An update to the 306s is meant to be completed by September, but the State Board of Education hasn’t even begun discussing the second half of the document and critics remain worried about lack of transparency in the process.
By Kelly Burch, Granite State News Collaborative
With a September deadline looming, the State Board of Education has not finished updating the first half of the minimum standards for public school approval — which are reviewed every 10 years — and has not even begun considering the “back half” of the document.
At a July 11 meeting of the board, there was “no vote, and no indication of when they'd take it up,” said Christina Pretorius, policy director for Reaching Higher NH, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on education in the Granite State. The board will not meet again until Aug.14, the last scheduled meeting prior to a Sept. 10 deadline.
Under state law, rule updates like those to the minimum standards, known as the 306s, must be submitted to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules — JLCAR — six months after a draft proposal is filed with the state. Based on that, the 306s have a Sept. 10 deadline for the “front half” of the document, which deals with operational essentials like class size, and a Sept. 17 deadline for the “back half,” which deals with specifics of the curriculum.
The Department of Education has divided the lengthy document into two sections to streamline revisions.
Policymakers watching the process are concerned that, after more than a year of public commentary and a behind-the-scenes consulting process that started in 2020, the state is approaching the deadline with a 306 document that reduces standards, removes equity protections, and opens the door to privatization of public schooling.
They’re also still concerned that many changes to the draft documents are happening out of public view.
“The central, key questions about how public schools are going to be operating from here on out haven’t been addressed yet,” Pretorius said. “The department and state board haven’t addressed the meatiest pieces of [the 306s] — the big questions around weakening requirements, class sizes, and replacing ‘shall’ with ‘may.’”
The Department of Education “currently expects to meet the … deadlines, but if not, it will seek an extension,” said Kimberly Houghton, spokesperson for the department.
Christie Downing, a curriculum director who has worked extensively on the 306 revision but is no longer formally involved, would like the board to seek an extension so it can better integrate feedback from teachers and administrators.
“Let’s not rush it for the sake of … an arbitrary deadline,” she said.
Continued concerns about transparency
There are continued concerns about the transparency of the process and the ability for public input, issues that critics have pointed out for more than a year. Many changes in the draft document are made out of public view.
“One trend that we’re seeing is there is a lot of work being done behind the scenes” by board Chairman Drew Cline and Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, Pretorius said.
The department releases an updated draft to state board members prior to each meeting, Houghton said, but that document is not made public until after the meeting. That has made it difficult for members of the public — even those most involved with the process — to submit their input.
“I’m struggling right now to even keep up with what they are looking at,” said Downing. “When I provide feedback, it’s like they’ve already moved on from that. I don’t think I’m the only one who's experiencing that.”
At the July 11 meeting, some board members expressed confusion about the document that the board was considering, the changes that had been made, and even whether they had the most up-to-date document. (Listen to a recording of the meeting here).
Even for people who are familiar with the education system, understanding the changes between drafts can be “like drinking from a firehose,” Pretorius said.
A focus on the ‘front half’
After the July meeting, the education department released yet another side-by-side document detailing changes to the front half of the 306s. Many of the updates are on “the periphery,” Pretorius said, and don’t address more than 200 comments from the public, all but one of which was in opposition to the current draft. In addition, the changes did not address language that Statehouse lawyers flagged as possibly unconstitutional.
"One of the things that’s really striking is they’re having these really technical conversations … but there’s nobody in the room who’s an expert on these issues to help shed light and guide them through that process,” Pretorius said.
Fred Bramante, president of the Durham-based National Center for Competency-Based Learning, was hired to facilitate the revisions in part based on his expertise about competency-based education, yet he said that his team is “largely sitting on the sidelines right now.”
“I did talk to the commissioner. I got the impression that they’ve resolved pretty much all of the issues,” he said.
One concern that remains outstanding, Bramante said, is the debate over shifting the word “shall,” which is legally binding, to “may,” which is not. Bramante said he believes the department will take up that issue in the future.
“They’re not going to do it in this round,” he said. “They’re going to have to open up rulemaking again. That’s what I think.”
According to the July 10 draft, students can advance in their education when they’ve demonstrated “proficiency” in a subject. Current 306 regulations don’t outline when a student can advance, but a previous draft of the revisions, introduced by Bramante’s group, required students to show “mastery” of a subject. Critics have said that using the word “proficiency” instead allows students to advance without fully grasping a subject.
“Someone could make a case that that’s lowering the standards,” Bramante said.
Although the mastery-vs.-proficiency debate has received attention, Bramante said that educators he spoke to didn’t have a strong opinion about the word choice.
“I asked every single time there was a superintendent in the room and none of them cared,” he said.
Bramante did not know how the department planned to address ongoing concerns about class size.
More time for the second half of the document?
With a focus on the front half of the document, the state board has not even begun discussing the back half of the 306s yet, and there’s no set timeline for doing so.
“Once the work on the front half is complete, efforts will then be focused on the back half,” said Houghton, the department spokesperson.
The rules outlined in the 306s are effective for 10 years from the time they are adopted. Currently, “there are sections in the 306s that have already expired,” Pretorius said, while other sections have been updated recently and won’t expire for seven years or more.
In the back half of the document, five of 19 sections expired in March 2024, according to Downing’s written testimony. The remaining sections will expire between 2026 and 2032.
Rather than “rushing some things … when in reality you don’t need to rush them,” Downing said, she would like to see the board take this year to be “more thoughtful" the second half of the 306 revision process..
At the July board meeting, Downing submitted a proposal to have teacher working groups assist the board in updating the back half of the 306s. The process would extend through November, according to her plan, which she first shared with the board in April.
Although she was formally involved with the revisions between October 2023 and January 2024, Downing no longer has an open dialogue with the department, and said she doesn’t know whether it is considering her suggestion.
Legislative efforts to change the 306 process
Meanwhile, the Legislature has passed two measures that could impact the 306 update, either during this round or in the future. House Bill 1163, which was signed into law on July 3, authorizes the Legislative Oversight Committee on Educational Improvement and Assessment to review and make recommendations about the 306s. The law takes effect 60 days after signing, so it’s unclear whether it will impact this 306 revision, but it will impact future efforts.
“The department and state board will have to be more responsive to the Legislature with what they are proposing,” Pretorius said.
House Bill 1622, which has passed both houses but not yet been signed into law, would require agencies to report how they incorporated public feedback into the rulemaking process. It also takes effect 60 days after signing.
“That would be very consequential for this process in particular, because the state board received so much feedback,” Pretorius said. “It would significantly change the way the board needs to talk about the public comment they’ve received.”
Whether or not the State Board of Education meets the September deadline or continues working on the 306s, those watching the process are frustrated with what feels like an ineffective approach to the revision.
“We’ve been on this journey for three years,” said Downing. “Why are these questions just coming up now?”
These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visitcollaborativenh.org