Committee Summary for House Education Policy and Administration (04/01/2026)

Member	Member	Member
Noble, Kristin(Chairman)(R)[A+]2025	Drye, Margaret(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Peternel, Katy(V Chairman)(R)[A]2025
Cornell, Patricia(D)[F]2025	Freeman, Lisa(R)[B+]2025	Belcher, Mike(R)[B+]2025
Hall, Muriel(D)[CT]2025	Terry, Paul(R)[B+]2025	McDonnell, Valerie(R)[B+]2025
Selig, Loren(D)[D-]2025	Balboni, Peggy(D)[CT]2025	Murray, Megan(D)[CT]2025
Tenczar, Jeffrey(R)[B+]2025	Litchfield, Melissa(R)[B+]2025	Woodcock, Stephen(D)[F]2025
Kluger, Lee Ann(D)[F]2025	Snodgrass, Jim(D)[F]2025	Nadeau, Brian(R)[B+]2025

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB101 Lange Amendment	Public Hearing	(New Title) authorizing parents to enroll their children in any public school in the state and creating a limited exemption from parental consent required for certain recordings under the parental bill of rights.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB101 Lang Amendment	Public Hearing	(New Title) authorizing parents to enroll their children in any public school in the state and creating a limited exemption from parental consent required for certain recordings under the parental bill of rights.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025

SB101 Lange Amendment: Oppose 01:27:02.088 - 10:09:18 AM; Representative Southworth, with 43 years in public education, opposes SB 101 due to disparities in district resources and conflicts with federal special education laws. He suggests following the Education Freedom Account model instead of the charter school model, notes challenges in monitoring IEPs at different locations, and highlights issues with capacity, timelines, and special education services. He praises the improved cost formula but calls for a fiscal note, emphasizing the need for careful consideration before enactment.
SB101 Lange Amendment: Oppose 01:32:00.000 - 10:14:16 AM; Reverend McLeod opposes SB 101, arguing it exacerbates inequities in New Hampshire's education system, where working-class districts like Newport face higher taxes and lower spending compared to wealthier areas like New London. He warns that open enrollment will force poorer towns to cut programs and raise taxes further, benefiting only some students while harming communities, and urges legislators to fund adequate education for all rather than widening gaps.
SB101 Lange Amendment: Oppose 01:37:00.000 - 10:19:16 AM; Cynthia Thorell, a Pembroke resident and taxpayer, opposes SB 101, stating it will increase property taxes without benefiting all students. She argues that local voters have already approved limited open enrollment and that the state should not override these decisions. Thorell criticizes the funding model, noting sending districts lose aid without cost reductions, and questions special education logistics, transportation, and the new amendment's implications, advocating for better funding of existing schools instead.
SB101 Lange Amendment: Oppose 01:45:00.000 - 10:27:16 AM; Kathleen Smallsbenden, speaking for herself and the Newmarket School Board, opposes SB 101 and the last-minute Lange amendment, calling it a fiscal trap that disrupts democratic investments like Newmarket's school bond. She highlights unanswered questions on capacity, special needs transportation, and funding losses for sending districts, citing examples from existing open enrollment in Franklin and Prospect Mountain. Smallsbenden urges studying the issue via HB 1280 and funding adequate education to eliminate zip code disparities rather than privileging choice for some.
SB101 Lange Amendment: Oppose 01:57:02.088 - 10:39:18 AM; Jane Bergeron Boulieu opposes SB 101 for its failure to address impacts on students with disabilities, ignoring Section 504 plans and replicating flawed charter school models for special education. She lists numerous unanswered questions on referrals, monitoring, liability, transportation, Medicaid, and budgeting, warning of increased costs, litigation, and challenges due to staffing shortages. Bergeron emphasizes that resident districts bear full responsibility without oversight, potentially harming complex learners and economies of scale in specialized programs.
SB101 Lange Amendment: Information Only 02:20:00.000 - 11:02:16 AM; Representative Moffatt provides informational testimony on SB 101, drawing from his extensive education experience. He suggests learning from other states' open enrollment models to avoid pitfalls, encourages innovation and competition to improve schools, and discusses niches like sports or trades that could save struggling districts. He acknowledges funding and special education concerns but supports exploring choice to agitate complacency in the education establishment.
SB101 Lange Amendment: Oppose 02:35:00.000 - 11:17:16 AM; Caitlin Bernier, a Merrimack parent with a child in special education, opposes SB 101 and the amendment, arguing it ignores state underfunding of special education (only 17% received vs. 40% required). She questions the sudden availability of funds for open enrollment amid surpluses, highlights barriers for disabled families like transportation and attendance issues from anxiety, and notes exclusionary effects on low-income and special needs students. Bernier cites strong public opposition and urges prioritizing all Granite Staters over privileged agendas.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 02:57:02.088 - 11:39:18 AM; Dr. Esposito, with a doctorate in educational leadership focusing on autistic students, shares experiences as a former paraprofessional and teacher supporting students with disabilities. He highlights discriminatory outcomes in other states like Wisconsin and Nebraska, where students with disabilities face higher rejection rates under open enrollment despite legal protections. He criticizes SB 101 for lacking safeguards, undefined denial criteria, and unresolved issues for IEPs and 504 plans, such as funding, service delivery, and disclosure. He warns of increased costs, legal risks, and service disruptions for students with disabilities.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 03:12:02.088 - 11:54:18 AM; Representative Damon urges the committee to revisit House Bill 1280 for a study commission on open enrollment, citing extensive testimony and public opposition. He emphasizes the need for a thorough fiscal note, analysis of impacts on special education and non-special education students, and addressing transportation barriers that make the program exclusionary rather than inclusive for all families.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 03:55:42.489 - 12:37:58 PM; As a 35-year educator and chair of the Merrimack Valley School Board, Representative Brickey supports school choice pathways but opposes the amendment to SB 101 for creating instability, unfunded mandates, and budget uncertainty. She notes fixed costs remain despite enrollment losses, diverting focus from education, and highlights inequities for low-income families without transportation. She cites over 2,000 citizens from 219 communities opposing the bill and urges rejection to strengthen public schools.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Support 04:00:00.000 - 12:42:16 PM; Doris Hohensee supports allowing taxpayers to switch districts to respect rights of conscience under the state constitution but criticizes open enrollment for disenfranchising families in both sending and receiving districts. She advocates for full district switching with funding and voting rights, referencing historical practices with nearly 3,000 districts, and opposes partial measures that undermine local self-governance and create tiers of rights.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 04:10:42.489 - 12:52:58 PM; Tom Keegan opposes SB 101 and the amendment for causing tax dollar losses, widening disparities between wealthy and low-value property communities, and creating enrollment uncertainty. He notes negation of local warrant articles, existing successful policies like those in Prospect Mountain and Newfound Area, and risks like recruiting athletes. He emphasizes local control erosion and urges defeat, highlighting public opposition.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 04:25:42.489 - 1:07:58 PM; As a mother of three with two children having IEPs for Soto syndrome including autism and cortical visual impairment, Amy opposes unequal treatment under open enrollment. She raises concerns about service delivery like TVI, O&M, FM systems, compliance, and discrimination in admissions. She stresses including disabled voices in policy-making, notes 20% of NH students have IEPs, and argues it harms community building by fragmenting neighborhood schools.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 04:30:00.000 - 1:12:16 PM; Parent of two autistic sons with IEPs, Jennifer opposes SB 101 for unanswered questions on funding AAC devices, therapies, paraprofessionals, and IEP management across districts. She highlights para shortages, community integration benefits, transportation barriers, and risks to FAPE. She notes undervalued paras and urges consideration of impacts on children needing individualized support before voting.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Information Only 04:40:42.489 - 1:22:58 PM; With 27 years as Director of Student Services, Esther discusses overlooked impacts on Title I, ESOL, free/reduced lunch, homeless, and foster care students under open enrollment. She notes transportation barriers, funding uncertainties, and service disparities, drawing from experiences like No Child Left Behind consultations. She supports parental rights but urges a study committee to address unexamined issues like Medicaid and 504 costs before implementation.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 04:55:42.489 - 1:37:58 PM; As Milford School Board Chair, Karen opposes the Lang amendment, citing chaos in budgets, unanswered questions from school leaders, and voter rejection of open enrollment in 93 of 104 districts. She highlights special education capacity limits, ELL funding shortfalls, athletic equity issues, and CTE complications. She argues it erodes community, public good, and local economics, urging investment in public schools over flawed choice.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 05:00:00.000 - 1:42:16 PM; The Rollinsford superintendent opposes SB 101 for not relieving taxpayer burdens, increasing disparities, allowing discriminatory denials, and ignoring low demand shown by stable public enrollment. Citing data on minimal non-public growth and population decline, she argues it won't improve outcomes and risks closing small successful schools like Rollinsford's. She questions the problem it solves and urges opposition.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 05:25:42.489 - 2:07:58 PM; Representing Newport with high free/reduced lunch (57%) and special education (28%) rates, Nikki opposes the amendment as a political fix increasing costs via the education trust fund without addressing local destabilization. She warns of budget breaks, special education liabilities, implementation delays causing uncertainty, and failure for rural districts, predicting school closures and urging a no vote.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 05:30:00.000 - 2:12:16 PM; As a parent of an adult with Down syndrome and disability equity director, Lisa opposes SB 101 for harming students with disabilities and low-income families through lower participation rates, denials, resource stratification, and FAPE interruptions. She critiques marketplace ethos, transportation barriers, capacity excuses for exclusion, and fiscal indeterminacy, urging ITL to avoid fragmentation of public education.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 05:35:00.000 - 2:17:16 PM; Dr. Costa opposes the $55 million allocation for bypassing local warrant processes, creating fixed cost deficits leading to tax hikes or cuts, and illusory choice without transportation. She notes misalignment with budget cycles, benefits to wealthy districts, and existing pathways like hardship agreements. She urges ITL to prioritize equitable funding over destabilizing policies.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 05:40:42.489 - 2:22:58 PM; Curtis opposes SB 101, citing an open letter from 614 leaders warning of fiscal and operational risks without transparent analysis. He criticizes the fast-tracked process lacking DOE fiscal notes, conflicting uptake estimates, and rejection of study bills. He urges careful consideration of local impacts on budgets and equity before advancing without full information.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 05:55:42.489 - 2:37:58 PM; David Trumbull expresses concerns about the bill's impact on poorly funded schools, arguing it will entrench and exacerbate existing inequities rather than resolve them. He highlights New Hampshire's low state funding share (25%) leading to spending and educational disparities, with low-income towns suffering low proficiency rates. He estimates the bill could cost $40 million if 5% of students participate, resulting in sending districts losing at least $10,000 per student in adequacy payments, extraordinary grants, and fiscal capacity disparity aid. He provides examples of financial losses for towns like Berlin ($665,000), Newport ($430,000), Claremont ($940,000), Manchester ($7 million), and Franklin ($566,000), affecting over a third of students in needy districts. Trumbull argues that open enrollment works in other states with higher state funding (26-35%), but New Hampshire's system relies too heavily on local taxes (70%), making it unsuitable without funding reforms. During questioning, he emphasizes the harm to 'everyday learners' in struggling districts and compares public schools' mandatory special education costs to private schools' selective admissions.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Information Only 06:10:42.489 - 2:52:58 PM; Alex Tilsley, Director of Policy at Reaching Higher New Hampshire, provides a financial analysis of the Lang Amendment based on fiscal year 2027 estimates. He discusses student take-up rates, noting 1% in year one but stabilizing at 5-10% nationwide, and presents costs at different rates: $3 million at 1%, $15-30 million at 5-10% depending on methodology. He critiques Senator Lang's analysis for including swept funds and the DOE's estimate of $7.7 million at 1% based on a $5,000 bonus. Reaching Higher's approach considers average per-pupil funding beyond adequacy and differentiated aid, including extraordinary needs and fiscal capacity disparity aid losses. Tilsley urges consideration of these fiscal impacts on the state and districts.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 06:25:42.489 - 3:07:58 PM; The speaker acknowledges concerns from local school board members about SB 101 and urges consideration of testimony on related bills like HB 751. She requests changing 'sending district' to 'district of liability' for accuracy, noting complexities in liability for education and services. She criticizes building the amendment on the flawed charter school funding model, which lacks resolution for special education and MOUs, and questions requiring MOUs between all districts. She highlights impacts on after-school programs, transportation, administrative roles, busing, bullying investigations, grants, and special ed costs, arguing no cost savings and potential need for expanded staffing without economy of scale. Additional issues include kindergarten/pre-K access, post-12th grade, discipline hearings, staff training, CBAs, and whether open enrollment constitutes unilateral parental placement under IDEA, absolving districts of some responsibilities. She advocates for ITL or interim study on all open enrollment bills to address concerns thoughtfully, noting widespread opposition from parents, voters, and educators. During questioning, she explains differences in unilateral parental placements for charters versus district-proposed out-of-district placements under IEPs.
SB101 Lang Amendment: Oppose 06:46:19.421 - 3:28:35 PM; Deborah Howes opposes SB 101, arguing it helps few students while exacerbating challenges for most in an inequitable, property-tax reliant system affecting 75% of students in property-poor districts. She questions diverting $5,000 per transferring student from the Education Trust Fund when it could improve current schools through building repairs, hiring, and CTE expansion. Estimating 5-10% participation costing $55 million over years, she notes it benefits robust districts over struggling ones. The bill limits choice for low-income, rural, working families due to transportation barriers and excludes ELL students without capacity requirements, potentially violating civil rights. It risks denying special ed students indirectly via capacity limits, as seen in other states, and impacts Title I funding for poverty-concentrated districts. Staff cuts from budget losses increase class sizes, caseloads, and turnover, harming education quality and local taxpayers via higher taxes and lost economies of scale in special ed. Open enrollment may increase segregation by economic, academic, and disability lines, dividing communities rather than uniting them. During questioning, she discusses scheduling challenges for special ed services like speech-language pathology across districts.