The testimony and report of Drs. Mueller and Schultz were corroborated by approximately 800 photographs of the conditions of the schools in the petitioner and comparison districts and state Department of Education statistics and nationally recorded data.

Their testimony not only confirmed the existence of the disparities but also explained the hows and the whys the disparate conditions in the petitioner school districts impeded the children's opportunities to learn. The Superior Court also wrongly concluded that the Mueller/Schultz report was not offered into evidence by the school districts and thus unavailable for its review, when in fact their report was admitted as a full exhibit.

Another key factor in the Superior Court's analysis of the evidence was its interpretation of the Supreme's Court's Claremont I decision that the state has a duty to "every educable child." In effect, the Superior Court ruled that the state does not. The Superior Court rejected the school districts' contention that they have met their burden of proof that the state system is unconstitutional if they demonstrated that just one child, for example a student at Claremont's Way Elementary School, was not receiving an adequate education.

The Superior Court reasoned that the plaintiffs had to show that not only do constitutional inadequacies exist, but that they are a result of defects in the system itself. The Superior Court stated, "The identification of deficiencies in the delivery of an adequate education in one instance is insufficient to justify a finding that the system is constitutionally inadequate."

The Superior Court cited to the Supreme Court's Claremont I decision that "it is clearly within the power of the state to delegate some of the implementation to local governments so long as the state doesn't abdicate its duty." (emphasis added) The Superior Court stated that "Under any interpretation of this language, it is fair to suggest that local districts bear some responsibility for educational delivery after lawful delegation."

The Superior Court reasoned that if that was not the case then, "the state could be held responsible anytime a district failed in its responsibility, regardless of the reason for that failure."

However the school districts argued that while the state has a duty to supervise the implementation, the state is ultimately responsible for the provision of an adequate education. It should not be permitted to avoid its responsibility based upon a district's fiscal shortcomings.

With an average contribution by the state of 8% to the cost of public education, below what level would the Superior Court consider the state's contribution an abdication of its duty?

In contravention of the New Hampshire Supreme Court's 1993 Claremont I decision, The Superior Court's adoption of the state's definition of adequacy, which establishes a bifurcated system, would permit the state to abdicate its constitutional responsibilities. The Superior Court absolved the state of responsibility for guaranteeing that every educable child receives an adequate education.