School funding trial opens; superintendents say impossible to educate at $3,800 per kid
Apr. 10—An adequate education costs $9,900 a year per student, more than 2 1/2 times what New Hampshire provides, a lawyer for the 18 school districts suing the state over education aid said during the first day of trial Monday.
"There is no place in the state where an adequate education can be delivered for less than $4,000 per student," said Elizabeth Ewing, one of two lawyers representing the school districts.
She asserted the state will present no witnesses or evidence that the present state grant — about $3,787 per student — is sufficient to provide an adequate education.
The 18 plaintiff districts, which include Manchester, Nashua, Contoocook Valley, Derry and Lebanon, are suing the state, Gov. Chris Sununu and Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut.
The bench trial, in Rockingham County Superior Court in Brentwood, comes 30 years after the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that state government is responsible for defining and funding an adequate education.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court kicked the ConVal suit back to the trial court and told Superior Court Judge David Ruoff to determine the components and the cost of an adequate education.
Attorneys for the state cautioned Ruoff against treading into the legislative domain and defining an adequate education. In his opening statement, Solicitor General Anthony Galdieri said school districts are trying to force taxpayers from across the state to pay for items outside the definition of an adequate education.
"This case is solely about whether school districts can shift costs to all the taxpayers across the state," Galdieri said.
Galdieri said none of the districts suing the state has failing schools, as is the case in school-funding lawsuits brought in other states.
Ruoff has reserved 12 days for testimony. On opening day, Ruoff's courtroom was nearly filled with superintendents and other officials, many of whom are expected to testify.
The lead witness was Kimberly Rizzo Saunders, superintendent for the Peterborough-based ConVal School District, which is the lead plaintiff in the case. Saunders testified how she started researching the adequacy grant in 2015.
She read reports of two legislative oversight committees that developed the adequacy grant figure. She consulted with superintendents in her region as well as her school board.
Much of the trial is expected to delve into how superintendents and other experts arrived at their calculations. Lawyers on both sides consulted digital spreadsheets during her testimony.
Saunders said the cost she came up with for adequate education was the most conservative estimate possible.
For example, she calculated benefits based on mandates in state or federal law — health care, retirement, FICA and unemployment. She based staffing levels of principals, guidance counselors and administrative assistants on state requirements.
And she based all teacher salaries on the average salary for a first-year teacher, $38,867.
"At this point, you could not continue to retain and recruit on that amount," Saunders said. The districts also complain that the state's adequacy grant fails to cover essentials such as a lunch program, transportation, school nurses and a superintendent.
Two lawyers represent the school districts. The state has seven attorneys on its side, filling three tables. They include Galdieri, two assistant attorneys general and outside lawyers, whom the state will pay up to $1 million.
Throughout Monday morning, the state lawyers made frequent objections. They said officials from other districts should be sequestered. They complained about access to analyses referenced by Saunders. They said Saunders was relying on hearsay.
Repeatedly, Ruoff either overruled them, told them to address their concerns during cross-examination or said he would weigh the challenged testimony in his decision.
He sustained only two of their objections.
Saunders also testified extensively about student-teacher ratios. They are not directly related to class size, she cautioned, and the state ratios are far off base. The ConVal ratio, using the most conservative methodology, is one teacher per 12.6 students, compared to the state recommendation of 1 per 25 or 1 per 30, depending on the grade level.
Lawyers plan to present two other ways of calculating adequacy — tuition costs levied on towns without a high school, and output-related costs, which involve working backward from school performance data such as test scores and attendance rates.
