By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD – Draft changes to minimum standards for public schools, approved unanimously by the State Board of Education last week, were the subject of a legislative oversight meeting Thursday with a Democrat tangling with the Education Commissioner for two hours on whether they water down education in New Hampshire.
Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut said that was not the case.
While no vote was taken during the course of the meeting, it was extensively reviewed by the Legislative Oversight Committee for The Education Improvement and Assessment Program.
State Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, a member of the committee and House Education Committee, pressed Edelblut about the matter and what if anything “untethered” it from legislative intent and whether the board of education had the authority under law to go first in approving it before the oversight committee.
The controversial rules adopted by the board last Wednesday are expected to go before the state’s Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules at its next meeting at 9 a.m. Sept. 19 in the Legislative Office Building.
That committee could approve the new rules, send them back to the Department of Education for changes, or issue a preliminary objection, which would pause the process.
If the committee issues a final objection, that does not prevent the rules from taking effect, but moves the burden of proof from the legislature to the department in any legal action.
The committee could also decide to introduce a joint resolution into the legislature which would delay final adoption of the rules until action is taken on the joint resolution, which if passed would prevent the rules from being adopted.
The state board is expected to follow a similar process on the “back section” of the “306 rules,” a reference to the RSA 306 which establishes minimum public school standards used by local school boards to develop curriculum to meet state requirements.
It may come before the Board of Education in some form at its next meeting Sept. 12 at its building on Hall Street in Concord.
The Legislative Oversight Committee chaired by state Rep. Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, held a meeting to go over the final draft Thursday morning. It had changed since the commission last met in June.
Luneau, one of two Democrats on a five-member board said he was trying to understand what the oversight board’s authority is and cited current state law that it was his interpretation that the state board “shall not amend any existing academic standards and shall not approve any new academic standards without the prior review and recommendations of the legislative oversight committee,” which is in law.
Edelblut said he thought the department has been very responsive to the legislative process, regardless of what authority the body holds.
“We took it seriously and we implemented changes,” Edelblut said.
But Luneau asserted that he believes the Board of Education overstepped its bounds.
“It doesn’t say (this) is a work session in the law. It says ‘review and recommend,'” he said.
Edelblut referenced the law under RSA 193 and said “I believe we have followed the process.”
Nicole Heimarck, Executive Director at Reaching Higher NH, a pro-public education organization said upon the passage of the draft rules last week that, “This proposal could put our public schools on a very different path, one with lower expectations for students and public schools. Granite State students, families, and educators deserve standards that reflect the very best of us, but there are a lot of open questions and concerns with this proposal that we’ll be watching as the rules go to the next phase of the process.”
The state’s two largest teachers unions also were critical of the rules adopted by the board last Wednesday saying the board and education commissioner are trying to reshape education in ways that are detrimental to traditional public schools.
Megan Tuttle, President of NEA — New Hampshire said the finalized and approved draft is an improvement from one brought to the table in June, but it does not ensure high standards.
“Unfortunately, not all of our concerns have been addressed, especially regarding class sizes and curriculum. As the 306 Rules revision process continues, public education leaders will continue to hold lawmakers accountable and work to ensure New Hampshire maintains strong standards for strong public schools because our students deserve it.”
Out of the 223 comments submitted to the Board of Education by the public, including administrators and educators, 116 expressed general opposition to what was generally characterized as ‘wholesale changes,’ but did not identify specific areas of concern or suggest areas of concern or suggest any specific revision of the initial proposal,” according to a legislative report for public comment.
The “306” rules proposals were to begin with the legislature and not the Board of Education, Luneau charged.
“It’s what’s written in the law,” he said and cited RSA-193-C:2-a IV (c) which reads the legislative oversight committee shall “review and make recommendations relating to academic standards under consideration by the state board of education…”
The state board is expected to follow a similar process on the “back section” of the 306 rules which may come before the board in some form at its next meeting Sept. 12 at its building on Hall Street in Concord.
Ladd said the committee has been dealing with the rules “for a good while now” and what we have in front of us today is a final proposal which was acted upon last Wednesday by the state board.
“What I want to do today is take a look at that….we are tasked to be looking at the academic standards set for our state,” Ladd said.
He noted a bipartisan bill dealing with standards was made law and goes into effect in September.
A copy of that approved bill is here https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=1153&inflect=2 . That addresses what the committee members call the “back end” of the change process.
In this the “front end,” the final version references a definition for “achievement of competencies” adding “through a collection of evidence.”
“So, is that defined?” Luneau asked for “collection of evidence.”
Ladd said he believes it addresses the fact that teachers have a variety of ways to assess achievement of competencies and this would allow them to use that collection.
Ladd, who said as a teacher he knows that by a student “doing it or applying that skill” is a part of the analysis.
“I interpret that as a wider window for determining achievement,” than current rules, Ladd said, which just reads achievement of competencies means a student has demonstrated competencies at a proficient level.
Ladd said as a teacher he would love the addition because “that gives me latitude,” to find achievement competencies in a student.
Critics say this could be watering down the state’s standards to ensure that students at certain grade levels understand the materials presented. And it is vague and ill-defined, they argue.
Edelblut and Julie Shea, administrative rules coordinator for the Department of Education, addressed the origin for some of the proposed changes, which they said came as part of a collaborative discussion which included a representative from one of the teachers unions, including Tuttle.
The new language in the final proposal includes changes from the draft last seen by the committee and from input from a public hearing and JLCAR and the department’s lawyers, they said.
The statute Luneau cited reads “the state board shall not amend any existing academic standards and shall not approve any new academic standards without prior review and recommendations of the legislative oversight committee established in RSA 193-C:8-a.”
Ladd said local boards need to align instruction curriculum with state academic standards and believes curriculum is a local responsibility.
Luneau said he did not disagree on local control. But he had concerns about changes in the language.
“So even where an academic standard is being used to…require a school board to do something, providing instructional time to meet an academic standard, when that academic standard is no longer being referenced in that rule, how does the school board know what to do, number one, and number two, how does the state Board of Education know if a school should be approved?” Luneau asked.
The commissioner replied that he certainly hoped the schools and their boards were using the state academic standards. “That is the purpose. Use of a standard would not constitute an amendment to a standard.”
“Honestly,” said Luneau, “my background is in engineering, so when you don’t refer to a technical reference, limiting that technical reference is the same thing as changing that,” he said, “because it untethered from the implementation. So I am sorry if I am looking at this process in a much more rigorous way than maybe how the department interprets it but I have a hard time believing that the legislature would feel good with modifying rules, amending rules to relieve school boards from following academic standards.”
Edelblut responded that that was an “incorrect characterization.” And he recited state law under RSA 306 that “school districts shall develop competencies based on state academic standards, where applicable, for all courses of studies.
“The state board, the public, who has provided extensive input into all these rules, has not untethered the education for these students. It is clear in this rule proposal,” Edelblut concluded.
Chairman Ladd said he believed the state is improving standards with this provision.
But others disagree.
Deb Howes, President of AFT — New Hampshire, said in a statement last week that the board is attempting to make major changes to education in the state for years to come through rule making in ways the legislature has rejected.
“If these rules are adopted as passed today, students could face larger class sizes, fewer course offerings and fewer qualified educators to help them learn and thrive. The State Board has already been alerted that this rules proposal conflicts with existing state law in many ways,” Howes said. “They should have taken more time and carefully considered the mountain of feedback they have already received from Granite Staters who value robust public schools for all before plowing ahead and voting to approve this proposal.”
Before the vote on the proposal last week, Edelblut claimed the three-year process was the most transparent ever held on the rules with three or four public hearings instead of one and the involvement of educators and the public in the process, which delayed adopting a final proposal to ensure more input.
The process was criticized for the lack of educators and public involvement early on when the initial proposals were presented.
Edelblut said last week that a great deal of time was spent ensuring the rules aligned with existing law.
“This is a proposal we all should be proud of,” Edelblut said, noting it reflects the concept of student competency based on learning in and outside the classroom, and builds on that philosophy.
He said local school districts are the best judge of their communities’ needs without the heavy hand of the state weighing in.
Garry Rayno contributed to this story and may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.
