Committee Summary for House Education Policy and Administration (05/27/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB69 00:07:17.680 - 8:34:13 AM	Public Hearing	relative to acceptance of or rejection of charitable contributions, gifts, or donations by local school boards.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB210 01:05:19.920 - 9:32:15 AM	Public Hearing	establishing a study committee to study the issue of school bullying.	Fenton, Donovan(D)[F]2024
SB57 02:14:36.360 - 10:41:32 AM	Public Hearing	establishing a study committee to analyze reducing the number of school administrative units.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB100 03:16:15.920 - 11:43:11 AM	Public Hearing	relative to violations of the prohibition on teaching discrimination.	Lang, Timothy(R)[C+]2024
SB69 2025-2239H 05:25:51.360 - 1:52:47 PM	Executive Session	relative to acceptance of or rejection of charitable contributions, gifts, or donations by local school boards.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB210 2025-2318H 05:33:55.638 - 2:00:51 PM	Executive Session	establishing a study committee to study the issue of school bullying.	Fenton, Donovan(D)[F]2024
SB57 1900H 05:55:55.760 - 2:22:51 PM	Executive Session	establishing a study committee to analyze reducing the number of school administrative units.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024

SB69: Glenn Cordelli, representing Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro, and Ossipee Information Only00:07:17.680 - 8:34:13 AM; Representative Cordelli introduced the amendments to SB69. The first amendment is a germane amendment that modifies the school board's decision-making process to include both acceptance and rejection of gifts and donations. The second amendment, which is non-germane and the focus of this hearing, proposes a virtual early childhood readiness family engagement program. This program is a modified version of the previously passed HB671, aimed at kindergarten literacy readiness, which was retained in finance due to the need for state funding appropriation.
SB69: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:09:23.640 - 8:36:19 AM; The speaker discusses the amendment to Senate Bill 69, which aims to provide literacy readiness for preschool children not enrolled in kindergarten. The amendment allows the Department of Education to accept gifts and donations for the program, similar to what was done with House Bill 671. The funding for the program would be based on these gifts and donations, with no state funds available unless appropriated in the future. The program would submit reports to the governor, Senate, and House to monitor its progress.
SB69: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:10:10.640 - 8:37:06 AM; The speaker addresses questions regarding the amendment, clarifying that it allows for the acceptance or rejection of donations, and includes a provision for anonymous contributions. The amendment also changes the program from a technology program that could be used at centers to an exclusively online program available for home use. The speaker explains that the intent is to make the program not government-dependent and hopes it will be passed for the next school year.
SB69: Representative Balbon Information Only00:11:28.399 - 8:38:24 AM; Representative Balbon asks about the amendment's changes regarding accepted or rejected donations and anonymous contributions. The speaker confirms these changes and explains that a general meeting could discuss multiple anonymous contributions. Balbon also questions significant changes to the bill, including the shift from a technology program to an exclusively online program, which the speaker clarifies as an attempt to simplify the program while maintaining the same delivery means.
SB69: Representative Freeman Information Only00:14:27.519 - 8:41:23 AM; Representative Freeman questions the removal of the program from center-based settings, suggesting it may be due to fiscal responsibility. The speaker clarifies that the intent is to make the program not government-dependent and hopes it will be passed by the House and Senate for the next school year.
SB69: Representative Murray Information Only00:15:38.959 - 8:42:34 AM; Representative Murray asks about the duration of student engagement with the program and the funding model, specifically whether donations to the state can be anonymous. The speaker explains that the session timing would remain the same and that donations to the state would go through the executive council.
SB69: Representative Cornell Information Only00:16:46.560 - 8:43:42 AM; Representative Cornell inquires about the lack of a specified dollar amount for gifts in the original bill, questioning whether a school board would need to meet for small donations. The speaker suggests that acceptance or rejection of gifts could be done at regular meetings and would not take a long time, but a specific dollar amount could be added in the future.
SB69: Representative Hall Information Only00:18:03.360 - 8:44:59 AM; Representative Hall asks about potential sources of private and nonprofit funding mentioned in the bill. The speaker states that discussions are ongoing but cannot provide specific details. Hall also questions the truncation of the evaluation in the bill, noting that the omitted reporting was related to kindergarten children, whereas this program is for pre-kindergarten.
SB69: Representative Murray Information Only00:20:22.320 - 8:47:18 AM; Representative Murray asks about the interactive nature of the program, comparing it to a direct instruction video. The speaker believes the program is more interactive and suggests that others may provide more detail on this.
SB69: Representative Timothy Han from Straford County District 10, Durham Oppose00:21:25.799 - 8:48:21 AM; Representative Han expresses concerns about the amendment, particularly the school board's ability to discuss gifts in non-public sessions under RSA 91A. He doubts the readiness of the child readiness program, citing a lack of clarity on providers, funding, and goals. Han questions the suitability of an online program for young children and expresses skepticism about its effectiveness, indicating he may not support it on the floor.
SB69: Representative Sy Information Only00:23:28.960 - 8:50:24 AM; Representative Sy asks for an example of a donation that would be suitable for non-public discussion. The speaker provides examples, such as donations related to school security or where the donor may face public backlash, and clarifies that certain donations like those for school events would likely not require a public session.
SB69: Representative Freeman Information Only00:25:19.120 - 8:52:15 AM; Representative Freeman asks if individual school districts have their own rules for accepting donations. The speaker believes they likely do and suggests that accepting donations is inevitably a local decision.
SB69: Becky Wilson from the New Hampshire School Boards Association Information Only00:26:20.159 - 8:53:16 AM; Becky Wilson expresses concerns about the amendment's broad language regarding donations, highlighting the need for guardrails and the potential need for school boards to set policies. She raises questions about the practicality of accepting donations, such as for school trips and events, and the anonymity of donations. Wilson also discusses the impact on students with IEPs, noting that the program is private and not necessarily an approved special education service.
SB69: Rob Riley from waterford.org Support00:32:00.880 - 8:58:56 AM; Rob Riley supports the amendment to Senate Bill 69, which would establish a virtual early childhood readiness program. He highlights the program's potential to close early learning gaps and its alignment with Waterford's mission. Riley emphasizes the program's flexibility and scalability, stating that Waterford's support is not contingent on being selected to lead the program. He addresses questions about the program's interaction with IEPs, internet access, and screen time, emphasizing the program's supplementary and adaptive nature.
SB69: Teresa Rosenberger from Bernstein Shure, representing Waterford Support00:37:49.200 - 9:04:45 AM; Teresa Rosenberger explains Waterford's efforts to connect with potential funders in New Hampshire, including the Couch Foundation and the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation. She discusses the city of Londonderry's interest in funding the program with opioid abatement money, which was ultimately not approved. Rosenberger emphasizes the importance of the bill's language allowing the Department of Education to accept various types of funding, which would help expand the program's reach and effectiveness.
SB69: Jerry Fu, New Hampshire School Administrators Association Information Only00:51:48.800 - 9:18:44 AM; Jerry Fu from the New Hampshire School Administrators Association (NHSAA) addressed the committee, expressing support for early childhood education. He raised concerns about the appropriateness of remote instruction for young children, questioning the effectiveness of remote learning for 4 and 5-year-olds if it has been deemed inappropriate for K-12 students. He suggested that if the amendment passes, considerations for remote learning should extend to K-12 education as well. He also discussed the school board's policy on accepting donations, indicating that most school districts have policies in place for handling such donations.
SB210: Glenn Cordelli, representing Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro, and Ossipee Support01:05:19.920 - 9:32:15 AM; Representative Glenn Cordelli, the prime sponsor of SB210, emphasized the urgency of addressing bullying and cyberbullying in schools, citing multiple hearings and incidents, including suicides related to bullying. He highlighted the amendment's key changes, which include mandating bullying procedures in student handbooks, ensuring victims are informed of their rights and support services, and adding a time frame for informing parents about bullying reports. The amendment also integrates language from another bill, HB108, concerning cyberbullying. Cordelli stressed the need for immediate action over further study, referencing the Department of Education's priority on safe school environments.
SB210: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:10:24.400 - 9:37:20 AM; The speaker discussed the amendment to SB210, which focuses on extending the integration of bullying policies into prevention policies within the curriculum. The amendment also requires a report from districts on their efforts to integrate these policies, with the report due by January 1, 2026. This provision will be repealed once the report is submitted. The amendment adds a section in 193 F4 to address these requirements.
SB210: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:11:23.520 - 9:38:19 AM; The speaker elaborated on the amendment related to the code of conduct and violations. It includes violations for intentionally breaching internal reporting requirements, submitting inaccurate or false information, failing to adhere to timelines, and committing acts of retaliation against reporters of bullying or their parents. The speaker mentioned additional points to be discussed later.
SB210: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:12:17.320 - 9:39:13 AM; The speaker highlighted the need for more detailed statistics on bullying to be added to the current reports available on the DOE website. They expressed skepticism about the accuracy of the reported numbers, citing examples from the 2015-16 report which showed 256 instances in high schools and 291 in middle schools.
SB210: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:13:38.600 - 9:40:34 AM; The speaker discussed changes in the amendment regarding the right of action against school districts, shifting from willful misconduct or gross negligence to simple negligence, defined in F9. They noted ongoing conversations about potential actions related to laws on suspension, expulsion, and retaliation, emphasizing the need to address retaliation issues in bullying cases.
SB210: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:14:31.960 - 9:41:27 AM; The speaker addressed the issue of retaliation faced by parents and students, as well as teachers, in bullying cases. They stressed the urgency of taking more action on bullying, including looking into retaliation laws in the upcoming year, in light of the testimonies about bullying and suicides heard over the years.
SB210: Representative Selig Information Only01:15:18.800 - 9:42:14 AM; Representative Selig discussed the need for additional actions beyond current law to address bullying. They highlighted their previous efforts in bringing bullying legislation to the committee and raised concerns about bullying from students in private, parochial, or homeschool situations, particularly in cross-district and cyber contexts.
SB210: Representative Hall Information Only01:17:32.320 - 9:44:28 AM; Representative Hall asked about the interpretation of the word 'intentionally' in the amendment, specifically if it applies to the entire section or just the district's internal reporting requirements. They were informed that 'intentionally' applies to the entire section.
SB210: Representative Murray Information Only01:18:41.120 - 9:45:37 AM; Representative Murray inquired about the inclusion of public, private, and charter schools in the amendment. They noted that the current statute includes public and public charter schools and questioned the sponsor's stance on including private schools. The sponsor showed little appetite for including private schools, citing their existing policies and regulation status.
SB210: Representative McDonald Information Only01:20:37.199 - 9:47:33 AM; Representative McDonald questioned whether the amendment's policy language includes private schools. The sponsor indicated that the language could be interpreted to include private schools, but the focus is primarily on public and public charter schools.
SB210: Representative Bricky Information Only01:21:55.440 - 9:48:51 AM; Representative Bricky asked about the sponsor's reluctance to include private schools in the legislation. The sponsor explained that private schools are not subject to the same government regulations and often have robust anti-bullying policies in place.
SB210: Representative Terry Information Only01:24:37.480 - 9:51:33 AM; Representative Terry discussed the focus of the amendment on student-on-student bullying and questioned whether teacher-on-student bullying would be addressed. The sponsor acknowledged that such instances would require separate legislation, possibly under retaliation laws.
SB210: Representative Belone Information Only01:25:59.120 - 9:52:55 AM; Representative Belone questioned the origin of the amendment's language, noting that the original bill intended to establish a study committee. The sponsor explained that the amendment was their initiative, developed after consulting various stakeholders.
SB210: Representative Freeman Information Only01:29:19.760 - 9:56:15 AM; Representative Freeman argued for the necessity of addressing bullying directly rather than through a study committee, emphasizing the urgency and volume of testimonies received. The sponsor agreed that direct action is preferable.
SB210: Representative Cornell Information Only01:31:41.040 - 9:58:37 AM; Representative Cornell asked about the definition of negligence in the amendment, specifically who determines the level of care. The sponsor indicated that it could be a court decision.
SB210: Representative Brookie Information Only01:32:44.000 - 9:59:40 AM; Representative Brookie raised concerns about the inconsistency in the amendment's language regarding gross negligence. The sponsor acknowledged that it might have been an oversight.
SB210: Representative Hall Information Only01:34:09.040 - 10:01:05 AM; Representative Hall inquired about the involvement of the Attorney General's office in the amendment, specifically regarding the reporting of bullying incidents. The sponsor explained that this stems from existing cyber bullying legislation.
SB210: Representative Murray Information Only01:35:24.560 - 10:02:20 AM; Representative Murray discussed the timeline for implementing the amendment should it pass, raising concerns about the feasibility of schools updating their handbooks within the specified 30-day period. The sponsor believed the timeline was reasonable for most aspects.
SB210: Karen Rosenberg, Disability Rights Center Oppose01:36:12.960 - 10:03:08 AM; Karen Rosenberg, representing the Disability Rights Center, opposed the amendment. She highlighted the need for schools to be places of learning where mistakes can be addressed through evidence-based interventions rather than punishment. Rosenberg criticized the removal of language related to bullying motivations, emphasizing the impact on students with disabilities. She questioned the involvement of the Attorney General's office and suggested a more comprehensive approach through a study committee to address social emotional learning and evidence-based programs.
SB210: Christina, New Hampshire School Boards Association Oppose01:49:17.080 - 10:16:13 AM; Christina from the New Hampshire School Boards Association expressed concerns about the amendment to SB210. She highlighted the removal of the definition of bullying from current law, arguing that a clear definition is essential for students, parents, and school administrators to understand what constitutes bullying. She also raised concerns about the amendment's impact on the educator code of conduct, suggesting that violations of local school board policies should be treated as employment matters rather than statutory violations. Christina emphasized the potential punitive nature of the amendment's language regarding inaccuracies and timelines in reporting bullying incidents, advocating for a more balanced approach that considers the practical challenges faced by school administrators.
SB210: Amory Banfield, Parental Rights Advocate Information Only01:57:42.639 - 10:24:38 AM; Amory Banfield, a parental rights advocate focused on public education, discussed the issue of bullying from a parental perspective. She highlighted a perceived loophole among administrators that allows incidents to be classified as not rising to the level of bullying, even when repeated incidents occur. Banfield emphasized that this loophole leads to parents removing their children from public schools, citing bullying as a primary reason for seeking educational alternatives. She mentioned the need for stronger laws to protect students and prevent families from feeling forced to leave public schools due to bullying issues.
SB210: Representative Timothy Han, Strafford County District 10 Oppose02:03:56.440 - 10:30:52 AM; Representative Timothy Han opposed the proposed legislation on bullying, arguing that it focuses too narrowly on public schools and neglects the issue of bullying in private schools. He shared personal experiences of bullying in various educational settings, including private and international schools, and emphasized that bullying is a universal issue across all types of schools. Han criticized the approach of moving victims to different schools, suggesting that the focus should be on addressing the behavior of the bullies and providing interventions for them. He also expressed skepticism about the clarity and effectiveness of the proposed bill, suggesting it may not be ready for a vote.
SB57: Representative Glenn Cordelli, Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro, and Alton Information Only02:14:36.360 - 10:41:32 AM; Representative Glenn Cordelli spoke about the non-germane amendment to SB57, which pertains to the repeal of the Home Education Advisory Council (HEAC). He provided background information on the establishment of the first home education law in 1990 and the role of HEAC as an advisory committee to the commissioner. Cordelli highlighted the protective nature of the law for home educators, citing several legislative actions taken since 2012 that have reduced government oversight of home education. He shared his experience as a member of HEAC, noting the council's work in addressing questions and concerns from home educators and revising related rules.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:18:11.200 - 10:45:07 AM; The speaker discusses changes in government involvement in education since 2021, particularly with the introduction of education freedom accounts (EFAs) and changes to compulsory education attendance laws. They highlight that EFA recipients and traditionally home-educated students are categorized differently, impacting discussions and debates surrounding these groups.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:19:02.398 - 10:45:58 AM; The speaker emphasizes the purpose of education freedom accounts, stating they were intended for broader educational freedom rather than just school choice. They express concern over recent attacks on the program due to distinctions between EFA students and traditionally home-educated students, suggesting that the debate has become adversarial.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:19:47.679 - 10:46:43 AM; The speaker points out the DOE website's clarification that homeschooling using EFAs is not considered traditional home education. They express regret over the adversarial nature of the debate and its impact on HAK meetings, particularly noting the annual report discussions.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:20:37.840 - 10:47:33 AM; The speaker criticizes HAK for deviating from its role due to the ongoing debate between different compulsory attendance groups. They mention that traditional homeschoolers have been historically wary of government involvement, a sentiment echoed by legislators who have home-educated their children.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:21:27.960 - 10:48:23 AM; The speaker continues to discuss the impact of the debate on HAK, suggesting that it has lost its way and is not fulfilling its responsibilities in supporting home educators. They highlight the historical wariness of traditional homeschoolers towards government involvement.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Oppose02:22:22.880 - 10:49:18 AM; The speaker expressed concerns about the government's control over home education and the role of the Home Education Advisory Council (HEAK). They noted that HEAK has a grievance committee, but they could not recall the last time it was used, suggesting that the need for such a committee is lessened under current rules. They criticized HEAK for becoming dysfunctional and not fulfilling its responsibilities, advocating for a return to less government involvement in home education.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Oppose02:23:11.080 - 10:50:07 AM; The speaker continued their critique of HEAK, suggesting that the organization has lost its way and become reliant on government involvement. They proposed that an independent association like the New Hampshire Home Educators Association, formed in 1983, could serve as a blueprint for a new model to support home educators without government control.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Oppose02:24:02.080 - 10:50:58 AM; The speaker further elaborated on the role of the New Hampshire Home Educators Association, emphasizing its function in facilitating communication, improving relations between parents and schools, and providing support and networking for home educators. They suggested this model could replace the current government-involved HEAK.
SB57: Unknown Speaker Oppose02:24:50.399 - 10:51:46 AM; The speaker concluded their testimony by advocating for an alternative to HEAK, possibly an independent association, due to the growing involvement and resources taken by the Department of Education. They responded to questions from representatives about the rationale behind their legislation, the support within the homeschooling community, and the consultation process with HEAK members. They clarified that while they had spoken with some home educators, the current council members were not consulted before submitting the amendment.
SB57: Christopher Lavell, representing Granite State Home Educators Oppose02:35:28.720 - 11:02:24 AM; Christopher Lavell spoke on behalf of his wife, Michelle Lavell, who is the director of Granite State Home Educators, representing around 15,000 members. He expressed opposition to the bill, emphasizing the importance of the Home Education Advisory Council (HEAK) for independent homeschoolers under statute 193A. He highlighted conflicts arising from the introduction of Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs) and suggested that the bill's proposal to eliminate HEAK is misplaced, as it removes a crucial voice for home educators to the Department of Education. He also mentioned that the situation was exacerbated by the appointment of an EFA vendor to the HEAK council by the commissioner. Lavell proposed that following the 193A statute alone, without additional rulemaking, could be beneficial for home educators.
SB57: George Dazzio, Manchester Oppose02:39:52.120 - 11:06:48 AM; George Dazzio, a former member of the Home Education Advisory Council from Manchester, opposed the bill. He discussed the distinction between home-educated students under 193A and those utilizing EFA funds, noting that HEAK had previously tried to consider all perspectives. He pointed out the recent dysfunction within HEAK, attributing it to conflicts among members and the influence of the outgoing commissioner's appointees. Dazzio emphasized the importance of HEAK's role in facilitating communication and addressing issues between homeschoolers, school districts, and other stakeholders, arguing that eliminating the council would be detrimental.
SB57: Jennifer Pereira, representing Catholics United for Home Education Oppose02:45:37.120 - 11:12:33 AM; Jennifer Pereira, a 15-year home educator and former co-chair of HEAK, opposed the amendment to repeal the Home Education Advisory Council. She highlighted the council's role in facilitating communication between home educators and the Department of Education, assisting families in understanding and complying with laws, and addressing issues with local school districts. Pereira stressed the importance of experienced home educators in developing rules and regulations and suggested training for new appointees to understand their roles within HEAK.
SB57: Unknown Speaker, Homeschooling Mom Oppose02:48:14.640 - 11:15:10 AM; A homeschooling mother opposed the amendment, arguing that the Home Education Advisory Council provides a valuable service to homeschooling families. She criticized the reasoning behind the amendment, suggesting that eliminating the council due to recent conflicts would only exacerbate polarization without resolving underlying issues. She also expressed frustration over the lack of notice and opportunity for the homeschooling community to discuss the amendment before its introduction, emphasizing the need for more inclusive and transparent processes.
SB57: Sarah Sullivan, 193A unfunded independent home educator Support02:51:42.600 - 11:18:38 AM; Sarah Sullivan expressed support for the repeal of the Home Education Advisory Council (HEAK), emphasizing the reduction of bureaucracy. However, she raised concerns about the manner in which the amendment was introduced without prior consultation with the HEAK board and its attachment to an unrelated bill. Sullivan also mentioned tension within the HEAK about its mission and the potential retaliation against its members for pushing for clearer distinctions from other educational pathways and addressing issues with the administration of the education tax credit.
SB57: Jennifer Wright, Homeschooling Mom Oppose02:52:45.520 - 11:19:41 AM; Jennifer Wright, a first-time speaker, opposed the amendment to repeal the HEAK. She highlighted the irony of the amendment being attached to a bill about reducing SAUs while proposing to eliminate the HEAK without analysis or discussion. Wright emphasized the importance of the HEAK as a liaison and support system for homeschooling families, especially for those new to homeschooling like herself. She stressed the potential harm to the homeschooling community if the HEAK were eliminated and mentioned the short notice given about the amendment.
SB57: Katherine Abbott, Portsmouth, Conservative Republican, 193A unfunded home educator Oppose02:58:47.760 - 11:25:43 AM; Katherine Abbott opposed the amendment to repeal the HEAK, expressing concern over the lack of transparency and the amendment's attachment to an unrelated bill. She discussed the importance of the HEAK in advocating for home education's distinctiveness from other educational pathways and criticized the move as marginalizing home educators. Abbott suggested that if the party truly supported parental rights and educational freedom, they should consider removing the entire rulemaking statute, not just the part related to the HEAK.
SB57: Amanda Weeden, Home Education Advocate, Co-founder of Granite Sea Home Educators and Christian Home Educators of Southern Maine Oppose03:01:18.640 - 11:28:14 AM; Amanda Weeden opposed the amendment, describing it as a non-germane amendment added without discussion with HEAK members. She highlighted the HEAK's role in addressing serious issues and the increasing frustration of home educators due to unprofessional behavior and ignored concerns. Weeden emphasized the historical significance of home education as the original school choice and criticized the amendment as punitive and an ambush, calling for collaboration to support home education as a distinct option.
SB57: Michelle Roarbacher, Independent unfunded home educator, Member of HEAK appointed by Commissioner Edlau Oppose03:04:59.479 - 11:31:55 AM; Michelle Roarbacher opposed the amendment, detailing her involvement with the HEAK and the issues faced by the home education community, particularly regarding misinformation about the EFA program. She emphasized the long history of protecting parents' rights to educate their children and the HEAK's role in advocating for home educators. Roarbacher criticized the amendment as an attempt to silence the home education community and urged opposition to maintain a vital voice for home educators.
SB57: Diane Nolan, Home Educator for over 20 years, Represents Catholics United for Home Education on HEAK Council Oppose03:08:58.960 - 11:35:54 AM; Diane Nolan opposed the repeal of the HEAK, speaking on behalf of herself rather than her organization. She highlighted the significant role of the HEAK in representing the home education community, especially during transitions and changes in educational policy. Nolan emphasized the HEAK's ongoing work in training school principals and administrators on equal access laws and the need for experienced voices during periods of change. She urged the removal of the repeal from the amendment to SB57.
SB57: Representative Murray Information Only03:12:48.560 - 11:39:44 AM; Representative Murray asked about the effectiveness of the monthly meetings of the HEAK Council, suggesting that they might be as effective if held quarterly or semiannually. The response indicated that the council has been operating bimonthly with additional meetings as needed, not officially monthly.
SB57: Representative Selig Information Only03:13:55.560 - 11:40:51 AM; Representative Selig inquired about the necessity of the council meetings for keeping up with rapid changes and how the absence of the group would affect information dissemination. The response highlighted the utility of the meetings for addressing issues like equal access to SATs, facilitated by having a member of the New Hampshire Department of Education present.
SB100: Representative Cordelli, representing Tuftonboro, Wolfeboro, and Ossipee Information Only03:16:15.920 - 11:43:11 AM; Representative Cordelli, the prime sponsor of SB100, explained that the bill modifies the current statute on the prohibition of teaching discrimination. The amendment incorporates elements from HB50, which passed the House but not the Senate. The changes aim to address concerns raised in a court case, particularly regarding vagueness. The amendment adds 'intentionally and knowingly' to the law and modifies sections to clarify that educators are not compelled to promote discrimination and to ensure discussions on historical ideas are not prohibited.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:20:12.600 - 11:47:08 AM; The speaker discussed the legal implications of adding 'sciencer' requirement to the bill, citing a judge's ruling in New Hampshire that such a requirement could mitigate the law's vagueness. The speaker emphasized that violations must be intentional or knowing, not accidental.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Support03:21:01.239 - 11:47:57 AM; The speaker supported the amendment and the original SB100, arguing that the purpose is to prevent divisive instruction in schools that teaches discrimination. The speaker referenced the statute's intent to protect all New Hampshire citizens from discrimination regardless of race.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:21:53.439 - 11:48:49 AM; The speaker clarified that the amendment and original bill are interconnected, and they are meant to put back sections from HB50. They addressed questions about additional sections in the amendment, stating these were taken from HB50 passed by the House.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:23:06.040 - 11:50:02 AM; The speaker explained that the amendment prohibits targeting any racial group, including white people, and that no racial group should be discriminated against. They responded to a question about line 24 of the amendment, stating that special considerations for any racial group should not justify discrimination.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:26:11.720 - 11:53:07 AM; The speaker acknowledged historical facts of racial disadvantage and unequal access but emphasized that the statute does not prevent the discussion or instruction of historical facts. They responded to a question about the necessity of the phrase 'special considerations', stating everyone should be on an equal playing field today.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:27:26.399 - 11:54:22 AM; The speaker clarified that the bill would prohibit teaching that one racial group has inherent privileges over another. They confirmed that teaching about historical events like Jim Crow laws and redlining would be allowed as long as it is part of a larger course of instruction.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:31:01.920 - 11:57:57 AM; The speaker addressed concerns about the bill's impact on teaching history, asserting that teaching about historical events like Jim Crow laws and their long-lasting economic impacts would not violate the bill. They emphasized the importance of teaching all of history.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:33:31.439 - 12:00:27 PM; The speaker confirmed that the bill allows for discussions about historical facts, including Jim Crow laws, as long as they are part of a larger academic course. They responded to questions about classroom discussions and the potential for reports of violations triggering investigations.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:37:44.720 - 12:04:40 PM; The speaker discussed the original legislation's purpose, stating it was a reaction to concerns about discussions and trainings in schools. They emphasized the intent to prevent new discrimination and ensure equal treatment for all.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:38:34.720 - 12:05:30 PM; The speaker clarified that any person claiming to be aggrieved could file a report, which would trigger an investigation. They noted that merging sections of law might not be correct but confirmed that a report of a violation could be considered and investigated.
SB100: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:39:23.600 - 12:06:19 PM; The unidentified speaker discussed the provisions of the bill, specifically focusing on Section IV which allows reports to be filed by any person, not just limited to parents or students. They highlighted the concern that some parents may hesitate to file reports if their children are still in the classroom. They also questioned whether social media posts could be considered valid reports. Additionally, they inquired about the possibility of educators being removed from their duties pending investigation, to which it was clarified that an investigation would precede any disciplinary action.
SB100: Representative Timothy Han from Strafford County District 10, Durham Oppose03:41:27.359 - 12:08:23 PM; Representative Han expressed opposition to the bill, emphasizing his belief that RSA 19340 should be abolished entirely. He referenced the original bill, HB50, which he supported and felt should have been passed in its original form. Han shared personal experiences and historical context, mentioning his family's involvement in slavery and the civil rights movement, including witnessing Martin Luther King speak. He argued against the idea of teaching children a sanitized version of history and opposed the recent national trends against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Han suggested reverting to the original HB50 or doing nothing at all if the current version of SB100 were to pass.
SB100: Representative Lichfield Information Only03:48:35.359 - 12:15:31 PM; Representative Lichfield asked Representative Han if he felt it was appropriate for children to be taught to feel guilty about their race or socioeconomic background due to historical events they had no part in. Han responded by sharing his upbringing and how his family and schools emphasized teaching the truth about history, suggesting that lying to children about history would not be beneficial.
SB100: Representative McDonald Information Only03:50:37.439 - 12:17:33 PM; Representative McDonald asked Representative Han about the bill's impact on sharing personal experiences, specifically regarding his experience with Martin Luther King during the civil rights movement. Han expressed concerns about the bill's language and its potential misinterpretation, stating that while the amendment makes the bill slightly less harmful, his preference is to repeal the law entirely.
SB100: Representative Morse Information Only03:52:32.800 - 12:19:28 PM; Representative Morse asked Representative Han if slavery has only existed between white and black races, to which Han responded by acknowledging that slavery has occurred in various forms globally but emphasized its significance in the context of U.S. history.
SB100: Ian Huitt, Cornerstone Support03:53:50.479 - 12:20:46 PM; Ian Huitt, representing Cornerstone, a Christian advocacy organization, supported the bill and amendment 2332H proposed by Representative Cordelli. He argued that the amendment addresses issues with the original law, including the district court injunction and agency implementation problems. Huitt highlighted specific changes in the amendment, such as addressing discrimination against various racial groups explicitly and clarifying the reporting process to the Department of Education. He also discussed the scient requirement, suggesting that the amendment strengthens the law's enforceability.
SB100: Anmarray Banfield, Parental Rights Advocate Oppose04:03:37.760 - 12:30:33 PM; Anmarray Banfield opposed the bill, emphasizing that while facts about history like slavery and racism should be taught, the issue lies in how these are interpreted and taught in classrooms. She cited instances where children felt blamed and shamed for historical events they were not part of. Banfield referenced the Wit and Wisdom program, which had been legally challenged in Tennessee for its psychological impact on children. She argued that the bill should focus on teaching facts without inducing guilt or shame in students.
SB69 2025-2239H: Representative Freeman Support05:25:51.360 - 1:52:47 PM; Representative Freeman moved to auto pass SB69 and supported amendment 2025-2239H. He argued that charitable contributions to school boards are beneficial and that school districts already have mechanisms to handle these donations. He also highlighted the importance of early literacy programs for young learners, using his personal experience to illustrate the impact of such programs.
SB69 2025-2239H: Representative Terry Support05:27:00.798 - 1:53:56 PM; Representative Terry seconded the motion for the amendment and noted that the program's complimentary nature, rather than competitive, was appreciated based on the testimony heard.
SB69 2025-2239H: Representative Selig Oppose05:28:06.320 - 1:55:02 PM; Representative Selig expressed concerns about the bill's lack of a financial threshold for donations, questioning whether small items like a box of Kleenex or a pen would require school board approval. She suggested a clear threshold to avoid potential violations and mentioned the importance of early childhood education but remained uneasy about the bill's implications.
SB69 2025-2239H: Representative Cornell Oppose05:32:22.120 - 1:59:18 PM; Representative Cornell planned to file a minority report for an ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on SB69, indicating opposition to the bill.
SB210 2025-2318H: Representative Freeman Support05:33:55.638 - 2:00:51 PM; Representative Freeman moved to auto pass SB210, emphasizing the need for immediate action on school bullying rather than just forming a study committee. He also supported amendment 2025-2318H, highlighting its potential to provide actionable solutions.
SB210 2025-2318H: Representative McDonald Support05:35:14.160 - 2:02:10 PM; Representative McDonald seconded the motion and praised amendment 2025-2318H, describing it as brilliant and capable of addressing bullying effectively. She noted the committee's extensive discussions on bullying and the amendment's actionable approach.
SB210 2025-2318H: Representative Cornell Oppose05:36:15.520 - 2:03:11 PM; Representative Cornell opposed the amendment and suggested retaining the bill to allow more time for refining the language and making the legislation stronger.
SB210 2025-2318H: Representative Selig Oppose05:37:15.440 - 2:04:11 PM; Representative Selig expressed concerns about the 30-day timeline for implementing the bill's requirements, arguing it was too short. She advocated for including private schools in bullying prevention efforts and suggested passing the original bill without the amendment to allow for further work by a study committee.
SB210 2025-2318H: Representative Baloney Oppose05:38:04.718 - 2:05:00 PM; Representative Baloney agreed that bullying needs to be addressed but felt the bill required more feedback and refinement. He suggested retaining the bill to allow for broader input and the creation of more effective legislation.
SB210 2025-2318H: Representative Murray Oppose05:39:01.760 - 2:05:57 PM; Representative Murray agreed with the need to address bullying in all educational settings and shared concerns about the change in statute from gross negligence to negligence, suggesting it could impact court systems. She supported the idea of a study committee to work on the bill.
SB210 2025-2318H: Representative Noble Information Only05:44:19.360 - 2:11:15 PM; Representative Noble clarified the decision to move forward with SB210 instead of HB50, which was inexpedient to legislate (ITL) by the Senate. SB210 was chosen to address criticisms from the court regarding anti-discrimination laws.
SB210 2025-2318H: Representative Terry Support05:45:38.400 - 2:12:34 PM; Representative Terry expressed support for the amendment, recognizing political differences but viewing the amendment as a constructive response to concerns raised by the judiciary at the first circuit.
SB210 2025-2318H: Representative Cordelli Support05:46:46.638 - 2:13:42 PM; Representative Cordelli moved to pass SB210 with amendment 2332H, which was seconded by Representative Morse. The motion to adopt the amendment passed with a vote of 9 yays and 8 nays.
SB57 1900H: Representative Cordelli Support05:55:55.760 - 2:22:51 PM; Representative Cordelli moved to pass SB57 and was seconded by Representative Terry. He discussed not offering an amendment that would repeal HAK, expressing hope for changes in the HAK council and their annual report. He committed to meeting with home educators to find common ground and mentioned a potential future legislative action during the next filing period in September. He proposed amendment 1900H instead of 2234H, which changes the membership and responsibilities of the committee without repealing HAK.
SB57 1900H: Unidentified Speaker Information Only06:00:58.480 - 2:27:54 PM; The speaker discussed changes made to the bill, including increasing the House membership on the committee to five members and refining the duties based on discussions with the department. They mentioned examining the roles of SAUs versus school districts, the roles of superintendents, the feasibility of consolidating SAUs on a per-county basis, and the staffing and oversight of SAUs.
SB57 1900H: Unidentified Speaker Information Only06:01:47.680 - 2:28:43 PM; The speaker noted that SB57 and the proposed amendment are similar to a previously passed bill sent to the Senate. They mentioned that the Senate received it well, though they preferred their own amendment. The speaker believed the suggested changes were constructive and helpful in addressing the committee's concerns.
SB57 1900H: Representative Murray Information Only06:02:33.440 - 2:29:29 PM; Representative Murray sought clarification on lines 18 through 20 of the bill, confirming that Nashua and Manchester, part of Hillsborough County, would be considered alongside other towns within the county based on population size, rather than being carved out separately.
SB57 1900H: Representative Baloni Information Only06:03:40.558 - 2:30:36 PM; Representative Baloni asked about the increase in House members on the committee from three to five, and was informed it was to ensure more participation given the Senate's potential lower attendance. They also inquired about the expanded purpose of the bill to include analyzing the roles of superintendents and whether the committee would still seek input from other associations like the New Hampshire Municipal Association and the New Hampshire School Boards Association.
SB57 1900H: Representative Paul Support06:05:08.718 - 2:32:04 PM; Representative Paul expressed support for the repeal of a section of the bill they referred to as the 'evac he he act', which they felt was an attack on the homeschool community. They were glad to see it removed from the current bill.
SB57 1900H: Representative Brookie Information Only06:06:17.600 - 2:33:13 PM; Representative Brookie inquired about the requirement for a report, which was confirmed to be part of the original bill but not listed in the amendment sections being discussed. They also asked about the timeline for the report, which was hoped to be ready by November 1st.
SB57 1900H: Representative Brown Information Only06:07:37.760 - 2:34:33 PM; Representative Brown pointed out a typo on line 11 of the amendment, suggesting it should read 'but not limited to' instead of 'but limited to'.
SB57 1900H: Representative Murray Information Only06:08:53.280 - 2:35:49 PM; Representative Murray questioned the change from 'limited to' to 'not limited to' in the amendment, understanding it as a significant broadening of scope. They were informed that the change was meant to be permissive rather than mandatory, allowing flexibility for the study committee.
SB57 1900H: Representative Terry Information Only06:10:23.680 - 2:37:19 PM; Representative Terry concurred with the permissive nature of the change in the amendment's scope. They asked about the process of adding the word 'not' to the amendment, which was suggested could be addressed via a floor amendment or a committee of conference.
SB57 1900H: Representative Cordelli Support06:11:23.040 - 2:38:19 PM; Representative Cordelli moved to pass the bill with amendment 1900H, which was seconded by Representative Terry. The motion was put to a vote with 15 in favor and 2 against, and it was decided to keep the bill on the regular calendar to allow for a floor amendment.

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)