Lengthy Senate hearing pits supporters of universal Education Freedom Accounts against public‑school advocates and union leaders

Sen. Victoria Sullivan, sponsor of SB 295, opened the Senate Education Committee hearing with a request that members use precise terminology and with an explanation of the bill’s effect: removing the household income cap that currently limits eligibility for Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs). Sullivan described EFAs as distinct from traditional vouchers and said the state portion that follows a child would be about $5,000 per student.

Supporters, including parents, students and advocacy groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Granite State Taxpayers, told the committee that universal EFAs would expand parental choice and help children who are poorly served by their assigned public schools. Students and parents described personal improvements after moving to private schools or homeschooling with EFA support. "I would never have been able to attend the school without this EFA," said Alyssa Sosa Molina, a high-school student who said she would not otherwise have access to her private school.

Proponents disputed some large cost estimates. Sarah Scott, deputy state director for Americans for Prosperity, said a recent analysis from the Josiah Bartlett Center put expansion costs at under $17 million over two years and argued widely‑cited $100 million projections are overstated because they double‑count out‑of‑state students, preschool-aged children, and assume unrealistically high take-up rates.

Opponents included current and former educators, school superintendents, the American Federation of Teachers-New Hampshire, the NEA, local residents and taxpayers, home-education advocates, and students. They raised three principal concerns.

1) Fiscal impact and sustainability: Witnesses offered divergent cost estimates and long‑term fiscal scenarios. Dr. Sydney Lisonbee, a superintendent, said EFAs have cost New Hampshire more than $25 million in the current school year and about $73 million since 2021; she warned expansion could reach or exceed $100 million and cited Arizona and Indiana as examples where universal programs contributed to multi‑hundred‑million‑dollar deficits. Several witnesses said the Education Trust Fund is already under pressure; committee members noted the trust fund was running behind projected revenues.

2) Accountability and transparency: Several superintendents and union representatives sought stricter reporting and auditing of how EFA dollars are spent. Dr. Lisonbee and others said the program lacks learning accountability and that initial audits found application inconsistencies; one witness said the Children’s Scholarship Fund has resisted a full audit. Patty Wong, a retired teacher, submitted an itemized expenditures list for the Children’s Scholarship Fund and pointed to summer‑program and recreation purchases (including roughly $18,000 at Pat’s Peak for 93 students) as examples of spending she believes should not be subsidized by state taxpayers without clearer outcome measures.

3) Equity and special populations: Critics said EFAs are not accessible to many students with the greatest needs. Testimony cited low participation by English‑language learners and students with disabilities and noted private schools can legally decline students with complex needs or impose different admissions standards. David Trumbull and others said the program’s participants are disproportionately not drawn from public-school students, and that the program risks creating a two‑tier system that shifts state dollars away from districts educating the majority of students.

Committee members pressed proponents on available outcome data and fiscal offsets. Senator Rosenwald and others asked whether there is measurable, statewide data showing EFAs improve standardized test scores, graduation rates, or postsecondary outcomes; sponsors and advocates pointed to parental satisfaction and some individual portfolios and testing but acknowledged there is not a consistent, statewide longitudinal data set tied to EFAs. Several witnesses and legislators also discussed existing sustainability grants that provide transition funding to districts losing students.

No committee vote was recorded in the transcript excerpt. At the close of the hearing, committee staff reported thousands of online submissions: 2,867 signed in opposition and 217 in support. Senators and witnesses said written testimony would be accepted and reviewed.

The transcript records sustained, detailed debate across a wide range of policy areas — fiscal projections, auditability of private scholarship administrators, educational outcomes, and constitutional and statutory limits on state funding. The committee will consider those issues as it decides whether to advance SB 295.