State board accepts hearing officer's conclusions in Merrimack McKinney‑Vento residency appeal

The State Board of Education reviewed an appeal from a Merrimack family seeking McKinney‑Vento services after a housing loss and accepted the hearing officer's findings that the family's current living situation met statutory residency standards.

A parent identified as Sarah of Monroe testified that her family lost housing when their landlord planned redevelopment; she said the disruption had been traumatic for her children and urged the board to allow the family to continue receiving services while they worked to return to Merrimack. "It was the eleventh hour when this was happening and there was nowhere for my family to go," she said, asking the board to consider the social and emotional harm to her children if they were required to change schools.

District representatives told the board the superintendent or district staff had earlier determined the family's move to Milford met the statutory tests for fixed, regular and adequate housing. A district presenter explained the school had previously allowed the children to remain through a senior year out of a recognition of continuity, but that under residency statutes the family is expected to enroll in the district where they reside. The district representative said the action taken in June 2024 followed the residency statute and the hearing officer's report concluded the students did not meet the statutory definition of homeless.

Board members discussed options available to the family, including best‑interest placements for the remainder of the school year and local open‑enrollment approaches. After discussion, a board member moved to accept the hearing officer's report; the motion was seconded and the board recorded the favorable vote. Board members expressed sympathy for the family's circumstance and urged districts and advocates to continue exploring supports within statutory constraints.

Authority cited in the discussion included the federal McKinney‑Vento Act and New Hampshire residency statute definitions, which board members said limited the remedies the board could order. The board did not order a different placement; the hearing officer's report was accepted as the basis for administration follow‑up.