Under the 1985 standards, it was possible for Pittsfield to be accredited and not meet the Americans with Disabilities Act as long as they said they indicated that the issue would be addressed.

The Superior Court was incredulous that the petitioners would argue that conditions that exist in their schools such as portable class rooms and "open concept schools" are inadequate, while the same conditions exist in the comparison districts.

"However the existence of an open concept building is apparently only evidence of inadequacy in Franklin, and not in Gilford," the Superior Court stated.

There was strong evidence presented that a portable class room in Allenstown was very different from one in Rye. The Allenstown Elementary School utilizes a portable classroom for its art area. The classroom is actually a double-wide trailer that was installed in 1988. It is in a state of disrepair, held together by tape material that is hammered into the floor.

It is located in the parking lot where it has been brushed by cars several times. The doors do not open or close properly in the winter. Water leaks through the roof and windows. There is no bathroom, so children who need to use the bathroom must return to the main building.

In contrast, the portable facility in Rye has been upgraded to make it an extension of the elementary building. It has a redwood deck leading to the back door as well as a wooden walkway. There is a bank of computers as well as a bathroom in it.

The Superior Court held that to the extent that any Constitutional inadequacies exist, the school districts had not shown that they are a result of the state's dereliction of its duty to provide an adequate education and it was not representative of the failure of the system of public education.

The Superior Court stated that school districts bear the responsibility for the implementation of educational duties lawfully delegated by the state. It adopted the state's argument that to the extent that constitutional inadequacies exist, the system "allows" the petitioner school districts to remedy those inadequacies.

To illustrate, the Superior Court referred to two of the most dramatic examples of educational inadequacies in Allenstown, the "padded room" where children with behavioral problems are sent and a special education room that is a converted locker room with a functioning toilet in it. The Superior Court stated that these conditions, "certainly should not exist." The Court faulted the school district because in some years the Allenstown school district has returned a budget surplus to the town.

Allenstown's school district superintendent explained that the reason for a "surplus" was because the district overestimated both the cost of tuition to send its students to high school and its special education costs. He testified that the district would lose the faith of the voters if it spent the surplus without their approval.

The Superior Court finally stated, "the petitioner districts may not represent, via signed documents, that their school facilities meet all minimum standards, and then blame the state for noncompliance." The Court found the buildings adequate because they met the state's Minimum Standards.