The New Hampshire Supreme Court affirmed a State Board of Education ruling requiring the Pittsfield School District to pay tuition for a student to attend an open enrollment school outside the district. The court issued its decision Oct. 17, 2025, in *Appeal of Pittsfield School District*, rejecting the district's challenge to state education officials' authority.
The case centers on E.A., a Pittsfield resident who was accepted to Prospect Mountain School for the 2023-2024 school year as a tenth-grader. When Prospect Mountain contacted the Pittsfield School District about tuition payment, the district refused to pay, setting up the legal dispute that ultimately reached the state's highest court.
The Pittsfield School District argued that RSA chapter 194-D, which governs open enrollment schools, does not apply to districts that have not formally adopted the statute. Since Pittsfield had not adopted the law, district officials contended the State Board of Education lacked legal authority to compel tuition payments.
The New Hampshire State Board of Education disagreed with this interpretation and ruled that the district must pay E.A.'s tuition to attend Prospect Mountain. The state board's decision prompted the district to file an appeal with the New Hampshire Supreme Court, represented by attorneys from Soule, Leslie, Kidder, Sayward & Loughman.
Chief Justice MacDonald authored the court's opinion affirming the State Board's ruling. The decision represents a victory for E.A.'s parents, who were represented by attorneys from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Cornerstone law firms.
The case was submitted to the Supreme Court on Sept. 16, 2025, and decided approximately one month later. The relatively quick turnaround suggests the court viewed the legal issues as straightforward, though the full reasoning behind the affirmance is not detailed in the available excerpts.
RSA chapter 194-D establishes New Hampshire's framework for open enrollment schools, which allow students to attend schools outside their home districts under certain circumstances. These schools provide educational alternatives to traditional district schools and can include specialized programs or different educational approaches.
The dispute highlights ongoing tensions between local school districts' fiscal responsibilities and state-level education policies designed to expand school choice options for families. School districts face budget constraints and often resist additional tuition obligations, particularly when they believe state law does not clearly require payment.
Pittsfield operates Pittsfield Middle High School, where E.A. was previously enrolled before seeking admission to Prospect Mountain School. The transition from the district school to the open enrollment school triggered the tuition dispute when Prospect Mountain sought payment from the home district.
The Supreme Court's affirmance suggests that New Hampshire's open enrollment statutes may have broader application than some districts believed. The ruling could impact how other school districts interpret their obligations under RSA chapter 194-D and may lead to increased tuition payments for students attending open enrollment schools.
For families seeking educational alternatives, the decision provides important clarity about districts' payment obligations. Parents considering open enrollment options for their children can now point to this precedent when districts question their tuition responsibilities.
The case also demonstrates the State Board of Education's authority to interpret and enforce school choice provisions. The Supreme Court's affirmance strengthens the state board's position in similar disputes that may arise with other districts.
Open enrollment schools serve various purposes in New Hampshire's educational landscape, offering specialized programs, different teaching approaches, or simply alternatives to traditional district schools. The ability of students to access these options without financial barriers from their home districts is crucial to the program's effectiveness.
The legal representation in the case reflects the significance both sides placed on the outcome. The district retained local counsel with education law experience, while E.A.'s parents secured representation from a major national firm alongside local attorneys.
The timing of E.A.'s application and admission for the 2023-2024 school year means the student has likely completed significant coursework at Prospect Mountain while the legal dispute played out. The resolution ensures the district will fulfill its tuition obligations for the educational services already provided.
This decision may prompt other New Hampshire school districts to review their policies regarding open enrollment schools and ensure compliance with state requirements. Districts that previously believed they could opt out of tuition obligations may need to reconsider their positions based on the Supreme Court's interpretation.
The case underscores the complex interplay between local district autonomy and state education policy. While districts maintain significant control over their operations, state law and oversight can compel specific actions, including financial obligations for student placement.
Looking ahead, the decision provides clearer guidance for similar disputes and may reduce litigation by establishing the State Board's authority in open enrollment matters. The ruling supports the state's school choice framework and ensures students can access alternative educational options without being blocked by district payment disputes.