3 big questions entering the 2026 legislative session
January 8th, 2026
Notes from the Margins:
3 big questions entering the 2026 legislative session
The 2026 legislative season kicked off last week with two days of floor votes, and this week committees got to work hearing testimony on the hundreds of new bills submitted for the 2026 legislative session.
The legislative preview provides an overview of the topics and bills we at RHNH are focused on this session. But, as bills begin to move through the legislative process, I wanted to highlight a few big questions that are on my mind:
1. Will the cost of the voucher program scare off supporters?
This year, the newly expanded Education Freedom Account voucher program is costing the state roughly $50 million, with most of that going to families who were already paying for private or other nonpublic school options. A new bill (SB 581) to entirely drop the enrollment cap would open up the voucher program to anyone, presumably adding to the cost as more current nonpublic students take advantage of vouchers. There are other bills out there that could increase the cost of the program in small ways, too; by guaranteeing access to district resources (HB 1817; SB 491), new laws could incentivize more families to take vouchers. At a time when the legislature is also pushing to reduce the rate of the business enterprise tax, one of the taxes that feeds the Education Trust Fund, I have to wonder at what point the cost will be too much for some voucher proponents to bear.
2. Will we see any changes to school funding?
Smart money says the answer to this question is no, but I am particularly interested in two bills. One, HB 1636, would direct the Department of Revenue Administration to study options for generating state revenue. This is not action, of course, but it is a step toward considering ways New Hampshire might shift the school funding burden away from local property taxes. I’ll also be watching the fate of HB 1800, a Republican-sponsored bill to increase the Statewide Education Property Tax rate. This bill, from Rep. Spillsbury, introduces some unusual tax exemptions, including for seniors and people without children in public schools. But it also substantially increases adequacy aid – up to $10,000 per student. There are a lot of questions about how this would actually be implemented, and it seems unlikely we’ll be talking about this bill in this same form come June, but it will be interesting to see how Republicans respond to one of their own members pitching increased spending on education.
3. What will the future of open enrollment look like?
The State Supreme Court ruled this fall that districts must pay tuition when their students attend out-of-district open enrollment schools, even if the resident district has not opted in to open enrollment. This ruling created urgency among school boards to adopt open enrollment policies; in fact, Kearsarge just passed one such policy. Kearsarge’s policy allows up to 30 students from outside the district to enroll in Kearsarge schools – with tuition paid by those students’ home districts – and bars its own students from leaving. Many districts are considering similar policies. But at the same time, SB 101, which would mandate statewide open enrollment, continues to move forward – it passed the Senate last week and is headed to the Senate finance committee, where Sen. Lang is expected to introduce an amendment. As currently written, SB 101 would require every district to create an open enrollment policy. It also states that sending districts – that is, a student’s home district – must pay their full cost per pupil to a receiving district when a student utilizes open enrollment. If the receiving district’s cost per pupil is less than the sending district’s, the sending district keeps the balance. If the receiving district’s cost is more than the sending district’s, the student’s family must pay the balance. (Currently, the law says sending districts are required to pay no less than 80 percent of their cost per pupil. It’s unclear how actual charges are determined.)
It’s likely we’ll see more changes to SB 101, but unclear what those changes might be. Discussions at the district level have demonstrated that school boards and administrators are nervous about the unpredictability of open enrollment, along with the fiscal impact. SB 101 could be an opportunity for lawmakers to address the problems with the current law, or we may see the state forcing open enrollment on districts right as they are voting against it.
BONUS: Which version of the recess bill will pass?
Okay, this one’s just for fun, but there are two bills, SB 578 and HB 1507, that would mandate increased recess time and access. SB 578, sponsored by Sen. Sullivan, would require schools to provide recess for grades K-8 and would prevent schools from withholding recess as a form of punishment. HB 1507, sponsored by Rep. Murray, would require schools to provide a minimum of 45-60 minutes of recess for grades K-6. I’d suspect only SB 578 to survive, but it is heartening to see both chambers thinking about how to ensure students get time to play every day – particularly since recess is linked to better physical health, behavioral, and academic outcomes.
Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and receive the New Hampshire Education Briefing.