Committee Summary for Senate Education (02/18/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB34 00:02:19.280 - 8:00:50 AM	Executive Session	relative to parental consent for student participation in Medicaid to schools program.	Ward, Ruth(R)[C+]2024
SB57 111s 00:26:26.520 - 8:24:57 AM	Executive Session	establishing a study committee to analyze reducing the number of school administrative units.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB69 00:46:32.720 - 8:45:03 AM	Executive Session	relative to acceptance of or rejection of charitable contributions, gifts, or donations by local school boards.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB98 00:48:12.160 - 8:46:43 AM	Executive Session	extending the donations to regional career and technical education center programs.	Watters, David(D)[CT]2024
SB99 00:49:51.680 - 8:48:22 AM	Executive Session	relative to regional career and technical education agreements.	Watters, David(D)[CT]2024
SB100 0276s 00:50:50.160 - 8:49:21 AM	Executive Session	relative to violations of the prohibition on teaching discrimination.	Lang, Timothy(R)[C+]2024
SB208 01:03:55.920 - 9:02:26 AM	Public Hearing	requiring local school boards and public libraries to adopt curation policies.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024
SB208 01:16:32.880 - 9:15:03 AM	Public Hearing	requiring local school boards and public libraries to adopt curation policies.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024
SB209 01:36:35.880 - 9:35:06 AM	Public Hearing	requiring schools to engage an owner's project manager for construction of school building aid projects at the time of application.	Abbas, Daryl(R)[C+]2024
SB33 01:42:19.560 - 9:40:50 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the regulation of public school materials.	Avard, Kevin(R)[C+]2024

SB34: Senator Ward Information Only00:02:19.280 - 8:00:50 AM; Senator Ward opened the executive session for the Senate Education Committee and announced that they would be discussing bills not covered in the previous session, starting with Bill SB34.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:03:07.239 - 8:01:38 AM; The senator proposed a motion to find Bill SB34 inexpedient to legislate (ITL), citing concerns about shifting the burden of costs and administrative duties to taxpayers and school districts. They referenced testimony from the Manchester School Board and a representative from a North Country community mental health center, highlighting the difficulty in obtaining parental consent for new services, which could lead to unreimbursed costs for schools.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:03:54.000 - 8:02:25 AM; The senator continued to argue against Bill SB34, expressing concern over the potential cost to taxpayers and the administrative burden on schools due to the requirement for parental consent. They referenced Manchester's challenges and suggested exploring alternative solutions.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:04:41.039 - 8:03:12 AM; The senator reiterated opposition to the ITL motion for Bill SB34, expressing support for parental consent but disagreement with the proposed legislation. They argued that obtaining parental consent is a common practice and suggested that schools need to improve communication efforts with parents.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:05:27.080 - 8:03:58 AM; The senator opposed the ITL motion, arguing that the issue of obtaining consent is oversimplified and that schools face challenges in reaching certain populations. They suggested re-referring the bill to work with stakeholders to find better strategies before dismissing it.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:06:13.120 - 8:04:44 AM; The senator expressed concern about setting a precedent that could lead to bypassing parental consent in other areas, calling it a slippery slope. They argued for maintaining parental consent for Medicaid-enrolled children to receive services.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:06:59.720 - 8:05:30 AM; The senator emphasized the importance of consent for Medicaid-enrolled children to receive necessary services and suggested withdrawing the ITL motion to explore other pathways to address the issue.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:07:45.599 - 8:06:16 AM; The senator argued that the inability to contact parents is a larger issue beyond the scope of the bill and stressed the need for parental consent for any treatment, suggesting emergency avenues for life-threatening situations.
SB34: Senator Aler Oppose00:10:41.839 - 8:09:12 AM; Senator Aler clarified that Bill SB34 is specifically about written parental consent for new services to Medicaid-enrolled children, not about field trips or emergencies. They argued that the bill would create a two-tiered system of support, unfairly burdening Medicaid-enrolled children's parents with a higher threshold for accessing services.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:13:50.959 - 8:12:21 AM; The senator reiterated that the bill only applies to IEP-related services and not general medical treatments like administering aspirin. They emphasized the potential delay in services for Medicaid-enrolled children due to the requirement for written consent.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:16:56.360 - 8:15:27 AM; The senator clarified the need for consent for billing purposes, not just for the provision of services, and referenced testimony from stakeholders like Becky Wilson to support their argument. They expressed willingness to withdraw the motion and seek further clarification.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:18:27.200 - 8:16:58 AM; The senator suggested that the bill encompasses more than just educational services, including medical and dental care, and proposed delaying the decision to gather more information. They argued for the importance of parental consent in all school-provided medical treatments.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:19:12.400 - 8:17:43 AM; The senator expressed support for a motion to pass (OTP) the bill, clarifying that it applies to all medical and dental treatments provided in schools and not just IEPs. They emphasized the importance of parental consent and the feasibility of obtaining it through modern communication methods.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:20:44.720 - 8:19:15 AM; The senator called for clarification on whether the bill applies only to IEPs or encompasses all medical treatments in schools. They highlighted the language in the bill that requires explicit written consent for any new service.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:21:33.520 - 8:20:04 AM; The senator questioned the need for the legislature to specify who should be consulted in a study committee, suggesting that it should be left to the committee's discretion. They expressed skepticism about the feasibility of a countywide school system.
SB34: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:33:21.519 - 8:31:52 AM; The senator argued that it is not unusual for the legislature to be prescriptive about committee composition and emphasized the need for stakeholder input, particularly from counties and school boards, when considering a shift to a county-based school system.
SB57 111s: Senator Apprentice Information Only00:26:26.520 - 8:24:57 AM; Senator Apprentice mentioned an amendment (111s) brought forward by Senator Aler, which was new to the committee. They suggested discussing it before proceeding with the bill.
SB57 111s: Senator Aler Support00:27:13.760 - 8:25:44 AM; Senator Aler introduced the amendment, which aimed to add stakeholders to the study committee analyzing the reduction of school administrative units. They emphasized the importance of including voices from counties and school districts in the discussion.
SB57 111s: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:31:09.480 - 8:29:40 AM; The senator opposed the amendment, arguing that it was too prescriptive in mandating who the committee must consult with. They believed that the committee should have the discretion to decide whom to consult.
SB57 111s: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:31:55.080 - 8:30:26 AM; The senator argued against the amendment, suggesting that it should be less prescriptive and allow the committee more flexibility in choosing whom to consult. They expressed reluctance to support a countywide school system.
SB57 111s: Senator Unnamed Support00:34:08.960 - 8:32:39 AM; The senator supported the amendment, arguing that it was necessary to ensure that key stakeholders, including county commissioners and school boards, are included in the study committee's discussions.
SB57 111s: Senator Unnamed Support00:35:41.240 - 8:34:12 AM; The senator proposed changing the amendment's language from 'shall' to 'may' to give the committee more flexibility in consulting stakeholders. They emphasized the importance of stakeholder input for a comprehensive study.
SB57 111s: Senator Unnamed Support00:38:00.599 - 8:36:31 AM; The senator suggested incorporating the amendment into the original bill with the change from 'shall' to 'may' and adding a focus on the impact of county taxes. They agreed to a committee amendment.
SB69: Senator Unnamed Support00:46:32.720 - 8:45:03 AM; The senator moved to pass Bill SB69, which deals with the acceptance or rejection of charitable contributions and gifts to schools. They appreciated Senator Murphy's work on the issue and felt it provided a good model for schools.
SB98: Senator Unnamed Support00:48:12.160 - 8:46:43 AM; The senator moved to pass Bill SB98, which deals with public school transfers, without further discussion.
SB99: Senator Unnamed Oppose00:49:51.680 - 8:48:22 AM; The senator moved not to pass Bill SB99, which deals with regional career and technical education agreements, citing it as a good bill that offers choice to students but chose not to support it.
SB100 0276s: Senator Unnamed Information Only00:50:50.160 - 8:49:21 AM; The senator expressed the need to review Bill SB100 and its amendment, indicating that they were waiting for more information and had been out sick.
SB100 0276s: Senator Unnamed Support00:58:23.880 - 8:56:54 AM; The senator supported the amendment to Bill SB100, which adds a mens rea requirement for the first section and strikes the potential consequences for teachers violating the code of conduct. They believed it addressed concerns about misinterpretation in classrooms.
SB100 0276s: Senator Unnamed Support00:59:10.200 - 8:57:41 AM; The senator supported the amendment, arguing that it clarifies when the bill would apply by adding the 'knowingly or intentionally' provision and addresses concerns raised in court cases by striking a section.
SB208: Senator Deborah Aler, representing Exeter, Stratham, Greenland, Rye, Hampton, North Hampton, and Hampton Falls Support01:03:55.920 - 9:02:26 AM; Senator Aler introduced Senate Bill SB208, the Granite State Literacy Act, which aims to celebrate curiosity and protect the quest for knowledge in public and school libraries. The bill acknowledges the professional training of school librarians and media specialists, provides standardized procedures for curation policies, and offers legal protections against intimidation. It focuses on public school libraries and seeks to maintain an informed and literate democracy. Senator Aler suggested bifurcating the bill to exclude public libraries and asked the committee to support the bill without a 'not to pass' recommendation.
SB208: Senator Unnamed Information Only01:11:51.440 - 9:10:22 AM; The senator questioned the fiscal implications of the bill, noting that despite being labeled as an FN bill, it has no fiscal impact. They inquired about who would develop the policies and whether the Department of Education had been consulted.
SB208: Senator Unnamed Oppose01:14:58.800 - 9:13:29 AM; The senator expressed opposition to the bill, citing concerns about the reference to personal opinions, which they interpreted as referring to parents, and the blanket immunity provided to professionals. They questioned the inclusion of 'any material' in the bill, seeking clarification on its context.
SB208: Senator Aler Support01:16:32.880 - 9:15:03 AM; Senator Aler clarified that the bill does not mention parents specifically and emphasized that it aims to prevent non-stakeholders from challenging school policies. They noted that parents always have the final say in restricting access to materials for their own children but not for all students. The bill seeks to ensure a collaborative approach between library professionals and school board members, considering age-appropriate materials.
SB208: Senator Aler Information Only01:16:32.880 - 9:15:03 AM; Senator Aler raised a question about the legal status of a school librarian as a government official, specifically in relation to defamation and the application of New York Times v. Sullivan. He mentioned uncertainty about the specifics, particularly in the context of the teaching staff member definition on page three, lines 25 to 29 of the bill.
SB208: Jacqu Men, Authors Against Book Bans Support01:20:05.280 - 9:18:36 AM; Jacqu Men, a historical fantasy novelist representing Authors Against Book Bans, spoke in support of SB208. She highlighted the increasing number of book bans in school libraries, noting a rise from 3,362 cases in 2022-2023 to over 10,000 in 2023-2024. She pointed out that the majority of banned books represent marginalized groups, such as people of color and LGBTQ characters. Men argued that these bans are often motivated by viewpoint rather than obscenity. She emphasized the educational value of frequently banned books like Tony Morrison's 'The Bluest Eye' and Margaret Atwood's 'The Handmaid's Tale'. Men supported the bill for providing guidelines and processes to protect librarians and collections from viewpoint-motivated bans while still allowing for legitimate challenges to materials.
SB208: Deborah House, American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire Support01:25:24.679 - 9:23:55 AM; Deborah House, President of the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire, expressed support for SB208, stating that it balances the rights of students and the community in library material curation and challenge processes. She emphasized the importance of having a known and predictable policy for challenging materials and ensuring a panel reviews any challenged material, including experts on developmental appropriateness. House also mentioned that the bill respects parental rights to decide what their own children can read and suggested an amendment to exclude public libraries from the bill's scope due to their existing policies.
SB208: Emory Banfield, Parental Rights Advocate Oppose01:28:48.159 - 9:27:19 AM; Emory Banfield, a parental rights advocate, opposed SB208, arguing that it does not sufficiently address the issue of parents' awareness of library materials. Banfield suggested implementing a rating system for books similar to movie ratings to help parents make informed decisions. She expressed concern over materials in school libraries that she considers pornographic and potentially constituting child sexual abuse, advocating for their removal from school libraries and relocation to adult sections in public libraries. Banfield stressed that the bill does not go far enough in protecting children from such content and criticized the lack of inclusion of the school district governance association in the bill's collaborative process.
SB208: Senator Sullivan Information Only01:33:43.600 - 9:32:14 AM; Senator Sullivan discussed a course material law they sponsored, which provides parents two weeks' notification to review course materials but does not cover library materials. They shared a personal anecdote about their son's experience with age-inappropriate materials in school, emphasizing the undefined nature of 'age-appropriate' and the lasting impact of such exposure on children. Sullivan supported the idea of making library materials known to parents to allow them to act as gatekeepers for their children.
SB209: Senator Daryl Abbis, District 22 Support01:36:35.880 - 9:35:06 AM; Senator Daryl Abbis introduced and supported SB209, which requires schools to retain an owner's project manager before applying for building aid. He explained that this would ensure responsible use of state aid by having a project manager involved from the start of the budgeting and application process. Abbis provided an example from Salem, where retaining a project manager from the beginning led to significant budget savings on a school renovation project. He also mentioned a letter from a constituent in Florida, which he believes explains the bill better than he could.
SB33: Senator Daryl Abbis, District 22 Information Only01:42:19.560 - 9:40:50 AM; Senator Daryl Abbis introduced SB33 on behalf of the prime sponsor, who was not present at the time. He mentioned that the bill pertains to the regulation of public school materials and chose to yield his testimony until the prime sponsor could testify.
SB33: Bar Christina, New Hampshire School Boards Association Information Only01:43:00.920 - 9:41:31 AM; Bar Christina from the New Hampshire School Boards Association provided testimony on Senate Bill 33, stating that the association is neutral on the bill. They support the concept of school boards adopting policies for parents to challenge books or curricular materials. However, they suggested potential amendments to the bill, including adjusting the timeline for policy adoption to January 1, 2026, and addressing the feasibility of the proposed timelines for reviewing challenged materials, especially when multiple items are involved. They also proposed flexibility in timelines through mutual agreements and suggested electronic verification for school board decisions to accommodate practical considerations.
SB33: Senator Kevin Avard, Prime Sponsor of the Bill Support01:48:26.080 - 9:46:57 AM; Senator Kevin Avard, the prime sponsor of the bill, expressed support for Senate Bill 33, emphasizing its reasonableness and openness to amendments. He highlighted the bill's purpose in supporting parents' interests and providing flexibility for reviewing multiple books, acknowledging the need to ensure the process remains workable.
SB33: Senator Al Information Only01:49:32.560 - 9:48:03 AM; Senator Al questioned Senator Avard about the applicability of the bill to school assemblies, particularly those involving potentially lewd or offensive content. Senator Avard clarified that the bill would apply if such content were offensive to parents, and discussed the process for parents to object to such materials.
SB33: Senator Solan Information Only01:52:36.639 - 9:51:07 AM; Senator Solan raised concerns about the potential impact of the bill on students who might find certain materials triggering due to past experiences with sexual violence. Senator Avard responded that the bill aims to give parents the right to object and make informed decisions about their children's exposure to potentially sensitive material.
SB33: Senator Aler Information Only01:53:47.440 - 9:52:18 AM; Senator Aler questioned the fairness of one family's decision impacting the entire school, to which Senator Avard responded that the bill's purpose is to allow parents to voice their concerns and objections without being bullied or traumatized.
SB33: Senator Solivan Information Only01:55:35.480 - 9:54:06 AM; Senator Solivan inquired about the bill's intent to provide parents with information ahead of time to prevent students from experiencing potentially harmful content. Senator Avard emphasized the importance of parental responsibility and the bill's aim to give parents a voice in the process.
SB33: Senator Avard Support01:56:52.800 - 9:55:23 AM; Senator Avard further clarified the bill's broad scope, citing an example from a previous legislative session where a book's content led to offense among colleagues. He reiterated the bill's purpose to allow parents to speak up about any material they find offensive without being demonized, emphasizing the public nature of the process.
SB33: Megan Tuttle, President of NEA New Hampshire Oppose02:01:25.239 - 9:59:56 AM; Megan Tuttle, representing NEA New Hampshire, expressed opposition to Senate Bill 33. She highlighted that many school districts already have reconsideration policies in place and supported the state requiring such policies. However, she raised concerns about the bill's prescriptive nature, the subjectivity in determining offensive material, and the potential for limiting students' access to diverse educational materials. Tuttle suggested finding the bill inexpedient to legislate or studying it further to establish clear standards.
SB33: Jacqueline Benson Oppose02:06:02.239 - 10:04:33 AM; Jacqueline Benson voiced concerns about the bill's broad and subjective definitions of offensive and inappropriate material, fearing it could lead to the removal of legitimate educational content. As a parent and author, she emphasized the importance of diverse materials for students, especially those with reading disabilities, and opposed the bill's potential to limit viewpoints shared in schools.
SB33: Deborah How, American Federation of Teachers Oppose02:08:03.360 - 10:06:34 AM; Deborah How, representing the American Federation of Teachers and its 3500 members, primarily educators in prek through 12 public schools and university faculty, testified in opposition to SB33. She argued that the bill is overly broad and could potentially apply to all materials available in public schools, not just library collections but also classroom materials, including worksheets. How expressed concerns about the bill's impact on students' First Amendment rights, stating that students should have access to a wide variety of age-appropriate materials to foster lifelong learning. She also highlighted the additional workload that the bill would impose on school principals and their designees, potentially constituting an unfunded mandate. How criticized the bill for failing to allow for balanced consideration of complete works, suggesting it would lead to First Amendment issues. She concluded by advocating for a previous bill that better meets the needs of students and schools.
SB33: Emory Banfield, Parental Rights Advocate, New Hampshire Support02:12:13.360 - 10:10:44 AM; Emory Banfield, a parental rights advocate from New Hampshire, shared an example of a book challenge process in Bedford about 15 years ago. She recounted a situation where a book titled 'Nickel and Dimed' was challenged in a personal finance class due to its Marxist viewpoint and a controversial reference to Jesus. The book was removed from the class but retained in the school library. Banfield emphasized that such processes allow for community input and can improve educational content. She also mentioned a current lawsuit regarding the 'Wit and Wisdom' curriculum in Tennessee, suggesting that a structured complaint process could prevent similar legal issues. Banfield supports the legislation but leaves the specifics of the language to the committee.
SB33: Jel Binet, ACLU of New Hampshire Oppose02:17:39.920 - 10:16:10 AM; Jel Binet, the legal director at the ACLU of New Hampshire, testified in opposition to SB33. While acknowledging the importance of parental involvement and public processes for complaints, Binet expressed concerns that the bill's standards for removing books and curriculum materials are too vague and could lead to arbitrary decisions. He pointed out existing laws like RSA 571b, which define harmful materials, and questioned the necessity of the new bill. Binet criticized the lack of clear definitions in the bill, suggesting it could lead to viewpoint-based censorship in violation of students' First Amendment rights, referencing the Pico decision.
SB33: Mary Wilkey, Retired Public School Teacher, Contoocook Oppose02:22:07.439 - 10:20:38 AM; Mary Wilkey, a retired public school teacher from Contoocook and a parent, expressed opposition to SB33. She highlighted existing efforts by teachers to communicate with parents through back-to-school nights and parent-teacher conferences. Wilkey argued that the bill's requirement to list specific materials by November 1st is impractical and inflexible, as teachers often adjust materials based on students' needs throughout the school year. She also questioned why the bill only applies to public schools and not private schools receiving public funds. Wilkey suggested that complaints should specify how a child was harmed and emphasized the need for flexibility in education to meet individual student needs.
SB33: Parent from the Merrimack community, Merrimack Oppose02:27:29.120 - 10:26:00 AM; The speaker from Merrimack opposes Senate Bill 33, arguing that it attempts to create a tool for banning books in New Hampshire schools. They highlighted that school districts like Merrimack already have policies in place for material reconsideration, making the bill unnecessary and potentially restrictive. The speaker emphasized the professional expertise of librarians in curating age-appropriate materials and expressed concern that the bill could subject schoolchildren to personal and political agendas. They shared personal anecdotes about their child's experience with representation in literature, underscoring the importance of diverse materials in schools. The speaker also mentioned a recent literacy night where parents could review reading materials, reinforcing the existing channels for parental involvement and concern. They concluded by urging the committee to oppose the bill due to its vague language and potential to add undue strain on school staff.
SB33: Representative Timothy Horgan, Strafford County District 10, Durham Oppose02:35:03.960 - 10:33:34 AM; Representative Horgan from Durham expressed opposition to Senate Bill 33, arguing that it's unnecessary and potentially harmful. He believes that children need to be exposed to challenging materials to grow and learn independently from their parents. He criticized the bill for allowing parents to remove materials not just for their own child but for all students, which he sees as problematic. Horgan also pointed out that the bill only applies to schools with school boards, leaving out charter, academy, and private schools subsidized by public funds. He referenced specific authors and books that have been controversial, defending their inclusion in school curricula and libraries. He concluded by urging the committee not to pass the bill, citing its lack of applicability to all publicly financed education and its potential to be misused.

Ward, Ruth(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Sullivan, Victoria(V Chairman)(R)	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024
Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024	Abbas, Daryl(R)[C+]2024