SB 295 expands New Hampshire’s education freedom account (EFA) program by removing the household income cap that previously limited eligibility to students at or below 350 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. Under the bill, any resident student eligible to enroll in a public elementary or secondary school may qualify, except students in the Department of Corrections’ special school district. The bill also changes how the program is administered by setting a statewide enrollment cap of 10,000 students for fiscal year 2025-2026 and later, with an automatic 25 percent increase if applications reach at least 90 percent of the cap.
The bill establishes a priority system if applications exceed available slots. Current EFA students are first in line, followed by siblings of current participants, students with disabilities, and then students whose family income is at or below 350 percent of the federal poverty guidelines. For fall applications after June 30, only applicants in the sibling, disability, and income-priority categories may receive pro-rated accounts, and the scholarship organization must reserve space for returning students before admitting new fall applicants. The bill also requires the scholarship organization to publish at least two application deadlines each year.
Impact
SB 295 would amend RSA chapter 194-F governing education freedom accounts by broadening eligibility, adding enrollment-cap and priority rules, and requiring more structured application deadlines. It would likely increase participation in the EFA program and shift more state education funding from the Education Trust Fund to private-school, home-school, or other approved educational expenses paid through EFAs. The fiscal note says state revenue is unchanged but expenditures are indeterminable because the number of newly eligible students cannot be predicted; local district revenues and expenditures could also change if students leave public schools.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have support among proponents of school choice and education-freedom policies, as reflected in committee and floor votes that advanced the bill despite repeated failed attempts to amend or reconsider it. At the same time, the voting history shows substantial opposition, suggesting the measure was politically divisive. The absence of committee transcript excerpts limits direct insight into debate, but the pattern of votes indicates a clear split between supporters of expanding EFAs and opponents concerned about the scope and effects of the expansion.
Contention
The main point of contention is the removal of the income threshold, which opponents likely view as a major expansion of a publicly funded voucher-style program, while supporters likely argue it broadens access and parental choice. Another likely dispute is the fiscal and policy impact on public schools, since the fiscal note anticipates indeterminable state and local effects and notes that districts may need to adjust spending if enrollment declines. The new enrollment cap, automatic cap increase, and priority rules also appear designed to balance expansion with limits, but they may still be contested over whether they adequately control program growth and preserve access for current participants and higher-need students.