#

A proposed draft amendment for an education bill would dramatically shake up the state Department of Education and shift some power and authority to the state education commissioner. Yet, the senator who introduced it said it simply “allows managers to manage their department.”

Frank Edelblut, the new commissioner who previously lost the Republican gubernatorial bid to Chris Sununu in the 2016 election, is already a controversial figure within Sununu’s administration for his pro-school choice views, and this amendment isn’t sitting well with public school advocates.

Sen. John Reagan, R-Deerfield (Photo Credit: NH Senate website)

The amendment, drafted by Sen. John Reagan, R-Deerfield, was first posted Wednesday by Reaching Higher NH, an organization supporting high standards in public schools.

Reagan said the bill came at the request of Edelblut and it “permits the commissioner to make some managerial changes.” He said he doesn’t understand where the backlash on the amendment is coming from.

“He should be able to do what he wants to do,” Reagan told NH Journal. “They [public school advocates] don’t like anything that disturbs their monopoly of state dollars. They see something and try to discredit Republican management of government. You should be able to let your managers manage your business.”

Among the proposed changes, Reagan is proposing to eliminate four existing divisions in the state Department of Education (DOE) and replacing them with four new divisions under the direction of the commissioner, and giving the commissioner authority over several programs, funds, and personnel.

The proposal is poised to be an amendment to House Bill 356. Reagan said he talked to Rep. Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, who is the author of HB356 and Ladd gave him the go-ahead to attach the amendment to his bill.

Public school advocates are concerned that the amendment “introduces greater volatility and uncertainty around how we hold N.H. schools and districts accountable for delivering an adequate education to our children.”

This is NOT how we do it. NH friends, spread the word; @ChrisSununu & @Edelblut4NH stage a power grab. @AndruVolinsky @WatchYourRepsNH

— Sherry Frost (@frostnhstaterep) April 13, 2017

Reaching Higher NH says the amendment would make it easier for public funds to go towards schools or education offerings that are not subject to the same rigorous public oversight as public schools.

“The amendment would grant the Commissioner of Education expansive authority that exceeds the discretion provided to most other state departments,” the organization wrote in a blog post about the amendment.

In New Hampshire, the state education commissioner is largely seen as the face of the DOE, simply carrying out policy that the state Board of Education introduces.

“The Department of Education, consistent with New Hampshire’s local control ethos, has historically served primarily as the provider of state education funding and as the intermediary between local school districts and the federal Department of Education,” the post stated. “In these roles, the Department provides much needed expertise and serves as an important guardian of students’ rights to a public education.”

The amendment calls for eliminating four divisions, including the Division of Educational Improvement, Division of Program Support, Division of Career Technology and Adult Learning, and Division of Higher Education within the DOE and replacing them with four new divisions, which have not yet been determined, all under the direction of the education commissioner.

Yet, Reagan said he believes the bill means the divisions will just be retitled, “making it easier for the head manager to move managers around. It’s what any organization should be allowed to do.”

Advocates say the amendment would remove an institutional check that exists to prevent the DOE and New Hampshire public education from becoming overly-politicized.

For example, the Division of Educational Improvement currently has the responsibility to “determine if a district is making diligent efforts to resolve personnel shortages that result in children with disabilities being placed out of district.” The amendment would transfer that power to Edelblut.

Reaching Higher NH also said the elimination of the divisions and allowing the commissioner to create new ones allows for a standard of appointing division directors that could lead to nominees who do not have the education or experience to lead those offices.

That was a significant criticism for Edelblut as education commissioner since he does not come from an education background (his children have also been homeschooled), yet he was tapped to lead the department anyway.

“By eliminating the specific responsibilities of the directors, the amendment lowers the standard for appointing directors — the governor and Executive Council will no longer be able to assess whether the Commissioner’s nominees have the education and experience necessary to serve New Hampshire’s kids and families,” the organization wrote.

Advocates are also concerned with the new amendment in terms of financial accountability and how public funds are used within the DOE. The amendment allows the education commissioner to move funds within the department at any time without approval if it’s under $75,000. That means Edelblut can transfer funds allocated for a specific purpose and reallocate them for something else.

“Transfer funds…as the commissioner deems necessary and appropriate to address present or projected budget deficits, or to respond to changes in federal laws, regulations, or programs, and otherwise as necessary for the efficient management of the department…,” the amendment states.

Reagan said the measure was intended to ensure the education commissioner could move funds where there is a need in the department.

“It’s for small amounts, like allowing office managers to use the funds for pencils to instead be used for toners,” he said.

The Legislature’s finance committees, the governor, and Executive Council still must approve transfers of $75,000 or more, but Reagan said they shouldn’t be “controlling” the department at “that level of detail.”

HB 356 has already gone through some changes before it was introduced to the Senate Education Committee on March 23. When it was first introduced in January by Ladd, it would simply tweak the base adequacy funding amount — the amount the state gives to a district per pupil — from $3,561.27 to $3,591.27, only a $30 increase.

He told the House Education Committee that he wanted to use the legislation as a starting point to eventually form a joint committee with the House and Senate to work on a new formula for the next year in time for the next biennium. The committee voted in favor of his amendment, essentially changing the bill establishing a committee to study education funding and the cost of an opportunity for an adequate education, and the House eventually passed the bill at the end of March.

The Senate Education Committee is expected to act on the legislation this month. Reagan’s amendment has not been formally introduced to the committee yet, but a public hearing on the bill has already happened before this amendment was known to members of the public. Advocates are calling to have another public hearing to discuss the amendment.

NH Journal reached out to Edelblut for comment and will update the story with a response.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

For one of Frank Edelblut’s first acts as education commissioner, he wanted the state Board of Education (BOE) to reconsider the state’s science standards, but they unanimously voted to reject his proposal. It’s expected to be the first of many issues that Edelblut and the BOE clash on throughout his term, highlighting the differences between pro-school choice Edelblut and public school advocates.

Last year, the board adopted the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) as the state’s standards after a lengthy two-year review process. The NGSS standards were developed by a consortium of 26 states and by the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council, and the nonprofit organization Achieve.

Several New Hampshire school districts had already adopted the NGSS, even though they aren’t bound by the state’s standards. Nearly 20 states have also implemented the NGSS across the country.

Reviewing the science standards was not an issue several board members were ready for at a BOE meeting on April 6.

“Why on Earth are we doing science?,” asked board member Cindy Chagnon. “What are we trying to give our schools and teachers whiplash or something?”

Edelblut said the review was his idea.

“So we in this state are aiming for high standards. And that’s really what we want. And I don’t know if the review was done prior to the adoption of this board or subsequently shortly thereafter, but those [science standards] have been evaluated by a third-party reviewer and rated as a ‘C’ standard,” he said.

The third-party reviewer Edelblut is referring to is the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a think tank that released a 2013 report giving the standards a “C” grade and told states to look elsewhere if they want to overhaul their standards.

“I don’t want to be the guy who’s responsible for a ‘C’ standard,” Edelblut said. “We want to have ‘A’ standards.”

Board members weren’t convinced though, since the state spent two years reviewing the standards and they had just been adopted in November. Reviewing them again would confuse schools and teachers who are starting to implement the standards.

“This would create chaos. This would create extra money spent. This would be ridiculous,” Chagnon said.

One board member suggested voting on a motion to make the board’s intentions clear that they wouldn’t touch the standards.

“I would hope that this board would support a commissioner who was interested in making sure that we have standards that represent the most contemporary, the most cutting-edge opportunities for our students,” Edelblut said.

Democrats were quick to point out that during Edelblut’s confirmation hearing in January, he assured Executive Council members and the public that his personal beliefs wouldn’t get in the way of his position, and he was largely “the implementation guy” for executing policy that the board, not him, largely decides.

Edelblut tries to overhaul SCIENCE, told Exec Council only an "implementer." https://t.co/RPvTz2lY82 via conmonitornews #nhpolitics

— Andru Volinsky (@AndruVolinsky) April 9, 2017

The board ultimately voted unanimously not to review science standards until 2022.

The Pioneer Institute, a think tank in Boston, also weighed in on the controversy of New Hampshire of possibly looking at reviewing NGSS, calling the standards “disgracefully low” and “mediocre.”

Good for @NHEdCommr Edelblut for aiming higher on #science standards. NGSS = disgracefully low https://t.co/E2OWQGMVcG #NH #mapoli #maedu

— Pioneer Institute (@PioneerBoston) April 10, 2017

K-12 ed needs more leaders like @NHEdCommr Edelblut willing to confront mediocre DC-driven #NGSS sci standards https://t.co/E2OWQGMVcG

— Pioneer Institute (@PioneerBoston) April 10, 2017

“Our general take is that high performing states like Massachusetts and New Hampshire shouldn’t be adopting low quality standards,” said Jamie Gass, education policy director for the Pioneer Institute. “Unfortunately, that’s what we’re seeing more and more. Compliance with the D.C.-based outlook of K-12 is not in the educational best interest of the states.”

NGSS is not the same as the Common Core State Standards, which focus on math and English standards. Also, unlike the earlier roll out of Common Core, states have no federal financial incentives from grants to adopts the NGSS, so it’s completely voluntary. (The Every Student Succeeds Act, passed by Congress last year, removed those earlier financial incentives, though most states have chosen to keep the higher Common Core standards rather than revert). Specifically in New Hampshire, local school districts also aren’t forced to implement BOE policy.

“States should be developing their own standards,” Gass told NH Journal. “There’s no reason why New Hampshire couldn’t develop standards better than NGSS standards.”

However, even the discussion of reviewing the science standards is leading to ambiguity in cities and towns about the BOE’s commitment to the standards, said board member Helen Honorow at the meeting.

The Department of Education circulated a draft document about the status of the science standards, which was not approved by the BOE, leading to confusion in her city of Nashua, she said.

The Nashua Board of Education voted Tuesday to greenlight a pilot of the science standards in their schools, instead of delaying implementation while the state debates the issue.

Board President George Farrington called the delay a form of “political maneuvering.”

“For the last 18 months, I’ve heard, ‘Concord can’t tell us what to do,’ and now we have a change in leadership in Concord and we have to wait for the ‘white smoke’ up there to see what we can do,” he said. “The teachers are here tonight, and they’re saying, ‘This is what we want to do,’ and we’re saying, ‘We need to check it out because we’re better informed about it.’ “

The Nashua board passed a motion to allow a pilot program for the 2017-2018 academic year and the school would not formally adopt the standards until the conclusion and evaluation of the pilot.

Over 90 percent of New Hampshire school districts reported in November that they were already on the path to implementing NGSS.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Not only is it National School Choice Week, it’s also New Hampshire School Choice Week. Gov. Chris Sununu signed the proclamation on Tuesday. So naturally, the discussion of school choice in the Granite State is bound to come up. And the Legislature has a slew of bills related to charter schools, public versus private schools, and parent involvement in their children’s education.

With a Republican-controlled State House, expect to see several school choice bills make it through and end up on the governor’s desk. Education reform is definitely a priority for the Sununu administration.

“We’re not trying to blow up education, or battle public education,” he said at an event for National School Choice Week in Manchester on Tuesday. “I love public education. It’s just about actually taking the system that we have, the fundamental structure that we have — and it’s not bad; it’s a good structure — but providing some leadership to really implement those innovations that we always talk about.”

Here are NH Journal’s top school choice issues to keep an eye on at the State House as lawmakers begin to debate these bills:

CHARTER SCHOOLS

There are about 10 bills dealing with charter schools, which is still a contentious topic in the world of education. Here’s a quick run-down of what they are:

• Charter schools are publicly-funded independent schools that are not subject to the same regulations as traditional public schools.
• They do not charge tuition.
• They must accept all students who apply, but if the number of applications exceeds the school’s capacity, a lottery must be held to select students who will be offered a place.
• They are considered part of the state school system and are accountable to state and federal authorities for compliance with the terms of their founding charter, which often includes achievement-based standards (read: testing).
• All charter schools must apply for authorization and receive approval from a local school district, a town vote, or the state board of education. Charters are valid for a term of five years, at which point a school must apply for renewal.

There are currently 25 charter schools operating in New Hampshire, with another one slated to open in fall 2017, according to data from the NH Department of Education. There were 3,011 students enrolled in charter schools, or about 1 percent of the state’s total student population, as of October 1, 2015.

Most charter schools receive funding directly from the state, at a rate of about $6,500 per pupil, which is a lower than average per-pupil expenditure at traditional public schools, which averaged approximately $14,375 in 2015. Data from the current academic year is not available yet.

So why are charter schools so divisive? Charter school advocates want more funding and to raise the cap on admittance. They say the schools create new educational models of teaching and learning that appeal to students who might not learn best in a traditional school setting and give parents more choices in their children’s education.

Opponents say charter schools take away state money that could go to improve traditional schools, and they lack equal proportions of disabled or special needs students, who then are forced into the traditional public school system.

And the argument that charter school students perform better on standardized tests is a moot point. While statewide assessment results generally show that trend, the comparisons can be misleading since charter schools and traditional public schools do not have equivalent student populations in terms of learning ability and special needs.

Out of the 10 bills filed for the current legislative session, seven of them seek to place limits on charter schools or give the state more control of them. They are sponsored by Democrats. Three of the bills look to provide more funding or give charter schools more authority — all sponsored by Republicans. So you can see that this issue largely falls on party lines.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan, D-Durham, appears to be charter schools’ biggest opponent by being the prime sponsor on most of the “anti-charter” legislation. But with a Republican governor and a GOP-controlled Legislature, it’s difficult to see a scenario where any of the Democrat’s legislation makes it far. Especially with a pro-charter school governor who wants to increase funding.

And Sununu’s nominee for education commissioner, former state Rep. Frank Edelblut, is also a school choice, pro-charter supporter. It seems unlikely that any of the limiting charter school legislation will make it out of the House Education Committee.

THE ‘CROYDON’ BILL

For those unfamiliar with the story of the town of Croydon and school choice, let me fill you in.

The town has been in an ongoing legal battle with the courts and state Department of Education over its decision to send some of its students to a nearby Montessori school at taxpayer expense.

Many small communities in the state do not have a local K-12 school district and they contract with larger nearby districts to send their students to school there, usually though a per-student tuition contract paid for by the town where the students come from.

So, the Croydon School District had a tuition agreement with the town of Newport, but that contact ended in 2014. Croydon gave parents the option of choosing public and private schools to send their children, which would be funded by taxpayers.

The state and courts have ruled that the town cannot use public funds to pay for private school. But the school district says there is nothing in state law that prohibits it from using private schools if it’s in the best interest of the students.

Now, school choice advocates are rallying behind House Bill 557, which would allow a school district to send a child to a private school, even a religious one, if there is not a public school for the child’s grade in their home district.

The first hearing for the bill was held on Wednesday and the state Department of Justice said the bill violates the N.H. Constitution for allowing taxpayer money to be used for religious schools and could lead to other court cases in towns where parents are paying for private schools out-of-pocket.

It’s a tricky bill, but if it makes it out of committee and goes through the Legislature, Sununu is expected to sign it. In an op-ed published in the New Hampshire Union Leader during his gubernatorial run, he said, “the issue in Croydon is a clear example of government overreach.”

“Too often, special interests and unelected bureaucrats act as if they know what is right for children over the judgment of parents,” he wrote. “Instead of expanding options for families, the state has unfortunately been working to reduce them.”

And assuming Edelblut is approved by the Republican-controlled Executive Council, he has also indicated that he supports the Croydon School District, so he could make this bill a priority and work with members of the Legislature to get it passed.

COMMON CORE

While not directly about school choice, the issue of Common Core State Standards will be a dividing issue in the Legislature. School choice is all about giving parents a greater role in their child’s education and with Common Core, many parents feel the federal government and state are mandating what their children should learn — even if they don’t believe it’s in their best interests.

Bills in the House and Senate seek to make clear that school districts are not required to implement the standards if they don’t want to.

NH Journal has previously reported on the issue of Common Core in the state and how the state board of education gave towns and cities the flexibility and local control to implement the standards how they saw fit.

Sununu and Edelblut have both said they want to “repeal Common Core.” What exactly that means, is still unclear, but if these bills make it to Sununu’s desk, it’s also likely that he would sign them.

HONORABLE MENTION:

Here are some other bills relating to school choice (or parental involvement) that will appear in during the current legislative session:

• Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 7: “The general court shall have the authority to define standards of accountability, mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity, and have full discretion to determine the amount of state funding for education.”
• House Bill 395: “This bill repeals state board of education rulemaking authority for home education programs and inserts the duties and procedures related to membership in the home education advisory council statute.”
• House Bill 103: “This bill requires school districts to provide advance notice to parents and legal guardians of course material involving discussion of human sexuality or human sexual education.” Here is NH Journal’s story on how that bill came to fruition.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.