Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Choice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on intra‑district transfer bill spotlights parents seeking shorter commutes or escape from bullying
Summary
Sen. Victoria Sullivan introduced SB97 to allow students to attend any public school within their resident district if capacity allows; proponents said it helps transient families and those seeking safer or closer placements while critics warned of budget and special‑education complications.
Senate Bill 97 (introduced by Sen. Victoria Sullivan) would permit parents to request that a student attend any public school within the student’s resident school district provided the receiving school has capacity. Sullivan told the committee the bill grew out of constituent cases in Manchester in which grandparents provided reliable care, and students were assigned to a school across town despite a closer school within walking distance.
“The bottom line is that people in towns and cities are all paying the same tax rate, yet their children are segregated by what ZIP code they live in,” Sullivan said. She said the bill’s only caveat is capacity at the requested school; parents must provide transportation.
Supporters — including some parents and a former Manchester school board member — said the measure would help transient families and children facing bullying by allowing a move without filing a manifest‑hardship claim or using Education Freedom Accounts. Manchester school administrators said they could support intra‑district transfers in principle, particularly at the high school level, but asked for clear capacity rules.
Opponents and neutral testimony from school groups focused on operational and fiscal concerns. Witnesses including the New Hampshire School Administrators Association and the New Hampshire School Boards Association urged the committee to “pump the brakes” and consider how school capacity would be measured, how districts should prioritize requests if available slots are limited, and how special‑education services and paraeducator assignments would be handled when students cross attendance boundaries.
The American Federation of Teachers–New Hampshire opposed the bill, arguing it could move students away from schools that provide needed supports and that the bill’s timing (post‑budget) could impose additional costs on districts. School administrators raised practical questions about whether capacity should be based on building space or staffing and noted the administrative burden of publishing monthly vacancy reports and handling overflow.
The committee took testimony and asked for clarifying amendments but took no vote during the hearing.
