AFT-NH Testimony Opposing SB101
From Debrah Howes, President AFT-NH
Apr. 1, 2026
To Chair Noble and members of the House Education Policy and Administration Committee:
My name is Debrah Howes, President of the American Federation of Teachers–NH. I speak on behalf of our 3,500 members who work in preK through grade 12 public education, in public services, and in private and public universities across the Granite State. We are taxpayers and citizens of New Hampshire, and many of us are parents or grandparents of public-school students.
On behalf of our members, the public-school students and communities we serve, AFT–New Hampshire opposes SB 101, even with the amendment discussed on March 25. While the amendment changes how open enrollment would be funded, it does not change the fundamental impact of the bill. Mandatory open enrollment still threatens equal educational opportunity, undermines local public schools, and diverts scarce resources away from the students and communities who rely on them most.
Supporters argue that the amendment improves SB 101 because it shifts the cost of open enrollment from local districts to the state. Analysis by Reaching Higher NH, using state per pupil base adequacy and a state open enrollment funding bonus will require tens of millions of dollars in new state education spending each year. Their analysis estimates that once participation grows, statewide open enrollment could up to $55 million annually. That is new state spending for a policy that benefits only a small percentage of students, while doing nothing for the roughly 95 percent of students who remain in their home districts.
Those dollars represent lost opportunities for many public-school students. At a time when schools are struggling to address building safety, special education staffing shortages, aging facilities, and unmet student mental health needs, the state is proposing to spend tens of millions of dollars to move some public-school students around instead of improving the schools they already attend. The same state that has declined to fully fund an adequate education, increase building aid, or meaningfully expand free school meals is now willing to create a costly new entitlement that does not strengthen public education for all students.
The amended bill does not provide a real choice for most public-school families. Transportation is still not provided. Families must get students to and from a nonresident school on their own. That means open enrollment will continue to be used primarily by families with flexible work schedules, reliable transportation, and financial stability. Working families, rural families, and families with multiple jobs are far less likely to benefit. A policy that only works for some families is not true choice. It is selective access. Public-schools are for all students, programs in them should be designed so all students have the opportunity to benefit.
Students with disabilities and students who need specialized supports remain especially vulnerable under SB 101. The resident district remains financially and legally responsible for special education services, while the student attends school in another district. This creates confusion, delays, and disputes over services and staffing. Educators and paraeducators know that students with disabilities need consistency, collaboration, and stable staffing. SB 101 creates fragmented responsibility and weakens accountability, putting those students at risk.
Open enrollment will take its toll on educators and school staff in perennially underfunded school districts. When a few students leave a district, staffing needs and working conditions change, but not always in predictable ways. Districts still face fixed costs and contractual obligations. Educators and paraeducators may lose positions or be asked to do more with less, even though the students who remain often have higher needs. Policies that create enrollment churn make it harder to maintain stable staffing, smaller class sizes, and strong relationships between students and educators. Financial instability in a public school district will make it harder to retain and attract talented teachers, paraeducators and school staff, further weakening the quality of the public education available to the students in the district.
Local property taxpayers are still harmed, even with the proposed funding shift. While the amendment reduces the requirement that local property tax dollars follow students to other districts, districts that lose students still lose state aid tied to enrollment. At the same time, they cannot easily reduce costs for buildings, transportation, or staffing. They are still responsible for all of the costs of the special education needs of students leaving the district, but less able to control costs through efficiency. This instability hits small and property-poor communities hardest. Local voters have repeatedly supported keeping education decisions local through district votes, and SB 101 overrides those decisions with a statewide mandate.
There are also serious concerns about segregation. Research and experience from other states show that open enrollment increases economic, academic, and disability-based segregation over time. Families with more resources are better able to navigate application processes and transportation and attendance barriers. As a result, districts become more divided by income and need. Public education should bring students together and ensure that every school is strong. SB 101 moves New Hampshire in the opposite direction.
Educators and paraeducators understand these consequences because they see them in classrooms every day. Strong public schools depend on stable funding, adequate staffing, and trust between schools and their communities. Mandatory open enrollment replaces that stability with competition and uncertainty, while weakening the voice of the education professionals who are committed to serving every student who walks through the door.
If the legislature wants to honor its constitutional obligation to New Hampshire public-school students, the answer is not to spend up to $55 million a year on an open enrollment system that helps a few and harms many. The solution is to fully fund public education for every student. The state should reduce its overreliance on local property taxes, invest in safe and modern school facilities, expand student supports, and ensure fair wages for educators and paraeducators. When each district has a strong public school capable of supporting the learning needs of all students, families do not need to look elsewhere.
For these reasons, even as amended, SB 101 should be found inexpedient to legislate. New Hampshire’s students deserve policies that strengthen public education for all, not ones that drain resources, divide communities, and leave too many children behind.
Sincerely,
Debrah Howes
President, AFT-New Hampshire