Letter to the Editor:
Just some of the NH education legislation being proposed this session. Does it make sense to:
* return to the general fund monies left in the education fund at the end of each fiscal year when the state is NOT meeting its obligation to fund K-12 education and legislators complain they cannot access additional money to increase their adequacy funding? (HB 1690)
* redefine what an adequate education is but continue to leave out state mandates and educational essentials like having school facilities, requiring a school nurse, providing transportation? This perpetuates unfunded mandates which the State keeps adding! (HB1619) (Sponsor Cordelli)
* reduce the funds available to support education when the state is not covering its legally obligation as repeatedly found by the courts, while legislators complain there are not funds to provide more education funding? Initially state funding for education was via sin taxes. Now they are proposing deducting games of chance funds from the funds available annually for the state education funds. As a result of this underfunding and unfunded mandates, the greatest burden remains on local property tax payers. (HB 1517)
* forbid teachers from helping students learn self control/awareness, promote school and civic engagement, teach responsible decision making or learn perseverance. (HB 1473)
Then there are the unnecessary burdens being proposed for public schools. Who is going to pay for these to be completed? We are. More state mandates causing the cost of our schools to go up -- which the state doesn't pay for -- so our local property taxes go up! Plus they keep taking local control away.
* require schools to get written parental permission for each service provided to a Medicaid enrolled child? Schools already get written parental permission to provide Medicaid services. Now they want them to also get permission for each disease or diagnostic code; or then for the state will punish our teachers. "Any educator who orders, refers, prescribes, renders, or provides services ... without parental consent... justifies disciplinary sanction by the state board of education." Is this really the role of the state board of education? What happened to local control? (HB 1616) ((Sponsor Cordelli)
* make all instructional material and lesson plans available on the website. Any material used for instruction, including all textbooks, reading materials, videos, digital materials, websites, materials distributed or otherwise presented in the course and all instructional materials on lists distributed. Each grade or school-wide presentation, assembly, lecture, or other activity or event facilitated by the school during instructional hours, including each presenter by name and organization and any instructional material used or presented and more. (HB 1643)
Or adding requirements that are so vague as to not be manageable like HB 1695 which: "prohibits material that is obscene or harmful to minors in schools and creates a procedure for removal and cause of action." This law covers: “any printed matter, visual presentation, web-based content, live performance, or sound recording including, but not limited to, books, magazines, motion picture films, pamphlets, phonographic records, pictures, photographs, figures, statues, plays, dances, or other representation." Are we now going to forbid encyclopedias, dictionaries and history books which have an image of a world renowned sculpture because someone considers it 'harmful'? The word 'harmful' is so broad and vague it could be used in untold ways to blunt art, health, science, history, in fact all fields of education. (HB 1419) (Sponsor Cordelli)
Or how about legislation which is redundant and causes schools and therefore tax payers additional expenses without in fact creating more protections, like HB 1695 which: "Prohibits the transfer of student's personally identifiable information to third parties without written consent of the parents and student." This legislation refers to FERPA, which is a Federal law that protects personally identifiable information in students’ education records from unauthorized disclosure. It affords parents the right to access their child's education records, the right to seek to have the records amended, and the right to have control over the disclosure of personally identifiable information from the education records. It is unclear why we need to add to the existing protections. Is it because we think the State Department of Education should have more control over our local schools? (HB 1695) (sponsor Cordelli)
Too much of the education legislation this session is bad policy, costly, burdensome, unmanageably vague, myopic, and undermines the state meeting its funding obligations. Plus, it does not improve student outcomes or increase student success. Shouldn't that be our focus!
Karen Burnett-Kurie
Comments