[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6543743,"mediaKeyId","3406793-7a9f578c2ad2a59781599ac70ad4a145","parentId",3406793,"title","Committee explores special education aid, IDEA funds and data gaps; asks DOE for more analyses","audioSeconds",4897,"startMs",11371000,"endMs",16268000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3406793-7a9f578c2ad2a59781599ac70ad4a145&start=11371&end=16268","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3406793-7a9f578c2ad2a59781599ac70ad4a145/thumbnail_11371000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6543743/New-Hampshire/Committee-explores-special-education-aid-IDEA-funds-and-data-gaps-asks-DOE-for-more-analyses","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543743-27afd1ade482b72e0bc80a5efaf4250d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770927693&Signature=ULgbxhQGfixkauJXY4ur2F6U8ZgOEk7MIl6BHWyLVqy5gkbzshkhVmyrMF5kHrYNzshuYNeD4tV0hqRq2wTeAtGyrPGaHXXhZRR5iAM~0a5kZwYnSIYaHHo2JK9bfg56xsFnzMzggwofpnGScQwm~wQVDOaDGpp0-kI04n0BVLVcynGoHeR4ysQk~kqpbJ5aTcpwgAhYyjS8lpstFeRhztlhpHjU4lyCIE5L1x3LV7qHcHf~G8~fS2ELOh0HXB78NsfVyrau1d7vP29CQ92P03tPd176gyRTFaPLq3JMmBb43CjFjXbf1RQPO-0oRdrdXYrlmEAkbpvV3Cat01zbvA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-05-20T00:00:00Z","article","The House Education Committee on May 20 held a work session on special-education aid and related data systems, focusing on how to measure and fund high-cost students and how federal IDEA and state reporting interact with the state’s catastrophic-aid formula.

Rebecca Ferdette of the Department of Education briefed members about current reporting and funding. She said the state receives roughly $56 million in IDEA (federal special-education) funds, with about $47 million passed through to local districts; the remainder pays for state administration, dispute resolution and other statewide programs. Committee members asked how IDEA and state aid interact and whether costs paid by Medicaid, the state Department of Health and Human Services or private insurance reduce district educational claims.

Members and DOE staff agreed on one principal data gap: DOE receives comprehensive expenditure detail only for students for whom districts request special-education (catastrophic) aid. Districts are not required to submit detailed per‑student expense breakdowns for every IEP; they typically compile detailed invoices only for students they expect will exceed the catastrophic threshold and seek reimbursement. DOE staff said the new special-education information system under development is being built onto the state’s current student-record platform and will allow improved data collection, but the fiscal module has not yet been implemented.

Committee members outlined competing policy choices. One path is to continue the current “circuit‑breaker” model that reimburses exceptional costs above a high multiple of per-pupil cost (the committee discussed moving the existing 3.5× threshold to a lower multiple such as 3× or 2.5×). Lowering the threshold would increase state share but also create larger recurring state obligations. Another path is to change the program’s structure—for example, base state participation on a fixed percentage of incremental special-education spending statewide or create incentives for districts to report more comprehensive data in exchange for higher reimbursement rates.

Committee members asked specific operational questions that DOE staff said they could answer with additional analysis: the number of students in expense bands (DOE provided counts for students with reported costs in ranges such as $0–100k, $100k–200k, etc.), the incremental cost per student above the state’s baseline per-pupil cost, and whether a pilot project could test year‑round reporting methods. DOE staff also confirmed the department’s grant-management process and fiscal monitoring cycle for federal funds; district use of IDEA funds is subject to federal permissible-use rules and periodic fiscal monitoring.

The committee asked DOE to provide several items for further consideration: a concise set of options showing cost implications of moving the catastrophic threshold, an estimate of administrative burden and fiscal staff needs for expanded reporting, recommendations on a phased pilot to collect student-level cost data, and the IDEA permitting/maintenance-of-effort constraints that would affect any formula changes. Members suggested engaging academic researchers or the state research institute to model projected costs if the committee considers lowering the catastrophic threshold.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education Funding (05/20/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","At a May 20 work session, the House Education Committee examined special-education aid, federal IDEA funds and gaps in per‑student expenditure reporting that complicate reforms to catastrophic aid.","taxTitle","Education, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17745,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6543748,"Committee debates SB 99 on CTE access and tuition formula, postpones final action for additional study",5303,1635000,6938000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3406793-7a9f578c2ad2a59781599ac70ad4a145&start=1635&end=6938","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3406793-7a9f578c2ad2a59781599ac70ad4a145/thumbnail_1635000.jpg","/articles/6543748/New-Hampshire/Committee-debates-SB-99-on-CTE-access-and-tuition-formula-postpones-final-action-for-additional-study","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543748-b322597830c3b77c79c3ececd2c739c1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770927693&Signature=HJzhTzcwqk91NZZPQh6hAz1RjxEFeYnRMOm7-l~zs1CcbHVmAemJfLJCj2qitiE-kzoFIZbNS7Ri59V-s84SAcsPTribi5DAiZDtEW2GgRP4n3OCUVpRjmyS5McpBO13iBlGuCayq0T9QmJvJjZHg7whsPq6mCeh2wRzWTQIgfAQSg~v2VsIYTtKu50U1bTgHy~-ikp8qcNBxtsUFNhgq5UYI4ucpPTl-yt-8POxwKS9cQiJDqVjVw-5jtkgWjGgKSa3dQaHGJ3MwovU9uQIHjbbi8fKIcSU2HZZIw9RNESiFvO2BYiN4cHGPdn06gkkeF6MnCNzNzPZW9ITS0QYiw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Education Committee on May 20 discussed Senate Bill 99, legislation intended to increase access to Career and Technical Education (CTE) by requiring sending and receiving districts to develop agreements allowing students enrolled in CTE programs to take additional academic courses at receiving comprehensive high schools.

Under the amendment introduced by Rep. Ladd, the sending district would pay the receiving district tuition equal to 0.15 of the receiving comprehensive high school pupil cost for each academic course credit taken by a sending district student. Committee members said the provision mirrors existing treatment for home-education students (RSA 198:38) and is intended to keep billing and accounting consistent with current DOE practice.

Discussion focused on several implementation issues: how to define ‘‘comprehensive high school’’ and ‘‘course credit’’ in mixed scheduling systems (block vs. period schedules), how to accommodate special-education services, how to limit enrollment if receiving schools lack capacity, and how transportation will be handled when CTE buses are unavailable. Several members warned that the 0.15 formula could impose significant unfunded costs on small sending districts, particularly because the Department of Education’s published per–pupil “cost” figure (used as the basis for 0.15) represents a blended expenditure figure and can differ substantially across regions.

Multiple committee members and witnesses urged that regional agreements (regional career-technical education agreements, RCTEA) be used to set calendars, capacity, and tuition reimbursement mechanics rather than attempting to resolve every local scheduling idiosyncrasy in statute. The bill’s sponsor and other supporters said the ‘‘shall develop agreements’’ language is intended to require regional cooperation and ensure sending students are not denied access to required academic courses that conflict with CTE scheduling.

Members noted additional constraints: the state currently allocates about $9 million annually for CTE tuition and transportation reimbursements; districts use different scheduling models (four-block, seven- or eight-period days), and many CTE programs operate as separate centers with varying relationships to receiving high schools (some are integrated into a comprehensive high school, others are stand-alone centers such as Manchester School of Technology). Several members suggested delaying an effective date to give districts time to budget and align schedules; Representative Hill proposed moving a July 1, 2025 effective date to 2026 to allow districts to incorporate changes into next year’s budgeting cycle.

After extended debate, the committee took no final vote on SB 99 on May 20 and scheduled a follow-up work session for 1 p.m. Wednesday, May 28 to continue negotiations and to form a small working group to refine language and cost estimates. Members requested that the sponsor and staff solicit input from CTE directors, superintendents, regional agreements and the Department of Education before the next meeting.","The House Education Committee discussed SB 99 on May 20, a bill directing sending and receiving districts to develop agreements enabling CTE-enrolled students to take additional academic course credits at receiving comprehensive high schools.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6543753,"Committee amends SB 209 to delay owner’s project manager requirement, adopts amendment unanimously",1030,530000,1560000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3406793-7a9f578c2ad2a59781599ac70ad4a145&start=530&end=1560","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3406793-7a9f578c2ad2a59781599ac70ad4a145/thumbnail_530000.jpg","/articles/6543753/New-Hampshire/Committee-amends-SB-209-to-delay-owners-project-manager-requirement-adopts-amendment-unanimously","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6543753-bcd5224f53967216b4524661560bedf7/orig.mp4?Expires=1770927693&Signature=NnGYtAwL1zsqTiSrD84B5arXWfO4091nCdDjlM83q5gQTuSBbXsoQAwrxton6q8gVTWQ6l8687-AR-e61y1usfqmuaDNg6snusLr7WudEPvMgTnaLpDuhvSVy62yFe69Z1wbfrQqBMVimX~iHW1d9UcDltDyRLxN5VKJnltxkFVAvx1FVaNlyWbU3D9wVAa4AriFwCD8MHR9cDGGULdUEWgZQDncmWoLEMmyPRrqOzuxk4ccEMMjzfJRlfHK9zzx1ZbbBwwEnH1Sd5MtZebQCu~4Sn9lYmWeeN8cScfF5FgDETgK1cz7Rmbky1TkQKtMYO~OH~n47xEzXinjCjC55Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Education Committee on May 20 amended Senate Bill 209 to revise when and for which projects schools must engage an owner’s project manager and to update the project-cost threshold.

Committee members said the amendment removes the statutory requirement that districts hire an owner’s project manager prior to submitting a school-building-aid application and instead aligns the statute with current administrative rules. The amended language retains the requirement that an owner’s project manager be engaged for major construction, reconstruction or renovation work but makes the timing and threshold consistent with sections A and B of the existing school-building-aid law.

The chair said the change responds to concerns that districts sometimes apply for building aid years before projects receive funding, which under the original bill could require them to hold costly project-management contracts for several years. The chair also said the amendment updates the dollar threshold in statute to reflect current construction costs.

Rep. Berkey asked whether a district would still have to hire a project manager long before a project is funded; the chair and other members clarified the amendment leaves current law intact on timing as reflected in administrative rules and removes the ‘‘hire before application’’ requirement that had been in the bill as introduced. Committee members noted administrative rules already allow an owner’s project manager to be retained before design services begin and that rule 321.3 defines responsibilities and timing.

In executive session, Representative Veil moved OTP (ought to pass) and then moved to adopt amendment 2275H. The committee adopted amendment 2275H and recommended SB 209 with the amendment. The clerk recorded a roll-call tally of 18 yes, 0 no; the committee placed the amended bill on the consent calendar.

The committee record shows members thanking the sponsor and noting the amendment addresses concerns raised during the public hearing and previous deliberations. No further changes were adopted at the meeting.

The committee also discussed the owner’s project manager scope: members and witnesses said the role (formerly called the clerk of the works) is intended to oversee contractors, track change orders and protect the district’s interests, and that administrative rules already specify qualifications and responsibilities. Several members cautioned that the 1.0 million-dollar threshold in older statute does not reflect current costs and supported updating it in statute to a higher amount.

The committee closed the executive session after the roll call and moved to other business.","The House Education Committee on May 20 amended Senate Bill 209 to revise when and for which projects schools must engage an owner’s project manager and to update the project-cost threshold.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee explores special education aid, IDEA funds and data gaps; asks DOE for more analyses

Committee debates SB 99 on CTE access and tuition formula, postpones final action for additional study

Committee amends SB 209 to delay owner’s project manager requirement, adopts amendment unanimously