New Hampshire hearing on HB 115 exposes deep split over expanding Education Freedom Accounts

CONCORD, N.H. — Lawmakers held a packed hearing on House Bill 115 on March 12, hearing hours of public testimony and repeated disagreements about whether removing an income cap on Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs) would help children or hollow out funding for public schools.

Representative Valerie McDonald, the bill’s prime sponsor, opened the hearing by framing the measure as a narrow statutory change. “I brought this legislation forward for a number of reasons primarily to fund students not systems, to ensure educational attainment is not limited due to a student's income or ZIP code,” Rep. McDonald said, describing HB 115 as a small language change intended to let more families use EFAs for private school tuition, homeschooling support and approved instructional costs.

The bill would strike the current income restriction from the state’s EFA statute, making the accounts available to any New Hampshire family regardless of income. Supporters — including parents, students and several Republican lawmakers — said the program gives families options when public schools do not meet a child’s needs. “Education should be about funding students, not systems,” Representative Ross Berry said during testimony supporting the proposal.

Opponents and many school officials painted a markedly different picture. Elected officials, public-school board members, teachers and parents who spoke against the bill raised three recurring concerns: cost, oversight and special-education access. Representative Wendy Thomas told the committee, “Voting against HB 115 is one of the most fiscally responsible actions you can take for the New Hampshire taxpayers,” citing the program’s rapid growth and a range of cost estimates offered at the hearing.

Fiscal and oversight questions were central to the debate. Multiple witnesses pointed to a legislative budget analyst estimate and independent projections that universal eligibility could cost the state tens of millions of dollars annually; some advocacy groups estimate figures above $100 million. Those funds are drawn from the Education Trust Fund, which also helps meet the state’s obligations to public schools. “If we expand this program, that is $100 million less that could be used to support public schools or special-education reimbursements,” a school board representative warned.

Several speakers also questioned transparency and auditability. The program is administered by a third-party contractor, the Children’s Scholarship Fund, which can retain an administrative fee. Committee members and witnesses repeatedly asked whether state auditors and legislative analysts have full access to transaction-level spending data. Representative Stephanie Grund emphasized that private providers do not face the same reporting and assessment requirements as public school districts.

Special education surfaced repeatedly. Parents and disability advocates said many students who need comprehensive, legally required services are best served in public systems that are obliged under federal law (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) to provide individualized education plans (IEPs). Louis Esposito, executive director of ABLE New Hampshire, told the committee that many private schools are not obligated to deliver the full range of services that some students require, and families may effectively lose IDEA protections when they withdraw from public schools.

Parents and students who support the bill offered personal accounts of bullying, unmet needs and academic gains after switching to private schools or homeschooling with EFA help. Gabriel Jetty, a mental-health professional and parent who testified in favor, said public schools are important but not always the right fit for every child: “If you look at the developmental task of young people… sitting next to somebody with a different opinion, a different background, different needs, is imperative to healthy development,” he told the committee while urging broader access.

Lawmakers pressed both fiscal and practical questions. Representative Paul Fellows asked whether the state would actually save money if a family already paid private tuition before receiving an EFA; several witnesses responded that most current EFA recipients were already private-school or homeschool students and that universal eligibility would largely create new state expenditures rather than move existing ones. Representative Joe Alexander and other proponents argued EFAs increase parental control and local accountability for a student’s education; critics said parental choice is not a substitute for statutory oversight and consistent performance reporting.

Multiple witnesses asked for more data before any expansion. Several members of the committee pledged to make a state compliance report and the legislative budget assistant’s analyses available to the panel. Representative Chaz Cordelli, who cited U.S. Supreme Court precedents in a broader constitutional discussion, said parents’ private choices are currently protected by court rulings but reiterated that the committee should first ensure state-level auditing and reporting.

The hearing drew a broad cross-section of testimony: public-school teachers and administrators, school board members, home-educating parents, students, a member of the Governor’s Executive Council and municipal elected officials. Testimony included appeals from parents who said limited EFA access prevented them from placing children in programs that helped with bullying, safety or specialized academic instruction; it also included warnings from officials in districts facing state grant cuts that expanding EFAs would shift further costs to local property taxpayers.

The committee did not take a vote at the hearing. Rather, members sought additional data from state auditors and the legislative budget assistant and signaled that fiscal analyses and oversight proposals will be central to any bill negotiations. For now, HB 115 remains the focus of sharply divided testimony: supporters who emphasize family choice and parental control, and opponents who highlight potential state costs, decreased transparency and risks to students who rely on public-school special-education services.