Redefines and adds terms used in special education law, including updated definitions of child with a disability, developmentally delayed child, approved program, approved educational environment, and acquired brain injury.
relative to special education definitions.
HB699 would redefine several core special-education terms in New Hampshire law, including "educational environment," "related services," and "functionally blind." The large majority of submitters oppose the bill, arguing it would restrict services such as speech, occupational, and physical therapy, eliminate specialized transportation, and push students with disabilities out of general-education classrooms in ways they say conflict with federal law. A small number of submitters support the bill, describing it as a technical clarification that aligns state definitions with federal IDEA language or arguing that some therapy services should be funded through insurance rather than schools.
Supporters describe the bill as a technical update that aligns state special-education definitions with federal IDEA terminology, and characterize opposition concerns as based on misunderstanding of the bill's intent.
“Clear and accurate definitions are essential for the effective implementation of special education services. HB 699 helps ensure that all stakeholders—parents, educators, administrators, and service providers—are working from the same framework”
— Tonja Neve, Stratham · #383858 — read full submission →
“this bill appears only to intend to bring the state to federal compliance with definitions and remove redundant or unnecessary phrasing.”
— Emma Perkins, Rochester · #389831 — read full submission →
One submitter argues that services such as psychological evaluations, occupational therapy, and speech therapy are medical in nature and should be covered by health insurance rather than placing that financial burden on school districts.
One submitter argues the bill strengthens protections needed in the special-education program, helping parents secure appropriate services without resorting to legal fees or litigation.
One submitter conditionally supports the bill or an interim study but urges the committee not to allow paraprofessionals to provide specially designed instruction, arguing that only certified special-education teachers should deliver it.
Submitters argue that removing or narrowing the definition of "related services" would cut access to speech, occupational, and physical therapy and counseling that many students with disabilities depend on to access their education.
“special education services for children with disabilities, particularly in the areas of speech therapy, occupational therapy (OT), and other essential support services. Cutting these programs would have devastating consequences”
— Colleen Tata, Salem · #391473 — read full submission →
“Related services such as OT, SLP, and PT are not optional supports; they are federally protected components of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).”
— Chris Dunstan, Holderness · #393067 — read full submission →
Submitters argue that narrowing "educational environment" to mean only separate special-education settings would remove students with disabilities from general-education classrooms and peers, contrary to the federal least-restrictive-environment mandate.
“Throughout her education she was included in general education classrooms where she received a good education along with her same age peers without disabilities.”
— Tobey Partch-Davies, Belmont · #391856 — read full submission →
“If you vote for this bill, you will be voting for the codification of segregation based on ability, which is shameful.”
— Jennifer Belmont Earl, BARRINGTON · #387909 — read full submission →
Submitters contend the bill conflicts with IDEA, FAPE, the ADA, or constitutional equal-protection guarantees, and could expose the state to legal challenge.
“It is against federal law to remove or cut special education services. This bill goes against FAPE and everything it stands for.”
— Jennifer Davis, Pembroke · #391243 — read full submission →
“This bill is unconstitutional. Plain and simple. The 14th amendment states the that states will provide equal access to public education.”
— Joli White, Loudon · #390640 — read full submission →
Many submitters describe a specific child, student, or family member who progressed academically or socially because of special-education services, and argue the bill would take that support away from similar students.
“After spending only FOUR months in our school districts special education program, he was speaking in full phrases and was finally able to communicate.”
— Mikayla Veilleux, Bow · #389057 — read full submission →
“She got the services that she needed through the school. In junior high at the end of eighth grade, she was reading at a college level and now has all A’s and one B.”
— Jennifer Morrissey, Brookline · #391063 — read full submission →
Submitters argue the bill would remove specialized transportation for students with disabilities, cutting off access to school or services for students who cannot use a regular bus, particularly in rural areas.
Submitters argue that deleting the statutory definition of "functionally blind" would strip students with visual impairments of legal recognition and the services tied to that designation.
Submitters argue the bill would push special-education costs onto local school districts and property taxpayers that are already stretched thin, without providing additional state support.
Some submitters argue that mandating only certified special-education teachers deliver specially designed instruction is impractical given New Hampshire's existing shortage of certified special educators.
A few submitters focus on drafting problems in the bill itself, arguing that inconsistent or unclear language could produce unintended consequences regardless of the drafters' stated intent.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
We cannot afford to lose special education resources for our children in the public public school system based on evidence that support in our schools are of higher conflict resolution. Without support and pending segregation of our children will come at a cost only tax payers will.l oppose, therefore money and time will be lost and spent to no standard outcome. Time and money wasted in the long run.
It is disgraceful to segregate children based on their need and hinder important services to assist with their development. We need to help in anyway we can.
Good Evening Education and Policy Committee, I support the amended version of this bill OR support an interim study. I apologize that I could not be at the hearing today. A few things that I would like to impress upon the committee is that the staff delivering the service is crucial. PLEASE DO NOT add the language that Bonnie requested for paras to be added to assist or provide instruction under supervision - this is EXACTLY the problem that has occurred when paras end up providing all the instruction to children inappropriately and end up like my son who was in 10th grade STILL reading at a kindergarten level! When it is identified that "Specially Designed Instruction" is to be provided, this MUST be provided by a Special Education Teacher, no question. There is also a lot of question about educational environment and that the best practice is for "push-in" services, HOWEVER, in some kids, their profiles require being pulled out to receive services. Their processing speed may be in the first percentile and being in the general ed classroom doesn't work for them.
I strongly oppose this bill as it would cause irreparable harm to a fairly large portion of our states students. It would stymie their potential and possibly negate any and all progress for some students during one of the most critical times in a child’s life. To pass this would send our educational progress tumbling and will take 10 fold to remediate as it will cause long term and for some life long damage.
My son is diagnosed cerebral palsy & epilepsy due to due stroke in utero. He has refractory epilepsy and is resistant to medication forcing us to revert to brain surgery in which his occipital region where vision occurs will be removed. He will then be visually impaired & require even more assistance than before. On top of that, he requires transportation and cannot utilize a public bus for safety reasons. This bill is absolutely disgusting and unacceptable to be limiting our already limited resources in the state of NH.
I do not support this bill. We need to improve special education not dismantle it.
Please dont take away from special needs support. More snd more children are required services in this day and age and to take away from this would dishearten a large community of children and their families.
I do not support this bill. We need to improve special education not dismantle it.
Advocate for equal rights in the schools. As an occupational therapist, we do not stand by this bill.
I have a child that utilizes special education services. If this bill moves forward she will definitely not make it through a proper education which is to be provided by law.
As a parent of a child with an IEP this would directly effect her progress and ability to access specialized instruction with peers.
I do not support the changes!
Every single child deserves the opportunity to learn and have the resources and accommodations that they may need to make their learning more manageable and possible.
All my children have and currently do utilize programs that will be affected by this! This will not help this state in education!
I oppose this bill
This is absolutely deplorable, what makes you think this sound decision to make on behalf of our children?
This would push students with disabilities out of classrooms with non disabled peers, restricting their access to the same high quality instruction they deserve. This bill weakens protections for students with disabilities.
This bill is disgraceful, disturbing, and unprecedented in a time whirr many people who cannot represent themselves need our support the most! I strongly oppose!
The passage of NH HB699 would severely undermine the essential support services that are crucial for the development of children with disabilities in our public schools. By removing special education services, this bill would be punishing the most vulnerable among us, jeopardizing their right to equitable education and stunting their growth and learning potential. Every child deserves an opportunity to thrive, and we must ensure that our educational system continues to provide the resources necessary for all students to succeed, irrespective of their challenges.
I oppose this bill
Inclusion has been the best thing to witness in our district. My children are the biggest cheerleaders for their classmates that have severe autism or other intellectual disability in their classroom. It’s great to witness all abilities together.
I oppose this bill because having related services is essential to our schools and it would be detrimental to remove them in any state or school. It is important to provide students with the right resources and support to help them succeed.
I think this bill will be detrimental to our children.
Every child has unique learning needs and should have access to the services that help them thrive in a public school setting. An out of district placement is not for everyone. It is important for students to have access to the education they need and also be able to stay with their peers as social interaction is just as important for development. Only in cases where these services are not helping a child progress should a separate setting be considered and not the first line of defense.
As an occupational therapist I strongly oppose this bill. Children, and families of children, with special needs do not need more hassles to receive services they are deserving of.