Parents seeking permission for Epsom students to attend Prospect Mountain High School told the State Board of Education on June 12 that open enrollment would not increase Epsom’s costs, while the Epsom School District’s attorney said a standing area agreement and state law could require Epsom to assign and pay for students at Pembroke Academy.

The parents, Raul DeWitts and Amanda Reed, addressed the board in public comment. DeWitts said Pembroke school board member Gene Goss told parents “Epsom students were … property of Pembroke Academy,” a remark DeWitts said helped drive families to seek alternatives. DeWitts also said, based on precedent, “open enrollment will not increase the financial burden of the sending district” because the sending district pays 80% of per-pupil cost under the open-enrollment statute.

Why it matters: The dispute turns on how the open-enrollment statute and a 1969 area agreement interact. If the area agreement and state statute bind Epsom to assign all high-school students to Pembroke Academy, Epsom could face legal and budgetary risk if it pays tuition to an open-enrollment receiving school and Pembroke asserts the area agreement was violated.

Barbara Bowman, attorney representing the Epsom School District, told the board that the Pembroke area plan “requires Epsom to assign all of its high school students to Pembroke Academy.” Bowman said that the area agreement and RSA cited in the hearing officer’s materials (referenced in the record as “RSA 195:4”/“RSA 1 95 colon 4” and related statutory citations in the hearing record) make the case different from prior Pittsfield decisions because the area agreement constrains Epsom’s options and creates the risk that Pembroke could demand tuition or other remedies if Epsom pays for students to attend another high school.

Bowman said the state’s adequacy-aid statute also ties funding to where tuition is paid, and cautioned that “Epsom could end up paying twice for the same students,” first to the open-enrollment school and second to Pembroke if Pembroke asserts the agreement was violated.

Discussion vs. formal action: The transcript records repeated legal argument and references to pending appeals. A board member moved that the state board recommend adopting the hearing officer’s recommendation and directing Epsom to pay not less than 80 percent of its average per‑pupil cost as tuition for the 2024–25 school year; the motion was seconded. The transcript does not record a final roll-call vote in the public portion captured in this transcript. The board noted the matter is subject to an ongoing court appeal.

Context and next steps: Parents and the attorney cited the pending Pittsfield appeal and legislative history of the charter/open-enrollment law in their arguments. Bowman said she and others have preserved administrative record material to allow appeals to the courts. The board and participants acknowledged the matter may return to the board after further legal proceedings or resolution of the appellate questions.

Ending: The board left the record open to administrative and judicial processes; no final, enforceable resolution appears in the transcript segment provided and the parties continue to pursue administrative and judicial remedies.