Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

Oct. 17, 2025 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Appeal of Pittsfield Sch. Dist.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

• Citations: 2025 N.H. 46

• Docket Number: 2024-0445

• Opinion

• Authorities (3)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (25.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as
well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New
Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any
editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes
to press. Errors may be reported by email at the following address:
reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00
a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court’s home
page is: https://www.courts.nh.gov/our-courts/supreme-court

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

---

Board of Education
Case No. 2024-0445
Citation: Appeal of Pittsfield Sch. Dist., 2025 N.H. 46

APPEAL OF PITTSFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
(New Hampshire Board of Education)

Submitted: September 16, 2025
Opinion Issued: October 17, 2025

Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughman, P.L.L.C., of Wolfeboro
(Barbara F. Loughman on the brief), for the petitioner.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, of Washington, D.C. (Matt Gregory and
Victoria C. Granda on the brief), and Cornerstone, of Manchester (Ian B. Huyett
on the brief), for the respondents.

MACDONALD, C.J.

[¶1] The Pittsfield School District (District) appeals a ruling of the New
Hampshire State Board of Education (State Board) determining that the
District must pay tuition for a Pittsfield resident, E.A., to attend Prospect
Mountain School (Prospect Mountain), an open enrollment school. See RSA
194-D:3 (Supp. 2024). The District argues that RSA chapter 194-D “does not
apply in any school district that has not adopted” the statute and, because the
District has not done so, the State Board “does not have the legal authority” to
require the District to pay the pupil’s tuition. We affirm.

I. Background

[¶2] The following facts are supported by the record. The respondents,
E.A.’s parents, live in the District with their child, E.A. The District operates
Pittsfield Middle High School where E.A. was a student. In 2023, E.A. applied
and was accepted for admission to Prospect Mountain into its tenth-grade class
for the 2023-2024 school year. When Prospect Mountain contacted the District
about paying tuition for E.A. to attend the school, the District superintendent
responded that because the District’s voters have not adopted RSA chapter
194-D, the statute “does not apply to [the District] or its students” and “[i]f
[District] students want to attend [Prospect], their parents/guardians will be
responsible for the tuition; the [District] will not.”

[¶3] The respondents appealed the superintendent’s determination to the
District’s School Board, which voted to deny their request for the District to pay
E.A.’s tuition to attend Prospect Mountain. The respondents then appealed to
the State Board and a hearing was held before a hearing officer. Following the
hearing, the hearing officer recommended that the State Board uphold the
School Board’s decision because “[u]nder RSA 194-D, a sending school district
is not required to pay tuition for a student who is accepted to an open-
enrollment school that is not in the student’s resident school district unless the
sending school district has formally adopted an open-enrollment program, as
noted in RSA 194-D.”

[¶4] The respondents requested oral argument before the State Board.
Following oral argument, the State Board rejected the hearing officer’s
recommendation. Based on the plain language of the statute, the State Board
found that the purpose of the statute “is at least threefold: first, to provide
parental choice in public schooling; second, to create a statutory pathway for
any school district’s legislative body to designate one or more of its schools as
an open enrollment school; and third, to designate the sources of funding for
open enrollment schooling.” (Quotations, brackets, and ellipsis omitted.)

[¶5] The State Board rejected the District’s interpretation of the statutory
term “open enrollment school program” in RSA 194-D:3 as something more
than a program adopted by a school district’s legislative body to establish an
open enrollment school in its district. The State Board found that the District’s
interpretation of the term as requiring a vote by the District to participate in
Prospect Mountain’s open enrollment program “ignores the statute’s plain
language.” The State Board reasoned that “nothing in RSA 194-D:3
contemplates a sending district’s adoption of an ‘open enrollment school
program’ unless the sending district intends to establish its own open
enrollment school.” Accordingly, the State Board determined that RSA chapter

2
194-D “requires a resident district to pay the tuition of their pupils attending
an open enrollment school outside the resident district regardless of whether
the sending district has adopted the provisions” of the statute. The District
unsuccessfully moved for rehearing. This appeal followed.

[¶6] After the appeal was filed in this court, the legislature amended RSA
chapter 194-D. See Laws 2025, ch. 211 (eff. Sept. 13, 2025). We ordered the
parties to file supplemental briefs addressing: (1) whether the amendments
clarify or substantively change the former version of the statute; and (2) the
effect, if any, of the amendments on the issues raised by the District on appeal.

II. Analysis

[¶7] RSA chapter 541 governs our review of the State Board’s decision.
See Appeal of Rye Sch. Dist., 173 N.H. 753, 758 (2020). Under RSA 541:13
(2021), a party seeking to set aside a decision of the State Board has the
burden of demonstrating that the decision “is clearly unreasonable or
unlawful.” We will not disturb the State Board’s decision, except for errors of
law, unless we are satisfied, by a clear preponderance of the evidence, that it is
unjust or unreasonable. Rye Sch. Dist., 173 N.H. at 758. The State Board’s
findings of fact are presumed prima facie lawful and reasonable. Id. We review
the State Board’s rulings on issues of law de novo. Id.

[¶8] Resolving the issues on appeal requires that we engage in statutory
interpretation. We review the State Board’s statutory interpretation de novo.
See Appeal of Tower Hill Tavern, LLC, 177 N.H. __, __ (2025), 2025 N.H. 41,
¶8. We look first to the language of the statute itself and, if possible, construe
that language according to its plain and ordinary meaning. Id. We give effect
to every word of a statute whenever possible and will not consider what the
legislature might have said or add language that the legislature did not see fit
to include. Id. We also construe all parts of a statute together to effectuate its
overall purpose. Id. However, we do not construe statutes in isolation;
instead, we attempt to construe them in harmony with the overall statutory
scheme. Id.

[¶9] RSA chapter 194-D authorizes school districts in the state to
establish open enrollment schools and sets forth the rights and responsibilities
of an open enrollment school in a receiving district and, correspondingly, the
rights and responsibilities of a sending district should a pupil residing in that
district be accepted to attend an out-of-district open enrollment school. See
RSA 194-D:1, IV (Supp. 2024) (a “[r]eceiving district” is “the school district to
which a pupil is sent to attend an open enrollment school” (quotations
omitted)); RSA 194-D:1, VII (Supp. 2024) (a “[s]ending district” is “the school
district in which the pupil resides” (quotations omitted)). Pursuant to the
statute, “[a]ny school district legislative body may vote to designate one or more
of its schools as an open enrollment school.” RSA 194-D:2, I (Supp. 2024). In

3
doing so, the school district “may predetermine the number of pupils residing
outside an open enrollment school’s district or attendance area it deems
appropriate to accept.” RSA 194-D:2, IV (Supp. 2024). Open enrollment
schools may accept applications from “eligible pupils.” RSA 194-D:2, V (Supp.
2024). “Pupil” is defined as “any child who is eligible for attendance in public
schools in New Hampshire, and who lives with a parent.” RSA 194-D:1, III
(Supp. 2024).

[¶10] The District argues that because RSA 194-D:2 “allows any school
district to designate a school as an open enrollment school while RSA 194-D:3
allows any school district to adopt an open enrollment program,” the statute
requires both the sending or resident district and the receiving district to vote
to adopt an open enrollment school “program” before the statute’s provisions
apply to it. According to the District, “[t]he difference in language between
open enrollment school and open enrollment program is significant,” and
because the District has authorized neither, it is “not bound to pay tuition to
Prospect Mountain under the Open Enrollment Statute.”

[¶11] Before this appeal, the statute defined an “[o]pen enrollment public
school” or “open enrollment school” as “any public school which, in addition to
providing educational services to pupils residing within its attendance area or
district, chooses to accept pupils from other attendance areas within its district
and from outside its district.” RSA 194-D:1, I (Supp. 2024) (amended 2025)
(quotations omitted). The phrase “open enrollment school program” appeared
only in RSA 194-D:3, which sets forth the procedures a school district must
follow to establish an open enrollment school. This difference in language —
“open enrollment school program” versus “open enrollment school” — arguably
suggested that those terms had different meanings. Compare RSA 194-D:3, I
(Supp. 2024), with RSA 194-D:1, I.

[¶12] This, however, overlooks the fact that under RSA 194-D:2, I, a
school district may “designate one or more of its schools as an open enrollment
school.” (Emphasis added.) Given this provision, we read the word “program”
to accommodate those districts that designate more than one school as an
“open enrollment school.” In such circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude
that the legislature employed “program” to avoid any implication that a district
is required to use the procedures set out in RSA 194-D:3 for each open
enrollment school it designates. The amendments to RSA chapter 194-D,
moreover, clarify that the definition of an open enrollment school includes, in
addition to “[o]pen enrollment public school” and “open enrollment school,” an
“open enrollment program.” Laws 2025, ch. 211:1 (eff. Sept. 13, 2025)
(amending RSA 194-D:1, I).

[¶13] This clarification answers the District’s argument that the phrase
“open enrollment program” means something different than authorizing an
“open enrollment school,” in support of its position that a sending district must

4
adopt the provisions of RSA chapter 194-D:3 to be responsible for paying
tuition for a resident student who attends an out-of-district open enrollment
school. See Bovaird v. N.H. Dep’t of Admin. Servs., 166 N.H. 755, 763 (2014)
(“[W]here a former statute is clarified by amendment, the amendment is strong
evidence of the legislative intent concerning the original enactment.”). There is
no other language in the statute that could plausibly be construed to suggest
that a sending district must adopt the provisions of RSA 194-D:3 to be subject
to the terms of the statute, and we will not add language to the statute that the
legislature did not see fit to include. Tower Hill Tavern, LLC, 177 N.H. at __,
2025 N.H. 41, ¶8. Thus, we conclude, as did the State Board, that “the
permissive adoption of an ‘open enrollment school program’” under RSA 194-
D:3, I, “only applies to a school district wishing to establish an open enrollment
school or that has already established an open enrollment school in its
district.”

[¶14] The legislature’s recent amendments to RSA 194-D:5 (Supp. 2024)
(amended 2025) further make clear that a sending district is responsible for
paying a resident pupil’s tuition to a receiving district that has been authorized
as an open enrollment school regardless of whether the sending district has
chosen to adopt an open enrollment school program. RSA 194-D:5 sets forth
the funding sources for open enrollment schools. Prior to its amendment, RSA
194-D:5, I, provided:

For an open enrollment school authorized by the school district,
the pupil’s resident district shall pay to such school an amount
equal to not less than 80 percent of that district’s average cost per
pupil as determined by the department of education using the
most recent available data as reported by the district to the
department.

RSA 194-D:5, I (emphases added). The recent amendments to RSA 194-D:5, I,
provide additional specificity to the statute as follows:

For an open enrollment school authorized by a receiving school
district, the pupil’s sending district shall pay the receiving district
an amount equal to not less than 80 percent of the sending
district’s average cost per pupil as determined by the department
of education using the most recent available data as reported by
the sending district to the department.

Laws 2025, ch. 211:2 (eff. Sept. 13, 2025) (bolding omitted and emphases
added). This specificity confirms the intent of RSA 194-D:5, I: it is the
receiving district that must be an open enrollment school, and a sending
district is required to pay tuition under RSA 194-D:5, I, to an open enrollment
school even if the sending district has not adopted an open enrollment school
program under RSA 194-D:3, I.

5
[¶15] Finally, the legislature’s recent amendment to RSA 194-D:6 (Supp.
2024) (amended 2025) addresses the District’s assertion that it need not pay
tuition to a receiving district because the District has never adopted a separate
line item in its operating budget showing the estimated expenditures for open
enrollment school tuition. Before the 2025 amendment to RSA 194-D:6,
nothing in the statute required approval by the sending district of expenditures
for tuition to open enrollment schools. The statute merely required that the
sending district’s budget include a line item for those expenditures. As
amended, the statute clarifies that “[e]ach school district shall establish a line
item in their operating budget, on an annual basis, reflecting estimated
expenditures for open enrollment school tuition and offsetting revenue
estimates from sending school districts.” Laws 2025, ch. 211:3 (eff. Sept. 13,
2025) (bolding omitted and emphasis added).

[¶16] We hold that under RSA chapter 194-D, a sending school district is
required to pay tuition under RSA 194-D:5, I, to an open enrollment receiving
school in another district even if the sending district has not adopted an open
enrollment program under RSA 194-D:3. We have considered the District’s
remaining arguments and conclude that they do not warrant further
discussion. See Vogel v. Vogel, 137 N.H. 321, 322 (1993); Sup. Ct. R. 25(8).
Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

DONOVAN, COUNTWAY, and GOULD, JJ., concurred.

6