By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org

CONCORD – Two Republican bills focused on parent’s rights and schools, including timelines for replying to parents’ questions and another to creating a process for parents to remove learning materials they find not age appropriate or offensive were heard Tuesday by the Senate Education Committee.

There were no testifying supporters, only opponents saying these could involve removing the Constitutional rights of the child and taking out professional input. They said the bills are vague and possibly harmful to parent-child relationships.

The bills could lead to expensive litigation, children becoming homeless because they have been kicked out of their homes and teachers becoming the rat for outing dating behavior among teens to their parents, or teachers losing their jobs for an incomplete answer or omission, opponents said.

Sen. Tim Lang, R-Sanbornton, the sponsor of both bills, said the bills are simply procedural and would clearly outline expectations and rights of parents.

Senate Bill 434 would require local school districts to adopt policies and procedures to address complaints related to material that is harmful or age-inappropriate in schools. Senate Bill 430 would require a teacher within 10 business days to respond to a parent’s question.

‘RIGHT TO CHALLENGE ACT’

Senate Bill 434 or the “Right to Challenge” Act states that by Nov. 1, 2027, “each local school board shall adopt a procedure to be used to address complaints submitted by parents or guardians alleging that material that is harmful to minors, age-inappropriate, or otherwise offensive or inappropriate for use in the child’s school.  The policy shall be posted on the district website.”

It states that at a minimum complaints would be submitted in writing to the principal, contain a description of material that is alleged to be harmful and propose action.

The principal or designee would investigate the allegations, meet in person or email with the parent or guardian who submitted the complaint within 10 school days of receipt of the complaint and determine whether the material is harmful to minors, age-inappropriate, or otherwise offensive or inappropriate.
Within 25 days, the principal or designee would reply and determine whether the material should remain in place without change, be removed, be restricted, be modified, or have other action taken.

Then within five calendar days, the principal or designee would provide a written response. The complainant could appeal to the school board within 30 calendar days and the board “shall permit the parent or guardian to be heard as part of the agenda at a regularly scheduled board meeting.”
The board would then issue a determination within 30 days.

Sen. Sue Prentiss, D-Lebanon, asked what is broken in the current situation and why this is needed.

Barrett M. Christina, executive director of the New Hampshire School Boards Association, opposed the specific bill as “too prescriptive” and said the deadlines would be tight for some, particularly if more than one book is involved in the parent’s complaint.

He also said the bill sets out a very extensive process. Of the 65 policies the state has for schools the only other one that is as descriptive is the bullying law.

He said while a timeline for a parent’s expectation is a good idea, this bill would only work as law if one book is challenged. Ten books would be quite difficult for a principal to make that deadline.

Also, Christina proposed a change in which the superintendent who is ultimately in charge should be named rather than the principal.

He said schools have worked through these issues in the recent past with their own policies, noting as examples recent book challenges at Merrimack Valley school district, which removed a book. In Dover in November, 2023 it kept the book “Boy Toy” in the school library which ended with the recommendation to keep the book.

He said published reports show that Bow supported the review of a book as did Exeter, Salem, Lebanon, and Claremont.

“We know school boards have been able to navigate this and be responsive to parents without this,” and the bill presented a too prescriptive process, Christina said.

He offered amended deadlines including 30 to 45 days for the whole process to take place. Also 48 to 72 hours to acknowledge receipt of the complaint.

State Sen. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, asked if it would be too cumbersome for a system like Manchester if they were elevated from principal to superintendent. Would that take more time, she asked.

Prentiss asked about guardrails in place and what protects a parent who wants their child to have access to that material.

He said elections would eventually decide that. The recourse is to elect new people to the school board next time around, Christina said.

David Trumble of Weare opposed the bill. He said parents already have the right to have their child opt out of programs, including health education.

The bill, he said, “does not give any weight to the child’s rights.”

Trumble cited a Supreme Court ruling which shows there are rights for all students especially when a parent can opt out.

He said it is also vague. What is “age inappropriate?” or “otherwise offensive.” Trumble said 75 percent of books people have tried to ban have characters that are of color or LGBTQ.

“If you want this bill,” he said, it should require that the deciding party consider the rights of the other students.

Debra Howes, president of the New Hampshire chapter of American Federation of Teachers, opposed the bill.

“We do appreciate the need to have a clear collection review and reconsideration policy in every district,” she said, and many schools already have them and they work well. The bill would be better focused on modeling the process there and warned there are concerns for First Amendment rights of students to access a wide variety of materials.

It also sidelines professional experience if you are just relying on the principal as the bill states.
“Why do you want to wade into this?” when there are policies working already.

Howes said this policy is not just setting out numbers of days and who responds, it is reworking it so you have one responder and “taking professionals out of the equation.”

She said it ignores a committee to read the material as a whole and discuss it. She said that has been recognized by the courts as a way to handle such cases. This bill, she said, takes out all of these “checks and balances that exist” in these existing school policies, which are working.

She warned “all students would suffer” if this passed and it would likely lead to litigation. “If you want a uniform policy, look at ones currently in use and working without court challenges,” she said.

Sen. Daryl Abbas, R-Salem, said it is his understanding that, ultimately the school district is the authority on what is in the school library so why is that not a violation.

Howes said it is the subjective nature of it. If complaints are mostly coming from people about material that feature characters from the LGBTQ community “that would be looked in a legal sense as a viewpoint restriction” Howes said

Sen. Debra Altschiller, D-Stratham, expressed concern about the impact on all students when books or materials are removed and why it was not possible to be limited to the individual child whose parent does not want them exposed to something.

Public school libraries curate their content by professional librarians with an aim to expose students to a broad range of topics and curriculum-supporting. Altschiller said parents have multiple options in law now, including requesting alternative literature.

Sen. Ruth Ward, R-Stoddard, said the bill outlines the process for making a complaint “and it seems to me most of the discussion has been about the end of the process…So we are discussing all kinds of values and opinions instead of just looking at ‘I have a complaint what is the process for it?'”
 
“You can’t ignore what happens if you adopt the process,” Howes said. “Because the students in the public schools and the educators and administrators who run those schools will have to live with it. So that is why I had to focus on that.”

MANDATORY DISCLOSURE BILL

Senate Bill 430 was described by Lang as the “Honesty and Transparency in Education Act.” Lang, the sponsor, said the bill is like SB 434 in that it is also a “process bill” that indicates that a teacher has to act in a timely manner to respond to a parent’s concern and “not hide or lie. I don’t think it is an unreasonable concept.” It gives the teacher 10 business days to respond.

Altschiller asked, if, like a right-to-know request, it could be abused. What is to impede a parent or an organized group with daily questions to bury the teacher with paperwork, she asked.

Nothing, Lang said, can be written to avoid such potential abuse, but he doubted that would happen.

“I think what you are describing is civic engagement and I support civic engagement,” Lang said.

Sullivan asked Lang if he felt parents would use this judiciously. He said “yes.” She mentioned a case in Manchester in which parents did not get information from the school about the child’s self-harm. That incident has been the impetus for parent rights legislation over the recent years.

David Trumble also testified on this bill and opposed it as well. He said the bill would violate children’s rights to privacy.

“Where in the bill is the right of the child to have any input in this decision,” Trumble asked.

The courts give that right to teen children in cases of divorce. “The rights should be balanced between the parent and the child,” Trumble said.

He said students should be able to express themselves to trusted adults like a teacher. Teachers might not have the evidence of abuse and neglect which would be the only exception to not reporting. The bill could damage family relationships, he said.

Aimee Terravechia, executive director of 603 Equality opposed the bill. She said schools should not be a center of surveillance and not a pathway for parents to learn more about their children’s identity. It should be a place of study.

Risk in the home is difficult to ascertain for educators, she said, and would put educators in a difficult position.

Altschiller asked if it is true all educators are mandatory reporters of abuse and neglect.

Yes, Terravechia said. The bill would ask teachers to look outside that to make  a “good faith” determination of imminent risk.

Altschiller asked if an LGBTQ student was not ready or felt uncomfortable about talking with their parents but wanted to speak with a credentialed educator, this bill would put that teacher in the position of having to determine risk factors outside of the scope of RSA 169c. “Couldn’t that create a situation where it puts that student in danger,” Altschiller asked.

Terravechia said, yes, “it creates an impossible situation without all the facts”  and also they could face serious consequences related to their work.

Brian Hawkins, director of government relations for the National Education Association-NH opposed the bill as unnecessary and said it could create confusion.

He said last year, House Bill 10 passed, which talks about a right parents have to make an inquiry of school personnel and that is different right now, though there are similarities to the bill. This puts a time frame on it for response time within 10 business days, he was told.

But also changing in the bill he believed is language around a standard of replying “completely and honestly.”
There is nothing in the bill about an educator who forgot something in their response, he said.

Altschiller offered a hypothetical: What if a parent is trying to find out if their child is having a relationship with another child.

Now, she said, rather than asking their son or daughter, this involves exposing information about another child. While “that may not be a physical danger to that child but also entangles a second child,” for which they have nothing to do with these parents.

“Now the teacher is obliged to answer within 10 days in writing…is that what this bill is doing? To get involved with the dating life of teenagers?” Altschiller asked.

Hawkins said it does put a teacher in a difficult position.