Contentious Hearing on SB 96: Bill Would Require Schools to Answer Parents 'Completely and Honestly'; Critics Say It Threatens Student Privacy

Senate Bill 96, labeled the "Honesty and Transparency in Education Act" by its sponsor Sen. Tim Lang, would require school districts to respond "completely and honestly" to written parental requests about their child within 10 business days, subject to a narrowly defined exception when disclosing the information would, in the credential holder's good-faith judgment, put a student at imminent risk of physical harm, abuse or neglect. The bill would make a violation a disciplinary matter under the educator code of conduct.

Lang described the bill as intended to restore parents' trust in schools by making clear that parents can get straightforward answers when they ask about their children's welfare and school performance. "The primary trust relationship in this discussion is the trust of the parent with the school system," Lang said.

Opponents from a broad cross-section of witnesses said the bill would damage student privacy and deter students from seeking help from trusted adults. Sarah Terrell, a New Hampshire mother who testified in opposition, described how being outed before a child is ready would damage parent-child trust and could expose a student to abuse. David Trumbull, citing the Dover v. Manchester case, argued parents' rights in schools are "not an unqualified right" and said courts have rejected blanket rules that require schools to disclose every detail.

Union and district representatives made similar points. Becky Wilson (NH School Boards Association), Brian Hawkins (NEA-New Hampshire), and Deborah Howes (AFT) said the bill would place educators in an untenable position and bypass existing school governance processes. Hawkins urged the committee to leave operational and personnel matters to local districts; Howes said "material information" is not defined in the bill and teachers would face conflicting requirements if federal or state privacy rules apply.

Multiple testifiers, including students and youth witnesses, warned of a chilling effect: adolescents would be less likely to confide in teachers, guidance counselors or other school staff if they believed those adults were legally required to disclose sensitive information to parents. Witnesses cited public-health and safety stakes: trusted-adult relationships reduce suicide risk and help identify students who need services.

Committee members pressed for specifics and asked about carve-outs. Senator Lang and supporters said teachers already must report when a child appears at imminent risk and that the bill simply clarifies the duty to respond to parental inquiries except where disclosure would endanger the child, in which case the credential holder must make a child-protection report. Opponents countered that DCYF cannot act on speculative risks and that the statute's carve-out gives teachers a false sense of legal protection.

Testimony also covered practical questions: whether a teacher or district staff person is the proper respondent, whether forms are standardized statewide, and how the bill would interact with FERPA and other privacy laws. School Boards Association testimony said districts already manage Medicaid-to-Schools and other programs with detailed documentation and that the bill could duplicate or contradict local policies.

Supporters including Rep. Mike Moffitt (speaking as a former teacher) and co-sponsors argued the bill would relieve teachers of an ambiguous burden by clarifying that they should tell parents the truth unless disclosure would put the child at imminent risk.

No committee vote was recorded; the hearing included extensive public testimony and committee members indicated follow-up questions and requests for additional language and legal review.