Senate Education Committee Hears SB 96 on ‘Honesty and Transparency in Education Act’; Advocates Say Language Could Endanger Students

Sen. Tim Lang, sponsor: Sen. Tim Lang introduced SB 96, the Honesty and Transparency in Education Act, telling the Senate Education Committee the bill "is really clear and really simple" and is intended to "establish a default statewide standard for all school districts in the state on how they respond to parents." Lang said the one-page bill would set timelines for written parental requests and allow withholding of information only where disclosure would "create or increase the risk to a child," in which case staff would be required to file a report with the Department of Health and Human Services.

Why it matters: Witnesses from mental-health and LGBTQ organizations, teachers' unions and parents said the bill’s undefined standard—requiring answers that are "completely and honestly" given—could chill educator–student relationships and put certain students at risk. Testimony cited existing mandatory-reporting law and federal rules on parental consent for mental-health services as points of tension with the proposed language.

Supporters' framing: Anne Marie Banfield, a parental-rights advocate, described the bill as a response to school policies she said had required educators to withhold information from parents. "Teachers, I think, in general, are parents. And they expect honesty, and they expect to not have information withheld from them," Banfield said. Sen. Lang told the committee the bill reemphasizes the obligation of educators who are mandated reporters: "If a teacher thinks a child is at risk whether they tell a parent or not, the child is still at risk and the teacher should report it."

Concerns raised in testimony: Multiple witnesses urged the committee to vote ITL (inexpedient to legislate). Heidi Carrington Heath, executive director of New Hampshire Outright, said the bill could be "construed as a mandate to out students to their parents before they are ready" and would put LGBTQ youth "already vulnerable" at risk. Holly Stevens, director of public policy for NAMI New Hampshire, said the phrase "completely and honestly" could have a chilling effect on trusted conversations between students and educators and might lead staff to refuse conversations rather than risk liability. "If a teacher fails to recall or document something," Stevens said, "then they could be on the hook and they could lose their license."

Legal and practical questions: Michael Haley, an attorney with GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, said the legal phrasing—"completely and honestly"—works in some objective legal contexts but is not workable in classrooms where teachers encounter rumors and subjective reports. NEA New Hampshire representative Brian Hawkins said the bill could create a parallel process to local school policy and employment agreements, and asked who would be the arbiter of what constitutes "material information." Several speakers, including Sarah Terrell (parent) and Deborah Howes (American Federation of Teachers president), said the language is vague and could prompt excessive record-keeping or surveillance in schools.

Mandated reporting and state intake: Sarah Terrell, a former CPSW for DCYF, noted that language in the bill referencing calls to central intake would not change the statutory standard for screening in reports under RSA 169-C: "central intake cannot screen in a concern of something that might happen. They can only screen in a concern of something that has happened," she testified.

Scale and statistics cited: NAMI New Hampshire told the committee that "15,000 youth ages 12 to 17 have depression" in the state, and that "1 in 5 youth age 6 to 17 experience a mental illness each year," testimony used to underscore potential harms from chilling trusted student–staff relationships.

Process: The item was heard in public testimony and no committee vote was recorded during the hearing. Multiple organizations formally asked the committee to find SB 96 inexpedient to legislate. The public hearing concluded with the chair closing testimony on SB 96.

Next steps: The bill remains in committee. Committee members asked clarifying questions of witnesses about enforcement mechanics, the interplay with existing reporting statutes and the scope of a required response to written parental requests.