Allowing parents to send their child to another district, is a great idea. But the current open enrollment program undermines our right to local self-governance. It forces parents to pay taxes to the district they are trying to leave, and disenfranchises them in the district they want to join.
They become outsiders without a voice where it matters, where their child attends school. Open Enrollment creates privileges to attend another district while withholding their constitutional right to local self-governance.
The current open enrollment law requires the sending district to fund 80% of the average cost per pupil, which requires the education taxes of at least four median sized households to pay for a single departing student to another district. What district can afford to lose that amount of funding after their budgets are approved and funds are allocated? None. Budgets are tight. There’s no spare funding.
Many districts passed warrant articles restricting outgoing students from their district to zero to protect their budgets. The new bill, Senate Bill 101, no longer allows districts to limit the number of outgoing students, so naturally there was considerable opposition.
Responding to these concerns, the sponsor introduced an amendment to SB 101 allowing the sending district to keep all of its funding, and offering ~$9,200 in state funds per student to the receiving district, which is the same amount the state gives for charter school students. This quickly defused fiscal concerns, but… who’s in charge? The State or parents?
Another complication arises from the special education community. Parents of disabled students are concerned because of the uncertainty over this voluntary program and how it meets their children’s required specialized services.
Under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) a resident school district or home district is the local educational agency where a child’s parents reside and hold domicile. The home district is responsible for identifying, evaluating, and providing (funding) a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to eligible disabled children.
FAPE is an entitlement, created by the federal government to benefit disabled students. It’s not a right, because it’s not an inherent freedom that can exist independent of government.
On average, a disabled child commands 66% more funding than a non-disabled child. The number of disabled children has grown steadily. Currently 20% of NH students are considered disabled, which is a substantial factor in driving up property taxes.
It’s far more difficult to insure coverage of Individual Education Plans (IEPs), 504 plans, Medicaid coverage for speech pathology, physical therapy, occupational therapy, psychological counseling, nursing services in a district outside the home district. Nor is it a trivial exercise to transport certain disabled students to another district.
Parents of special education students would need to do their due diligence and research the services available in a new district and decide whether or not it’s a good fit for their child. All parents need to analyze the available options before choosing enrollment in a new district.
The unacceptable shortfall of the bill is that all families are disenfranchised when sending their child to a new district. Families should be allowed to change districts, redirect the education portion of their own property taxes, and become a fully participating member of their new school community whenever possible. Families shouldn’t have to forfeit one right (the right to vote, i.e., local self-governance) to exercise another (the right of conscience to change districts). Both are protected fundamental rights.
Open Enrollment students are at risk of being returned to their home district if extra seats are no longer available, disrupting relationships they’ve developed and studies they’ve pursued over years, unless the family is allowed to fund and join the new district. For most students it would be advantageous for the family to fund and join the new district, vote, and even run for office, rather than remain an outsider without a voice in their child’s education.
State funding isn’t needed when families are able to bring the education portion of their property taxes with them. This was the custom for many, many years in NH when families were allowed to change districts. We had nearly 3,000 school districts.
We have the right to elect our own teachers and contract with them for their support and maintenance. Local self-governance over public education is a fundamental constitutional right.
Open Enrollment currently restricts families. Parents are given the feeling that they’re in control, while the State disenfranchises them, undermining local self-governance. That’s not empowerment.
Changing districts should be allowed, though it might not be favorable for disabled students, because federal law, IDEA, ties funding of their disability entitlement to the family’s home district or domicile. The home district is fiscally responsible for a disabled student’s services, not a new district that implements those services.
Open Enrollment should allow families the option of changing districts without forfeiting fundamental constitutional rights. This allows parents to build stronger school communities, not just select a district without being allowed to fully participate in local governance.
Legislators should support local self-governance and rights of conscience, that they took an oath to uphold, not to increase State control.
Fundamental Rights Matter.
