Teachers accuse education department of secrecy in drafting standards for public schools

By Rhianwen Watkins, Granite State News Collaborative

The minimum standards for New Hampshire schools are going through their every-10-year update, and educators across the state have voiced strong opposition to many of the proposed changes.

The criticism is somewhat similar to comments contained in a recent review of the proposed standards by the Office of Legislative Services that found the proposed standards  may violate the state constitution.The office  provides advice on legislation and rules to the N.H. Legislature.

Beyond that, they have accused the N.H. Department of Education of hiding information from the public, and leaving educators — the ones arguably most knowledgeable on the topic — out of the process.

The minimum standards document outlines the required elements for educational programs, for graduation, for class sizes and for other important standards that schools and educators will be held to for the next 10 years. 

The document also directly affects communities, as the requirements outline what aspects of education the state government will pay for. Any costs that are not deemed a requirement in the document will become the responsibility of local taxpayers.

That is why educators have been so focused on the document and worried about its potential implications.

A background summary 

In 2020, the Department of Education gave Fred Bramante, director of the nonprofit National Center for Competency Based Learning  a $50,000 contract to form a team to draft an update of the minimum standards, often called the 306 rules. 

Two years later, in November 2022, Bramante and the 13 members of his team presented their update to about 50 educators at a two-day event in Laconia. Among them was Christine Downing, director of curriculum, instruction and assessment for the Cornish, Plainfield and Grantham school districts.

After reading the draft, educators immediately expressed alarm and argued that the two-day event did not provide enough time to give a fair response.

After hearing overwhelming criticism from educators and frustration over the fact that they’d been left out of the drafting process, Bramante formed a new group, which included Downing and three other teachers union members.

The new team drafted a revised version of the document, and Downing sent it to the department of education on Jan. 22, 2023. 

Less than a month later, the Department of Education released a new version — using the document it got from Downing, but with immense edits, including important changes in wording and deletion of multiple sections.

Christine Downing; image from video for Kearsarge Regional School District.

Downing and the other educators objected strongly to eliminating limits on class sizes, changing “certified teachers” to “licensed teachers,” and changing the word “shall” to “may” throughout the document when referring to specific education requirements, which they say makes those requirements optional rather than mandatory.

Bramante has a different outlook from the educators. He said that, overall, he’s content with the document the state agency came up with, and said the State Board of Education is “under no obligation to accept anything we recommend.”

Questions over the contract

Downing left the team Feb. 8 when she learned Bramante’s National Center for Competency Based Learning had been awarded an extra $25,000, on top of its original $50,000 fee in November 2020.  

The NCCBL had already been given three unpaid yearlong contract extensions prior to the amendment for the additional $25,000. 

The contract extension states, “The NCCBL continues to provide direction and leadership in the revision of Ed 306. The original contract initially included provisions for public outreach. However, the scope of our public outreach and engagement with stakeholders has significantly exceeded our initial expectations, and these efforts are still ongoing. As a result, our vendor, NCCBL, has had to extend their outreach activities beyond what was originally agreed upon in the contract.”

“Where is this so-called public outreach?” Downing asked. “I don't see it.”

Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut disagrees. 

“I think that this has been and continues to be maybe the most transparent process around a set of rules,” Edelblut said. “I think it's appropriate, given the content of the rules, the importance of these rules, that we have been so transparent and open.”

He said more than a dozen listening sessions were held across the state, where educators could raise concerns with the department. 

However, multiple educators have complained that many of those sessions were held during the day, when parents were at work and educators were teaching, and therefore unable to attend. 

That included the two most recent hearings on April 3 and 11, both which started at 1 p.m. The one on April 11 was part of the board’s monthly meeting.

Megan Tuttle, executive director of NEA-NH, put in a written request to the state board to move the time of the April 3 hearing, but that request was denied.

“I'd love to see the State Board of Ed hold an evening meeting, so educators could come to it without having to get some coverage or putting schools in a position where they have to be without their educators,” Downing said.

In addition, the department held no virtual online sessions, where people from distant points could tune in to the discussions.

Edelblut noted that Downing’s series of educator review sessions should be considered part of the transparency process.

Frank Edelblut, New Hampshire’s education commissioner. Photo courtesy of National Assessment Governing Board.

“I don't get paid by the Department of Ed,” Downing said. “I don't get paid by NCCBL. They don't own my work. I own it, because I'm doing it completely as a volunteer — as a 30-plus-year educator who's concerned about how our public schools are under attack.”

Downing also questioned why Bramante’s NCCBL needed three contract extensions.

“As a taxpayer, I'd be going, ‘Huh — over three years ago, a sole-source contract was issued to an organization, and we're over three years later, and they still haven't done it,’” she said. “A real question needs to start going around this whole sole-source contract, and again, with this new round of funding that was issued.”

Right-to-know requests denied 

Over the past couple of years, multiple right-to-know requests over the educational standard revisions were denied by the Department of Education.

In November 2022, Reaching Higher NH asked to see the most recent version of the standards document, but Elizabeth Brown, attorney for the education department, said any reports received from the NCCBL are “draft agency documents” and exempt from disclosure. 

Reaching Higher disagreed.

 “We believe that any changes to the Minimum Standards are a matter of public interest, as they serve as the foundational rules that govern all of our public schools,” the organization stated on its website. 

In October 2023, multiple news organizations — including the N.H. Press Association, the Granite State News Collaborative  and the N.H. First Amendment Coalition — filed a right-to-know request, asking the NCCBL and the Education Department to release any documents drafted in their meetings about education standards, citing New Hampshire’s right-to-know law.

The department again denied the request.

How is the 306 revision process different from 10 years ago?

David Ruff, executive director of the Great Schools Partnership, said the revision process 10 years ago was very open and inclusive of educators.

Ruff said the standards update was not contracted out to a consultant. Rather, the Education Department — with a commissioner and board members who are not involved in the current changes — updated the standards with the help of a “task force” that included school superintendents. 

Ruff said his role was to facilitate meetings with educators to hear their feedback.

“There was a series of outreach gatherings in the field to get opinions from educators across New Hampshire,” Ruff said. “I know that a lot of the people who were on that task force reached out on their own to talk to people in their spheres of influence.

“I would describe the whole process as pretty engaging, pretty thoughtful, and really focused on how to improve learning for kids,” Ruff said. “I think (the department) did a nice job of reaching out to get input from the field.”

When asked whether there were concerns that changes in the document could result in state funding cuts, Ruff said that wasn’t a “sticking point” because people thought their concerns were “being addressed.”

Overall, Ruff felt the process was “pretty straightforward” and “standard” for updating a public document.

“Great accolades to the department and the people on that task force for really buckling down and getting some good work done,” Ruff said.

So, why has there been so much conflict during this round of updates 10 years later?

Legislative efforts to change the process moving forward 

“It appears that the board and Commissioner Edelblut have tried to commandeer the process of drafting minimum standards. And in doing so, they've tried to avoid input through educators and parents,” said Andru Volinsky, lead lawyer for the 1990s court cases that established that the state government was constitutionally required to pay for an “adequate education” for every child in the state.

While Edelblut says educators have been very involved in a highly transparent revision of minimum standards, educators and some legislators disagree.

“We, as educators, really had to fight to get our way to the table,” said Tuttle.

“I believe sunshine is the best disinfectant,” said Volinsky. “And the more the process is hidden, the more suspicious we should be.”

“Frankly, if we did not have Christine Downing, devoting untold volunteer hours to working with educators and gathering data, suggesting language and revisions, we wouldn’t even have a clue that we do have about what the commissioner and the state board are trying to do,” said state Rep. Hope Damon, D-Croydon, a member of the House Education Committee.

 Downing thinks that, going forward, state laws need to be strengthened to ensure educators have a role in setting state minimum standards for education. She proposed amendments to two bills, HB 1163 and HB 1107, that would establish a 306 commission to review the updates on school minimum standards every 10 years.

The amendments would define exactly who must be part of the commission, including a specific number of principals, school administrators and teachers representing all grade levels. That would ensure that educators have a role in the entire process.

However, neither amendment has gained much traction in the Legislature, and Downing says she doubts they will “see the light of day.”

What did Downing’s group find?

Nevertheless, lots of progress was made during Downing’s extensive educator review sessions, which outlined issues with the board’s most recent 306 revisions.

Educators found that not all sections of the current document from 10 years ago have the same expiration date. Although a large number of the current standards are up for revision, multiple sections are still valid.

Standards around English language arts, technology and engineering ed programs, and language programs were last updated in 2016, making them valid until 2026. 

Seven more sections were updated in 2019, and therefore don’t expire until 2029. The final four sections were updated last in 2022, and therefore are valid until 2032. 

Why do the sections have varying expiration dates?

Even though the large part of the process happens every 10 years, sometimes questions are raised around certain sections within those 10 years, and those sections get individual focus and can be updated as seen fit.

Downing questioned why the public has not been told of this, and why there is such a push to revise all of them at once, instead of prioritizing the ones that have actually expired.

Downing’s official recommendations to the state included taking more time to work on revisions that have not yet expired, providing an opportunity to update them in a way people can agree on.

The public comment period ended April 30, and the next step is for the State Board of Education to send its final proposals on minimum standards to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules in June. 

Whether the board decides to implement recommendations from Downing and educators across the state will be known once their final draft is made public.

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

Housing is one way to improve health, and life in general

By Kylie Valluzzi and Scott Merrill, Granite State News Collaborative

New Hampshire’s housing crisis is about a lot more than having a roof over your head. It also involves economic growth, job creation and tax revenue. 

And now, a new awareness is developing: the profound impact of housing on well-being and health care. There’s a growing realization that making affordable housing more available could be a key to enabling Granite Staters to lead healthier lives.

Housing is one of several “social determinants of health” that some researchers believe have a greater influence on people's well-being than traditional health care.

In New Hampshire, 40.7% of residents have at least one social risk factor known to affect health outcomes and 15.6% have three or more factors, according to the Census Bureau’s 2021 Community Resilience Estimates for Equity. 

Risk factors include poverty, age, disability, access to health insurance, housing security and race. 

In Hillsborough County, New Hampshire’s largest county, 61,974 people have three-plus risk factors, the report says; that’s 14.7 percent of all the residents of the county. Of New Hampshire residents between ages 35 and 64, 41,000 have no health care coverage.

Across the state, a network of researchers, policymakers and health care providers is working to address how these risk factors affect health outcomes for New Hampshire residents.

At the University of New Hampshire, the Carsey School for Public Policy is setting up a community loan fund to improve health conditions; plans are to address affordable housing and other social determinants of health. 

The fund is being modeled after a program at the University of Vermont, said Michael Swack, director of community development at the Carsey School’s Center for Impact Finance. 

Patients with housing insecurity — that is, people unable to pay rent or utilities, or who need to move frequently — have above-average rates of respiratory disease, chronic illness, and challenges with medication management. On the other hand, people with secure housing report fewer hospital visits and, when they go, shorter hospital stays, Swack said, citing UVM’s research.

One question on the minds of the UVM researchers, Swack said, was “’Who were the most expensive patients?’” 

“They found some of those patients included people experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness,” he said.

UVM Medical Center in Burlington launched several initiatives to address housing insecurity among patients. One was Bonvouloir House, a medical respite program run by the Community Health Centers and funded by UVM Medical Center. It offered a clean, safe environment for recovery from medical procedures or ailments for five years until it was abruptly shut down in 2023. 

Over its tenure, the program served more than 200 patients and saved the hospital system an estimated $9 million. However, in July, the program was abruptly shut down because of challenges in meeting the increasingly complex medical needs of its residents. 

Lessons learned

The New Hampshire effort has learned from this start and stop in Vermont. In contrast, Swack said, the Carsey School’s initiative is broader than one hospital and is rather a coalition of hospitals, community development organizations, health centers, government agencies and funders. The project is creating a fund that will be capitalized from multiple sources and fund multiple projects.  

“Projects affecting health outcomes can range from housing, decarbonization of buildings, including health centers and schools, to transportation, telemedicine, healthy food and more,” Swack said. “We hope to create a portfolio of investments across the state that contribute to positive health outcomes.”  

Going forward, the fund will be managed by the N.H. Community Loan Fund, a nonprofit community development financial institution that has successfully invested in communities across the state for over 40 years. Swack hopes that this fall, the fund will be open to investments, after which specific projects will be outlined. 

Another key player in the community loan fund’s development is the N.H. Hospital Association, whose involvement sprang from the work being done by Swack and others at the Carsey School.

“We were interested in creating a model for investing in social determinants of health, and what we’re doing with this fund is creating a model for investment that has never been done on a state level,” said Steve Ahnen, the hospital association’s president and CEO. 

Things that affect people’s health are often outside the hospital system, he said, such as a person’s culture, background, environment, housing, education, and other factors such as food insecurity.

 “As health care systems transition from a ‘sick-care’ system to one based on keeping people healthy — health promotion — we need to think more broadly than the four walls of a doctor’s office or clinic,” he said.

Driven by data

One way — but not the only way — that hospitals can address health promotion, Ahnen said, is to invest in housing. 

“I don’t think there’s a hospital in New Hampshire that isn’t looking at ways to deal with housing,” Ahnen said, referring to the need hospitals and communities in many parts of the state have for workforce housing and affordable housing.

“One thing we found was that a lot of hospitals have a lot of land,” Swack said, and land donations or long-term leases could help create affordable housing. “One of the biggest drivers of affordable housing costs is land, and using the N.H. Community Loan Fund means we don’t need to develop a whole new infrastructure for our fund.”

“The things that are driving health outcomes are things that we as a community need and are responsible for,” Ahnen says. “Hospitals do community needs assessments and work with community partners, but the reality is no one single entity can solve all problems on their own.”

Part of the hope for the loan fund, Ahnen says, is that it will bring stakeholders together outside of hospitals. 

“Insurers are a group we are very interested in talking with,” he says. “For them, a healthier population can mean more control in spending.”

While housing is a central issue for hospitals, Ahnen says transportation, child care and food insecurity also need to be addressed. “We’re looking at ways to partner together on major issues,” he says. “If we all work together, I’m optimistic we can have some impact.”

Ahnen says that, moving forward, the group wants to be driven by data to determine where the greatest challenges for health outcomes exist. 

“The good news is that we have a growing consensus around looking at these issues in a systemic and sustainable way,” he says. “There are great opportunities to partner with businesses and, if we can get multiple entities involved, we can have an even greater impact.”

The Marion L. Phillips Apartments in Claremont, owned by the Claremont Housing Authority. Courtesy photo

Against the wind

Efforts to address New Hampshire’s affordable housing crisis, such as the Carsey School’s initiative, are facing some difficult headwinds.

In its annual report issued in June 2023, the National Low Income Housing Coalition ranked New Hampshire the 13th most expensive state for renters, with a $29.86 hourly wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the state’s average fair market rental rate of $1,553 a month. 

Of 153,349 renter households in New Hampshire, 36,782 fell below 30% of area median income and 68,108 households were below 50% of area median income. 

According to the N.H. Housing 2023 Residential Rental Cost Survey Report, the state’s rental vacancy rate of 0.8 percent for all rentals indicates an off-balance market for tenants and landlords. A vacancy rate of 5 percent is considered balanced, according to the report.

“45% of New Hampshire renter households are paying 30% or more of their household income on rent,” the report said. “Lower-income families are likely to be paying an even higher percentage of their household income towards rent.” 

And buying a home is a struggle for many, as well.

From 2000 to 2020, state median household incomes rose 73 percent while new home prices climbed 111 percent, according to a N.H. Association of Realtors report.

In August, the Realtors’ affordability index fell to 59, the lowest on record. That means the state's median household income is just 59 percent of what is necessary to qualify for a median-priced home under prevailing interest rates.

The median price for a New Hampshire single-family residential was $490,000 in August 2023, up 9 percent from August 2022, the highest ever for the month, and the second-highest of any month in state history.

“To make up for the current deficit of housing units and return the state to a healthy housing market, 88,400 new housing units will be needed by 2040,” the Realtors’ report says. “To maintain the state’s homeownership rate of 71%, 58,000 of these units should create homeownership opportunities and 30,000 should be rental units.

On the bright side, according to a July survey done by the Saint Anselm College Center for Ethics and Society, 78 percent of New Hampshire voters think their communities need more affordable housing to be built and 58 percent want more affordable homes in their own neighborhoods.

The percentage of people who think New Hampshire should change its planning and zoning laws to allow for more affordable housing has more than doubled since 2020, to 60 percent, according to the survey.

Max Latona, a philosophy professor who runs the Center for Ethics and Society at Saint Anselm, said the lack of affordable housing is holding people and communities back from achieving their potential, and building affordable housing is something communities ought to do. 

“This basic lack of housing is undermining our well-being at a community level and at a social level. We need more housing to help us flourish,” Latona said.

These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org. 

Debate over Nashua asphalt plant is a ‘classic case’ of environmental justice

By Scott Merrill and Kylie Valluzzi, Granite State News Collaborative

Last June, neighbors in Nashua celebrated an environmental victory: City officials had rejected a proposal to build a hot-mix asphalt plant in the city’s North End, a neighborhood that historically had been a mix of industrial and residential.

City zoning laws would allow the plant to be built in that neighborhood, but the Nashua Planning Board found that the “transitioning nature of the neighborhood” toward residential justified rejection of the asphalt plant.

Critics argued that the asphalt plant proposed by Newport Construction Corp. would have been in the wrong place, a residential area that includes low-income communities and communities of color, as well as schools, businesses and churches. The case has ignited a fierce debate about environmental justice and the true cost of progress. 

Today, however, the neighborhood’s victory remains in doubt, as the fight continues on several fronts.

First, Newport Construction has filed suit challenging the planning board’s decision, contending that the city’s own rules should have allowed construction of the asphalt plant. 

Second, the N.H. Department of Environmental Services’ Air Resources Division is reviewing the company’s air permit application to see if the asphalt plant would comply with state and federal air pollution standards. 

As these fights continue nearly one year later, the people who live in the area argue they should have more of a say in what’s acceptable in their neighborhood, and object strongly to the proposed asphalt plant.

“Who wants to live or work in a place where the daily experience is overshadowed by the coming and going of dump trucks and tractor-trailers and is set to the soundtrack of crushing rock and diesel motors? The City of Nashua in 2022 is not the same as the city of 1952,” Rob Pinsonneault, an environmental science teacher at Bishop Guertin High School for 14 years, wrote in an opinion column published in the New Hampshire Union Leader in December 2022.  “It is the wrong industry in the wrong place at the wrong time.” 

“People who live in that neighborhood deserve better.”

New Hampshire is the only New England state without an environmental justice law or policy protecting socially vulnerable people from the burdens of development and ensuring environmental benefits are equitably distributed.

Even so, a growing stream of organizations — hospitals, health care workers, legal experts, community rights organizations, and other individuals from around the state — are working to uphold environmental justice principles and to find solutions for difficult problems involving sustainability and quality of life.

That’s what happened in Nashua last year, when the proposed asphalt plant was rejected.

A ‘classic case’

“This is a classic case of environmental justice,” said Tom Irwin, vice president of the Conservation Law Foundation of New Hampshire. His organization joined the fight opposing the asphalt plant, as did 350 NH Action, a state group advocating for climate justice, plus members of Nashua’s faith community. 

Also in the fight is environmental attorney Amy Manzelli, whose clients include Riverfront Landing LLC, an apartment complex that is fighting for the right to intervene in Newport Construction’s appeal of the planning board ruling. It was denied the right to intervene by the N.H. Superior Court in March, and has appealed that ruling to the N.H. Supreme Court.

Manzelli says it would be a “tremendous deprivation of justice” if the Conservation Law Foundation and Riverfront are not allowed to intervene. 

“The city will do justice to the city's interests,” she says. “But the only one who can do the best justice by Riverfront is Riverfront, the one who has millions and millions of dollars at stake.”

A Supreme Court hearing on the appeal is expected by this summer.

Last June, the Nashua Planning Board rejected the Newport Construction application for a permit, citing concerns about balancing the health burdens and the benefits of construction for those in the community and finding that the plant’s permit would violate the city’s site plan ordinance, which is tied to its master plan.

“We’re just making the people who are most marginalized sick,” said Tonia Knisley, a Nashua resident who’s been speaking against the plant since she heard of it in 2022. “And it doesn’t matter how much you disguise a smell of a chemical; you’re still inhaling the chemical. It’s still affecting your body.” 

Knisley lives on Burke Street, a mile from the proposed plant site. Her grandchildren attend Dr. Norman W. Crisp Elementary School, seven-tenths of a mile from the site.

The neighborhood is not unfamiliar with “waste-site situations,” she said. Behind the elementary school sat a dump in the 1960s, which has long since been filled and is now home to the school’s track. But she suspects toxins from the dump caused health problems.

"My opinion is that I don't want it. It's in the middle of a residential neighborhood and, historically, that has never been a good combination,” she said. 

“In my opinion, it should not be built in that area,” said Angela Mercado, director of Nashua’s Community Engagement Training Center. “We should think and add parks or more housing. That area is very close to the main streets; it has many neighborhoods around. 

“Nashua is growing and has many newcomers, the rents are so off the market, and we need affordable rent and recreational parks for our community, instead of the asphalt plant that would create traffic,” Mercado said. 

‘Nobody knew what was happening’

Efforts to stop Newport Construction’s proposed asphalt plant at 145 Temple St. began in the spring of 2022, when state Rep. Alicia Gregg, D-Nashua, began knocking on people’s doors in her ward to explain potential problems with the plant, including noise and air pollution.

“This is a community that is already marginalized, and I knocked on every door and nobody knew what was happening,” Gregg said. “One woman who came to the door with an oxygen tank became emotional when we spoke about the issue of air pollutants, and I encouraged her to do something. I reminded all the people I met that they are the real experts in their neighborhood.”

Manzelli argued to the Nashua Planning Board last year that the plant would not be consistent with Nashua’s master plan, “Imagine Nashua.” 

Nashua’s planning and zoning ordinances state that site plans must be “consistent with the goals, objectives and strategies adopted as part of the city’s master plan,” Manzelli said. She argued to the planning board that residents of the Temple Street neighborhood were particularly vulnerable because they trail state averages on various socioeconomic measures.

People with less than a high school education in the Temple Street neighborhood are 2.6 times higher than the New Hampshire average, the unemployment rate is 2.25 times higher than the New Hampshire average, people of low income are 2.6 times higher than the New Hampshire average, and people with limited English proficiency are five times the New Hampshire average.

“The developer is never going to say they didn’t care about ‘those people,’ but the fact that they disregarded this residential community and described it as the perfect site for an industrial hot-mix asphalt plant demonstrates they didn’t care for these people,” she said. “Nashua as a whole is one of the most diverse communities in the state.”

Manzelli’s client and the Nashua city government had economic studies performed that showed the plant would have driven down nearby property values by millions of dollars. 

“A lot of these homes around the plant are not owner-occupied; they’re renter-occupied,” she said. Landlords taking an economic hit could need to increase rent, or sell. “These folks would be very, very, disproportionately affected by any decreases in value,” she said.

Environmental issues she raised included the plant’s impact on water resources, given how much of the neighborhood was covered by impervious materials — concrete, asphalt and buildings — paired with the substances proposed to be stored, transported, used, and manufactured. 

“People were concerned about all of the possible impacts from the plant,” Manzelli said, such as pollution, traffic, and a decrease in property values.

Defining environmental justice

Environmental justice work takes place in an interdisciplinary field of community advocates, lawyers, public health experts, business leaders, and others committed to principles of justice. The issues they raise range from heat-related illnesses, dangerous roadways, food insecurity, unsafe housing, air, noise, water pollution, and many more. 

The term environmental justice emerged in the United States in the 1980s and has two distinct uses. The more common use refers to a social movement by which fairness is addressed regarding environmental burdens and benefits.

The other use refers to an interdisciplinary body of social science literature that includes theories of the environment and justice, environmental laws and their implementations, environmental policy and planning, and governance for development and sustainability.

Over the last 10 years, towns and cities across New Hampshire have drafted statements focusing on sustainability, equity and quality of life. Rights-based ordinances have emerged that express a community’s desire to protect health and safety of people and ecosystems. 

Nashua’s master plan includes a statement that all people in the city “should have access to resources that enable a healthy, safe and vibrant life” that is aligned with the city’s site planning ordinance, which steers land use policy. 

Creating a community network

Soon after Arnold Mikolo learned about the asphalt plant proposal, he went to work identifying people in the Temple Street area who would be affected by it. Mikolo, a Conservation Law Foundation environmental justice community advocate, participated in forming an advisory group that included others willing to help organize the community. 

Citizens Against the Asphalt Plant, started by community activist Jo Anne St. John with the help of Rep. Gregg, Mikolo, Pinsonneault and others, met at St. John’s house in the lead-up to the planning board meetings that began in 2022. 

Pinsonneault completed a Ph.D. earlier in his teaching career and now is completing a master’s degree in environmental law and policy at the University of Vermont Law School. St. John introduced Pinsonneault to the Conservation Law Foundation and the asphalt plant issue last year. 

St. John “heard about my background and said, ‘Boy, do I have an issue for you,’” Pinsonneault recalls, since the asphalt plant would be only a couple of blocks from his home on the Merrimack River. 

St. John, who has been active in Nashua politics since she and her husband moved to the city from Massachusetts in the 1970s, became involved with stopping the asphalt plant after reading an article about it. She connected with Irwin at the Conservation Law Foundation, who suggested she meet Mikolo. From there, she reached out to Pinsonneault and Gregg.

Pinsonneault and his wife moved to Riverfront Landing on Bancroft Street in part, he says, to support the neighborhood rejuvenation.

In his December 2022 opinion column, Pinsonnealt took issue with Newport Construction’s argument that nuisances like noise, traffic and pollution would be accounted for and counterbalanced by increases in jobs and other benefits to the local economy. He argued the plant’s economic advantages would be outweighed by health burdens placed on residents, and the effects on businesses and property values. 

St. John says she was very disappointed by a meeting in late September, held by the N.H. Department of Environmental Services to address rules for future public hearings regarding Newport Construction’s appeal. 

“They’re focusing on air quality issues and people will only be able to speak about this aspect,” she said, and not about emissions from trucks or other issues. “These are people who aren’t going to understand a lot of the technical language about air pollutants. They’re not going to be heard. It seemed like an insult to the public.”  

Gregg, a domestic violence survivor, says she understands the dangers of voices not being heard. 

“We need to look at things more broadly and from our own communities’ perspective,” she says. She didn’t go door to door in 2022 to win votes, she said; rather, “I wanted to hear people’s voices. And throughout this process we wanted to show respect to the planning board, and we did.”

Newport Construction Corp. is continuing its effort in Hillsborough County Superior Court to build an asphalt plant at 145-147 Temple St. in Nashua. File photo by Nashua Ink Link

Building a belief in the system

Manzelli says that, for her, the asphalt plant issue is primarily about justice in general and restoring people's faith in the system. 

“In my career, the importance of these cases isn’t so much on environmental justice, but on justice,” Manzelli says. “In cases like this, I hear people say things like, ‘I didn’t know this was possible.’ Cases like the one in Nashua make people want to participate in government more.”

Manzelli says the Nashua case allows people to see that “not every developer’s application is going to be rubber-stamp approved.”

“Ultimately, it’s about building that kind of belief or that kind of faith in the system, and this is what's going to help people facing environmental burdens.”

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

Breaking barriers: New state plan aims to improve public transit and cut emissions

By Kylie Valluzzi, Granite State News Collaborative

The Friendly Bus offers transportation in Keene, provided by Home Health Care and Community Services. Provided photo

In 2010, Ethan Crossman, age 10, moved from Rutland, Vermont, to Barnstead, New Hampshire. As a child, he remembered Rutland to be a walkable city; he walked to school every day with his friends and biked around the neighborhood.

But when he moved to Belknap County, just south of New Hampshire’s Lakes Region, it was no longer possible for Ethan to walk to school or the store, or bike to and from friends’ houses; they were just too far apart. Ethan felt isolated. Everything was 30 minutes away, he said.

As he got older, “it was always a struggle to have enough money to have a car running and the cars would break down,” Ethan said. “Most of our conversations would be about coordinating, ‘Oh, how do I get a ride here?’ and ‘How do we figure out how to get there?’ and ‘This car’s in the shop.’”

It’s no secret that rural America is lacking in public transportation systems. But for people like Ethan to build a successful life, and to help deal with transportation emissions that are worsening the climate crisis, accessible transportation options are vital.

That’s why the N.H. Department of Environmental Services' new Priority Climate Action Plan stresses the support and expansion of public transportation options in New Hampshire.

Culturally, Ethan said, driving is a cornerstone of American society. But not everyone can drive or has access to a car. Ethan’s mom and brother, for example, both have disabilities. His brother is unable to drive and his mom drives only out of necessity. 

When he attended the University of New Hampshire in Durham, Ethan said he realized that “life is more pleasant when you don’t have to be scrambling for money, scrambling to try to get a vehicle running, and just not having that feeling of isolation.”

“I just want to live in a society where everyone can participate, rather than those who are able-bodied enough and have enough money to drive,” he said.

Better funding for public transportation would also be a step to reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, transportation is New Hampshire’s largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. As reported previously by the Collaborative, 45.9% of N.H. greenhouse gases were caused by transportation. About 40% of that was from passenger cars alone.

Public transit in NH, currently 

According to the N.H. Department of Transportation, there are 12 local bus systems in New Hampshire, including intercity service that connects New Hampshire communities to the larger region, and specialized services for seniors and individuals with disabilities.

Yet only 34 of 244 population centers have a regular fixed bus route. Over 40 communities lack any transportation services at all, according to a 2022 report from the N.H. Transit Association.

For long-distance travel, passenger rail service in New Hampshire is provided by the Amtrak Downeaster with stops in Dover, Durham and Exeter, and by the Vermonter, with a stop at Claremont Junction as well as Vermont communities in the Connecticut River Valley. But for getting to work or visiting your mother, rail service is not a solution.

In 2021, New Hampshire ranked 48th among the 50 states for total public transportation funding, including local, state and federal allocations. It was the only New England state that year to allocate no state funds for general public transit operating support.

Since then, the Granite State was allocated $24.3 million through President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to improve public transportation options in fiscal year 2022 and 2023. The state would “expect to receive approximately $126 million over five years” under the law to improve public transit. But that is still a small figure in comparison to the $532.2 million allocated for roads, bridges, roadway safety, and major projects.

On the other side of the river

This year, Vermont allocated $48.8 million to support public transportation, as well as $43 million for rail projects and $27.9 million to continue implementing programs to reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector, as reported by trucking news magazine Land Line.

Vermont has 13 local and regional public transportation service agencies, including one regional authority, one transit district, two towns and nine private nonprofit corporations.

Green Mountain Transit of Chittenden County is one of those agencies and provides over 2.5 million trips each year, mostly in the greater Burlington area. In 2020, GMT partnered with the Special Services Transportation Agency to create the O&D Transportation Program, O&D being “Older Adults and Persons with Disabilities.” 

The service operates in addition to Vermont’s other agencies to fill gaps in other services such as fixed-route transit, non-emergency medical transportation or ADA (Americans with Disabilities) transportation. O&D transit relies on volunteer drivers in private vehicles, but also uses various vehicle fleets of ADA-compliant vans, sedans and minivans. The program depends on the involvement of local partners: agencies tasked with providing services to riders and making the local contribution to funding, and transit providers who maintain and operate the vehicles.

GMT has an estimated operations and management budget of $17.8 million for fiscal year 2024, according to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission’s Transportation Improvement Plan. Of that, $9.6 million comes from federal grants and $2.3 million from state funding. 

Southeast Vermont Transit operates the MOOver, which serves Windham and southern Windsor counties, both located on the New Hampshire border. MOOver provides free door-to-door transportation for riders age 60 or over and for persons with ADA-defined disabilities.

Why should we invest in public transit?

According to the American Public Transportation Association's Transit Savings Report, people who ride public transit instead of driving can save an average of $13,000 annually, or $1,100 a month.

Additionally, in New Hampshire, a 2021 study by the Rockingham Planning Commission and Strafford Regional Planning Commission found that every $1 invested in the transit services provided by Cooperative Alliance for Seacoast Transportation (COAST) generated about $4.08 of activity in the local economy. 

Expansion of public transit was also a key recommendation in the state’s 2024 Plan on Aging. In 2030, a third of New Hampshire’s population will be 65 or older. A lack of public transit can make it difficult for older people to participate in civic life, see loved ones, get to a doctor’s office, or obtain other services, especially in rural areas. 

There are five urban transit agencies across the state, including Nashua Transit System, which provides service to nine communities within the Greater Nashua and Milford regions, and Manchester Transit Authority, which is the primary transit provider in nearly a dozen communities ranging in size from New Boston to Manchester. 

Additionally, COAST serves the Seacoast region, Wildcat Transit serves the University of New Hampshire and nearby towns, and CART serves Chester, Derry, Hampstead, Londonderry and Salem.

Five agencies serve the state’s rural communities. Yet, access is still scarce. Even today, Ethan’s conversations with his family revolve heavily around transportation.

“When I talk with my dad nowadays, the majority of the conversation is about what [car’s] broken and how are we going to come up with money to fix it,” he said.

What the PCAP suggests

On April 1, the N.H. Department of Environmental Services applied for federal environmental funding, requesting almost $50 million to fund six measures, including $5 million for support and expansion of public transportation options. 

According to the grant application, the money would be used to distribute “subawards to eligible entities that manage public transportation in the state.” Subawards would be based on adding or maintaining passenger miles of public transportation and achieving the goals of the Climate Pollution Reduction Grants program within the grant’s time frame. The state will not learn until July whether it will get any of that money.

Even a small increase in investment could be life-changing, Ethan said. 

“If something existed where my mom could visit her friends or go to the store on a bus, that would increase her quality of life,” he said.

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

Legislature’s lawyers say revisions to minimum education standards could violate the N.H, Constitution

Legal concerns echo policy worries being voiced by critics

By Kelly Burch

The N.H. Department of Education’s proposed revisions in New Hampshire’s minimum standards for public schools may violate the state constitution. 

That’s according to written feedback on the standards, known as the 306s, provided by the Office of Legislative Services, an arm of the N.H. Legislature. 

Reviewing a draft proposal for legal compliance, the office flagged more concerns than are typical in a rules review, according to Christina R. Muñiz, senior committee attorney with the office’s Administrative Rules Unit. Those concerns include a potential constitutional issue, which is “pretty rare” to see in the rulemaking process, she added. 

The 306s, a set of administrative rules that govern the minimum standards for public school approval in New Hampshire, have been under revision since 2020. The process typically takes place every 10  years. After paying a contractor $75,000 to facilitate a revision, the state Department of Education introduced its own draft of the 306s in February, and accepted public comment on that document. Granite Staters provided more than 200 pieces of written testimony in response.

Despite that, the draft proposal is moving toward formal adoption. The review by the Office of Legislative Services is typically done before an updated version is introduced to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR), which can approve, conditionally approve, or object to the rules. Neither the office nor the committee is concerned with policy; instead, they focus on ensuring that the rules work as intended under New Hampshire law. 

Despite that, the concerns highlighted by the office align closely with those expressed by educators and members of the public who have been critical of the 306 update. The fact that the same issues arose from both a policy and legal standpoint is “really powerful,” said Christina Pretorius, policy director for Reaching Higher NH, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on education in the Granite State. 

“It really goes a long way in showing that, regardless of your political background, your views on education … that fundamentally there are some serious and very legitimate concerns with this rule proposal,” she said. 

Undermining an adequate education?

Muñiz said the possible constitutional issue centers on changing the word “shall” — which is legally binding — to “may” — which is not—  in “most of the rules.” That seemingly small shift “may create a situation where you don’t have a constitutionally adequate education throughout the state,” she said. 

The New Hampshire Constitution requires the state to fund an adequate education — the subject of over 30 years of lawsuits. Critics of the 306 revision have previously expressed worry that the change could result in less education funding from the state, since fewer subjects would be required. 

Ultimately, the state Supreme Court would need to consider the question of constitutionality, but a finding that the rules are unconstitutional is “a possible outcome,” Muñiz said.

The office’s review highlighted other legal concerns, including the fact that the rules seem to redefine “equity,” tossing aside the current accepted definition. That made portions of the rules on equity unclear, according to Muñiz.

“If a word has a definition, use that definition — don’t make up a new one,” she said.

Educators have expressed concerns about changes in sections on equity throughout the revision process, saying they could water down protections for vulnerable students.

Next steps

With the initial review complete, the Department of Education will likely adjust the draft before submitting a final version for legal review. That must happen at least three weeks before a meeting where the JLCAR — made up of five state representatives and five senators — is set to consider the rules. 

Once the Department of Education brings the updated rule proposal to the joint committee, the committee cannot reject it for policy reasons. It can object in only four circumstances, which are outlined in New Hampshire law:

• If the rule isn’t within the authority of the agency

• If it isn’t within the intent of the Legislature

• If it is not in the public interest

• If it has an economic impact that hasn’t been explained

Critics have said they may try to stop the adoption of the rules based on the public interest provision. However, under the law, that provision cannot be used to make policy objections; instead, it’s used when a rule is unclear or cannot be uniformly applied. 

“It’s not contrary to public interest just because people don’t like it,” Muñiz said. 

Although public comments are now closed on the draft proposal, the public can submit written or verbal testimony to the JLCAR once the 306s are on a meeting agenda, Muñiz said. The feedback must be related to the four outlined circumstances for the committee. 

Pretorius, of Reaching Higher, said it’s important for the public to continue to stay engaged, not just at the state level but with their local school districts. Meanwhile, Reaching Higher is continuing to compile and make public the written feedback from community members and educators.

“We’ve seen a number of very specific recommendations that can make the proposal stronger and advance a vision of a high-equality education system in the state,” she said.

Read the Office of Legislative Services’ Documents

Follow the Granite State News Collaborative’s series on Competency-Based Education to stay up-to-date on this developing story. These articles are being shared by partners in the Granite State News Collaborative. For more information, visit collaborativenh.org.

What the science says about food waste

By Michael McCord, Granite State News Collaborative

Just as New Hampshire has yet to run a comprehensive food waste characterization study, the same could be said nationally. A landmark 2023 EPA study laid out over three decades of research about the impact of food waste and its connection to methane emissions. The study is unique in part because, as the EPA acknowledges in its summary, “there is no other peer-reviewed national reference point for the amount of methane emissions attributable to food waste” in American municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.

Some of the findings include:

• In 2020, food waste was responsible for approximately 55 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions in MSW landfills across the country.

• An estimated 58 percent of the fugitive methane emissions (i.e., those released to the atmosphere) from MSW landfills are from landfilled food waste.

• An estimated 61 percent of methane generated by landfilled food waste is not captured by landfill gas collection systems and is released to the atmosphere. Because food waste decays relatively quickly, its emissions often occur before landfill gas collection systems are installed or expanded.

• While total methane emissions from MSW landfills are decreasing due to improvements in landfill gas collection systems, methane emissions from landfilled food waste are increasing.

• For every 1,000 tons (907 metric tons) of food waste landfilled, an estimated 34 metric tons of fugitive methane emissions (838 mmt CO2e) are released.

• Reducing landfilled food waste by 50 percent in 2015 could have decreased cumulative fugitive landfill methane emissions by approximately 77 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (mmt CO2e) by 2020, compared to business as usual. 

(Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, or CO2e, measures how much total greenhouse gas has been released into the atmosphere, which includes carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxide. Methane, according to the EPA, is 28 times more potent than carbon dioxide in trapping heat in the atmosphere)

In layperson’s terms, as food waste in an anaerobic (covered, minimal air circulation) landfill slowly decomposes, it creates methane-producing bacteria that is either captured through landfill collection systems or naturally released into the atmosphere as a gas. The best illustration is the often-told story of the lettuce head taking 25 years to decompose while it produces methane all that time. By comparison, food waste in a compost bin can take as little as three weeks to fully decompose. 

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

Solving New Hampshire’s food waste problem one step at a time

By Michael McCord, Granite State News Collaborative

Joan Cudworth had a burst of show-and-tell inspiration in the summer of 2018.

Cudworth, who was then solid waste supervisor for the town of Hollis, came to the select board meeting with a partial solution to tackle the rising costs of trash disposal. She wanted town leaders to fast-track a pilot program to cut down on the amount of food waste being sent to landfills.

“We were looking to reduce trash and taxes,” Cudworth said. “I knew it was a small step. but it was important to get buy-in from the select board.” Cudworth composed at her home and learned how little trash remained after the composting and recycling. She came to the meeting with a transparent, medium-sized bowl containing a week’s worth of food scraps from her house – lettuce, strawberry tops, radish tops, fruit scrapes, rice, egg shells, cucumber and potato peels. The show and tell worked.

Packalina, Hollis transfer station composting mascot

“I remember people were fascinated by the possibilities,” Cudworth said. The select board immediately approved money for two Department of Public Works employees to attend the Maine Compost School. By 2019, the pilot program was up and running and collecting around 50 pounds of food waste a week (local schools were already running their own compost programs) at the transfer station. Residents who stopped by were greeted by a composting mascot named “Packalina.”

Cudworth, who became the public works director in 2020, says the total of food waste collected now tops 200 pounds weekly. That may not seem like a lot but, like compound interest, it adds up – to 10,400 pounds annually, which means that the town of about 8,000 residents has diverted more than five tons of food waste from landfills while decreasing climate-harming methane production from food waste fermenting in landfills.

“We are still experimenting and still learning. We don’t know how many are coming to the transfer station or how many residents know about the program,” Cudworth.

Food waste a state priority

Paige Wilson, waste reduction and diversion planner at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services

Paige Wilson, waste reduction and diversion planner at the N.H. Department of Environmental Services, has been busier than normal since the state passed its first food waste ban last summer. The law will go into effect on Feb. 1, 2025. It is focused on entities that generate as much as one ton of food waste a week. That food waste will be prohibited from being sent to landfills. Over the past decade, lawmakers in the nearby states of Vermont, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut have enacted varying levels of food waste disposal bans.  

“Food waste is something we all have in common, and composting is a low-hanging-fruit solution,” Wilson said.

It’s also a solution that needs a major expansion of infrastructure. Wilson is the education outreach and planning person, and her job is to assist commercial and municipal organizations, so she sees firsthand that food waste diversion in New Hampshire needs a major expansion of public and private infrastructure for a more sustainable path.

“There are a lot of factors that go into a sustainable (food waste diversion) program: budgeting, staffing, feasible space” for larger-scale composting, she said. 

Another issue will be addressed in the coming year. The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that state residents put more than 180,000 tons of food waste into landfills — about 24 percent of all waste. But no on-ground studies have been done to better approximate the actual amount. Wilson said more comprehensive studies have been funded and will be launched – by literally sorting through trash.

“We’ve never had a state (food waste) characterization study on the amount of food. We will do one now by literally hand-sorting through 250 pounds of waste to get data,” Wilson said. Because the state has made food waste a priority, a diverse constituency of summer camps, municipalities, hospitals, schools, hospitals, nursing homes and any organizations that generates food waste has heard the call and reached out to find out what they can do.

“What you are seeing is a huge resurgence of interest in solid waste and recycling,” said Rep. Karen Ebel, D-New London, the prime sponsor of the bipartisan food waste ban legislation and chair of the state’s Solid Waste Working Group. “I feel like we are making progress.”

In particular, she said, it was a positive step that 50 percent ($500,000) of the state’s Solid Waste Municipal Fund appropriated by the legislature to food diversion efforts will include staffing and grants. 

The cost of infrastructure

It’s not easy to come up with a solid estimate on the cost of building out a food waste recovery infrastructure.

According to Paige Wilson, “New Hampshire will need infrastructure investments all along the food recovery chain, but the costs vary so much depending on where you’re at in the chain. The price tag for buying a refrigerator at a food bank looks different than the costs of purchasing equipment at a composting facility. I’d say it’s going to take millions of dollars to build the needed infrastructure across New Hampshire, in order to reach our disposal reduction goals set in statute (25 percent reduction in landfill solid waste by 2030 and 45 percent reduction by 2050).”

Reagan Bissonnette, executive director of the Northeast Resource Recovery Association, agreed that it will cost millions, but patience, innovation and more legal requirements will be needed.

Reagan Bissonnette, Executive Director of the Northeast Resource Recovery Association

“Infrastructure money is not enough. Other states have found that without a landfill ban on some food waste in place, it’s difficult to have enough food waste supply to make an investment in infrastructure financially viable in the long term,” she said. “An example is the Waste Management Core facility in Massachusetts. Even with a statewide food waste ban in place, it took longer than they expected to get enough supply from businesses and others to get the facility operating at capacity.”

Vermont, said Wilson, is “a New England state to learn from because they’re in a territory right now that is unknown to the rest of us. A statewide food waste disposal ban that applies to everyone comes with a lot of learning curves, new systems, and innovation.”

Over the years, said Bissonnette, Vermont has implemented tiered food waste disposal bans over time. They started with banning disposal of food waste from large generators of waste (like hospitals and universities), then slowly lowered the generation amount until all food waste, even from residential homes, cannot be landfilled.” 

Making composting work

At its Kingman Farm research facility, the University of New Hampshire in Durham has one of the largest compost-creating operations in the state, and it has been operating since the mid-1990s. Colleen Stewart at the New Hampshire Food Alliance (which is part of the UNH Sustainability Institute), said UNH had one of the first campus compost programs in the country. In 2023, UNH dining halls sent 386,260 pounds of food pulp to Kingman Farm composting rows, which creates nutrient-rich soil. That soil is used by students to create crops for some of the produce served at UNH dining halls.

In a June 2023 UNH Today article detailing the composting program, Anton Bekkerman, director of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station at Kingman Farm, said “the program here at UNH really highlights that even without large investments into infrastructure and labor that a composting program can be implemented by the Granite State’s smallest towns and village to ultimately reduce waste and provide a nutrient-rich additive to gardens and farms.”

The topic of food waste diversion was front and center during two days of workshops in April hosted by the Northeast Resource Recovery Association. Reagan Bissonnette, NRRA’s executive director, said her Epsom-based organization has been targeting food waste diversion for the past five years, in addition to more than four decades of recycling educational efforts. She said about 50 people from municipalities and businesses from across the state attended the four workshops, which were co-hosted by the N.H. Department of Environmental Services and the Maine Compost School.

Bissonnette said among the many points covered at the workshops – which were free, courtesy of a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant – participants learned a few surprising truths about food waste:

• Most wasted food is generated by households (almost 43 percent), not manufacturers or retailers.

• In 2022, roughly 38 percent of the U.S. food supply went unsold or uneaten.

• Preventing wasted food has a bigger positive environmental impact than composting wasted food.

Composting 101: Participants at recent NRRA food waste diversion workshop

“One town concluded that they need to send a mailer to their entire town to effectively get out the word about their existing composting program,” she said.

The topic of food waste diversion will  be the focus of a keynote panel at the NRRA annual conference in Concord in June. Later this year, she said, NRRA will conduct its first bus tour focused on waste diversion programs at various landfills and transfer stations.

Citizen involvement

Not unlike Joan Cudworth in Hollis, Paul Karpawich was inspired to do something positive to tackle the climate change crisis as a lone citizen. 

“I feel that people can be overwhelmed about climate change,” said Karpawich, who had migrated north from Massachusetts and was living in southern New Hampshire town of Brookline when he began looking at the bigger picture of long-term sustainability. The veteran of the high-tech industry said he “kind of gravitated” to food waste diversion in part because “food waste is so prevalent in our society,” and it was something everybody could do.

Karpawich had no title and few contacts, but he persevered, and in 2022 created the New Hampshire Food Waste Diversion and Sharing Initiative with the help of small grants from the World Wildlife Fund and U.S. Department of Agriculture. The program is a collaborative effort between individuals, schools and towns to develop best practices that reduce food waste and prevent it from going to landfills.

Evan Ford, UNH Kingman Farm manager with compost pile in 2023 (UNH courtesy photo)

More importantly, he focused on elementary and secondary school students to get them involved early. “By taking small concentrated steps this can be a catalyst for students, schools and towns to create a long-lasting paradigm shift for a transition to a more sustainable future,” he said. He has seen the impact of schools institutionalizing their efforts, with a few school boards allocating budget funds for the pickup of composting loads.

The initial success of the program has led to more grants and increased ability to jump-start food waste diversion programs at schools. The initiative has spread from the elementary school in Hollis, the first participant, to schools in Northwood, Bethlehem, Hopkinton (where Karpawich now lives) and others. He said the educational aspects of the program (math, science and environmental awareness) have been matched by a remarkable level of dedication by students who get involved.

“When kids do this, they are very present, not looking at their phones. I have seen at the elementary and high school levels that they become very passionate and take ownership of the programs at their schools,” he said.

Find out more: NRRA offers a Waste Reduction and Diversion Toolkit, a list and links to almost 20 municipalities offering food diversion and composting programs, and a list of farms and pick up services serving New Hampshire.

The EPA is awarding between $10 million and $20 million in Environmental and Climate Justice Community Change grants for multi-faceted projects addressing a range of pollution, climate change, and other priority issues, including food waste diversion. This application period goes through November.

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

For the first time, education commissioner speaks publicly about minimum standards revision, but he faces skepticism

At meeting, Manchester school board members voice frustrations to Edelblut

By Kelly Burch-Granite State News Collaborative

MANCHESTER—After an hour-long public conversation with the commissioner of the N.H.  Department of Education, school board members in Manchester – the state’s largest school district–  remained frustrated by a lack of clear answers and unconvinced that proposed revisions to the state’s minimum standards for public schools, known as the 306s, will improve education in the Granite state. 

Despite that, the state Board of Education plans to finalize the revisions as soon as next month. 

“It’s problematic that [the commissioner] often said that the revisions raised the bar on education, and yet the feedback from hundreds of constituents all agree that in fact it lowers the bar,” said Sean Parr, a member of the Manchester Board of School Committee. “That’s a real problem, when there’s this big disconnect between that claim and what is actually in the revisions.”

The 306s are undergoing a once-in-a-decade update, a process that educators say has lacked transparency and resulted in a document that could weaken public education in the state. The Manchester school board echoed those points in a March letter announcing its opposition to the current draft of the revisions. The board invited Edelblut to Monday’s meeting to respond. 

“It’s important to acknowledge we’re not the only ones who are concerned about these rule changes,” Parr said at the Monday meeting. "Hundreds and hundreds of citizens have expressed the same concerns.”

After more than an hour of questions, James O’Connell, vice chair of the school committee, said he remains “distrustful of the process,” and asked the commissioner to express his commitment to the state’s public education system. 

“In the end, we want a great public education system, and Mr. Edelblut… you’re not always viewed as the greatest champion of public education,” O’Connell said.

In reply, Edelblut demurred. 

“I am a champion of children,” he said. 

Downplaying concerns

Throughout the session, Edelblut seemed to downplay concerns, saying, “This  is just one of those processes that can be noisy.” 

He said that some worries expressed in public comments were “not germane” to the discussion of the revisions. He also dismissed concerns outlined by Reaching Higher NH, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to education in the Granite State, as “generalities” that weren’t “actionable.” 

Most concerning to Parr, he said, was that “there was no guarantee from [Edelblut] that the public would see the final draft before it was submitted” for formal approval and implementation. 

The state board released a draft document on Feb. 18, and has since held public comment sessions, but has not made a revised document public. Despite that, lawyers with the Office of Legislative Services are already reviewing a draft of the document to ensure it complies with the law. 

“Process-wise, what actually might be revised at this point, because we’re all concerned about a lot of the changes there,” Parr said at the meeting. 

The commissioner deflected.

“The bottom line is we did not get answers to our questions,” Parr said after the meeting. 

In a follow-up email, a spokesperson for the Department of Education declined to say when the public can expect to see a final draft or public feedback that was collected, but added that the Board of Education “will adopt a final proposal maybe in June or July.”

At a Monday meeting, members of the Manchester Board of School Committee peppered N.H. Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut with questions and concerns about his department’s proposed changes to the state’s minimum standards for public schools, known as the 306s. It was the first time Edelblut has spoken publicly about the ongoing revision process. (Andrew Sylvia/Manchester Ink Link)

Class size requirements, equity and funding

One of the prominent concerns during Monday’s meeting was over the removal of specific class size limits. Edelblut argued that the new wording specifies that class size limits should be set locally, based on students’ needs and other factors. 

“We’re trying to say, ‘Let’s make thoughtful decisions about this,’” Edelblut said. 

Committee members pushed back, saying that with no maximum class sizes outlined at the state level, local factions on school boards could choose to increase class sizes drastically. 

“I am concerned that there could be another instance of a small ideological faction coming into authority in one district and significantly underfunding or changing policies and standards …” said Board of School Committee member Chris Potter. “In cases like that, do you think that these are truly adequate for our students?”

Potter added that he was particularly thinking about the town Croydon, which slashed its school budget by half in 2022, a move that was later reversed after community members advocated for a revote. 

Committee member Liz O’Neil asked how the state could evaluate class sizes “with fidelity” when no maximum size is included in the standards. Edelblut replied that districts would need to prove to the board of education that their class size decisions have “a logic model behind it.”

Edelblut also addressed concerns over equity and the adjustment of some language in the document. Around equity, he said that the draft of the 306s aims to close achievement gaps without wading “into the identity politics” by listing marginalized populations. 

“If I’ve got LQBTQ+ students who are struggling, I need to help them, but if I have LGBTQ+ students who are not struggling, that are succeeding, then I don’t need to group them together … ” he said. “The grouping needs to be focused around the students who are behind, not the students based on their other identity that they may have.”

Yet, to address concerns, the board is considering changing the definition of equity to include “individuals or groupings of individuals based on their identified needs,” Edelblut said. 

Finally, Edelblut clarified the decision to switch the term “certified educator” to “licensed educator” in the document, which he said was done to keep the language in line with state statutes. 

“People saw the word certified crossed out and maybe missed the fact that we had inserted licensure and maybe thought we had eliminated it, which is not the case,” he said. 

Committee members expressed concerns about language being shifted from “shall” to “may” –  changes that “open the door to suggest ‘may not,’” said committee member Julie Turner. If subjects including arts, physical education, social studies and electives are optional, the state may not be required to fund them as part of an adequate education, the subject of ongoing lawsuits in the state, committee members said. 

Edelblut replied that the formula for calculating an adequate education is outlined in statute, not in the minimum standards, but that answer did not satisfy the committee. 

“The funding concerns were not assuaged,” Parr said. 

In order for the 306 revisions to formally be adopted, they must be approved by the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (JLCAR) after a final draft is submitted by the Board of Education. The JLCAR committee “has limited influence,” Parr said, but can reject rules for four precise reasons, including if the rules are not in the public’s best interest. 

“I think it’s really important, because what’s been established by the comments … is that the revisions are not in the public’s best interest,” he added. 

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

Lawyers and lawmakers assert the Department of Education is on the verge of violating the law

By Rhianwen Watkins. Granite State News Collaborative

New Hampshire’s state funding of public schools is the lowest in the nation, despite the state Constitution requiring the state government to finance an adequate education for every child.

The arguments over state school funding have raged in the courts since 1989, with no resolution. Local property taxes, which can vary largely from one community to the next, are still paying around 70 percent of the costs of running public schools.

Now, the N.H. Department of Education is updating its minimum standards for public schools, a process that occurs once every decade, and lawyers and educators assert that the department’s revised minimum standards will reduce funding even further.

The revisions, they say, water down the requirements for an adequate education and shift even more responsibility onto local taxpayers to fund public schools.

And, the critics assert, the state is ignoring rulings by the state Supreme Court that date back more than 30 years — rulings that ordered the state government to obey the state Constitution.

Especially concerned is Andru Volinsky, one of the lead lawyers for the Claremont case, in which the Supreme Court ruled school funding in New Hampshire was unconstitutionally low, and ordered the state to adequately pay for its public schools.

“This agency, the New Hampshire Department of Education, is going well beyond its authority in trying to adopt regulations that conflict with the controlling statutes,” Volinsky said. 

David Trumble, a retired lawyer who ran for state Legislature in 2022, told the State Board of Education April 3 that, because of the Supreme Court rulings, its revisions of the minimum school standards would be considered “invalid.”

Understanding state law

Trumble says the Department of Education is on the verge of violating a state law, RSA 193-E.

The N.H. Department of Education website  states that the department must “operate according to the duties and limitations outlined in New Hampshire statutes.” 193-E is one of the statutes listed.

This statute defines how a school must demonstrate that it’s providing an adequate education through both “input” and “output” accountability. 

“Inputs” are the elements that go into providing a well-rounded education, such as qualified teachers, good facilities, classroom supplies and resources, maximum class sizes, specific program elements required for each subject taught, and per-pupil operating costs.

 “Outputs” are the ways in which student achievement is determined, such as assessments and testing.

Until the Legislature amended the law in 2018, the statute required only one or the other-either input or output– when proving accountability. However, now the statute requires both.

“It is only through a combination of both input and output accountability that we can ensure that we are living up to the constitutional duty to provide an adequate education,” Trumble told the state board. “The proposed regulations eliminate and unravel these input-based accountability measures.”

In particular, Trumble pointed to changes that would remove maximum classroom sizes of the revised minimum standards, eliminate a requirement for certified teachers for arts, music, health and physical education, and changing the word “shall” to “may” when referring to elements of certain programs, making those elements optional rather than mandatory, and therefore removing state responsibility to fund those elements.

Trumble argued that removal of those “inputs” violates the 2018 update of RSA 193-E.

“Taken together, this set of regulations is a major change in educational policy,” Trumble said. “It replaces a statutorily required system of both inputs and performance accountability with a vague performance standard. It replaces our understanding of what a school is — classrooms with teachers ... mandatory curriculum — with vague performance standards and no clear replacement model of what a school would look like.”

Trumble added that the N.H. Supreme Court ruled in 1981 that government agencies, such as the Department of Education, can “fill in details” of statutes, but that they cannot change statutes. Anything an agency puts forward that tries to modify the law would be considered “invalid.”

Volinsky voiced similar statements, specifically in the change from “shall” to “may.”

 “It's pretty clear that in using terminology that's not defined and switching from the mandatory to the discretionary, (the department) is working to undermine the principles that come from the (Claremont) case,” Volinsky said. “And that's not the role of an agency. Agencies are designed to pass implementing regulations that follow the statutes, not that conflict with the statutes.”

Some members of the House Education Committee also spoke out against the proposed revisions of minimum standards.

“I can tell you that the Democratic caucus of the House Education Committee is extremely concerned,” said Rep. Hope Damon, D-Croydon.

“I am blown away by the degree of changes being proposed here. … This isn’t just administrative cleanup, or housekeeping to clarify rules. This is an absolute turn (in policy),” Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, said at the most recent House Education subcommittee meeting.

“One of the things that strikes me about all this is, where are the lawyers from the Attorney General's Office?” said Volinsky. 

“They should be, for everyone's benefit, advising the department and the state board that the things they're proposing violate the constitutional requirements set out in the 2002 Claremont decision, and are leading the state into another court battle.”

When asked about the legal requirements for the education minimum standards and specifically whether they are in compliance with RSA 193-E, Deputy Attorney General, James T. Boffetti declined comment. 

How did we get here?

In 1989, the public high school in Claremont, N.H., lost its accreditation because it did not have enough money to keep up with required safety regulations, let alone provide an adequate education. 

Funding from the state government was a fraction of the cost of educating students, and the city’s taxpayers did not have the means to make up the difference.

As a result, Claremont and four other low-funded N.H. public school districts sued New Hampshire’s state government, in a case known as Claremont School District v. Governor of New Hampshire. 

In 1993, the N.H. Supreme Court ruled that the state Constitution guarantees students a right to an adequate public education. In 1997, the court found that New Hampshire’s school funding system was so unfair — with tremendous disparities from one town to the next — that  it was unconstitutional. 

Overall, state funding was the lowest in the nation, providing just over 8 percent of total public education costs — so low that, if New Hampshire tripled its state funding for schools, it would still be the lowest. The court ordered the Legislature and governor to define what constituted an adequate education, and to pay for that adequate education with taxes that were equal across the state.

That has never happened. 

So, in 2006, the Supreme Court again found the school funding system unconstitutional. In response, then-Gov. John Lynch tried unsuccessfully to amend the state Constitution, to eliminate the requirement that the state government fund an adequate education for every child.

Decades later, state funding for schools remains highly variable from one community to the next. And, though the state funds now cover around 30 percent of public school costs, it remains the lowest in the nation for state education funding.

With the state’s education minimum standards up for their decennial revision, the topic of school funding has taken a front seat.

Commissioner’s response to criticism over funding

When asked about criticisms over funding, state Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut said that he thinks there is lots of “misinformation” about the document and the revision process, and encouraged people to read the document for themselves before jumping to conclusions.

“We've received a lot of feedback from individuals who have not read the proposal. They only listen to what someone said about the proposal, which is not true,” Edelblut said. “We want their actual comments, not just them repeating misinformation talking points to us, because it's more difficult for us to respond to that, because it's not accurate.”

Reaching Higher, an education advocacy nonprofit, along with teachers union members, superintendents, and others in the community, including Volinsky and Trumble, have all attested that they’ve read the document and are speaking out against the proposed changes. 

Christine Downing, director of curriculum, instruction and assessment for the Cornish, Grantham and Plainfield school districts, also held a series of educator review sessions at which teachers across the state extensively read the proposed changes together and highlighted areas of specific concern.

When asked, Edelblut did not comment on allegations of alleged intent to remove funding, instead commenting on how he felt the process has been very “transparent” having had over 13 listening sessions and working with educators.

Educators including Downing, Megan Tuttle, director of NEA-NH, and members of Reaching Higher, have countered this saying they had to push to have their voices heard.

 “We were not involved as an organization until the end of last fall,” said Megan Tuttle, referring to the over three-years long 306 drafting process. “We fought to get our way to the table.”

 A follow-up email was sent to the commissioner, asking for him to comment again on allegations of removing funding as well as violating RSA 193-E, however he was unavailable to comment. 

Chairman Drew Cline was also contacted but unavailable. 

What’s next?

For the revised minimum standards to pass, they must be endorsed by the Education Oversight Committee and the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules. 

Legislators and community members are now waiting to see whether the Department of Education will change the proposed revisions based on feedback, or if the State Board of Education will decide to put the existing draft through to the committees for final approval in June.

Volinsky emphasized that people who oppose the changes should reach out to representatives on both committees, as well as the governor, to oppose their adoption.

A final draft is expected in May.

These articles are being shared by partners in The Granite State News Collaborative. For more information visit collaborativenh.org. 

N.H. Educators voice overwhelming concerns over State Board of Education’s proposals on minimum standards for public schools

By Rhianwen Watkins, Granite State News Collaborative

Teachers, school superintendents and members of the public are criticizing the State Board of Education’s proposal for updating minimum standards for public schools, saying it would weaken education and reduce state funding, forcing taxpayers to finance further school costs. 

Since the board’s proposal was released Feb. 15, educators have been analyzing it during review sessions led by Christine Downing, director of curriculum, instruction and assessment for the Cornish, Grantham and Plainfield school districts. Many of their concerns were raised at the state board’s listening sessions on April 3 and 11.

At the meeting April 3, only two people spoke in support of the board’s update, one being Fred Bramante, a consultant hired by the N.H. Department of Education to draft updated standards for the state board to consider. 

Bramante worked with several New Hampshire educators to produce his draft, but the board’s Feb. 15 version made significant changes that altered its wording and removed certain sections. 

More than 15 educators and residents criticized the department’s document during the hearings April 3 and 11.

School Board concerns

Micaela Demeter, a Dover School Board member, said April 3 that the proposed changes would “walk back the state’s responsibility to define an adequate education, which then absolves the state of its future responsibility to pay for that adequate education.” 

“If this responsibility is largely left to local school boards, an adequate education may look different in each district, thereby exacerbating the deep inequities we know exist in our state at this time,” she said. 

This “absolution of responsibility” puts more burden on property taxpayers who are already funding more than 70 percent of local school costs, she said. 

Among objections from the Dover School Board, Demeter said, is shifting language from “teaching students” to “facilitating learning,” which she said is vague and could remove the expectation that qualified teachers must be the ones orchestrating classroom content. 

Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, in an opinion column published April 15 in the N.H. Union Leader, wrote, “These types of changes are important since they shift the focus to the ultimate objective — learning. This does not take away from the important work of teaching and instruction, but rather acknowledges that those are not the only way that our students are learning the essential knowledge and skills needed for success.”

Educators argue that the wording change would water down what it means to provide an adequate education.

Class size debate

Demeter said the Dover board also opposes eliminating caps on class sizes — a concern that educators across the state have echoed.

In Section 306.14 of the document, the words “class size,” along with a list of maximum class sizes for each grade level, have been struck from the standards. Instead, the document states local school boards shall establish “student-educator ratios” that are appropriate for each “learning opportunity and learning level.”

Edelblut responded to that criticism in an interview after the hearings.

“If you're teaching reading to a cohort of second-graders that are struggling readers, you're going to have a different class size than you are if you're teaching reading to fifth-graders who are proficient in reading,” Edelblut said.

“If you think about it, when you are embarking on an endeavor to teach students, the first question that you ask is not, ‘How many kids should I put in the class?’ The first question you ask is, ‘What am I teaching?’” he said. “The last question you should be asking yourself is, what is the cohort of students that I'm going to be working with?”

Educators across New Hampshire have raised concerns that removing the specific limits on class sizes, and asking local school boards to determine “teacher-student ratios,” could result in less state funding. In reality, they say, that means districts in relatively wealthy school districts could afford to keep class sizes low, while others that can’t afford an adequate number of teachers would be left with much bigger class sizes, and a less desirable learning environment.

“If it means that we have to go back to class sizes, that may be the case,” said Edelblut. “The board will make the ultimate determination.”

“Shall” to “May”

Greg Leonard, social studies teacher at ConVal Regional High School in Peterborough, said April 3 he worries the revised standards could cause “irreparable harm” to New Hampshire’s children, and said the state board hasn’t produced evidence that its proposals are built on solid research.

“Where is that research-based evidence that eliminating class size requirements improves student learning?” Leonard said. “Where is the research-based evidence that removing educator certification requirements improves student learning?” 

Brian Balke, superintendent of School Administrative Unit 19 in Goffstown, raised multiple concerns, including a wording change from “provides” to “may include” in reference to a list of components in the of Holocaust and genocide curriculum. 

“I don’t understand why that is,” said Balke, who chairs the N.H. Commission on Holocaust and Genocide Education.

The wording change from “shall” to “may” runs throughout the document, which worries educators, who say that, in legislative language, “shall” implies the program element is a requirement and “may” makes it an option.

Effects of past budget cuts

Chris Prost, a Croydon Planning Board member, testified April 11 to discuss the effects of their town’s past budget cuts. 

“I think for a lot of people the impact of these changes is very undefined, but our town got a glimpse into what they may mean for smaller communities,” he said.

In March 2022, Croydon’s state education funding dropped by more than 50 percent, a huge budget cut that resulted in elementary school curriculums and teachers being replaced by Prenda Pod Learning, which Prost as “online learning overseen by unlicensed guides under the direction of a licensed teacher who was maybe not going to be on-site.” 

That pod learning model was recommended by the N.H. Department of Education, despite it not having been used as the default education model in any town before, Prost said.

In an interview after the listening session, Prost said that, as a father of children soon to be heading into the public school system, he worries what the future of their education may look like.

Robert Malay, the school superintendent of Keene-based School Administrative Unit 29, told the state board April 3 that revising the education minimum standards is “perhaps the most important thing that you will do during your time on the board.”

School districts around the state are waiting to see if the State Board of Education will amend the proposal for state minimum standards, or forward it as is to the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules for final approval.

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