By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org

CONCORD — A legislative oversight committee that will have to approve the rule changes governing academic standards for public schools, questioned some proposed changes in those rules, such as class sizes and alignment with state statutes.

And committee members were also concerned some of the proposed rules could be seen as the State Board of Education writing laws instead of adopting rules to align with legislative intent.

Meeting Tuesday with Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, the Legislative Oversight Committee for Education Improvement and Assessment Program agreed to suggest changes to the rules governing the state’s academic standards before they are finalized, probably this fall.

Edelblut said the State Board of Education is working on finalizing its proposed rule changes now, but could not say when a plan would be presented to the committee.

He said he expects the state board to work on the rules over the summer, but will wait “until we have something cooked enough to bring to you before anything final and substantial for you to weigh in on.”
Edelblut said he is adopting the same bifurcated process used in the past, separating the rules governing the operation and functioning of schools or minimum standards and the academic standards with emphasis on content that the oversight committee must approve.

The “operating rules” could go forward through the legislative process known as JLCAR (Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules), while approving the rules for the academic standards could take a little longer, Edelblut said.

But the committee’s chair Rep. Rich Ladd, R-Haverhill, said some of the definitions in the operations section as well as competencies standards do impact the academic standards section of the rules.

He said the committee wants to open a dialogue about the proposed changes, without “getting in the role of the state board.”
“I wish you a good pathway ahead with this very, very important work as it impacts every student in the state and future students,” Ladd said. “We have to make some changes, and as I said the other day about higher education, we have to make some changes, if we do not make some changes, 10 years from now it’s not going to be good.”
Edelblut outlined for the committee where the process stands with the State Board of Education working on its final proposal to present to JLCAR, but still taking input from some of the stakeholders who have been involved in the process.

The process was criticized early on for the lack of input from educators and others with a stake in the proposed changes which would align the rules to the state’s goal of a competency-based assessment system.

After a group of educators met and reviewed the rules, they proposed changes to what was initially presented to the state board in February.

Three public hearings were held and the board began work on a draft of the rules last month.

The last attempt to rewrite the rules in 2014 failed when the state board ran out of time under the JLCAR deadlines and the old rules were readopted.

Tuesday Edelblut said it is up to the state to set the minimum and academic standards and up to local school districts — with responsibilities and flexibility — to develop a diverse array of approaches to meet their students’ needs.
He said it is not the intent of the state board to interrupt local school district’s ability to meet their obligations

Edelblut objected to headlines that said New Hampshire plans to cut the standards to allow cities and towns to set their own standards like class sizes.

He said the rules do not set maximum numbers of students and instead would allow districts to determine what is the appropriate number of students in a classroom, noting an elementary class with students with reading difficulties probably should have less than 10 students in the class, not the current minimum of 20.

He said districts need flexibility, but there is fear that an irresponsible school district will put 50 students in a classroom and degrade their education.

Despite the limits on class size, Edelblut said, “We have not seen an increase in the educational attainment of students while we have held the line.”
Committee member Rep. Patricia Cornell, D-Manchester, said school districts that struggle financially or finding teachers will have to increase class sizes, because they have no other choice, “unless we tell them they can’t do it.”
Edelblut said the board is still working on the concept and has not yet found a magic bullet.

Ladd noted there is a need for flexibility at the high school level where kids go from class to class, but an elementary classroom is where everything is taught within those four walls.

He also took issue with the rules citing learning levels instead of grades, when grades are what is in statute.

Edelblut said the change was to move the conversation to a competency-based system, noting a student in a grade has different learning levels for different subjects.

But he said the board was not fixated on the change.

Ladd was also concerned about some of the changes the board made to the competency definitions. It’s the legislature’s responsibility to develop the law and the executive department’s responsibility to determine the rules to move that forward, he said.

But it is not the executive department’s responsibility to write law, Ladd said, and “what I am seeing in some cases are changes in competency when defined in law. I see those changes coming from the board rather than the legislative process.”

Edelblut said they are responsible for the fidelity of the law, but noted some of the definitions have been derived from working with constituencies, noting they are not authorized to come up with their own definitions.

The committee will meet again and go over what they have been given and make suggestions that will be sent to Edelblut by the end of the month for the state board to consider in finalizing the “306” rules governing the state’s minimum and academic standards.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.