LETTER: School Board Only Does the Right Thing When You're Looking

In July the Windham School Board was alerted that their recently adopted policy, Policy IGE, was significantly flawed. The adopted policy did not follow the new law, RSA 186:11, IX-c, which allows parents to chose alternative classroom materials for their child in place of objectionable resources, at the parents' expense, at no cost to the schools. The WSB responded promptly and amended the policy to be properly aligned with the new law. The WSB was responsive to the problem and acted responsibly.

Unfortunately, the Pelham School Board does not feel they must follow the new law. Although they were also alerted to the problem, for they adopted the same flawed original Policy IGE because they share the same SAU with Windham, the PSB chooses not to address it. They won't discuss the matter for they are "too busy" and a Pelham resident hasn't stepped forward with concern about the policy. In other words, if the people of Pelham aren't looking, the Pelham School Board does not think they are required to follow the law or must act responsibly with matters brought before them.

So what is Policy IGE and why is this important?

The impetus for HB 542 and the new RSA goes back to a 2010 problem in Bedford that caught national headlines. A family pulled their high school student from Bedford High School over a controversial book assigned in a personal finance class because the school would not permit an alternative. The Bedford School Board told the family that the student must complete the course as originally outlined, including the objectionable book, if he wanted to graduate. The parents were given no choice -- either have the student read the book or leave the public school. HB 542 sought to address this kind of situation and bring a small element of "school choice" to the public school system.

Here is a hypothetical scenario of how this new law and RSA could work. "The Hunger Games" was recently made into a popular movie. The book upon which the movie is based has been assigned to middle-school classrooms across the country; however, some parents do not want their children reading it because the novel has kids killing kids. Under this new RSA, New Hampshire parents are allowed to have their child - not the entire class - read a different book, at the parents' expense, as long as the alternative accomplishes the same learning objectives.

This is a link to the new law and RSA 186:11, IX-c

http://ssl.csg.org/dockets/2013cycle/33Bbills/2033b03nhbjectionablematerialschoolcourses.pdf

Upon reading the new RSA, it is clear exactly how the new law is intended to work. Parents and the school principal or district representative must reach a mutual agreement on alternate classroom material. No one has overriding authority over the other party.

Unfortunately, the PSB created and is knowingly perpetuating a policy that is inconsistent with the new RSA. Policy IGE  gives final authority to the Superintendent; he's allowed to trump the parents. Also, the new policy expressly removes the ability of the parents to petition the school board for appeal. This is alarming because it limits the citizens' ability to access their duly elected and responsible local governing body. The problematic language is as follows:

If the parties cannot agree on acceptable alternative material, either party may appeal to the Superintendent who will have final decision-making authority.

Nothing in this policy shall be construed as giving parents/guardians the right to appeal to the school board.

http://www.pelhamsd.org/index.php/document-directory?task=document.viewdoc&id=238

I urge the Pelham School Board to remove the two flawed sentences, as the Windham School Board did in their amended Policy IGE. Both sentences must be deleted in order to be consistent with the new law and RSA. If Pelham's Policy IGE is not appropriately changed, parents may not be given choices for their child's instruction which are allowed by law, and Pelham will be vulnerable to legal action because the policy is inconsistent with RSA 186:11, IX-c. I urge the PSB to respect the new law and remove these two elements of Policy IGE.

Since mid July Dr. LaBranche, Ms. Amanda Lecaroz, and other SAU 28 staff have known about this problem. A member of the Pelham School Board was approached in early August. Their response is that they are busy with other PSB issues and because no Pelham resident has expressed concern, they do not believe the issue warrants their attention. In other words, if the citizens aren't looking, PSB does not believe they are required to follow the law or be mindful of the community's interests.

I am dumbfounded that any elected government body would flagrantly ignore a legal problem. Our elected representatives have a responsibility to act in the best interests of their community and to uphold the law, whether or not they have other pressing matters and regardless of who brought the issue to their attention.  These elected officials are given a public trust. Unfortunately it appears to be misplaced in Pelham. If I were a resident of Pelham, I would question if the PSB officers truly understand their responsibilities to the people and if they deserve the public trust to hold that office.

--Michelle Levell, Windham