House Passes Amendment to Bullying Bill

On Tuesday, the House passed HB370, which amends the bullying law that was enacted in 2010. HB370 amends the bullying law in two significant ways. Current law permits districts to include a provision in their bullying policy that gives the Superintendent discretion to waive the 48 hour parental notification requirement if the Superintendent determines that a waiver is in the best interests of a victim or a perpetrator. HB370 deletes this provision, leaving districts without the ability to waive the 48 hour notice requirement. Since the waiver can only be used if it is in the best interests of the victim or perpetrator, it is very unlikely that districts are using this provision to delay parental notification. While I agree that districts should act quickly in responding to bullying incidents, I do not support limiting a district’s ability to make decisions about what is best for their students.

HB370 also deletes a provision that defines bullying to include actions that occur outside of the school if such actions interfere with a student’s educational opportunities or substantially disrupt the operations of the school. The bill adopted by the House addresses out-of-school bullying in a different way. HB370 would require school board members and school employees to notify the principal of the school a victim attends if they become aware of a bullying or cyberbullying incident occurring off of school property. If the perpetrator attends a different school than the victim, the board member or employee would also be required to notify the perpetrator’s principal. A principal who receives a report of bullying in this manner would be required to notify parents within 48 hours of the incident. It looks like the district has satisfied its obligations once it notifies the parent(s) of an out-of-school bullying incident. Is this the best way to protect our students? Is it realistic for the district to remove itself from the situation once it has notified parents?

Now that HB370 has been adopted by the House, it will crossover to the Senate for another round of debate and discussion.

House Lowers Dropout Age

The House voted to reduce the dropout age from 18 to 16 this week. The bill, which passed by a vote of 210-134, would allow 16 and 17 year olds to drop out of school if they have permission from a parent.

Supporters of the bill say it is about restoring parental rights and local control. Governor Lynch, who fought to raise the dropout age to 18 in 2007, detailed the reasons why he opposes the bill in an OpEd piece that appeared in the Union Leader.

The bill will now crossover to the Senate.

Lowering Drop Out Age from 18 to 16

The House is considering a bill that would allow students to drop out of school at age 16. The drop out age was increased from 16 to 18 in 2007. HB429 would lower the drop out age back to 16 as long as the student has permission from a parent.

Governor Lynch, who fought for the 2007 Legislation, is opposed to HB429. He believes keeping kids in school will allow the state to stay competitive by creating a qualified and motivated workforce. (See Governor John Lynch’s Press Release here).

But what do educators think? Is it beneficial to require students to attend school until they are 18? Are there students between 16 and 18 years old who are so unmotivated that it is detrimental to other students to require them to stay in school? With the looming funding cuts, will there be programs to support these students if they stay in school until age 18? Let us know what you think.

Evergreen repeal effective March 1

Senate Bill 1, which repealed the "Evergreen Law," took effect on Tuesday, March 1 without Gov. Lynch's signature. The pre-2008 status quo rules now apply to the expiration of collective bargaining agreements. Going forward, the evergreen continuation of step raises applies only to those CBAs which expressly contain an evergreen provision.