HB1829

What a waste of time. Appears to be another bill to discredit public schools.

Student test scores on standardized tests do not fit within the definition of dangerous.

HB 1829 expands New Hampshire’s statutory definition of a “persistently dangerous school” by adding incidents resulting in physical harm (including simple assault, reckless conduct, criminal threatening, and hazing) and persistently poor academic performance as qualifying criteria. Key Provisions & Intended Outcomes Broadens qualifying incidents beyond severe violent felonies to include lower-level conduct and academic performance metrics. Allows schools to be labeled “persistently dangerous” based on academic outcomes, not solely safety incidents. Aligns “dangerousness” with federal school accountability classifications (Targeted Support and Improvement). Intended outcome: increased identification of “unsafe” or “failing” schools and potential state intervention. HB 1829, as written, poses significant risks to vulnerable students and communities by expanding the definition of “persistently dangerous schools” in ways that conflate structural educational failure with physical threat. While framed as a safety measure, the bill lacks funding, safeguards, and trauma-informed protections, and risks reinforcing punitive, stigmatizing, and inequitable educational practices.

Every child of every ability deserves to be encouraged to achieve his/her academic best, whether thar requires a specialized program within the curriculum (i.e. and IEP) or additional work that stretches knowledge or grade level (i.e. gifted and talented programs). Schools that do not provide and/or are unable to provide programs that meet student needs should be required to report that condition, so that the problem can be remedied, not ignored by lack of reporting.

All of the criteria used in this law are related to physical harm - including the first phrase in your addition. But the second is out of context, not appropriate and ironically will -- according to present circumstances end up applying to those cherished charter schools that have been on the list repeatedly -- some since 2018. You do realize at the last CSI assessment six charter high schools were in the bottom 5% of schools. This criteria should not be included in this bill.

I definitely oppose this bill.