Committee advances bullying‑prevention rewrite, adds reporting and timelines; some members seek broader scope

The House Education Committee voted to advance an amended version of Senate Bill 210, a comprehensive package that revises New Hampshire’s bullying statute, adds cyberbullying provisions from a related House bill, and imposes reporting deadlines and new educator‑conduct violations for intentional noncompliance.

The amendment combines prior work on cyberbullying (House Bill 108) with additional requirements for school handbooks, parent notification timelines (a five‑day limit on superintendent waivers to notify parents except for cross‑district incidents), additional reporting metrics to the Department of Education, and a new educator‑conduct provision that would allow investigations and potential discipline for "intentional or knowing" violations of reporting or timelines.

Why it matters: Committee sponsors and witnesses said the changes respond to repeated, sometimes harrowing, testimony about bullying and cyberbullying harms; opponents and some committee members sought more time to broaden coverage, to ensure timelines are practical, and to clarify whether private and parochial schools should be explicitly covered.

Representative Glenn Cordelli, prime sponsor, told the committee the amendment “adds the language from HB 108 about cyberbullying and the reporting mechanisms so that if passed, this bill includes both pieces of legislation.” He said the measure aims to “protect our children from physical, emotional and psychological violence by addressing the harm caused by bullying and cyberbullying.”

The amendment requires districts to include bullying procedures in the student handbook and to treat victims “with understanding and information as to their rights protections and support services that are available.” It also requires districts to report how they integrated bullying‑prevention into curriculum by Jan. 1, 2026, and includes a provision that would require the Department of Education to forward certain reports to the Attorney General’s Office.

Witnesses urged changes or cautions. Karen Rosenberg, Policy Director at the Disability Rights Center, said bullying interventions should be evidence‑based and aimed at preventing incidents (for example, social‑emotional learning and restorative approaches) and warned that removing wording in the bill that defined motivation could make it harder to protect students with disabilities who are often targeted. The New Hampshire School Boards Association said it worried about removing statutory definitions and making educator reporting failures a code‑of‑conduct violation that could be interpreted as punitive for inadvertent errors.

Several committee members asked whether the law should explicitly name private schools, parochial schools and students funded by Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs) so incidents that cross boundaries would be covered. The sponsor said the bill, as drafted, primarily addresses public and public charter schools but that cyberbullying language applied across districts and could reach cross‑district incidents.

Votes and next steps: In executive session the committee adopted the amendment and voted to report the bill “ought to pass, as amended” on a recorded vote of 9–8. Some members supported retaining the bill to allow broader input and adjustments on timelines and private‑school coverage; Representative Selig indicated she would prepare the minority report if the committee moved ITL. Committee discussion flagged three likely next steps for floor debate: whether to include private and parochial schools explicitly, whether to soften or add exceptions to the 30‑day implementation timeline for handbooks and policies, and whether to clarify the standard (negligence vs. gross negligence) used for liability language in the bill.