Wow! What a Day in Concord, and Beyond. . .
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Representative Deborah Aylward Announces Re-Election Campaign for Merrimack District 5
State Representative Deborah Aylward has announced that she will seek re-election to represent Merrimack District 5, serving the towns of Andover, Danbury, Hill, Salisbury, and Webster.
Representatives and other candidates showed up in droves at the Secretary of State’s office to test a new law passed last year, allowing them to file at the Secretary’s office, Aylward included. “After all, on session day June 4th, the office was only about 15 steps from the Republican anti-room at Representatives Hall, and it sure beat having to drive into town!” Aylward said.
"When I first ran for office, I did so because I believed ordinary citizens deserve a voice in government," Aylward continued. "That belief has not changed. I have worked hard to be accessible, responsive, and accountable to the people I represent, and I would be honored to continue serving our district.”
Aylward is currently serving her second term in the New Hampshire House of Representatives and is a member of the House Municipal and County Government Committee. During her service in Concord, she has focused on issues involving government transparency, property rights, local control, public accountability, and protecting taxpayers.
Serving on said committee, Aylward brings the perspective of an everyday citizen to the legislative process. She is known for asking direct, practical questions during public hearings and for carefully examining how proposed legislation will impact taxpayers, property owners, and local communities.
Before serving in the Legislature, Aylward spent more than two decades as a licensed private investigator/detective agency owner and founded HomeFires, a volunteer, non-profit organization dedicated to locating missing children.
Through the efforts of close to 100 volunteers across the country who donated their skills, time and expense ( the left-behind parents not charged a dime) the organization helped reunite parentally-abducted, and other children reported as ‘missing’ with their families; had a 98% locate and safe recovery rate by law enforcement, and developed a reputation for persistence, integrity, and results.
Aylward's work locating missing children was featured in the documentary The Search for Missing Persons, which aired on the Discovery Channel.
Among the most memorable cases of her career was that of an infant abducted by her biological father and withheld from her custodial mother in North Carolina. Despite five years of unsuccessful efforts by local, state, and federal law enforcement, as well as two privately retained investigators, the child's whereabouts remained unknown.
Aylward voluntarily accepted the case and, working from her office in Virginia, located the child in Ohio within three weeks.
Upon confirming the child's location, Aylward immediately traveled to Ohio and coordinated with local law enforcement, providing officers with the applicable custody orders and NCIC documentation. After observing the then five-year-old child arrive at the residence, and relaying that information to police, officers established probable cause to enter the apartment. Inside, they found the young girl hiding in a closet with her grandmother.
The child was safely recovered and reunited with her custodial mother.
The recovery became a major news story throughout the Ohio Valley, receiving extensive media coverage for more than a week and bringing a successful conclusion to a case that had remained unresolved for five years.
"That experience taught me the importance of listening carefully, gathering facts, and never giving up when people need help," Aylward said. "Those same principles guide my work as a State Representative."
Throughout her legislative service, Aylward has been a strong advocate for open government, public access to information, responsible land-use policies, and the rights of property owners. She has also worked closely with constituents to address concerns involving state agencies, local government, education, transportation, and community development.
Looking ahead, Aylward said her priorities remain clear:
"I believe public service is about showing up, listening, and doing the work," Aylward said. "I am grateful for the trust that voters have placed in me, and I respectfully ask for their support as I seek another term representing the people of Andover, Danbury, Hill, Salisbury, and Webster."
For additional information, constituents may contact their representative at: Deborah.Aylward@gc.nh.gov
###
Commentary: The Andover Rail Trail Controversy: Questions the Public Deserves to Have Answered
For months, residents of Andover and surrounding communities have watched an unfortunate situation unfold along a section of the Northern Rail Trail.
A mile-long stretch of one of New Hampshire's most popular recreational assets has effectively been closed to public passage by the placement of concrete barriers. What should be a matter of clear ownership and public access has instead become the subject of legal disputes, conflicting claims, and growing public frustration.
I have been contacted by constituents asking a simple question: If the State of New Hampshire owns the rail trail, why does it remain blocked? That question deserves an answer.
The Northern Rail Trail is not merely a local walking path. It is part of a statewide recreational corridor enjoyed by walkers, cyclists, runners, snowmobilers, horseback riders, families, and visitors from across New Hampshire and beyond. For many residents, it represents one of our state's greatest outdoor assets. However, a businessman’s livelihood is in jeopardy due to the closure of Town-owned bridge which was the only route to a main road, and apparently with no alternative route provided.
Therefore, the current dispute stems from competing claims regarding ownership and access rights involving property abutting the trail. Those issues are now the subject of legal review and, ultimately, may be resolved by the courts — that may take time.
However, what concerns many citizens is not simply the existence of a legal dispute. Rather, it is the practical effect of allowing a substantial public corridor to remain blocked for an extended period while those disputes are addressed.
Residents have asked why barriers cannot be removed pending a final determination. Others question whether state agencies have taken sufficient action to protect what they believe to be public property. Still others are frustrated by the lack of information available to the public regarding the status of investigations and title reviews. These are reasonable questions.
As a State Representative, I am not in a position to determine ownership claims, nor should elected officials attempt to substitute their judgment for that of the courts. Property rights are fundamental and deserve respect. At the same time, public rights deserve equal respect when public ownership is asserted. I did speak with Ms. Shelley Winters, Deputy Commissioner at DOT, and all inquiries are being referred to the Attorney General’s office. What is needed now is transparency.
If the State possesses documentation supporting ownership of the trail corridor, the public deserves confidence that those interests are being vigorously protected. If questions remain regarding title, easements, or historical conveyances, those questions should be resolved as quickly as possible.
As part of my effort to obtain answers for constituents, I have submitted multiple Right-to-Know requests to the New Hampshire Department of Transportation seeking records relating to ownership of the rail trail corridor, title research, deeds, conveyances, and other documents reportedly reviewed by state officials during their investigation of this matter.
My objective is not to advocate for any particular party, but rather to obtain the public records necessary to understand the basis for the State's position and to provide accurate information to the citizens I represent.
The public deserves transparency. If the State has conducted title research, reviewed deeds, or assembled documentation supporting its ownership claims, those records should be available for public review to the fullest extent permitted by law. Likewise, if questions remain unresolved, the public deserves to know that as well.
Until the relevant records are produced and reviewed, many of the questions being asked by residents cannot be fully answered. I intend to continue pursuing those records through the Right-to-Know process so that the public can better understand the facts surrounding this ongoing controversy.
Regardless of where one stands on the dispute, I believe most people can agree on two points: First, uncertainty benefits no one. Second, a prolonged closure of a major public recreational corridor is not in the best interests of the citizens of New Hampshire.
Regardless of one's position on the dispute, decisions affecting public access to a major state recreational corridor should be based on facts, documentation, and transparency—not speculation.
The people of Andover have been patient. Trail users have been patient. Taxpayers have been patient. They deserve answers, and they deserve resolution.
Speaking of title searches, did you know, that according to the Merrimack County Registry's online records portal, "subscriptions will no longer be needed" and "documents will be viewed at no charge" effective January 1, 2026?
Property ownership records have historically been considered public information. In an era where government agencies increasingly provide online access to public documents, some would argue that charging citizens merely to view records that have already been digitized creates an unnecessary barrier to public information.
Under the new policy, residents may search and view recorded documents from the comfort of their homes without paying a subscription fee. User accounts are still maintained for those wishing to order copies or conduct transactions online.
Sometimes the most meaningful improvements in government aren't the ones that make headlines—they're the ones that make information easier for the public to access.
Update: According to media reports, the Dept. of Justice is seeking a 'preliminary injunction' regarding this matter. Such may address removal of the barriers while the underlying property rights issue pends resolution.
If wanting to follow the State's case in Superior Court, you can do so by remote access and by registering here: courts.nh.gov/news-and-media/case-access-portal-here?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Representative Deborah Aylward
Merrimack District 5
###
Opinion: SB 439 as Amended (1807h)
Lawmakers, utilities and citizens’ alike, are anticipating future proposals tied to AI growth and cloud computing demand. General research shows around 10 ‘data centers’ currently operating in NH, none of which are the enormous “hyper-scale” AI-style campuses seen in states like Virginia, Utah or Texas.
This issue has suddenly become controversial in New Hampshire whether municipalities can meaningfully regulate impacts before projects are approved. There needs to be predictable siting laws to attract technological infrastructure and to avoid a patchwork of local prohibitions and to avoid the state legislature from being in the ‘zoning’ business.
The concerns cited most often were:
There has been considerable confusion surrounding SB 439, the data center zoning bill, particularly after the House Municipal and County Government Committee recommended amendment 1807h. Much of the public discussion still reflects the original version of the bill, not the amended language that went before the Legislature on May 14th, that was subsequently tabled.
As amended, SB 439 does not eliminate all local control over data centers. Municipalities would still retain their existing site plan review authority, planning board oversight, building code enforcement, environmental protections, traffic review, and local land use regulations that apply to other commercial and industrial uses.
What the amendment does is prohibit municipalities from singling out data centers for regulations that are more restrictive than other permitted uses within the same zoning district. In practical terms, if a town allows large commercial or industrial facilities in a district, it could not create an entirely separate and harsher zoning standard that applies only to data centers.
The amendment also clarifies that data centers are permitted “by right” in commercial and industrial zones, subject to the same local regulations that apply to other businesses in those districts.
The original Senate version of SB 439 contained extensive statewide mandates involving setbacks, noise standards, electrical capacity certifications, and other specific requirements. However, the legislature is not in the ‘zoning business’. Most of those provisions were removed in later amendments.
Supporters argue that New Hampshire should not discourage technological infrastructure and economic development by creating inconsistent municipal barriers aimed at one specific industry. They note that data centers support cloud computing, communications, financial systems, healthcare records, artificial intelligence, and other modern digital services used every day. If using the internet - one is using product from a data center somewhere, and cannot be hypocritical.
Opponents raise concerns about electrical demand, water usage, noise, and the long-term environmental impacts associated with large-scale facilities. They also argue that municipalities should retain broader authority to regulate such projects based upon local conditions.
For example, if a town does not already have generally applicable noise regulations for commercial or industrial uses, it may have limited ability to impose data-center-specific noise restrictions beyond existing state authority. The key issue is whether the town would be “treating data centers differently” from other permitted uses in the same district.
So, for example:
If a town has a general performance standard or nuisance ordinance applying to all industrial/commercial uses, it could likely apply that equally to a data center.
If a planning board normally imposes reasonable site-plan conditions tied to traffic flow, buffering, lighting, drainage, etc., those could likely still be imposed if applied consistently.
But if a town attempted to create a special noise cap applicable only to data centers — especially after an application was filed — that could arguably conflict with the bill’s anti-discrimination language and pose a legal challenge. Another important distinction is between: general zoning/police powers applied uniformly, versus industry-specific restrictions targeting only data centers.
The amended bill was designed to prohibit the second category. A likely legal battleground would become whether a condition is: a neutral, generally applicable land-use regulation, or a disguised attempt to uniquely burden data centers.
One may also run into arguments involving:
With increased awareness, SB 439 may serve to incentivize municipalities to adopt clear, uniformly applicable commercial/industrial performance standards now, rather than attempting project-specific restrictions later — and before an application is filed.
Regardless of where one stands on the issue, the public deserves an accurate explanation of what the amended bill actually is. SB 439, as amended by 1807h, is no longer a bill establishing detailed statewide operational standards for data centers. It is primarily a zoning preemption bill that was intended to prevent municipalities from treating data centers differently from other commercial or industrial uses. No doubt there will be a plethora of data center bills filed in the upcoming biennium. Buckle up!
Deborah Aylward State Representative Merrimack District 5
###
Commentary: Data Centers: Why Bringing SB 439 Before the Full House Was the Right Move
Recent criticism has suggested that Republican members of the Municipal and County Government Committee "rolled out the red carpet" for data centers when considering SB 439. That characterization misses what actually occurred and why it was important.
The committee amendment did not end the discussion. It ensured the discussion would happen where it belongs: before the entire 400-member House of Representatives.
The New Hampshire House is often called the "People's House" for a reason. When an issue carries significant implications for local communities, energy policy, economic development, zoning authority, and property rights, every elected representative deserves the opportunity to take a public position. By advancing the bill to the House floor, committee Republicans ensured that every district in New Hampshire had a voice in the debate. That strategy accomplished exactly what it should have.
The full House overwhelmingly tabled the proposal, sending a clear message that legislators from both parties had concerns about the direction of data center policy in New Hampshire. Rather than burying the issue in committee, the House spoke collectively and decisively.
That vote also provided valuable feedback to Governor Ayotte, legislative leadership, municipalities, and the public. Every representative had the opportunity to review the proposal, hear from constituents, and cast a vote that reflected the views of their district.
That is not "rolling out the red carpet" , as claimed. It is representative government working exactly as intended.
There is another important reason the committee's decision was the correct one. Had the bill been retained or killed in committee, 383 House members would never have been required to take a public position. Constituents would have been left guessing where their representatives stood on one of the most significant land-use and energy issues facing New Hampshire.
By advancing the bill to the House floor, committee Republicans ensured that every representative had to answer the same question: Do you support the proposed state policy on data centers or not? The resulting vote created a clear public record. Citizens can now review that record, hold elected officials accountable, and make informed decisions at election time. That level of transparency benefits everyone, regardless of where they stand on the issue.
Committees are designed to examine legislation and make recommendations. The House is designed to make final policy decisions. On a matter as consequential as data centers, allowing the full House to weigh in was not only appropriate—it was the most transparent and democratic course available.
Whether one supports or opposes data centers, New Hampshire citizens deserved to know where their representatives stood. Thanks to the decision to move the bill forward, they now do.
Sometimes the most important vote is not the one that passes a bill. Sometimes it is the vote that reveals where the people's representatives truly stand. On SB 439, that is precisely what happened.
Deborah Aylward State Representative Merrimack District 5
###
Commentary: A Push to Ban Data Centers New Hampshire??
A state generally has broad authority to regulate land use and economic activity under its police powers. Data centers are not a constitutionally protected land use. Therefore, a state could potentially:
However, a statewide outright ban or moratorium could face challenges if it appears arbitrary, irrational, discriminatory, or if it conflicts with other constitutional protections.
Potential legal arguments against a ban could include:
A statewide prohibition is harder to defend than a framework based on objective standards. A court is more likely to uphold: "Data centers are allowed if they meet these requirements” than "Data centers are prohibited regardless of location, impacts, or mitigation."
To protect taxpayers and maintain local control, this can be accomplished more effectively through:
I am a proponent of responsible development, and data centers ‘paying their own way’ when it comes to electricity and water usage; being statutorily defined as ‘industrial’, and sited well away ( i.e. a thousand or more feet, if not 1/2 mile or more) from residences, village areas, schools, hospitals, nursing homes, farm animals or other human-occupied areas to avoid negative impacts to include during construction.
So why the heck were hyper-scale centers sited within feet, yes FEET from residential use areas in Utah and Northern Virginia, for example? It's a question I hope to answer in another article.
Therefore, planning boards and citizens have their work cut out for them, and this is no time to procrastinate about updating inadequate zoning ordinances and local regulations to accommodate ‘data centers’, however defined.
Deborah Aylward State Representative (Merrimack District 5)
###
CITIZEN COMMENTARY/OBSERVATIONS:
CHARTER SCHOOL APPLICATION RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT SURVEY DATA
After review of the Danbury Charter Public School (DCPS) Application, submitted by: Rachel Bujnowski, Sarah Greenshields, Anna Often, Audrey J. Pellegrino and Katelyn Setterlund on May 12th, while answering many questions, many questions remain.
According to the application, there has been a higher proportion of economically disadvantaged students in attendance, as compared to state averages, for example, 1/3 qualified for free lunches (26 out of 60 enrolled), with students performing below both the district and state for proficiency in reading and mathematics, specifically 10-15 % lower than the school district in reading, 10% lower in math, in other words, testing proficiency in the bottom half of all NH schools.
The estimated school opening is Sept. 1, 2027, K-4th grade, with a focus on: education, agriculture and community. The application states: The DCPS is proposing to offer grades K through 4 with a total maximum enrollment of 120.
The application provided the results of a ‘survey’ having 209 respondents, that will be referenced herein. The application does not state how and to whom the survey was distributed, I for one did not received a survey, nor did several other residents consulted.
Therefore, there are several potential indicators of bias or limitations that would be worth discussing. Whether they rise to the level of a fatal flaw depends on how the survey is being used in the application.
One of the most important questions facing any proposed charter school is whether sufficient enrollment demand actually exists to sustain the school long-term.
The Danbury Chartered Public School application cites survey results as evidence of strong community interest. According to the application, more than 200 people responded to a survey conducted between March 22 and March 25, 2026. The application further states that 67.3% of respondents with school-age children indicated they would or probably enroll their children in the proposed charter school.
At first glance, these numbers appear impressive. However, a closer review raises important questions.
While the application provides summary percentages and conclusions, it does not appear to include the underlying survey responses, methodology, respondent counts by household, or data showing how the percentages were calculated. As a result, it is difficult to independently verify the conclusions presented.
For example, how many of the more than 209 respondents actually had children eligible to attend the proposed school? How many represented unique households? How many indicated a firm intent to enroll versus general support for the concept? These distinctions matter when evaluating the long-term viability of a school expected to enroll dozens of students.
Because the survey materials do not explain how these figures were calculated, it is unclear how many unique students are represented, whether respondents could select multiple grades, or how these responses were used to estimate future enrollment.
The application also contains relatively few letters of support (6) compared to the number of survey respondents cited. This suggests that the survey may have served as the primary evidence of community demand.
To be clear, community support for preserving educational opportunities in Danbury is understandable and commendable. Many residents were disappointed by the closure of Danbury Elementary School and have worked hard to explore alternatives. Nevertheless, when public resources, facilities, and educational planning are involved, decision-makers should have access to verifiable data rather than summary conclusions alone.
A strong charter school application should not only demonstrate community enthusiasm but also provide sufficient underlying information to allow independent evaluation of projected enrollment and long-term sustainability.
As discussions continue regarding the future of education in Danbury, transparency and verifiable data remain essential to informed decision-making.
So to whom was the survey sent, or how was it distributed? I, for one, did not receive a survey, nor did several other residents polled.
The application also states that the survey received over 200 respondents within hours and points reviewers to Appendix P, the survey.
What I am not seeing:
That distinction is important.
A survey summary page appears to contain conclusions drawn from the survey:
Demand was strongest in kindergarten and spread across K-4.
Do you have children who would be eligible to attend a charter school?
This means out of 209 respondents:
That means only 53 respondents identified themselves as having children presently eligible to attend the proposed school.
The survey reports 53 respondents with children currently eligible for the proposed K-4 charter school. However, the grade-level question generated a combined total of 234 selections across kindergarten through fourth grade. That means the average respondent in the K-4 category would represent about 4.4 children per qualified respondent.
Without the underlying data, it is difficult to determine actual enrollment demand. If I were reviewing this application, one of my written comments would likely be: Applicant references survey results but does not appear to provide sufficient underlying data to independently evaluate projected enrollment demand.
The issue becomes verifiability of demand, not popularity. Another interesting point: The application appears to have only a handful (6) of support letters, including Senator Dan Innis, yet repeatedly emphasizes the survey results instead. That suggests the survey may have been their principal evidence of demand.
Possible Survey Bias
The survey results submitted with the application indicate a substantial level of interest in the proposed charter school, with 55.8% of respondents stating they would enroll their child, 11.5% indicating they would probably enroll, and an additional 18.3% stating they would consider enrollment. These results suggest meaningful community interest and should be acknowledged.
However, survey responses alone may not be reliable predictors of actual enrollment. The survey does not appear to identify how many respondents currently have children who would be eligible to attend during the school's opening year, nor does it account for student attrition resulting from grade progression, relocation, homeschooling, private school enrollment, or decisions to remain within the Newfound School District.
Additionally, the survey does not indicate what percentage of all eligible families participated, making it difficult to determine whether the responses are representative of the broader community or primarily reflect those already supportive of the charter school concept.
For these reasons, while the survey may demonstrate interest in the proposal, it does not necessarily establish the level of actual enrollment required to ensure long-term financial sustainability. This concern is particularly relevant given the New Hampshire Department of Education's own charter school closure data, which identifies insufficient enrollment and financial challenges as among the most common reasons charter schools cease operations.
1. Self-selection bias
The biggest concern is likely how and to whom the survey was sent and self-selection bias.
If the survey was not sent to the community as a whole, the survey reflects the views of those few receiving the survey and motivated enough to respond, not necessarily the community as a whole.
For example:
The results should not be viewed as a scientific measure of community support.
2. Interest vs. Commitment
The results cited suggest a gap between interest and commitment.
Examples:
This could indicate that respondents may support the concept of a charter school while harboring significant reservations about its practical implementation.
3. Potential Parent-Interest Bias
If the survey was distributed through channels likely to reach only families with school-age children, responses may overrepresent households that could benefit directly from the school.
Questions to ask:
4. Enrollment Projection Bias
One issue already identified is the apparent mismatch between:
If enrollment projections exceed what the survey data reasonably supports, that could suggest optimistic interpretation of the results.
6. Nonresponse Bias
The survey received 209 responses. A key question is: How many households were surveyed?
If Danbury has about 1400 residents, then the views of non-respondents could differ substantially from those who participated.
A Balanced Conclusion
A measured observation might be: The survey appears useful as a tool for gauging interest among respondents; however, the results may not be representative of the broader community due to potential self-selection and non-response bias.
Furthermore, the survey reveals significant concerns regarding financial sustainability (40.7%) and facility condition (15.8%), while only 2.4% of respondents expressed willingness to provide financial support. These findings suggest that expressions of interest should be interpreted cautiously and may not necessarily translate into enrollment commitments, financial support, or confidence in the school's long-term viability.
Application Possible major strengths:
1. Clear Educational Need
This is probably the application's strongest argument. The closure of Danbury Elementary creates a compelling narrative:
The application repeatedly ties the charter proposal to a specific community problem rather than a vague educational philosophy.
Reviewers generally like applications that answer: "Why does this school need to exist?” This application answers that question reasonably well.
2. Well-Defined Mission
The agriculture/place-based learning concept is:
The mission, vision, curriculum, fundraising, community partnerships, and school culture all point in the same direction. Many charter applications fail because they try to be everything to everyone. This one has a clear identity and is ‘agriculture-centric’.
3. Small Initial Enrollment
Such is financially and operationally more realistic than many charter applications that propose hundreds of students immediately.
4. Community Story
The application does a good job portraying:
A proposal to save a rural community school is emotionally persuasive.
Possible major weaknesses:
1. Facility Uncertainty
The application states it is: "anticipating being able to open at the current Danbury Elementary School”, whereas reviewers usually prefer: "We have secured…" not "We anticipate..."
A strong assertion of statutory rights would typically read something like:
"The charter school intends to operate in the former Danbury Elementary School and is exercising its rights under RSA 194-B to pursue use of the surplus facility."
Instead, the application says: leasing opportunities are being pursued with the Town of Danbury and if unavailable, other locations will be pursued.
If ownership, lease terms, occupancy rights, or municipal approvals are unresolved, DOE may worry that approval could be granted without an actual school building secured. This is a #1 concern.
It is my understanding that if a school district has a ‘surplus’ building, a charter school has first right of refusal. However, the application states that if the building were not made available by the Town, the school would pursue other potential locations within or adjacent to the Town. This appears to be a concession that the building is not ‘surplus’ and subject to reservation rights.
Under New Hampshire's charter school statutes, charter schools are given certain preferences regarding unused public school facilities, but that does not automatically guarantee possession of the building.
The key distinction is whether:
The building remains owned by the school district and is merely declared surplus, or
The building has already been transferred to the Town of Danbury.
If ownership has already reverted to the town, the charter school's statutory rights may be substantially weaker because the property is no longer district property.
Subject to further research, my question is: Has the Newfound School District formally conveyed the building to the Town of Danbury yet, or is the transfer still pending? That fact may determine whether any charter-school facility preference still has practical value.
Application review: d) General description and proposed or potential location of facilities to be used (§ d): (Review’s note): This requirement is satisfied. The application states: The intention is to locate at the former Danbury public school at .20 Daffodil Lane, Danbury, NH 03230
2. Heavy Reliance on Fundraising
From survey results, only 2.4% (Approx. 5 respondents) indicated they would be willing to make financial contribution.
40.7% (85) responded concern regarding ‘Funding and financial sustainability’.
The fundraising section is ambitious. However, many proposed revenue sources are from “ grants, donations, community events, and sponsorships “ rather than guaranteed revenue. Reviewers often ask: "What happens if the grants don't come?” then a school must survive on per-pupil funding. Fundraising should be supplemental, not essential.
A fair observation would be: While the survey reflects substantial community interest in the concept of a charter school, only 2.4 percent of respondents indicated a willingness to make a financial contribution. This raises questions regarding the extent to which future fundraising assumptions are supported by demonstrated donor interest.
Or even more pointedly: If fundraising and charitable support are expected to play a meaningful role in the school's financial sustainability, the survey results appear to show considerably less enthusiasm for financial participation than for general support of the project.
Whereas a property tax is a compulsory payment imposed by government, a donation is voluntary. If residents contribute money to help launch or support a charter school, that is not legally a tax because nobody is required to pay it. However the funding model raises these questions:
If the charter school's financial model depends heavily on ongoing donations from local residents, are donors effectively being asked to voluntarily pay twice—once through state and local education funding and again through private contributions?
Are fundraising expectations masking the true cost of operating the school?
If substantial annual donations are needed to balance the budget, is the school financially sustainable without those contributions?
For example: A family may not receive a tax bill for the charter school, but if the school's success depends upon recurring donations from residents, the practical effect may be similar to a voluntary supplemental tax.
Those two survey results are potentially significant, especially if the charter application is relying on community support as evidence of viability.
While the application cites community survey results as evidence of support, the same survey raises substantial questions regarding financial sustainability.
Of the 209 respondents, only approximately 2.4% (about 5 individuals) indicated a willingness to make a financial contribution to support the school. Conversely, 40.7% (85 respondents) identified funding and long-term financial sustainability as a concern.
These results suggest that while some residents may conceptually support the idea of a charter school, there is considerably less willingness to provide financial support or confidence in the school's long-term fiscal viability. Support in principle does not necessarily translate into the financial commitments required to establish and sustain a new educational institution.
For a start-up charter school, financial sustainability is a critical factor. The survey data may therefore be interpreted as demonstrating that community concern regarding funding significantly outweighs demonstrated willingness to contribute financially to the project.
A charter school's funding generally comes from public per-pupil allocations rather than private donations. Therefore, the fact that only 2.4% would personally contribute money does not by itself prove the school is financially unviable.
However, the 40.7% expressing concern about funding and sustainability is much more persuasive because it reflects a substantial level of uncertainty among respondents regarding the school's ability to operate successfully over time.
Combined with the other survey findings identified—particularly the apparent mismatch between the number of respondents reporting eligible children and the grade-level enrollment numbers claimed—there may be a broader argument that the survey results are being presented in the most favorable light while understating potential concerns about enrollment and financial viability.
The proposed school appears to be built around an agricultural and environmental education theme. That does not necessarily mean students would receive less instruction in traditional academic subjects, because charter schools in New Hampshire must still meet state academic standards in reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. However, the theme often influences how those subjects are taught.
For example:
The question for parents is whether they view that approach as:
From the survey data provided, the overwhelming concern expressed by respondents was financial sustainability (40.7%), not curriculum. That suggests many residents may not have fully considered the educational implications of a highly specialized theme.
A few questions are:
If enrollment exceeds projections, what percentage of families are choosing the school because of the agricultural theme versus simply seeking an alternative to district schools?
There is also a practical issue in Danbury. Based on the survey results, many respondents indicated support for a charter school, but relatively few identified school-age children. That raises the question of whether there is sufficient demand specifically for an agriculture-themed school, as opposed to general support for keeping a school building open.
In reviewing charter applications, the strongest proposals typically demonstrate that their theme enhances education rather than limits it. The challenge for this application is showing that agriculture is a vehicle for learning core subjects, not the destination itself.
One particularly effective question might be: How does the proposed curriculum ensure that students who have no interest in agriculture receive an education that is equally robust, relevant, and preparatory for college and career pathways outside the agricultural field?
That question goes directly to educational equity and long-term student outcomes.
3. Optimistic Enrollment Assumptions
The application projects growth from 60 students to 120 students over five years.That may be achievable. But reviewers will likely ask:
The survey response was 13.4% (28) having school-aged children with 3-years. Enrollment projections are one of the most common reasons charter budgets fail.
4. Governance Experience
The founding board appears passionate. Passion is excellent. However, reviewers often look for:
The application discusses future recruitment of trustees with those skills. A reviewer may ask:"Why aren't those people already on the board?”
Furthermore, not readily found in the application is indication that the governing Board of Trustees may be augmented by a Board of Advisors. The Board of Advisors would be an advisory group of non-voting members, representing areas such as, business, industries, academia, law and ethics, research, international relations, student and faculty, legislation, and other topics of interest to the board.
5. Academic Goals Need More Specificity
Some goals are measurable. However, several goals are broad and aspirational. For example, the group is projecting: 75% reading proficiency and 60% math proficiency
But not revealed were:
Of the 33 application ‘elements’ under DOE review, (4) show requirements as ‘satisfied’, (7) ‘ likely satisfied’, (18) ‘appear to be satisfied’, with (2) N/A.
According to the DOE charter application review checklist, 4 sections are marked as meeting review requirements. . . .rather than identifying obvious deficiencies.That is a favorable sign.
Update: However, and importantly, with recent developments (May 20, 2026 Meeting Minutes) involving what appears to be the Danbury Select board’s decision to pull support of use of the Danbury Elementary School building, the application information appears to be outdated.
TRANSPORTATION
From: Application Evaluation Rubric: M. Student transportation plan, both inside and outside of district, including reasonable provisions from the charter school’s own resources for transportation of pupils residing outside the district in which the charter school is physically located. RSA194_B:3,II(l)
(Reviewer note:) Student transportation needs are considered and adequate plans are in place to address those needs. In the application, there is acceptance that the charter school will take responsibility for any additional costs surrounding transportation in compliance with state and federal requirements
Other reviewer notes: l) Pupil transportation plan (§ l): This requirement appears to be satisfied. The application indicates the applicant will discuss in the host district transportation with the district’s incoming superintendent. The transportation plan in Section VI k is for any out of district students is to facilitate ride sharing.
In my view, if the below four areas are strong, the application may succeed.
1. Binding facility access, lease, occupancy rights/town support
2. Enrollment commitments/ letters of intent/ waiting list/ Whole community surveys
3. Financial resilience/ budget without grants/contingency plans
4. Board of Trustees expertise: education, legal
The Facility
The survey results reveal that concerns extended beyond funding. Of the 209 respondents, 15.8% (33 individuals) identified the condition of the building or facility as a concern.
This finding is noteworthy because the application indicates that leasing opportunities are being pursued with the Town of Danbury and appears to contemplate use of the former elementary school building. If a significant number of respondents expressed concern regarding the facility itself, this may suggest uncertainty about the suitability, condition, renovation needs, or long-term maintenance costs associated with the proposed location.
Facility-related concerns also have direct financial implications. Any substantial repairs, renovations, code upgrades, accessibility improvements, or deferred maintenance could affect the school's start-up budget and long-term operating costs.
When viewed alongside the survey finding that 40.7% of respondents expressed concerns regarding funding and financial sustainability, concerns about the condition of the building may reinforce questions regarding the overall financial feasibility of the proposal.
One thing to examine closely in the application is whether there is a professional facility assessment, engineering report, capital improvement estimate, or identified funding source for any building upgrades. If the survey shows 33 respondents were concerned about the facility, and the application does not contain a detailed assessment of the building's condition and anticipated costs, that could be a point worth concern due to potential property tax implications.
Potential Tax Implications
A charter school does not have taxing authority and receives most of its operating revenue through public education funding. However, there can still be indirect property tax implications for Danbury residents.
Building renovation and maintenance costs If the Town of Danbury were to convey, lease, or otherwise make the former elementary school available, questions arise regarding:
If the town retains ownership and assumes any of these costs, local taxpayers could ultimately bear some financial responsibility.
The application repeatedly assumes that facility costs will be minimal, stating that the "cost of a lease would be negligible" and that rent is anticipated to be "extremely low." However, the application does not appear to identify a specific lease agreement, lease rate, or binding commitment from a property owner. As a result, a key component of the school's financial viability is based upon an assumption rather than a secured contractual arrangement.
A few observations that may be relevant:
Assuming negligible rent can materially improve projected budgets and make the financial model appear stronger than it might be under market conditions.
The assumption appears dependent on the Town-owned school building.
If the charter school's financial projections rely on receiving the Danbury Elementary building at a nominal lease rate, the legislative body may reasonably ask what happens if the building is unavailable or leased at a higher rate.
The application itself reportedly acknowledges that alternative locations may be pursued, suggesting the building is not guaranteed, but does not give details about one or more viable alternatives.
1. Potential taxpayer implications.
If the Town were to lease a public building at below-market rates, taxpayers could effectively be subsidizing the charter school through reduced rental revenue and continued building-related costs.
Voters may wish to know the estimated fair-market rental value and the financial impact of any discounted lease.
Sensitivity analysis may be lacking.
A prudent application often demonstrates how finances would be affected if rent were $0, $25,000, $50,000, or $100,000 annually.
If the budget only works under an "extremely low rent" scenario, that may indicate financial vulnerability.
A concise question for decision-makers that goes directly to the financial assumptions underlying the proposal might be: The application assumes lease costs will be negligible and rent will be extremely low. What specific facility has committed to those terms, and how would the school's financial projections change if the facility were leased at market rates or if the Town building were unavailable?
2. Loss of alternative uses: If the building is dedicated to a charter school, the town may lose flexibility to:
That represents an opportunity cost that voters may wish to consider since the building is Danbury’s most significant asset.
It is also important to acknowledge that charter school supporters would argue:
3. Enrollment projections and funding
The application's survey data raises questions about actual enrollment demand.Based on the survey figures identified:
Yet the number of respondents reporting school-age or soon-to-be school-age children appears considerably lower.
If actual enrollment falls short of projections, the school could face financial stress. While the state charter framework contains mechanisms for addressing under-performing schools, local residents may still face pressure to provide assistance if the school is viewed as a community asset.
4. Transportation
Depending on how transportation is handled, there may be costs borne by sending districts or municipalities. However, transportation to the elementary school building, according to the survey does not appear to be an issue.
A question worth asking: Can the applicant identify every circumstance under which Danbury taxpayers could be asked to contribute financially—whether through building costs, maintenance, insurance, utilities, transportation, capital improvements, or other municipal obligations—and provide an estimate of those costs?
If the application does not clearly answer that question, it leaves uncertainty regarding the potential impact on local taxpayers. Given that 40.7% of survey respondents expressed concern about funding and financial sustainability, the absence of a detailed analysis could be viewed as a material omission.
A review of the Danbury Chartered Public School's five-year financial pro forma raises several questions regarding the long-term viability of the proposal and the assumptions underlying the budget. The pro forma does not provide line-item details for each category.
Facility costs may also merit further scrutiny.
The pro forma includes **$250,000 in leasehold improvements** during the start-up year. However, survey results submitted with the application indicate that **15.8% of respondents expressed concerns regarding the condition of the building or facility**. The application does not clearly identify whether a professional engineering assessment, code compliance review, accessibility review, or capital needs assessment has been completed to support the projected improvement costs. If significant repairs or upgrades are required, actual costs could exceed budgeted amounts.
Transportation assumptions likewise deserve clarification. The budget allocates **$200,000 for transportation upgrades, including three student vans**, but provides little detail regarding driver qualifications, licensing requirements, maintenance, fuel costs, insurance, replacement schedules, or whether three vans will adequately serve projected enrollment needs.
The projected fundraising revenue also appears optimistic when compared to survey results. The pro forma anticipates annual fundraising revenues increasing from approximately **$38,665 in Year 1** to more than **$68,000 by Year 5**. Yet the community survey indicates that only approximately **2.4% of respondents expressed a willingness to make a financial contribution** to the school. While fundraising can come from sources beyond local residents, the application does not clearly explain the basis for these projected fundraising totals.
Finally, the pro forma does not appear to establish a substantial reserve fund or contingency account. While the budget projects annual surpluses throughout the five-year period, those surpluses remain relatively modest when compared to total operating expenses. The absence of a significant reserve could leave the school vulnerable to unexpected capital expenses, enrollment declines, or revenue shortfalls.
Overall, the financial plan appears feasible if the projected grants are received and enrollment targets are achieved. However, the budget's reliance on competitive grant funding, projected enrollment growth, optimistic fundraising assumptions, and limited operating reserves suggests that the financial sustainability of the proposed charter school may be highly sensitive to deviations from those assumptions.
CHARTER SCHOOL CLOSURES
From the NH Dept. of Education, Closed Charter Schools Report, between 2006 and 2011, 11 schools were closed. There are currently 41 operating charter schools.
The figures are quite revealing because they point to a very specific pattern:
In other words, 10 of the 11 closures (90.9%) involved insufficient enrollment, and 8 of the 11 closures (72.7%) involved financial difficulties. The two factors are closely linked because charter schools are generally funded on a per-pupil basis; when enrollment falls short of projections, revenue falls as well.
For a Danbury charter school analysis, a fair takeaway would be: According to the Department of Education report, 10 of 11 charter school closures between 2006 and 2011 involved inadequate enrollment, while 8 of 11 involved financial difficulties. The data suggests that the primary risk to charter school viability is not academic performance, but the ability to attract and retain sufficient student enrollment to sustain operations.
Also noted: The reported closure data raises questions about enrollment projections in any proposed charter school application. Because enrollment and finances are closely intertwined, an overestimation of student demand may pose a significant risk to long-term sustainability."
That observation becomes even more relevant when compared to the applicant’s survey results. While 53.1% of respondents said they would support the initiative despite not having eligible children, actual enrollment demand appears much smaller:
Those numbers represent expressions of interest, not binding commitments, and likely include households with multiple children. Therefore, the survey should not automatically be interpreted as 238 distinct students available for enrollment. Further, the survey did not indicate when and how many children would be exiting the school after grade 4.
Combined with the finding that only 2.4% of respondents indicated willingness to make a financial contribution, the survey could be interpreted as showing strong community goodwill but less evidence of financial or enrollment certainty.
For interested parties evaluating the application, the question would not be whether residents like the idea of a charter school, but whether there is sufficient verified enrollment demand to avoid the very factors that accounted for most charter school closures in the DOE report.
More on ‘the facility’ — food for thought
The day-to-day management of town property is typically vested in the governing body (usually the Select Board), but there are important exceptions.
Situations where the legislative body (i.e. voters) could weigh in:
A long-term lease, particularly one extending beyond the current board's term or involving significant public assets, may also be submitted to voters depending on local practice and legal advice.
Appropriation of funds
If the building requires renovations, code upgrades, or operating funds, the appropriation generally must be approved by the legislative body unless existing funds are available.
Town warrant articles
Citizens or the Select Board could place a warrant article before voters directing a particular use of the building, authorizing a lease, creating a committee, or appropriating funds related to a charter school.
Deed restrictions
If the district transfers the property with restrictions, those restrictions could limit how the town uses the building regardless of what voters want.
Situations where the Legislative Body (i.e. voters) might not have direct control:
If the building is transferred to the town and a charter school seeks to occupy it, there would likely be substantial public interest. Even if not legally required, I would expect the Select Board to seek voter input because the school building is one of the town's most significant public assets, and because it is a 5-year charter that outlasts the terms of Select board members.
I would expect Danbury voters to want a say in:
Those questions could easily become warrant article issues even if the Select Board technically has authority to negotiate the arrangement.
If the five-year projections show only a nominal lease payment and minimal maintenance costs, a fair question would be: "What assumptions were made regarding major building repairs, code compliance upgrades, and capital improvements over the five-year projection period?"
A school building can easily go five years without a major failure—or it can need a $50,000 boiler, a $100,000 roof repair, or ADA/fire-code upgrades. Whether those costs are budgeted can make a significant difference in the financial outlook.
###
PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST
June 29, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Town of Danbury
Board of Selectmen
20 High Street
Danbury, NH 03230
RE: RSA 91-A Request – Proposed Charter School and Danbury Elementary School Building
To the Custodian of Records:
Pursuant to RSA 91-A, I respectfully request copies of the following governmental records.
Please treat each numbered item as a separate request and promptly provide 'readily available' records, and those records on a rolling basis as they become available. The availability of records responsive to one item should not delay production of records responsive to another item.
1. The original draft "Letter of Support for the proposed charter school" reviewed by the Board of Selectmen at or before its May 20, 2026 meeting.
2. Any revised, redrafted, edited, or subsequent versions of that letter.
3. Any final version of the letter, whether signed or unsigned.
4. Any correspondence, including emails, letters, text messages, memoranda, attachments, meeting notes, or other communications relating to the preparation, revision, approval, disapproval, or content of the proposed charter school support letter.
5. Any comments, redlines, tracked changes, annotations, handwritten notes, meeting notes, or other records reflecting requested revisions to the letter, including but not limited to revisions concerning references to the Danbury Elementary School building.
6. Any attachments transmitted with or referenced in communications concerning the letter.
7. Any records discussing, evaluating, or referencing the inclusion or removal of language concerning the Danbury Elementary School building, its availability, ownership, conveyance, transfer, lease, occupancy, suitability, or potential use by a charter school.
8. Any records identifying the author or authors of the original draft letter.
9. Any records reflecting authorization, approval, rejection, modification, withdrawal, or redrafting of the proposed letter of support.
10. Any correspondence, including emails, letters, text messages, memoranda, attachments, meeting notes, or other communications sent to or received from the Newfound Area School District, the Newfound Area School Board, SAU 4, district administrators, district employees, district legal counsel, or district representatives concerning the Danbury Elementary School building, including but not limited to its closure, future use, disposition, conveyance, transfer, lease, occupancy, availability, surplus status, or potential use by a charter school.
11. Any correspondence, including emails, letters, text messages, memoranda, attachments, meeting notes, or other communications sent to or received from the organizers, incorporators, directors, officers, representatives, consultants, volunteers, agents, or supporters of the proposed Danbury Chartered Public school, regardless of the name under which such individuals or organizations were operating.
12. Any correspondence, including emails, letters, text messages, memoranda, attachments, meeting notes, or other communications sent to or received from the Danbury School Foundation, Danbury Educational Foundation, Danbury Charter School Foundation, or any similarly named organization or entity involved in supporting, planning, financing, promoting, or developing the proposed charter school.
13. Any correspondence, including emails, letters, text messages, memoranda, attachments, meeting notes, or other communications concerning the proposed charter school's use, lease, acquisition, occupancy, renovation, maintenance, operation, or funding of the Danbury Elementary School building.
14. Any correspondence, including emails, letters, text messages, memoranda, attachments, meeting notes, or other communications concerning municipal support, endorsements, letters of support, commitments, assurances, representations, or agreements relating to the proposed charter school, if any.
15. Any correspondence, including emails, letters, text messages, memoranda, attachments, meeting notes, or other communications concerning discussions between the Town of Danbury and any charter school representative regarding the future ownership, control, management, lease, transfer, conveyance, or use of the Danbury Elementary School building.
16. Any communications between any member of the Board of Selectmen and any charter school organizer, representative, consultant, officer, director, volunteer, or supporter, whether conducted through Town-issued accounts, personal email accounts, text messages, social media messaging platforms, or any other electronic means, concerning the proposed charter school or the Danbury Elementary School building.
If any responsive records are withheld, please identify each withheld record and state the specific statutory basis for withholding.
I request that responsive records be provided electronically whenever possible.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.
Sincerely,
Deborah Aylward
Danbury, NH
Mail: daelword@gmail.com
###
PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING THE DANBURY CHARTERED PUBLIC SCHOOL APPLICATION (Revised July 19, 2026)
To the New Hampshire Department of Education:
I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the application for the proposed Danbury Chartered Public School (DCPS).
At the outset, I wish to acknowledge several strengths of the application. The proposal addresses a genuine community concern arising from the closure of Danbury Elementary School and presents a clear educational vision centered on community, agriculture, and place-based learning. The application reflects significant volunteer effort and demonstrates a sincere desire to preserve local educational opportunities for Danbury families.
The application also presents evidence of community interest through a survey of 209 respondents conducted in March 2026. The survey suggests meaningful support for maintaining a local school option and identifies strong interest in small class sizes, personalized instruction, hands-on learning, and outdoor education.
While these strengths deserve recognition, several questions remain regarding long-term viability and implementation.
FACILITY AVAILABILITY
The application indicates that the proposed charter school anticipates operating in the former Danbury Elementary School building and states that leasing opportunities are being pursued with the Town of Danbury. However, the application also acknowledges that alternative locations may be pursued if the building is unavailable.
This raises an important question regarding facility certainty. The application does not appear to identify a finalized lease agreement, occupancy rights, rental terms, or other binding commitment guaranteeing access to the proposed facility. Because facility availability is fundamental to successful school operations, clarification regarding the status of the building, anticipated lease terms, and responsibility for maintenance and capital improvements would be beneficial.
That, in fact, the public record raises additional questions regarding the certainty of the proposed facility plan. According to the May 20, 2026 minutes of the Danbury Board of Selectmen, the Board reviewed a proposed "Letter of Support for the proposed charter school" and directed that references to the Danbury Elementary School building be removed before the letter could be approved. The minutes further indicate that the letter was to be redrafted.
This suggests that, at least as of May 20, 2026, the Town was unwilling to endorse statements concerning the availability or use of the Danbury Elementary School building in connection with the proposed charter school. Given that facility acquisition and occupancy are critical components of charter school viability, the Department should carefully examine the status of any proposed facility, the degree of municipal support, and whether the application accurately reflects the level of certainty regarding the building's availability.
The Department should require the applicant to provide documentary evidence of site control, ownership, lease rights, occupancy agreements, or other legally enforceable arrangements sufficient to demonstrate that an appropriate educational facility will be available prior to any student enrollment.
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
Survey results submitted with the application indicate that funding and financial sustainability represented the most frequently identified concern among respondents, cited by 40.7 percent of participants.
The application's financial projections appear dependent upon several assumptions, including projected enrollment growth, anticipated grant funding, and fundraising revenue. The proposed budget may prove achievable if these assumptions are realized. However, the application would be strengthened by additional discussion regarding contingency planning should enrollment, fundraising, or grant awards fall below projections.
Particular attention should be given to facility-related expenses. The application assumes lease costs will be minimal and rent extremely low, yet no finalized lease arrangement appears to be identified. Because facility costs often represent a significant portion of school operating expenses, reviewers may wish to consider how changes in lease costs or unexpected building repairs could affect financial stability.
The Department's own Charter School Closure Report identifies enrollment, financial sustainability, and facility issues as the primary causes of charter school failure. The proposed school has unresolved questions in each of these areas, warranting careful scrutiny before approval.
ENROLLMENT DEMAND
The survey demonstrates substantial community interest in the concept of a charter school. However, interest and enrollment are not necessarily equivalent.
The survey indicates that 53 respondents reported having children currently within the proposed K-4 age range, while additional respondents (13.5% or 28) reported younger children who may become eligible in future years. Although these results suggest potential enrollment demand, they do not constitute binding commitments.
Given that enrollment projections are critical to both educational and financial success, reviewers may wish to consider whether sufficient evidence exists to support projected enrollment growth from the initial opening through subsequent years of operation.
The survey and application appear to focus on attracting students in grades K–4, but neither clearly explains how many students will leave the school each year upon completing 4th grade and advancing to 5th grade elsewhere. Without accounting for that annual loss, enrollment projections may overstate long-term demand and financial sustainability.
A more detailed version:
A K–4 charter school does not simply add students each year; it also loses an entire graduating class of 4th graders annually.
If the school ultimately enrolls about 120 students (roughly 24 students per grade), approximately 24 students would leave each year to attend 5th grade elsewhere.
To maintain stable enrollment, those departing students must be replaced by an equal number of new kindergarten or transfer students.
The application does not appear to identify:
Therefore, the application and survey materials do not appear to address annual student attrition resulting from the school's grade configuration. As a K–4 school, every fourth-grade class will exit the school each year and continue to grade 5 elsewhere. The application does not identify how many students are expected to leave annually, nor does it explain how enrollment projections account for the need to continuously replace those students with new entrants. Because per-pupil enrollment drives both state funding and financial viability, the omission of this analysis may materially overstate future enrollment stability and revenue projections.
My question for DOE reviewers: How did the applicant account for the annual loss of students advancing from grade 4 to grade 5 when preparing its enrollment projections, and what evidence supports the assumption that those students can be consistently replaced by new kindergarten or transfer enrollments over the five-year projection period?
This is a particularly important issue because the survey itself reportedly did not show how many children would be leaving the school after grade 4, making it difficult to assess whether the claimed enrollment growth is sustainable.
GOVERNANCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
The founding group demonstrates dedication and commitment to the project. However, as with any start-up charter school, long-term success will depend upon strong governance, financial oversight, educational leadership, and legal compliance.
The application would benefit from continued development of board expertise in these areas and a clear plan for ensuring that the governing board possesses the skills necessary to oversee a growing educational institution.
ACADEMIC PROGRAM
The agriculture-focused, community-based educational model is distinctive and well aligned with the rural character of Danbury. At the same time, it is important that the specialized theme serve as a vehicle for delivering strong instruction in core academic subjects rather than becoming an end in itself.
Reviewers may wish to examine how the proposed curriculum will ensure that students pursuing a wide variety of future educational and career interests receive a comprehensive and academically rigorous education fully aligned with state standards.
CONCLUSION
The application presents a thoughtful response to the closure of Danbury Elementary School and demonstrates meaningful community enthusiasm for preserving local educational opportunities. The proposal's strengths include a clear mission, a compelling community narrative, and evidence of public interest.
At the same time, questions remain regarding facility certainty, enrollment assumptions, financial sustainability, and implementation details. Careful review of these issues will help ensure that any approved charter school is positioned for long-term success and able to fulfill its educational mission without creating unforeseen operational or financial challenges.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments for consideration.
Deborah Aylward
52 Challenge Hill Road
Danbury, NH 03230
603-217-7842
Mail: daelword@gmail.com
###
The link to the DCPS DOE application, etc.: nhdepartmentofeducation.box.com/s/q7wzv0hzequsy82g032l5wh98wc2k5hh
A copy of the DCPS charter school application, survey results and associated documents can also be obtained by sending a request to:
daelword@gmail.com, Subject line: APPLICATION
###
It is my pleasure to take this opportunity to introduce and welcome Diane Blasotto, a Danbury, NH resident and newly-minted citizen activist.
Attending select board and school board meetings, Diane has proven herself to be a dedicated government watchdog. As a citizen advocate, residents may have seen or made her acquaintance at the town transfer station where she can be found handing out literature, to include voter information.
According to her bio, Diane was a teacher in various early childhood places of employment, including Holy Name Catholic School in West Roxbury, Massachusetts, and was employed by Filenes and Jordan Marsh Companies as well-known Cosmetic and Perfume Companies. She worked as an Activities Program Director and Assistant Director at various nursing facilities and Charles River Workshop for the mentally challenged and North Hill, an Independent Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Facility, thus continuing her work with the elder adults and the marginalized.
Trained as a Volunteer Support Technician and Nursing Assistant at the Beth Israel Hospital, Diane served dinners to the underprivileged in Needham, Massachusetts.
On Tuesday evenings, she attended many a town hall meeting, and was responsible for devising a “Code of Conduct” for officials.
Diane is a conservatively strong advocate interested in promoting stability and change for the good of the community, and by communicating effectively and defending their causes with irrefutable evidence.
Diane can be reached at: dblasotto@outlook.com, or 781-460-1918
###
Dear Readers:
As you can imagine, this lengthy article is the result of many hours of research, analysis, and writing. It has been prepared to the best of my ability and is based upon information reasonably available at the time of publication concerning these often fluid and evolving situations.
My goal is to present information as objectively and accurately as possible while keeping interested parties informed. If you identify any factual errors or omissions, please contact me so that I may review the information and, if necessary, correct the record.
Comments, questions, and feedback are always welcome and may be sent to: daelword@gmail.com.
Thank you for taking the time to read this article.
Deborah Aylward is a resident of Danbury, NH, serves as a State Representative for Merrimack District 5, and is passionate about assuring governmental proceedings transparency.
Sign up for free local newsletters and alerts for the
Concord, NH Patch
Patch.com is the nationwide leader in hyperlocal news.
Visit Patch.com to find your town today.