The board has not yet tackled key issues that have drawn sharp criticism
By Rhianwen Watkins-Granite State News Collaborative
The N.H. Board of Education voted Wednesday morning to approve the first half of a new set of minimum standards for schools, a document which has gone through several rewrites and drawn sharp criticism from educators and the public.
The board has yet to approve the second half of the revised standards - the half which includes the majority of educators’ concerns about the revisions, including a change in wording from “shall” to “may” for many curriculum requirements.
When the board invited the public to comment on its proposal to revise the standards, opinion ran 200-1 against the proposed changes.
Once the board signs off on the revised standards, the proposal goes to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, which will ultimately decide if the proposal, as a whole, is adopted, based on whether it complies with state law.
JLCAR is scheduled to review the proposal on Sept. 19, and the education nonprofit Reaching Higher said in a press release that 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 raised concerns over key elements, such as replacement of the word “courses” with “learning opportunities,” which educators say is too vague.
A key issue is a wording change in the second half of the standards, 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.
Another concern on part of educators, in prior drafts of the proposal, was the removal of class size requirements. However, Kimberley Houghton, communications administrator for the N.H. Department of Education, said the board reinstated maximum class sizes for different grade levels, in response to educators’ requests.
Educators have voiced their mounting concerns throughout the four-year process, hoping for changes in the final proposal.
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. In written testimony, Downing offered a list of specific changes she wanted 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, Christina Pretorius of Reaching Higher said “the changes that they made weren't the substantive ones that we have been seeing concerns about.” Those are in the second half of the proposal, which board has yet to approve.
After the discussion on 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. … 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.
“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 yet.
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.
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.
CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect that, at Wednesday’s meeting, the state board had approved only the first half of the minimum standards document that was under consideration. Action has not yet been taken on the second half, which includes the majority of educators’ concerns about the revisions, including a change in wording from “shall” to “may” for many education requirements. Kimberley Houghton, communications administrator for the N.H. Department of Education, also clarified that standards for maximum class sizes, which had been softened in a prior draft of the document, have been reinstated into the proposal in response to educators’ requests. The original version incorrectly stated this information. We regret the error.