#

New Hampshire Democrats say they will keep fighting the Parents Bill of Rights after SB 272 passed the state Senate on a party-line vote. And at least one Senate Democrat says the state should pass a law requiring parents to “support and love their children” instead.

The bill, which passed the Senate Thursday on a 14-10 partisan vote, expands the rights of parents to be informed about the education of their children in areas ranging from the curriculum to their kids’ behavior on the school campus. While the bill would cover a wide range of areas, Democrats focused entirely on its impact on schools that currently refuse to disclose to parents their children’s actions regarding sex and gender.

The law does not mandate that schools proactively inform parents, but it does require them to answer parents’ questions when asked.

“No school should withhold information from parents about a child because the school thinks it knows that child’s interests better than the parents,” said Senate President Jed Bradley (R-Wolfeboro).

Democrats adamantly disagreed, arguing teachers — not parents — should be the “trusted advisors” to children questioning their sexuality or gender.

“It’s just devastating to think that the safety and ability to determine who you are is taken away from our students when our teachers are no longer our trusted advisors,” said Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D-Portsmouth).

“Unnecessarily outing students [to their parents] at the direction of our government through state law opens these children up to a litany of dangers, including hostility, rejection, isolation, and even violence from their parents or other family members,” Kwoka added.

And New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley claimed informing parents will result in “some kids being beaten to death.”

Polls show Granite State voters, including Democrats, overwhelmingly believe parents, not school employees, should have the final say regarding the education of their children.

Sen. Tim Lang (R-Sanbornton) said the Democrats’ talking points are simply wrong. The bill merely consolidates the rights parents have under the law, requires school district employees to tell parents the truth about their child’s behavior regarding sex and gender when asked, and tightens up requirements for teachers to report suspected abuse or neglect.

“It says that schools and school employees cannot lie to parents,” Lang said.

That was a step too far for Sen. Debra Altschiller (D-Stratham), who said the legislation is 180 degrees off in its approach. In questions for the bill’s prime sponsor, Sen. Sharon Carson (R-Londonderry), Altschiller said that rather than empowering parents, “Should we not enumerate [in the law] that it is a parent’s responsibility to love them and support them  for who they are?”

Asked to repeat the question, Altschiller said that just as parents are required by law to feed and clothe their kids, “Should we not require parents to support and love and bring up their children to have these close relationships?”

“I think it would be difficult to put that into legislation,” Carson replied.

Sen. Suzanne Prentiss (D-Lebanon) claimed there was no actual need for a bill to give parents the right to be told the truth about their children.

“What is the real need, how did we get here?” she asked.

Carson reminded the Senate the bill was inspired in part by a lawsuit brought by a Manchester mother who was told by school employees they could not tell her the truth about her child’s behavior regarding gender.

“Parents shouldn’t have to file lawsuits to find out about their children,” Carson said.

Sen. Dan Innis (R-Bradford) an openly gay man, said the bill does right by parents and children. It will help teachers guide children and families in sometimes emotionally difficult situations.

“This bill is not anti-anything,” Innis said. “This bill is pro-child, pro-parent, pro-family, and, in many ways, pro-teacher,” Innis said.

The House will now take up its own version of the bill next week, and another hotly contested debate is expected.

Citizens may have a lot of questions about Manchester School District’s policy of keeping students’ transgender activity secret from their parents. But thus far, officials in the state’s largest school district are not talking. Asked about the policy, school board officials, including Mayor Joyce Craig, all declined to defend it.

The district is currently being sued by a parent who claims it uses the policy to lie to her and other parents about their children and their gender identification. According to a motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the district, the district’s defense is its belief Manchester parents have no right to know what is going on in the schools when it comes to gender issues.

“(T)his motion can be easily resolved by answering one discrete question: Do school districts have a legally enforceable duty to inform parents when a student uses a name or gender pronoun different than that assigned at birth? Because the answer to this question is no, the Complaint should be dismissed,” MSD’s filing states.

Craig, who chairs the school board, declined requests for comment on the policy. She also would not answer questions about whether she supports the policy. None of the members of the board’s policy committee, Leslie Want, Nicole Leapley, Peter Perich, Sean Parr, or Jason Bonilla, would discuss the matter, either.

Andrew Toland, communications director for the district, declined to discuss the lawsuit. Toland pointed to language in the motion to dismiss to counter the claim that the district requires staff to lie about transgender students to their parents.

“In other words, contrary to plaintiff’s characterizations, the district’s policy does not completely prohibit District staff from disclosing a student’s gender identity and expression to parents, nor does it require District staff to ‘lie,’” the motions to dismiss states. “It does not even contain an express mandate at all. It simply recognizes that the student has a right to privacy and that staff ‘should not’ disclose such information unless the student has authorized it.”

Critics note the policy, as stated, expressly strips authority from parents and gives it to children and teachers.

That is not how school board member Ken Tassey understands the policy. Speaking as a parent, Tassey said in practice, the policy would force school staff to use a student’s preferred pronouns and gender identity in school, but use that same child’s birth pronouns and identity when talking to parents who may not know what is going on.

“The policy requires that school staff lie to parents. It usurps the parent’s right to be informed about their children’s health and to exercise their parental love,” Tassey said. “The policy places the school district and the employees above the child’s parent, which is bizarre and arrogant.”

Tassey said the policy is predicated on the idea that all parents are potentially abusive toward their LGBTQI+ children, and that disclosing a child’s nonconforming identity would put that child in danger. That is simply not the case, he said.

“The vast majority of parents are going to hug their kids and say I love you,” he said.

Tassey is also concerned the policy does not have an age range and would apply to students as young as first or second grade. If a child disclosed gender dysmorphia to a guidance counselor or teacher, who may or may not be trained to deal with such a psychologically complex issue, that child’s parents would be kept in the dark if the child wished it.

Jonathan Butcher, the Will Skillman Fellow in Education with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Manchester parents are not alone when it comes to school districts keeping secrets about their children.

“The issue of school officials hiding information about a child’s confusion about their sex is a real concern. Districts and even state departments around the country have made such secrecy to be official policy, including in New Jersey, Kansas, and elsewhere,” Butcher said. “Except in very specific cases related to a child’s safety, educators should be required to inform parents about any health-related issues concerning their child. Public school officials should not make it a policy to keep secrets about a minor child from his or her parents.”

A proposed legislative solution, the Parental Bill of Rights, would have required schools to make those disclosures to parents. The bill was shot down this year when Democrats and some Republicans objected, claiming that it would put children in danger from their own parents. U.S. Rep. Chris Pappas, D-Manchester, strongly opposed the Parental Bill of Rights.

“This legislation will do real, lasting harm to kids and should not become law. It’s so important that LGBTQ+ youth in New Hampshire know that we see them, we support them, and that they can be themselves,” Pappas said earlier this year when the bill was pending.

The Parental Bill of Rights was also opposed by New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella and Gov. Chris Sununu. Assistant Attorney General Sean Locke, with the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Unit, testified before lawmakers in May that parts of the bill were legally problematic.

“This language could be construed to require school staff to effectively ‘out’ students–against the student’s wishes–to their parents if and when those students seek to avail themselves of protections pursuant to the school’s gender expression or identity policies,” Locke said in a statement. “This language targets students based upon their gender identity or expression for different treatment from other students, which denies those students the benefits of the particular policies designed to protect them from discrimination in schools.”

Butcher said much of the concern about outing students stems from the actions being undertaken by President Joe Biden’s administration. Biden is proposing changes to the Title IX program to combat bullying against trans students which change the definitions of sex and gender.

“It essentially proposes that schools must treat ‘sex’ to mean ‘sexual orientation and gender identity’ [as opposed to biology] and so schools would have to adopt policies to conform or risk an (Office of Civil Rights) investigation,” Butcher said.

Biden recently issued an executive order to increase access to so-called gender-affirming health care.

Butcher said the Biden team is pursuing a radical agenda that rides roughshod over parents when it comes to the care of their own children.

“Such policies could include one that says educators may not tell parents when a child wants to ‘assume’ a different gender at school. Thus, the overall policy does more to advance radical gender ideas instead of affirming parents as a child’s primary caregiver,” Butcher said.

Schools in the Granite State got a concerning message Wednesday from the Department of Safety’s Information and Analysis Center about possible threats in schools set for this Friday.

The bulletin from the NHIAC states there is a rich of online messaging about possible school threats on Dec. 17. The nature of the threats at this time is not considered credible, and the online messaging appears to be a national issue, and not specific to New Hampshire.

“The New Hampshire Department of Education has been made aware of online messaging that was brought to the attention of the NH Information and Analysis Center, calling for possible school threats on Dec. 17, 2021,” said Kimberly Houghton, the communications administrator for the Department of Education. “NHIAC is not aware of any credible threat pertaining to any specific schools or locations, and is urging everyone to please report found threats to local police departments.”

The bulletin prompted many schools in New Hampshire to alert parents to the issue on Wednesday. 

“Although there are no known threats to any specific schools or locations, it is important that we share this information to increase awareness with our staff, our families and our communities,” one district states in an email alert. 

Parents and students are being asked to check social media for anything concerning that should be shared with law enforcement. Any potential threats should be reported to police immediately by calling 9-1-1, according to the alerts. It is not known if any New Hampshire schools are closing on Friday as a result of the threats. 

New Hampshire has not experienced a school shooting. 

The bulletin from the NHIAC comes a day after the ninth anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting in which a gunman entered the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut and murdered 20 children and seven teachers and staffers before killing himself.

Opponents of reopening school classrooms and their teachers union allies spent the past year insisting that classroom instruction for kids was just too dangerous.

Over that same year, many parents and medical professionals pushed back, using data from across the globe to show that children faced low risk from the virus.

Two months into the new school year, Granite State data appear to back the second group. Yes, infections among school-aged kids are up — but no more than among the population as a whole.

The cost of the closed classrooms unions and progressives demanded is easy to measure: A lost year of instruction for students and lost income for some parents; an even wider racial gap in academic performance; more physical injuries (schools are the safest place the average child goes); and a setback in socialization and development for younger students.

The impact of opening schools on COVID, however, is harder to measure. For example, the media regularly report the percentage of positive COVID-19 tests among those under age 19 is sometimes around one-third of all positive results.

But what they don’t report is that with schools reopened, the number of tests given to students has soared. They represent a larger percentage of the total number of tests than in the past. So yes, it’s true COVID-19 among children exploded in the first week of the school year. But because of the limits of the state’s available data on the DHHS dashboard, it’s hard to say if that is a result of more testing or the impact of the Delta surge.

Here’s what we do know: While the state does not track data showing the exact positivity rate for school children in New Hampshire, the data on rates for people under age 20 is on track with the rest of the state during the Delta variant surge. 

The most recent daily average showed 9,170 tests administered and a positivity rate of 6.3 percent.

For people nine years old and under, the latest daily positive rate was 7.2 percent out of 944 tests administered.

For those 10 to 19, the positivity rate was 5.4 percent out of 1,695 tests.

No “schoolroom surge.”

NH COVID positivity rate, ages 0-9 years old.

NH COVID positivity rate, ages 10-19

NH COVID positivity rate, all persons.

Dr. Benjamin Chan, the state epidemiologist for the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services, said the summer and fall Delta wave is driving up cases in every sector of the population.

“The rates of COVID have gone up in all age groups,” Chan said.

This time last year, only about 250 tests were administered on an average day to those under the age of nine, and the positivity rate was under 1 percent. For those 10 to 19, there were about 500 to 700 tests per day, with a positive rate of around 1.2 percent. All similar to the state as a whole.

New Hampshire does not sort out its COVID testing data by specific age group beyond a couple of categories. While there is no specific data set showing the rates among just school-aged children, the state does keep data on children from birth up to age 9, and another set for children 10 through to 19. The state is also tracking COVID cases in schools, but that data includes adult staff who test positive.

Cases spiked in the first week of September just after the start of the school year when there were more than 42 positive cases a day out of fewer than 480 tests on average performed, for an 8.8 percent positivity rate. Testing rose toward the end of September, with an average of 1,200 tests done a day, while the positivity rate declined to 5.6 percent.

The number of tests done has started to come down, and as of Oct. 14, children in this cohort are averaging more than 937 tests per day. But the number of positive cases has stayed around 65, for a slightly higher positive rate of 6.9 percent. Chan noted this cohort is unvaccinated against COVID, as no vaccine has yet been approved for children under the age of 12.

Most schools require students to stay home if they exhibit any cold or flu symptoms, which also double as COVID-19 symptoms. Children must either quarantine until symptoms go away, or they must test negative, in order to go back to school. Chan said the recommendations for testing in schools have not changed from last year. The number of tests per day in the birth to age 9 cohort was averaging a little more than 200 in mid-September 2020, and the tests found a positivity rate of 0.3 percent or about less than one case per day on average.

In the 10 to 19 age group, there were 642 tests averaged per day in mid-July, and 1,579 as of Oct. 14. The mid-July positive rate was 0.9 percent or 5.71 positive cases per day. Once again, generally tracking the state as a whole.

Testing remains an issue for many in the state, with families waiting days in some cases to get a test, and with a nationwide shortage of rapid tests. Last week, DHHS Commissioner Lori Shibinette announced four new testing sites are being set up to help meet the testing needs during the current surge.

Perhaps the most significant number is this: There have only been 34 hospitalizations among Granite Staters under age 19 during the entire pandemic– and zero deaths.

Not only is it National School Choice Week, it’s also New Hampshire School Choice Week. Gov. Chris Sununu signed the proclamation on Tuesday. So naturally, the discussion of school choice in the Granite State is bound to come up. And the Legislature has a slew of bills related to charter schools, public versus private schools, and parent involvement in their children’s education.

With a Republican-controlled State House, expect to see several school choice bills make it through and end up on the governor’s desk. Education reform is definitely a priority for the Sununu administration.

“We’re not trying to blow up education, or battle public education,” he said at an event for National School Choice Week in Manchester on Tuesday. “I love public education. It’s just about actually taking the system that we have, the fundamental structure that we have — and it’s not bad; it’s a good structure — but providing some leadership to really implement those innovations that we always talk about.”

Here are NH Journal’s top school choice issues to keep an eye on at the State House as lawmakers begin to debate these bills:

CHARTER SCHOOLS

There are about 10 bills dealing with charter schools, which is still a contentious topic in the world of education. Here’s a quick run-down of what they are:

• Charter schools are publicly-funded independent schools that are not subject to the same regulations as traditional public schools.
• They do not charge tuition.
• They must accept all students who apply, but if the number of applications exceeds the school’s capacity, a lottery must be held to select students who will be offered a place.
• They are considered part of the state school system and are accountable to state and federal authorities for compliance with the terms of their founding charter, which often includes achievement-based standards (read: testing).
• All charter schools must apply for authorization and receive approval from a local school district, a town vote, or the state board of education. Charters are valid for a term of five years, at which point a school must apply for renewal.

There are currently 25 charter schools operating in New Hampshire, with another one slated to open in fall 2017, according to data from the NH Department of Education. There were 3,011 students enrolled in charter schools, or about 1 percent of the state’s total student population, as of October 1, 2015.

Most charter schools receive funding directly from the state, at a rate of about $6,500 per pupil, which is a lower than average per-pupil expenditure at traditional public schools, which averaged approximately $14,375 in 2015. Data from the current academic year is not available yet.

So why are charter schools so divisive? Charter school advocates want more funding and to raise the cap on admittance. They say the schools create new educational models of teaching and learning that appeal to students who might not learn best in a traditional school setting and give parents more choices in their children’s education.

Opponents say charter schools take away state money that could go to improve traditional schools, and they lack equal proportions of disabled or special needs students, who then are forced into the traditional public school system.

And the argument that charter school students perform better on standardized tests is a moot point. While statewide assessment results generally show that trend, the comparisons can be misleading since charter schools and traditional public schools do not have equivalent student populations in terms of learning ability and special needs.

Out of the 10 bills filed for the current legislative session, seven of them seek to place limits on charter schools or give the state more control of them. They are sponsored by Democrats. Three of the bills look to provide more funding or give charter schools more authority — all sponsored by Republicans. So you can see that this issue largely falls on party lines.

Rep. Timothy Horrigan, D-Durham, appears to be charter schools’ biggest opponent by being the prime sponsor on most of the “anti-charter” legislation. But with a Republican governor and a GOP-controlled Legislature, it’s difficult to see a scenario where any of the Democrat’s legislation makes it far. Especially with a pro-charter school governor who wants to increase funding.

And Sununu’s nominee for education commissioner, former state Rep. Frank Edelblut, is also a school choice, pro-charter supporter. It seems unlikely that any of the limiting charter school legislation will make it out of the House Education Committee.

THE ‘CROYDON’ BILL

For those unfamiliar with the story of the town of Croydon and school choice, let me fill you in.

The town has been in an ongoing legal battle with the courts and state Department of Education over its decision to send some of its students to a nearby Montessori school at taxpayer expense.

Many small communities in the state do not have a local K-12 school district and they contract with larger nearby districts to send their students to school there, usually though a per-student tuition contract paid for by the town where the students come from.

So, the Croydon School District had a tuition agreement with the town of Newport, but that contact ended in 2014. Croydon gave parents the option of choosing public and private schools to send their children, which would be funded by taxpayers.

The state and courts have ruled that the town cannot use public funds to pay for private school. But the school district says there is nothing in state law that prohibits it from using private schools if it’s in the best interest of the students.

Now, school choice advocates are rallying behind House Bill 557, which would allow a school district to send a child to a private school, even a religious one, if there is not a public school for the child’s grade in their home district.

The first hearing for the bill was held on Wednesday and the state Department of Justice said the bill violates the N.H. Constitution for allowing taxpayer money to be used for religious schools and could lead to other court cases in towns where parents are paying for private schools out-of-pocket.

It’s a tricky bill, but if it makes it out of committee and goes through the Legislature, Sununu is expected to sign it. In an op-ed published in the New Hampshire Union Leader during his gubernatorial run, he said, “the issue in Croydon is a clear example of government overreach.”

“Too often, special interests and unelected bureaucrats act as if they know what is right for children over the judgment of parents,” he wrote. “Instead of expanding options for families, the state has unfortunately been working to reduce them.”

And assuming Edelblut is approved by the Republican-controlled Executive Council, he has also indicated that he supports the Croydon School District, so he could make this bill a priority and work with members of the Legislature to get it passed.

COMMON CORE

While not directly about school choice, the issue of Common Core State Standards will be a dividing issue in the Legislature. School choice is all about giving parents a greater role in their child’s education and with Common Core, many parents feel the federal government and state are mandating what their children should learn — even if they don’t believe it’s in their best interests.

Bills in the House and Senate seek to make clear that school districts are not required to implement the standards if they don’t want to.

NH Journal has previously reported on the issue of Common Core in the state and how the state board of education gave towns and cities the flexibility and local control to implement the standards how they saw fit.

Sununu and Edelblut have both said they want to “repeal Common Core.” What exactly that means, is still unclear, but if these bills make it to Sununu’s desk, it’s also likely that he would sign them.

HONORABLE MENTION:

Here are some other bills relating to school choice (or parental involvement) that will appear in during the current legislative session:

• Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 7: “The general court shall have the authority to define standards of accountability, mitigate local disparities in educational opportunity and fiscal capacity, and have full discretion to determine the amount of state funding for education.”
• House Bill 395: “This bill repeals state board of education rulemaking authority for home education programs and inserts the duties and procedures related to membership in the home education advisory council statute.”
• House Bill 103: “This bill requires school districts to provide advance notice to parents and legal guardians of course material involving discussion of human sexuality or human sexual education.” Here is NH Journal’s story on how that bill came to fruition.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.