Dean Eckert, an attorney with Wadley, Starr & Peters, told the Contoocook Valley School District board on Dec. 3 that open enrollment is a "hot topic" in New Hampshire and described how the law works under RSA 194‑D. He told the board that the statute (and recent court decisions) let a single district’s declaration of open enrollment have cascading effects on neighboring districts — notably a requirement that sending districts pay 80% of their average per‑pupil cost for students admitted elsewhere.

Eckert outlined the range of enrollment pathways that already exist — best‑interest reassignment, manifest educational hardship, tuition and area agreements, education freedom accounts (EFAs) and CTE access — and said open enrollment overlays those options. He warned that open enrollment can be implemented school‑by‑school or program‑by‑program (for example, a middle‑school Mandarin program), and that a district adopting open enrollment must set explicit inflow and outflow limits. "The statute says between 0 and 100," he said, noting the board may limit outflow to protect schools at risk of being drained of students.

Why it matters: Eckert emphasized two financial risks. First, a district that admits nonresident students must determine 80% of each sending district’s average per‑pupil cost to set nonresident tuition; the statute does not break that average out by grade band, which can produce unequal effects on districts with different cost structures. Second, the sending district remains responsible for special‑education decision‑making and many special‑education costs for students who transfer under open enrollment — a statutory allocation Eckert compared to how charter schools are handled.

Board members pressed on practical matters: whether open enrollment could be limited to geographically adjacent towns (Eckert said it can be applied more broadly), how often capacity limits may be adjusted (annually, via citizen vote), and how CTE programs interact with conflicting statutes. Eckert advised holding a public hearing at least 15 days before a deliberative session, warned that the effective date would be July 1 following adoption, and recommended the district study potential inflow and outflow, fiscal impact, programmatic consequences and admission procedures before placing any warrant article.

Eckert also flagged that the statute permits narrowly focused admission criteria related to academic goals — for example, aptitude or achievement standards for a program — and that the district must establish an admission process and conduct‑standard rules. He advised caution in budgeting for open enrollment because a public budget passed in March becomes effective July 1 and may not reflect real inflow/outflow experience.

The board did not take formal action on open enrollment at this meeting; Eckert recommended study and public hearings before any warrant article is presented to voters. The board scheduled further budget and policy work in December and January, during which any decision about placing an open‑enrollment article on the warrant would be discussed.