Committee Summary for House Education Policy and Administration (04/07/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB69 00:02:32.800 - 9:01:28 AM	Public Hearing	relative to acceptance of or rejection of charitable contributions, gifts, or donations by local school boards.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB206 00:16:36.399 - 9:15:32 AM	Public Hearing	requiring public schools to adopt policies to limit the use of cell phones by students.	Ricciardi, Denise(R)[C-]2024
SB57 00:35:38.320 - 9:34:34 AM	Public Hearing	establishing a study committee to analyze reducing the number of school administrative units.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB97 01:01:38.799 - 10:00:34 AM	Public Hearing	relative to intra-district public school transfers.	Sullivan, Victoria(R)
SB210 03:01:04.240 - 12:00:00 PM	Public Hearing	establishing a study committee to study the issue of school bullying.	Fenton, Donovan(D)[F]2024

SB69: Keith Murphy, Senator representing District 16 Support00:02:32.800 - 9:01:28 AM; Senator Keith Murphy introduced Senate Bill 69, which addresses the issue of local school boards accepting or rejecting charitable contributions. He recounted an incident in his district where a church offered to cover school lunch debt, but the offer was rejected by the school administrator who instead chose to sue the families. Murphy filed this legislation to ensure that in similar future situations, the school board would be required to vote publicly on whether to accept or reject such gifts. He emphasized the importance of transparency and public discussion, especially when rejecting gifts, but also noted the bill allows for anonymous donations to be accepted without public session.
SB69: Representative Baloney Information Only00:04:11.200 - 9:03:07 AM; Representative Baloney asked Senator Murphy if the bill should also require a public session when a gift is accepted, not just when it is rejected. He raised the point about the potential need for anonymity in both acceptance and rejection scenarios. Senator Murphy responded that while he believes rejections should be public, he would be open to amendments to include public sessions for acceptances as well.
SB69: Representative Woodcock Information Only00:05:17.520 - 9:04:13 AM; Representative Woodcock inquired about the possibility of amending the bill to include a slight change. The speaker confirmed being amendable to the change, noting a similar conversation in the Senate Education Committee without objection.
SB69: Representative Marie Information Only00:06:24.000 - 9:05:20 AM; Representative Marie raised concerns about student privacy and the potential stigma associated with lunch debt during public hearings. The speaker clarified that current practices do not require the disclosure of affected families' names, suggesting a motion format that avoids such disclosures.
SB69: Representative Damon Information Only00:07:12.400 - 9:06:08 AM; Representative Damon asked for the speaker's perspective on meal debt and whether school districts should be able to sue families for it. The speaker believed that while districts should have the option to sue, it should be a last resort after exhausting all other alternatives.
SB206: Trisha Milo, Senate Majority Caucus Director Support00:16:36.399 - 9:15:32 AM; Trisha Milo introduced Senate Bill 206, emphasizing its aim to improve educational outcomes and student well-being by limiting cell phone use in schools. She highlighted research showing negative impacts of excessive smartphone use and explained the amendments made to the bill, including changes in wording and the addition of enforcement processes. She stressed the bill's flexibility for exceptions and its alignment with existing practices in some New Hampshire schools.
SB206: Representative Celich Information Only00:18:56.240 - 9:17:52 AM; Representative Celich inquired about the flexibility of school districts in adopting cell phone policies under the bill. The speaker responded that while districts must adopt a policy, the specifics of the policy are flexible, suggesting that districts could tailor policies to their needs.
SB206: Representative Woodcock Information Only00:19:42.400 - 9:18:38 AM; Representative Woodcock asked about the requirement for annual updates to school board policies and the enforcement of cell phone policies in classrooms. The speaker was unsure about the annual update requirement but noted that enforcement could involve consequences like confiscating phones, and agreed to gather more information on existing practices in New Hampshire schools.
SB206: Representative Bony Information Only00:21:48.480 - 9:20:44 AM; Representative Bony inquired about the possibility of including charter schools in the bill, noting that they are public schools. The response was that the question would be forwarded to the senator for clarification.
SB206: Representative Cornell Information Only00:21:53.120 - 9:20:49 AM; Representative Cornell asked if other personal electronic communication devices could be added to the bill in addition to cell phones. The response was affirmative, indicating that this would be considered.
SB206: Representative Freeman Information Only00:22:35.440 - 9:21:31 AM; Representative Freeman asked if the bill was a response to school districts and teachers seeking state direction on cell phone usage in classrooms. The response was that the origin of the bill would be checked with Senator Rashardi.
SB206: Representative Woodcock Information Only00:23:21.600 - 9:22:17 AM; Representative Woodcock questioned the necessity of the bill since local school boards already have the authority to implement cell phone policies. The response highlighted the aim for consistency across New Hampshire school districts.
SB206: Representative Murray Information Only00:24:45.440 - 9:23:41 AM; Representative Murray discussed existing technology policies in some districts and asked if the new policy could be integrated into student handbooks. The response confirmed that it could be included.
SB206: Becky Wilson, New Hampshire School Boards Association Support00:26:16.000 - 9:25:12 AM; Becky Wilson from the New Hampshire School Boards Association expressed support for the bill, emphasizing the need for a cell phone policy in schools. She addressed questions about existing policies and the need for updates, suggesting that while many districts have policies, they might not be updated frequently. She also discussed the potential need for different policies based on the type of school and the involvement of administration in policy enforcement.
SB206: Representative Balbone Information Only00:26:33.520 - 9:25:29 AM; Representative Balbone asked about the number of school districts with existing cell phone policies. Becky Wilson responded that many districts, especially those with middle and high schools, have such policies, but smaller or K-8 districts might not. She also mentioned the availability of sample policies from the School Boards Association.
SB206: Representative Cornell Information Only00:28:48.960 - 9:27:44 AM; Representative Cornell questioned the necessity of updating policies annually as mentioned in the bill. Becky Wilson explained that while policies are reviewed annually, they are not typically updated every year, suggesting that mandating annual updates might be excessive.
SB206: Representative Sully Information Only00:29:36.159 - 9:28:32 AM; Representative Sully raised concerns about the applicability of the policy to smaller districts like Newington, which only has elementary schools. Becky Wilson acknowledged the diversity of district sizes and suggested that the policy language might need to be adjusted to accommodate different district needs.
SB206: Representative Woodcock Information Only00:31:08.080 - 9:30:04 AM; Representative Woodcock sought clarification on the term 'administration' in the bill and its implications for enforcement in the classroom. Becky Wilson clarified that the intent was not to discipline teachers but to ensure administrative support in policy enforcement, suggesting that the wording might need refinement.
SB206: Representative Nato Information Only00:33:10.399 - 9:32:06 AM; Representative Nato raised a concern about the bill not specifically addressing the issue of cell phone use as a distraction in the classroom. They suggested including the term 'distraction' in the bill to target this specific issue, acknowledging that while cell phones can be distracting, some students may need access to their personal devices for various reasons.
SB206: Miss Wilson Information Only00:33:56.159 - 9:32:52 AM; Miss Wilson responded to Representative Nato's query by explaining that the bill is flexible in terms of wording and that the committee could decide how to articulate the issue of cell phone use as a distraction. She highlighted the importance of balancing the need for some students to access personal devices with the need to minimize distractions. She also noted that typically, policies do not include written narratives explaining their catalysts, but such explanations can be provided verbally.
SB57: Senator Keith Murphy, District 16 Support00:35:38.320 - 9:34:34 AM; Senator Keith Murphy introduced Senate Bill 57, which proposes the establishment of a committee to study the potential benefits of consolidating school administrative units at the county level. He highlighted the traditional New England model of town-based school districts but suggested that consolidating to county-level districts could lead to significant savings by eliminating redundant administrative departments. He emphasized that the bill aims to gather information and assess potential cost savings, especially in light of varying education funding and teacher salaries across different districts.
SB57: Representative (Unnamed) Information Only00:38:08.920 - 9:37:04 AM; A representative, who previously taught in Maryland, questioned the structure of county-based school systems and their administrative costs. They expressed concerns about the potential lack of cost savings and the loss of direct community connection with school administration. Senator Murphy acknowledged the concerns and reiterated that the bill's purpose is to gather data and assess whether significant savings could be achieved, not to definitively endorse county-based systems.
SB57: Representative Murray Information Only00:41:32.240 - 9:40:28 AM; Representative Murray, who serves as a county chair on the fiscal appropriation side of the delegation, inquired about the involvement of county commissioners in the proposed committee. Senator Murphy clarified that the bill allows the committee to consult with county commissioners and expressed openness to amendments that might include other relevant parties in the consultation process.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:42:40.880 - 9:41:36 AM; The speaker expressed surprise at the composition of the committee for SB57, noting the absence of non-legislators such as members from the Department of Education or the public. They questioned whether the committee had considered including such members, to which the response was that it is the responsibility of legislators to determine state education policy and funding. The speaker was concerned about the potential for a large, argumentative committee if more diverse groups were included.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:44:13.560 - 9:43:09 AM; The speaker continued the discussion on the composition of the committee, suggesting the inclusion of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association. The response clarified the difference between consulting with groups and adding them as committee members, emphasizing the need to keep the committee small for productivity.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:45:00.440 - 9:43:56 AM; The speaker raised the issue of partisanship in education and asked if the committee could include members from different political parties. The response was affirmative, indicating openness to such a composition.
SB57: Representative Freeman Information Only00:45:49.520 - 9:44:45 AM; Representative Freeman sought clarification on the nature of the study committee, confirming that it would not directly result in legislation but would gather information and make recommendations.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:46:18.160 - 9:45:14 AM; The speaker discussed the difference between commissions and committees, suggesting a shift to a commission might be more suitable for the proposed educational oversight at the county level. The response was that the committee size should remain small for productivity, and the decision on the bill's direction was now with the committee.
SB57: Representative Damon Information Only00:47:04.560 - 9:46:00 AM; Representative Damon, representing half of Sullivan County, raised concerns about cooperative school districts that cross county lines and how they would be affected by the proposed county-based school systems. The response was that this would be a topic for the committee to study, with potential future legislation to address such issues.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:49:22.559 - 9:48:18 AM; The speaker asked about the reporting deadline of November 1st for the committee, questioning if it would allow for future projections of county impacts. The response suggested openness to amending the deadline to a later date.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:50:09.200 - 9:49:05 AM; The speaker raised concerns about reconciling debts among different school districts within a county, using an example of a bonded school. The response was that such detailed questions would be part of the committee's work, as the proposed shift in education funding and structure is significant.
SB97: Senator Victoria Sullivan, representing Senate District 18 (Manchester Wards 5-9 and Litchfield) Support01:01:38.799 - 10:00:34 AM; Senator Sullivan introduced SB97, which allows students to attend any school within their district if there is capacity. She worked with the school boards association to address capacity issues. The bill was motivated by families in Manchester needing to send their children to schools outside their assigned zip code for reasons such as childcare. She highlighted the benefits of family care over extended school hours and the need for students to receive appropriate attention in schools with diverse needs. The bill aims to give parents the opportunity to choose the best school for their child within the district without additional cost to taxpayers.
SB97: Senator Victoria Sullivan, Senate District 18 (Manchester Wards 5-9 and Litchfield) Information Only01:01:38.799 - 10:00:34 AM; Senator Sullivan clarified that the bill does not change existing law regarding out-of-district transfers, which require a case to be presented to the superintendent. The bill only introduces intra-district transfers based on the best interest of the child without needing a portfolio or case. She emphasized that the existing law on manifest hardship and transfers to private schools remains unchanged.
SB97: Representative Murray Information Only01:05:16.880 - 10:04:12 AM; Representative Murray sought clarification on whether the bill's language referred to a manifest hardship request, as it seemed to open the door for broader interpretations. Senator Sullivan confirmed that the language regarding out-of-district transfers is existing law and unchanged by the bill.
SB97: Representative Marie Information Only01:06:52.559 - 10:05:48 AM; Representative Marie asked about the capacity considerations for intra-district transfers, specifically whether it included specialists. Senator Sullivan explained that capacity generally refers to the student-to-teacher ratio, but special education has its own set of laws that remain unchanged by the bill.
SB97: Representative Sully Information Only01:07:39.119 - 10:06:35 AM; Representative Sully questioned the bill's language regarding transfers to private schools within the district and transportation responsibilities. Senator Sullivan clarified that parents are responsible for transportation and that the bill does not change existing law on this matter.
SB97: Representative Bur Information Only01:09:11.920 - 10:08:07 AM; Representative Bur asked about the burden of transportation for intra-district transfers, especially for students with IEPs or 504 plans. Senator Sullivan confirmed that existing law on special education transportation remains unchanged.
SB97: Representative Woodcock Information Only01:10:45.920 - 10:09:41 AM; Representative Woodcock sought clarification on the bill's impact on transfers to private schools outside the district. Senator Sullivan reiterated that the bill only pertains to intra-district transfers and does not change existing law on out-of-district transfers.
SB97: Representative Murray Information Only01:14:31.840 - 10:13:27 AM; Representative Murray inquired about the fiscal impact of the bill, noting that a fiscal note was still pending. Senator Sullivan stated that there should be no financial implication for schools as parents are responsible for transportation and schools are not forced to take students beyond capacity.
SB97: Representative Bri Information Only01:15:18.239 - 10:14:14 AM; Representative Bri asked about the policy for handling more transfer requests than available spots, including potential waitlists or lottery systems. Senator Sullivan explained that such policies would be determined by the school district.
SB97: Representative Lynchfield Information Only01:16:54.560 - 10:15:50 AM; Representative Lynchfield asked about the bill's impact on different districts, specifically larger ones like Manchester, Nashua, and Portsmouth. Senator Sullivan clarified that it would affect any city or town with multiple schools for the same grade levels.
SB97: Representative Cornell Information Only01:17:40.480 - 10:16:36 AM; Representative Cornell pointed out that the bill mentions out-of-district transfers, which could impact any place in the state. Senator Sullivan reiterated that this is existing law and unchanged by the bill.
SB97: Representative Damon Information Only01:18:07.679 - 10:17:03 AM; Representative Damon questioned whether the bill would allow out-of-district transfers for any reason, noting the removal of language about the best interest of the student. Senator Sullivan clarified that the process for out-of-district transfers remains the same and unchanged by the bill.
SB97: Representative Woodcock Information Only01:19:39.280 - 10:18:35 AM; Representative Woodcock asked about the School Board Association's involvement and support for the bill. Senator Sullivan stated that the association provided language for the policy but did not take a position on the bill itself.
SB97: Representative Damon Information Only01:20:25.920 - 10:19:21 AM; Representative Damon sought further clarification on the policy for handling transfer requests when capacity is exceeded. Senator Sullivan explained that such policies would be up to the school district and referenced existing law on out-of-district transfers.
SB97: Baloni Information Only01:22:18.480 - 10:21:14 AM; Baloni expressed confusion about the language in the bill, specifically regarding the sections on change of school assignment and manifest educational hardship. They sought clarification on the differences between these sections and why manifest hardship is treated separately.
SB97: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:23:04.000 - 10:22:00 AM; The speaker explained that RSA 193:3 has been challenging to interpret due to numerous legislative changes over the years. They clarified that the statute includes both 'best interest of the student' and 'manifest educational hardship' as separate but interrelated processes. The speaker suggested that the statute could be better organized into separate sections for clarity and emphasized the importance of understanding these processes due to their impact on students.
SB97: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:26:11.040 - 10:25:07 AM; The speaker continued to explain the differences between 'best interest' and 'manifest educational hardship', noting that 'best interest' applies when a school is not a good fit for a student, while 'manifest educational hardship' is used when a student's learning is detrimentally affected by their current placement. They offered to provide case examples to the committee to further illustrate these differences and mentioned the frequent legislative changes to RSA 193:3.
SB97: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:27:45.440 - 10:26:41 AM; The speaker addressed a question about the addition of language in section 1A of the bill, explaining that it aims to clarify the law without changing it. They noted that the language is intended to distinguish intra-district transfers from other types of transfers under the statute, emphasizing the complexity and frequent amendments to RSA 193:3.
SB97: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:30:57.120 - 10:29:53 AM; The speaker responded to a question about whether intra-district transfers represent a third type of request under the bill. They expressed uncertainty about categorizing it as a separate bucket but suggested that intra-district transfers might have a lower threshold than other types of requests.
SB210: Senator Donovan Fenton, District 10 Support03:01:04.240 - 12:00:00 PM; Senator Fenton introduced Senate Bill 210, which aims to establish a study committee on school bullying. They highlighted the serious impact of bullying on students' well-being and academic success, referencing recent events in Keene. The bill seeks to identify best practices for prevention and consider further legislative action to ensure safer school environments.
SB210: Representative Freeman Information Only03:02:46.640 - 12:01:42 PM; Representative Freeman questioned the composition of the study committee proposed in the bill, noting it has only four members instead of the traditional five. They suggested adding another Senate member, to which Senator Fenton responded that the committee size was reduced due to the Senate's workload but could be amended.
SB210: Representative Sully Support03:03:31.680 - 12:02:27 PM; Representative Sully supported the bill, sharing their experience with a related study committee. They emphasized the importance of involving outside groups like the child advocate and the attorney general's office and suggested including the issue of teachers being bullied in the study.
SB210: Betty Gay, Salem Support03:05:10.000 - 12:04:06 PM; Betty Gay from Salem supported the bill, sharing her shock at ongoing racial bullying in Salem High School. She stressed the need for the study committee to involve those close to the issue, including victims, and suggested a structured response to bullying incidents, including warnings, detention, and suspension. She also highlighted the need for broader awareness of the legal consequences of threats.
SB210: Representative Freeman Information Only03:10:40.240 - 12:09:36 PM; Representative Freeman asked Betty Gay if she knew of any anti-bullying programs in Salem High School, to which Gay responded that she was unaware of any such programs and apologized for not knowing the details in the school's handbook.
SB210: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:11:27.120 - 12:10:23 PM; The speaker discussed the logistics of organizing a study committee, noting that while the committee itself is limited to four members, outside organizations can be invited to participate. They mentioned that several parents wanted to testify but were unable to attend, and the hearing for this bill was recessed until the 23rd to allow for their participation.

Cordelli, Glenn(Chairman)(R)[A-]2024	Drye, Margaret(Clerk)(R)[A-]2024	Noble, Kristin(V Chairman)(R)[A+]2024
Cornell, Patricia(D)[CT]2024	Freeman, Lisa(R)[B+]2018	Hall, Muriel(D)[CT]2024
Terry, Paul(R)[A]2024	McDonnell, Valerie(R)[B+]2024	Selig, Loren(D)[CT]2024
Balboni, Peggy(D)[CT]2024	Murray, Megan(D)[CT]2024	Tenczar, Jeffrey(R)[B+]2024
Litchfield, Melissa(R)[A-]2022	Woodcock, Stephen(D)[CT]2024	Kluger, Lee Ann(D)
Snodgrass, Jim(D)	Morse, Bryan(R)	Nadeau, Brian(R)