[{"_1":2,"_112":-5,"_113":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6323003,"mediaKeyId","2343500-ca6c0143a7eff06543e94c522eef9ab4","parentId",2343500,"title","House committee debates bullying bills, questions scope of ‘bullying officer’ and cross‑state cyberbullying procedures","audioSeconds",4587,"startMs",12885000,"endMs",17472000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343500-ca6c0143a7eff06543e94c522eef9ab4&start=12885&end=17472","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343500-ca6c0143a7eff06543e94c522eef9ab4/thumbnail_12885000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6323003/New-Hampshire/House-committee-debates-bullying-bills-questions-scope-of-bullying-officer-and-crossstate-cyberbullying-procedures","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323003-2205ae6740c4cf632aefc9fe805ded9b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770586789&Signature=JXfOwkDzvdesTG27UUafpEcVM9bxTgbrqw22if8qCN2aT0B~TDJqCD6Ov4f-3OfRF-Ztv3X~VXiPE1NEAEbPu3ulQ~CjS-2SPCCexz4BPCLpSATdESbiOWfMrf8B8Md8RQ74qja~7xkfuQ4PXTlqNYp-NSbbe81Bu61nVGsdV4P8KZOd3pLVTrFAy5HEEVFnmfplGQMKX5xmLhDdDmZDZpyYVkgeC643cy~jUbi3I9cxRrtYaEOglmF1FEyVBJUmKcTpjr54Z7kEs6q~vIDnV~zDuR8xb5GzmHaisdq1g6v1pLEzcYIzVi3bY7re2ETS~Rq5840446FzvDw1cDHfqw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The House Education Policy and Administration Committee spent its work session on three proposed bills addressing bullying and cyberbullying, centering debate on whether to require a designated \"bullying officer,\" how and when conflict‑resolution should be used, and how investigations should proceed when incidents cross district or state lines.

Committee chair Representative Glenn Cordelli opened discussion by saying the bills include a variety of provisions already in statute and that the group should consider how to coordinate investigations when multiple districts are involved. Members pressed on whether the role of a named bullying officer would duplicate existing staff — including school resource officers — or add punitive consequences. “Why would we add another officer if we have an officer in the schools who may have some insight?” Representative Freeman asked, noting the presence of resource school officers in many middle and high schools.

Advocates and officials told the committee some districts already handle investigations through principals and building administrators. Becky Wilson of the New Hampshire School Boards Association said school administrators commonly lead investigations and that the proposed language aimed primarily to ensure somebody starts the investigation process promptly. Diana Fenton, an attorney with the Department of Education, told members the department had worked on cross‑district incidents before and that having a clear lead investigator helps: “What I liked about this language is that it specified who was responsible for the investigation, because someone has to take the lead.”

Members repeatedly raised the risk of unintended consequences if the statutes required conflict‑resolution in every case. Representative Hall said the committee should avoid mandating restorative or mediated meetings where such contact could be harmful; Representative Balboni noted districts already address most cases under local policies (citing model JICK policies where building administrators track complaints). Multiple members also highlighted that situations involving children with disabilities or communication differences require special care so that normal disability‑related behavior is not mischaracterized as bullying.

The committee also discussed the possible involvement of child welfare and juvenile petitions (CHINS) in severe cases. Several members opposed statutory language that would automatically expand CHINS referrals, citing resource constraints at the Division for Children, Youth and Families (DCYF) and an unclear threshold for referring incidents to DCYF. “I personally don’t think we need to get that involved with our bullying statutes at this point,” Representative Freeman said.

Cross‑state cyberbullying produced the lengthiest policy discussion. Members asked how a New Hampshire district should proceed when the alleged perpetrator or the origin of online material lies in another state. Attorney Fenton said cross‑state situations are inherently more complex and likely to require higher‑level coordination: state education agencies, and potentially attorneys general, would be better conduits than individual districts. “My inclination would be that the Department of Education would work with its counterpart,” Fenton said. Committee members recommended contacting the State Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Safety for guidance on statutory language and for protocol when incidents have an out‑of‑state nexus.

Several members supported a narrower, practical change to existing law: clarifying that when multiple districts are involved, the principal or designee of the first district to learn of an incident should initiate the investigation and should encourage collaboration among all affected districts. Representative McDonald proposed that language as an amendment to one of the bills reviewed in the session.

Committee members asked department staff to provide background materials, including the department’s annual bullying report, and requested contact and input from the Attorney General and Department of Safety about interstate cyberbullying protocols and when law enforcement or the FBI should be looped in. The Department of Education said it publishes an annual report with statewide aggregates and that it does not currently receive protected‑class detail in the way some members asked for; staff offered to provide the report to the committee.

The committee did not take votes during the work session. Members said they would reconvene with draft language after collecting input from the Attorney General’s Office, Department of Safety, and other stakeholders. Representative Cordelli scheduled next steps in early March to meet legislative deadlines for one of the bills.

Ending: The committee left the work session with an agreement to collect agency input and then draft narrower language focused on clarifying lead‑investigator responsibility, adding optional training or remediation components, and defining pathways for cross‑state incidents rather than broadly expanding CHINS referrals or mandatory conflict‑resolution.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education Policy and Administration (02/18/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The House Education Policy and Administration Committee spent its work session on three proposed bills addressing bullying and cyberbullying, centering debate on whether to require a designated \"bullying officer,\" how and when conflict‑resolution should be used, and how investigations should proceed when incidents cross district or state lines.","taxTitle","Education, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17745,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322988,"Votes at a glance: committee roll calls on education bills — 18‑0 pattern and a 17‑2 ITL",3705,1314000,5019000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343500-ca6c0143a7eff06543e94c522eef9ab4&start=1314&end=5019","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343500-ca6c0143a7eff06543e94c522eef9ab4/thumbnail_1314000.jpg","/articles/6322988/New-Hampshire/Votes-at-a-glance-committee-roll-calls-on-education-bills-180-pattern-and-a-172-ITL","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322988-d3244fecd0f8ef7cab0f389aa8b70efb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770586789&Signature=GM2fDtDFHFNE2D7qJUzEbhKxLCsazFHqPcQndnNS8-HKMk5bK3w8yyJpM45vO2taI~uIOvI5xBB2UBBvmyrXLnJKes4WAOUYfzsk~m7gsniVIllNSr6swooloDTucfwZmNxpB~wnZQ7JiOil8x1I0t3gYJkyCQYqpTdnTHK8y6t2ywdoq1-yzDq9YMGyD84VTFUVPJThK4XZ96HcBobaeJ9o8XxVyd7XWiWA2tajisdFQPDfaf4XPudATDlL4ZJOT9eQhexUnhWrzkBLnJiC~sa-y4TXrmQT1MLpGopWlofNWVJuuyH5yA2uzpOXuyNxZusnaAWzDGtOJm3OB3gbPw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several bills on the committee agenda produced formal committee actions and recorded tallies during the morning session. The committee either approved or voted ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on the following items.

HB 662 — Health education and abortion videos
Motion: Move ITL on House Bill 662 (bill would have required discussion of abortion procedures and the viewing of certain videos during public school health education).
Mover: Representative Glenn Cordelli
Second: not specified on the record
Tally: 18‑0
Outcome: ITL adopted (committee reports House Bill 662 Inexpedient to Legislate)

HCR 6 — Resolution seeking removal of a superintendent
Motion: Move ITL on House Concurrent Resolution 6 (removal resolution for superintendent of District 67)
Mover: Representative Cordelli
Second: Representative Paul
Tally: 18‑0
Outcome: ITL adopted

HR 9 — Urging emphasis on STEM education
Motion: Move Ought to Pass on House Resolution 9 (urging emphasis on STEM education)
Mover: Representative Rosa Freeman
Second: Representative Terry
Tally: 18‑0
Outcome: Ought to Pass

HB 440 — Educator licensing (with amendment 01888h)
Actions: Amendment 01888h (adds the word “initial” to clarify assessment applies to initial licensing only) adopted 18‑0; final motion Ought to Pass as Amended carried 18‑0.
Mover (bill): Representative Rosa Freeman
Outcome: OTPA as amended — carries to the full House with committee recommendation Ought to Pass as Amended (18‑0)

HB 222 — Repeal of MOU requirement between charter public schools and districts for services to students with disabilities
Motion: Move Ought to Pass on House Bill 222 (repeal requirement for memorandum of understanding)
Mover: Representative McDonald
Second: Representative Balboni
Tally: 18‑0
Outcome: Ought to Pass

HB 719 — Repeal of right of first refusal for charter schools to lease/ purchase unused district facilities
Motion: Move ITL on House Bill 719
Mover: Representative McDonald
Second: not specified on the record
Tally: recorded in committee as 17‑2 (committee stated “17 2 1” in the minutes; clerk recorded results)
Outcome: ITL adopted

Ending: The committee recorded unanimous support on several items (18‑0) and a 17‑2 ITL on HB 719. The committee also deferred bills on the calendar for further consideration where noted. These votes will be reflected in the committee report to the House.","The House Education Policy and Administration Committee recorded several roll‑call outcomes during the morning session: multiple unanimous 18‑0 committee recommendations and an ITL vote on a charter facility bill that passed 17‑2.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322993,"Committee advances educator‑licensing bill with amendment clarifying \"initial\" certification requirement",648,1794000,2442000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343500-ca6c0143a7eff06543e94c522eef9ab4&start=1794&end=2442","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343500-ca6c0143a7eff06543e94c522eef9ab4/thumbnail_1794000.jpg","/articles/6322993/New-Hampshire/Committee-advances-educatorlicensing-bill-with-amendment-clarifying-initial-certification-requirement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322993-af08715dfc4f271576037a8e0aeb41ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1770586789&Signature=NtTCrJqOKNqXtKQ~~ABjkLYXXWIDS0hlQvtlvXDtsyrpz71AORRk58ms~v3~lEKw4vhuRxmpJZHmFIC5SkTxQr0sYQIwmWocV9nZcOhfB-YlBQNkvEYnSo5OMYQL8mbePy6tGN7pDjsScqLz2twmquZv3Munrxxr6sPdMPSMkIzcZ8Dl5HG3E9W208KWLKJrWLW1zrcc8gpxAhYshhK3UVZocJdBR~1VXUCoG6fDcJ5qN3lUg87bluPeZJP9LpT8dxe9NwUVVeHzLLRGtNe9okwUV9R~RZQ1AtfYo5Ras4jhlEUBK4fZzP~qR9XfrzNemeVB1E9y0JzcvAxpFGp9lg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Education Policy and Administration Committee voted to advance House Bill 440, a measure intended to address educator licensing shortages in career and technical education (CTE), after adopting a narrowly targeted amendment.

Representative Rosa Freeman moved “ought to pass” for HB 440, saying the bill aims to address shortages of career and technical instructors by clarifying licensing requirements for initial certification. Representative Hall introduced amendment 01888h, which adds the word “initial” to the statutory language so that any assessment requirement would apply only to the initial license application, not to renewals. Hall said the amendment reflected concerns raised during testimony and professional feedback; several committee members said the change was intended to reassure practitioners and avoid requiring re‑testing at renewal.

Representative Terry asked whether the State Board of Education could require assessments at renewal absent the amendment; Hall and other proponents said adding the word “initial” clarified that renewals should not trigger the assessment. Supporters said the amendment was recommended by professional testimony and would reduce unintended burdens. The committee approved amendment 01888h by voice vote (recorded as 18‑0). Representative Freeman then moved “ought to pass as amended.” The committee carried the bill as amended by the same margin, 18‑0.

The bill and amendment address licensing pathways for CTE instructors who do not teach core curriculum but provide career‑focused instruction; proponents argued the changes could ease shortages in CTE programs. Opponents were not recorded in committee testimony; the amendment and the underlying bill received unanimous support at this hearing.

Ending: HB 440, as amended, moves forward from committee with unanimous support. The committee record shows an amendment vote of 18‑0 on amendment 01888h and a final committee recommendation of ought to pass as amended, 18‑0.","The committee voted to approve HB 440 with an amendment that limits any required assessment to initial teacher licensing, a change supporters said came from professional testimony to avoid forcing re‑testing at renewal.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322998,"Lawmakers debate statewide open enrollment and tax‑payer access to schools; opponents warn of funding and equity impacts",2472,21600000,24072000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2343500-ca6c0143a7eff06543e94c522eef9ab4&start=21600&end=24072","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2343500-ca6c0143a7eff06543e94c522eef9ab4/thumbnail_21600000.jpg","/articles/6322998/New-Hampshire/Lawmakers-debate-statewide-open-enrollment-and-taxpayer-access-to-schools-opponents-warn-of-funding-and-equity-impacts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322998-7bfa87760ee46577334d45d9afd40ddf/orig.mp4?Expires=1770586789&Signature=LGVVMsqWLeO6K2PVKz-ySUJhYQ3B3DivPmTn84fdsZiLVxsw0E0BYNRebT5-axL3rft9QZ2AqqNaNihllMDsITjpmIF88DIuouPKKXIGaZ8UhD5~RZXrH10YTUYnW786ey0yGxOe7RoR8piA9X1fbqgBVibzW4C60148LdUQrOKwH9M0Vy46MmGbBW3QkFhhFZsAmy1yiEOE8DDv96uABNLi2JgMatjOn7T8lv5svYdm2U76L~PVAGbUc8f6Q4eQQylg8m4~cCuMDtfuete-ZmAFo6DhaID~wzKtG4LRXF9GwKjNZBuhvSOdKtQnoRKsFAp0ZvjtkEngeGY92Xwx8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A pair of bills proposing broader public‑school choice drew hours of testimony and sharply divergent views from educators, advocacy groups, parents and military officials.

Representative Glenn Cordelli, sponsor of House Bill 741, told the House Education Policy and Administration Committee that HB 741 would make every public school an open‑enrollment school and require districts to publish monthly capacity by grade so parents could see vacancies. “Public school programs like open enrollment answer one of the criticisms I often hear of voucher and other choice programs,” he said, adding that “open enrollment keeps public dollars in public schools.”

Supporters argued families need flexibility in many circumstances. Sarah Scott of Americans for Prosperity said open enrollment helps families who need childcare solutions, employees who want to enroll children nearer to a workplace, and families dealing with illness or other caregiving needs. The U.S. Department of Defense’s New England liaison, Melissa Willette, urged retaining and clarifying existing preferences for military families; the DoD provided amended language asking that military‑connected students be exempt from capacity limits and keep the preference already in law.

Opponents told the committee the bills would exacerbate funding inequities and erode local control. Barrett Christina of the New Hampshire School Boards Association said the proposals would disrupt existing tuition contracts and create burdensome monthly reporting obligations. “Who determines capacity?” she asked, noting capacity can reflect staffing, curricular and fiscal limits. Teacher and union leaders also opposed the bills. Deborah Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers‑New Hampshire, said the state must fund an adequate education for every district before considering a statewide mandate for open enrollment.

Several witnesses said the bills would advantage families with transportation, flexible schedules or fewer disciplinary or attendance issues, and would likely reinforce socioeconomic sorting. Retired teacher Mary Wilkie told the committee open enrollment would favor families who can provide or afford transportation and disadvantage children from lower‑income families or those with disciplinary or attendance histories.

Many members of the committee pressed the sponsor about operational details: how capacity is calculated, how special‑education transport and services would be handled, and whether a monthly capacity posting would create budget uncertainty. Representative Balboni asked who determines capacity by grade; Cordelli said districts would determine capacity and publish it monthly. Representatives raised concerns about budgeting if rosters could change month to month and about the impact on collective bargaining and staffing.

Some members requested comparative data from other states that operate open enrollment systems and recommended further study of tuition contracts and whether the state should define capacity. Several witnesses noted litigation already pending in the state over interpretation of current open‑enrollment law.

Ending: The committee heard a mix of testimony for and against the proposals but did not vote on either bill. Members asked for follow‑up research on other states’ experience, counsel on the effect of the bills on existing tuition contracts, and refined language to protect military families and to clarify capacity, transportation and special‑education obligations if the bills advance.","Two related bills — one to allow parents to enroll children in any district where they pay property or school district taxes, and a larger bill to make every district an open‑enrollment district — drew extensive testimony about funding, local control, transportation and protections for military families.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House committee debates bullying bills, questions scope of ‘bullying officer’ and cross‑state cyberbullying procedures

Votes at a glance: committee roll calls on education bills — 18‑0 pattern and a 17‑2 ITL

Committee advances educator‑licensing bill with amendment clarifying "initial" certification requirement

Lawmakers debate statewide open enrollment and tax‑payer access to schools; opponents warn of funding and equity impacts