The New Hampshire Supreme Court in its Claremont II decision stated that:

" Mere competence in the basics -- reading,writing, and arithmetic -- is insufficient in the waning days of the twentieth century to insure that this state's public school students are fully integrated into the world around them.

A broad exposure to the social, economic, scientific, technological, and political realities of today's society is essential for our students to compete contribute, and flourish in the twenty-first century."

4. CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

The Court heard testimony from educators that curriculum development is the heart of a school system but that the petitioner school districts do not have the resources to commit to adequate curriculum development.

The petitioner school districts do not have department heads, curriculum coordinators or sufficient assessment programs to make curriculum decisions. As a result, the schools offer limited and outdated basic curricula which take years to revise. Districts that have been able to develop curriculum plans are unable to properly implement them.

At Stevens High School in Claremont, there is no curriculum development position nor are there department heads to plan and integrate the curriculum. Franklin High School does not have a curriculum development coordinator. Any curriculum development is performed by teachers before or after school or during their free time. That is in addition to their teaching six out of seven class periods per day.

Witnesses from the petitioner school districts testified that the state does not provide enough information or any direct funding to allow the school districts to align their curricula to the state's Curricular Frameworks. The Curricular Frameworks are an integral part of the state's School Assessment Program.

As a result of the inability to incorporate the Curricular Frameworks into their curricula, students from the petitioner school districts score dramatically lower on the state Assessment Tests than students from the comparison school districts. Funding for the state's School Improvement Program, which was orientated towards helping schools implement the Curricular Frameworks, was eliminated by the state in 1995.

The Superior Court ruled that the school districts did not meet their burden of demonstrating that curriculum development in the school districts is constitutionally inadequate. The Superior Court based its conclusion on statements contained in some of the school districts' annual reports and to a lack of evidence establishing Minimum Standards violations. Given the Minimum Standards' low requirements regarding curriculum development, it would be almost impossible for a school district to violate them.