Hiring superintendents, principals and nurses is not necessary to provide the state’s youngest residents with an adequate education, Solicitor General Anthony Galdieri argued at the New Hampshire Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Neither is providing heat or transportation to school, Galdieri contended.

“They are not part of instructional materials or assessments,” he explained during oral argument in the latest school funding case to reach the high court.

The case – which could upend how education is paid for in the state – hinges on three questions: First, what are the components of an adequate education? Second, how much do those components cost to deliver? And third, which branch of government has the power to make these decisions?

Last November, Rockingham County Superior Court Judge David Ruoff ruled that the judiciary branch has the power to set a minimum threshold, which he decided should be $7,356.01 per student, nearly double the current amount of $4,182.

Many Republican lawmakers have vociferously disagreed, arguing that the decision was a judicial overstep and that school funding minimums should be left to the legislature to decide instead.

During 40 minutes of oral argument on Tuesday, Galdieri made the same point, but much of the ques tioning centered on a more foundational topic: what constitutes an adequate education.

Referring to a state statute, Galdieri argued that an adequate education involves only providing education in 11 core subject areas, which range from math to personal finance literacy.

He conceded that the law requires that districts provide teachers to guide that instruction, but not necessarily administrators or other expenses commonly associated with education.

“Transportation is not part of the substantive instructional program that the legislature has agreed to pay for. Facilities are not,” Galdieri said.

Michael Tierney, an attorney for the 18 school districts that have sued the state, shot back that Galdieri’s interpretation of an adequate education was far too narrow.

“Districts cannot provide instruction in one of the subject areas in a vacuum,” Tierney said. “… They need all those components.”

The three justices who will decide the case – James Bassett, Patrick Donovan, and Melissa Countway – attempted to parse whether specific components of educational services should be included in calculating the cost of an adequate education.

“Operational costs – heat and electricity?” Justice Bassett asked.

“Those are decisions best left to local districts,” Galdieri said. “Localities might want four buildings instead of two buildings. They might want certain transportation that’s more expensive. They might want different things for their community and the state is not required to fund that.”

Justice Donovan inquired about how additional state funding for education which is not currently factored into the adequacy formula, such as building aid, should be considered in the adequacy discussion.

“We don’t provide building aid in the formula? That doesn’t seem fair,” Donovan said, suggesting that the current adequacy amount is perhaps artificially low.

Tierney responded that there is a distinction between building a new school and the operation costs required to run one that is already standing.

“There’s a separate funding stream for [building aid], which is itself inadequate, but it’s not something that’s part of this case because it is not something that is necessary to educate every child every year,” Tierney clarified.

The state’s argument was met with frustration by Zack Sheehan, the executive director of school funding reform advocacy organization 

“Stop and think about the absurdity of the State of New Hampshire arguing in court that school buildings and heat are not required to provide an adequate education for our children,” Sheehan said in a statement.

Tuesday’s oral argument in  the case, ConVal v. The State of New Hampshire, came a month after the court heard another case that will have bearing on education funding. In Rand v. State of New Hampshire, the justices will determine whether to uphold a lower court ruling that found a component of the current statewide education tax system unconstitutional.

It is possible that the court could rule on both cases concurrently, adding a new chapter to its multi-decade role in making consequential school funding decisions.

Jeremy Margolis can be contacted at jmargolis@cmonitor.com.