The Superior Court gave two justifications for accepting the state's definition. One, the Court found that the state's definition encompasses the parameters set forth in the 12/93 Claremont I decision.

The Superior Court's second justification was that, " the Supreme Court specifically indicated that the task of defining the parameters of a constitutionally adequate education belongs to the legislature and the governor". The state's definition was developed by the state Board of Education which is part of the executive branch.

However the New Hampshire Supreme Court's Claremont I ruling also stated that, "we do not define the parameter of the education mandated by the constitution as that is the task, in the first instance, for the legislature and the Governor." (emphasis added)

If the legislature and the governor failed to provide a definition of adequacy that defines the specifics of and the appropriate means of providing an adequate education to the children of the state, the Supreme Court's Claremont I decision clearly gave the Superior Court the option to use other sources in adopting a more comprehensive definition of educational adequacy.

The state's definition provided in part: "An adequate public elementary and secondary education in New Hampshire is one which provides each educable child child with an opportunity to acquire the knowledge and learning necessary to participate intelligently in the American political, economic, and social systems of a free government"

The state's definition of educational adequacy was written with sufficient ambiguity to ensure that the current status quo of education in the school districts would be constitutionally adequate.

The state's definition of educational adequacy, which was adopted by the Superior Court, was defective in that:

1. It did not require the state to provide an equal or meaningful opportunity to every educable child to acquire an adequate education; but rather, it required that the state only provide " each educable child with an opportunity" to receive an adequate education.

There is a difference between an opportunity that is bare or minimal versus an opportunity that is substantially equal, meaningful, or reasonably calculated to achieve the stated goals of the New Hampshire Constitution. The state's definition failed to provide every educable child with a substantially equal opportunity to obtain an adequate education.

2. It limited children to certain delineated subjects instead of the broad educational opportunities required by the Supreme Court's 12/93 Claremont I Decision.

3. It did not require the state to ensure that facilities and educators maintain conditions and standards necessary to provide children with the broad educational opportunities that would allow them to become participants and competitors in the marketplace of ideas.