Supporters tell senators MOUs created extra work without improving services for charter special education; DOE urges measured oversight

Representative Peggy Balboni, prime sponsor of House Bill 222, told the Senate Education Committee she brought the bill at the request of the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators (NHASEA) and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. HB 222 would repeal the statutory requirement that local education agencies and charter public schools execute a memorandum of understanding (MOU) describing how students with individualized education programs (IEPs) will receive special education services.

"The law requiring the memorandum of understandings was passed in 2021," Balboni said, and she described the requirement as intended to clarify responsibilities. She told senators the two associations requested repeal because MOUs "have created more work and increased legal costs for both school districts and the charter schools" and, she said, remain unsigned in many cases while children continue to receive services.

Beth McClure, principal at Strong Foundations Charter School and a work-group participant, said charter schools and district special-education staff already collaborate: "All students are receiving services," she said, and described spending substantial staff time and legal fees preparing MOUs—"I easily spent about 45 hours pouring through the different versions of the MOUs"—during the first years of implementation. McClure said the MOUs have not been demonstrably helpful for many schools and that oversight of special-education records already exists through district IEP teams and Department of Education monitoring.

Representatives of NHASEA and the Alliance reiterated similar points. Jessica Bickford, speaking for NHASEA, called the MOU an unfunded mandate that "has created hours and hours of meetings, discussions, hiring of attorneys and unexpected financial burden for both charter schools and district school districts." She said the MOU is not required by IDEA or state special education rules and that NHASEA's surveys of members did not show improved student outcomes after the MOU requirement.

Rebecca Furdett, state director of special education at the New Hampshire Department of Education (NHED), said the Department helped create the MOU template and acknowledged concerns about staff time. Furdett said the MOU gives NHED a way to see how districts and charters have agreed to collaborate, which can help NHED respond when questions arise. She described examples where an MOU helped NHED review what parties had agreed when disputes surfaced. Furdett also said initial data show three special-education complaints related to charter schools this year, similar to prior years, and that NHED is now tracking the MOU submissions more closely (agency staff reported 94 MOUs not returned for the 2024–25 year but later said that number declined to 56 after filling a vacant position).

Committee members pressed witnesses on whether parents had less need to contact the Department since the MOU was adopted, on who receives the MOU and on whether contracts to pay for services are distinct from the MOU. Witnesses said MOUs typically run four to six pages and that service contracts and IEPs are separate documents; the IEP remains the enforceable legal document and the resident district retains legal responsibility to provide the FAPE (free appropriate public education) required by federal law.

Balboni told senators the House Education and Policy Administration Committee had recommended passage 18–0 and that the bill appeared on the House consent calendar on March 6. Senators indicated they would continue to consider competing views expressed at the hearing.