New Hampshire’s push toward statewide open enrollment is being framed as a debate about choice. But what is unfolding in Concord is not, at its core, a disagreement over values. It is a failure of process, and a troubling one.
Over the past weeks, I have worked with school board members and district leaders from across the state to draft an open letter urging legislators to slow the advance of mandatory open enrollment. That letter has now been signed by 593 school board members and district leaders, including over half of the state’s superintendents, representing communities large and small, rural and urban, north and south. While New Hampshire continues to debate the merits of open enrollment, what unites the signatories is something more fundamental: sweeping changes to public education should not be made without public hearings, fiscal clarity, or meaningful input from the people charged with implementing them.
Instead, this legislation has been fast-tracked through procedural maneuvers that bypass the normal committee process and foreclose public scrutiny. That alone should give lawmakers pause. Open enrollment reshapes how districts budget, staff schools, deliver special education services, define capacity, and manage transportation. These questions go directly to how districts operate and budget, and they must be resolved well before any law takes effect, especially when school systems run on voter-approved budgets and immovable timelines.
Throughout this debate, the New Hampshire Department of Education has been notably absent, not by disposition, but by circumstance. This is a consequential failure of process. The Department is staffed by talented, experienced, and deeply committed public servants who understand the operational realities of New Hampshire schools. Yet despite being responsible for implementing open enrollment, the Department has not appeared at hearings to answer questions or responded to the four pages of implementation questions submitted with the open letter. As a result, fiscal notes concede that impacts cannot be predicted, leaving critical details unresolved and legislators to proceed without the analysis this decision demands.
That absence matters. When the Legislature advances major policy shifts without clear guidance from the Department charged with carrying them out, it creates a dangerous dynamic: local school boards are left to absorb the consequences of decisions they did not design. When tuition obligations appear mid-year or staffing becomes misaligned with enrollment, it is local boards, not state lawmakers, who must explain higher taxes or program cuts to their communities.
This is not responsible governance. Course corrections, especially ones as consequential as open enrollment, cannot be made by jerking the wheel. Reasonable people can disagree about whether expanding inter-district enrollment improves opportunity. But stewardship demands agreement on how such policies are developed. The questions raised by districts are not ideological objections; they are practical ones that must be answered before, not after, implementation.
Public education in New Hampshire depends on clear lines of responsibility between the state and its local districts, and on lawmakers willing to exercise care commensurate with the stakes. When those lines blur, stewardship falters, leaving taxpayers and students to pay the price.
Curtis Hamilton is Greenfield’s representative to the ConVal School District School Board and vice chair of the board. His opinions are his own.