On Thursday, September 19, 2024, the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR) voted to table the first half of the New Hampshire Department of Education’s (NHED) proposed overhaul of the Minimum Standards for Public School Approval, known as the ED 306s, until they receive the complete rule proposal.
The first half, which includes policy and administrative requirements for public schools, has sharp opposition from Granite Staters and school leaders due to changes that would weaken standards for students and schools, and would have significant negative impacts on how the state funds public education.
The committee unanimously voted to delay a decision on the rules until they receive the second half of the document, which the State Board of Education approved earlier that week. That portion, which includes academic requirements for specific program areas like math, science, and art, is expected to be sent to JLCAR in November.
“If we are going to make a change, it’s going to be in place for quite a while, so we want to make sure we do it right,” Senator Shannon Chandley (D-Amherst) said at Thursday’s meeting. “The concern to me is the back half . . . and potentially we won’t get the answer until after this approval. Should we do all of this at once and is that possible and practical?”
“I agree with the Senator that we should look at the entire package at once because they appear to be interrelated,” said JLCAR Chair, Representative Carol McGuire (R-Epsom).
At the meeting, there were several major concerns that were raised by the committee and the public:
- Removing maximum class sizes. The NHED is proposing to remove New Hampshire’s maximum class size regulations, replacing them with a “student-educator ratio” that would not cap the number of students in a classroom.
- Replacing “courses” with “learning opportunities.” The NHED’s proposal would replace the term “courses” with “learning opportunities” throughout the minimum standards. This could eliminate the state’s responsibility to ensure that all students have guaranteed access to a well-rounded set of in-person courses, taught by certified teachers. Under the proposed rules, the minimum offering would be access to “learning opportunities,” which are vaguely defined as “educational experiences” that could be heavily dependent on a school district’s local resources.
The Department of Education did not provide sufficient responses to the committee’s questions, prompting them to delay the vote until they receive the full document.
Removing maximum class sizes
Under current minimum standards, the minimum standards cap the number of students allowed in a public school classroom:
Class size for instructional purposes, in each school shall be:
(1) Kindergarten – grade 2, 25 students or fewer per educator, provided that each school shall strive to achieve the class size of 20 students or fewer per educator;
(2) Grades 3 – 5, 30 students or fewer per educator, provided that each school shall strive to achieve the class size of 25 students or fewer per educator; and
(3) Middle and senior high school, 30 students or fewer per educator.
Also, under the current minimum standards, “educator” is defined as a certified classroom teacher. For example, a public school cannot have more than 25 students in a kindergarten class with one certified teacher.
The NHED’s overhaul, however, changes that to a student-educator ratio, which is different than a maximum class size. A student-educator ratio is a mathematical formula that would require a minimum number of adults in the building based on the number of students.
The local school board shall establish student-educator ratios that promote student learning for each learning opportunity and learning level based upon school safety policies, content, instructional method, the characteristics of learners, and the following:
(1) Kindergarten – grade 2, 25 students or fewer per educator, provided that each school shall strive to achieve the class size of 20 students or fewer per educator;
(2) Grades 3-5, 30 students or fewer per educator, provided that each school shall strive to achieve the class size of 25 students or fewer per educator; and
(3) Middle school and high school, 30 students or fewer per educator
The NHED’s overhaul also expands the meaning of “educator” to include administrators, paraeducators, interpreters, school nurses, and other school staff. That means that for a middle school of 300 students, the maximum class size could be 100, as long as there were 10 certified staff in the building.
The change raises significant questions about the state’s obligation to fund schools since the current school funding formula set forth by the legislature is based on the maximum class sizes laid out in the minimum standards. It also raises questions about the role of the state in ensuring that all students have access to an adequate education.
Christine Downing, a lifelong educator and volunteer who held teacher input sessions across the state on the minimum standards, objected to the rules on behalf of the teacher cohort.
“I am going to go on public record today to say that the language around student-educator ratios and class size was not recommended,” commented Downing. Downing had served, in a volunteer capacity, as a facilitator of several educator review sessions in the spring and has been cited for her expertise on the standards by the Commissioner of Education.
“We suggested edits to the existing rules that would clear it up,” said Downey, referring to the extensive conversation between committee members, representatives from the NH Department of Education (NHED), and members of the public about the definition of an “educator” used in the proposal. “Educators did not support the language included by the NHED.”
Replacing “courses” with “learning opportunities”
The NHED’s proposed overhaul would change the minimum offering from “course” to “learning opportunity” in the minimum standards, significantly changing the requirements of public schools and also the obligation of the state to fund those schools.
“Learning opportunities” are defined in the overhaul as “educational experiences,” with no further definition. This could eliminate the state’s responsibility to ensure that all students have guaranteed access to a well-rounded set of in-person courses taught by certified teachers.
The breadth and rigor of “learning opportunities” would likely be dependent on a school district’s local resources and their ability to fund programs rather than the state’s responsibility to ensure — and fund — in-person teaching by a certified teacher.
Lack of public input and next steps
Asserting the proposal was not in the public interest, Senator Becky Whitley of Hopkinton stated, “The input that was provided to the Board of Education and the Department of Education really was not incorporated.”
Over 200 people objected to the NHED’s proposed overhaul in April, citing significant concerns over the impact it would have on New Hampshire’s public schools and the state’s responsibility to ensure that all students have access to high-quality public education. Although the reasons for opposition outlined in each of the public comments varied, they fell into six overarching themes:
- Fear that the rules will dismantle the public education system,
- Fear that the proposal would decrease the amount of state funding available to support an adequate education,
- Concern that academic rigor will be decreased,
- An expectation that the experience of NH students will be inequitable across communities,
- Concern that the process to create the draft lacked inclusivity and expertise, and
- Recognition that the proposal caused an erosion of local control.
While JLCAR will meet again in October, Commissioner Frank Edelblut stated in the meeting that the NHED will send the complete proposal to JLCAR for their November meeting. The meetings are open to the public, and JLCAR welcomes public testimony in person or emailed to Chair Carol McGuire at carol@mcguire4house.com and Senator Tim Lang at Timothy.Lang@leg.state.nh.us.
You must be logged in to post a comment.