Students from the petitioner school districts who are able to go on to college are often at a disadvantage because they do not know how to use a computer to conduct research.

Educators told the Superior Court that the petitioner districts' students were less likely to have a computer in their homes than in the comparison school districts. The comparison school districts are able to offer after-school programs for those students who do not have access to a computer outside of the classroom.

The Superior Court cited to the Supreme Court's Claremont I decision, " that given the complexities of society today, the state's Constitutional duty extends beyond mere reading, writing, and arithmetic. It also includes broad educational opportunities needed in todays' society to prepare citizens for their role as participants and as potential competitors in today's marketplace of ideas."

The Superior Court then stated that, "In light of this, and due to the fact that technology requirements are contained in the minimum standards, some level of exposure to, and experience with, technology is a prerequisite to an adequate education."

Despite all the evidence presented, the Superior Court declined to render an opinion about how much exposure, and what types of technology a constitutionally adequate education requires. The Superior Court stated that the issues related to technology were "outside the Court's expertise" so it had to rely on the Minimum Standards in its determination of the adequacy of the technology available in the petitioner districts.

The Superior Court also used the testimony of the state's statistics expert Dr. Paul Snow in its decision. Dr. Snow has no experience as an educator in primary or secondary schools. His "expert" testimony offered by the state was based on his use of computers as a statistician. Dr. Snow testified that the current level of technology in the petitioner schools meets the needs of the students.

On cross examination, Dr. Snow admitted the requirements of the Minimum Standards regarding general education in computer science could be met by placing a photograph of a computer in front of a class.

The Superior Court found that the older computers, such as the Apple II-e's in the petitioner school districts could be used by elementary school students to perform drill and practice exercises, meeting the Minimum Standards. The Superior Court ignored that the parts to repair the older computers and the software for them are no longer available.

The Superior Court downplayed testimony of the educational benefits of the interactive computers that students from the comparison school are able to work with. It stated that, "it may provide younger students with more entertainment, and perhaps as a result, more motivation to learn."