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 education regulators to use that definition in their policies and communications. The bill says evidence-based methods must be grounded in reproducible, well-designed studies, either within a single discipline or confirmed across multiple disciplines, and it explicitly excludes surveys, self-reported data, and other subjective measures such as reports of student progress and learning.
The bill applies to methods of delivering public education, including educator training, policies, and pedagogical methods attached to or accompanying curriculum, but not the content of the curriculum itself. It also requires the department and school districts to make public the scientific studies they relied on to determine that a method meets the definition, and allows 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.
If enacted, HB 129 would amend RSA 193-E by adding a new section that standardizes the meaning of “evidence-based” in public education and imposes disclosure and rulemaking obligations on the Department of Education and local school districts. It would affect how state and local education agencies evaluate, describe, and justify instructional methods, educator training, and related policies, and could require revisions to existing practices, rules, and communications to align with the new definition. The fiscal note anticipates a state cost of about $118,000 in FY 2026, rising in later years, and indeterminate local administrative costs tied to reviewing, replacing, and documenting instructional methods.
The bill appears to be driven by a strong pro-science, pro-standards sentiment, with the sponsors framing it as a way to bring greater rigor and clarity to educational decision-making. The legislative findings emphasize reproducibility, falsifiability, and skepticism toward peer review alone, suggesting the bill is intended to tighten the evidentiary standard used in education policy. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct record here of floor debate or formal support/opposition, but the fiscal note indicates the Department of Education expects meaningful administrative burdens.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s narrow definition of “evidence-based,” especially its exclusion of surveys, self-reported data, and subjective measures like student progress reports. Critics may argue that the definition is too restrictive for education, where randomized or cross-disciplinary studies are not always available and where practical classroom evidence often includes qualitative data. Another likely issue is the administrative burden on the Department and school districts, which would have to review existing methods, publish supporting studies, and potentially revise training, policies, and vendor relationships. Supporters, by contrast, would likely argue that these requirements improve transparency and prevent the use of weak or unsubstantiated instructional practices.