Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates home‑education reforms, divides the question and advances sections to third reading
Summary
Lawmakers debated a package of changes to New Hampshire's home education law — including notification rules, voucher access and school re‑entry — and divided the question so parts of House Bill 12‑68 moved forward. Roll calls recorded several 14‑8 votes on divided sections.
The Senate spent substantial floor time on House Bill 12‑68, a comprehensive amendment to the state's home education framework that would modernize definitions, make notification optional, clarify the relationship between education freedom accounts (EFAs) and home education, and repeal the home education advisory council.
Senators discussed provisions that critics described as allowing 'double dipping' — the notion that families using vouchers or education freedom accounts could still access certain public school services such as special education, advanced placement or extracurriculars. Senator Altschuler and others warned that the measure could be used to 'shop' for spots in academically competitive classes and could weaken local control.
Supporters, including backers of parental rights in education, said the bill respects families' choices and ensures that services remain available to students living in a district who continue to pay local property taxes. Senator Sullivan argued access for district residents is fair because those families continue to fund local schools.
The floor divided the question to take votes on different sections. Senator Perkins Quocca moved to divide sections 1–10 from sections 11–20; the clerk called roll and the Senate recorded votes (the transcript reports an ayes‑have‑it result by 14 to 8 on one division). The Senate adopted committee amendments and ordered portions of the bill to third reading after the divided votes.
Debate also touched on manifest educational hardship appeals and the State Board of Education's authority to reassign students when a hardship determination is made. Senators raised concerns about forced placements, local control and the administrative burden on districts and the state, while others characterized amendments as clarifying existing law to avoid student 'limbo' when a receiving school initially refuses placement.
The measure advanced in divided form; parts were ordered to third reading after roll call results. The fractured nature of the debate and the division votes indicate lingering concerns that may shape final amendments on third reading.
