. Galdieri said that while the statute does not refer to teachers, they can be considered as part of the definition for specific instructional materials and curriculum programs. Galdieri said that $3,998 per pupil would be enough to cover instruction, materials and assessment in the 11 learning areas defined in the statute. Those include subjects such as English, math and science. This calculation excludes several positions — principals, administrative assistants, custodians and nurses — that the plaintiffs have argued the state should fund to meet its constitutional obligation.

But the plaintiffs say other components must be considered in calculating the minimum cost of an adequate education program.

“We’re asking whether a school is being provided funding to hire a teacher; to have heat in the building; if the school has enough funding to have a principal for every 500 students, as required by law,” said Michael J. Tierney, an attorney for the school districts. “We cannot have a district providing instruction in a vacuum.”

Galdieri argued that the amount of funding presented by the trial court is well above what is required, and the state should only be on the hook to pay for what falls within its own definition of an adequate education.

The state Supreme Court is also taking up a separate school funding lawsuit, Rand et al. v. State of New Hampshire, in which the plaintiffs challenge the state’s school funding “adequacy formula.” The court heard oral arguments in one half of that case last month, which homed in on the constitutionality of the statewide education property tax, not the entire formula. The other half, in which the plaintiffs argue that the formula itself is unfair to taxpayers, has been sent to a superior court for a full trial and could be appealed to the high court later on.

Cases scheduled for oral argument at the N.H. Supreme Court are assigned to a justice to write an opinion or order, which is generally issued within four months of oral argument, but in some cases it may take longer, according to the court’s website.

These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.