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

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.

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.

“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, visitcollaborativenh.org.

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Teachers accuse NH of secrecy in drafting standards for public schools