Concord, N.H. — Superior Court Judge David Ruoff has determined that the state of New Hampshire has failed to fulfill its obligation to adequately fund public education, a conclusion that extends to the unconstitutionality of varying local school property tax rates across municipalities.
Ruoff’s ruling arises from a lawsuit filed by property taxpayers, including Steven Rand, following a New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in July. The high court had upheld Ruoff’s earlier determination that the state’s funding of $4,182 per pupil is “facially unconstitutional,” while affirming his assessment that an adequate funding level is $7,356.01 per student. However, the Supreme Court overturned Ruoff’s directive for the state to immediately adjust its funding rate.
The plaintiffs in the Rand suit claim that inadequate state funding disproportionately burdens local taxpayers, a situation that conflicts with the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s mandates outlined in the landmark Claremont decisions from the 1990s. Those earlier rulings established that the state holds a legal duty to provide every child in the state with a constitutionally adequate education, alongside a guarantee of sufficient funding.
Different from the ConVal lawsuit, which primarily requested an increase in per-pupil aid, the Rand case challenges both the heavy property tax burden on local taxpayers and the disparities in educational opportunities among students. In a 1993 ruling, the court asserted the state’s obligation to provide adequate education funding that is uniformly assessed across municipalities.
In his latest ruling, Ruoff described the existing property tax discrepancies as “fiscal mischief,” emphasizing that it is neither fair nor just to subject property owners in one municipality to substantially higher tax rates than those in another while attempting to meet the state’s educational responsibilities.
During trial, the Rand plaintiffs demonstrated that current state funding significantly undercuts the actual costs necessary to offer adequate education. Testimonies from educational leaders like John Freeman and Corinne Cascadden illuminated this issue, showcasing how Pittsfield and Berlin school districts have struggled to meet funding requirements despite minimal state contributions.
Freeman, with experience as a principal and superintendent, revealed that Pittsfield’s funding of $2.7 million from the state is drastically inadequate for its operational budget of $10 million. He indicated that even doubling this funding would still fall short of what is constitutionally required to ensure a viable educational framework.
Cascadden corroborated Freeman’s observations, describing how Berlin’s school district faced severe funding challenges in crafting a functional budget, with just 30% sourced from the state.
The Rand case distinguishes itself by also advocating for equitable funding for students requiring special education services, which receive far less support than their actual costs. Currently, special education funding stands at $2,100, while the average expenditure for these students is nearly $50,000.
Ruoff indicated that if state funding cannot adequately support districts like Pittsfield and Berlin, it raises serious concerns for other school districts statewide. He criticized the state for failing to provide convincing evidence to support the sufficiency of its current funding formulas.
Despite the state’s defense—offering alternative forms of financial support—the judge classified these as largely insufficient and inconsistent. Expert testimony presented by the state was deemed less credible, particularly critiques of the funding methodology that discounted the necessity of experienced educators.
Ruoff concluded that the evidence demonstrated a significant misalignment between the required costs for constitutional adequacy in education and current state funding practices. He pointed to the state’s funding structure as a violation of multiple provisions in the state constitution.
While Ruoff acknowledged the legislature’s authority in shaping educational policy, he emphasized that the judicial system plays a crucial role in upholding constitutional rights against potential neglect. He remained firm in stating that the existing school funding framework falls short of constitutional standards.
The plaintiffs sought to prevent the state from continuing its current funding approach until at least April 2026, a request Ruoff denied, anticipating a likely appeal. However, he noted that if legislative actions are deemed insufficient by the plaintiffs, they could seek further court intervention.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by emailing contact@publiclawlibrary.org.