By Rhianwen Watkins, Granite State News Collaborative

*The original version was edited to clarify the next step in the process.*

Controversial updates to the education minimum standards for New Hampshire’s public schools were passed Thursday by the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules, known as JLCAR. Approval came on a 6-4 vote.

The revised rules have drawn sharp criticism from multitudes of educators who contend they remove caps on the number of students in classrooms, muddle the requirements for teaching specific subjects, and make other changes that will water down what it means to receive a N.H. education. 

Educators are also concerned that the document’s removal of specific requirements and adoption of ambiguous wording are an attempt to ease requirements for state funding of public education, which could shift a bigger financial burden onto local taxpayers and worsen inequities across school districts.

Thursday’s meeting included a public comment period on the second half of the rules, in which everyone who testified objected to the proposed changes, citing many reasons. 

Both sections of the document were passed on a 6-4 vote, with Republican members in the majority.

Now that both the Legislative Oversight Committee and JLCAR have approved them, the rules will go back to the State Board of Education for one more final vote before they are officially adopted.

In accordance with a state law, RSA 541-A:13, JLCAR can adopt the rules or object on any of four criteria: if the proposed rules are “beyond the authority of the agency,” “contrary to the intent of the Legislature,” “determined not to be in the public interest,” or “deemed to have a substantial fiscal impact,” according to the statute.

Rules draw public criticism

Among the witnesses Thursday was Christine Downing, director of curriculum, instruction and assessment for the Cornish, Grantham and Plainfield school districts. As the revised rules were being drawn up, Downing held 17 review sessions around the state to gather opinions from teachers and other educators. 

One of her biggest objections to the rules was ambiguity and lack of consistency in wording, particularly referring to State Academic Standards when discussing course requirements. The State Academic Standards differ from the Education Minimum Standards, in that they define only what a student must learn, not what must be included in a given program — that’s what the minimum standards do.

David Trumble of Weare, a lawyer and farmer who ran for the state Senate this year, objected to the revised standards, citing a state law, RSA 193 E-B, which outlines the state’s “accountability for the opportunity for an adequate education.’

Trumble said the law requires schools to provide an adequate education through both input and output-based accountability — “inputs” being the elements that go into a well-rounded education, such as qualified teachers, defined program elements, and maximum classroom sizes; and “outputs” being the ways a student’s success is measured, such as tests and exams.

He argued the revised rules remove “inputs” by eliminating specifics around what is required for educational programs, and the change in definition of an educator to include school personnel other than teachers. Without these “inputs,” he said, the state is not in compliance with the law.

Others raised concerns about comments by Drew Cline, chairman of the State Board of Education, about classroom size requirements. Cline said the revised standards have reinstated limits on class sizes. However, educators argued the document mentions only student-teacher ratios, not specific numbers on how many students can be in a classroom. 

Giana Gelsey, a member of the Oyster River School Board, told the JLCAR members that  “the class size maximums and class size ratios are not the same. Right now in our school district, we are having an issue with the fact that our kindergarten population exploded. And we are actually figuring out how we are going to actually add classrooms to the current elementary schools we have. And a lot of it is actually linked to the fact that we have limits on how many kids fit in the classroom.” 

Sean Parr, a member of the Manchester Board of School Committee, raised similar concerns.

“Class size is very different than student-educator ratios,” Parr said. “Our district has been very careful in defining these things very specifically in our own policies. We feel it’s very important. The research shows very clearly that class size is much more important than student-educator ratios — that actually having a room with 20 students in it and one teacher is far better than having a room with 40 students in it and two teachers, or a teacher and a para. That research is substantial and clear.”  

The consensus among Democratic legislators on JLCAR was that the proposed rules did not comply with the requirements laid out in all four categories of state law, and that the overwhelming opposition to the revisions showed that they’re not in the public’s interest.

JLCAR member State Sen. Becky Whitley urged her fellow JLCAR members to vote against the revisions.

“The quality of our public education has nothing to do with politics,” she said. “It is the foundation of our democracy. It's a constitutional requirement in the state of New Hampshire. There has been countless litigation defining what is an adequate education,” she said.

“That is what's at stake here. This should not be about politics. Yet, we seem to be going in a direction where we are ignoring the vast majority of our educators, our administrators, our parents, all who have major, major concerns with these rules,” Whitley said. “It is our obligation as elected officials to determine and make an analysis about the public interest and that's what we’re doing here.”

Department of Education defends the proposal

During discussion about the first half of the revised minimum standards, Cline, chair of the State Board of Education, emphasized that the revision process had been inclusive, with 13 listening sessions held across the state and educator input taken into account.

“We listened to that feedback. That feedback really helped shape our draft rules,” Cline said. “Christine Downing was tasked with reviewing the draft rules and giving us feedback, which we took. You will see that the draft rules that were the initial proposal in February are vastly different than the final version you have here and that’s because we took massive amounts of input.”

Downing corrected Cline later on during her testimony, saying she was never “tasked” with reviewing the rules, but rather volunteered herself.

“If you look at these, we're really making very minimal changes,” said Elizabeth Brown, an attorney for the N.H. Department of Education, after answering many questions and defending the proposed changes.

Republican members of JLCAR did not raise significant concerns or share much input during the meeting. However, one member commented that many concerns raised by educators and others opposing the changes were based on older versions of the document, not the most updated one.

It was later found during the meeting that the link to the most updated version of the proposal on the Department of Education’s website was not available at the time, because of an error with the link. The link has since been fixed, but remains absent from the Department of Education’s Minimum Standards Page, where all other information from the department on the proposed updates is found.

Readers can find the updates that were approved Thursday on the Conditional Approvals page of the N.H. Department of Education website.

What will education look like going forward?

Ultimately, the new rules will mean more decisions will become the responsibility of local school boards, said Christina Pretorius, policy director at Reaching Higher NH, a statewide education advocacy nonprofit. Pretorius attended Thursday’s meeting.

It is unclear exactly what impact the rules will have until they are implemented, and impacts could differ between districts.

"The significant concerns from educators and school board members have been repeatedly dismissed,” Pretorius said. ‘They've told the NHED and State Board over the past several years that these rules could downshift costs to local school districts, and would exacerbate the inequities while undermining our public schools."

These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visitcollaborativenh.org