HB1628

There couldn't be a worse bill had you held a contest. The bill makes assumptions of how school staff allocate their time and attention, expect credit for a course not designed or taught by the school the bill sponsor testified school time was necessary to use because the kids can't go after school and never explained why finally, I see a slippery slip to using the school itself instead of transporting -- the bill sponsor even referenced the possibility

The American Federation of Teachers – NH urges the committee to oppose HB 1628 because it would significantly erode the instructional time that public schools rely on to meet state mandated academic standards. New Hampshire schools are already expected to cover rigorous competencies in math, literacy, science, civics, and other core areas within a tightly limited school day. When students are routinely removed from class for 1 to 5 hours each week, they lose essential instructional continuity and fall behind on the very competencies the state requires them to master. It is difficult to attain proficiency if you are not present for the learning experiences. We fully acknowledge that religious education is deeply meaningful to many Granite State families. However, HB 1628 places schools in an impossible position: it would force them to absorb repeated, predictable interruptions to instructional time while still being held accountable for student performance and learning outcomes. Public schools cannot meet the state’s expectations if the state simultaneously authorizes systematic reductions in the school day. This bill would create inequities as well. Students who remain in class would experience disrupted lessons, while those who leave would miss collaborative learning, foundational instruction, and opportunities to engage with teachers and peers. These are losses that cannot be fully recovered through make up work. HB 1628 ultimately weakens New Hampshire’s commitment to strong public education. It does not cherish the learning that goes on in our public schools. Preserving uninterrupted instructional time is one of the most effective, evidence based ways the Legislature can support student achievement across all districts. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the committee find HB 1628 Inexpedient to Legislate.

1. Constitutional Mandates At the heart of this opposition is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This language has been interpreted by the courts to uphold the separation of church and state, ensuring that public institutions do not favor or endorse any particular religion. The New Hampshire Constitution also emphasizes individual liberties and the freedom of conscience. Article 5 asserts that “no person should be compelled to contribute to the support of any religious sect or to participate in any religious worship.” By mandating that public schools accommodate released time for religious instruction, HB 1628 compels schools to participate in activities that may promote specific religious beliefs, infringing on the rights of students and parents who do not share those beliefs. 2. Implications for Public Education Public education should be a space where all students feel welcomed and valued, regardless of their religious beliefs. Including religious instruction as part of the school framework can lead to factionalism and division among students. This risks creating an environment where students who do not adhere to specific religious practices may feel marginalized or excluded. Moreover, the bill opens the door for public funding and resources to be used for religious purposes, undermining the commitment to a neutral educational environment. By allowing credit for religious instruction, we blur the lines between education and indoctrination, which cannot be reconciled with the principles of secular governance. 3. Potential for Discrimination The implementation of released time courses could lead to disparities in educational opportunities, where students from different religious backgrounds receive differing levels of recognition and support. This could disproportionately disadvantage students from minority faiths or those who identify as non-religious, exacerbating existing inequalities in our educational system. It is crucial to recognize that while freedom of religion is a protected right, it should not infringe upon the rights of others or become intertwined with the public school system, which must remain neutral and inclusive. Conclusion In light of these concerns, I urge the committee to reconsider the implications of House Bill 1628. The separation of church and state is fundamental to maintaining a fair and equitable educational system. Instead of promoting divisive policies that entangle public education with religious instruction, we should focus on fostering a truly inclusive environment for all students. Thank you for considering my testimony.

This is an attempt to further blur the lines between church and state which is disgusting. On top of another method to discriminate against atheists.

Keep religion out of public schools

Local school districts are capable of establishing attendance policies. We do not need a state-wide mandate.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.

Position recorded without written comment.