Members of the committee, thank you for considering this online testimony. I regret that I was unable to appear in person today. I serve as superintendent of the Prospect Mountain JMA, the public school entity that operates Prospect Mountain High School in Alton. I believe we operate the state's only open enrollment school accepting students from outside our catchment area, which includes Alton and Barnstead. The current school year is our second year operating this program under the provisions of RSA 194-D. For that reason, I believe I offer a unique perspective on the RSA and the bill under consideration before you. For the 2023-2024 school year, Prospect Mountain accepted eleven students under open enrollment. At this time we have twenty students at Prospect Mountain under this program. It has been exceedingly difficult to convince my colleagues in other district and their school boards that the law compels them to pay tuition for students participating in this program. Indeed, unpaid tuition poses the greatest single threat to Prospect Mountain's open enrollment program. At some point, I expect my school board and our public stakeholders to lose patience with a program under which we accept students who reside in other towns but can not collect payment for educating them. I have seen three primary reasons that school officials object to participating in our open enrollment program: 1. Lack of clarity about payment responsibility; 2. Differing opinions about which districts must or must not adopt the provisions of RSA 194-D; 3. Objections based on a board's authority to enter into other agreements, such as AREA agreements or tuition agreements with other school districts. This bill, in my opinion, does an excellent job clarifying language in the law related to the first of these points. In its original form, the law referred to "a board" or "the board, "a district" or "the district," without making it explicitly clear which responsibilities bear on receiving school districts (those who run an open enrollment program) and on sending school districts (those who do not run an open enrollment program). I strongly recommend that this bill be adopted, as it will clarify one of the three key problems I have seen in the application of the RSA. Incidental to consideration of this bill, but perhaps of interest to members of the committee, the other two issues I referenced above are currently being considered and (hopefully) clarified in other venues. On the second of these issues, the state supreme court is currently considering the question of whether a sending district (one that does not run an open enrollment program) must adopt the provisions of RSA 194-D for its resident students to attend an open enrollment school and for the sending district to be responsible for tuition. This is the result of an anguished interpretation of the law that flies in the face of the purpose of open enrollment -- which is to allow families, not districts or school boards, to have choices among public schools. Last May, the state board of education ruled on a parent complaint with a correct interpretation of the RSA, and that state board ruling has been appealed to the supreme court, arguments have been submitted, and a decision is hopefully forthcoming. On the third issue, I am aware of a pending parent complaint before the state board of education over whether a school district in an AREA agreement is exempt from the provisions of RSA 194-D. I have never heard any argument that students in a district with an AREA agreement would not be allowed to enroll in charter schools, for example, or to take advantage of the provisions of RSA 193:3 by pursuing "best interest" or "manifest hardship" placements. Nevertheless, two districts whose resident students attend Prospect Mountain under open enrollment have refused to pay tuition, asserting that their AREA agreements disqualify families from participating in our open enrollment program. This is particularly odd when one realizes that under the terms of RSA 194-D, our tuition represents a 20% savings compared to the tuition payments they make to their AREA schools. I expect a state board hearing on this question to be scheduled sometime in the next few months. I hope you will forgive me for including more in this testimony than my comments on the bill in front of you: I encourage its adoption. It is effective at answering one of the "big questions" I see about RSA 194-D as my district attempts to put the law into practice. I hope you also find my additional comments useful. Public school choice programs like open enrollment answer one of the criticisms I often hear of voucher and other choice programs: that such programs take public money out of public education. But, open enrollment keeps public dollars in public schools. Public school choice merely introduces an element of competition that encourages our public schools to meet more families' needs. I do not fear a day when schools compete on our merits for family choice. Rather, I am proud of the hardworking educators at Prospect Mountain; I welcome any New Hampshire family to evaluate our strengths and weaknesses and decide for themselves where their children can best be served.
HB771
House · 2025 sessionRepublicanSigned into lawOpen enrollment school funding changes
AIChanges how funding for open enrollment schools is sent and received and requires school districts to establish a budget line item for open enrollment tuition costs.
relative to funding for open enrollment schools.
Status
Signed into law · July 22, 2025- ✓Introduced
- ✓House
- ✓Senate
- ✓Governor
- ✓Law
Division of testimony
119 submissionsI oppose HB771 and urge you to oppose it, too. In its present form there are too many questions still to be answered. For example: How exactly does funding follow a child to an open enrollment school? What is an "open enrollment program" vis a vis an open enrollment school? When does a parent pay and when does the school district pay the receiving school? What is the purpose of this legislation? When they come to you, please oppose other open enrollment legislation, from the Senate I think, which have similar problems.
This bill is both humane and potentially more cost effective for the state.
I oppose this bill because it would take funding and control away from local schools.
The foundations of this country shall not be shattered.
Dear Members of the House Education Policy Administration, I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB283, a bill that, if passed, would significantly undermine the educational opportunities available to our children. The proposed legislation strips students of the chance to learn vital history, critical thinking skills, and the foundational knowledge necessary for informed citizenship. Education is not merely about the accumulation of facts; it is about fostering a comprehensive understanding of our past and equipping future generations with the ability to engage thoughtfully with the world around them. The historical events and diverse perspectives that HB283 seeks to restrict are essential for developing well-rounded individuals who can navigate the complexities of modern society. By limiting access to comprehensive historical education, we risk creating a generation of students who lack the tools to critically analyze our society, understand the struggles and achievements of various communities, and appreciate the rich tapestry of our shared history. This not only hampers their personal development but also threatens the fabric of our democracy, which relies on an informed and engaged citizenry. I urge you to reconsider the implications of HB283 and to prioritize an educational framework that embraces diversity, critical thinking, and the full spectrum of our history. Our children deserve the opportunity to learn and grow in an environment that prepares them for the challenges and responsibilities of the future. Thank you for your attention to this crucial issue. I hope you will stand with me in opposing HB283 and advocating for a more inclusive and robust educational policy. Sincerely, Susan M Barr
We (Pittsfield) currently have students that have transferred to Prospect Mountain High School. We have been billed for their tuition. I have no problem with students going to another school. I do have a problem with our school being required to pay for it. The statements the bill is making, that we would not be hurt financially is not a true statement, It will increase our cost of educating the remaining students at school. Which of course will increase out property taxes. This is just another example of the state trying to end public education.
I oppose this bill because it would make it difficult for the school districts to budget and to maintain quality education. The state already under-supports education as evidenced by the Claremont decisions of 1993 and 1997. Joanna Andros
This is unacceptable. We all choose where we live to provide appropriate education that meets the needs of our families. This would eliminate that.
Please do not allow this bill to pass. As a parent of young children and a second grade teacher this is not going to solve any problems, it is only going to make new ones. There are bigger issues that should be addressed like equitable funding for schools/districts, affordable housing, teachers salaries, the teacher shortage are just a few of those issues. If people have school choice teachers will loose their jobs, schools will close and the “popular” schools will be overcrowded and underfunded and will no longer be the “better” option.
This “open enrollment” bill looks like a sneak attempt to provide a voucher-like program for public school students. It strips local school boards (and taxpayers) of fiscal control of expenditures, and parents of involvement in their child’s education.
This bill takes the control of educational funding away from the school districts and gives more control to the superintendent.
Dear Representstives, I am strongly opposed to this bill and hope you will oppose it as well. As an educator for 17 years and a public school parent I am greatly concerned of the impact and implications this will have for both students and staff. Respectfully, vote NO. Thank you for your consideration.
I am Pittsfield’s School District Treasurer. Prospect Mountain High School is in an adjacent school district serving Barnstead and Alton and is operating as a public open enrollment school. A number of students who live in Pittsfield are attending Prospect Mountain through the open enrollment option and Pittsfield has been invoiced to pay their tuition fees. To date Pittsfield has not paid the tuition. I believe that public school choice options can be a tool to improve student learning. But I oppose HB-771 because it requires that sending districts pay tuition to receiving public enrollment schools without the approval of voters through the annual school district meeting. I believe that local school districts should retain the authority for the scope of their expenditures. I disagree with the NH Department of Education’s position in the fiscal note that HB 771 “will create a downward pressure on the cost per pupil of education as the resident district will retain 20% of the district average cost per pupil with no educational responsibility for that student.” The average cost of buildings and outdoor athletic facilities remains fixed no matter how many students are attending and roughly equals 20% of local school district expenditures. Local resident/sending districts cost per pupil of education will increase because fixed costs will be divided among fewer students.
As a public school teacher, I am very concerned about what this bill will do to local communities and the public school system. Many communities are already underfunded and this bill will make those situations worse across the state. This can also create inequities as not all families will have the resources to bring their students to schools in other districts. Please do not pass legislation that will exacerbate the existing educational funding inequities in our state.
Strongly support this Bill
This bill takes local control away from school districts and does not account for area agreements a school district has with another district, An Area Agreement is a 10 or more years contract ensuring a set number of students from one district attends the Area Agreement school. Seems to me that this open enrollment bill violates a contract between two districts and will wreck destruction on school budgeting let alone force property taxes to be sent outside of a district. This is a bad bill. Unless the State steps forward and is covering all the costs, then open enrollment would have less of an impact on local school districts. I will not hold my breath that the NH legislator will step up and fully fund public education as they never have. It is hard enough to project a school budget for the upcoming year almost a year out. As a former school board member, I know how hard it is to figure out school budgets a year ahead.
Absolutely NOT, I don't believe open enrollment is a viable solution to our public school situation. We need to equitably and properly fund our public schools. I would support out of district enrollment in very rare and very special situations. Not viable or practical with all our disparate little school districts.
Dear Nh Representatives, My name is Emily Darby and I am writing to you first, as a a mother of two sons and second, as a public school teacher of 31 years. My husband and I lived in several states before our kids were of school age, and we decided to leave where we were (in Kansas) because the class sizes were huge and not the quality of public schools we wanted to raise our family in. We moved to East Kingston, NH where our boys went through a public school with no more than 15 in a class and had an amazing education. Teachers were able to diversify their instruction for all of their K-5 students and the middle school and HS had a large variety of coursework for students to choose from. None of this will happen with open enrollment. Class sizes will be packed to 30 kids each; curriculum, teaching faculty, and all resources will be stretched to the absolute limit. Currently, the graduating class of Exeter High School has students that are attending Brown, West Point, RIT, Penn State, and more. If you want Nh public schools to deliver excellence, you cannot pack them with volume.
As both a parent and a public school teacher, I am firmly against this bill. It would lead to the overcrowding of well-rated districts, impacting the ability of those schools to meet the needs of all learners. It would leave our neediest students and families at a disadvantage.
As a public school teacher, I am scared of what this bill will do to my school. I am fortunate to work in a district with support from the public, as well as have access to many different resources. Approval of this bill could drastically increase class sizes while also decreasing funding. We could no longer have the means to support the children in our school and meet their needs. This would lead to a decrease in student outcome, as well as decrease in teacher efficacy. Aside from my school, this would lead many smaller schools and towns to most likely have to shut down, taking away from communities and families who rely on these systems.
Dear Representatives, I am writing to express my concerns and opposition to HB 771, which introduces significant changes to the funding structure for open enrollment schools. While I understand the desire to provide greater flexibility in educational choices for students, the implementation of open enrollment programs, as outlined in this bill, could lead to unintended consequences that ultimately harm public education and students across New Hampshire. One of my primary concerns is the financial burden this bill places on sending districts. The requirement that sending districts pay at least 80% of the average cost per pupil to receiving open enrollment schools creates a financial imbalance. In some cases, this could drain resources from districts that are already underfunded, leaving fewer resources to meet the needs of their own students. This would particularly hurt districts that are already facing financial challenges, exacerbating inequalities in education and hindering the ability of districts to maintain programs for all students, including those with disabilities. Open enrollment programs, while well-intentioned, have had mixed results in other states. Evidence from states such as Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio shows that while open enrollment provides more choices for some families, it also leads to significant financial strain on receiving districts, reduced program offerings in sending districts, and the destabilization of local public schools. In Michigan, for example, open enrollment programs have led to a situation where some districts lose a significant portion of their funding to neighboring districts, affecting the quality of education for the remaining students. The shifting of funding between districts does not always benefit students equitably, and in many cases, it leads to the deterioration of public school offerings, especially for students who rely on specialized services and programs. This bill also raises concerns about the potential disruption of services for students with disabilities. By placing the financial responsibility for special education services on the sending district, rather than the receiving district, it risks creating a situation where students with special needs are left with inadequate services or face inconsistencies in their educational experience. The lack of clear guidelines for supporting students with disabilities in open enrollment programs could create an environment where these students' needs are not met, further exacerbating the inequalities in education that we should be working to eliminate. The bill also introduces changes that might undermine transparency and accountability. While transparency in budgeting is crucial, there is a risk that the financial complexities introduced by open enrollment could create confusion and make it difficult to track where funds are allocated. Additionally, there are concerns about how districts will manage and oversee the quality of education provided in open enrollment schools, as they are not bound by the same local regulations and oversight mechanisms as district-run schools. In conclusion, while the intent of HB 771 is to provide families with greater educational choice, the financial strain it places on sending districts, the risk of undermining public schools, and the potential harm to vulnerable students make this bill a problematic approach to addressing educational needs. States like Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio have faced difficulties with open enrollment, and New Hampshire should carefully consider these lessons before moving forward with policies that may exacerbate inequities in our education system. I urge you to reconsider this bill or to find a more balanced approach that takes into account the diverse needs of all students and ensures that public schools remain strong and adequately funded for everyone. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.
Position recorded without written comment.