Committee Summary for House Education Policy and Administration (04/08/2026)

Member	Member	Member
Noble, Kristin(Chairman)(R)[A+]2025	Drye, Margaret(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Peternel, Katy(V Chairman)(R)[A]2025
Cornell, Patricia(D)[F]2025	Freeman, Lisa(R)[B+]2025	Belcher, Mike(R)[B+]2025
Hall, Muriel(D)[CT]2025	Terry, Paul(R)[B+]2025	McDonnell, Valerie(R)[B+]2025
Selig, Loren(D)[D-]2025	Balboni, Peggy(D)[CT]2025	Murray, Megan(D)[CT]2025
Tenczar, Jeffrey(R)[B+]2025	Litchfield, Melissa(R)[B+]2025	Woodcock, Stephen(D)[F]2025
Kluger, Lee Ann(D)[F]2025	Snodgrass, Jim(D)[F]2025	Nadeau, Brian(R)[B+]2025

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB433	Public Hearing	establishing the seizure safe schools act.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB430	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to mandatory disclosure by school district employees to parents and legal guardians.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB431	Public Hearing	relative to violations of the prohibition on teaching discrimination.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB434	Public Hearing	relative to regulation of public school materials.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025

SB433: Support 00:08:54.295 - 10:04:20 AM; Senator Lang introduces SB 433, which establishes the Seizure Safe Schools Act, requiring training for school personnel on recognizing and responding to seizures, developing action plans for students with epilepsy, and ensuring administration of FDA-approved medications. He shares a personal anecdote from coaching where a student had a seizure, and he lacked training, highlighting the need for at least two trained staff per school every two years. He notes that 1 in 10 Americans will have a seizure in their lifetime, affecting about 1,500 students in New Hampshire, and emphasizes that the bill is a low-burden requirement already implemented in 25 other states.
SB433: Support 00:24:00.867 - 10:19:26 AM; Ms. McCone-Gordon thanks the sponsors and shares context on epilepsy, noting seizures as the third most common school medical emergency, affecting over 13,000 NH residents including 1,500 school-age children. She outlines the bill's four components: free seizure recognition and first-aid training for staff (online or in-person, with CE credits), individualized seizure action plans from physicians and families, access to FDA-approved rescue medications, and age-appropriate education to reduce stigma. She stresses that untrained responses can lead to prolonged seizures, brain damage, or death, while prompt action prevents hospitalizations, and addresses committee questions on exclusions, training frequency, medication storage, and current protocols.
SB433: Support 00:43:56.809 - 10:39:22 AM; Ms. Prince shares her experience as a parent whose son had a 40-minute seizure shortly after diagnosis, requiring paramedic intervention unavailable in rural areas, underscoring the need for school preparedness. As a service provider and school board member, she emphasizes training staff to respond calmly, reducing risks and stigma for witnesses, and aligning with existing protocols for conditions like anaphylaxis. She advocates for equity in school choice, notes seizure action plans vary by student and seizure type (most stop within minutes, medication for prolonged ones), and stresses the importance of coaches and bus staff carrying medications for activities. She addresses implementation, suggesting integration into existing modules like bloodborne pathogens training.
SB433: Support 00:59:16.371 - 10:54:42 AM; Ms. Crowell, who has lived with epilepsy since age 4 and is now seizure-free after brain surgery, shares her positive school experiences due to family advocacy: parents educated teachers and classmates starting in kindergarten (e.g., reading stories, addressing misconceptions like contagiousness), leading to supportive actions like classmates helping with her backpack or wheeling her to the nurse. She had an IEP, paraeducator with walkie-talkie, and notes the bill's flexibility for individual needs would ensure such support without requiring constant family intervention, benefiting those without strong advocates.
SB433: Support 01:01:44.371 - 10:57:10 AM; Mary Crowell, a retired middle school teacher and former Epilepsy Foundation employee, shared her experiences supporting her daughter Dorothy who has epilepsy. She emphasized the importance of community awareness and training in schools, recounting how they educated staff and students about Dorothy's needs, leading to better preparedness even years later. She highlighted a story from Dorothy's P.E. class where a student teacher responded correctly due to prior awareness. As a teacher, she always advocated for students with seizure disorders in her classroom, providing comfort to parents. Mary discussed the flexibility of training durations, from 90 minutes to 30 minutes for specific cases, and stressed the value of the 60-75 minute certified training every two years for broader awareness, including for staff who might also have seizures.
SB433: Support 01:08:15.685 - 11:03:41 AM; Parker Had shared his personal journey with epilepsy, diagnosed at age nine, facing daily seizures, multiple brain surgeries including SEEG, craniotomy, and LIT procedure, and achieving mostly seizure-free status since. He described the fear of seizures at school due to varying types that might go unrecognized, and how his parents advocated for staff training at every school. As a military child adapting to new schools, he stressed the need for consistent training to ensure safety. Now successful in academics, sports, and accepted to UNH's bioengineering program, Parker urged passage of SB 433 to provide assurance that school staff can recognize and respond to seizures appropriately, preventing tragedies and allowing students to focus on learning.
SB433: Support 01:15:57.015 - 11:11:23 AM; Crystal Had, mother of Parker, described the constant fear parents of children with epilepsy endure when sending them to school, relying on untrained staff to recognize and respond to seizures. She noted Parker's daily seizures and the critical role of rescue medications, which could be mishandled without training. The family had to educate staff at each school, creating seizure action plans, but this varies by school and parental advocacy. Crystal emphasized that witnessing seizures is traumatic, and staff deserve training to act confidently. She advocated for SB 433 to standardize preparedness, ensuring consistent safety and reducing reliance on chance, so parents can trust schools to protect their children.
SB433: Support 01:19:17.955 - 11:14:43 AM; Jennifer Pelletier from Hudson, NH, shared her family's experience with epilepsy affecting her husband, herself, and daughter. Despite preparing the school with a seizure action plan for her kindergarten daughter with a complex SCN1A genetic mutation leading to prolonged seizures, staff mishandled an incident on the playground due to lack of training, failing to time or administer rescue medication promptly. This resulted in extensive coordination and implementation of measures like nurse backpacks and stopwatches, which the family had to push for. Even with an IEP, school-wide training is absent. She urged support for SB 433 to mandate consistent training, ensuring timely rescue medication access and reducing risks, as no child's life should depend on a single nurse or chance. Additional details included age-appropriate student training via Epilepsy Foundation resources.
SB433: Support 01:27:22.307 - 11:22:48 AM; Don Wesley shared personal and family experiences with epilepsy, including their own seizure on a school band trip and their daughter's seizure on a school bus mistaken for choking until recognized by her brother. Both have short seizures triggered by photosensitivity or fatigue, not requiring rescue meds. The daughter became an advocate through Epilepsy Foundation's Teen Speak Up, educating peers and participating in extensive school activities like band, sports, and honor societies across Pelham High School and Pinkerton Academy. Medication access was challenging with part-time nurses, leading to family-provided solutions like carrying meds in backpacks for after-school activities. Wesley noted self-initiated staff training and advocated for SB 433 to prepare multiple staff beyond nurses for seizures in various settings, emphasizing that students and teachers want to be equipped to help.
SB433: Information Only 01:38:00.178 - 11:33:26 AM; Becky Wilson, director of governmental relations for the New Hampshire School Boards Association, expresses appreciation for the bill's intent based on her personal experience with a child having complex medical needs. She notes the association is not taking a position but raises concerns about existing mechanisms like 504 plans and school health care plans that already address seizure disorders in schools receiving federal funds. She questions the bill's scope, whether it applies only to known seizure disorders or broader unexpected cases, and highlights confusion in the language regarding required trained staff, including a full-time school nurse at all events, which conflicts with shortages and recent legislation like HB 1121 removing school nurses from adequate education statutes. She discusses privacy concerns in sharing student medical information widely and suggests clarifications, such as ensuring care plans are in place, addressing nurse roles uniformly, and leveraging existing policies for emergencies and delegations.
SB430: Support 02:08:35.394 - 12:04:01 PM; Senator Tim Lange introduces SB 430 as a process bill to ensure uniform communication between parents/legal guardians and credential holders. He explains Section 1 requires honest and complete responses to written requests within 10 days, with an escape clause for imminent risk of harm, requiring a report to DHHS. Section 3 adds rulemaking authority for the Department of Education, and Section 4 treats violations as ethics issues. He emphasizes it's about timely, truthful answers to parental inquiries, especially regarding child well-being, and argues against broad opposition to parental involvement.
SB430: Oppose 02:24:24.068 - 12:19:50 PM; Amy Tier speaks in opposition, highlighting concerns that the bill turns schools into surveillance environments, eroding trust between educators and students essential for learning. She argues it hinders parent-child trust-building by forcing disclosures on the school's timeline rather than the child's, potentially harming well-being, and notes existing mandatory reporting covers risks. She criticizes the bill for creating a roadmap that endangers children by requiring monitoring of student and parental behavior, leading to uncertainty and threats to safety.
SB430: Oppose 02:27:31.229 - 12:22:57 PM; Jay Hawkins shares a personal story of being outed as gay by a teacher in retaliation during middle school, leading to family abuse, punishment, and severe emotional trauma including suicidal thoughts and forced therapy. He argues the bill could force disclosures of gender or sexuality before individuals are ready, causing harm unless it's clear abuse or bullying, emphasizing the need to avoid tormenting youth exploring their identity.
SB430: Oppose 02:29:29.757 - 12:24:55 PM; Nancy Brennan, a retired teacher, parent, and former school board member, opposes based on experiences with students confiding sensitive issues like parental divorce or sexuality, requesting confidentiality. She worries the bill would force disclosures that could harm children before they're ready to talk to parents, citing examples where timing mattered for positive outcomes. She notes potential issues with either parent inquiring during conflicts like divorce, and references cases of overreaction by parents, arguing teachers should listen supportively without mandatory reporting unless abuse is evident.
SB430: Oppose 03:26:13.727 - 1:21:39 PM; David Trumbull opposes, arguing the bill damages parent-child relationships, especially for LGBTQ youth confiding in school staff out of fear of rejection or ejection from home. He points out conflicts with HB 10's requirements versus this bill's escape clause, creating confusion and legal risks for educators with differing standards for reporting potential versus actual abuse. He advocates for children's rights to input in decisions about their lives, citing NH Supreme Court precedents in divorce and disability communication cases where mature children's preferences are considered, criticizing the bill for giving zero voice to children over 14.
SB430: Support 03:33:05.090 - 1:28:31 PM; Aubrey Freedman supports, emphasizing the bill promotes honesty in responses to parental questions, essential for trust in the parent-teacher partnership. She argues teachers aren't in confidential roles like doctors or psychiatrists and should stay within their educational lane. The escape clause covers rare harm cases by requiring reports to health authorities, preventing hiding information from parents while protecting educators.
SB430: Oppose 03:37:10.189 - 1:32:36 PM; Sarah Terrell, a former DCYF assessment worker and current guardian ad litem, opposes the bill. She argues that the escape clause does not provide protection for teachers or children because mandated reporters must report actual abuse or neglect that has occurred, not potential future harm. Central intake screens out reports of anticipated abuse, such as a child being kicked out for disclosing they are gay, unless evidence of harm already exists. She emphasizes that the clause is useless as it mirrors existing reporting requirements without addressing predictive concerns.
SB430: Oppose 03:40:31.055 - 1:35:57 PM; Brian Hawkins provides written testimony and opposes SB 430, highlighting differences between standards in HB 10 and SB 430. He argues the bill circumvents school chain-of-command processes by going directly to educators, potentially conflicting with school board policies and putting teachers in a difficult position. Concerns include who determines 'material information' or 'complete answers,' noting the subjective standard and 10-day response period that ignores school procedures. He addresses potential mistakes or oversights and the pressure of juggling legal obligations.
SB430: Oppose 03:48:04.765 - 1:43:30 PM; Representative Lauren Selig, a former teacher, opposes the bill, emphasizing the importance of building trust with students as a 'trusted adult.' She shares stories of students confiding in her about difficult issues, including rehearsing conversations with parents and a 9/11-related national security matter requiring confidentiality. The bill would force disclosure, undermining trust and potentially harming children in abusive or high-risk situations, such as a student pulled from cheerleading by an disapproving parent or one neglected by family. She stresses supporting students' safe spaces while encouraging parent communication on their terms.
SB430: Oppose 03:55:30.708 - 1:50:56 PM; Becky Wilson, Director of Governmental Relations for the NH School Boards Association, opposes the bill, reiterating concerns about placing educators and school boards in positions to guess potential abuse or neglect outcomes, which contradicts mandatory reporting training that requires reporting suspicions without investigation. The bill forces speculation on parental reactions and lacks clarity on determining 'honest or complete' responses. She notes interplay with HB 1565 on penalties for false DCYF reports and other related legislation.
SB431: Support 03:59:41.098 - 1:55:07 PM; Senator Tim Lane, the prime sponsor, explains SB 431 adds 'intentionally or knowingly' to existing law prohibiting teaching that certain characteristics make individuals inherently superior, racist, oppressive, deserving of discrimination, or unable to treat others equally. He outlines the four prohibited concepts, emphasizing agreement against intentional promotion of such ideas. The bill includes an academic carve-out for historical discussions (e.g., slavery, WWII) but prevents current advocacy. It aligns with teacher ethics and CBAs without overriding processes, providing clarity post-court rulings on vagueness. He addresses questions on history, current events, assignments, and related legislation.
SB431: Support 04:15:44.670 - 2:11:10 PM; Aubrey Friedman supports SB 431, arguing it addresses teachers failing to separate politics from classrooms, as seen in reactions to the original divisive concepts law. Adding 'intentionally or knowingly' protects teachers from misinterpretation while preventing opinion-pushing on impressionable students. The historical discussion carve-out in RSA 193:40 allows open exploration of controversial issues through guidance, essays, and diverse viewpoints without advocacy.
SB431: Oppose 04:19:23.327 - 2:14:49 PM; David Trumbull opposes SB 431, stating the addition of mens rea does not resolve constitutional issues from federal court rulings on vagueness, arbitrary enforcement, and First Amendment implications. The law still lacks fair notice, leading to self-censorship (e.g., avoiding slavery books or Model UN topics). It prevents discussions of implicit bias, current events like immigration policies, and requires constant disclaimers in debates, reducing critical thinking and students' learning rights.
SB431: Oppose 04:23:47.134 - 2:19:13 PM; Brian concludes his testimony by advocating to wait for all issues to be resolved in the ongoing legal process before acting, stating that the only true fix is to repeal the entire 2021 statute. He offers to provide Judge Barbadaro's decision enjoining the statute.
SB434: Support 04:31:52.319 - 2:27:18 PM; Senator Lange presents SB 434 as a procedural bill establishing a uniform statewide process for parents to challenge school materials they believe are harmful to minors, using the statutory definition from RSA 571-B. The process involves submitting a form to the superintendent for review within specified timelines (10 days acknowledgment, 25 school days determination), with appeal to the school board. He emphasizes local control by educators, age-appropriateness, and preventing arbitrary handling of complaints. The bill covers a broad range of materials including books, visual presentations, performances, and more, but decisions rest with the superintendent and school board. He addresses concerns about vagueness by referencing the long-standing harmful to minors definition and clarifies it's not enabling legislation but a mandate with minimum standards. Lange shares personal experience as a former police officer and school board member, stressing the need for age-appropriate content, such as avoiding graphic depictions of sexual assault in middle school libraries.
SB434: Oppose 05:02:11.664 - 2:57:37 PM; Rachel Potter opposes SB 434, labeling it an expansive book ban that violates the First Amendment by suppressing ideas and enabling viewpoint discrimination, particularly against materials on race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and marginalized perspectives. She argues it's unnecessary since schools already have complaint processes and opt-out options for parents, but this bill allows one person's objection to restrict access for all students, creating a chilling effect on education and inviting legal challenges due to vague standards like 'offensive' or 'age-inappropriate.' Potter stresses that public schools should foster diverse viewpoints for informed citizenship, not ideological conformity, and that the bill's broad scope makes enforcement impractical.
SB434: Oppose 05:13:18.363 - 3:08:44 PM; David Trumbull opposes SB 434, arguing it's not a pure process bill but a content-based one that expands challenges beyond 'harmful to minors' to include vaguely defined 'offensive or inappropriate' materials, potentially leading to censorship of books featuring people of color or LGBTQ+ characters (citing 75% of challenged books involve such representation per PEN America). He references the Supreme Court case Board of Education v. Pico, affirming students' First Amendment right to receive information, and notes existing local processes and opt-out options suffice without statewide mandates that could ban constitutionally protected content like same-sex families. Trumbull suggests adopting the American Library Association's model for uniform procedures without expanding ban criteria, emphasizing local school board control.
SB434: Oppose 05:31:39.271 - 3:27:05 PM; Willow Earth briefly opposes SB 434, asserting that decisions on appropriate books for children should be made by guardians and educators, not allowing one individual to censor materials out of personal grievance. She urges focusing on fostering critical thinking rather than restricting access to educational knowledge, aligning with New Hampshire's live-free-or-die ethos.
SB434: Oppose 05:32:58.098 - 3:28:24 PM; Jacqueline Benson represents authors, editors, and illustrators in New Hampshire and opposes the bill, noting that existing processes under RSA 571-B address harmful material to minors and parental objections. She argues the bill expands definitions of offensive or inappropriate language, potentially leading to broad book bans. Benson highlights ongoing lawsuits in states like Florida, Iowa, Idaho, and Utah where similar laws have been ruled unconstitutional or are under injunction, including a recent suit by Kurt Vonnegut's estate. She warns of constitutional free speech violations, as noted in Governor Ayotte's veto of HB 324, and potential expensive liability from publishers like Penguin Random House. Benson suggests considering model legislation from the American Library Association for a more robust, constitutionally sound approach that still allows parental concerns without statewide overreach.
SB434: Support 05:39:25.298 - 3:34:51 PM; Aubrey Friedman supports the bill and emphasizes the need for a policy allowing parents to challenge books. She recounts two incidents in the Newfound rural district: in 2022, a new curriculum led to controversy over unvetted elementary school materials with sexual overtones, prompting a curriculum committee review by parents and taxpayers. Later, a library book challenge followed the district's policy similar to the bill's, involving a superintendent-formed committee of teachers who deemed the books non-harmful. The challengers appealed to the school board, which held a robust discussion and voted 5-2 to keep the books, though they were not prominently displayed. Friedman views this process as effective for handling culture war issues, ensuring community input without universal satisfaction.
SB434: Information Only 05:43:45.429 - 3:39:11 PM; Sarah Terrell provided written testimony that was distributed to the committee, but she had to leave before speaking orally. No specific content from the written testimony is included in the transcript.
SB434: Oppose 05:45:33.010 - 3:40:59 PM; Grizzaliz Glenn, a parent, opposes the bill, arguing it formalizes a multi-step complaint and review process for school materials, including books, lessons, displays, and guest speakers, escalating to the school board and public record. The bill imports the 'harmful to minors' definition from RSA 571-B, meant for explicit sexual material, but extends it broadly with undefined terms like 'age inappropriate' and 'otherwise offensive,' creating subjectivity and interpretation. This eases complaints, triggering investigations and documentation, amplifying their impact. Glenn contrasts this with the lack of structured processes for reviewing authority figures' conduct. She warns the process pressures avoidance over inclusion, shaping education by vulnerability to challenges rather than value, narrowing access to diverse materials. Citing 2023-2024 data, 36% of banned titles feature people of color and 25% LGBTQ+ characters, with only 30% having on-page sexual descriptions, urging opposition to avoid limitation over protection.
SB434: Oppose 05:49:49.423 - 3:45:15 PM; Christina Barrett from the New Hampshire School Boards Association opposes SB 434 due to its prescriptive nature, though they support requiring policies for reconsidering instructional or library materials. She notes complaints have focused on material types, not processes, and existing local processes work, as seen in challenges in Merrimack Valley (2025), Bow High (2023), Dover (2023, eight books challenged), Goffstown (2010), Litchfield (2009), and Bedford (2021). The bill's broad 'material' definition includes dances, representations, and guest speakers, leading to absurd scenarios like reviewing an Elvis impression. 'Age appropriate' is undefined, unlike DOE's 'developmentally appropriate' in rules 306.08 and 306.01K. Timelines (25 days for review) are unrealistic for multiple challenges. Barrett suggests narrowing to books and media, using consistent definitions, and values local control over statewide uniformity. She offers model policies and resources from other states.
SB434: Oppose 06:12:47.111 - 4:08:13 PM; Brian Hawkins supports reconsideration policies in school districts but opposes overriding local policies with this bill. He highlights the subjective, undefined terms like 'offensive,' allowing broad interpretations. Concerns include prescribed timelines that may strain small, resource-limited districts, especially with multiple challenges. He advocates ensuring timeliness for parents while accommodating variations, suggesting team reviews involving school staff rather than single individuals, as in policies from districts like Salem and Claremont.
SB434: Support 06:14:57.511 - 4:10:23 PM; In closing his testimony, Brian Hawkins addressed concerns about the bill's implementation, noting the reference to a designee for the principal's role due to potential workload. He highlighted that some timelines might be restrictive for assembling a group. Responding to a question about last year's veto, he referenced the objectionable material statute, which allows for individual parental alternatives rather than imposing a single viewpoint district-wide. During Q&A, he discussed field trips to museums with potentially objectionable content, emphasizing existing permission slips and opt-out opportunities. He also noted that obscenity statutes consider context, literary value, and usage.
SB434: Information Only 06:20:06.333 - 4:15:32 PM; Becky provided information on sample school board policies related to parental objections. She explained that policy IGE addresses parental objections to specific course materials, allowing alternative activities for individual students. Policies IHAM and IHAMR cover exemptions from health education and objectionable course material opt-outs. She clarified that these policies apply to individual opt-outs, not removal of materials from the school. She also mentioned policy KEC for public concerns and complaints about instructional resources, including reconsideration of materials, and KEB for complaints about personnel.
SB434: Oppose 06:22:10.533 - 4:17:36 PM; Deborah Howells opposed Senate Bill 434, arguing it imposes a top-down, one-size-fits-all process for challenging school materials that fails to balance parents' rights with students' constitutional rights to a robust education and access to diverse materials, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. She criticized the bill's vague standards like 'offensive or age-inappropriate,' which are subjective, and its reference to 'harmful to minors' law, which requires evaluating the material as a whole for prurient interest, sexual conduct, and lack of serious value—standards not explicitly required in the bill. The tight 10-day timelines for principals or superintendents to review potentially lengthy books, consult educators, and decide are unrealistic given their workloads, pressuring quick removals and enabling self-censorship among educators. The process lacks public transparency until after decisions, potentially allowing one person's opinion to remove materials without broader input or committee review, leading to legal challenges. She urged recommending the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL) to protect students' and educators' rights. During Q&A, she emphasized evaluating works as a whole under the Miller test, suggested high school appropriateness for some graphic novels, advocated for robust local policies like Dover's involving committees and public input, and offered to share such models.