Debate over who pays as NH bill would let EFA voucher students access district classes and testing

Representative Valerie McDonald told the Senate Education Committee HB 1817 would clarify RSA 1931-C so Education Freedom Account students are treated as a fourth education pathway with equal access to district curricular and co‑curricular offerings — including the statewide assessment and the PSAT/SAT.

"Students within each pathway should have equal access to local opportunities," McDonald said, urging the committee to standardize practices that some districts treat inconsistently.

The bill’s sponsor said she did not include an adequacy-payment change because the 0.15 (0.15%) reimbursement formula currently used for home-education students is not consistently applied to charter or private students and because the legislature should avoid tying adequacy formula changes to policy in a non-budget year.

Supporters described harms under the current system. Hannah Cole, a parent of an eighth-grade EFA student, said her daughter took three of seven periods at the local middle school before being told the family would be billed thousands of dollars for the remainder of the year — money that would have consumed nearly the family’s annual EFA award. "This bill aligns policy with reality and ensures that families can provide the best combination of opportunities for their children," Cole told the committee.

School administrators and teacher‑union witnesses opposed the bill as drafted. Jerry F. of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association said districts risk educating EFA students without receiving adequacy dollars, noting a hypothetical Derry example in which 154 EFA students could impose uncompensated costs on a district. "This bill should at least be fixed to allow some compensation to the public school district for the attendance of the EFA student in the public school classroom like it treats a home education student," he said.

Mark McNel of the Bureau of School Finance (Department of Education) explained the state's funding pathways: district, charter and EFA are distinct. He warned that requiring districts to provide services without payment 'violates that policy principle' that publicly funded pathways should be compensated for services and could raise new legal risk.

Committee members and witnesses debated several practical questions: whether EFA families could use voucher funds to pay for PSAT or SAT fees (the sponsor said the PSAT school‑day bulk rate is about $14 per student), how high‑demand CTE programs and wait lists would be managed (schools may deny part‑time seats if full), and whether the bill would apply only to a student's district of residence (the sponsor confirmed it would).

The hearing record shows a clash between parental access arguments and district-funding concerns. Supporters said HB 1817 removes a barrier for families who want hybrid educational options; opponents urged either compensating districts at a rate comparable to home‑education reimbursements or leaving existing arrangements unchanged to avoid shifting costs to local taxpayers.

What happens next: committees may request changes to address adequacy and reimbursement mechanics or add implementation language specifying district compensation. The sponsor and department will likely be asked to provide model language to reconcile access with funding.