Warning: Bill numbers and names are based on text-to-speech transcript which may have errors due to transcription issues or ad hoc/incomplete language use by committee.
(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.
(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.
(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.
Representative Balboni introduced the amendment to add exemptions to the Parental Bill of Rights for written parental consent prior to student audio or visual recordings used in regular instructional coursework. She explained that the recent law changed the system from opt-out to opt-in, causing operational issues in schools for activities like theater, music, speech, and journalism. A student from Winnacunnet High School's broadcast television class contacted her about difficulties obtaining consents, impacting learning in various courses including foreign languages and CTE. She urged support to restore instructional use of recordings without impeding student learning.
SB429 2026-1351H
Support00:12:57.948 - 10:11:23 AM
Lola Marston, a junior and president of the student voice committee at Concord High School, testified on how the audio-video recording restrictions affect student programs. She described impacts in CPR and first aid classes where recordings allow self-evaluation of techniques, but now require repeated consents, excluding some students. In performing arts, including a 150-person choir, recordings provide personalized feedback on skills like rhythm and pitch, which individual teacher sessions cannot efficiently deliver. She emphasized how recordings have built her confidence and skills since elementary school, and hopes the amendment considers effects on daily learning.
SB429 2026-1351H
Support00:12:57.948 - 10:11:23 AM
Dekha Hussain, a junior at Concord High School, added to the testimony by highlighting accessibility issues with opt-in consents, especially for English language learners whose families may not speak English or check emails. This excludes students from classes like choir, public speaking, yoga, CPR, and podcast projects, disrupting class community and assessments. She struggled with self-assessment without videos, underscoring the inaccessibility for public school students.
SB429 2026-1351H
Support00:19:12.041 - 10:17:38 AM
Jack Havey, a student from Winnacunnet High School, supported the amendment, thanking representatives and his school for the opportunity to speak. He explained how the law hinders the news program WHTV by making it impossible to obtain permissions for spontaneous interviews or B-roll footage. Prior opt-out policies allowed voluntary participation, and the amendment would restore local school board regulation, enabling journalism skills and First Amendment rights without undermining student protections.
SB429 2026-1351H
Support00:22:17.449 - 10:20:43 AM
William McGowan, principal of Winnacunnet High School, supported the amendment, noting its greater impact on students than administration. He referenced Jack's testimony on journalism limitations and extended to foreign language audio recordings for assessments, sports videos for athlete improvement, and general curriculum uses. Prior opt-out policies with alternative assessments ensured inclusion, and public events were openly recordable. He affirmed the value of multiple feedback methods integrating technology for student growth.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:35:02.070 - 10:33:28 AM
Rebecca Frenette provided information on special education aspects of SB 101 FN. For 504 plans, the enrolling district becomes responsible upon transfer, likely adopting the existing plan with possible adjustments, as it pertains to accessibility under ADA. For IEPs, the resident district remains financially liable per RSA 186-C:13, covering costs like accommodations, while federal and state funds flow to the resident district. She clarified distinctions between 'district of residence' (IDEA-related) and 'district of liability' (financial). Receiving districts cannot require disclosure of disabilities for admission without parental release, and should not base acceptance on disabilities. Transportation for IEP students under open enrollment is not additionally provided beyond IEP stipulations.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:45:34.257 - 10:44:00 AM
Questioned about transportation requirements for special education students under the bill, clarifying that the sending district remains responsible for specialized transportation if determined necessary by the IEP, regardless of the receiving district.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:46:24.257 - 10:44:50 AM
Followed up on costs associated with transportation and IEP services, confirming that the sending district bears responsibility for costs deemed necessary by the current IEP, even if the receiving district is far away, using examples like Berlin to Portsmouth.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:47:00.097 - 10:45:26 AM
Discussed district of liability and funding mechanisms, asking about initial distribution of funding starting October 1 and how pre-October counts are handled, particularly for IDEA funding using static October 1 counts from the previous year.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:48:06.217 - 10:46:32 AM
Inquired about the IEP process location for students moving districts, suggesting cooperation similar to charter schools, preferably at the receiving school for access to teachers, and where the IEP team meets.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:50:07.817 - 10:48:33 AM
Asked for clarification on transportation responsibility for special education students under the amendment, noting no change from original intent, and confirmed it's the resident district's responsibility as per page three, lines 24-25, addressing a potential misinterpretation from initial hearing.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:52:19.177 - 10:50:45 AM
Questioned the practicality of parents sending children long distances like Berlin to Portsmouth for education, and asked about other states' open enrollment models for special education, noting NH's unique structure where resident district retains liability unlike many states where receiving district becomes LEA.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:55:26.457 - 10:53:52 AM
Confirmed understanding that open enrollment is voluntary.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:56:23.176 - 10:54:49 AM
Asked for simplified explanation of costs for sending and receiving schools for regular and special education students under open enrollment, clarifying funding includes adequacy plus free/reduced and ELL, plus charter school funding around $7,100-$9,000, not local money or tuition as in prior bills.
SB101 1451h
Information Only00:58:19.296 - 10:56:45 AM
Questioned costs for special education services like OT, PT, speech, paraprofessionals, confirming resident district remains responsible, and raised concerns about staffing availability in receiving districts, liability for IEP violations, and collaboration similar to charter schools, including sending staff if needed.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:04:03.536 - 11:02:29 AM
Discussed challenges if receiving district lacks services like outside therapists, potential IEP violations, and compared to public-to-public transfers being easier than to charters due to existing staff; also asked about assistive technology costs and ownership, noting resident district purchases and retains ownership, potentially sending with child or reimbursing via IDEA funds.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:06:53.869 - 11:05:19 AM
Requested decorum in addressing representatives by title; expressed disappointment in the session's productivity, urging focus on improving the bill for all students rather than hypothetical extreme scenarios.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:07:59.309 - 11:06:25 AM
Defended dialogue as aimed at improving the bill and ensuring services, not seeking grievances.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:08:56.349 - 11:07:22 AM
Asked about shared paraprofessionals for multiple students; if students disperse via open enrollment, how funding works—resident district pays portions to receiving districts based on hours, via collaboration, reimbursable through IDEA or special education aid.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:12:50.549 - 11:11:16 AM
Raised concerns about increased costs for resident district if shared services become fragmented, questioning full reimbursement via state/federal funds, noting potential for higher administrative costs but eligibility for IDEA (100%) or special ed aid (after CAP).
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:13:49.749 - 11:12:15 AM
Inquired about the pool of IEP service providers, noting shortages in some areas and use of virtual therapies; asked about seeking out-of-state services via MOUs if certified in NH, and that department doesn't set rates except for approved private providers.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:15:50.189 - 11:14:16 AM
Asked how a receiving school handles a student needing an IEP who didn't have one initially—referral goes to resident district for assessment and collaboration; commented on NH's unique structure vs. other states, noting difficulties in multi-district collaboration for charters.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:17:50.305 - 11:16:16 AM
Questioned Section 10B on denial for disciplinary issues not tied to disability, relating to McKinney-Vento students with higher ACEs; sought perspective on handling behavior from instability without formal disability.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:20:07.185 - 11:18:33 AM
Assumed services provided first, payment figured later; hoped no delay in honoring IEP, similar to out-of-state or district moves.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:20:57.665 - 11:19:23 AM
Asked if parents ever leave districts for schools lacking desired services—unaware of such cases.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:22:02.385 - 11:20:28 AM
Questioned rates for private providers (OT/PT), noting DOE sets only for approved 25 providers, not statewide; local districts pay market rates, so sending district pays receiving area's potentially higher costs.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:24:58.945 - 11:23:24 AM
Sought clarity on amendment language qualifying denial for disciplinary issues not part of identified disability; explained manifestation determination process under IDEA, where behaviors tied to disability require supports, not counting as disciplinary history.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:27:03.665 - 11:25:29 AM
Asked if autism spectrum behaviors from sensory issues would be considered disciplinary—typically not, with supports provided instead.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:28:02.545 - 11:26:28 AM
Explored if costs could increase or decrease via economies of scale or regional pay differences; noted special ed aid reimburses over 3.5x average cost per pupil (up to 80%, then 100% over 10x), with potential proration.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:29:04.465 - 11:27:30 AM
Noted another bill (HB 1563) may change funding, lowering threshold to 2.5x but district pays 10% over 10x; questioned FERPA implications for sharing records pre-enrollment.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:31:05.105 - 11:29:31 AM
Asked about case manager role in transitions and least restrictive environment (LRE) if non-special ed students leave, leaving higher special ed proportion—LRE based on IEP placement in regular settings, not building demographics; extreme scenarios indicate deeper issues.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:35:15.505 - 11:33:41 AM
Philosophized on parental vs. governmental responsibility in education, arguing against government interference in parental choices.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:36:09.105 - 11:34:35 AM
Questioned 'at least one education option' on page four—likely ensures districts without full K-12 maintain anchor school agreements, not replaceable by open enrollment.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:37:24.465 - 11:35:50 AM
Clarified Section II addresses small districts tuitioning students, requiring continued anchor agreements; raised issue of receiving districts adding special ed surcharges, noting it happens with charters but not reimbursable unless in IEP.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:42:14.300 - 11:40:40 AM
Asked if additional costs for equipment/services reimbursable via IDEA (up to 100% if funds available, over 3 years); clarified submission process; on catastrophic aid, currently 80% from 3.5x-10x average, 100% over 10x, with district share.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:46:17.905 - 11:44:43 AM
Provided info on HB 1563: lowers threshold to 2.5x, district pays 10% over 10x, net effect varies by district population.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:47:29.105 - 11:45:55 AM
Questioned lottery process for capacity limits, potential disproportionate selection excluding IEP students—must be random, no discrimination, preferences for siblings/employees only; noted data from other states showing inadvertent disparities.
SB101 1451h
Information Only01:48:41.665 - 11:47:07 AM
Asked about adequacy aid delay based on prior year counts, affecting open enrollment payments—IDEA counts child with resident district; deferred adequacy to analytics division.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:04:44.805 - 1:03:10 PM
Introduces the discussion on amendment 1451h, noting it is a replace all after the enacting clause. Explains changes on page one, including adding 'through grade 12' and 'who is a resident of the state,' changing 'sending district' to 'resident district' throughout, and renumbering for alphabetical order.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:05:55.805 - 1:04:21 PM
Suggests holding questions until after going through the whole amendment and proposes discussing page by page.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:10:31.507 - 1:08:57 PM
Addresses Representative Murray's question regarding interstate compacts, clarifying that a student from another state under an interstate compact is not eligible for open enrollment in a New Hampshire public school.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:10:31.507 - 1:08:57 PM
Raises a question on the definition of capacity on line 12 of page 1, specifically 'without the addition of staff,' and how it addresses special education students in open enrollment who may require additional staffing in the receiving district. Notes that the resident district would pay for staffing but questions if the receiving district must hire the staff.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:11:52.853 - 1:10:18 PM
Explains that students are considered general education first and special education second, so capacity determinations are made without regard to special education status. The resident district is responsible for any additional needs, including hiring.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:11:52.853 - 1:10:18 PM
Follows up on the scenario where a student is accepted as general education but later identified as needing special education services, questioning who adds staff and whether the receiving district is burdened.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:13:07.374 - 1:11:33 PM
Clarifies that the resident district is responsible for providing and paying for special education services, even if delivered at the receiving district. In charter schools, the employee may be of the charter school, paid by the resident district.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:14:34.981 - 1:13:00 PM
Notes that districts must communicate to determine service provision and payment, similar to current charter school operations.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:15:41.981 - 1:14:07 PM
Points out that the 'without the addition of staff' language applies to general education as well, such as CTE or AP classes, questioning if it prevents expanding classes to accommodate students. Follows up on whether this honors local town meeting decisions on capacity and if zero inbound is allowed.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:16:50.648 - 1:15:16 PM
Explains the language prevents accepting too many students that exceed budgets, a concern from constituents. Confirms it honors local capacities but prohibits setting inbound at zero, unlike current outbound provisions.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:18:09.981 - 1:16:35 PM
Notes that they are in the definitions section and many questions relate to later applicability. Highlights that replacing 194D removes percentage-based capacity options currently allowed.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:19:10.981 - 1:17:36 PM
On page 2, the governing body must establish an open enrollment policy and set capacity based on their analysis, not percentages.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:20:29.248 - 1:18:55 PM
Questions if districts can still set capacity at zero inbound as some did this year, and clarifies that outbound cannot be restricted.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:20:29.248 - 1:18:55 PM
Explains that capacity definitions apply to inbound only, not outbound. Absence of outbound provision removes authority to restrict leaving students.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:22:28.048 - 1:20:54 PM
Expresses significant concern with repealing and reenacting 194D, particularly section 3 on procedures for adoption, rescission, and limitations, leading to lack of clarity on public hearings, timelines, and voting at meetings.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:23:28.568 - 1:21:54 PM
Clarifies that districts must now establish an open enrollment policy with no opt-out, handled by the governing body without needing prior procedural requirements.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:24:36.608 - 1:23:02 PM
Acknowledges most districts already plan but worries about lack of clarifying language, especially compared to charter school formation processes, potentially creating inconsistencies.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:25:46.779 - 1:24:12 PM
Emphasizes keeping language loose for district flexibility, allowing zero capacity if needed without over-definition.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:26:50.339 - 1:25:16 PM
Shares concerns about sudden student influxes not accounted for in capacity settings on July 1 and December 1, using example of 25 unexpected first-graders requiring emergency restructuring. Questions how this affects local students if capacity changes post-acceptance. Also raises issue with the unique CATS program at UNH for Oyster River residents, whether open enrollment students qualify, and potential fairness/litigation issues.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:28:41.699 - 1:27:07 PM
Asks if there is a statewide dual enrollment program that could address the UNH situation.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:29:39.179 - 1:28:05 PM
Explains the difference between statewide dual enrollment (co-credit with community colleges) and the unique CATS program specific to Oyster River and UNH, involving full university classes. Notes it's to offset UNH's non-taxpaying impact, and excluding open enrollment students could seem discriminatory.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:31:36.579 - 1:30:02 PM
Suggests local school boards can address CATS eligibility in their open enrollment policies, giving districts latitude.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:32:31.939 - 1:30:57 PM
Reiterates potential for perceived discrimination if residents access CATS but open enrollment students do not, risking litigation, and questions how capacity is determined for such programs controlled by UNH.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:33:36.059 - 1:32:02 PM
Questions if there is legal provision for UNH, as a state-funded school, to make private agreements with localities.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:33:36.059 - 1:32:02 PM
Suggests inviting the Department of Education to explain legal authority for such university-local agreements before voting.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:34:35.899 - 1:33:01 PM
Indicates the CATS situation is covered under 'other academic programs with enrollment limitations' on page 2, line 7.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:34:35.899 - 1:33:01 PM
Asks about publishing total capacity on the website: update frequency (at least twice a year or more?) and how it handles census changes. Questions the broad term 'other academic programs,' whether defined by districts or via State Board rulemaking, noting potential inconsistencies.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:35:46.699 - 1:34:12 PM
Notes rulemaking authority on page 5 for the State Board to address such questions. Left broad to allow for future innovations in academic programs.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:36:54.139 - 1:35:20 PM
Confirms deference to State Board for enumerating programs, creating state-level conversation while allowing local definitions.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:37:57.314 - 1:36:23 PM
Highlights changes on page 2: line 19 changed 'district-operated open enrollment' to 'public,' allowing application to any public school; also mentions public charter school.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:38:43.315 - 1:37:09 PM
Explains that open enrollment does not apply to public charter schools, which operate under a different chapter of law. Clarifies application process similar to current charter school applications. Notes that schools like Pinkerton and Coos Brown under public-private partnerships with tuition agreements would be covered under the tuition agreements section.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:40:22.285 - 1:38:48 PM
Comments that a combination of existing tuition agreements and local governing body decisions would allow flexibility in handling such cases.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:40:22.285 - 1:38:48 PM
Points out changes in section 10 regarding exclusions for students with documented disciplinary issues not related to disabilities, and chronic absenteeism not due to 504 plans, IEPs, McKinney-Vento, foster care, or bullying. Raises concerns about student privacy and how resident districts would share information with receiving schools without violating privacy.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:41:24.300 - 1:39:50 PM
Suggests parents would sign a letter of agreement to share information after acceptance, and information would be communicated to the receiving district. Notes that some information must be transferred, and denials could occur based on unexcused absences or truancy.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:42:53.300 - 1:41:19 PM
Expresses worry about excluding McKinney-Vento students whose absenteeism or behavior relates to homelessness or insecurity, potentially missing a cohort of students with ACEs or trauma not covered by IEPs. Questions application process for multiple schools and need for a decision deadline, noting it would be handled via rulemaking.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:43:58.300 - 1:42:24 PM
Clarifies that information sharing would occur if a student is denied, not upfront, to avoid unnecessary disclosure.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:45:38.300 - 1:44:04 PM
Agrees that procedures for information sharing should be developed locally and via rulemaking to avoid being too prescriptive, considering individual district needs.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:46:41.754 - 1:45:07 PM
Expresses concern that requiring information before processing applications could lead to screening and discrimination, preferring it after approval.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:47:47.354 - 1:46:13 PM
Notes safeguards in the amendment, such as reporting denials to the Department of Education, to prevent discrimination.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:48:59.194 - 1:47:25 PM
Confirms transportation responsibility remains with parents for non-special education students but notes amendment changes. Raises concerns about McKinney-Vento students' access to transportation and potential socioeconomic stratification.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:50:02.794 - 1:48:28 PM
Clarifies that districts are currently responsible for transportation for McKinney-Vento students, which would extend to open enrollment.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:51:23.250 - 1:49:49 PM
Points out that under McKinney-Vento, schools provide transportation to the school of origin, not parents. Notes that in open enrollment, if the resident district pays tuition, they would provide transportation for homeless students choosing a distant school.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:52:34.969 - 1:51:00 PM
Suggests applications should only require grade level to check space availability, especially for pre-K through 8, with more details needed at high school for programs. Questions need for additional disclosures beyond grade.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:53:43.469 - 1:52:09 PM
Acknowledges applications based on space but notes eventual need to share information like IEPs or disciplinary history upon enrollment. Discusses home-educated students with no prior records applying.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:57:03.070 - 1:55:29 PM
Clarifies federal McKinney-Vento requires transportation to school of origin by resident district, not receiving district. Discusses blind vs. informed systems, warning that prohibiting exclusions for behavioral issues could incentivize sending districts to offload problem students.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:57:57.070 - 1:56:23 PM
Reiterates concerns about excluding financially or housing insecure students, questioning if resident district would fund transportation for open enrollment under McKinney-Vento to remove barriers.
SB101 1451h
Information Only03:59:01.070 - 1:57:27 PM
Appreciates sentiment but emphasizes the bill focuses on removing government barriers to parental choice, not solving broader poverty issues.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:00:05.070 - 1:58:31 PM
Agrees two things can be true: the bill expands opportunities while potentially limiting them for McKinney-Vento students without transportation support.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:01:24.070 - 1:59:50 PM
Asked whether there is a statutory definition for 'significant disciplinary issues' and 'chronic absenteeism' in the context of open enrollment eligibility.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:01:30.000 - 1:59:56 PM
Explained that there is no definition of disciplinary issues in statute but pointed to line 25 on page 2 regarding denial of open enrollment applications, noting it leaves policy decisions to local governing bodies and the Board of Education. Discussed McKinney-Vento provisions for homeless students, including immediate enrollment, appeal processes, written notice, and transportation eligibility pending appeals. Emphasized that parents have latitude to advocate. Expressed respect for local control but concern that it creates an uneven playing field for defining student behaviors across districts.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:03:39.463 - 2:02:05 PM
Raised concerns under McKinney-Vento federal law about reasonable transportation lengths for students, potential litigation over bus time reasonableness in open enrollment, and requirements for transportation to extracurricular activities. Noted the creation of additional enrollment options could lead to more dispute resolution.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:05:36.883 - 2:04:02 PM
Reported that while returning from the hall, an officer informed them of a request for fans to address the rising temperature in the room due to closed doors and volume issues, though availability is uncertain.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:05:40.000 - 2:04:06 PM
Described changes on page 3, including addition at line 13 for lottery preferences giving priority to students with parents or guardians on active military duty regardless of residence location. Noted changes to 'sending to resident' and 'paid online.' Highlighted a new amendment at line 25 allowing parents to provide transportation to an existing bus stop unless determined otherwise by an IEP or Section 504 plan. Mentioned corrections on the old amendment at line 28, crossing out erroneous 'C' and other text.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:07:33.358 - 2:05:59 PM
Questioned the addition of military service preferences under lines 7, 9, and 13 on page 3, arguing that preferences in a lottery make it non-discriminatory or non-selective, as it excludes certain students from the lottery, effectively discriminating against others in it. Suggested this undermines the open, non-discriminatory nature of the lottery process.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:09:29.358 - 2:07:55 PM
Acknowledged the concern but expressed support for 'positive discrimination' in favor of active duty military children who frequently relocate, to ensure they get priority admission.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:10:16.358 - 2:08:42 PM
Expressed concern about defining preferences by geographical locations, using the example of Bedford High School potentially setting boundaries to accept students from economically similar towns while excluding those from Manchester, leading to unintentional discrimination without explicit statement.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:11:35.358 - 2:10:01 PM
Stated that none of the proposed lottery preferences are unusual and are common in open enrollment programs across the country.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:11:40.000 - 2:10:06 PM
Addressed concerns about geographic redlining, agreeing it is an issue, and referenced page 2 provisions allowing denied students to report discrimination to the Department of Education for resolution. Used the example that Manchester, adjacent to Bedford, would clearly be considered in the same geographical area, and the department would intervene if discrimination occurred.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:12:31.358 - 2:10:57 PM
Inquired about the transportation provision on page 3, lines 24-26, regarding access to existing bus stop routes, particularly how it interacts with third-party busing companies used by some districts. Asked about flexibility for parents to change drop-off locations (e.g., due to missing a bus or permission slips for going home with friends), noting digital communication platforms and safety considerations. Referenced a local district policy limiting changes to once a year for child safety and predictability.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:14:59.428 - 2:13:25 PM
The speaker discusses transportation options for non-resident students under open enrollment, noting that districts provide information on bus routes, which may involve third-party busing companies rather than district-owned buses. They clarify that parents receive bus route details from the school district, not directly from the bus company.
SB101 1451h
Oppose04:16:01.948 - 2:14:27 PM
Representative Woodcock addresses concerns about the lottery system in open enrollment, highlighting differences in funding between New Hampshire and other states. He notes that other states with open enrollment are primarily state-funded, unlike New Hampshire's 15% state and 85% local funding model, which ranks low nationally. He argues against adopting models from other states due to these funding disparities.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:17:26.668 - 2:15:52 PM
Representative Murray suggests refocusing the discussion on reviewing changes to the amendment rather than going off-topic, as the meeting is running long. He urges forging ahead with the changes before broader discussions.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:17:26.668 - 2:15:52 PM
The speaker raises a point of order against using the phrase 'off the reservation,' calling it disrespectful to Native communities, and questions if it violates rules.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:18:32.988 - 2:16:58 PM
The chair acknowledges the point of order, calls for respect, and proceeds to review remaining changes in the amendment on pages 4 and 5, including changing 'sending districts' to 'resident district' in multiple places and 'may' to 'shall' for state board duties.
SB101 1451h
Support04:19:22.294 - 2:17:48 PM
Terry suggests moving into executive session after reviewing changes, noting the time constraint before 2:30.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:19:22.294 - 2:17:48 PM
Representative Damon seeks clarification on page 3, lines 18-19, regarding continuous enrollment for open enrollment pupils without re-application, and questions if this applies when receiving district capacity changes due to population growth.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:20:33.934 - 2:18:59 PM
The responder confirms that continuous enrollment is maintained, and students are not kicked out if capacity issues arise.
SB101 1451h
Oppose04:20:33.934 - 2:18:59 PM
Representative Woodcock follows up on capacity concerns, noting that while annual re-application is addressed, the bill lacks clarity on what happens to open enrollment students if capacity is lost due to new residents. He references prior discussion with Senator Lang suggesting sending students back and calls for clarification to protect enrolled students.
SB101 1451h
Support04:23:42.174 - 2:22:08 PM
Representative Belcher explains that capacity definitions apply only to new incoming students, not existing ones, so open enrollment students would not be expelled. He emphasizes schools' ability to adapt to new residents.
SB101 1451h
Oppose04:26:21.916 - 2:24:47 PM
The speaker expresses concerns about funding from the education trust fund and general fund, citing overruns in education freedom accounts and declining trust fund balances. They question how additional costs will be covered given state revenue issues.
SB101 1451h
Oppose04:27:36.916 - 2:26:02 PM
The speaker worries about voting without answers to outstanding questions from the Department of Education, emphasizing the need for full understanding before deciding, especially on issues like capacity and transportation for low-income students.
SB101 1451h
Support04:29:34.916 - 2:28:00 PM
Representative Litchfield references successful testimony from Prospect Mountain superintendent on current open enrollment, suggesting strategic enrollment management. He advocates voting to benefit all students and asks for clarification on payment schedules, noting the first payment structure and tranches.
SB101 1451h
Oppose04:31:26.916 - 2:29:52 PM
The responder criticizes using Prospect Mountain as a model due to its small size, available space, and favorable funding under the current system, noting it's not representative statewide.
SB101 1451h
Information Only04:32:14.512 - 2:30:40 PM
The speaker notes the new amendment arrived today, appreciates the walkthrough, but highlights unresolved questions from prior discussions and cautions against rushing due to the bill's significance.
SB101 1451h
Support04:33:10.832 - 2:31:36 PM
The chair explains the need to move forward today due to deadline and announces transition to caucus.
SB101 1451h
Oppose04:34:14.252 - 2:32:40 PM
Representative Damon introduces amendment 1455 to create a commission studying public school open enrollment, reducing commission size, adding members, and outlining duties that echo current discussions. She argues for stepping back to deliberate, citing public opposition and uncertainties.
SB101 1451h
Support04:55:44.996 - 2:54:10 PM
In executive session discussion, Representative Belcher supports the legislation as promoting parental and school choice by breaking geographic barriers, allowing students to attend better-suited schools across districts.
SB101 1451h
Support04:56:14.882 - 2:54:40 PM
Emphasizes parental rights in directing children's education and supports open enrollment as groundbreaking legislation providing more opportunities for all students, including special education. Notes that current state revenues exceed estimates by $140 million, comparing favorably to the EFA program's cost, and views the bill's cost as minimal relative to overall education spending.
SB101 1451h
Support04:57:40.916 - 2:56:06 PM
Agrees with Representative Belcher and highlights the new funding mechanism using the charter school format, which shifts burden to the state, reduces local district costs, and is fairer than mechanisms in other states, meeting parents' and students' needs within public schools.
SB101 1451h
Oppose04:58:55.780 - 2:57:21 PM
Argues the bill is a major policy change rushed without answers to key questions on capacity, special education, transportation, economic equity, and funding. Cites public opposition: 81 of 104 school districts voted for limited open enrollment, plus 2,173 opposed vs. 75 in support via online testimony. Notes charter school model complications for special education in NH and lack of funding details, leading minority to vote against.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:05:38.257 - 3:04:04 PM
Explains the amendment, which clarifies that security systems are allowable and carves out school security videos and information from RSA 91-A (Right to Know) eligibility to protect privacy, similar to prison security, ensuring such materials cannot be requested publicly.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:06:11.697 - 3:04:37 PM
Questions whether the amendment is germane, as it introduces a new section on RSA 91-A, noting impacts on school districts statewide and the need for input from affected constituencies.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Support05:08:32.999 - 3:06:58 PM
Explains that under RSA 91-A, the public has a right to government-generated information, including school videos, but proposes exempting school surveillance footage and recordings to protect student privacy since children are compelled to attend school and should not have their images accessible to random individuals via requests, similar to protections in prisons.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Support05:09:30.559 - 3:07:56 PM
Details the amendment's scope, covering any video or audio generated by or for public schools, including security cameras, bus cameras, and classroom systems, exempting depictions of pupils, minors, or security information to prevent public access that could compromise privacy or reveal vulnerabilities.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:10:39.959 - 3:09:05 PM
Seeks clarification on the amendment's language, noting concern that it could impact 91-A access to school board meeting recordings where students present or speak, potentially overriding public access to such proceedings as school board meetings are subject to 91-A.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:11:49.159 - 3:10:15 PM
Emphasizes the need for a legal opinion to ensure the amendment does not unintentionally restrict access to information from school board meetings involving students, while supporting further protection for students from external access to school video content.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:12:44.999 - 3:11:10 PM
Responds that school boards, as elected bodies, are explicitly subject to right-to-know laws beyond 91-A, distinguishing them from school administrative units, and asserts no legal confusion exists based on prior laws.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:13:59.867 - 3:12:25 PM
Highlights that the amendment's language specifies school administrative units (SAUs) or chartered public schools, which could affect SAU meetings or live streams including students, similar to school board recordings.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Support05:14:00.000 - 3:12:26 PM
Clarifies the intent to narrowly exempt content implicating student privacy or security while keeping public events like school board meetings accessible under 91-A, balancing compulsory attendance privacy concerns with voluntary public participation.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:16:06.428 - 3:14:32 PM
Questions the distinction between school board meetings and SAU meetings regarding student participation and 91-A applicability.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:16:06.428 - 3:14:32 PM
Explains SAU meetings differ from elected school board policy meetings as they are not necessarily public elected official gatherings under the spirit of 91-A, but emphasizes the primary goal to protect student privacy from potential 91-A requests.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:17:00.122 - 3:15:26 PM
Asks Representative Belcher if the amendment would require permission for students speaking in public settings like the committee hearing, referencing students from Crotched High School who testified earlier without apparent permission.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:17:30.000 - 3:15:56 PM
Agrees public forums like committee hearings or school board meetings involve voluntary participation where public interest in political processes outweighs privacy, unlike compulsory classroom settings; cites Supreme Court precedents balancing public interest and privacy, such as prison footage exemptions.
HB1429 2026-1467-H
Information Only05:18:52.322 - 3:17:18 PM
Suggests the amendment introduces unnecessary complications as a quick fix and proposes tabling it for future consideration since it is not urgent, allowing focus on the original amendment.
HB1429 2024-421a
Information Only05:32:12.687 - 3:30:38 PM
Announces consideration of the bill relative to on-campus experience and placement in public schools with appropriation, recognizes the representative managing the second amendment.
HB1429 2024-421a
Support05:32:12.687 - 3:30:38 PM
Moves the amendment to 421a for Ought to Pass; explains it addresses a request from high school students unable to conduct voice recordings essential for their instruction, correcting the parental bill of rights to permit videotaping and voice recordings for student instructional purposes.
HB1429 2024-421a
Vote05:34:10.587 - 3:32:36 PM
The amendment passes unanimously with a vote of 18-0.
HB1429 2024-421a
Information Only05:33:02.587 - 3:31:28 PM
Notes this addresses an unintended consequence from prior legislation, emphasizing the need for careful review; highlights the positive involvement of students in the process as a learning opportunity.
HB1429 1351h
Support05:34:10.587 - 3:32:36 PM
Moves Ought to Pass as Amended; describes the amendment as providing basic emergency supplies like stop the bleed kits in classrooms and schools to complement AEDs, addressing trauma as a leading cause of death in young people and ensuring baseline preparedness.
HB1429 1351h
Support05:35:34.587 - 3:34:00 PM
Agrees with Representative Belcher on the merits of the amendment for school safety.
HB1429 1351h
Support05:36:30.587 - 3:34:56 PM
Expresses support for the Ought to Pass as Amended, hopes for future discussion on related points; inquires about fiscal note impacting consent calendar placement and notes coordination with Senator Prentice, the bill's sponsor.
HB1429 1351h
Vote05:37:39.587 - 3:36:05 PM
The bill passes Ought to Pass as Amended by 1351h unanimously with a vote of 18-0.
HB1429 1351h
Information Only05:38:30.527 - 3:36:56 PM
Concludes the session, requests reports by end of tomorrow, and announces cancellation of Wednesday's meeting due to emergency.