By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD — The Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules delayed taking action on new rules governing the minimum standards for public schools until its November meeting.
The committee was scheduled to vote on a motion to conditionally approve the first half of the “306” rules governing the minimum standards and what schools are required to do to educate students, but instead voted to postpone action until the other half of the rules which more directly address curriculum, required courses and methods are presented to the board at its November meeting.
Sen. Shannon Chandley, D-Amherst, suggested the committee wait until the members also had an opportunity to review the other half of the rules before moving forward.
“If we are going to make a change, it’s going to be in place for quite a while, so we want to make sure we do it right,” Chandley said at Thursday’s meeting. “The concern to me is the back half . . . and potentially we won’t get the answer until after this approval. Should we do all of this at once and is that possible and practical?”
Before the committee decided to delay action on the new rules, the State Board of Education adopted last month and were revised earlier this month, concerns were raised by committee members and two members of the public about class sizes, definitions included in the new proposed rules, particularly for an educator, changes to high school graduation requirements, if the rules align with current statutes and if the proposal would pressure property poor school districts to reduce costs instead of increasing credentialed staff.
When the new rules were first proposed, they drew considerable criticism from the public as well as educators and local school elected officials as rule writers sought to move the rules toward a competency-based program for student assessment, something state lawmakers adopted several decades ago, and would have long-term impacts on the state’s public education system including the state’s constitutional requirement to provide and pay for an adequate education for all students.
Critics have said the new rules will lessen requirements, remove local control and conflict with existing law despite significant changes as they continue to make what were requirements into recommendations by changing the word “shall” to “may.”
Department of Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut sought to assure committee members many of the objections raised earlier were addressed as they tried to incorporate the many suggestions and recommendations into the proposal before the committee.
But to 30-year educator Christine Downing of Goshen, who is the director of curriculum, instruction and assessment for the Cornish, Grantham and Plainfield school districts, many of the changes suggested by educators in 10 sessions she held around the state in March, did not make into the new proposal.
One such change was language dealing with class size, which are capped in current rules, but would be replaced by educator to student ratios for each school district and individual schools.
She said what the state board approved will widen the disparities between property poor and property wealthy school districts.
A real world example, Downing said, is a second grade class in one of her former districts increased to 28 students, three students over the current cap of 25 per teacher.
In some districts, the local school board would hire a para educator, not a teacher, and under the proposal, the 28 kids could be in that class because a paraprofessional is considered an educator under the new rules, she said, yet all the responsibilities for teaching, lesson plans and assessment fall only on the teacher.
Twenty miles away, Downing said, a property wealthy school district could easily find the money needed to add a second teacher to cut the class in half.
Earlier in the meeting education department attorney Elizabeth Brown said some of the changes bringing concerns were made in “fidelity” to new state statutes, noting some of the provisions in old rules do not align with recently passed legislation.
But Downing argued the department had used “a pick and choose” approach to aligning the rules to statute citing as an example financial literacy, which the law says should be integrated into existing content areas, but under the rules is a stand alone class worth a half a credit.
She noted other changes in rules require students to take another stand alone class with half a credit, which reduces the electives for high school students and turns the high school experience more into a “checklist for students.”
Edelblut said the board did decide to reduce the number of elective courses a student may take in high school from six to four. He said the state board had a lengthy discussion about the number of electives students could take that qualify as graduation credits.
The board’s discussion was “if we got compulsory education laws so these students are required to be in school and during that time they are in school we want to make sure they are getting the information that we want,” Edelblut told the committee, “we want to make sure we are not communicating that an entire year of high school, which would be six credits, is kind of voluntary.”
The board members and the two members of the public addressing the committee expressed concerns the changes are significant despite education officials’ assurances many of the rules were replicas of the old rules.
Rep. Sallie Fellows, D-Holderness, who worked at the Department of Education for 30 years, noted that some sections may not have changed, but what comes before those sections is often new or a significant change.
And she said the definition of educator has clearly changed.
Fellows said educators under the current rules include teachers and administrators, while the new definition includes para educators, business managers and other positions.
“If I am the business administrator for a school district,” Fellows said, “I have no business teaching in a classroom.”
But Edelblut argued the section on education credentials addresses that issue, noting the changes are intended to allow flexibility through consideration of content, teaching method and student characteristics, while maintaining the same goals for class size.
If a teacher has a room of second graders who are struggling readers, he said, 20 or 25 students may be too many.
“When you see class size, you should not start with just a number,” Edelblut said, “there are some criteria you should consider.”
David Trumble of Weare was concerned the new proposed rules were not following law noting the statute says a teacher not an educator teaches the content, yet that is not what the new rules allow.
“I understand alternative education and other options and that’s good,” Trumble said, “but these rules take that and say let’s make them the regulations for everybody.”
Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.
Correction: A previous version misstated portions of Christine Downing’s remarks. She said: “A real world example, Downing said, is a second grade class in one of her former districts increased to 28 students, three students over the current cap of 25 per teacher. In some districts, the local school board would hire a para educator, not a teacher, and under the proposal, the 28 kids could be in that class because a paraprofessional is considered an educator under the new rules, she said, yet all the responsibilities for teaching, lesson plans and assessment fall only on the teacher.“
