Calls for the resignation of Superintendent Meredith Nadeau are resurfacing after a troubling audit conducted by the New Hampshire Department of Education. See Seabrook School Board meeting.
The state review found that students with special needs in Seabrook’s elementary and middle schools were not receiving all of the services required under their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). An IEP is a legally binding document that outlines the specialized instruction, supports, and services a student must receive under federal special education law.
According to the publicly discussed audit findings, 21 of 24 IEPs reviewed were found to be out of compliance, meaning the services outlined in those plans were not fully delivered.
For many parents and community members, the obvious question is: How was this missed?
The findings come on the heels of other ongoing concerns within the district. Seabrook schools have faced criticism in recent years over low proficiency scores and repeated reports of bullying incidents. Now the state audit raises additional questions about whether the district is meeting its legal obligations to students receiving special education services.
One former school board member commented on social media that the board had already given the administration “more than enough opportunities to be transparent.” The audit results, they suggested, reinforce concerns that problems inside the district are not being adequately addressed.
The issue has also become personal for some families. Parents have reported removing their children from the district after experiencing unresolved bullying or frustration with special education services. Some say they felt they had no choice but to seek alternatives when problems persisted.
These developments are increasing pressure on district leadership to respond clearly and decisively. When a majority of IEPs reviewed are found to be noncompliant, the problem cannot easily be dismissed as an isolated oversight. Instead, it raises the possibility of systemic issues in oversight, staffing, or administrative management.
The central question now being asked by many in the community is simple: How much time should be given to fix ongoing problems that have persisted for years?
For parents, the stakes are not political—they are personal. At the center of this debate are children who rely on schools to provide a safe environment and the specialized support they need to succeed. When those obligations are not met, the consequences are felt most by the students and families the system is meant to serve.
Start With the Curriculum & Pedagogy
The first question any school administration should answer is this: How many students receiving SPED services actually need those services primarily for basic academic support or tutoring?
Parents sometimes pursue diagnoses not because their child has a profound disability, but because it is the only way to secure additional academic help. If a child struggles in math and begins showing signs of anxiety, that anxiety can qualify them for services. But we must ask a deeper question: Where is the anxiety coming from?
In many cases, it may stem from poor curriculum or ineffective pedagogy in the classroom.
I raised this issue with the school board in Seabrook. If the instructional materials and teaching methods are weak, struggling students will naturally increase. Instead of asking what is wrong with the child, we should first ask what is wrong with the system we are using to teach them.
There is evidence supporting this concern. Many students who previously required IEPs in public schools have moved to private schools and report that they no longer need those services. If the problem disappears when the curriculum changes, then the child was never the root of the issue.
Think of it this way:
If teachers were forced to feed children junk food every day and those children developed diabetes, we would not simply treat the disease and continue the same diet. We would immediately change the food.
The same logic should apply to education.
SAU21 currently employs a curriculum coordinators at the SAU level to select instructional programs. I questioned why North Hampton pays a Curriculum Coordinator 1/4 of another Coordinator’s salary, at the deliberative. So we are paying two Curriculum Coordinators in SAU21. This is costly and I’m not seeing evidence that this helps schools in SAU21.
There was a time when teachers played a central role in selecting curriculum. Districts piloted programs in classrooms, gathered feedback from parents, and involved school board curriculum committees. Teachers—who work directly with students and understand what works—were part of the decision-making process.
Today, many teachers are simply required to use whatever program is chosen for them.
Seabrook’s current math program is widely viewed as weak. North Hampton’s program is somewhat better, but stronger options exist. At the very least, Seabrook should consider supplementing with proven programs such as Facts on Fire.
https://www.evidenceforessa.org/programs/math/
Evidence-based resources already exist to evaluate these programs. The Evidence for ESSA database categorizes instructional programs based on research evidence—strong, moderate, or promising.
For example:
- Bridges, used in North Hampton, is rated moderate.
- Math in Focus, based on Singapore Math, is rated strong.
- Eureka Math shows no significant positive outcomes in qualifying studies. https://www.evidenceforessa.org/program/eureka-math/
So a reasonable question for administrators is simple: Why was a moderate program selected for North Hampton when stronger options were available?
Why was a poor-quality math program selected for Seabrook when stronger options were available? We are paying two Curriculum Coordinators for this?
I should not have to bring this information to the district. Administrators are well compensated to research curriculum and present their findings to the school board.
Instead, we often see energy directed toward initiatives like “Portrait of a Learner,” which may sound impressive but does little to address the real academic struggles happening in classrooms. We paid the assistant. Superintendent to work on that project while students in Seabrook suffered academically.
https://www.sau21.nh.gov/curriculum
The New Hampshire Department of Education’s recent findings were not surprising to me.
Consider Seabrook’s first-grade math competency statement:
“Students will reason abstractly and quantitatively, recognizing and making appropriate use of mathematical symbols and expressions, including variables.”
Child Psychologist Megan Koschnick has explained that many young children are not developmentally ready for abstract mathematical thinking. When abstract concepts are introduced too early, students struggle unnecessarily. If educators simply wait until children reach the appropriate cognitive stage, many of those difficulties disappear.
When curriculum expectations ignore developmental reality, the result is predictable: frustration for students and teachers alike.
This creates a system where students feel like failures and teachers are blamed for results they were never properly equipped to achieve.
Our teachers should be set up for success. But if we hand them ineffective curriculum and unrealistic standards, we are effectively asking them to feed students “junk food math” every day—and then wondering why so many children end up needing intervention services.
If we truly want to reduce SPED numbers and improve learning outcomes, we must start by examining the curriculum choices and pedagogy being made in our schools.
