AFT-NH Testimony Opposing SB 434
From Debrah Howes, President AFT-NH
April 8, 2026
To Chairwoman Noble and members of the House Education Policy and Administration Committee:
My name is Debrah Howes, and I am President of the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire. I am here today on behalf of our more than 3,500 members who work in PreK through grade 12 public education, public services, and both private and public colleges and universities across the Granite State. We are taxpayers and community members, and many of us are parents or grandparents of children in New Hampshire public schools.
We are deeply concerned about SB 434. Although the bill appears to simply require school districts to adopt a policy and procedures for reconsidering library and instructional materials, its practical impact would be far broader and more harmful. As written, SB 434 threatens students’ access to information, undermines teachers’ professional judgment, and exposes school districts to legal risk, all while diverting time and resources away from teaching and learning.
SB 434 allows books and instructional materials to be removed if a complainant requests removal and a principal or any designee determines that the material is “offensive” or “inappropriate.” These subjective terms are not defined in the bill. This lack of clarity invites decisions based on personal beliefs rather than educational value. It opens the door to viewpoint-based exclusion of materials that reflect particular identities, histories, or perspectives. When students are denied access to a wide variety of texts, they lose opportunities to build strong literacy skills, understand different viewpoints, and think critically. Students who already feel unseen or unheard are often the first to lose access to materials that reflect their lives and experiences.
The bill also places significant burdens on school districts, particularly in rural and small communities. Many New Hampshire districts operate with very limited administrative staff. Some have one librarian serving multiple schools or principals covering multiple roles. SB 434 requires districts to build and maintain formal complaint systems, meet tight deadlines, and manage public disputes over instructional decisions. These demands will fall on educators who are already stretched thin. Rural districts do not have in-house legal counsel or extra administrators to absorb this work, making them especially vulnerable to both burnout and legal exposure.
These pressures encourage self-censorship. When one complaint can trigger a formal removal process, educators may avoid certain topics or texts altogether. This shuts down meaningful discussion and discourages teachers from teaching students how to engage thoughtfully with complex ideas. That has real consequences for civic readiness. Public schools are where students learn to evaluate evidence, understand multiple perspectives, and participate respectfully in a democratic society. Limiting access to books and materials because they may offend someone weakens students’ ability to think independently, discuss difficult issues, and become informed voters and community members.
SB 434 also raises serious constitutional concerns. Public schools are government actors, and removing materials based on vague standards like “offensive” or “inappropriate” risks viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. Students have a recognized, though limited, right to receive information. Policies that allow materials to be removed because of disagreement with ideas, themes, or identities threaten that right. The bill’s appeals process compounds this problem by guaranteeing appeal rights for those seeking removal, while providing no comparable process for families or educators who want to preserve access. This one-sided structure increases the likelihood of costly legal challenges, which again will fall hardest on small and rural districts.
There is a better path. Many New Hampshire school districts already have professional, balanced policies for reviewing instructional and library materials. These policies rely on trained educators, clear criteria, and thoughtful committee review including parent and community input. Rather than imposing a vague statewide mandate, the Legislature should look to these existing models and encourage best practices. Transparent, balanced review processes protect students’ access to knowledge while respecting age appropriateness, without encouraging censorship or litigation.
For the sake of our students’ literacy, civic readiness, educators’ professional integrity, and the health of our public schools, I respectfully urge you to find SB 434 Inexpedient to Legislate.
Sincerely,
Debrah Howes
President, AFT-New Hampshire