Dr. Snow used the numbers from his theoretical "property ownership tax" to significantly understate the property taxes paid by residents of the petitioner school districts as reported in Table 14.

The Superior Court found that the school districts did not demonstrate that they lacked the local resources necessary to provide an adequate education under the present financing structure. The Superior Court went on to state that local property taxation is a "stable and expandable source of revenue" and that the system works because the school districts' budgets are overwhelmingly approved by the voters.

Like Dr. Snow's numbers, the Superior Courts conclusions bear little resemblance to the realities described at the trial by the school districts.

The Superior Court heard taxpayers and educators describe the Herculean efforts of taxpayers to raise enough revenue just to meet state mandates. Less than 10% of Claremont's school budget is used for discretionary spending. The testimony often included the words struggle, sacrifice and pride.

The Superior Court narrowed its analysis of Count II by concluding that it would only consider the manner in which education was financed. The Superior Court did not include in its analysis of the school districts' challenge the results of inadequate funding.

By focusing only on the "manner in which" the schools are funded and not the results of the system, the Superior Court concluded that "the petitioners have not demonstrated that the way in which the state system funds and assists the petitioner school districts does not guarantee that those districts have adequate funding."

To give proper weight to the evidence that demonstrated the real life struggles of the people in the school districts would contradict the Superior Court's theory that the local property tax is an adequate funding mechanism and that it is an "expandable source of revenue". Only the questionable calculations of state statistic expert witness Dr. Paul Snow indicate that such a financing system works.

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

"There is nothing fair or just about taxing a home or other real estate in one town at four times the rate that similar property is taxed in another town to fulfill the same purpose of meeting the State's educational duty.

Compelling taxpayers from property -poor districts to pay higher tax rates and thereby contribute disproportionate sums to fund education is unreasonable. Children who live in poor and rich districts have the same right to a constitutionally adequate public education.

Regardless of whether existing State educational standards meet the test for constitutional adequacy, the record demonstrates that a number of plaintiff communities are unable to meet existing standards despite assessing disproportionate and unreasonable taxes.

Imposing dissimilar and unreasonable tax burdens on the school districts creates serious impediments to the State's constitutional charge to provide an adequate education for its public school students."