Warning: Bill numbers and names are based on text-to-speech transcript which may have errors due to transcription issues or ad hoc/incomplete language use by committee.
Rick Ladd, chair of education funding from Haverhill, NH, presents HB 1563 FN, emphasizing the crisis in special education funding where the state spends nearly $1 billion annually, with only about 17% from state aid and the rest from local property taxes. He explains the current aid formula starting at 3.5 times the average per pupil cost ($75,000), proposing to lower it to 2.5 times with 15% local/85% state share between 2.5-3.5x, maintaining 20%/80% up to 10x, and introducing 10% local/90% state beyond 10x for accountability. The bill aims to reduce administrative burdens, improve reimbursement accountability tied to IEPs, require districts to seek offsets like Medicaid and private insurance with documentation, and establish a DOE monitoring program reviewing 20% of claims annually. Ladd highlights data gaps, over-identification concerns, and the need for better oversight, noting 31,459 students with IEPs statewide.
HB1563
Support00:33:56.128 - 9:32:37 AM
Daniel Popovich-Miller, Vice Chairman of Finance 2 from Rockingham 17 (Windham), supports the amended bill, noting it delays spending until the second year of the biennium to allow time for reporting preparation. He explains the extension below 3.5x aims to gather essential data on student cost categories currently unreported, offering 15% reimbursement to defray costs. For high-cost students over 10x, a 10% local share ensures district diligence without full free coverage. The bill shifts to random 20% monitoring instead of reviewing every claim, reducing DOE costs. The fiscal note reflects the introduced bill; the amendment lowers impact by reducing reimbursement and using sampling.
HB1563
Oppose00:37:16.925 - 9:35:57 AM
Hope Damon from Sullivan District 8 opposes aspects of HB 1563, particularly the 10% local share for costs over 10x the per pupil average, arguing it burdens small districts where one or two high-need students can significantly impact budgets, offsetting the bill's intent to increase state responsibility. She also raises FERPA concerns with page 3, lines 30-37, regarding per-student reporting of identifiers, which could violate privacy in small districts despite being internal to DOE; suggests clarifying non-public status and hearing from DOE. She notes federal IDEA funding has never met promised 40%, remaining at 5.5%, and increased special ed identifications stem from better early recognition and possibly more needs, not over-identification.
HB1563
Support00:42:34.875 - 9:41:15 AM
David Schaumburg from Warren thanks the House for amending HB 1563 to remove a $1 million cap that would have reduced state aid. He supports clarifying that the bill does not coerce parents to use private insurance or Medicaid copays, preserving existing rules against family costs since special ed is a public responsibility; suggests adding language to confirm this. He argues against over-identification claims, citing past research showing NH identifies only 70-80% of needy students and improved identification now meets legal obligations. The 10% local share for high costs won't enhance accountability as educational decisions prioritize child needs, not finances. Small towns struggle with paperwork like Medicaid; suggests DOE assistance to avoid punitive disqualifications. Overall, the bill slightly increases state share from 10.5% to 11-11.5% but is a minor step; NH underfunds compared to other states (e.g., Minnesota at 60%+), calling for more robust state commitment to avoid shifting burdens to local taxpayers.
HB1563
Oppose00:50:54.978 - 9:49:35 AM
Caitlin Bernier opposes HB 1563, arguing that the Education Trust Fund surplus should prioritize special education reimbursement, which currently stands at only 68% for 2023-2024 according to DOE data. She emphasizes the legal, moral, and ethical obligations to provide services, refusing to deny expensive education like at Perkins School for the Blind costing $500,000.
She counters claims of over-identification, sharing her personal experience where it took three years and COVID to identify her child's dyslexia despite earlier IEPs. She describes the rigorous IEP process, involving data collection and team deliberations, often taking six months to a year, during which children fall behind. Many parents give up due to school resistance or lack of advocacy knowledge, especially non-English speakers or those with time constraints. Early identification, like hers, improved her child's reading from kindergarten to sixth grade level in two years, boosting confidence and saving long-term costs through remediation.
Comparing to Arizona, which ranks low in state funding, New Hampshire districts need $8,000 more per pupil to handle extraordinary costs. On the bill's language (page 3, line 19), she cites a 2020 OSERS letter stating eligibility categories do not determine services; IEPs provide supports regardless of entry 'door' (category), and tying services to specific disabilities ignores multiple needs or team decisions.
On page 4 (lines 10, 20), vague 'risk indicators' and 'other measures' allow arbitrary targeting by unclear departments (DHS or DOE?). Line 16 mandates independent audits, an unfunded mandate straining districts already cutting administrators. At 11% reimbursement, districts avoid small claims due to time, and the bill fails to address rising, unattainable special education costs for locals, instead benefiting the state.
HB564 0373S
Vote01:25:08.882 - 10:23:49 AM
The committee moved and seconded ought to pass on HB 564, then adopted amendment #0373S on a voice vote (aye unanimous, no opposed). Further discussion none; ought to pass as amended on voice vote (aye unanimous, no opposed), placed on consent calendar.
HB656
Vote01:25:40.000 - 10:24:21 AM
The committee moved and seconded ought to pass on HB 656. No discussion; passed on voice vote (aye unanimous, no opposed), placed on consent calendar.
HB1121
Vote01:26:32.128 - 10:25:13 AM
The committee moved and seconded interim study on HB 1121. No discussion; passed on voice vote (aye unanimous, no opposed), placed on consent calendar.
HB1495
Vote01:27:00.000 - 10:25:41 AM
The committee moved and seconded ought to pass on HB 1495. No discussion; passed on voice vote (aye unanimous, no opposed), placed on consent calendar.
HB1563
Vote01:27:57.986 - 10:26:38 AM
The committee moved and seconded ought to pass on HB 1563 FN. No discussion; passed on voice vote (aye unanimous, no opposed), placed on consent calendar.