On Wednesday, August 14, 2024, the NH Department of Education (NHED) is expected to put forward their final proposal for one section of the ED 306s, or the Minimum Standards for Public School Approval. The final proposal, released on Monday, August 12, 2024, indicates that the NH Department of Education and State Board of Education have addressed some, but not all, of the concerns that have been raised thus far. Many of the most pressing concerns have not been addressed, according to a preliminary analysis by Reaching Higher NH.
The proposed overhaul has been mired with significant public opposition, and could fundamentally change the way public schools in New Hampshire operate by loosening requirements, removing local control, and instituting changes that would conflict with existing laws.
If the State Board of Education approves the first section on Wednesday, the rules will go to a state oversight committee, where a panel of lawmakers will review them to ensure that they comply with current laws. The rules would be expected to go before the oversight panel in September 2024, where they could approve them, send them back to the NHED for changes, or issue a preliminary objection, which would pause the process.
This analysis cross-references the analysis that Reaching Higher NH published in the spring regarding the legal concerns raised by state attorneys with the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR). Read that report here.
Significant concerns not addressed
There were significant concerns raised by state attorneys and the public that do not appear to be addressed in the NHED’s final proposal:
- Weakening requirements for curriculum and programs: The NHED proposed to remove requirements for curriculum and programs and would make them optional by shifting language from “shall” to “may”.
- DID NOT ADDRESS: This change was in the “second half” of the document, which has not been discussed by either the New Hampshire Department of Education or the State Board of Education. The deadline for action on this section is September 17, 2024, so it is expected to be revisited at the September meeting of the State Board.
- Replacing “courses” with “learning opportunities”: The NHED proposed to remove “courses” throughout the document and replace the term with “learning opportunities,” which is a vague term that is undefined in the rules, potentially diminishing the level rigor for students. The state attorney found multiple instances where the terms were used inconsistently.
- DID NOT ADDRESS: The final proposal continues to use the vague term “learning opportunities” instead of “courses” and “instructional programs.” There is a new definition of “learning opportunities” that is an umbrella term that means “educational experiences… that lead to… competency” and includes, but is not limited to, “in-person, online, blended, and self-guided classes, ELOs, work-based learning, and alternative learning plans,” stating that the term “may also include courses.”
- Simply including “courses” in the definition of “learning opportunities” may not rectify the concerns that the term is vague, and may lead to confusion and inconsistent applications between school districts. For example, one school district may have an in-person Art course in their school, but another may satisfy the art credit requirement by offering a self-guided online “learning opportunity.”
- Class size requirements: The NHED proposed to remove maximum class sizes, which the state attorney flagged as being “very broad,” contrary to the state’s obligation to offer a constitutionally adequate education, and noting that it would have fiscal implications, and could not be uniformly enforced.
- DID NOT ADDRESS: The final proposal includes a student-teacher ratio based on a certain number of students per teacher in the district. While it would mandate a certain number of teachers per student, it does not put a maximum number of students in each classroom.
- Alternative courses of study: The NHED proposed to change the definition of “alternative courses of study” to a more broad one and would require the school district to pay for the alternative if a student chose to pursue it. The state attorney questioned whether the definition would now be so broad that any “learning opportunity” that a student chose would have to be funded by the local school district.
- DEFINITION CHANGE: The terminology in the document was changed to “alternative programs,” but there is a new definition of “program” that could continue to broaden the meaning of an “alternative program.”
- DID NOT ADDRESS: The concern that parents can opt into “alternative programs.”
- DID NOT ADDRESS: The concern that any “programs” that a student chooses would have to be funded by the local school district, since the “alternative programs” are considered “remote learning” under the final proposal.
- Meeting instructional needs of students: The NHED proposed removing the requirement for school boards to adopt policies requiring that schools meet the instructional needs of each individual student, which the staff attorney questioned.
- DID NOT ADDRESS: This section continues to be removed from the rule proposal.
Some changes could surface new considerations
- Elimination of required courses: The NHED proposed eliminating the requirement that school districts offer a specific number of courses in the stated subject areas, and replacing it with the requirement that school boards offer the opportunity for students to demonstrate competency in the content area.
- PARTIALLY ADDRESSED: The final proposal includes a requirement that public high schools offer a minimum of 43 courses. However, the cross-references to the program requirements for each subject area (references to ED 306.31-306.46 in ED 306.22-e) continue to be removed, which adds ambiguity to the required structure and rigor of required courses.
- Graduation “expectations:” The NHED proposed to implement a set of “graduation expectations,” which are 23 statements that would be areas in which students would have to demonstrate “their ability to apply and transfer their learning.”
- PARTIALLY ADDRESSED: The “graduation expectations” were renamed “graduation requirements.” However, the final proposal includes changes to the mandated credits that students must have in order to graduate, which are being proposed without public or expert input, or statutory direction.
- Statistical Reports, Accountability, and Assessment: The NHED proposed removing two sections of the rules regarding academic testing and reporting, as well as gutting the assessment requirements in the program elements, which the state attorney flagged as contrary to legislative intent and in conflict with existing laws.
- PARTIALLY ADDRESSED: The final proposal has a section on “local accountability,” which mandates certain local assessments. However, concerns about reporting and accountability may persist.
- Developmentally appropriate: The NHED used ”developmentally appropriate” throughout the document, which needs to be defined in order to be uniformly applied, according to the state attorney.
- ADDRESSED: The final proposal has a definition of “developmentally appropriate;” however, this definition has not been reviewed by experts.
- Competency: The NHED proposed changing the definition of “competency,” which the staff attorney noted was unclear, and changed the intent from what a student must be taught to what a student must learn.
- ADDRESSED: The final proposal clarifies that the definition of “competency” aligns with the statutory definition of “competency.” However, the final proposal also includes a new definition for “competency-based,” which may not align with the best practices for defining and implementing a high-quality competency-based educational system.
New concepts in the final proposal offered without opportunity for public input
The NHED’s final proposal also contains several new concepts that were not included in the initial proposal. These new concepts have had no opportunity for a public hearing or public comment. They include:
- State Board establishment of state academic standards: The final proposal includes a new section that outlines how the State Board of Education will adopt state academic standards, which includes public hearing requirements.
- Adding 9th Grade to middle school: The final proposal would allow school districts to include 9th grade in their middle schools. It also offers new configurations for elementary, middle, and junior high schools.
- “Mastery” as an aspirational statement: The final proposal includes a statement that public schools can require that students “achieve more rigorous standards than the minimum standards” and that schools “should aspire for students to achieve mastery.”
- There was significant public concern that the minimum standards, as proposed by the NHED, would lower the rigor and quality of public schools by diminishing the expectations of student learning from “mastery” to “proficiency.”
- DID NOT ADDRESS: This statement appears to be a concession on the part of the NHED to address those concerns; however, this concession is part of an aspirational statement that does not affect the minimum standards that all public schools must follow, nor does it mandate that the state fund schools to the level necessary to offer courses that would allow students to learn rigorous content and achieve mastery of course competencies.
Next steps
The State Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the final proposal on Wednesday, August 14, 2024. If approved, the rules will be sent to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR).
For more information about RHNH’s work and analysis on the minimum standards for public school approval, visit www.ReachingHigherNH.org/ed306 or contact Christina Pretorius, Policy Director, at christina@reachinghighernh.org
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, and join the New Hampshire Education Network (NHEN), our network of New Hampshire parents, educators, business leaders, and community members to stay up to date on the latest developments in education policy.
