[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6651329,"mediaKeyId","2650877-340ae3526fe7ed4b143d58fb50d8d8da","parentId",2650877,"title","House hearings on open enrollment and district transfers split proponents and opponents","audioSeconds",1041,"startMs",23053000,"endMs",24094000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2650877-340ae3526fe7ed4b143d58fb50d8d8da&start=23053&end=24094","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2650877-340ae3526fe7ed4b143d58fb50d8d8da/thumbnail_23053000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6651329/New-Hampshire/House-hearings-on-open-enrollment-and-district-transfers-split-proponents-and-opponents","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6651329-67471eb7512dfff7ab44b3a56b26025e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179341&Signature=B5tQyH2Yvk9Tlp4w8lLKMuzk9CkeBu1loW-U7UIk-9zBlcK6C2WlcPfXtS1hQQGrY6TyTRtEZurpcFNH3Q2CP1RV5a323AHigXSvfI27IKxMwAG0b1Kgy44V2b69Yy1vv82WZVM8tdNdvIsLIhmfDd7wI-HR4WJTR1-nXK2uLXHjauqrO-FCO4J65jrJPJWuMRXo~hihMyWkAdcBA52gzbm3mki0RnLHlK~CzXlc1ttjgFpN7c3VROoCmTHxmXoSIqfPuO~8NYc01eiwKO62IJg7o~zeaqKpMA7vTT8JiK5sQDP9NCD8pQ3YDSfSlY~mR5lfjgJF2RX7TgLqiHn40A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-02-22T18:58:29.097Z","article","The House Education Policy Committee heard two related measures on Feb. 20 that would expand the ability of parents to enroll children outside their resident district: House Bill 709 (allowing parents to admit children to any district where they pay property or school taxes) and House Bill 741 (a broader proposal to make every district an \"open enrollment\" district). Testimony reflected sharply divergent views from school boards, unions, a Department of Defense representative, parents, and education advocates.

What the bills would do: HB 741 would convert all New Hampshire public schools to open enrollment status and require districts to post monthly capacity information (by school and grade) and to publish vacancy data with the Commissioner of Education. The bill would also maintain the existing funding follow‑the‑pupil mechanism — the resident district paying not less than 80% of its average cost per pupil to the receiving district — and leave transportation obligations with parents, while allowing parents to use existing receiving‑district bus stops if feasible. HB 709 would allow children to attend a district where a parent pays property or school district taxes; questions focused on how that criterion would be applied (residential property versus commercial property, out‑of‑state property owners) and on related voting or taxation consequences.

Arguments for the bills: Proponents framed open enrollment as a way to meet families’ needs (childcare proximity, parents’ workplaces), increase competition among public schools and keep public dollars in public education rather than private vouchers. Representatives of Americans for Prosperity and the Department of Defense supported preserving enrollment options — the DoD asked that military families retain preference and be exempt from capacity limits; Rep. Cordelli circulated an amendment (0336h) that would preserve military children’s current preferential enrollment.

Arguments against the bills: School boards, teachers’ union representatives and local advocates said the measures would undermine local control, strain district budgets and exacerbate inequities between wealthy and low‑wealth towns. Testimony from the New Hampshire School Boards Association, the American Federation of Teachers‑New Hampshire and local teachers argued that mandatory statewide open enrollment would disrupt existing tuition agreements, create monthly administrative burdens (capacity postings for every grade and school), complicate budgeting and make student populations more transient. Witnesses said that without first addressing wide funding disparities between districts, open enrollment risks leaving underfunded districts with more high‑need students and fewer resources.

Key technical and policy questions raised

- Capacity and budgeting: Who determines \"capacity\" at the school and grade level, and how should districts budget if enrollment could fluctuate monthly? Opponents noted districts might be forced to budget for higher theoretical capacity or face midyear staffing and logistics problems.

- Transportation and special education: The bills leave transportation to parents and preserve resident districts’ duty to provide specialized services for students with IEPs, but witnesses asked how long children with intensive service needs might be expected to ride to a receiving district and how districts will coordinate special education services across agreements.

- Residency and voting/tax consequences: NHSBA testified that current statutes reference residency in many contexts; testimony raised questions about whether property owners who live out of state but own taxed property in New Hampshire would gain rights tied to residency (for example, local voting or eligibility for in‑state tuition elsewhere).

- Military preference: The Department of Defense sought explicit retention of military preferences and exemption from district capacity limits for military families; the sponsor incorporated an amendment to preserve those preferences.

- Litigation and precedent: NHSBA pointed out that Prospect Mountain School District is involved in ongoing litigation related to open‑enrollment issues; the association urged caution before broadly changing statutory residency and enrollment rules.

Where it stands: No committee roll call was taken during the hearings on HB 709 or HB 741; Representative Cordelli as the sponsor circulated an amendment (0336h) focused on military preference. Committee members requested additional comparative information from states that have implemented statewide open enrollment, asked for fiscal details and signaled interest in further examination before taking final action.

Provenance: This summary is based on sponsor remarks, testimony from the New Hampshire School Boards Association, American Federation of Teachers‑New Hampshire, the U.S. Department of Defense liaison, and public testimony recorded in the committee transcript.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Education Policy and Administration (02/18/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","Two related bills — HB 709 and HB 741 — drew extended testimony for and against statewide open‑enrollment and school‑choice provisions, including debate over funding flows, monthly capacity postings and an amendment to preserve military family preferences.","taxTitle","Education, House of Representatives, Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",17745,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6651334,"House committee debates bullying bills: officers, CHINS, cross‑state cyberbullying and protected‑class reporting",1642,12885000,14527000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2650877-340ae3526fe7ed4b143d58fb50d8d8da&start=12885&end=14527","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2650877-340ae3526fe7ed4b143d58fb50d8d8da/thumbnail_12885000.jpg","/articles/6651334/New-Hampshire/House-committee-debates-bullying-bills-officers-CHINS-crossstate-cyberbullying-and-protectedclass-reporting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6651334-7810cb3efd04c3e1a1dbaa00db93b0ff/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179341&Signature=i-uFniMeMYTz7EXMa3dB4Uu4XyVdnJSpb5f2xgE9zU3QOAUy1SItaWsVDgTjzVe3tiH2SEZ0EYWHdxoPzOyGEBq7uLF~enNLbYshZoDjwddRgRzLnmgWP0G9OceLxkEKCNm9zqL1gCvIvmiP~mUbFyDBbPkTIZmVXg871jG0s72wLDY2sGQeqHnSvBCviQXelmTT3PkJs4zffHCArPqHQW3bNIkufeVoLp566h-Sj~UoU~PE-2YFs-3rx7kG8ILy3AeET3kWKcSBVafWGLvYe7IanJxlEwitNYo-ZLionTXtAq-YIyy6WTV9Sv3wJGgix~hNAZNl2QjKRt-8hvHG4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Education Policy Committee held a work session on Feb. 20 to consider three measures and related proposals addressing bullying and cyberbullying: HB 108, HB 384 and HB 673. Committee members and agency staff debated whether to require schools to appoint a specific \"bullying officer,\" how investigations should be coordinated across districts or states, and whether certain incidents should lead to Child in Need of Services (CHINS) filings or referrals to the Attorney General or Human Rights Commission.

Why it matters: The bills would change how districts investigate, report and respond to bullying — including cyberbullying that crosses district or state lines — and could alter reporting burdens for school administrators and referral paths to state agencies.

Key discussion points and positions

Bullying officer: Members questioned whether naming a dedicated bullying officer is necessary or duplicative. Some said school resource officers (SROs) already play roles in schools and building administrators or principals commonly manage bullying investigations. Concerns included possible duplication with SRO duties and whether the role could be punitive rather than restorative. Several committee members and witnesses urged that any role be flexible and locally determined; Representative Cornell noted the bill language leaves the role vague and could let districts nominate a teacher or administrator as designee.

CHINS and cross‑agency consequences: Several members warned against automatically funneling bullying incidents into CHINS (Child in Need of Services) petitions or involving DCYF without careful thresholds. They noted CHINS petitions involve courts, guardian ad litem assignments and resource impacts; committee members and staff said such steps should be avoided unless clearly appropriate. The Department of Education’s counsel, Diana Fenton, said cross‑state or cross‑jurisdiction cases raise additional complexity and may require state‑to‑state agency coordination.

Cross‑state cyberbullying: Attorney Fenton warned that incidents spanning state lines are inherently more complex and that district‑to‑district communication alone may be ineffective. She recommended that the committee consider language directing districts to contact the New Hampshire Department of Education (NH DOE) and that the NH DOE coordinate with counterpart agencies and, where needed, the Attorney General’s Office. Committee members noted the FBI has national cyber capabilities and suggested consulting the Attorney General and Department of Safety on protocols.

Evidence‑based interventions and conflict resolution: The bills would require conflict resolution components in some drafts. Some members supported limited, age‑appropriate educational workshops for perpetrators (for example, short workshops or videos to increase awareness). Others cautioned that mandatory conflict resolution could be harmful in some circumstances and that interventions should be tailored by age and situation.

Protected classes and reporting: Members discussed whether incidents targeting protected classes should be referred to the Human Rights Commission or Attorney General. Department counsel advised the Human Rights Commission would typically handle discrimination claims; the DOE’s role in filing complaints historically has limits. Committee members asked the Attorney General and Human Rights Commission about their willingness to accept referrals and for guidance on appropriate statutory language.

Data and privacy: The committee asked what aggregate data the Department already collects and whether a request for more detailed district‑level breakdowns (by protected class) would raise student privacy concerns in smaller districts. The DOE noted it publishes an annual bullying report but receives limited protected‑class detail at present and cautioned about suppression thresholds to avoid identifying students.

Next steps and assignments: Committee members asked staff to consult the Attorney General’s Office and Department of Safety about cross‑state protocols and cyber responses, and to gather written input from the FBI or federal cyber units. Representative McDonald circulated amendment language for HB 108 to address district collaboration on cross‑district investigations. The committee tentatively scheduled follow‑up and possible amendments ahead of early bill deadlines in March.

Provenance: The summary is drawn from the committee work session transcript, including question‑and‑answer exchanges with Diana Fenton (NH DOE counsel) and written testimony and comments from the New Hampshire School Boards Association and disability advocates.","In a work session the House Education Policy Committee discussed three bullying bills and related issues including whether to create a designated \"bullying officer,\" use of CHINS petitions, cross‑state cyberbullying protocols and reporting of incidents involving protected classes.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6651339,"Committee votes: ITL on two items, unanimous approval for four education measures",0,4997000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2650877-340ae3526fe7ed4b143d58fb50d8d8da&start=4997&end=4997","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2650877-340ae3526fe7ed4b143d58fb50d8d8da/thumbnail_4997000.jpg","/articles/6651339/New-Hampshire/Committee-votes-ITL-on-two-items-unanimous-approval-for-four-education-measures","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6651339-a5aa2a707ad1ce5833557180762db1ad/orig.mp4?Expires=1771179341&Signature=Y~U3-Azj1hgL09vrPYBzEyp9I6CtnFT6n-U-PgouhP7IXdWYKoC~t7Wc205HClqZg3ugYEnZnZNjJVDq~ROhFz8BeaFl-U~T~3xeDvELOgtIuw8UKgcw~RhImQpxOonJbWEMp7uwmdMsXP4uyhM0XE5gTTOCimZlAzFQ3XyBChCePItv8ti5OumdWEt5NKZSqwkwahLU4wvxBaMx5vQvamN1jO9lRzQNbbv73iqX4LZsnCCIClZjvgtiuCka-4I7wrnMmUX2t4FQ5wr5cMOPrvirMISrII27f-s02dSWVpLb9ZohbVAuK8031FHhZQVfPAl~y9eq77Frs92C64GROg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Education Policy Committee on Feb. 20 recommended \"inexpedient to legislate\" (ITL) for House Bill 662, which would have required showing named abortion‑related videos in school health classes, and for House Concurrent Resolution 6, a resolution seeking removal of a District 67 superintendent. Both items were ITL'ed by voice vote and recorded roll calls.

The committee advanced, unanimously or by consent, several other measures: House Resolution 9 (urging the Department of Education to emphasize STEM education) and multiple bills including HB 440 (educator licensing, as amended) and HB 222 (repealing a memorandum‑of‑understanding requirement for charter schools and districts) were reported out with \"ought to pass\" recommendations. Most committee roll calls on those items were recorded as 18‑0 in favor.

Why it matters: The committee’s recommendations determine which bills reach the full House floor and shape what policies receive further legislative attention. ITL recommendations typically end a bill’s progress in that chamber; an \"ought to pass\" recommendation advances the measure for further consideration.

Most important outcomes

- HB 662 (health education: specified abortion videos): Motion to ITL carried — recorded as 18 to 0. The maker of the ITL motion said specifying required videos and involving the attorney general for enforcement went too far. The committee discussion focused on curriculum control and enforcement concerns.

- HCR 6 (resolution seeking removal of a District 67 superintendent): Motion to ITL carried — recorded as 18 to 0. Committee members cited ongoing court matters and concerns about setting a precedent for calling for removal while litigation proceeds.

- HR 9 (urging the Department of Education to emphasize STEM education): Committee recommended \"ought to pass\" — recorded as 18 to 0. Members praised student testimony and saw the resolution as largely nonpartisan.

- HB 440 (educator licensing): Committee approved \"ought to pass\" as amended (amendment 01888h clarifying that an assessment applies to initial licensing rather than renewals) — amendment carried 18 to 0; OTPA as amended carried 18 to 0.

- HB 222 (repealing the MOU requirement between charter public schools and districts regarding services for students with disabilities): Committee recommended \"ought to pass\" — recorded as 18 to 0. Testimony from the Charter School Alliance and supporters said oversight already exists and the statutory MOU lacked enforcement mechanisms.

- HB 719 (repeal of the right‑of‑first‑refusal for charter schools to lease or buy unused district facilities): Motion to ITL carried; committee recorded the tally as 17‑2‑1 (as announced by the clerk). Members said the problem appeared limited and recommended monitoring before changing law.

Votes at a glance (committee actions)

- HB 662 — Motion: ITL; outcome: failed (committee ITL recommendation); tally announced: 18 yes, 0 no.
- HCR 6 — Motion: ITL; outcome: failed (committee ITL recommendation); tally announced: 18 yes, 0 no.
- HR 9 — Motion: Ought to pass; outcome: approved; tally announced: 18 yes, 0 no.
- HB 440 — Amendment 01888h (adds wording clarifying \"initial license\"): amendment passed 18‑0. Motion: Ought to pass as amended; outcome: approved 18‑0.
- HB 222 — Motion: Ought to pass; outcome: approved 18‑0.
- HB 719 — Motion: ITL; outcome: failed (committee ITL recommendation); tally announced by clerk as \"17‑2‑1.\" (Clerk’s readout: 17 yes, 2 no, 1 recorded as a different status in the roll.)

What the numbers mean: Committee vote tallies were read aloud by the clerk during roll calls; most uncontested items recorded unanimous support (18‑0). Where roll calls differed (HB 719), the clerk announced the specific tally. Committee members used ITL to recommend against further legislative action on bills they judged unnecessary or premature; they used \"ought to pass\" to advance bills or resolutions the committee supported.

Provenance: committee transcript passages for each recorded roll call and motion are the basis for the tallies cited here.","The House Education Policy Committee recommended \"inexpedient to legislate\" on HB662 and HCR6 and voted unanimously to advance several other bills and an education resolution during its Feb. 20 session.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House hearings on open enrollment and district transfers split proponents and opponents

House committee debates bullying bills: officers, CHINS, cross‑state cyberbullying and protected‑class reporting

Committee votes: ITL on two items, unanimous approval for four education measures