In its analysis of whether the children in the petitioner districts are receiving an adequate education, the Superior Court organized the evidence presented by the school districts into the following categories: Per Pupil Expenditures, Student-Teacher Ratios, Technology, Curriculum Development, "At-Risk" and Enrichment programs, Educational Outputs, and Facilities.

The Superior Court reviewed the evidence through the legal lens of the state's definition of adequacy. As required by the definition, the Superior Court bifurcated the duty to provide for an adequate education between the state and the districts. Under that definition the state is required only to provide a statutory framework for funding, while the districts are required to provide the actual funds.

The Superior Court also filtered the evidence through the state's Minimum Standards, through its holdings that the NH Constitution does not require equity or uniformity of education and that the state's duty does not extend to every educable child. The Superior Court stated the existence of disparities alone "does not necessarily impact the determination of adequacy."

The Superior Court's failure to take a cumulative approach to the evidence made it easier for it to isolate and lessen the significance of each specific example of the lack of educational opportunities that exist in the petitioner school districts.

For each of the categories listed, the evidence from the trial pertaining to that category is presented first, then the Superior Court's analysis and holdings, followed by the arguments the schools districts offered during the trial, and concluding with excerpts from the New Hampshire Supreme Court's Claremont II decision.