Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Choice Open Enrollment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Open‑enrollment bill sparks debate over funding, capacity and transport; districts, boards and superintendents testify
Summary
House Bill 741 would make all districts 'open enrollment' and set a funding formula where the resident district pays 80% of average cost per pupil to the receiving district; hearing included testimony from a school board chair, NHSBA, a superintendent running an existing program and local officials who raised unpredictability and equity concerns.
Representative Glenn Cordelli presented House Bill 741 to the Senate Education Committee, saying the measure would expand current open‑enrollment law so every district becomes an open‑enrollment district and parents may enroll students in another district subject primarily to school capacity. “The status quo was not working in many places,” Cordelli said, and he described a funding mechanism where the pupil’s resident district would pay 80 percent of its average cost per pupil to the receiving district while retaining 20 percent and remaining responsible for special‑education services.
The bill drew immediate skepticism from school‑board and administrative witnesses about predictability, inequity and local fiscal impacts. Brian Winslow, speaking for the Northwood School Board, said the bill’s funding and unpredictability would make budgeting extremely difficult and could impose substantial, unbudgeted bills on small districts. “If just 5% of Northwood Students attended other schools, we would have an unbudgeted bill of roughly $540,000,” Winslow said.
The New Hampshire School Boards Association opposed the bill and questioned the statutory mechanics. Barrett Christina said the bill asks school district legislative bodies (town voters) to adopt policies that are generally adopted by elected school boards and noted “capacity” can mean different things — seats, budget, staffing — and the bill does not define it. NHSBA also flagged equity concerns: transportation would be a parental responsibility, which could privilege families with vehicles and time to drive students to other districts.
Two witnesses urged caution about unintended consequences. David Trumbull said open enrollment, as drafted, would leave out children whose families cannot afford transportation and children with disciplinary histories, and could exacerbate inequalities in New Hampshire because the state funds local schools at relatively low levels. “If you adopt this program in New Hampshire you create inequality, you exacerbate inequality,” Trumbull testified.
Conversely, Alton‑Barnstead superintendent Timothy Broderick, who runs a joint district program and described operating under the existing open‑enrollment law (RSA 194‑D), said a functional public‑school choice system can help districts with declining enrollment and allow schools to compete for students in a landscape that already includes charters, private schools and home schooling. Broderick said his district welcomed choice and that clarifying the law’s mechanics would help implementation.
Committee members asked witnesses about capacity definitions, transportation, and the fiscal treatment of bonds and locally funded capital costs. Several witnesses said the bill’s 80‑percent funding transfer would be administratively difficult and potentially destabilizing to towns with small enrollments.
No formal committee action was recorded in the transcript. The hearing included requests for more precise drafting on capacity, transportation and fiscal effects before the committee moves forward.
