Nick Bellows

To the House Education Policy and Administration Committee, My name is Nick Bellows, and I serve as a member of the Rochester School Board. I am also a longtime educator and a parent of two children in our public schools. I want to begin by acknowledging something important: the idea of expanding opportunity for students is one we all share. Families want the best for their children, and we should take that seriously. But good intentions are not enough to make good policy - and SB 101, as written, creates more risk than opportunity for communities like mine. In Rochester, we are already navigating real challenges. We are managing budget reductions, ongoing staffing shortages, and the responsibility of serving a large number of students who require additional support. These are not theoretical concerns - they are the daily reality of running a public school system. SB 101 would introduce a level of instability that we cannot responsibly absorb. When students leave a district, the funding may follow - but the costs do not. We still have to staff our schools, maintain our buildings, and meet our obligations to the students who remain. That is especially true in a district like Rochester, where many of our responsibilities are tied to providing essential services and supports. Those responsibilities do not shrink just because enrollment shifts. In a city like Rochester, where resources are already stretched, even small disruptions can have real consequences. At the same time, this bill fundamentally changes the relationship between communities and their schools. By redefining residency at the state level, it effectively treats every student as a resident of every district. That breaks the long-standing connection between local communities, their schools, and the taxpayers who support them. It also raises serious concerns about governance and responsibility. Local school boards are still accountable for their budgets, their staffing, and their students - but under this proposal, they would have far less control over enrollment and the flow of resources. That creates a system where responsibility remains local, but decision-making becomes increasingly disconnected from the communities most affected. This bill also asks local property taxpayers to send their dollars to other communities, while still carrying the full weight of the system at home. That raises a fundamental question of fairness. The people of Rochester support their schools with the expectation that those resources will serve their community. SB 101 breaks that connection without offering a sustainable alternative. And while the bill is framed around expanding choice, the reality is that access to that choice will not be equal. Families with the ability to provide transportation or cover additional costs will have options that others do not. Meanwhile, the students who remain in their local schools will feel the impact of reduced resources and increased strain on the system. Perhaps most concerning, SB 101 attempts to make a fundamental change to how public education operates in New Hampshire without answering basic questions about how it will work. Issues related to capacity, special education services, transportation, and financial responsibility remain unresolved. We have a responsibility to get this right - and this proposal is not ready. Public schools are not just service providers - they are the backbone of our communities. In cities like Rochester, they are places where families come together, where children build relationships, and where communities invest in their future. Policies that weaken that foundation should not be taken lightly. If the state believes that expanding access across district lines is a priority, then it should be done thoughtfully - with a clear plan, with appropriate funding, and with protections in place for the communities that will be most affected. SB 101 does not meet that standard. For these reasons, I urge you to vote Inexpedient to Legislate on SB 101. Thank you for your time and consideration.