NH Law Authorizes Parental Override of “Objectionable” Curriculum Material

HB 542, enacted after an override of the governor’s veto, states:

Require school districts to adopt a policy allowing an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s or legal guardian’s determination that the material is objectionable. Such policy shall include a provision requiring the parent or legal guardian to notify the school principal or designee in writing of the specific material to which they object and a provision requiring an alternative agreed upon by the school district and the parent, at the parent’s expense, sufficient to enable the child to meet state requirements for education in the particular subject area. The name of the parent or legal guardian and any specific reasons disclosed to school officials for the objection to the material shall not be public information and shall be excluded from access under RSA 91-A.

According to the Manchester Union Leader, the law was introduced in reaction to a controversy involving the use of Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America” at Bedford High School. The law’s approach is a contrast to what has been deemed constitutionally required in cases such as   Parker v. Hurley, 514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008)  and Mozert v. Hawkins County Bd. of Educ. 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987). The New York Times Room for Debate feature offers reactions to the New Hampshire law.

JFB