Committee Summary for House Education Policy and Administration (02/03/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB222 00:02:27.480 - 8:31:23 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) repealing the requirement for a memorandum of understanding between a chartered public school and school district regarding how students with disabilities will receive special education services and updating the organizational structure of the department of corrections.	Balboni, Peggy(D)[CT]2025
HB699 00:47:56.359 - 9:16:52 AM	Public Hearing	relative to special education definitions.	Kuttab, Katelyn(R)[B]2025
HB699 01:30:39.719 - 9:59:35 AM	Public Hearing	relative to special education definitions.	Kuttab, Katelyn(R)[B]2025
HB754 03:35:49.680 - 12:04:45 PM	Public Hearing	establishing automatic discovery in due process hearings for actions seeking to enforce special education rights.	Murphy, Nancy(D)[CT]2025
HB753 03:59:09.960 - 12:28:05 PM	Public Hearing	relative to expedited due process hearings to enforce special education rights.	Murphy, Nancy(D)[CT]2025
HB677 04:24:06.279 - 12:53:02 PM	Executive Session	(Second New Title) relative to the possession and use of epinephrine at recreation camps, schools, and institutions of higher education.	Drago, Mike(R)[A-]2025
HB68 04:27:24.800 - 12:56:20 PM	Executive Session	making best interest placements within the same school district mandatory in the absence of a valid reason to deny the placement.	Layon, Erica(R)[A+]2025
HB68 2024-0103h 04:27:53.520 - 12:56:49 PM	Executive Session	making best interest placements within the same school district mandatory in the absence of a valid reason to deny the placement.	Layon, Erica(R)[A+]2025
HB329 04:37:03.879 - 1:05:59 PM	Executive Session	relative to school district policies governing air quality and temperature issues in schools.	Sullivan, Brian(D)[F]2025
HB76 04:45:15.440 - 1:14:11 PM	Executive Session	relative to tracking special education complaints.	Kuttab, Katelyn(R)[B]2025

HB222: Peggy Balbon, representing the towns of Greenland, Northampton, and Rye Support00:02:27.480 - 8:31:23 AM; Peggy Balbon, the prime sponsor of HB 222, introduced the bill at the request of the New Hampshire Association of special education administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for public charter schools. She explained that the legislation aims to repeal the requirement for a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between chartered public schools and school districts concerning special education services for students with disabilities. Balbon highlighted that charter schools, despite being public, operate independently and must comply with federal laws to admit and serve students with disabilities. She noted that the current MOU requirement has led to increased administrative work and legal costs without effectively resolving disagreements, particularly those related to funding. Balbon emphasized that the absence of signed MOUs does not prevent students from receiving necessary services, suggesting the requirement's repeal would allow more focus on education rather than administrative tasks.
HB222: State Representative Moren Mooney, representing the town of Merrimack Support00:09:43.279 - 8:38:39 AM; Moren Mooney supported HB 222, arguing that the MOU requirement for special education services in charter schools is impractical and unnecessary. Mooney explained that special education is already highly regulated, and the existing processes for IEPs and 504 plans are thorough and legally binding. He stated that the MOU adds duplicate work and could potentially conflict with the finalized IEPs, complicating issues rather than resolving them. Mooney urged the committee to recommend passing the bill to improve processes and reduce unnecessary burdens on schools.
HB222: Jane Buron, Executive Director of the New Hampshire Association of special education administrators Support00:16:25.440 - 8:45:21 AM; Jane Buron expressed support for HB 222 on behalf of over 300 members of the New Hampshire Association of special education administrators. She described the organization's collaborative work with charter schools and noted that the MOU has not positively impacted students or their families. Buron mentioned that disputes over MOUs often revolve around funding and costs, leading to significant time and legal expenses. She argued that repealing the MOU requirement would allow more time and resources to be dedicated to education and recruiting special education staff. Buron confirmed that the MOU has not streamlined processes and may even delay service provision at the start of the school year.
HB222: Beth McLure, member of the board of the Alliance for Public Charter Schools, member of the NHA, principal at Strong Foundations Charter School Support00:26:07.000 - 8:55:03 AM; Beth McLure supports House Bill 222 to repeal the MOU requirement for charter schools. She has been a principal at Strong Foundations Charter School for 17.5 years and has always been able to work out agreements with districts without the need for MOUs. She joined a collaborative work group with the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and found that they were also frustrated with the MOU process. She spent 80 hours the first year and over 50 hours the second year working on MOUs, which she found exhausting and costly. She believes the MOUs have created conflict and unnecessary time spent, and she would not support the repeal if she thought it would hurt students with disabilities.
HB222: Rebecca Fett, Department of Education Information Only00:32:13.120 - 9:01:09 AM; Rebecca Fett from the Department of Education spoke about the MOU for charter schools, which was proposed in the 2022 legislative session due to lack of oversight for special education in charter schools. The MOU was developed with input from charter schools and districts, but it has been reported as cumbersome and difficult to implement. The department has limited authority to intervene in disputes between charter schools and districts. Fett expressed concerns about removing the MOU without providing alternative oversight for special education in charter schools, as they do not have approved programs like traditional public schools. She mentioned the department's MOU template and suggested considering other ways to address challenges between charters and districts.
HB699: Representative Katab, prime sponsor of HB 699 Support00:47:56.359 - 9:16:52 AM; Representative Katab introduced House Bill 699, which was requested by the NHD following a special education audit to ensure federal compliance. The bill aims to ensure children receive specialized instructions from qualified specialists and to add a definition of educational environment to prevent inappropriate placements. Katab addressed concerns about misinformation, clarifying that the bill does not take away related services, redefine educational environments, or affect services for the functionally blind. An amendment was proposed to clarify the term 'special educational environment.'
HB699: Amy Te, parent Information Only00:57:00.880 - 9:25:56 AM; Amy Te, a parent, expressed confusion and concern about the potential impact of HB 699 on her children's services. She prepared her remarks believing that the bill would result in the loss of services that her children benefit from. She was unsure whether to proceed with her prepared statement given the clarifications provided by Representative Katab.
HB699: Amy Wheeler Teas, Ashua Oppose00:58:07.880 - 9:27:03 AM; Amy Wheeler Teas, a resident of Ashua and parent of three children, strongly opposes HB 699. She argues that the bill promotes discrimination and moral corruption, particularly affecting children with disabilities like her children, who have SoDo syndrome. Her children, Frankie and Magdalena, benefit from inclusive education and specialized services that enable them to thrive in a general education setting at their public elementary school. She fears that the bill could lead to their segregation from general education classrooms, which she believes would be detrimental not only to her children but also to the broader school community. Amy highlights her personal experience in the 1990s in Amers, where integration of disabled students was first implemented in New Hampshire, underscoring the state's tradition of inclusivity. She expresses distrust in the assurances that the bill's intent is not to segregate, given the language in the amendment regarding special education environments, and remains concerned about the potential for her children to be isolated in resource rooms.
HB699: Rebecca Fet, Department of Education Information Only01:07:32.200 - 9:36:28 AM; Rebecca Fet from the Department of Education provides detailed information on the changes proposed in HB 699. She explains that the bill aims to align state laws and rules with federal language, particularly regarding definitions and the provision of special education services. Key changes include aligning the definition of special education with federal standards, removing redundant definitions like 'functionally blind,' and clarifying what constitutes specially designed instruction, which must be provided by certified teachers. She also discusses the clarification of program approval processes, emphasizing that the bill does not remove any rights or educational environments but seeks to provide clarity and ensure compliance with federal regulations. Fet addresses concerns about integration, stating that the bill does not change the practice of integrating students into general education settings.
HB699: Representative Bon Information Only01:15:19.320 - 9:44:15 AM; Representative Bon inquired about the progress toward mastering educational goals and whether the language in the bill could be adjusted to reflect this. They also mentioned a concern from an audit about the state's definitions exceeding federal requirements, specifically regarding specially designed instruction, which has been expanded in the bill to clarify what it should entail.
HB699: Department of Education Representative Information Only01:16:28.760 - 9:45:24 AM; The Department of Education representative explained that the additional requirements in the bill for specially designed instruction were added to clarify that paraprofessionals should not be providing such instruction, which is a role reserved for certified educators or licensed related service providers. They mentioned ongoing audits and the need to address issues identified during monitoring of special education services.
HB699: Representative Murray Information Only01:18:38.840 - 9:47:34 AM; Representative Murray asked about the definition of acquired brain injury in the bill, specifically whether it excludes injuries that occur during the birthing process. The Department of Education representative responded that the definition was moved from rules to law and any potential changes would require further technical assistance.
HB699: Representative Paul Information Only01:19:35.080 - 9:48:31 AM; Representative Paul inquired about the certification of support personnel under speech and language services. The Department of Education representative clarified that these personnel must be certified to provide related services, and paraprofessionals or par educators should only reinforce or reteach skills taught by certified educators.
HB699: Representative Woodcock Information Only01:20:36.520 - 9:49:32 AM; Representative Woodcock asked about the role of paraprofessionals in classrooms, particularly when supervised by certified professionals who might be in another classroom. The Department of Education representative explained that paraprofessionals should only reinforce or reteach skills previously taught by certified educators. They also discussed the status of ongoing special education audits.
HB699: Representative McDonald Information Only01:23:14.679 - 9:52:10 AM; Representative McDonald pointed out a discrepancy in the amendment, noting the absence of a provision 'F' that was present in the original bill. The Department of Education representative confirmed that provision 'F' was intentionally removed due to concerns about its wording.
HB699: Virginia Canon, Contoocook Oppose01:24:22.080 - 9:53:18 AM; Virginia Canon, a resident of Contoocook, expressed opposition to the bill. She shared her personal experience as a mother of a child who received special education services, including out-of-district placement, and as someone with autism who did not receive support services. Canon criticized the bill for failing to clarify special education services and potentially stripping them, which she believes violates federal and state laws. She also pointed out grammatical and structural issues in the bill, suggesting it should simply reference existing federal definitions to avoid confusion and panic among parents. Canon emphasized the importance of out-of-district placements for her child's mental health and the need for adequate resources and funding to support all children's educational needs.
HB699: Unknown Speaker, Contoocook Oppose01:30:39.719 - 9:59:35 AM; The speaker, who helped draft similar legislation 10 years ago, expressed strong opposition to HB 699, citing poor drafting and confusion in the bill. They mentioned learning about the bill through a Facebook group for parents of children with special needs and emphasized the importance of not removing services from children with IEPs or 504 plans. The speaker criticized the bill's clarity and effectiveness in addressing its intended purpose.
HB699: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:32:47.040 - 10:01:43 AM; This speaker was asked about their confidence in the general education setting being addressed in the amendment of the bill. They admitted to not having seen the amendment yet and were unable to comment on it. The conversation highlighted confusion over specific language in the amendment, particularly around the definition and application of educational environments and services.
HB699: Lisa Bodwin, Strategies for Disability Equity, Concord Oppose01:35:47.719 - 10:04:43 AM; Lisa Bodwin, a disability policy professional and parent from Concord, opposed HB 699 due to its confusing and contradictory language, which she believes will lead to conflicts with federal IDEA law. She highlighted that the bill, although possibly well-intentioned, could result in students with disabilities not receiving a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Bodwin criticized the bill for removing the presumption of general education settings as the first consideration for educational services for students with disabilities. She stressed the importance of inclusive education based on extensive research showing better outcomes for all students in inclusive settings. Bodwin urged the committee to vote the bill inexpedient to legislate, citing fears that it would enable further segregation of students with disabilities and widen the gap between parents and school districts.
HB699: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:41:39.199 - 10:10:35 AM; This speaker responded to questions about the definition changes in HB 699, particularly regarding the least restrictive environment. They could not immediately provide a side-by-side comparison of the existing law and the proposed changes but offered to follow up later. In response to another question about resource rooms, the speaker acknowledged them as segregated but noted the importance of addressing individual student needs, advocating for inclusive practices and pushing in related services as more beneficial for all students.
HB699: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:44:59.520 - 10:13:55 AM; The speaker discussed the importance of viewing students with disabilities as viable members of their communities as adults and the impact of not seeing them as valued members within school settings. They also raised a concern about the potential for the bill to unintentionally encourage segregated environments in future school constructions. An example was given from Contoocook, NH, where a middle school project initially included a segregated wing for students with disabilities, which was opposed by parents.
HB699: Caitlyn Bernier from Merrimack, NH Oppose01:47:25.320 - 10:16:21 AM; Caitlyn Bernier expressed opposition to HB699, emphasizing its potential negative impact on her family and others. She shared her experience as a mother of an 11-year-old girl with dyslexia and ADHD, who required out-of-district services to meet her educational needs. Bernier is concerned that the amendment to the bill could eliminate these options by changing the definition of 'approved program' from state-approved to within the school district's control, which would limit her daughter's ability to receive necessary educational support. She highlighted her daughter's progress and her desire to return to public school with peers, underscoring the importance of inclusive education.
HB699: Amy Gerard from Concord, NH Oppose01:54:00.840 - 10:22:56 AM; Amy Gerard opposed HB699, arguing that it is unclear and promotes distrust within the community. She shared her daughter Alison's educational journey, highlighting her inclusion in general education classes at Concord High School, despite her Angelman syndrome. Gerard emphasized the importance of related services like speech therapy and the use of Alison's augmentative and alternative communication device, which is crucial for her education and inclusion. She argued that the bill, as written, could lead to confusion and potentially promote seclusion and isolation of students with disabilities.
HB699: Karen Mortimer from Merrimack, NH Oppose02:04:23.719 - 10:33:19 AM; Karen Mortimer expressed opposition to HB699, focusing on the potential for the bill to hinder inclusive education for her son, Tyler. She described Tyler's participation in general education classes at high school, emphasizing the importance of his inclusion and the collaborative efforts of his support team. Mortimer highlighted the confusion caused by the bill's language and the potential for it to limit students' access to inclusive educational environments. She shared an example of how Tyler participates in a math class, working on his individual goals alongside his peers, and expressed concern that the bill could lead to more restrictive educational settings.
HB699: Carrie Duran, Wolfeboro, Lakes Region Community Services Oppose02:10:40.000 - 10:39:36 AM; Carrie Duran, speaking as a mother of a 13-year-old daughter with Down syndrome, expressed her concerns about HB699. She highlighted her emotional response to the potential impact of the bill on her daughter's education, particularly as her daughter is about to tour a high school. Duran advocated for the rejection of the bill and any amendments, urging the committee to vote it inexpedient to legislate (ITL). She emphasized the importance of collaboration and input from all stakeholders to improve the special education system without diminishing existing rights and opportunities for students with disabilities.
HB699: Carly, personal testimony Oppose02:14:12.000 - 10:43:08 AM; Carly, identifying herself as someone who benefited from special education resources, strongly opposed HB699. She shared her personal journey, highlighting how essential services and accommodations were crucial to her success in education and beyond. Carly compared the potential impact of the bill to taking away essential aids from people with other disabilities, urging the committee to vote against the bill to protect future generations' access to necessary support.
HB699: Michael Mshan, Rochester Information Only02:17:11.760 - 10:46:07 AM; Michael Mshan from Rochester provided insights on HB699, suggesting that the bill and its amendment added unnecessary confusion to the special education system. He pointed out issues with definitions and the potential for complicating the administration of special education services. Mshan recommended clarifying the use of paraprofessionals and ensuring that the bill does not inadvertently remove important protections for students.
HB699: Lisis Esposito, Brookline, AEL New Hampshire Oppose02:21:40.560 - 10:50:36 AM; Lisis Esposito, with extensive experience in special education, expressed concerns over HB699's potential to negatively impact students with disabilities. She highlighted the need for collaboration and improvement rather than stripping definitions and protections. Esposito emphasized New Hampshire's history of striving for excellence in education and cautioned against lowering standards, especially in light of federal legislative threats. She advocated for clear definitions and support for integrating students into general education settings.
HB699: Bonnie Dunham, Merrimack, New Hampshire Oppose02:25:31.800 - 10:54:27 AM; Bonnie Dunham expressed concerns about the proposed changes in HB699, even with the amendment. She criticized the removal of the definition of related services, arguing that it could limit options for school districts and families in providing a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. She also discussed the implications of removing the definition of 'functionally blind,' suggesting that it might have been necessary in the past but should be reviewed before removal. She recommended consulting with organizations like Future Insight before making such changes. Dunham supported the addition of 'special' before 'educational environment' in the bill to clarify the scope, but she wanted more emphasis on considering the regular education classroom first. She also suggested clarifying the role of paraprofessionals in special education. Finally, she recommended referring the bill to an interim study to refine it with stakeholder input.
HB699: Jane Bonville, Executive Director, New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators Oppose02:29:32.319 - 10:58:28 AM; Jane Bonville opposed HB699, expressing surprise and concern over the lack of stakeholder involvement in the revision process, which led to confusion. She criticized the bill for deviating from federal definitions, particularly regarding specially designed instruction, which she felt should not exclude non-special education certified professionals such as reading specialists and adaptive physical education teachers. She emphasized the need for clarity and collaboration in revising the rules and suggested that the bill, even with amendments, needed significant editing and reworking.
HB699: Heather Barker, SSC Director, New Hampshire School Administrators Association Oppose02:32:20.120 - 11:01:16 AM; Heather Barker initially supported the concept of aligning state and federal rules but opposed the current version of HB699 due to its lack of clarity and potential to cause fear among parents regarding the loss of rights for their children. She highlighted concerns over the continuum of services, the role of paraprofessionals, and the need for precise definitions and vocabulary to avoid misinterpretations. Barker suggested that an interim study could help refine the bill and address these issues, expressing her willingness to support such an effort.
HB699: Kristen Manani, Office of the Advocate for Special Education, New Hampshire Information Only02:36:18.560 - 11:05:14 AM; Kristen Manani provided insights into the issues surrounding special education environments, particularly the misuse of self-contained classrooms. She emphasized the need for better legislation to ensure appropriate and inclusive educational settings and supported the amendment's clarifications. Manani also stressed the importance of not narrowing the federal definition of related services, which could limit students' rights. She supported an interim study to address these concerns and improve the bill.
HB699: Kristen Manani, Office of the Advocate for Special Education, New Hampshire Information Only02:41:02.479 - 11:09:58 AM; In a follow-up testimony, Kristen Manani provided statistics on the caseload of her office, highlighting the need for more staff to handle the volume of inquiries and cases. She mentioned that her office dealt with 40 to 50 cases last year and receives around 40 requests for assistance monthly, emphasizing the systemic issues and the need for policy improvements.
HB754: Representative Paul Terry, Alton and Barrington Information Only03:35:49.680 - 12:04:45 PM; Representative Paul Terry introduced House Bill 754 on behalf of the sponsor and co-sponsors, who were not present. He stated his intention to introduce the bill and expressed a preference not to take any questions.
HB754: Kristen Manani, Office of the Advocate for Special Education, New Hampshire Oppose03:36:35.800 - 12:05:31 PM; Kristen Manani from the Office of the Advocate for Special Education expressed support for the concept of automatic discovery but opposed House Bill 754 as written. She explained that her office had proposed an alternative language to the prime sponsor for a redraft of the bill. Manani defined 'Discovery' as the process of document production in dispute resolution, particularly important in special education cases. She highlighted the issue of overwhelming parents with thousands of pages of documents, which makes the process less accessible and transparent. Manani suggested that automatic discovery should focus on a limited set of key documents like progress reports, evaluations, and written prior notices to make the process more manageable and effective. She stressed that the current bill's broad approach to document production could obscure important issues and complicate cases unnecessarily.
HB754: Representative Murray Information Only03:43:55.640 - 12:12:51 PM; Representative Murray asked Kristen Manani to clarify the term 'pro se parents' and the scope of discovery proposed. Manani explained that 'pro se' refers to parents representing themselves and that the proposed discovery should be narrower, focusing on essential documents like IEP drafts, written prior notices, evaluations, and progress reports to streamline the process.
HB754: Representative Hall Information Only03:46:01.479 - 12:14:57 PM; Representative Hall inquired about the location of the proposed language by Kristen Manani's office. Manani confirmed that they had submitted it to Representative Murphy and offered to circulate it to the full committee.
HB754: Representative Damon Information Only03:46:01.479 - 12:14:57 PM; Representative Damon asked Kristen Manani to explain what a written prior notice is. Manani described it as a legal document required by school districts to document their responses to parental requests or proposed changes in special education services, providing the basis for their decisions.
HB754: Representative Woodcock Information Only03:49:36.399 - 12:18:32 PM; Representative Woodcock asked if the language in the bill was from Kristen Manani's department. Manani clarified that it was not and that her office had provided different language to Representative Murphy.
HB754: Representative Freeman Information Only03:49:36.399 - 12:18:32 PM; Representative Freeman asked if obtaining all the information should be left up to the parents. Kristen Manani responded that while parents are free to request additional discovery, the proposed language ensures that core documents are provided automatically to streamline the process and enhance transparency.
HB754: Representative Cornell Information Only03:50:39.040 - 12:19:35 PM; Representative Cornell asked if the proposed changes would streamline the process and potentially reduce costs. Kristen Manani confirmed that the intention was to make the process more transparent and efficient, which could reduce costs by focusing on essential documents already required to be in the school district's files.
HB754: Representative Bon Information Only03:52:09.120 - 12:21:05 PM; Representative Bon asked Kristen Manani about the necessity and origin of the bill's language. Manani explained that the bill was an outgrowth of discussions about the hearing process and that her office had suggested a streamlined approach but did not draft the current language. She clarified that the school district is not required to turn over its entire file, only what supports their case or is specifically requested by the parent, which can be challenging for parents to navigate.
HB754: Unknown Information Only03:55:20.239 - 12:24:16 PM; The speaker discussed the current state of document production in hearings, emphasizing that at no point is anyone required to turn over specific documents. They suggested that requiring the production of specific documents could be a helpful step in the process. The speaker also addressed Representative Murray's question about how the process stands in relation to 91a, explaining that in a hearing setting, 91a becomes less relevant due to the discovery process and rules. They noted that parties typically do not need to make a 91a request as they can request documents voluntarily, although the onus is on the parent to know what to ask for and how to draft these requests.
HB754: Unknown Information Only03:56:33.439 - 12:25:29 PM; The speaker responded to further questions about the process, mentioning that their office is considering preparing a simple request form for parents to help them know what to ask for during hearings. They discussed the benefits of clarifying issues from the start, which could help hearing officers manage cases more effectively. They emphasized that while they could draft such a form, they preferred not to place the burden solely on parents.
HB753: Representative Terry Information Only03:59:09.960 - 12:28:05 PM; Representative Terry introduced HB 753 FN, explaining that it pertains to expedited due process hearings to enforce special education rights. They mentioned introducing the bill in the absence of the sponsor or co-sponsors and expressed a preference not to take questions, citing potential unhelpful information.
HB753: Bonnie Dunham, Marlow, NH Support04:00:08.920 - 12:29:04 PM; Bonnie Dunham, a private citizen from Marlow, NH, supported HB 753. She detailed the differences between regular and expedited due process hearings, emphasizing that the expedited hearings should not take longer than regular hearings. She provided examples from the Manchester School District's calendar to illustrate how expedited hearings could take longer during certain times of the year. Dunham stressed the importance of ensuring that expedited hearings are indeed faster and urged the committee to recommend the bill to pass.
HB753: Representative Bon Information Only04:04:32.720 - 12:33:28 PM; Representative Bon asked about the difference between calendar days and school days in the context of the IDEA and how the bill addresses the issue of expedited hearings taking longer than intended. The response clarified that while federal timelines remain, the bill ensures that expedited hearings do not take longer than regular hearings, even during times when school days are fewer.
HB677: Representative Terry Support04:24:06.279 - 12:53:02 PM; Representative Terry moved to pass HB677, which requires schools to maintain a supply of EpiPen injectors. They described the bill as common sense and good, expressing hope for a bipartisan vote.
HB677: Representative Murray Support04:25:19.080 - 12:54:15 PM; Representative Murray seconded the motion to pass HB677, emphasizing the importance of having EpiPens in schools due to the high incidence of allergies and potential anaphylaxis. They supported moving the bill forward to the Full House for passage and signing into law.
HB677: Committee Members Support04:26:30.000 - 12:55:26 PM; The committee members voted unanimously to pass HB677, with no dissenting votes. Representative Terry was assigned to write the report on the bill.
HB68: Unknown Information Only04:27:24.800 - 12:56:20 PM; The committee announced they would take up HB68, which makes best interest placements within the same school district mandatory unless there is a valid reason to deny placement. The session was about to start discussing this bill.
HB68 2024-0103h: Representative McDonald Support04:27:53.520 - 12:56:49 PM; Representative McDonald moved that the bill ought to pass and also moved forward an amendment. The amendment removes reference to private schools, correcting an oversight from the original drafting. The bill as amended improves the process of best interest placements by enhancing communication and transparency between superintendents and parents. It requires superintendents to provide written reasons for denying requests within 10 days and mandates approval of best interest placements unless there is a valid reason to deny. The bill has no fiscal impact and does not affect districts with only one school for a grade level.
HB68 2024-0103h: Representative Woodcock Oppose04:30:07.279 - 12:59:03 PM; Representative Woodcock expressed concerns about the amendment, particularly with the use of 'shall' in the language, suggesting it mandates the superintendent to take action without considering all data. They were concerned about the requirement for superintendents to approve requests without full information.
HB68 2024-0103h: Representative Bon Oppose04:33:34.680 - 1:02:30 PM; Representative Bon opposed the bill, arguing it allows parents to decide school placements within a district without considering the planning and staffing issues schools face annually. They were concerned about the assumption that superintendents must grant requests without considering these factors.
HB68 2024-0103h: Representative Woodcock Oppose04:34:49.480 - 1:03:45 PM; Representative Woodcock further opposed the bill, highlighting issues with the frequency of parent requests and potential curriculum misalignment when students move between schools. They praised the 10-day response requirement but could not support the rest of the bill due to these concerns.
HB68 2024-0103h: Representative Cornell Oppose04:35:48.958 - 1:04:44 PM; Representative Cornell opposed the bill, noting that the provision for requesting a hearing if a student experiences educational hardship is already in law. They felt the bill was unnecessary as it did not add anything new to the existing legal framework.
HB329: Representative Terry Oppose04:37:03.879 - 1:05:59 PM; Representative Terry moved that the bill be inexpedient to legislate, citing extensive testimony suggesting it was unnecessary. The Superintendents Association and School Boards Association believed they could handle air quality and temperature issues without additional legislation.
HB329: Representative NATO Oppose04:38:24.000 - 1:07:20 PM; Representative NATO supported the motion to inexpedient to legislate, emphasizing local control and the capability of school administrators to manage these issues. They noted concerns about the bill's language changing 'encourage' to 'require' in relation to EPA tools, seeing it as an affront to local control.
HB329: Representative Woodcock Support04:39:37.039 - 1:08:33 PM; Representative Woodcock supported the bill, highlighting the long-standing issue of air quality and the addition of temperature considerations in annual inspections. They stressed the impact of high temperatures on academic learning and the need for schools to identify and address these issues.
HB329: Representative Dry Oppose04:40:43.840 - 1:09:39 PM; Representative Dry opposed the bill, questioning the practicality of emergency response planning and heat illness prevention training as described in lines 11 to 13. They noted the absence of a comprehensive program in the Tools for Schools resource for managing these issues.
HB329: Representative Damon Support04:42:36.680 - 1:11:32 PM; Representative Damon supported the bill, emphasizing its role as a policy directive to be more thorough and diligent about school environments for both students and staff. They clarified that there was no intent to affront local control.
HB329: Representative Woodcock Support04:43:35.958 - 1:12:31 PM; Representative Woodcock responded to Representative Dry's concerns, emphasizing the lack of a current plan for managing temperature and air quality issues. They advocated for the bill as it requires the development of such a plan.
HB76: Representative Freeman Support04:45:15.440 - 1:14:11 PM; Representative Freeman supported the bill, arguing it increases transparency without creating a burden on the Department of Education, as the information is already collected.
HB76: Representative Bon Oppose04:46:02.798 - 1:14:58 PM; Representative Bon opposed the bill, noting that the information requested is already available on the special education website. They expressed concerns about potential privacy breaches and saw no need for the bill.
HB76: Representative Murray Oppose04:47:19.920 - 1:16:15 PM; Representative Murray opposed the bill, citing potential privacy issues in smaller districts where identifying the district could inadvertently identify students. They believed most of the requested information is already accessible.
HB76: Representative Damon Oppose04:48:26.920 - 1:17:22 PM; Representative Damon opposed the bill, reiterating concerns about privacy in small towns where identifying the district could lead to identifying individual students.
HB76: Representative Woodcock Oppose04:48:26.920 - 1:17:22 PM; Representative Woodcock opposed the bill, citing a case mentioned during the morning session where a student's privacy would be compromised if the bill were passed. They emphasized the potential for self-identification and loss of privacy.

Noble, Kristin(Chairman)(R)[A+]2025	Drye, Margaret(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Peternel, Katy(V Chairman)(R)[A]2025
Cornell, Patricia(D)[F]2025	Freeman, Lisa(R)[B+]2025	Belcher, Mike(R)[B+]2025
Hall, Muriel(D)[CT]2025	Terry, Paul(R)[B+]2025	McDonnell, Valerie(R)[B+]2025
Selig, Loren(D)[D-]2025	Balboni, Peggy(D)[CT]2025	Murray, Megan(D)[CT]2025
Tenczar, Jeffrey(R)[B+]2025	Litchfield, Melissa(R)[B+]2025	Woodcock, Stephen(D)[F]2025
Kluger, Lee Ann(D)[F]2025	Snodgrass, Jim(D)[F]2025	Nadeau, Brian(R)[B+]2025