Londonderry board opens study of statewide open-enrollment proposals, raises concerns about special education and sports access

The Londonderry School Board spent much of its Jan. 8 workshop exploring open-enrollment proposals sweeping the state and their potential local effects, ultimately agreeing to gather more information and not to place a binding question on the warrant at this time.

Administrators outlined the legal and operational landscape: Londonderry is not an open-enrollment district but accepts a limited number of tuition students, principally at the high school. A staff presentation summarized the 2009 open-enrollment statute, cited a recent court decision involving Prospect Mountain that has energized debate in other districts, and warned that some locally drafted warrant-language variants — for example, permitting incoming students but banning outbound transfers — could be challenged in court.

Why it matters: Board members and residents flagged practical consequences for transport, program access and special education costs. The board heard that tuition arrangements typically track a sending district—ontribution of roughly 80% of per-pupil spending but that the law and practice vary by case; special-education placements and higher-need students may carry costs above the pupil-rate the district receives. Administrators also noted potential impacts on class registration and athletics, where popular courses or roster spots could be affected if out-of-town students enroll.

During public comment, Christine Perez, who identified herself as a state representative, urged continued attention to proposals on administrative-budget caps and urged clearer separation of SAU/administrative and operating budgets in future deliberations. Multiple board members asked whether the district could restrict enrollment by grade band (for example 9–12 only); administrators said such targeting is possible but would require careful policy drafting and likely voter education.

What the board decided: Rather than draft and post a warrant article now, the board instructed administrators and the superintendent—or further study and recommended seeking additional legal guidance and coordination with neighboring districts and state officials. Staff and board members asked to return with clearer estimates for revenue, transportation responsibilities, special-education cost scenarios and sample ballot language if the board decides to seek voter input.

Next steps: Administrators will continue monitoring pending state bills and court developments, collect data on tuition interest and program capacity, and advise the board if a nonbinding public question or study warrant should be proposed for voters. No formal policy change or vote on open enrollment was taken at the Jan. 8 meeting.