Republicans advance new version of open enrollment, minus the tuition costs

After months of fits and starts, New Hampshire Republicans are attempting a new approach to create “universal open enrollment” in the state’s public schools.

The proposal would still allow parents to send their children to public schools outside of their district. But this time, districts would not owe each other costly tuition. 

Instead, the latest version of Senate Bill 101, recommended Monday by the House Education Policy and Administration Committee, would require the state to pitch in additional funding to any district receiving a student who didn’t live there. Those payments, which would double the amount of “base” aid usually offered by the state, would mirror the amount currently given to charter schools, raising it from around $4,351 per student to around $9,241 for open enrollment students. 

The arrangement is a compromise intended to provide “receiving” districts more compensation while protecting “resident” districts from tuition bills, a sticking point of past proposals. The bill heads next to a vote before the full House, where Democrats and some Republicans have been skeptical of the idea. 

Republicans said the latest bill presents the best way to realize a long-held belief: that families should not be limited to public schools in their own ZIP code. 

“One of the most important concerns that we heard on the underlying bill … was the funding mechanism,” said Rep. Katy Peternel, a Wolfeboro Republican. “And I really think that this new funding mechanism, using the charter school format, shifts the burden to the state, takes some of the burden off of the local districts, and is really exceptionally fair.” 

But after a multi-hour committee meeting Monday, Democrats said they’re still opposed, arguing even the updated bill could be costly to school districts, and raising questions about special education expenses.

“There are a lot of complications with it, and moving forward without having even those basic questions answered is premature,” said Rep. Peggy Balboni, a Rye Democrat. 

New Hampshire has had an open enrollment law since 2009 that allows schools to opt into accepting students from anywhere in the state and receive tuition payments from those students’ school districts. That law received renewed attention in 2025, when the state Supreme Court ruled that school districts are required to pay tuition for students living in their districts but attending an open enrollment school. 

But for nearly two decades, the 2009 opt-in law received little take-up from school districts. SB 101 is the latest Republican attempt to require the option in all school districts.

The latest version of the bill, crafted by Sen. Tim Lang, a Sanbornton Republican, would scrap the district-to-district tuition system favored in the past. Instead, all “receiving” school districts would in theory be required to accept out-of-district students, and after getting the state’s increased aid for those students would need to pay for the rest by themselves.  

The bill includes some mechanisms to limit those costs. While school boards would be required to adopt open enrollment policies, they would also be charged with determining their schools’ capacity to take in new students. The bill defines “capacity” as the maximum number of students the school could educate without needing more staff. It also provides leeway, stating that the capacity set by the school board “need not equal the maximum number of pupils otherwise allowed by law.” 

More from this section

The Average Tax Refund for New Hampshire Residents Exceeds $3,500

+2

New Hampshire has 2 billionaires, see who they are

Receiving school districts would not be responsible for the transportation of out-of-district students, nor would those students’ resident districts. Parents would need to arrange any transportation needs.

And the receiving districts would not be on the hook for open enrollment students’ special education costs. Instead, the resident school district would need to establish, maintain, and pay for that student’s individualized education plan, even if the student received those services at the receiving district. 

Lawmakers discussed that latter mechanism extensively Monday, peppering a Department of Education official, State Director of Special Education Rebecca Fredette, with questions.

Fredette clarified that the special education cost-sharing set up for open enrollment students would mimic that of charter school students. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, school districts would still be financially responsible for the disability services of all public school students living in their district. That includes any speech therapy, physical therapy, paraprofessional support, assistive technology, and specialized transportation. The resident district would continue to receive federal IDEA grants for those students, and could use those funds to help reimburse the receiving district for any expenses, Fredette said. And depending on the feasibility, resident districts could send their own staff to help the student in the receiving district or allow that district to hire staff and reimburse them, she said.

But Democrats had a number of concerns. They argued that the special education transportation costs could stack up for resident districts if students travel far. They pointed to existing shortages of paraprofessionals and specialists, and said any geographic redistribution could complicate that, potentially resulting in IEPs that are not sufficiently honored. They also said the new system could result in overly complex cost-sharing agreements between multiple districts that could be hard to disentangle.

“These youngsters are going to be an additional cost to their local town, because they’ve lost adequacy, and they’re paying the transportation, and they’re paying the OT and PT additionally,” said Conway Democratic Rep. Stephen Woodcock, speaking on resident districts. “So it’s going to be a huge cost to the town that’s basically sending them.”

Republicans dismissed the worries as overblown and said parents of students in need of those services would be incentivized to choose the simplest arrangement with the best availability for their child. 

“Have you ever heard of a parent who is receiving the services that they want to receive at their current district school trying to leave to go either to a different district or charter school or elsewhere where they know that that service is not presently available?” Rep. Mike Belcher, a Wakefield Republican, asked Fredette. She declined to answer. 

Democrats warned the bill is not ready and could create unintended consequences, such as increased costs and fragmentation of school services. 

“The public has strongly weighed in against open enrollment,” said Rep. Hope Damon, referring to high numbers of people who have registered their opposition to the bill online. “I think we need to learn more and respect their voice rather than rushing forward.”

But Republicans said the new law would deliver on a major objective that would benefit all families: parental choice.

“I think this will be really good, groundbreaking legislation that will allow students of all kinds, whether they be special ed students or just general education students, to have more opportunity,” Belcher said.