Relative to administration of the education freedom accounts program.
Summary
SB 203 changes several administrative rules for New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Accounts (EFA) program. The bill would require a student to meet the program’s income threshold not only when first applying, but also for each school year of participation, keeping the eligibility cap at 350% of the federal poverty guidelines. It also removes language that would have allowed unused EFA funds to roll over from year to year, while preserving quarter-to-quarter rollover, and directs any unused funds to revert to the education trust fund rather than be automatically available to fund other EFAs.
The bill also adds new reporting and audit requirements. The Department of Education would have to report annually to legislative leaders and the education oversight committee on the number of EFA participants in each town with more than 500 residents, and the Legislative Budget Assistant’s audit division would be required to conduct randomized annual income verification audits of 33% of participating families. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025.
Impact
SB 203 would amend RSA 194-F, the state law governing Education Freedom Accounts, by tightening ongoing income eligibility, changing how unused account balances are handled, and expanding state oversight and reporting. It would affect participating families, the Department of Education, the legislative oversight committee, and the Legislative Budget Assistant audit division, while also altering the flow of unused EFA funds into the education trust fund under RSA 198:39.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill was not broadly supported in the chamber, as it received a 16-8 vote for inexpedient to legislate. That outcome indicates a majority of lawmakers present favored rejecting the bill, likely reflecting concern about the added restrictions and administrative burdens. No committee transcript is available here, so the record shows the general sentiment only through the vote rather than detailed debate.
Contention
The main points of contention appear to be the bill’s tighter eligibility and oversight provisions. Supporters of the bill likely viewed annual income re-verification, town-level reporting, and randomized audits as necessary accountability measures for a publicly funded school-choice program. Opponents likely objected to the added compliance burden on families and administrators, the elimination of year-to-year fund rollover, and the possibility that the bill would make continued participation less stable for students already enrolled in EFAs. The 16-8 inexpedient-to-legislate vote suggests these concerns outweighed support in the chamber.