Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Standards topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative committee presses Education Department on 'collection of evidence' and whether rules untether academic standards
Summary
Committee members questioned new language adding 'collection of evidence' to the definition of "achievement of competencies" and debated whether removing cross‑references in ED 306 would weaken the tie between rules and state academic standards; Department officials said stakeholders requested the wording and that standards themselves were not amended.
The Legislative Oversight Committee on Improvement and Assessment spent much of its meeting on Thursday probing a new phrase in the proposed ED 306 rules and the relationship between those rules and state academic standards.
Legislators flagged language newly added since a June draft that defines ‘‘achievement of competencies’’ as “demonstrated competencies at a proficient level through a collection of evidence.” A member asked whether that collection could include portfolios, observational notes, formative assessments or only objective, summative tests. "What is that referencing?" one legislator asked during the discussion.
Commissioner Frank Gaoblew, who appeared with Administrative Rules Coordinator Julie Shea, told the committee the wording came from stakeholder discussions and is standard in competency‑based learning. "In competency based learning, that collection of evidence is one of the key factors in determining the achievement of competencies," Gaoblew said, adding stakeholders including teachers' association representatives requested the change.
Members also pressed whether substantive edits to ED 306 (in particular the sections numbered around 306.21–.22 in the packet) would amount to changes in academic standards or merely to curriculum and implementation. The department and staff drew a distinction: academic standards, they said, enumerate what a student should know and be able to do and are adopted by the State Board; curriculum and local competencies are the vehicle districts use to implement those standards.
One legislator raised a hypothetical in which the State Board could "hollow out" a rule such as 306.21—removing references to specific learning areas—and asked whether that would escape this committee's review. Department counsel pointed to statute (RSA 193‑E provisions cited in today’s discussion) that requires prior legislative oversight review before the State Board amends academic standards.
Practitioners on the panel urged clarity in drafting so the rules do not create ambiguity about whether the state or the local district sets competencies. Christine Downing, a curriculum practitioner, recommended rephrasing a lead sentence so it clearly reads that district competencies are "aligned to state academic standards," not that the state standards themselves outline district competencies.
The committee did not take formal votes. Members asked for continued clarity in the remaining rule sections and said they would review the "back side" of the package at a subsequent meeting.
