Kensington administrators warn board major state education bills require policy work as legal questions remain

SAU 16 administrators told the Kensington School Board at its meeting that a package of recent actions in the New Hampshire Legislature will require the district to create or revise policies and may affect funding, but legal uncertainty means immediate enforcement steps are pending.

The administrators identified several bills and policy areas the district is monitoring and preparing to address: expansion and funding changes for Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs); a parental bill of rights (House Bill 10) that must be described in student handbooks and posted on school websites; a state-level prohibition on DEIJ‑related practices included late in the budget bill (House Bill 2); a cell‑phone ban that will require a local “bell to bell” policy; clarification of open‑enrollment funding (House Bill 771); and new public reporting requirements for school expenditures (House Bill 1265).

Why it matters: the staff said some items will require immediate local policy action — for example, a cell‑phone ban the legislature directed will require a district policy “ASAP” — while others create administrative and financial questions the district cannot resolve until state rules or court actions clarify them. Several provisions carry potential funding consequences: administrators reported the DEIJ prohibition includes language tying compliance to state and federal funding, and they said an injunction request has been filed by multiple organizations seeking to block enforcement of that prohibition.

SAU 16 administrators described the immediate policy tasks and outstanding legal questions. On Education Freedom Accounts, the law expands eligibility and funding mechanisms; administrators said the district is trying to determine how to track students who withdraw for EFAs because families are not required to notify the schools, and because a wait list for EFAs already exists. On the parental bill of rights (House Bill 10), staff said the primary operational requirement is that the district must publish the parental‑rights language in the student handbook, post it on the website and provide an annual notice to parents.

Administrators said the DEIJ restriction included in the budget bill is vague. The prior education commissioner sent districts a checklist asking them to certify they are not engaging in the prohibited DEIJ activities; SAU legal review finds the checklist and cited RSA raise potential conflicts with federal law and state human‑rights statutes as applied to students with disabilities. The administrator reported the current commissioner has not signed the certification request and that organizations including teachers’ groups, higher‑education institutions, the ACLU and GLAAD joined a request for an injunction; the district is awaiting legal clarification before taking enforcement steps.

The legislature also passed a change addressing open enrollment that sets a funding split for students who transfer between districts: the sending district would pay approximately 80 percent of the sending district’s average cost, with the receiving district covering the remainder; administrators said the effective date for that funding mechanism is September 13 and that policy committee work will be needed to interpret local options around accepting open‑enrolled students. On public reporting, House Bill 1265 expands mandatory disclosures about per‑pupil costs and requires additional information on ballots and other voter materials; staff said the change will increase administrative work and printing costs, with an effective date of January 1.

Administrators recommended the board treat several items as district policy responsibilities and flagged next steps: draft a cell‑phone policy to meet the new requirement, prepare handbook and website language for the parental bill of rights, and have the policy committee review open‑enrollment and reporting procedures once state rules or legal guidance arrive. They also said SAU leadership will continue outreach to the state education department and to the new state education commissioner to seek enforcement and rulemaking clarification.

No board action was taken at the meeting; staff said formal policy proposals and any required motions will come to the board once legal and rulemaking guidance is available.

Ending: SAU 16 administrators said they will circulate written summaries and recommended priorities to board chairs ahead of a scheduled August 19 board‑chairs meeting, and the board agreed to revisit formal policy responses and possible board actions at the September meeting.