Relative to the definition of the term "evidence-based" within public education.
HB 129, titled the Science in Education Act, would create a statutory definition of “evidence-based” for public education and require the Department of Education, local school districts, and other regulatory bodies to use that definition when describing or selecting teaching methods. The bill applies to educator training, policies, and pedagogical methods tied to curriculum, but it expressly does not govern the curriculum content itself. Under the bill, “evidence-based” would mean methods supported by reproducibility in multiple well-designed studies within a single discipline or by independent confirmation across multiple disciplines, and it would exclude surveys, self-reported data, and other subjective measures such as reports of student progress and learning.
The bill also requires the department and school districts to make publicly available the scientific studies relied upon to support their use of evidence-based methods, and it authorizes them to require third-party curriculum providers to furnish those studies. The Department of Education would be directed to adopt rules to implement the new requirements, and all communications using the term “evidence-based” would have to conform to the statutory definition. The act would take effect 60 days after passage.
HB 129 would amend RSA 193-E by adding a new section that imposes a statewide definition of “evidence-based” on public education practices and communications. It would affect the Department of Education, local school districts, and potentially other education regulators by requiring review, documentation, and public disclosure of supporting studies for instructional methods and related training or policy choices. The fiscal note anticipates no revenue impact but estimates new state expenditures of about $118,000 in FY 2026, rising in later years, for a new education consultant position, with local district costs expected to increase by an indeterminable amount due to review, implementation, and possible replacement of existing methods and materials.
The bill’s framing suggests a strong pro-science, pro-accountability intent, emphasizing reproducibility, independent confirmation, and skepticism toward peer review alone or subjective measures. The available materials do not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the record provided. The fiscal note, however, indicates the Department of Education anticipates administrative burdens and added costs, which suggests the measure may be viewed as operationally demanding even if its policy goal is straightforward.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s narrow definition of “evidence-based,” especially its exclusion of surveys, self-reported data, and subjective progress measures, which are commonly used in education research and program evaluation. Another likely issue is the bill’s requirement that methods be supported by reproducible or independently confirmed studies, which could be difficult to apply across diverse educational interventions and may require substantial review and documentation. The Department of Education appears to be the primary entity raising practical concerns, particularly about staffing, rulemaking, and the cost and complexity of revising existing practices, while supporters are likely to favor stricter scientific standards and greater transparency in instructional decision-making.