[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6562071,"mediaKeyId","3281197-d6def192f8569c5fd7d8b1d6154bc3ba","parentId",3281197,"title","Votes at a glance: key actions from the Senate Education Committee executive session","audioSeconds",5195,"startMs",275000,"endMs",5470000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3281197-d6def192f8569c5fd7d8b1d6154bc3ba&start=275&end=5470","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3281197-d6def192f8569c5fd7d8b1d6154bc3ba/thumbnail_275000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6562071/New-Hampshire/Votes-at-a-glance-key-actions-from-the-Senate-Education-Committee-executive-session","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6562071-02a6e32c2bd1690b074168edf55b73a1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770889600&Signature=RMy-ZgigHZFPgZMbNUIHhWN~jdnmpbSZK9e5IUlzH2hpQpV4UweZSE3qkKakD9usp5bGwnjDJvLlm4mre6EP3p-kd2~M97ED8lrX8p5w1JvbJM68lyWsN6rWMQafYPhIjmzZxNHv~bY0KqGV-cwMxX1-RKYrOIkRYCK7ednND4U37clfCxa08baVb-mdD9IsmAtOx1yGBFTr1iKw0n0eXmEWht5Su8--6U~Qd9j4oJfxbYPTCW4BIDnvHdp1gBRQIU8iBKQhWYlJFzs5kkymoVI4d-3RcgQDQddDpSoIj8b2-rlZaNbzbYmDxRzcLyDW8WhykxVHURChkn9i3cG3Sg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","New Hampshire Legislature","date","2025-05-09T14:07:48Z","article","During the executive session the Senate Education Committee recorded final committee actions on several bills. The committee combined some issues into separate agenda items and voted on amendments or final committee recommendations. Below are the bills and the committee outcome as recorded in the transcript.

Votes at a glance
- HB10 (as amended): Committee recommended ought to pass with underlying amendment. Committee tally: 3 in favor, 2 opposed.
- HB50: Committee placed the bill on consent for the calendar; recorded on the transcript as 5-0 for consent.
- HB532 (IEP team meeting facilitation option): Committee adopted amendment 0-25-19-15 (reordering/clarifying language) and recommended ought to pass with amendment. Committee tally: 5-0.
- HB699 (special education definitions): Committee voted ought to pass (OTP) with a recorded tally of 3-2; bill was taken out for further consideration (committee member later removed it from consent).
- HB768 (allows public schools to enter into certain contracts with nonpublic schools — amendment to change “private/nonsectarian” to “nonpublic”): Committee voted ought to pass with the underlying committee amendment; tally recorded as 3-2 and the item was removed from consent by a committee member.

Notes on process and scope
- These are committee recommendations and amendments. Passage at committee does not equal final enactment; bills reported ought to pass proceed to the Senate calendar and may be further amended on the chamber floor or in a committee of conference.
- Where the transcript did not record individual member votes by name, only the tallied counts are reported here (the chair read the tallies aloud).

Formal actions (summary)
Detailed entries below capture the formal motions recorded on the transcript; if the mover/second is not named in the transcript the field is left as \"not specified.\"","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Education (05/13/2025)","oneSentenceSummary","The committee recorded votes across multiple education bills. This roundup lists bills that received formal committee outcomes during the executive session and the official committee tallies reported on the record.","taxTitle","Judiciary, Senate , Committees\t, Legislative, New Hampshire","taxId",29511,"location","New Hampshire","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6562075,"Committee votes to table youth risk behavior survey requirement after parents and providers clash over content",1024,3692000,4716000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3281197-d6def192f8569c5fd7d8b1d6154bc3ba&start=3692&end=4716","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3281197-d6def192f8569c5fd7d8b1d6154bc3ba/thumbnail_3692000.jpg","/articles/6562075/New-Hampshire/Committee-votes-to-table-youth-risk-behavior-survey-requirement-after-parents-and-providers-clash-over-content","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6562075-9f351cc69982ab703f712d39ca8e33bc/orig.mp4?Expires=1770889600&Signature=c4jdhu8Qm50So~QTk65sjq4dc9wuI-6MaTUXkA~JCViIZuQkWI7eSWAFRxaCN7ITJCIoMQLmoq0NR7iPmzL8NGI-gqKQdi72Gkbq-fC40DRWeSXxb-RH0wrdsoL3sVXnLpehBMzlhub6dThidwT0Dvz7c67xBzkIAeXVBVl1ePd1NaKFZwb21fSzGUqI-tafFZ8ukNhx91BCf0RFopHd9fqvR0-i-LM1Yf51kSZRM~cW4EQ46kk6kM8Fhld0VzVLVBvJr1g4aF5uvDcVLEAN2ZPuLBO2-y7S1iASTLsczc281j6aCnnxedTBeKQ5ww3NGHs9YOfzDTmqtuYpjtPu3g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Education Committee voted 3-2 to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on a bill that would change youth risk behavior survey practice and requirements used by schools and public health partners.

Committee members split over whether the survey’s opt‑out approach yields the statistically valid, randomized participation (reportedly about 62% participation under the current opt‑out model) necessary to secure federal and state grant funding for suicide prevention, opioid programs and other youth services, or whether parental concerns about survey content require shifting to an opt‑in model or eliminating the survey altogether.

Why it matters: The Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) and comparable instruments are commonly used to measure prevalence of suicide ideation, substance use, and other risk behaviors among adolescents. Committee supporters said the data are the foundation for grant applications, program planning and prevention work across the state; opponents said parents were alarmed by the survey’s content and that children should not be asked sensitive sexual or mental‑health questions in a classroom context without explicit written consent.

What committee members said
Senator Prentice (motioning for ITL) framed the vote around program funding and statistical validity, saying that opting in “would eliminate the opportunity to have significantly credible data for our programming.” Prentice and other supporters cited examples from Dover Police Department and nonprofit providers who rely on YRBS‑style data to identify needs and secure grant funding.

Senator Sullivan opposed the bill, saying that parents who reviewed the survey on social media “were appalled by the questions” and that students should not be asked about sexual behavior in a classroom setting. Sullivan argued that the survey contributes to why some parents seek education alternatives.

Formal action
Committee motioned and voted ITL (inexpedient to legislate). Vote recorded in the transcript as 3 in favor of ITL, 2 opposed. The proponents (who moved ITL and spoke in favor) argued the opt‑out method is necessary to maintain participation above the statistical threshold needed for credible, randomized data sets; opponents said opt‑in is the more parent‑protective standard.

Ending
The ITL recommendation halts legislative changes to the survey at this session. Supporters said the state’s prevention programs will lose a key data source if the opt‑out approach is replaced; opponents said parental concerns require reconsideration of the survey’s administration and content.

","The Senate Education Committee voted to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on legislation that would change the Youth Risk Behavior Survey process, with supporters saying the data are essential to prevention programs and opponents saying the questions and opt‑out policy pose parental‑rights and content concerns. Vote: 3-2 ITL.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6562080,"Senate education committee approves limits on Education Freedom Accounts after hours of debate",1702,744000,2446000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3281197-d6def192f8569c5fd7d8b1d6154bc3ba&start=744&end=2446","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3281197-d6def192f8569c5fd7d8b1d6154bc3ba/thumbnail_744000.jpg","/articles/6562080/New-Hampshire/Senate-education-committee-approves-limits-on-Education-Freedom-Accounts-after-hours-of-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6562080-cec7a39ba98358e5d11629cebde9c816/orig.mp4?Expires=1770889600&Signature=JUxytmaXV5Gr-JkSdWPu3CVTrDx3WR-jTr1--S0bqF2D21w3VzRBFMc0dq58-yccUrPuNXnVX-KIb42H-FHBnf4BY7OhPc4eJA6tEwaQEjWJiyRhAwzxtQcTReagntIVjRhQ7ltiCvaLXkWFdTydwWWSsPH1xkK~WZU7mn9Fu1aKv95o-BHbU2VG~4fekX-q7FzPO~Sw3r8krMAjcUYtQtbRSKOidEm1mh8Kd26uTAO9mi62ZO3cfu143Lu9PQRiRnb7dDzP~dUPX5IrZToLlZbIjEAeiVU1kGDlmnNVol-ABqZr2mP7nirc6edbxzbXehX4XFrF59eKWlcKbJguyA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Education Committee voted 3-2 to pass House Bill 115 with an underlying replace‑all amendment (Amendment 2025-2044) that adds caps and priority rules to the state’s Education Freedom Account (EFA) program.

The amendment, described by proponents as a mechanism to cap near‑unlimited expansion and to prioritize currently enrolled students and students with disabilities, passed after a contentious floor of committee comments from both supporters and opponents.

Why it matters: Committee members debated whether expanding universal eligibility for EFA pulls state education resources away from public schools and whether the amendment’s priority language adequately protects lower‑income families and students with disabilities. Opponents urged that the program’s original purpose — to help low‑income families whose children were not being served by public schools — is endangered by broader eligibility.

Committee debate and key details
Supporters said the amendment creates a controlled rollout. Senator Abbas said the amendment “allows us to implement it” and described the change as consistent with prior, phased expansions of the program. Abbas added the amendment was intended to “roll this program out slowly” and continued the legislative precedent of gradual expansion.

Opponents argued the bill moves away from the program’s original intent and lacks means testing. Senator Prentice said she could not support universal eligibility, adding, “When we first passed this legislature, the idea was to provide … opportunities for children who were struggling in public school but did not have the means.” Prentice said raising the eligibility percentage “goes against the original intent of taking care of those who don't have the means.”

Senator Sullivan also opposed the motion to table and argued for school choice and parental options, saying the program “is finally removing barriers for all families to choose the education that is right for their children.”

A number of committee members pressed the sponsors on priority language and means testing. Senator Prentice and others pointed to provisions that would treat currently enrolled students and certain sibling categories differently, and warned that, without means testing, siblings or families whose circumstances improve could jump ahead of higher‑need children.

What the amendment does (as discussed in committee)
- Establishes a temporary cap mechanism to pause automatic expansion and requires the department or legislature to reevaluate enrollment once thresholds are reached.
- Creates priority tiers that include currently enrolled students, siblings of enrolled students, children with disabilities, and families under the income threshold currently used (referred to in committee as 350% of the federal poverty guideline).
- Leaves in place the existing program structure but changes the mechanics for admitting new participants once enrollment hits the defined trigger points.

Formal actions
- Committee adopted Amendment 2025-2044 (replace all language) by recorded voice vote; committee tally reported as aye/yeas and nays (see actions array below). The amendment was described in committee as the Senate’s replacement language and was presented as a full substitute.
- Committee then voted to recommend passage of HB115 with the underlying amendment. Final committee vote on HB115 with amendment: 3 in favor, 2 opposed. (The committee chair made the call for the vote and the tally was read aloud; names voting in favor/against were not all recorded on the transcript.)

Discussion vs. decision
Committee discussion focused on: (1) fidelity to the original program intent to help low‑income families; (2) fiscal effects on state education funding and the Education Trust Fund; and (3) operational details of priority tiers and whether means testing is required. The formal decision was to report the bill ought to pass with the amendment; the committee did not adopt additional conditions or refer the bill back for further study.

Speakers quoted in committee
All direct quotes below are attributed to Senators who spoke on the record in the transcript: Senator Prentice, Senator Sullivan, Senator Abbas and Senator Altschuler.

- “I can't support universal eligibility,” Senator Prentice said, arguing the program was originally intended for families “who do not have the means.”
- “This amendment allows us to implement it,” Senator Abbas said in support of the capped rollout language.
- “I’m hoping that the more opportunity we give … the better our schools and the stronger our public schools will become,” Senator Sullivan said while arguing against ITL and for broader eligibility.

Ending
With the committee recommendation to pass HB115 as amended, the bill will move on in the legislative process. The transcript records the committee action and the 3‑2 result; additional floor amendments or committee of conference action could change the bill before final passage in the Senate or concurrence in the House.

","The Senate Education Committee voted 3-2 to pass House Bill 115 with an amendment that places caps and priorities on Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs). Supporters said the amendment implements a phased rollout; opponents said it undermines public schools and lacks means testing for eligibility.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: key actions from the Senate Education Committee executive session

Committee votes to table youth risk behavior survey requirement after parents and providers clash over content

Senate education committee approves limits on Education Freedom Accounts after hours of debate