Sponsors pitch expanded criminal background checks for providers paid with public education funds; homeschool groups and legal advocates object

CONCORD — Representative Dave Luno introduced House Bill 738 to require criminal‑history background checks for employees and volunteers of nonpublic schools and education service providers that accept public education funds and who provide in‑person instruction.

Sponsor and intent: Representative Luno said the bill is aimed at ensuring the safety of students when nonpublic entities or service providers receive state funds or contracts and deliver in‑person instruction. He emphasized the measure targets adults who are in direct, in‑person contact with students under state‑funded programs, not technical suppliers or remote vendors.

Scope and key provisions: The introduced text would require criminal background checks for three categories: (1) employees/volunteers of entities contracted by the Department of Education to provide services; (2) employees/volunteers at nonpublic schools or education providers that accept scholarship funding through the education‑tax credit program; and (3) employees or volunteers providing in‑person instruction to Education Freedom Account (EFA) students when the provider accepts public funds.

Amendment and limits: Sponsor Luno filed an amendment that removes an explicit reference to “home education” in one subsection — acknowledging widespread concern from homeschool families that the bill could sweep in parents and traditional home educators. But several committee members and attorneys pointed out the amendment did not remove other provisions that would capture providers or volunteers in settings where EFA or tax‑credit scholarship funds are used.

Opposition from homeschool and legal groups: Multiple witnesses — including home educators, the Home School Legal Defense Association, and other advocates — urged the committee to vote against the bill. They argued the legislation is vague, could apply to unpaid volunteers in homeschool co‑ops and would impose administrative and fiscal burdens on families and the state. Thomas Schmidt of HSLDA said the measure “would unnecessarily burden many homeschooling parents” and underscored that most homeschool co‑ops already use protective practices, such as requiring multiple adults present during instruction.

Department of Education and implementation questions: Department witnesses supported the idea of maintaining records for closed institutions in other bills but said HB 738 would create a new administrative workload for DOE if the department were required to collect and process background checks. DOE officials asked that if the department were to hold or deliver records it should be allowed to charge a fee (as the department does currently for higher‑education transcripts) and sought rulemaking authority to carry out the function.

Fiscal and practical concerns: Committee members repeatedly asked who would pay for the checks (a fingerprint‑based state check runs about $25 in the department’s process cited in testimony). Committee members also asked about enforcement, who would receive results, and how the state would handle volunteers and informal providers. Sponsor Luno said the state would pay for checks tied to state contracts; opponents said the language was still too broad and could sweep in unpaid volunteers at homeschool co‑ops that occasionally include EFA students.

Next steps: The bill drew extensive testimony from homeschool advocates and legal groups opposing a broad reading of the statute. Committee members asked for clarity and indicated likely amendments would be needed to narrow scope, define payment responsibility, and specify administrative roles before the committee would consider a favorable recommendation.

Why it matters: The bill raises recurring tensions between child‑safety policies tied to public funds and parental control over home education. It also highlights administrative tradeoffs for DOE if it is expected to collect background check results or to perform record‑keeping.

Status: No final committee vote recorded in the transcript; the bill remains under consideration pending drafting clarifications.