Shae Goodell

I submit this testimony in opposition to SB 434 as a concerned citizen, but also as a health professional who holds a Master of Education in Neuroscience and Trauma from Tabor College, is currently undergoing clinical training in Counseling Psychology and School Psychology at Rivier University, with extensive research into child development. My personal, academic and clinical background leads me to view this bill not as a neutral policy concerning educational oversight, but as a measure that risks increasing censorship, imposing unnecessary burdens on schools, and compromising the educational and developmental needs of children. Although this bill is framed as a measure to regulate public school materials, in practice it creates a broad and subjective pathway for censorship in New Hampshire schools. The bill allows complaints against materials alleged to be “harmful to minors,” “age-inappropriate,” or “otherwise offensive or inappropriate,” and applies this process to an extremely broad definition of “material,” including printed matter, web-based content, visual presentations, live performances, sound recordings, and materials provided not only by school districts, but also by employees, volunteers, guests, and speakers. My concern is simple: who decides what is “offensive,” “inappropriate,” or “age-inappropriate”? These are subjective terms, and this bill gives them enormous power. It invites decisions based on personal belief, ideology, discomfort, or disagreement rather than clear educational standards. That creates a dangerous opening for the removal or restriction of materials that are lawful, educationally valuable, and important for helping students understand themselves, one another, and the world around them. This bill goes far beyond protecting children from unlawful material. It creates a complaint-based system that can be used to challenge books, lessons, speakers, and school content simply because someone objects to their message or representation. In practice, laws like this often disproportionately affect materials related to race, racism, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, mental health, trauma, and the lived experiences of historically marginalized communities. As someone with training in trauma and neuroscience, I am especially concerned about the broader social and developmental impact of policies that promote exclusion, erasure, and fear around identity, history, and human difference. Schools are not only places of academic learning; they are social learning environments where young people develop belonging, safety, perspective-taking, and the ability to understand themselves and others. Policies that make inclusive or challenging material easier to target can have lasting psychological and social consequences, especially for students who are already vulnerable or underrepresented. I am also concerned that this bill places unnecessary burdens on school administrators and boards by requiring formal investigations, written determinations, appeals, and public records processes for complaints that may be rooted in personal disagreement rather than genuine harm. This risks politicizing curriculum and school materials, undermining professional judgment, and discouraging educators from offering robust and inclusive learning experiences. If the goal is truly to protect children, then lawmakers should focus on the sources of harm that most consistently and seriously affect their well-being: abuse, neglect, violence in the home, bullying, coercion, exploitation, and the harmful psychological effects of unchecked social media exposure. These are real threats to child development, safety, and mental health. Restricting books and educational materials does little to address those realities. Instead, this bill shifts responsibility onto schools and burdens them with managing subjective disputes over lawful materials, rather than addressing the more serious harms children actually face. Exposure to a diverse range of age-appropriate learning materials supports knowledge, discernment, empathy, and critical thinking. It helps students develop the capacity to think carefully, question thoughtfully, and engage responsibly with the world around them. That is one of the central purposes of public education, or should be, and schools should be supported in that work rather than constrained by vague standards and censorship-driven processes. New Hampshire should support high-quality public education, professional expertise, intellectual freedom, and inclusive learning environments. SB 434 moves in the opposite direction. It creates vague standards, expands opportunities for censorship, and threatens access to lawful, educationally valuable material. I urge you to oppose SB 434. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Shae Goodell Stoddard, NH