A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new chapter to title 15.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the establishment of the educational empowerment account for authorized educational expenses; and to amend and reenact section 15.1-20-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to compulsory attendance exceptions.
HB 1607 would create an "educational empowerment account" program in North Dakota for eligible students, funded by state education dollars and administered by the superintendent of public instruction. Parents would apply annually for an account, receive a debit card, and use the funds only for specified educational expenses such as tuition and fees, textbooks, tutoring, educational therapy, testing fees, transportation, and certain technology. The bill also requires the superintendent to publish a participant handbook and a home education withdrawal form.
The bill would also amend the state’s compulsory attendance law to add participation in an educational empowerment account program as an exception to school attendance requirements. In addition, it would allow certain other attendance exceptions for military-connected students using virtual instruction, students with medical conditions preventing physical attendance, and students moving out of state when virtual instruction is permitted. The account would close when a student graduates, and unused funds would revert to the state general fund if a parent does not renew the account request by the deadline.
The bill includes oversight provisions such as random audits of accounts and referral of suspected misuse or fraud to the attorney general. It also states that a parent or student convicted of fraud related to the account would be barred from future participation. The measure would limit state and school district authority by prohibiting additional control or supervision over nonpublic schools, nonpublic school students, and parents using alternative education options beyond what the chapter expressly allows.
HB 1607 appears to have been framed as a school choice and education-funding flexibility measure, with its structure suggesting support for families seeking alternatives to public school enrollment or home education. However, the bill ultimately failed, and the available record does not show recorded committee debate or roll-call votes. Because of that, the public sentiment can only be inferred from the bill’s design: it likely appealed to supporters of parental control and educational choice, while raising concerns for those wary of diverting state aid, reducing oversight, or creating a voucher-like program.
The main points of contention would likely have been the use of state funds for private or alternative education, the administrative and fraud-monitoring burden, and the extent to which the bill restricts state oversight of nonpublic education. The compulsory attendance changes and the requirement that parents choose between the account and public school enrollment or formal home education would also likely have been debated as significant policy shifts.
HB 1607 would have added a new chapter to Title 15.1 establishing a state-run educational empowerment account program and would have amended the compulsory attendance statute to recognize account participation as an attendance exception. It would have redirected a per-student amount of state aid into individual accounts for approved educational expenses, created new duties for the superintendent of public instruction, and limited additional regulation of nonpublic and alternative education participants. The bill would also have affected school districts, parents, nonpublic schools, and students eligible to enroll in North Dakota public schools.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so direct legislative sentiment cannot be measured. Based on the bill’s content, the measure appears aligned with school choice and parental empowerment priorities, suggesting support from advocates of alternative education and private-school access. At the same time, its failure indicates it did not secure enough support to advance, likely reflecting reservations about funding diversion, oversight, and the scope of the program.
The most likely areas of contention were whether state education dollars should follow students into private or alternative settings, whether the program functioned as a voucher-like mechanism, and whether the state should impose enough oversight to prevent misuse without intruding on nonpublic education. Opponents would likely have focused on the fiscal impact and the reduction in public-school funding, while supporters would have emphasized flexibility for families, especially those choosing nonpublic school, tutoring, therapy, or other individualized educational services. The bill’s limits on state supervision of nonpublic schools and its compulsory-attendance exceptions for account participants and certain virtual learners would also have been contentious.