The N.H. Board of Education voted Wednesday morning to approve a new set of minimum standards for schools, despite sharp criticism from educators and the public.
Now, the proposal goes to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, which will ultimately decide if the proposal is adopted, based on whether the revisions comply with state law. JLCAR is scheduled to review the proposal on Sept. 19.
According to a press release from education nonprofit Reaching Higher, JLCAR could “approve them, send them back to the (education department) for changes, or issue a preliminary objection, which would pause the process.”
By law, the education minimum standards must be updated every 10 years, and the current update effort has been led by Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut. The entire process has faced overwhelming criticism from school superintendents, teachers, teachers union members, parents and lawmakers.
The state Department of Education has introduced multiple drafts of an update, and educators have been raising concerns over key elements such as the removal of classroom sizes and replacement of the word “courses” with “learning opportunities,” which educators say is too vague.
A key issue is a wording change from “shall” to “may” when referring to curriculum components. Educators say “may” makes these components optional, and could remove the state’s responsibility to adequately fund education. Educators say that will cause further division and worsen a lack of equity among school districts.
Educators have voiced their mounting concerns throughout the four-year process, hoping for changes in the final proposal, but many of those concerns are still part of the package approved Wednesday.
Christine Downing, director of curriculum, instruction and assessment for the Cornish, Grantham and Plainfield school districts, and state Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, were both at Wednesday’s meeting. Downing’s written testimony was brought forward; she offered a list of specific changes she’d like to see before the final proposal is approved. Items on the list were discussed extensively among Luneau, Downing and the board.
Though some minor changes were made in the final document, Christina Pretorius of Reaching Higher said “the changes that they made weren’t the substantive ones that we have been seeing concerns about.”
After the vote to approve the standards, educators voiced their opinions.
“Public schools are the great equalizer — and the 306 Rules are intended to hold our state to that,” said Megan Tuttle, president of NEA-New Hampshire, in a statement after the vote. “Educators fought for a seat at the table in the public school standards revision process to share our experience and expertise. 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.”
Deb Howes, president of AFT-New Hampshire, had similar criticisms.
“It is really problematic that our State Board is attempting to vastly reshape public education through rulemaking in ways they couldn’t get lawmakers to do over the past two years,” Howes said. “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.”
Howes also questioned the legality of certain changes in the proposal.
“The State Board has already been alerted that this rules proposal conflicts with existing state law in many ways,” she said. Board members “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.”
The N.H. Attorney General’s office raised concerns in May about the constitutionality of a former version of the education 306s, and many of those concerns have not been addressed in the version of the rules voted on Wednesday.
Past versions of the proposal have also been criticized by Andru Volinsky, lead lawyer on the Claremont Supreme Court ruling that set requirements for access to equal education in New Hampshire. Volinsky said proposals to revise the 306 rules did not uphold those laws because of wording changes, elimination of class size requirements, and other revisions that have faced backlash from the public.
The final version the board approved Wednesday made no changes in any of those concerns, and therefore questions linger about violating existing state law.
Reaching Higher’s press release also outlined some new issues in the final revision, including “the establishment of state academic standards, making changes to the configurations of schools, and including ‘mastery’ as an aspirational statement, rather than a requirement for a student’s academic progress.”
In addition, the final proposal allows school districts to include ninth grade as part of middle school.
Those changes were made without an opportunity for public input.
Nicole Heimark, executive director at Reaching Higher, focused on how the new standards might affect the quality of education in New Hampshire.
“New Hampshire’s public schools have long been the pride of our communities and held to high standards that have resulted in rigorous, meaningful educational opportunities for all of our students,” she said in the organization’s press release. “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.”
These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.