The state asserted that it does meet its duty to fund education by granting power to the local school districts to levy the taxes necessary to support their schools. The Superior Court agreed. It adopted the state's twisted logic that the state meets its Constitutional duty to adequately fund education by making the school districts pay for it .

Other assaults on common sense by the state that the Superior Court adopted are: tax rate does not equal tax burden and the acceptance of the cooked figures conjured up by the state's statistician expert witness Dr. Paul Snow.

The petitioner school districts argued that a financing system in which the property tax payers of "property poor" districts pay significantly higher property tax rates than "property rich" districts, but their tax efforts raise far less money per pupil than in the "property rich" districts, violates part II, article 83 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

Almost begrudgingly, the Superior Court accepted "the petitioner school district's contention that the residents of their districts face higher tax rates, and thus may have more difficulty raising the local funds necessary to support their schools."

The Superior Court stated, "to some extent, the amount of revenue that a school district raises is dependent upon the value of the property in that district." The Superior Court used the school districts of Franklin and Gilford as examples.