The Legislature will continue to overhaul New Hampshire's school funding system without Supreme Court oversight after a ruling yesterday in which the justices dismissed the latest in a long string of lawsuits over how the state pays for public education.

Lawmakers and Gov. John Lynch lauded the decision, saying it affirms their work over the past two years. But educators, school boards and the attorneys who represent them were disappointed. The Legislature, they say, has made great strides in recent years, but they worry that, without court involvement, lawmakers may not pay for what they've promised.

The 12-page decision was supported by three of the five justices. Writing for the majority, Justice Gary Hicks said, "We presume that . . . the Legislature acted in good faith" by defining adequacy and, later, determining its cost. The court, Hicks continued, is "mindful" of potential problems with the new legislation but isn't the venue for that debate.

Yesterday's ruling doesn't bar the court from weighing in on school funding in the future. Details of the new law could be argued before a lower court and come before the justices on appeal. Or, if the Legislature fails to finance the plan, the coalition of communities that filed this latest lawsuit could ask the court to reconsider.

"They're going to think about what they want to do," said William Chapman, the attorney representing the coalition, which includes Concord and 18 other communities. "I would think, probably in a couple of weeks, we'll know. You never want to give it a knee-jerk reaction."

The decision disappointed Ted Comstock, executive director of the New Hampshire School Boards Association. The court, he said, sidestepped judgments about whether lawmakers properly calculated the cost of an education. Districts, he said, now lack quick recourse if the Legislature reneges on its plans.

"It leaves the money piece to be decided another day," he said. "If it was a 24-hour day, that would be one thing. But when we talk about the time it takes to litigate cases, we're talking about another generation of students in uncertain waters as far as funding goes."

The New Hampshire Supreme Court has been involved in school funding since 1993, when it ruled that the state constitution entitles every child to an adequate education. Just what that means - and how much it costs - has been the subject of myriad State House debates and several lawsuits.

Yesterday's ruling stems from a 2005 lawsuit in which Londonderry and a coalition of other communities, including Concord, claimed that the school funding formula in place at the time was unconstitutional. Lawyers for the coalition argued that the Legislature had never complied with previous court orders to define and pay for an adequate education.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court agreed, ordering lawmakers back to the drawing board. The court laid out four tasks: Define the components of an adequate education, calculate the cost of providing it, pay for it, and figure out a way to hold districts accountable for using the money well.

After failed attempts to amend the constitution - some of which would have permanently removed the court from the school funding debate - lawmakers set about their court-defined duties. By last spring, they had created a plan that provides a base amount of money for every pupil ($3,450), plus more for students who come from low-income families, who are learning English as a second language or who require special education. In all, the plan is expected to cost $940 million, about $44 million more than the state now spends.

This spring, the court asked all parties in the Londonderry suit to weigh in on the new decision. There were concerns about the formula's details, but the court believed the Legislature had made enough progress to warrant yesterday's decision.

That made one of the plan's chief architects, Rep. Emma Rous, ecstatic.

"That's awesome!" said Rous, a Durham Democrat. "We have worked hard to do the task that has been laid out for us. I'm very pleased that they're acknowledging that we're going forward."

A grim economic picture will make paying for the plan difficult, but Rous is hopeful.

Single page