1. PER PUPIL EXPENDITURES - (For 1993/94 school year)

The Superior Court downplayed the use of per pupil expenditures as an indicator of educational inadequacies by listing factors it thought could impact upon per pupil expenditures such as; the high cost of snow removal in the Northern areas of the state; the ability of larger schools to stretch their dollars further; different SAU structuring; and the effect that a locality's cost of living has on teachers' salaries.

However, the Superior Court heard extensive testimony during the trial of the educational opportunities Franklin could provide its students if it had an additional $1,568 to spend per pupil or what Pittsfield could do with an additional $616 per pupil, the amounts that would bring them up to the state average. Moultonborough, whose year-round residents have a demographic makeup similar to those of Pittsfield's, had $1,933 more to spend per pupil than Pittsfield.

Despite having some of the lowest per capita incomes in the state, the petitioner school districts have the state's highest equalized tax rates. However, because of the low property values in the petitioner school districts, these high tax rates do not produce revenues sufficient to provide adequate educational programs and services.

The Superior Court heard evidence that the existence in the petitioner school districts of a higher "at-risk" student population, older facilities in need of constant repairs and the need for more remedial programs result in costs that exceed the state average.

Former Claremont School District Superintendent Dr. Barbara Krysiak stated that because a significant portion of the per pupil expenditure went to pay for building repairs, the figure showing Claremont's per pupil spending higher than the state average was misleading. Likewise, Lisbon is paying off the construction bond for the school building that replaced a structure built in the 1800s.

The New Hampshire Supreme Court in its Claremont II decision held that;