Croydon School Board wins initial court battle

On December 14, 2015 Judge Brian T. Tucker of the Strafford Superior Court denied the injunction brought by the NH Department of Education and Attorney General against the Croydon School Board. The Department of Education and Attorney General claimed that four Croydon students would be irreparably harmed if allowed to remain at the Newport Montessori School as part of the town’s school choice program.

The website School Choice for New Hampshire reports, “The final hearing of Croydon vs the NH DOE is scheduled for January 13, 2016.” Adding, “You can subscribe to our events page so you receive notification as soon as it is posted.”

The order from Judge Tucker is available on the NH School Choice website.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. Excellent news!

    Odd what the term “irreparable harm” can mean to some people, “my world will change unless I’m allowed to force other people to fund things that benefit me”.

    Of course if you or I treated our customers with threats of home seizure for failing to patronize our ahem “service” maybe there’s some irreparable harm created then ? Maybe it would be wrong for us to do this ? Hello??

    Teaching children that bullying is a way to meet goals seems systemically embedded in the government school business model for funding. If we as individuals are wrong to bully others, how does it become right if done by government mandate?

    It is my fervent hope that government schools will be exposed for what they are and stop churning out more (oxy) morons.

  2. Regardless where these children go, the town will be paying for their education through property taxes.

  3. The term “property tax” is an oxymoron. You can’t at the same time be said to be the real owner of something and then have another entity exercise control over it without your consent via threats of force against you for disobeying.

    A more peaceful approach to providing an education service, would involve the proliferation of many competitive options for consumers to chose from. Capturing your “customers” thru threats and then renaming the mode of capture, from theft to taxation is dishonest.

    If it’s wrong for me to determine the use of others property via threats of force….it can’t magically become right if I join with lots of other people and use force to accomplish the robbery.

Care to comment?