By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD — School boards and superintendents balked at signing a mandatory document from the New Hampshire Department of Education required for schools to receive federal money and grants.
The “general assurances” form informs the state and federal department of educations a school district complies with all federal statutes, rules, guidances and executive orders for any number of federal programs including Title IX and Title VI.
This year the document included new requirements when it was sent to the school boards and superintendents in the state April 4 that included two Executive Orders issued by President Donald Trump on his first day in office that would prohibit Diversity, Equity and Inclusion education programs and would withdraw federal recognition of transgender people and declares there are two sexes, biological female and biological male, and would ban trans females from competing in girls sports.
Both the chair of the local school board and the district’s superintendent have to sign the “general assurances” for the district to receive federal money.
Federal education money comes to the state Department of Education first and is then distributed by the agency to school districts.
The federal money is usually distributed to school districts beginning July 1 or the first day of the new fiscal year. School districts have a June 1 deadline to send the forms to the state DOE.
According to data from the NH DOE, for the current school year, federal money for all state school districts total $335.6 million or 8.4 percent of the $4.01 billion spent on public education.
The section of the document that includes the DEI ban and withdraws federal recognition of transgender people reminds districts of their legal obligations to follow federal and state law, rules, executive orders etc. if they accept federal funds.
Another new section would require districts to also follow “dear colleague letters,” which is the US Department of Education’s guidance and interpretation of the order and how it is to be implemented, a kind of technical assistance advisory.
That section also requires that school districts comply with all other federal laws, executive orders, regulations, . . .non-regulatory guidance and policies governing all program(s).
A revised general assurances document that removed the references to the two executive orders was sent to school districts Tuesday, but did not remove the “dear colleague letter” obligations or the need to abide by executive orders.
The US District Court in New Hampshire in April issued a preliminary injunction blocking the US Department of Education from enforcing the “dear colleague letter” for the DEI executive order in a suit brought by the National Education Association and its New Hampshire affiliate, and the American Civil Liberties Union and its New Hampshire and Massachusetts affiliates.
Other plaintiffs are the Dover, Hanover-Dresden, Oyster River and Somersworth school districts.
The temporary injunction would prevent the US DOE from withholding federal money from school districts that do not comply with the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion program prohibition.
In a press release at the time, the ACLU said, “The court’s ruling blocks ED’s unprecedented and unlawful attempt to restrict discussions and programs on diversity, equity, and inclusion in educational institutions, and its threat to withhold federal funding for engaging in such efforts.” Another US District Court in Maryland also blocked the executive order from being implemented.
The litigation over the use of the dear colleague letter continues in federal district court in Concord.
The Feb. 14 “Dear colleague” letter from Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights United States Department of Education, Craig Trainor, charged “Educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism’ and advanced discriminatory policies and practices. Proponents of these discriminatory practices have attempted to further justify them—particularly during the last four years—under the banner of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI), smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline.”
He also states “Institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding.”
The letter caused Chief Judge of US District Court NH Landya McCafferty to write in her ruling, “The 2025 Letter, the End DEI portal, and the Department’s public statements regarding the purpose of the portal raise the specter of a public ‘witch hunt’ that will sow fear and doubt among teachers lest they be publicly branded as peddlers of ‘divisive ideologies’ based on the Department’s—or even private parties’— subjective assessments.”
In February, the US DOE, much like NH DOE commissioner Frank Edelblut did five years ago after the state’s divisive concepts law passed, launched an on-line portal where people could report violations of the DEI prohibition.
The state Department of Education sent the 2025 documents for signature under an April 4 cover letter that does not mention the changes by adding the Trump executive orders or the dear colleague letter.
Barrett Christina, executive director of the NH School Board Association, said many districts were concerned the executive orders were overly vague and had been invalidated by the courts.
“It wraps into the ongoing discussion about DEI and what it really means, how it is defined and what programs some school districts may or may not be implementing,” he said.
Some districts sent a cover letter with the signed documents stating their understanding and their interpretation of the law as a caveat, Christina said.
If the school board chair and superintendent do not sign the general assurances, the federal money coming to that district for such things as Title IX and Title VI would be delayed, he noted, and other federal grants could be halted.
Christina said dropping the references to the executive orders may lessen the trepidation a little, but there is still the sense that someone is looking over your shoulder for full compliance for how they interpret the law.
“There is a risk of your federal aid being withheld,” he said, “even for an unintentional mistake.”
He said until six or seven years ago, only the school superintendents had to sign the general assurances documents.
School officials said until this year’s document, it was boilerplate and most just routinely signed.
NH School Administrators Association Executive Director Mark MacLean said school administrators were first aware of the new requirements in a dear colleague letter for Title VI money that included many of the same requirements tied to the two executive orders.
He said the letter contained vague language connected to the two executive orders about not engaging in illegal DEI activity, and noted the court’s temporary injunction came soon after the general assurances documents were sent out.
While the assurances are sent out each year, he said, given the current political climate, signing off on those documents was different than in the past.
He said the revised documents removed the references to the executive orders, but still included the language from the dear colleague letter.
After the court’s decision, there was a lot of push back MacLean said, but then the revised version was sent after many boards and superintendents had already signed the documents.
They were told by the department that if they had sent the documents already they did not need to sign and send the second set by Lindsey Labonville, administrator of the Bureau of Federal Compliance in a letter with the revised documents sent Tuesday.
MacLean said some school boards will not be meeting again this month so have yet to discuss the revised documents.
He said the department has said they will accept documents after the June 1 deadline so boards do not have to have a special meeting.
He said school districts still have concerns with the revised documents under the executive orders and the challenges to those orders in courts.
MacLean said they are asking for more assurances than in the past. He noted some districts are not sending back the documents.
Some districts have other resources to use to push back against the new requirements, but others like Manchester, which receives millions of dollars in federal money, and some small districts need every dollar they can get, MacLean said.
Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, a former Hopkinton School Board member, said what the new documents do is contrary to good schooling.
They put incredible pressure on public school boards and public school districts given the challenges they face and what their mission is, he said.
“It’s a clear attempt by Trump and aided by the New Hampshire Commissioner of Education to dismantle public schools,” Luneau said, “If the governor is not doing anything to stop it, she is complicit too.”
The Department of Education was sent questions about the documents but did not answer the questions, instead it sent copies of the original “general assurances” document and the revised one.
Asked again if they had any comments, communications administrator Kimberly Houghton, said not at this time.
Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.