Curriculum and the Conscience of Parents

Abstract

Despite Governor John Lynch’s veto and the outcry of teachers and education scholars, New Hampshire recently enacted HB 542, called the “Parental Conscience Act” by supporters. This bill was introduced by Republican and Tea Party officials in response to the reading of a book perceived to be anti-Christian and anti-capitalist in one school’s personal finance class (Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed). It allows parents to opt their children out of the teaching of any material or through any pedagogical style that they find “objectionable.” Additionally, the law requires that, at the expense of the parent, the teacher or school must construct an alternative curriculum that is suitable to the parent while still meeting state requirements in the relevant subject area. Unlike previous court cases that have protected parents’ rights of conscience on religious grounds, HB 542 does not require parents to provide any justification at all for their claim that school material is objectionable. While the word “conscience” itself was ultimately removed from the final version of the bill, the initial version and many of the discussions about it described parents’ objections in terms of violations of their conscience. Finally, parents are further protected by the law’s provision that parents’ names and any reasons they do provide for objecting to school teachings are to be kept out of the public record. HB 542 enshrines the protection of parents’ conscience into public school policy, regardless of the justification for parents’ views, discussion of the impact on their children, or concern for teachers who could face dozens of objections and obligations to construct alternative curricula at any one time.