A (slightly) different approach to open enrollment

March 30th, 2026

What this Means:

On Wednesday, Sen. Lang introduced an amendment to SB 101, one of the open enrollment bills, that makes substantial changes to the original. We break down what the new version says, and what it might mean for public schools in the Granite State.

Big picture

The new version of the bill, which still needs a vote to be adopted, changes the funding structure for open enrollment and adds in some needed protections for families and for districts. The funding is the biggest change; rather than demanding districts send local dollars out of town, the new funding structure redirects state dollars and generates new state spending.  

If New Hampshire is going to have a statewide open enrollment policy – and some lawmakers seem determined – the version proposed in the amendment is an improvement. It makes the program more predictable for districts and less burdensome on local taxpayers. But most public school students will see no benefit from this policy, and it will cost the state money – at a time when schools are struggling to get funding for necessary facilities projects and lawmakers have been unwilling to fund even small increases to the free school lunch program.

In addition, concerns remain:

  • Students who want to use open enrollment must still provide their own transportation.

  • Districts still stand to lose money if they lose students.

  • Special education advocates still worry about what this means for students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). 

  • The bill still offers nothing for students who can’t or don’t want to leave their resident district

This approach to open enrollment will demand new spending from the state, and most of those new dollars will be sent to districts that are already thriving. Meanwhile, the 95% of public school students who choose to stay in their resident district will see no benefit, and may see programs they love disappear as enrollment patterns change and the community-school connection continues to erode.

What changed

Capacity

  • The amendment offers a definition of “capacity” and clarifies that school districts can set capacity for each grade level, career and technical education program, or other limited academic program (AP Chemistry, for instance). Capacity is defined in the amendment as the number of seats available without a school needing to add staff. The amendment also specifies that capacity is determined by the district and could be less than the maximum allowable class size. 

  • Districts are now allowed to determine what portion of available capacity they will offer to open enrollment students. This means that just because 3 seats are available in 5th grade, the district does not necessarily have to enroll 3 out-of-district 5th graders. Districts may choose to maintain empty seats as a cushion should families move into the district mid-year.

  • While the original bill required districts to update their capacity every month, the amendment only requires districts to publish the number of available open enrollment spots on July 1 and December 15.

Enrollment process

  • The amendment expands the list of factors an enrolling school cannot consider to explicitly include special education needs and whether a student has a disability.

  • Rather than accepting applications year-round, districts can limit their application period to twice per year. School boards are empowered to adopt their own application processes and determine their own enrollment periods.

  • If a district receives more applications than it can accommodate, the new language clarifies that it must use a lottery to determine which students are admitted. Districts are allowed to give enrollment preference to siblings of current students, children of school employees, and students “residing within a defined geographical boundary.”

  • Once admitted to an out-of-district school, students do not have to reapply. School boards are instructed to give preference to open enrollment students hoping to move from one school level to the next in the same district. (For instance, an out-of-district 5th grader should be given preference for an open enrollment seat, if one is available, in that district’s middle school, assuming the student wants to attend.)

  • Students are now limited to one transfer per year. 

Funding

  • The funding model changes entirely – rather than the sending district paying 80% of its cost per pupil to the receiving district, the amendment switches to a model that matches the way the state funds charter schools. When a student moves to an out-of-district open enrollment school, the adequacy and differentiated aid attached to that student follows. (If the sending district receives an extraordinary needs grant, the amount of that grant might decrease if the student leaving is eligible for free lunch.) In addition, the state pays an additional amount of around $5,000 for each open enrollment student to the receiving district.

    • To give an example: in the original version of SB 101, and in current law, if a student from Boscawen (Merrimack Valley) wanted to transfer to Concord, Merrimack Valley would send Concord $15,813, and Concord would be able to charge the parent up to $8,537.

    • Under the new paradigm, Merrimack Valley does not pay anything, but it does lose out on the $6,581.19 (based on FY 26 numbers) it would have gotten in state aid for that student. Instead, the state pays Concord – roughly $5,000 in adequacy aid, plus an additional amount of roughly $5,000. Compared with current policy or the previous version of the bill, Merrimack Valley loses less money in this scenario, Concord gains less money, and the state has to cover roughly an additional $3,500 more than it would have had the student not switched districts.

  • The funding to support open enrollment is to be drawn from the Education Trust Fund.

Tuition agreements

  • One big question in the original bill was what this would mean for districts with tuition agreements or area agreements. The amendment does not address the latter, but it does specify that districts with tuition agreements must continue to follow them, and that if a district receives tuition for a student through a tuition agreement, it cannot also receive open enrollment tuition through the state.

  • To prevent districts from relying solely on open enrollment, the amendment says that any district not operating a school must maintain an active tuition agreement; districts cannot simply tell families to go find an open seat somewhere else.

  • If, within a district that uses a tuition agreement, more students are using open enrollment than enrolling in the school of record, the amendment directs the state board to look into the tuition agreement. 

Effective date

  • In the amendment, the effective date is pushed back to July 1, 2027.

What didn’t change

  • Every district is still required to adopt an open enrollment policy, and districts cannot set limits on the number of students who enroll elsewhere. Voters demonstrated in school district meetings and votes this year that they prefer to have limits on students entering and exiting.

  • Districts are still allowed to deny applications based on a history of chronic absenteeism or significant disciplinary issues, though this term remains undefined. Advocates worry that this provision may open up the door for discrimination against students with special needs. 

  • Open enrollment students must still transport themselves to the out-of-district school.

  • The sending district is still on the hook for funding and provision of any special education services in a student’s Individualized Education Program. Though this is how special education works in the charter school system now, many advocates raised questions about how districts will ensure students are getting the services they need, and about the added administrative burden this system could create.

What’s next

The hearing on SB 101 was continued until April 1 at 10am. Once public testimony has concluded, the committee can vote to adopt the amendment or not, and then can vote to advance the bill or not. They are expected to adopt the amendment and advance the bill, which would then need a vote from the full House.