Representatives, advocates press for public tracking of special-education complaints; DOE staff warn of privacy limits

Representative Caitlin Kuttab, the house sponsor, told the Senate Education Committee that House Bill 76 would require the Department of Education to post a tracking system and summary of state special‑education complaints so parents and advocates can spot patterns and see which law firms represent districts.

Kuttab said the bill mandates redaction of personally identifiable information in accordance with state and federal privacy laws. She said the request came from parents and advocates seeking more transparency about recurring problems and representation patterns across districts.

Committee members pressed on several points during the public hearing. Senator Ochsler asked how summaries could be formulated without risking student identification, particularly in small rural districts where a single complaint could be personally identifying. Kuttab said redaction would be situational and, in small districts, the name of the district itself could be redacted if that would identify a student.

Jay Siegelson, policy and planning coordinator for the New Hampshire Council on Developmental Disabilities, told the committee the department already keeps an internal tracking spreadsheet and warned that posting summaries for small districts could make complaints personally identifiable and expose families to harassment.

Diana Fenton, an attorney with the Department of Education, confirmed the department maintains an internal tracking spreadsheet (she described it as Excel-based) and said the department already posts redacted investigative findings on its website. Fenton said the bill would require producing a separate “summary” product, which would be additional work beyond posting redacted letters. She also noted a timing concern: the bill requires posting within 30 days of a final decision, but administrative rules allow parties up to 20 days to request reconsideration, which could make a 30‑day deadline impractical.

Fenton said the department does publish redacted complaint decisions and a fiscal‑year analysis of special‑education complaints on its appeals/mediation web page, and that the department typically treats naming of the district as a case‑by‑case redaction decision: larger districts may be named; small districts often are redacted to protect privacy.

Committee members suggested possible amendments—examples included making the publicly available item identify only the subject matter (e.g., placement, evaluation) rather than a sentence summary, and adding explicit language giving the department authority to redact district names when necessary. The transcript records discussion but no formal vote on the bill during the hearing.