Educators worried about edge toward privatization, less state funding, and greater discrepancy between districts 

By Rhianwen Watkins, Granite State News Collaborative

Educators are worried that the state’s proposal to update education minimum standards could have significant negative repercussions for New Hampshire's public schools. 

Educators fear that the changes, unveiled by the New Hampshire Department of Education could lead to murkier standards, a push toward privatization, and steer less money to school districts already in budget distress.

On Feb. 15, the NH Department of Education issued its proposal for updating minimum standards, which educators say vastly differs from a consultant’s recommendation filed Jan. 22. The standards will be in place for the next decade.

Educators are worried.

“All I know is that, if what is proposed becomes rule, it will cause much discrepancy among public schools in the state of New Hampshire,” said Christine Downing, director of curriculum, instruction and assessment for the Cornish, Grantham and Plainfield school districts.

New Hampshire’s state government is obligated to fund an adequate education, but the proposal to update minimum standards is “going to widen that gap. It’s going to continue to set the haves and the have-nots apart. I don't think that's what we want in New Hampshire,” Downing said.

April 3 is the tentative date for a State Board of Education public hearing on the proposed education minimum standards, otherwise referred to as the 306s, according to a department spokesperson. 

Attending will be Fred Bramante, director of the National Center for Competency Based Learning in Durham, the nonprofit contracted to update the 306s, along with Downing and teachers from across the state who are encouraging parents, local officials and the public to join in.

The state board will also meet on March 11 and 14, with comment periods available to the public.

The Funding Fight

The minimum standards are only one front in educators’ decades-long battle for adequate school standards, funding, and equity among school districts. 

Earlier examples include the 1997 state Supreme Court ruling in the Claremont case, finding that school-tax burdens varied so dramatically from district to district that the discrepancies violated the state Constitution, and the similar 2019 ConVal case, which found the state had “failed to meet its constitutional obligation of funding an adequate education.” 

In November 2023, Rockingham Superior Court Judge David Ruoff ruled that the state’s base adequacy rate — the minimum amount the state is required to provide for each student — should be raised to $7,356 per year, because the current amount of $4,100 does not meet constitutional requirements for an adequately funded education. However, even that number is far below what schools actually spend — just over $20,300 per student, according to the N.H. Department of Education. The difference is made up by local property taxes.

And now, the argument has moved into the minimum standards that schools are required to meet. 

Wording and definitions

Teachers’ main concerns with the proposal to update state standards include changes in definitions.

In the task force draft, “we'd taken very thoughtful deliberation on definitions,” Downing said. “And the first thing I noticed is a lot of those definitions were reduced down to these ‘lay' terms that lost all their significant meaning.”

For instance, the word “instruction” was replaced with “learning opportunities.”

“Switching from 'schools must offer instruction' just to 'schools must offer opportunities' — that opens the door to potentially interpreting those in a very different way,” said Christina Pretorius, director of Reaching Higher NH, a nonprofit that advocates equity in the school system through public education policy and community engagement.

A similar use of the word “opportunity” changes the requirements for differentiated learning — that is, tailoring instruction to meet students' individual needs. The original phrasing — “Provision of differentiated instruction for students based on learning styles, needs, and interests” — was changed to “opportunities for students to receive timely, personalized, and differentiated support based on their individual learning needs,” Pretorius pointed out on page 25 of the document (click here, or see link below).

A “provision” for differentiated learning is very different from an “opportunity” for differentiated learning, Pretorius said, and she questions what that could mean in terms of meeting students' needs in the classroom.

Another key change in multiple areas of the document: Replacing “shall” with “may.”

One instance, on page 46 of the document, deals with requirements for arts education. The original wording stated that “the local school board shall require that an arts education program for grades 1-12 provides …” followed by a list of necessary components for an arts curriculum. The updated version now says that an arts program “may include” those components, which Downing said makes those components optional.

She emphasized that the change to “may include” means relinquishing state responsibility to fund arts programs as part of adequate education funding. 

Downing said many of the changes in definitions make them less specific and more “gray” for educators. She thinks the changes could be an attempt to make the document more understandable for parents and other members of the public, and “I get that certain people want to make this a public document that the public can understand,” she said. 

“But the first priority of this document is to define, to the very people who have to implement it, what constitutes an adequate education. This document needs to be written so that it's clear to educators and school leaders what it means.”

Downing favors explaining to the public what these terms and phrases mean, so people can understand the “edu-speak,” rather than watering down the wording. 

Pretorius also suspects the wording differences are an attempt to broaden the privatization of public schools. In her view, cloudy wording not only makes school standards less clear, but also could remove some responsibility for the state to fund public schools.

She emphasized that removal of the word “local” from many definitions could have significant repercussions for local control over community schools. Currently, she said, local school districts can decide on specific course offerings and graduation requirements, as long as they align with state minimum standards.

For instance, “right now, districts create their own local graduation and district competencies,” she said. Those could include specific course offerings, internship requirements, or community service, she said. 

“There's a lot of concern in districts around what that means for local control,” she said. “What does that mean for my school district? What does that mean for our own ability to make decisions that work the best for our communities?”

What will high school look like?

Another change in the state's document, on pages 31-32, “removes structure around what consistent high school programming looks like,” Downing said. The proposed standards struck out a section outlining that 43 courses should be the minimum number a high school offers in its course of study.

“Nobody [the department] contacted knew why the 43 exists,” she said. “I spoke to the commissioner after the meeting and I told him, you should have contacted me; I could have told you why the 43 courses existed.”

If you add up all the classes needed for a well-rounded education in a number of areas — including math, science, social studies, arts and English — “you come pretty close to having 43 courses on your program of studies as a high school,” she said. Removing that specific number, she said, was “concerning.”

Pretorius also expressed concern about removal of some cross-references, such as one on page 46 of the document involving arts education in elementary and middle school. 

“By removing that cross-reference, does it mean that the arts education that a school has to provide for elementary grades one through eight doesn't have to align to those requirements later in the rules?” she asked. “And what does that mean for the state to have to pay for?

“By watering it down, does that open the opportunity where now organizations can come in and they can sell arts education courses and school districts are required to accept them?” she asked. “When it comes to privatizing, I think there's a big question of, what are the implications for programs like Learn Everywhere? You know, does this set up a market for organizations to come in and sell courses? And sell ‘learning opportunities’?”

Megan Tuttle, head of the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association — the teachers union — said another example involves other learning opportunities students can use, such as Advanced Placement courses and dual enrollment in college courses. The issue, for her, is the mention of specific online programs such as the Virtual Learning Academy and Learn Everywhere on page 6 of the document.

“We always say, when coming up with bills and laws, that you shouldn't be listing a specific program because these are minimum standards that are going to be in effect for 10 years,” Tuttle said. “We have no idea if those programs are going to still be around. They might be, but they might not be.”

Removal of important sections 

Downing said other sections were not just changed, but completely “wiped out.”

“I remember that we had received some feedback from the original team that worked with Fred (Bramante) about how to really define what a competency-based assessment was,” she said. “It looked like all of that had gone out. So we're saying we're advancing competency-based education through these rules (but) I felt what I looked at took us back years.”

Educators also worry requirements on class sizes were eliminated on page 17 of the document. The current standards list specific teacher-student ratios to abide by; the new document leaves that as a local decision.

Downing emphasized that, though districts do want local control, they still want to know what the baseline standards are — while not dictating how districts have to meet those baselines. 

“But when you put baselines like this in place, that are so wide open, you’re talking about inequities across districts,” she said.

Downing worries that varying teacher-student ratios across districts could mean discrepancies in funding and student achievement, as well as teacher burnout.

“We know that class sizes are so closely tied to student outcomes,” Pretorius said. “Kids do better with smaller classes, when they have more intimate, personal interactions with their teachers.”

Those were only a few of the many sections stricken from the department's latest draft.

Bramante and state officials defend their efforts

Despite educators’ concerns, Bramante and state leaders emphasize that their only goal is to improve public schools.

“I would assume that every board before me and this board has the intent to create a stronger, more robust school system,” said Ryan Terrell, a State Board of Education member from Nashua. “This whole process is something that's meant to go back and forth between the board and the public at large. And that's what's happened to that document leading up to this. And it'll continue happening with the public within the sessions that we have.”

Downing and Tuttle  took the opposite stance, expressing that they felt the process was not open enough with the public or educators. Additionally, the drafting process took place out of public view for the first two years. Bramante previously states that there was no requirement for public input at that point in the process. 

Terrell added that the department has a longstanding relationship with Bramante because of his experiences when he chaired the State Board of Education.

Bramante said he is not upset that the draft from the state education department does not fully follow his team’s recommendations. He thinks the department's document is about 75% in line with the report his group submitted Jan. 22.

“In large part, it's going down the same path that we're recommending,” Bramante said.

He acknowledged concerns about eliminating requirements on class sizes and high school graduation, but emphasized that the state board is “under no obligation to accept anything we recommend.”

“They could throw the whole thing in the trash. They clearly haven't done that,” Bramante said. “They've clearly said yes to the majority of what we submitted. And so now we've got 25 percent more. It's an important 25 percent, so I'm not making light of it. But, it's the state board's document and they have the right to do whatever they want with it.”

Terrell said that he has not had a chance to analyze either the contractors’ or department’s documents enough to make comments on how he thinks the two compare, or to respond to specific educator concerns. 

Attempts were made to contact other board members, but all either declined to comment or were unable to be reached.

Commissioner Frank Edelblut’s administrator, in an email, said the commissioner was unable to take a phone interview to respond to specific educator concerns, but provided the commissioner’s following statement:

“Many educators and education leaders from across the state have committed thousands of hours in constructive dialogue to move the ED 306 rules and strong educational standards in New Hampshire forward. We are excited to enhance learning and enter the formal rulemaking process so that we can continue to have meaningful and constructive conversations about how to best serve the children of New Hampshire,”

He continued, “Our expectation is that many stakeholders from groups across the state will participate in our public hearing and public comment periods so that many voices, not just one vocal group, are added to the already robust discussions and input that have been occurring throughout the past three years to strengthen minimum standards.”

Terrell encourages people to attend the next board of education meeting where the 306s are expected to be discussed, tentatively scheduled for April 3, and to take time to review the document beforehand.

“Sometimes, we have folks that are actually really passionate about education and they have good intentions,” he said. “But, sometimes they actually are just misinformed about where we are in the process, or what the process has been for a certain amount of time or what precedent is being set.

“In my experience, everybody on our board is going in and trying to do the best for kids that attend public schools in the Granite State,” Terrell said. “And we'll have disagreements about how we get there. But that's been my experience so far. Everybody just wants to make it better for the public school district.”

Educators prepare for next public hearing

Downing, Pretorius, Tuttle and other educators differ with many of the recommendations from Bramante and the state education agency. They think the department’s document is vastly different from what the Bramante group proposed and would have severe repercussions if adopted as is.

Downing was planning to hold her own educator review sessions, separate from the Bramante team, on March 6 and 7 at multiple schools around the state over the two days. More than 200 people signed up to attend. In addition, she plans a Zoom session on Saturday, March 23, from 9 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., which is open to the public. She plans to invite registrations for the online session within the next week.

Bramante said he also plans to meet with his team in March as well, in preparation for the State Board of Education meeting tentatively set for April 3. Those team meetings will not be open to the public, but the BOE meeting is.

For her part, Downing urges, “Listen to your educators. Their job is getting tougher and tougher by the day. And they deserve a voice in this process.”

Citations

Where to find specific concerns in Department of Education’s draft of updated minimum standards: 

• Wording of “provision” changed to “opportunity” for differentiated learning, page 25

• Concerns about arts education programs and wording of “shall require” changed to “may include” followed by list of components, page 46

• Removal of 43 course requirements, bottom of page 31 to 32

• Concern about listing specific programs like VLACS and Learn Everywhere, page 6

• Removal of class size requirements, page 17

These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org.