Bedford board weighs open-enrollment warrant to let select nonresidents attend high school
Loading...
Summary
Faced with a recent court ruling that can make sending districts responsible for tuition, Bedford administrators recommended placing an open‑enrollment warrant on the ballot, likely limited to Bedford High School (examples discussed: allow 30 in, 0 out or prioritize IB students).
Administrators and board members at the Bedford School Board’s Dec. 15 budget session debated whether to place an open‑enrollment warrant on the town ballot, focusing on limiting the program to Bedford High School and setting admission parameters.
Superintendent (unnamed in the transcript) framed the conversation around a recent court outcome where a sending district was required to pay a receiving district for an out‑of‑district student. The superintendent said the ruling prompted districts across the state to consider warrant language that would let them control how many resident pupils may leave and how many nonresidents the district will accept. “Without a warrant article, my understanding is that there is no limit on students who can exit the district,” the superintendent said, and noted that districts can set limits only by ballot action.
The board focused on several policy choices: whether to start with high school only, a numerical cap (board members discussed an example of allowing 30 incoming high‑school pupils while allowing 0 to leave), priority criteria (several members suggested awarding spots to students seeking an International Baccalaureate diploma because Bedford High School is the district’s IB site), and nonacademic constraints such as parking and transportation.
Administrators explained financial mechanics: the sending district must pay the receiving district a minimum of 80% of its per‑pupil cost, but the receiving district may set a higher amount. Board members worried about uneven effects across districts, saying open enrollment could draw students and funding away from struggling districts while benefitting stronger ones. One member urged caution over how voters might interpret a warrant article at the polls, saying it will require clear public education.
Staff reported that the district will seek legal and DRA review of any draft warrant language and will consult nearby districts as they finalize options. Administrators proposed returning to the board with recommended numbers and policy language before the January public hearing.
Next steps: district staff will continue legal review, consult the high school on realistic capacity and parking implications, and present draft warrant language at the January deliberative session for possible placement on the ballot.
