Amherst State Rep. Dan LeClerc isn’t known to mince words. He surely didn’t on Wednesday, March 25, when he testified at a public hearing in Concord, along with more than 100 other people, in opposition to a new open enrollment bill. In online testimony, 1,810 people opposed the bill, while just 71 supported it.

“I’m in the Labor Committee, and we had a bill come up recently to help fund first responders in small towns to get the mental health support they need, and . . . it was less than $200,000.” He said one of the problems he heard repeatedly was, “We don’t have the money,” and yet in the session that day, he heard Sen. Timothy Lang (R-Sanbornton) say that there is “money somewhere” for open enrollment.

The Amherst representative added that more than 1,300 citizens testified online in opposition to the bill and fewer than 60 supported it online.

Sen. Lang, the sponsor of SB 101, explained that he revised it after meeting with principals, superintendents and other school-related individuals who suggested changes to the funding, acceptance criteria, transportation, and the effective date.

On the critical issue of funding, Lang said the bill was modified so that the state’s Education Trust Fund, which covers the state’s contribution to all public schools and the Education Freedom Accounts, would also cover the estimated $6 million for the first year, 2027-2028, and costs for succeeding years.

Lang based the funding on the model the state uses to pay for its charter schools – approximately $9,000 per student per year. This is equal to about half the amount of the cost per pupil for most school districts, which means that taxpayers would have to pay more taxes for the remainder of the costs for non-local students.

Members of the House Education Policy and Administration Committee and the nearly 100 attending the hearing raised many questions about the inequality of an open enrollment option and the gap in costs to cover special services, and said the bill needed extensive research and reworking.

Rep. Stephanie Grund, D-Amherst and Chair of the Board of the Souhegan District, strongly opposed the revised open enrollment bill because primarily it would create a divide between the haves and the have nots. She explained that families who can afford to get their students to another town and school district will be able to – and a small portion of the state funding goes with them. But, she continued, families who don’t have the means or time to drive their children to another town or bus stop would be forced to stay in the district that will have decreasing resources.

Grund added with emphasis, “New Hampshire is not failing public school students.”

Rep. Megan Murray, D-Amherst, asked who would be responsible for covering special education costs, to which Lang responded that it would still be the sending district. 

Rep. Steve Woodcock, D-Carroll District 1, questioned who would pay for special education students’ transportation, a potentially large sum, which each student’s Individual Education Plan requires by federal law. 

Rep Lauren Selig, D-Durham, added that the bill discriminates against any sending district that is financially strapped. 

Rep. Peggy Balboni, D-Rockingham County, asked if Lang had spoken with any special education administrators and who would pay for the 504 plans, the legally required provisions to accommodate students with physical disabilities. Lang said he had not thought about 504 plans and thus had not included them in the amended SB 101.

Another major unaddressed problem is accepting students where tuition agreements have been drawn up, especially area agreements between regional schools and districts, according to Grantham Superintendent Christine Downing.

“Tuition agreements have lots of complexity: they are legal and voted by the districts,” she said. She said she worries about having to ask open enrollment students to leave when other students move into the district.

Lang said that if more than 50 percent of the students under a tuition agreement leave under open enrollment, the Department of Education (DoE) would investigate reasons for leaving. This raises questions such as why the DoE would need to investigate and what the consequences could be for the district.

Others asked who covers the cost of a service and providers if a service is not available at a receiving school and how CTE programs would fit into the new option.

On a number of these questions, Lang responded that open enrollment was an opportunity for all but agreed that more research would be needed.

Due to overwhelming attendance, many stakeholders had not been heard by the end of the hearing, and a continuation of the hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, April 1, at 10 a.m. at One Granite Place, Concord.