Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum And Instruction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public testifies against HB 1792, calling it vague and chilling for teachers
Summary
Hundreds of minutes of testimony at the Senate Education Committee hearing urged lawmakers to mark HB 1792 "inexpedient to legislate," saying the bill’s undefined prohibitions would chill classroom discussion, invite litigation, and worsen teacher recruitment and retention.
Supporters and opponents of a bill that would limit certain classroom content packed the New Hampshire Senate Education Committee hearing on March 17, as dozens of public witnesses urged senators to reject House Bill 17-92.
Katie Adams of Exeter asked the committee to vote "inexpedient to legislate," saying she has three school-age sons and has not seen evidence of indoctrination in local classrooms. "This bill names a specific set of topics and requires teachers to only either criticize or ignore them," Adams said, adding that the measure "is a clear and drastic overreach of the state into the classroom" and would make teachers' jobs much harder.
The testimony that followed echoed that concern. Deborah Howes, president of the American Federation of Teachers — New Hampshire, told senators HB 17-92 is "not neutral" and would select and prohibit viewpoints, producing a chilling effect for educators and risking litigation. "If we go down that road, then what is considered neutral and patriotic would be at the whim of whoever has the majority," Howes said.
Amanda Zod, policy director at the ACLU of New Hampshire, urged caution about the bill’s language, saying it reads "more like a political manifesto than an RSA" and lacks the necessary clarity for a statute. "I feel that it is not ready to become law," she said.
Testimony raised several concrete examples that senators discussed in follow-up questions: David Trumbull cited First Amendment concerns and court precedent about vagueness and a resulting chilling effect; Ryan Noble noted that terms such as "identity-based ideology" and "LGBT ideology" are undefined and would leave teachers guessing; and Elizabeth Brown of the Department of Education warned that the bill’s 90-day guideline deadline is unrealistic because the department lacks the rulemaking authority, staff specialists, and funding to meet such a timeline.
Other witnesses described the impact on specific student groups. Lisa Beaudoin, a disability policy professional, argued the bill would undermine inclusive education and that discussions of historical oppression of people with disabilities are necessary classroom content. Christina Kim Filabot, a teacher and plaintiff in an earlier lawsuit, described culturally responsive teaching as central to students feeling seen and participating in school.
Committee members pressed witnesses about the bill’s fiscal implications and whether projected litigation costs should be included in the fiscal note. Howes said including potential defense costs would be "prudent planning." Senators also debated whether reported incidents described by opponents represented systemic problems or isolated episodes that districts had already handled.
The committee concluded the public hearing on HB 17-92 after dozens of witnesses spoke; senators did not take a floor vote in the hearing record. The record shows a sustained and broadly bipartisan set of questions about vagueness, the bill’s overlap with previous "divisive concepts" litigation, and the potential practical effects on educators and students.
