Establishing a local education freedom account program.
HB 748 establishes a new optional “local education freedom account” (LEFA) program that individual school districts may adopt by local vote. If adopted, eligible students in that district—generally students ages 5 through 20 who are attending a New Hampshire public school, chartered public school, kindergarten, or home education program—could receive grants administered through an approved scholarship organization to pay for a broad range of educational expenses. Covered expenses include tuition or course fees at public, chartered, nonpublic, or department-approved programs, tutoring, curriculum and materials, transportation up to a capped amount, online learning, therapies and educational services, assistive technology, and testing fees.
The bill sets up a detailed administrative structure for applications, annual renewals, audits, provider approval, fraud reporting, and appeals. It also requires participating parents to agree to provide instruction in core academic areas, keep the student out of full-time enrollment in the resident district while using the account, and have the student take statewide assessments. The scholarship organization would manage deposits, maintain provider lists, review receipts, and may withhold up to 10 percent of funds for administration. The bill also provides that LEFA participation satisfies compulsory attendance requirements and that students remain counted in their resident district for certain funding and membership purposes.
HB 748 would create a new chapter in state law governing local education freedom accounts and add a new mechanism under RSA 197:3-b for school districts to adopt the program by petition and a 3/5 local vote. It would alter school funding rules by directing district funds into student accounts for participating students, while preserving certain state aid and membership calculations tied to resident districts. The bill also interacts with existing education statutes governing adequacy grants, compulsory attendance, student records, special education services, and education tax credit scholarships, and it bars a student from receiving both a LEFA grant and an education tax credit scholarship in the same school year.
Because adoption is local and voluntary, the fiscal note says the statewide and local fiscal effects are indeterminable. The bill contemplates that LEFA awards would be set at twice the per-pupil adequacy grant amount, plus any differentiated aid that would otherwise apply, with the scholarship organization allowed to retain up to 10 percent for administration. The bill also provides that funds are not taxable income to parents or students and that unused funds revert to the district in certain circumstances.
The available materials suggest generally supportive intent around expanding educational choice, flexibility, and access to alternative learning options. The bill’s structure, which allows local adoption rather than statewide mandate, indicates an effort to make the program politically and fiscally optional for districts. The fiscal note treats the program as potentially significant but dependent on local approval, and it does not identify state administrative costs. No committee transcript or recorded vote is available in the provided materials, so there is no direct evidence of formal debate or recorded legislative sentiment beyond the bill’s design and fiscal framing.
The main points of contention likely center on funding, accountability, and the effect on public school finances. Critics may focus on the fact that LEFA awards are set at twice the adequacy grant amount, which could increase district costs, and on the diversion of local education funds to private, online, tutoring, or home-based educational uses. Supporters are likely to emphasize parental choice, local control, and flexibility for families. Other likely concerns include oversight of scholarship organizations, fraud prevention, the role of private and religious providers, and whether the program could affect enrollment and resources in resident public schools. The bill addresses some of these issues through audits, provider approval, appeal rights, and nondiscrimination language for religious providers, but those provisions may themselves be points of debate.