Heated hearing on proposal to remove income cap from Education Freedom Accounts; supporters cite parental choice, critics cite fiscal and constitutional risks

Senate Bill 295, introduced and explained by Senator Victoria Sullivan on April 15, would remove the statutory income cap on Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs), making the accounts available to all New Hampshire families. The proposal spurred an extensive hearing that included advocates for universal eligibility, education‑funding opponents and multiple public‑school representatives who urged caution, accountability and fiscal transparency.

Senator Sullivan told the committee removing the cap would stabilize children's access to EFAs and argued families should not face year‑to‑year uncertainty: "Families using these funds should not be subjected to education insecurity, worried that their children's education is only secure from one legislative cycle to the next," she said. Sullivan and a representative of the American Federation for Children said the bill includes a 10,000‑student enrollment cap and a demand‑driven escalator (a 25 percent increase when the cap reaches 90 percent) to offer budget predictability while creating universal eligibility.

Supporters and national advocacy groups said universal eligibility would expand parental options and that competition can deliver academic benefits over time. Patrick Graff of the American Federation for Children said SB 295 accomplishes three objectives: day‑one universal eligibility, a predictable capped rollout for 2026 and a mechanism to grow the cap if demand rises. He cited long‑term studies from other states suggesting choice programs can produce benefits for students exposed to competition.

Opponents ranged from local school leaders and retired teachers to statewide associations. Representative Timothy Horrigan, a former school official who testified in opposition, argued the program as implemented lacks sufficient oversight, is administrated by an out‑of‑state nonprofit and may conflict with state constitutional language limiting public funds for religious instruction. Mary Wilkie, a retired teacher, requested a performance audit and pointed to a Department of Education compliance review that found eligibility errors in a sample of cases processed by the current scholarship organization. "It seems reckless to me to consider passing this bill ... without having any performance audit of the program," she said.

Other opponents highlighted the potential fiscal impact on public education, the program’s pattern of serving students already in private schools, and the limited protections for students with disabilities under the current EFA structure. Counselors, statewide education union representatives and municipal leaders warned that removing the income cap could shift state funds away from the constitutionally guaranteed duty to provide a robust public education. Several witnesses pointed to experience in other states (Florida, Arizona, North Carolina) where eligibility expansions sharply increased program size and changed the makeup of participants.

Committee members asked detailed questions about the current cap, the 10,000‑student trigger mechanics in sponsor amendments, program administration, data transparency and whether any independent audits of the scholarship organization's expenditures and eligibility decisions exist. Multiple witnesses — and several legislators — requested audited, itemized spending data from the scholarship organization and a fuller accounting of how many students are true "switchers" (students leaving public schools) versus those already in private or home‑school situations.

Ending: The committee closed the hearing with a queue of advocates and opponents but requested additional documentation and audit material from the program administrator, Department of Education and fiscal staff before scheduling any work session or recommendation.