The analysis of the evidence also explains why the definition of educational adequacy which the state presented at trial is unconstitutional.

The trial evidence demonstrates just how little the state contributes to public education and the detrimental effect it has on the children in all of the state's school districts, not just in the five petitioner school districts.

"A constitutionally adequate public education is not a static concept removed from the demands of an evolving world. 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."

The New Hampshire Supreme Court, in its December 17th, 1997, Claremont II decision.

Computers in Moultonborough Elementary Library

Pittsfield Elementary School Library

"The right to an adequate education mandated by the constitution is not based on the exclusive needs of a particular individual, but rather is a right held by the public to enforce the state's duty. Any citizen has standing to enforce this right."

The New Hampshire Supreme Court in its December 30th, 1993 Claremont I decision.