Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Special Education Charter Schools topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to repeal charter-school MOU requirement for special-education services
Summary
Supporters told the House Education Committee that required memorandums of understanding between charter schools and resident districts have added paperwork, legal costs and no enforceable benefit; the Department of Education warned repeal could remove an element of oversight.
At a hearing of the House Education Policy and Administration Committee, Rep. Peggy Balboni, prime sponsor of HB 222, urged repeal of a 2021 law that requires a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between a chartered public school and a resident school district spelling out how students with disabilities will receive special-education services.
Balboni said the bill was brought at the request of the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools and argued MOUs have increased administrative work and legal costs without improving student outcomes. “While most charter schools and LEAs have been able to come to agreements in completing the memorandums of understanding, many still remain unsigned, primarily due to financial disagreements,” Balboni told the committee.
The sponsor and other supporters described four common ways services are delivered to a charter-enrolled student — district staff at the charter, charter staff contracted by the district, outside vendors, or services provided in the resident district — and stressed that the individualized education program (IEP) remains the legal document that obligates a district to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE). “Once signed by the parent, the IEP is the legal document that commits the school district to provision of services outlined in the IEP,” Balboni said.
State Representative Maureen Mooney, who said she drafted the repeal after conversations with charter and special-education leaders, told the committee that MOUs duplicate federal and state special-education requirements and have been “double, duplicate, extra, and unnecessary work.” She added: “This MOU is just an additional, substantial layer of duplicative work in a fast paced, resourceful school environment that will unnecessarily cost administrators, teachers, and parents time and expense.”
Leaders of the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators backed the repeal. Jane Bergeron Beaulieu, the association’s executive director, told the committee the MOU requirement had not improved outcomes for children and had consumed district and charter hours and legal fees. “We really feel as though this time and effort should be dedicated to the children and youth and their families,” Bergeron Beaulieu said.
Charter-school leaders gave similar testimony. Beth McClure, principal at Strong Foundations Charter School, said her school had resolved services with more than 15 districts for years without the MOU requirement and that the template created extra work and legal bills. “The first year that the MOUs were required … I spent at least 80 hours working with our different school districts, reviewing the MOUs, sending them to our lawyer … and we also spent several thousand dollars in legal fees,” McClure said.
The Department of Education told the committee the MOU requirement was created because of earlier problems getting timely services in some charter placements and that the department provided a template to address that concern. Rebecca Fredette of the NH Department of Education said the department had proposed the MOU “as there was no oversight for the provision of special education within charter schools” and that the template was intended to set expectations. She also cautioned that charter schools are not approved programs in the same way district programs are and said repeal should be considered alongside other ways to ensure oversight. “If we were to repeal that, I would ask that we consider something else,” Fredette said. “If we take this away, then there's nothing that would help us with special education in the charter schools.”
Committee members asked about the reported number of unsigned MOUs. Balboni and Bergeron Beaulieu cited Department of Education data that, for the 2024–25 school year, 94 MOUs remained unsigned and 16 of those had been unsigned for two consecutive years; both supporters said students were still receiving services despite unsigned MOUs. Witnesses told the panel that the most frequent barrier to signing was disagreement over fees when charters contract to provide services, and that districts and charters sometimes could not see or agree on vendor contracts and cost splits.
No vote was taken during the hearing; the committee closed the testimony after questions and public comment.
