Bill to guarantee excused absences for civic and CTE activities draws support from students and concern from districts; amendment seeks to compel reassignment

Representative James Tibo introduced HB 1573, proposing two annually excused absences for students participating in specified civic activities (government hearings, official meetings — not campaign rallies) and in career and technical education (CTE) events and competitions. The bill, as amended in the House, narrowly defines civic events to government‑hosted activities and allows parents to notify schools at least two days before absences.

Student testimony: High‑school students who testified described real‑world learning that required missing class — serving on advisory councils, attending legislative meetings or national competitions — and urged the committee to remove attendance barriers to experiential learning. “This bill removes that barrier and says your voice matters,” one student testified.

District concerns: Becky Wilson of the New Hampshire School Board Association said districts already permit many such absences as part of curriculum and CTE programs and warned that a strict two‑day cap and automatic excusal could create operational headaches and fairness questions, especially for students who already use excused days for other educational activities. She urged careful definition of which activities qualify and raised concerns about verification and impacts on competency‑based scheduling.

Amendment on manifest hardship: During the hearing the committee considered a non‑germane amendment (sponsored by Senator Lang) intended to clarify RSA 193‑3’s manifest‑hardship reassignment process. Drew Klein, chair of the State Board of Education, described recent cases in which parents appealed to the State Board for reassignment because of bullying; he said the board sometimes grants a hardship but then found receiving districts refusing to accept reassigned students, leaving families “in limbo.” The amendment would explicitly empower the State Board to grant a parent’s reassignment request and require receiving districts to accept reassigned students, subject to narrow capacity exceptions already in statute.

Why it matters: The underlying bill intersects with school attendance policy, district autonomy, and student access to experiential learning. The amendment raises a separate but related issue about the State Board’s enforcement power and the balance between local district control and statewide remedies for students experiencing manifest hardship.

What the committee did: The hearing included both supportive student testimony and reservations from district representatives. The amendment provoked extended legal and policy debate; committee members asked for clarity about statutory limits, capacity thresholds and legal authority. No final floor action on the amendment was recorded in the hearing transcript.

Provenance: Transcript testimony and Q&A, SEG 1654–SEG 2975.