As if the Seabrook School District were not already facing enough challenges within SAU21, a troubling situation has now drawn Hampton Falls into the controversy as well.
A student from Seabrook who was subjected to relentless bullying is seeking to transfer to the Hampton Falls School through what is known as a Manifest Hardship transfer. Under New Hampshire law, parents may request a transfer when a child has experienced significant hardship in their assigned public school.
The majority of Seabrook School Board members initially voted against allowing the transfer. The student’s parent appealed the decision to the State Board of Education. After hearing testimony describing the extent of the bullying the child endured, the State Board ruled in favor of the family, granting the student permission to attend school in Hampton Falls.
However, the Hampton Falls School Board then voted to deny the transfer, prompting the mother to return to the State Board of Education to report that Hampton Falls was refusing to honor its ruling.
In the meantime, the child’s education has been thrown into uncertainty. Because of the bullying, the mother removed her son from the Seabrook school and has been attempting to homeschool him while also paying for legal representation in order to continue advocating for him. Cases like this illustrate how difficult it can be for bullied students and their families to navigate the system in New Hampshire.
During the most recent hearing before the State Board of Education, the Hampton Falls School Board did not appear. However, the superintendent who oversees both Seabrook and Hampton Falls did attend, accompanied by a taxpayer-funded attorney. Both schools operate under SAU21.
Members of the State Board appeared perplexed by Hampton Falls’ refusal to follow the earlier ruling. Because key questions remained unanswered, the hearing was continued until April. Unfortunately, this means the process could stretch on for months while the student remains in limbo.
During the hearing, the chair of the State Board questioned the superintendent about why the Hampton Falls board rejected the transfer. The superintendent explained that the board had concerns about behavioral issues they did not want to address. Yet the chair noted an obvious contradiction: if the family sold their home and moved to Hampton Falls, the student would already be enrolled there as a resident.
That explanation raised additional questions. Why would behavioral concerns be emphasized about a child who had been identified as the victim of bullying? In fact, the State Board chair read a previous statement from the superintendent describing the bullied student as a kind and engaging young man. Something is not adding up.
Superintendent Meredith Nadeau stated that she was remaining neutral in the matter, but several State Board members appeared confused by what they viewed as a lack of advocacy on behalf of the child. Toward the end of the hearing, one board member even suggested that the superintendent’s unwillingness to take a clearer position could potentially raise ethical concerns.
This is not the first time Superintendent Nadeau has faced scrutiny. While serving as superintendent in Newmarket, the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office ruled that the Newmarket School District violated electioneering laws related to a $38.9 million bond that voters approved to renovate the junior–senior high school.
Throughout the hearing, Nadeau provided factual responses to questions but did not explain any effort on her part to advocate for the student’s placement in Hampton Falls. This raises further questions given that Hampton Falls spends more than $40,000 per student. Instead, the alternatives suggested to the parent included districts that spend significantly less per pupil, leaving some to wonder whether financial considerations are influencing these decisions.
Meanwhile, the legal and administrative costs continue to mount. The superintendent’s time, the attorneys attending these hearings, and the extended appeals process will ultimately be paid for by taxpayers across SAU21.
All of this might have been avoided if the student had simply been allowed to transfer to Hampton Falls at the outset. More importantly, the situation raises a deeper concern: has the safety of students taken a back seat to financial considerations? Even more troubling, none of this may have occurred if the bullying had been addressed effectively in the first place. I guess when you have taxpayer funded attorneys at your disposal, going through this lengthy process will not impact their wallets.
The situation has intensified calls for Superintendent Nadeau’s resignation within SAU21. A petition was recently started by another parent whose own child was also forced to leave the Seabrook schools because of bullying.
Taken together, the growing list of concerns—including bullying complaints, low academic proficiency scores, and recent findings of special education violations—are becoming increasingly difficult for school officials and community members to ignore.
You can watch the entire meeting here at 42:00.
