Epsom School Board discusses open enrollment concerns with local parents

The New Hampshire State Board of Education convened on July 10, 2025, to address several key issues, primarily focusing on open enrollment policies and their implications for the Epsom School District. The meeting began with a discussion regarding the presence of parents involved in a case concerning student enrollment, which initially raised the question of whether to enter a non-public session. However, it was decided to remain in public session as the parents were present.

Raul DeWitts and Amanda Reed, parents advocating for open enrollment, presented their case to the board. DeWitts expressed disagreement with the Epsom School District's interpretation of relevant laws and challenged the district's claims regarding financial implications of open enrollment. He argued that the Pembroke School District has not charged tuition for Epsom students attending alternative educational institutions, suggesting that open enrollment would not increase costs for the Epsom School Board. Instead, he claimed it would save the district money, as they would only pay 80% of the per pupil cost to the receiving district.

DeWitts also highlighted the positive experiences of Epsom students at Prospect Mountain High School, emphasizing the importance of viewing students as individuals rather than as property of a specific school. He noted that many parents have approached him with inquiries about open enrollment, indicating a growing interest in alternative educational options.

Following DeWitts' presentation, Barbara Bowman, representing the Epsom School District, was introduced. The meeting continued with discussions surrounding the implications of open enrollment and the district's stance on the matter.

Overall, the meeting underscored the ongoing dialogue about educational choices in New Hampshire, particularly the impact of open enrollment on local school districts and the opportunities it presents for students. The board's next steps will likely involve further consideration of the arguments presented and the potential for policy adjustments regarding open enrollment practices.