Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor and Department press changes to special‑education definitions, citing audit; disability advocates urge delay for public review
Summary
Representative Caitlin Kuttab and Department of Education officials told the Senate Education Committee that House Bill 699 aligns New Hampshire definitions with federal IDEA and would require approved educational environments; advocates cautioned the bill relies on an unreleased audit and called for amendments and rulemaking.
Representative Caitlin Kuttab introduced House Bill 699 to the Senate Education Committee, saying the bill responds to observations from a special‑education audit and aims to bring state law into alignment with federal standards.
"House Bill 699 was put in at the request of the Department of Education following a special education audit so that we would be in compliance, federally," Representative Caitlin Kuttab said. She told the committee two central goals are to ensure students receive specialized instruction from appropriately qualified specialists and to require that the Department approve educational environments — not just programs. Kuttab said the change is intended to prevent students from receiving services in unsafe locations such as storage closets or boiler rooms.
Rebecca Ferdette, the Department of Education’s state director of special education, said the bill pulls existing definitions from state rules into statute, and references the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) where appropriate. Ferdette explained the bill: it moves the definition of acquired brain injury into central disability definitions, references IDEA’s definition of specially designed instruction and related services so speech, occupational and physical therapy are explicitly included, and creates a clearer distinction between "approved programs" (the approved school or program) and "approved educational environments" (the classroom or setting where services are delivered).
"We already approve programs; we're just redefining it so it's clear that it's two separate things," Ferdette said, describing program approval and site inspections the department already performs.
Advocates urged caution and more time. Karen Rosenberg, policy director at the Disability Rights Center, said her office is conflicted because the bill is based in part on an audit that has not been publicly released. She recommended an amendment that would address the specific problem of students placed in inappropriate spaces and then wait for the audit report so the legislature and the public can see all recommended changes. "It takes the public out of public hearings when the public is not able to see what recommendations there might be," Rosenberg said.
Bonnie Dunham, a parent and policy speaker, opposed the bill as drafted and asked for corrections to definitions and statutory language. She flagged drafting errors and concerns that current workforce shortages could make certification requirements impractical for some specially designed instruction, and said the bill as written might push students into more segregated settings rather than preserving access to general education.
Committee members questioned whether the bill exceeds federal requirements. Ferdette said program approval historically has exceeded federal language and that the bill largely consolidates existing state rule language into statute and references IDEA where necessary. Committee members asked when the final audit report would be publicly available; Ferdette said the audit was expected to be finalized by the end of the year and noted the department has been provided preliminary observations to which it has been responding.
Why it matters Supporters said the bill addresses concrete problems raised by the audit: students receiving specialized instruction from staff who are not certified to provide it, and students being instructed in spaces that are not appropriate or safe. Opponents warned that adopting statutory language without public access to the audit findings risks leaving important provisions unexamined and could have unintended consequences for placement and personnel.
Next steps The committee concluded the public hearing and will decide whether to recommend the bill. Supporters and the Department signaled willingness to work on clarifying language and to consider amendments; advocates urged the committee to delay broader statutory changes until after the audit report is released so the public can participate in rulemaking and legislative drafting.
