Commission urges clearer rules for Education Freedom Accounts and special‑education aid

The Commission to Study the Cost of Special Education on June 23 wrestled with whether students using Education Freedom Accounts qualify for state differentiated special‑education aid and who bears responsibility for services when they do.

The debate focused on conflicting language in statute, administrative rules and DOE guidance about a student’s eligibility for differentiated aid. Chair (speaker 2) summarized the tension: “To qualify for special education, the EFA student may also meet the requirements of a child with a disabling condition” under federal rules, but administrative language also treats a medical professional’s out‑of‑state certification as sufficient, creating a lower threshold than IDEA’s IEP process.

Why it matters: Commissioners said the difference matters for accountability and for local budgets. If EFA students without public‑school IEPs can receive differentiated aid based on an annual medical attestation, districts may have no record of services provided or a clear way to reconcile the per‑pupil funds that follow scholarship wallets instead of school budgets. Rebecca (DOE staff) summarized the practical result: “If a child had an IEP when they were in a public school and they went to the EFA program, they brought their documentation with them; then, yes, they would qualify for that aid. However…the part you’re questioning is, if a student is identified through an EFA process as having a disabling condition, that does not mean that they qualify for IDEA.”

What members proposed: After extended discussion, members voted to recommend that the commissioner convene a task force to clarify eligibility and documentation standards and the interactions between RSA 198:48 (differentiated aid), ED 804 rules, and DOE practice. Representative Ladd and others warned that simply requiring districts to re‑evaluate all EFA students would overwhelm local capacity: “I just think what I would hate is for those … group of students who are currently under this other program to come back and put that onto the local district; I think that would be unreasonable,” a member said.

Next steps: The commission asked staff to draft recommendations and a set of specific questions for the commissioner’s task force, and to circulate edits by email so the commission can meet its July 1 reporting deadline. The commission also said it would include a recommendation to define “disabling condition” more precisely and to consider documentation standards that balance accountability with local capacity constraints.

The commission recessed for lunch and planned to continue drafting the report and attachments before final signoff.