Two state Senate bills address how we regulate educational content. SB 208 offers a collaborative solution while SB 33 invites overreach and censorship. Of course, we parents want age-appropriate materials in schools. But SB 33’s vague wording goes beyond protecting kids and opens the door to unnecessary restrictions. It requires school boards to define “approved” materials and creates procedures for complaints about content deemed “harmful” or “offensive.” That means that, upon the bill’s passage, my school board would have to create a process so simple that, if I complained loudly enough about The Little Engine That Could promoting toxic positivity and hustle culture, the principal could ban it. C’mon.

SB 208, by contrast, ensures students encounter all kinds of views and experiences while prioritizing professional input and community collaboration. It empowers educators, librarians and parents to weigh in, bringing multiple perspectives to the table. SB 208 respects intellectual curiosity, free speech and the fact that kids grasp nuance earlier than many adults appreciate. Giving principals unilateral authority over content decisions oversimplifies complex educational choices. While students need guidance, they also need to learn to think critically for themselves and engage with new ideas. We should trust them to navigate ideas with thoughtfulness and moderation. SB 208 strikes a balance, allowing professional oversight while honoring free speech rights. I urge legislators and fellow citizens to support SB 208 and reject SB 33. Education should be open, thoughtful and reflective of the real world.

Ethan Underhill

Portsmouth