By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org

CONCORD — The Senate heard two proposals Tuesday for schools to handle parents’ complaints about allegedly objectionable materials in public school classrooms or libraries.

One sets up a committee to review complaints asking to remove material from school libraries and to make recommendations with the final decisions left to the local school board.

The other sets up a process that opponents said is overly broad and lacks well-articulated standards, but the prime sponsor said would ensure the rights of parents to object to material in public schools without being demonized or shamed.

Sen. Kevin Avard, R-Nashua, the prime sponsor of Senate Bill 33, to require school boards to establish policies regulating public school materials and procedures to process complaints that material is harmful to students.

“This gives parents the right to speak up about material in a public manner being taught to their children,” Avard told the Senate Education Committee, “and will be done in a public fashion so you know who approved that material the next time you go (to vote.)”

Senate Bill 208 would require local school boards and public libraries to adopt curation policies, but the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Debra Altschiller, D-Stratham, told the committee the section on public libraries should be dropped from the bill.

She told the committee many of the concerns raised by parents over what they consider objectionable material are already addressed in law under the reconsideration statute.

Under her bill, a complaint seeking the removal of material from a school library would be received by six member committee appointed by the school principal, including the principal or designee, school librarian or media specialist, a teacher familiar with the material, a person appointed by the school board, a school parent other than the complainant, and a student other than the complainant if the material in question is for grades nine through 12.

The written recommendation would be submitted to the school board, who would make a decision and give its reasons.

Under SB 33, the complaint concerning any questionable material used in school including assemblies or outside speakers would go to the school principal in writing describing the allegedly harmful material and propose an action.

The principal would have 10 days to investigate the allegations and file a written decision within five days based on the standard that “the material is or is not harmful to minors, age-inappropriate, or otherwise offensive or inappropriate for use in the child’s school or for use in the context in which the material is being used.”

The principal’s decision could be appealed to the school board and would be placed on the next board meeting’s agenda for public discussion.

The board’s decision would have to be signed by board members indicating their support or opposition, and the material would have to be placed on file at the reception desk for public access.

“A parent has a right to object based on preference,” Avard said, “and they should have that right and not be drowned out.”
 Gilles Bissonnette, Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union NH, opposed the bill saying it creates a standard to remove material from schools that is overly vague and will lead to arbitrary decisions

He suggested the state’s harmful material statute has clear standards that are needed for this bill.

“This bill does not have those types of standards,” Bissonnette said, “to meet constitutional protection.”
What are you trying to regulate that is not already regulated in the criminal statute, he asked, noting “harmful to minors, age-inappropriate, or otherwise offensive or inappropriate for use in the child’s school or for use in the context in which the material is being used” lacks definition.

He noted students have a right to obtain a wide variety of material, and that “materials cannot be removed due to their viewpoint.” 

It is not the process he objects to, Bissonnette said, but the standard used for removal.

Ann Marie Banfield, a parental rights advocate, supported SB 33, telling the committee she worked with a Bedford parent concerned about a book on financial literacy that had a Marxist bent. The process worked as the school board decided the book should not be taught in the financial literacy course, Banfield said, but would be available in the library.

She said the bill would help to keep families in public schools, instead of parents removing the child and entering the EFA program.

But she testified that SB 208 did not go far enough in protecting parental rights over what their child may access.

Banfield said school books need a rating system like there is for movies, so parents could determine if they want their child reading it.

She said pornography does not belong in school libraries, it can be in public libraries in the adult section, she noted, adding “it is OK for the state to say ‘this is not OK material.’”

She said SB 33 is not a book ban but limiting what is accessible to children when they go on their Chromebook.

Megan Tuttle, president of NEA — NH noted most school districts have reconsideration policies in place, but said the policies need to be clear and understandable to school staff, administrators and parents.

She, like others, was concerned SB 33 would limit students’ freedom to access diverse materials, and also that the reach was so broad it could mean every piece of paper a teacher uses in the classroom would be subject to reconsideration.

Jacquelyn Benson, a New Hampshire author and member of Authors Against Book Bans, said the bill would limit choices for students by removing access to books that may inspire them and help spark their passion for reading.

Under SB 33, a single parent would be able to limit and restrict viewpoints and ideas, a limit that would not be supported by “parents like myself or all parents.”
Debra Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said SB 208 finds the right balance between the rights of parents and the rights of students, by allowing a committee to review the entire book or material, not just a single person.

“Something could not be removed by one parent for all students,” she said.

SB 33 “does not respect students’ First Amendment rights to access a wide variety of materials to spark interest and fulfill their learning needs,” Howes said. “We want students to be life-long learners.”

Heather Robitaille of Merrimack, called SB 33 severely restrictive and said it undermines those with the experience to make decisions in favor of “personal and political agendas that have no place in our schools.”
“Our children should be taught to be critical thinkers,” she said, “not subject to the censorship of personal or political ideologies.”
The committee did not make an immediate recommendation on either bill.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.