The separation of church and state in New Hampshire officially began in 1819 with the passage of the Toleration Act. It ended compulsory taxation to support churches and religious schools. Other states passed similar laws. Most folks thought the issue was resolved, but apparently not.
Years ago, our populations were fairly homogeneous in their viewpoints. More importantly, we had independent, decentralized public schools, as opposed to the current centrally controlled ones by state and federal grants and mandates.
We know that Social Emotional Learning (SEL) behavior modification was implemented in public schools across the country simultaneously: a top-down educational reform. Public schools are centrally controlled on so many levels, from curriculum, grading, discipline, and mental health interventions (MTSS-B), via endless state and federal grants and mandates.
Recently, Nebraska parents filed a lawsuit, claiming it’s a “hardship” to be compelled to have their children attend public school instruction. There are penalties for non-compliance, but parents object to being compelled to indoctrinate vulnerable children to objectionable viewpoints. They also claim that the alternative of private education poses an inequitable financial hardship.
All education promotes values, and many folks no longer favor the values being promoted in our centrally controlled public schools. That’s hardly news!
In this battle over speech and public education, will the Nebraska district court advise its legislature to fund all viewpoints: home, private, and religious schools? Are we seeing a complete reversal of the separation of church and state with vouchers and education savings accounts? Will Nebraska be required to fund 100% of private education to avoid any more “hardships”? If so, how long will state-funded private education actually remain independent? Is this the end of educational freedom?
Keep in mind that in November 2024 the majority of Nebraska voters chose to repeal their state-appropriated private school voucher program. If the consent of the governed still matters, is there an alternative solution?
Unfortunately, as we know, courts don’t always respect the will of the people. The NH Supreme Court violated the will of the people in its 1993 Claremont decision by interpreting the word “cherish” as requiring the state to “adequately fund” public education, in direct opposition to the mandate voters had given in 1851 on the same constitutional question. No need to change a constitution when judges can just tyrannically trample it with impunity.
Universal state funding of education isn’t a solution unless we are building a centralized indoctrination system. Remember, all education promotes values. Whose values? The state’s values, or the values of parents in our local communities?
Restoring our right to local independent public schools and letting people leave an objectionable district to find, or create, a better one, as we used to be allowed to do in New Hampshire, is the freedom-oriented solution. We all have a responsibility toward education, but not at the expense of our rights of conscience.
Educational freedom worked for a hundred years from 1784-1885 in New Hampshire until the state abolished our local school system, replacing 3,000 independent school districts with a more “unified” system, nominally to consolidate governance, equalize funding, and create more uniform control. The state has been consolidating governance, equalizing funding, and unifying control ever since.
Are states deliberately reversing the separation of church and state?
Look at legislation for evidence. In 2025, universal education savings accounts allowed NH to reverse the separation of church and state and fund private and religious schools using a non-profit organization to handle/launder tax funds.
Other failed legislation: This year, HB 1804 proposed to consolidate 107 School Administrative Units down to 12, undermining taxpayers’ voice even further under the guise of saving taxpayer money. It’s always money, not protecting our rights.
Also this year, HB 1358 proposed to study transitioning all public schools into public state-chartered schools, supposedly to “increase flexibility, innovation and autonomy” by eliminating elected school boards (our local voice) and requiring state approval every five years on charter schools’ mission and curriculum. That’s not independent local control.
And then, SB 101 proposed to allow universal open enrollment of students to attend another district, while denying families a voice in their newly chosen district and requiring them to continue funding the objectionable district. Why not restore the right to change districts, redirect their tax dollars, and vote in their new district as we used to be allowed to do?
Do you see a pattern developing?
Centralized public education results in endless bickering over curriculum, books, and policies; whereas decentralized public schools, created on demand by parents, respectfully accommodate our differences.
