NHSBA Files Objections To Proposed State Special Education Rules
January 26, 2010
Re: Ed 1100, Standards for the Education of Students with Disabilities
Dear Chairman Lyons and Members of the State Board:
I am writing on behalf of the New Hampshire School Boards Association in opposition to the proposed amendments to Ed 1100, Standards for the Education of Students with Disabilities.
Incorporated in 1946, the New Hampshire School Boards Association (NHSBA) is supported by nearly all of the 176 local school districts, which make basic policy for the Association through delegates elected from each member school board. The Delegate Assembly elects officers and board members, consisting of 4 officers and 17 additional board members from throughout the state. NHSBA provides training, support, advice, information, and other essential services to school board members to perform their important jobs.
An important function of the Delegate Assembly is the adoption of resolutions that give direction for positions taken by the Association. Issues related to special education have often been discussed and reviewed at these annual meetings, with adoption of several corresponding resolutions. Our resolutions are attached as an Appendix, but I would like to highlight a few.
Long-standing Perennial Resolutions IX:A and IX:B have consistently called for full funding of the federal IDEA program, specifically seeking funds to pay 40% of the cost of implementing IDEA, as well as fully funding any additional requirements. Perennial Resolution II:I, adopted in 2006, specifically opposes any attempt to divert, or downshift, state costs or obligations to local school districts. And 2009 Resolution #10 calls for the state to fully fund those mandates that exceed federal requirements. Finally, just this month at our 2010 Delegate Assembly, the following resolution was adopted:
NHSBA supports amending New Hampshire’s special education statute so that only the state legislature, not the state board of education via rulemaking or any other process, decides when it is appropriate for state law to exceed federal law.
NHSBA has two primary objections to the proposed rules. First, NHSBA contends that the proposed rules greatly exceed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements in contradiction to federal recommendations that states streamline special education regulations.
Second, NHSBA contends that by exceeding federal law, the proposed rules impose unnecessary and undue fiscal hardships on local school boards, local taxpayers, and local communities.
Addressing NHSBA’s first contention, federal law is clear that the IDEA directs states to “minimize the local number of rules, regulations and policies to which local education agencies and schools in the State are subject under this chapter.” 20 U.S.C. 1407(a)(3). The collective testimony from our school administrators, including special education experts and those knowledgeable about special education rules and regulations, is clear confirmation that these proposed rules far exceed what federal law requires.
NHSBA offers two examples where the proposed rules greatly exceed IDEA regulations resulting in significantly increased costs to local school boards and local taxpayers. First, the proposed amendment to Ed 1102.04(q), expands the definition of “related services” such the number of pupils covered by special education laws would increase significantly. Adding more students to a school district’s special education population will certainly increase that district’s special education costs.
Second, the proposed amendments to Ed 1113.10(c) institute new, stricter requirements on class size and student/teacher ratios for early childhood special education programs. Stricter teacher/student ratios would require school boards to hire additional staff, thereby greatly increasing their costs. In a time when school boards are faced with the difficult task of cutting staff to balance budgets and maintain property tax rates, it seems burdensome to impose these new requirements on school boards.
As other testimony and comments have exhibited, the extent to which the proposed rules exceed federal requirements is extensive. As stated above, NHSBA echoes the sentiments of its administrators and other experts that the proposed rules unnecessarily exceed federal requirements.
Addressing NHSBA’s second contention, we respectfully ask the State Board to be mindful of mandates imposed upon local school boards and by extension, local taxpayers, who have no voice or vote in how these programs or monies are allocated. Because school boards are charged with raising and appropriating money necessary to implement laws and related programs and services, adoption of these expansive rules will inevitably raise school district budgets and local tax rates, through no consent by the local school boards or school district voters. Because these would be state-mandated programs and responsibilities, NHSBA also believes that the proposed rules raise serious and legitimate issues concerning Part 1, Article 28-a of the New Hampshire Constitution, which states, “The state shall not mandate or assign any new, expanded or modified programs or responsibilities to any political subdivision in such a way as to necessitate additional local expenditures by the political subdivision unless such programs or responsibilities are fully funded by the state or unless such programs or responsibilities are approved for funding by a vote of the local legislative body of the political subdivision.”
NHSBA thanks the State Board for the opportunity to bring forth our concerns and for the Board’s diligent attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Theodore E. Comstock
Executive Director
|
