georgina lambert | Oppose HB1221

Testimony in Opposition to HB 1221 Honorable Members of the House Education Committee, I am here to oppose House Bill 1221, which directs a commission to study the costs of special education with a focus on evaluating centralized locations for certain special education-related services. While the bill may present itself as a benign initiative aimed at cost-effectiveness, it poses significant risks that raise concerns about equity, inclusion, and the well-being of our most vulnerable students. 1. Equity and Inclusion Risks The proposal for centralized locations for special education services raises alarm bells about the potential for segregation. Historically, such moves have led to the isolation of students with disabilities from their peers, undermining the spirit of inclusive education. Adverse Underpinnings: Centralization tends to prioritize resources over relationships, compromising the individualized support many students require. Research shows that students thrive in environments where they can learn alongside their peers, and separating them can lead to social and educational disadvantages. 2. Financial Implications for Vulnerable Students While a study of costs might seem prudent, it could signal a move toward cost-cutting measures rather than genuinely addressing the needs of students with disabilities. The trend of focusing on expenses rather than on investment in quality educational resources and services can harm those who need it most—students experiencing a range of disabilities. Who Benefits: This bill may benefit budget-conscious policymakers or officials interested in reducing operational costs without addressing the implications for educational quality. Who Does Not Benefit: Students with disabilities, especially those with more significant needs, may find that their access to essential services diminishes. Additionally, families from marginalized backgrounds—often disproportionately affected by budget cuts—will likely face even greater challenges in securing the necessary support for their children. 3. Increased Trauma for Vulnerable Families For families with children requiring special education services, the psychological toll can be substantial. The emphasis on cost-cutting may evoke feelings of anxiety and stress about their children's futures. The mention of studying centralized services can further add to the uncertainty surrounding where and how services will be delivered. Family Experiences: Families already navigating the complex systems of special education may feel additional pressure from potential shifts toward centralized services. The focus on assessment, costs, and centralized locations risks dehumanizing the needs of students and families, treating them as data points rather than individuals with unique needs. 4. Rising Rates of Disabilities Furthermore, as noted, the rising rates of disabilities in schools—from 20% in 2010 to 30-40% today—highlight the urgent need for expanded and qualitatively enriched support. This bill does not reflect the requirement for robust frameworks to accommodate this growing population; instead, it signals a troubling trend toward reducing resources. Conclusion In conclusion, House Bill 1221 poses significant risks to the equity and inclusion of students with disabilities in New Hampshire. Rather than merely studying the costs of special education through a lens focused on centralization and cost-reduction, we should strive to create a seamless, inclusive educational system that prioritizes individualized support and the well-being of every student. Thank you for considering the broader implications of this bill and for allowing me to express my concerns regarding its potential impact on our most vulnerable students.