What New Hampshire Can Learn from Open Enrollment in Other States

February 13th, 2026

In the debate about open enrollment and HB 751, proponents of the bill have been quick to cite the large number of states that already have open enrollment policies. Indeed, 45 states, including New Hampshire, have policies allowing interdistrict enrollment to some degree, and in 22 states it is mandatory that districts enroll out-of-district students when space allows. 

To provide a clearer picture of the ways HB 751 (or its twin bill, SB 101) are similar or different to those governing Open Enrollment systems in other states, Reaching Higher NH conducted an analysis of those policies.

Funding

The proposed bill in New Hampshire stipulates that when a student transfers, the student’s resident district sends at least 80% of its cost per pupil to the receiving district (see what that means for your district). If that doesn’t cover the receiving district’s costs, the family pays the balance. This funding model has been the subject of concern among district leaders, and Reaching Higher NH has written about how the model could lead to continually increased costs for sending districts, forcing taxpayers to pay more for decisions they have no control over. Even proponents of open enrollment have said that 80% of cost per pupil “would be extraordinarily generous, more than compensating New Hampshire’s school districts for the marginal costs of serving incoming transfer students.”  

Reaching Higher NH’s review of other states’ policies showed that some states do take a similar approach, but in these states a larger share of education funding comes from the state. This protects local property taxpayers from having to absorb the added costs of open enrollment tuition. In many states, it is only the state aid – not local dollars – that follow the student, because the state’s contribution is large enough to compensate the receiving school for the additional cost. New Hampshire’s average $5,000 contribution per student is likely not enough.

While it is difficult to compare New Hampshire, where local funding accounts for roughly 70% of education spending, to states where the state’s share is 50% or more, there are some patterns for New Hampshire to consider:

  • The vast majority of states with mandatory open enrollment include open enrollment students in the receiving district’s count for state payments. New Hampshire’s proposal does the opposite, allocating funding based on the student’s district of residence, and then asking the sending district to send money to the receiving district. 

  • Many states require no financial transfer between districts – it is only state aid that transfers. Such a model is likely not feasible in New Hampshire, where state aid is roughly $5,000 per student, less than the cost of an adequate education.

  • In one state, the state pays an amount equal to the state average cost per pupil to the receiving district. This represents an additional investment by the state in open enrollment and has been critical to making the program work, according to experts in the state. 

  • One state offers additional financial support for districts with declining enrollment, a safeguard New Hampshire might consider to ensure sending districts are still able to serve the students who cannot access other schools.

  • In another state, when the sending district’s cost per pupil is less than the receiving district’s, the state pays the difference. New Hampshire’s proposal asks parents to pay that amount.

Given New Hampshire’s overreliance on local funding, it is likely no state’s policy will be a precise fit, but there are design elements from other states that could lessen the burden on sending districts in New Hampshire.

Other Policy Design Elements

Many states with mandatory open enrollment laws cover details that New Hampshire’s proposal, so far, has not addressed. Examples include:

  • Almost every state either allows or instructs districts to prioritize open enrollment applications from certain groups of students. These often include students whose parents work in a school district, those whose siblings are enrolled, or the children of military families. Some states also prioritize students whose resident district has been identified as a low-performing district or those who previously attended a school in the district. 

  • Almost every other state details an appeals process for students whose open enrollment applications are rejected. In some cases, families appeal to the receiving district’s school board, and in other cases, to the state.

  • More than half of states have a specified timeline for open enrollment applications and acceptances. Generally, this happens in the spring before the year of enrollment, allowing time for families and districts to plan. 

  • More than half of states specify that once a student transfers, they can remain at that school until they reach the last grade offered. Some states guarantee a place in the district through high school graduation.

  • Half of states limit how often a student can transfer. 

  • Some states specify how applications are to be selected, once priority groups are accounted for.

  • A handful of states have a provision for how payment works if a student transfers partway through the school year. 

  • A couple of states have limited out-of-district virtual enrollment, or specified that interdistrict payments don’t apply to virtual schools.

  • Some states offer transportation reimbursement for families whose children qualify for free or reduced-price lunch.

What NH Can Learn

The best way to strengthen educational opportunity in New Hampshire would be to ensure every student has access to an adequately funded, high-quality public education near home. If New Hampshire’s school funding model more closely resembled the comparison states – that is, if the state did more to ensure equal opportunity, regardless of zip code – it would be easier to conceptualize an open enrollment model that did not put undue strain on districts and local taxpayers.

In the states that mandate open enrollment, roughly 10% of students use it. Open enrollment is not an effective way to improve academic outcomes at scale, and works best as a way to open access to programs that might not be viable to provide in all districts (note that other mechanisms exist to allow this access already). Rather than relying on competition and a small number of available seats to improve outcomes, we should first ensure every student has access to a quality public education where they live. 

If open enrollment is to become mandatory in New Hampshire, there are steps policymakers can take to make the program work better for families and for districts:

  • Invest in a fairer school funding model that lessens the burden on local taxpayers. This would both benefit the students who stay in their resident school and ensure that open enrollment does not place an undue burden on sending or receiving districts. 

  • Invest state funds in making open enrollment work. If open enrollment is important, the state should be willing to support it, rather than asking local districts and parents to bear the burden. Other states offer examples of what this could look like. The state could offer additional financial support for districts losing enrollment or the state could cover the full payment to a receiving district. At the very least, the state could cover transportation costs for families eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Making other states’ models work in New Hampshire will likely not be a one-for-one without broader funding reform, but state investment is necessary to ensure districts remain viable and to ensure that open enrollment isn’t limited to parents who can pay.

  • Establish a common application process and timeline to make it easier for parents who might be considering multiple options, to ensure every family interested in a school has an equal shot at a seat (rather than allocating seats on a first-come, first-serve basis), and to add predictability for districts.

  • Establish a process by which the sending district is notified of a student’s enrollment elsewhere. Ideally, this would happen before budgets are set for the next school year. Right now, it is not clear how districts will know when their students enroll elsewhere; in some cases, they may not know until they get the bill, and it will certainly be too late to account for in the district’s budget.

  • Define an appeal or audit process so families can be sure applications are not being denied for improper reasons.

  • Make explicit a student’s right to attend their home district and their right to stay at an open enrollment school at least through the last grade offered at that school, if not through high school graduation. Continuity of education is important to outcomes, and once a student transfers, they should maintain their seat as long as they want it.

  • Ensure the NH Department of Education has a mechanism to track open enrollment students so we can understand the outcomes of the policy.

State by State Analysis