Senate Bills Aim to Increase Transparency in New Hampshire s Education Freedom Account Program

Photo of author
Written By Blue & Gold NLR Team

 

 

The ongoing debate over New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Account (EFA) program has sparked significant discussions regarding financial transparency and the program’s administration. Two bills, Senate Bill 203 and Senate Bill 207, were recently discussed in public hearings, aiming to address concerns about accountability and oversight.

Senate Bill 203 proposes several changes to the EFA program, including requiring annual means testing for participating families, ensuring unused grant money is returned to the state’s Education Trust Fund, and conducting audits of the income eligibility for one-third of applicants. Supporters, like Sen. Debra Altschiller, argue that the bill would improve taxpayer accountability, citing concerns that the current system lacks regular financial checks. Under current law, families only need to meet income eligibility once, with no re-evaluation until the child leaves the program or graduates. This has raised concerns about families potentially remaining in the program despite changes in their financial circumstances.

Senate Bill 207 proposes shifting the program’s administration from the Children’s Scholarship Fund NH to the Department of Education. Proponents, such as Brian Hawkins of the National Education Association, argue that this would bring greater public oversight to the program, addressing issues such as transparency and the lack of minimum standards for providers. Opponents, including Sen. Victoria Sullivan, defend the current system, citing personal positive experiences with the program. She raised concerns that yearly means testing could disrupt families’ access to the program.

The debate also touches on concerns about transparency, particularly regarding how grant money is spent. Currently, there are reports of unused funds being banked in the system, but the full extent of this is unclear due to lack of disclosure. Critics argue that the private organization managing the program may be profiting from administrative fees without sufficient scrutiny.

The committee has not yet made any recommendations on the bills, but the debate highlights broader concerns about the balance between offering educational choice through programs like EFAs and ensuring accountability and fairness in public spending.

 

Leave a Comment