Bill to permit districts to contract with "approved" nonpublic schools prompts constitutional and equity concerns

Representative Kristen Noble introduced a narrowly framed bill to correct a cross‑reference in New Hampshire statute that would allow public school districts to contract with "approved nonpublic schools." The sponsor described the measure as a simple housekeeping change to clarify statutory language.

Several witnesses urged the committee to reject or amend the bill, raising constitutional and equity concerns. Mary Wilkie of Concord warned that some nonpublic religious schools decline to enroll students based on disability, gender identity or sexual orientation and that contracting with such schools could allow districts to sidestep obligations to accept and educate all pupils.

"When a religious school can contract with a district and decline to admit students with disabilities, what happens to the district’s legal duty to educate every child?" Wilkie asked. She cited websites for several religious schools showing explicit statements about religious instruction and enrollment criteria and said those schools infuse religious instruction across the curriculum.

Representative Timothy Horrigan and other committee members pointed to constitutional considerations and historical context: public schooling in the United States originally reflected Protestant practices, but modern constitutional law constrains using public funds to support sectarian instruction. Several witnesses referenced recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions (for example, Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue and Carson v. Makin were cited in committee discussion) in arguing opposite positions about whether public money can fund religiously affiliated schools under current precedent.

Supporters of broader contracting authority argued the change expands parental options and that approved nonpublic schools can offer higher academic standards for some families. Representative Aubrey Friedman said some families choose religious schools for academic reasons and that increased options can benefit students.

Why it matters Allowing school districts to contract with nonpublic schools raises constitutional, regulatory and civil‑rights questions. Public districts are statutorily required to educate all pupils without regard to protected categories; some advocates warned that redirecting public students to nonpublic schools that impose religious instruction or enrollment limits could undermine equal access.

Next steps The committee completed public testimony; the sponsor and stakeholders signaled willingness to work on clarifying language. Committee members may request amendments to restore the term "nonsectarian" to the cross‑reference or to add protections ensuring contracting schools meet public non‑discrimination requirements.