Thank you for this clear explanation of the current state of the Conval case, and its historical connection to the Rand case.... And the Chief Justice recusal, and history....And the continuing refusal of the majority in the legislature to abide by the interpretation of the law by the court.
It is helpful to have this wrapped in an understandable package every once in a while. I think I see the faint glimmer of hope you have pointed to. Or is that wishful thinking?
Keep hope alive, buddy. When we filed suit in 1991, the state’s share of public school funding was 8 percent. It’s now about 22 percent. It goes up when we sue. The national average is about 50 percent. We have quite a ways to go. Be hopeful but do the work.
The city of Laconia and the Laconia School Board fought over which body had power to decide how school money was spent. Arthur Nighswander presciently understood that neither was responsible for insufficient funding. State funding needed to increase. He raised the issue citing the Serrano case from California but was too late in the appeal in doing so. The Supreme Court included the issue of state funding in its published opinion even though it declined to consider it. This was the Court’s way of giving the legislature notice that it needed to address the problem. This was in 1971, 20 years before the Claremont suit was filed. By the way, Nighswander and Jack Middleton filed a school funding suit in federal court soon after and it was assigned to Laconia’s Hugh Bownes. Unfortunately, the case had to be dismissed when the US Supreme Court decided that education was not a fundamental constitutional right in the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez case.
We need a different governor.
Hello Andru,
Thank you for this clear explanation of the current state of the Conval case, and its historical connection to the Rand case.... And the Chief Justice recusal, and history....And the continuing refusal of the majority in the legislature to abide by the interpretation of the law by the court.
It is helpful to have this wrapped in an understandable package every once in a while. I think I see the faint glimmer of hope you have pointed to. Or is that wishful thinking?
Keep hope alive, buddy. When we filed suit in 1991, the state’s share of public school funding was 8 percent. It’s now about 22 percent. It goes up when we sue. The national average is about 50 percent. We have quite a ways to go. Be hopeful but do the work.
Andru Thank you for this informative post. Can you enlighten me what happened in Laconia in 1971?
Marcia Hayward
The city of Laconia and the Laconia School Board fought over which body had power to decide how school money was spent. Arthur Nighswander presciently understood that neither was responsible for insufficient funding. State funding needed to increase. He raised the issue citing the Serrano case from California but was too late in the appeal in doing so. The Supreme Court included the issue of state funding in its published opinion even though it declined to consider it. This was the Court’s way of giving the legislature notice that it needed to address the problem. This was in 1971, 20 years before the Claremont suit was filed. By the way, Nighswander and Jack Middleton filed a school funding suit in federal court soon after and it was assigned to Laconia’s Hugh Bownes. Unfortunately, the case had to be dismissed when the US Supreme Court decided that education was not a fundamental constitutional right in the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez case.