Necessity is the mother of invention. On March 12, the people of Croydon gave the school district a healthy dose of necessity by demanding a responsible $800,000 budget. The board responded with an innovative education plan that overhauls the existing order and delivers quality education at less than half the cost.
A vocal minority of status-quo defenders have pulled out all the stops to prevent this from happening. This includes the obligatory stories of children designed to tug at your heart strings while also tugging at your purse strings.
Using children as political window dressing is reminiscent of the old Soviet political posters. It is beneath civilized man as it should be beneath all of us. Nevertheless, it is worth considering this situation from the perspective of schoolchildren.
The cost-reduced option selected by Croydon centers around the use of micro-schools or “pods” to provide education to children whose parents do not choose alternative options. (Yes, school choice is entirely preserved, contrary to some claims). These micro-schools are not new, nor some “fad.” They are an established, proven method to deliver education. They have a track record that puts many public schools to shame.
Innovation frightens some people. In Croydon, the result of this fear is a “Hail Mary” do-over meeting on May 7. If successful, it would throw Croydon back to the old ways of high taxes and low quality academics. Fortunately, low attendance can prevent this, as a quorum of 283 is needed to make any vote possible.
Don’t be tricked by glossy signs, pricey ads and phone calls extolling voters to come to the meeting because Johnny needs his $17,000 public school, ranked in the bottom 20%, or he’ll fail in life. Truth be told, Johnny will perform better in a micro-school or any of the countless choice options. Johnny’s parents will save thousands every year, perhaps to put toward a college education. Give progress a chance — stay home on May 7.
Jim Peschke
Croydon
The apportioning of state representative districts signed by Gov. Sununu on March 25, 2022, has not received the outcry it deserves, despite the efforts of Sullivan County representatives, multiple organizations and concerned residents. It is also disturbing that the data used by the redistricting committee to draw up a map was not shared with the general public at the insistence of the Republican majority.
For Sullivan County and Charlestown in particular, this does not bode well. The delineation of the district most likely is unconstitutional as it does comply with Article 11 of the state constitution, which requires each town with the minimum population to have its own representative. Currently, Charlestown has two representative seats, one representative for Charlestown and a floterial that includes Charlestown.
Charlestown, population 4,806, will now be joined with Unity, population 1,518, and Newport, population 6,299, and is allotted three representative seats and one floterial encompassing Charlestown, Newport, Unity, Cornish and Plainfield. Charlestown no longer has its own representative.
Out of the four state representatives Charlestown voters will vote for, the end result could be a lopsided representation, with not one leader even residing in Charlestown. The issues that our town and school district face may not have a champion. Without fairer representation for each town, every candidate running must be knowledgeable of all five towns and be willing and able to address the different needs and school districts within each.
I and others are appalled at how the 400 house seats have been apportioned. Democratic committees, anyone considering to run and especially Democratic voters who have stayed on the sidelines need to come together now, realizing that our voice and action is necessary to achieve a common goal. Strength in numbers will unite the towns and keep our communities strong and viable at the state level. Action needs to be taken now before it is too late.
Kathleen Eames
Charlestown
The writer is vice chair of Charlestown Democrats.
The parents, legislators and governors in our country who support laws obscuring the teaching of certain parts of American history and the existence of differing views on human gender and sexuality seem to be forgetting something.
It is our job, not the job of teachers, to bring children up in faith-based homes. It is our job to model the values we wish our children to share. We should want our children to be faced with new facts, so they can take in challenging pieces of information and make choices for themselves.
If we want to succeed as parents, we cannot let our own fears and prejudices overshadow the trust we have in our children to come to their own conclusions in the classroom.
Barry Wenig
Lebanon
Back in the Dark Ages, nobody talked much about mental health. People were afraid to discuss how they felt. Questions about mental illness weren’t asked. The Youth Risk Behavioral Health Survey (YRBS), a national survey administered in New Hampshire by the Department of Health and Human Services, didn’t exist. Now, thanks to a bill that’s on its way to the New Hampshire Senate Finance Committee (HB 1639), the YRBS might become a relic that pushes us back into the Dark Ages.
It harkens back to that old saying, “Don’t give an answer, frame the question.” The YRBS does just that, and very effectively. It asks students to answer questions about behaviors such as carrying weapons at school, being forced to engage in sexual activity, bullying, depression, suicidal behavior, body weight, eating habits, and alcohol, tobacco and drug use. And it frequently prompts conversations with teachers that gets help to students in need.
Now, New Hampshire legislators want to turn the YRBS from an opt-out survey to an opt-in one. That means parents will have control over whether, and maybe even how, their children respond. If children don’t take the survey, valuable data that drives much federal funding for health and mental health in New Hampshire will be jeopardized. This is a national survey, administered every other year. New Hampshire should keep its fiscal doors and probing minds open, and its students’ minds free to offer their own, unique opinions unimpeded by parental beliefs.
After all, it’s those parents who come from the Dark Ages, when talk of mental health was shoved under the carpet. If we’re ever to make progress, let’s let our kids speak for themselves. They can always opt out. They can choose not to answer survey questions. But creating an opt-in survey threatens students’ rights to free speech and silences them from shedding light on this new era where open conversations about mental health makes sense.
Dave Celone
Sharon