The debate over public school open enrollment is over. How do we know? Opponents have conceded the main point: Open enrollment benefits students.
Senate Bill 101, arguably the most important bill of the 2026 legislative session, would let students enroll in any New Hampshire public school that has room for them. Have a problem with the academics, discipline or overall culture in your child’s assigned school? Work outside the district and prefer to use the school nearest your employer rather than your home? Open enrollment could be the answer.
Under the bill, students would be assigned to their district public school, as usual. Those who’d like to try an alternative could apply to transfer to a public school outside of their district. If that school has room for them, the transfer is accepted.
In the current version of SB 101, no local dollars move between districts. Instead, the state sends to the receiving district the same amount of money that public charter school students receive ($9,180 in fiscal year 2025). That’s more than double the base adequate education grant for a district public school student.
It’s a simple system. As with public charter schools, the resident district would pay for special education services, if there are any, and would receive federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) grants for them.
With local property tax funds untouched, opponents have struggled to find a strong argument against the bill. Last week, they wound up conceding that open enrollment would benefit students, but arguing that it shouldn’t pass until the state could make sure that everyone can participate.
“While framed as expanding choice, in practice it would benefit only those families able to provide transportation, limiting access for many others,” the House Education Policy and Administration Committee’s minority report states.
The argument ultimately fails because it excludes the largest group of beneficiaries. Opponents concede that students who participate in open enrollment will benefit. They don’t acknowledge, or don’t know, that students who remain in their assigned district school also benefit.
As we reported in January, research from California, Ohio and Wisconsin has shown that competition between school districts can encourage them to improve.
California’s study of Los Angeles’ open enrollment program found that “home districts often respond to the program by taking action to gain clarity about the priorities of their communities and by implementing new educational programs. We also found that the home districts most affected by the program have made above-average gains in student achievement over the past several years, although the role of the program in these gains is difficult to determine.”
Consistent with economic theory, research on school choice programs has found that competition helps even students who never leave their assigned school. When faced with the threat of losing students, school districts tend to become more responsive to parents’ concerns and more focused on improving student outcomes.
This is already happening in New Hampshire.
“We need to start selling all the positive things that it has because at some point, we may have to compete for students,” an attorney for the Manchester School District, warning of the advancing open enrollment bill, advised the district in January.
Most states have some form of open enrollment law, and 16 have a robust universal open enrollment program. These programs are increasing in popularity as state policymakers learn what academic researchers discovered decades ago: choice improves outcomes.
Open enrollment is unique among school choice programs in delivering results for students while keeping all the money within the traditional public school system. It’s a way to use the benefits of competition to improve traditional public schools directly. And it has a proven track record of success.
With both sides stating that open enrollment will benefit students, the debate now boils down to a single question: Should New Hampshire students get access to those benefits immediately or after a few more years of delay?
