(Second New Title) authorizing parents to enroll their children in any public school in the state.
SB 101 would substantially expand public school choice in New Hampshire by requiring each school district to adopt an open enrollment policy that allows students to transfer to schools within their district, to other districts in the state, and, in some cases, to schools in states with qualifying interstate compacts. The bill removes the current framework that ties attendance primarily to a student’s resident district and instead makes the key residency question whether the child is a resident of New Hampshire. It also requires districts to publish school and grade-level capacity, report transfer application data, and provide information about curriculum, policies, and transportation options.
The bill also revises the state’s parental bill of rights by creating a limited exception to the written-consent requirement for video or voice recordings made during required assessments or at school-sponsored events open to the general public. It defines those terms broadly, covering events that may require registration, tickets, or invitations for space or security reasons. The recording exemption takes effect immediately upon passage, while the open enrollment and related school-choice provisions take effect July 1, 2026.
SB 101 would amend multiple sections of RSA 193, RSA 194-D, and RSA 189-B, effectively converting all public schools into open enrollment schools and changing how residency, admissions, transportation, and funding are handled. It would limit denial of transfer applications to a narrow set of reasons, prohibit districts from using academic or grade-based criteria to screen applicants, and require the state to treat transferring students as part of their resident district’s average daily membership for funding purposes. The bill also preserves responsibility for special education services in the resident district and directs the Department of Education to seek available federal funding for open enrollment schools.
The bill appears to have generated mixed but substantial support, with close votes indicating significant division. In the Senate, the committee amendment and ought-to-pass-with-amendment motion both passed 14-10, suggesting a modest majority in favor after amendment. In the House, the bill faced tighter and more contested votes, including a failed amendment vote and a narrow final OTPA vote, which indicates that support existed but was not broad or uncontested. Overall, the voting pattern suggests the bill was viewed as a major policy change with both supporters and opponents closely engaged.
The main points of contention are likely the statewide open enrollment mandate, the effect on local district control, and the fiscal and operational consequences for schools. Opponents may object to requiring districts to accept transfer students, limiting their ability to deny applications, and shifting funding based on student movement rather than residence, especially given the fiscal note’s conclusion that costs and revenue impacts are indeterminable. Transportation obligations and the possibility of cross-district or interstate enrollment also appear likely to be disputed. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on expanding parental choice and access to public schools across district lines, while the parental-recording exemption is a narrower but potentially sensitive issue involving privacy and school event recordings.