Lengthy testimony for and against HB 115: proposal to remove income cap on Education Freedom Accounts draws broad public comment

House Bill 115 — a proposal to eliminate the income cap on New Hampshire's Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs) — drew extensive testimony at the Senate Education Committee hearing. Supporters and opponents offered contrasting accounts of program accountability, equity and fiscal impact.

Sponsor Representative Valerie McDonald said HB 115 would create a universal EFA by fiscal year 2027 and raise the income threshold in FY26. "I humbly ask for your support of house bill 115 FN," she told the committee, arguing that the model prevents children from being turned away due to application timing or income limits.

Supporters who spoke included parents and students who described EFAs as enabling choices that fit their children's needs. A student, Alyssa Sosa Molina, said EFAs "gave me access to a bridal school that completely changed the trajectory of my life." Other supporters testified that EFAs provide opportunity and parental control over educational decisions.

Opponents — including teachers, school board and civic associations, the American Federation of Teachers‑New Hampshire, the New Hampshire Council of Churches, local elected officials and many individual citizens — raised multiple concerns:

- Fiscal exposure: Witnesses argued the program's cost to the state could be large. Speakers cited analyses with differing estimates and cited revenue shortfalls facing the state, arguing the expansion risks diverting money from higher education and public schools. Representative David Luna and others brought letters and town warrant articles from at least 17 towns opposing expansion.

- Transparency and oversight: Several speakers said the program is administered by the Children's Scholarship Fund (CSF), a third‑party nonprofit, and that auditors and legislators have limited access to detailed expense data; speakers urged fuller audits and performance reviews before expansion. The transcript records that the Legislative Budget Assistant (LBA) audit of the program was described as underway during the hearing.

- Equity and special education: Witnesses said EFAs are disproportionately used by students already enrolled in private schools, that many private providers can and do set enrollment criteria, and that families who accept EFAs sign waivers affecting IDEA special‑education protections. Several speakers said private schools receiving public funds are not subject to the same nondiscrimination and reporting requirements as public schools.

- Program design and take‑up uncertainty: Proponents and researchers presented competing fiscal models. EdChoice and the Josiah Bartlett Center produced a joint estimate that projected modest net costs under realistic take‑up assumptions drawn from other states; other witnesses and local officials said take‑up and costs could be much higher and cited past underestimates and pending litigation over school funding as complicating factors.

Representative Glenn Cordelli and other sponsors defended program design details: payments are managed through accounts administered by CSF (not direct cash handouts to families) and allowable expenditures must be approved; sponsors pointed to state and out‑of‑state Supreme Court precedent addressing aid to religious schools.

The hearing included dozens of public comment speakers in both support and opposition. Questions from senators addressed program auditing, whether unused funds roll over for families, how special education rights are affected, vendor and expense transparency, and whether the state should prioritize higher education and public school funding in a constrained fiscal environment.

Ending: The committee heard a mix of personal stories supporting choice and broad civic testimony urging caution; the LBA audit and additional review of program finances and oversight were discussed. No Senate action on the bill appears in the transcript record.