Committee Summary for Senate Education (02/11/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB203 00:03:12.879 - 8:03:09 AM	Public Hearing	relative to administration of the education freedom accounts program.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024
SB207 00:49:29.119 - 8:49:26 AM	Public Hearing	requiring the department of education to administer the education freedom account program.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024
SB204 01:20:34.920 - 9:20:31 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the responsibility of local school districts to provide meals to students during school hours, reimbursing schools for meals provided to students at no cost, and making an appropriation therefor.	Fenton, Donovan(D)[F]2024
SB205 02:00:48.000 - 10:00:45 AM	Public Hearing	requiring schools to offer free or reduced cost breakfast and lunch to children who meet federal income eligibility guidelines.	Long, Pat(D)
SB57 02:29:52.560 - 10:29:49 AM	Executive Session	establishing a study committee to analyze reducing the number of school administrative units.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024

SB203: Senator Deborah Aler, representing the Seacoast towns of Stratham, Exeter, Hampton, Hampton Falls, North Hampton, Greenland, and Rye Support00:03:12.879 - 8:03:09 AM; Senator Aler presented Senate Bill 203, which aims to ensure taxpayer accountability for the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program. She highlighted the eligibility criteria for the program, which includes being a New Hampshire resident eligible for public school and having a household income less than or equal to 350% of the federal poverty guidelines at the time of application. She noted that the program currently lacks annual income verification, allowing families to remain eligible regardless of subsequent income changes. Aler emphasized the need for annual verification to maintain the program's integrity, citing an example of a family of three with an annual income of $93,000 and a family of four with $112,525 as the income thresholds. She also mentioned a compliance review by the New Hampshire Department of Education that found inconsistencies in voucher applications, suggesting the need for annual audits. Aler argued that this oversight is crucial to prevent wealthy families from exploiting the program and to ensure that taxpayer money is spent wisely and transparently.
SB203: Senator Sullivan Oppose00:09:31.519 - 8:09:28 AM; Senator Sullivan expressed personal concerns about the bill, mentioning that her family benefits from the EFA program. She argued that calling the program a 'money grab' is disrespectful to families using it. Sullivan emphasized the stability the program provides, noting that children who qualified once should not be removed due to minor income changes. She challenged the notion of breaking the contract that families entered into with the state, which guaranteed their children's education until graduation. Sullivan questioned the fairness and the impact on families who might only exceed the income limit by a small amount, suggesting that the bill could disrupt the education of children who have found success in the program.
SB203: Senator Aler Support00:11:03.279 - 8:11:00 AM; In response to Senator Sullivan's concerns, Senator Aler clarified that the EFA program, like other public programs, should require annual income verification to ensure that only eligible families benefit. She argued that if a family's income improves, they should no longer rely on the program, as it is designed for families at or below certain income thresholds. Aler emphasized that the state has a responsibility to manage taxpayer money effectively and that the proposed changes are about policy, not personal attacks on families. She reiterated the need for accountability and transparency in the program's administration.
SB203: Senator Apprentice Support00:17:44.720 - 8:17:41 AM; Senator Apprentice supported the bill, arguing for annual eligibility verification in line with other public programs like Medicaid and SNAP. He mentioned the need for government efficiency and transparency, as emphasized by the governor's inaugural speech. Apprentice suggested that closing the loophole in the EFA program would align with these objectives. He also proposed considering a companion policy to provide a transition period for children who might need to leave the program due to income changes, to ensure a softer landing for them.
SB203: Aubrey Friedman, Bridgewater Oppose00:21:34.240 - 8:21:31 AM; Aubrey Friedman opposed the bill, citing the potential disruption to children's education if they are removed from the EFA program due to income changes. He argued that the child's best interest should be paramount and that the bill seems to penalize parents for becoming more successful. Friedman also raised fairness concerns, questioning whether it is fair for wealthy families to use public schools funded by poorer neighbors. He concluded that the bill could negatively impact families and children who benefit from the stability of the EFA program.
SB203: David Trumble, Weare Support00:30:08.679 - 8:30:05 AM; David Trumble supported the bill, arguing for consistency with other New Hampshire government programs that require annual income verification. He provided examples of programs like SNAP, the Granite Advantage Health Care Program, and Child Care Programs, which have strict income limits. Trumble questioned why the EFA program should be an exception, especially when other basic needs like food, healthcare, and housing are not. He mentioned statistics on family income volatility, suggesting that incomes often rise after children enter school. Trumble also addressed the issue of 'switchers' from public to private schools, noting that the number is small and does not significantly impact public school budgets. He concluded by supporting a soft landing approach for children who might need to transition out of the program due to income changes.
SB203: Deborah How, American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire Support00:40:40.200 - 8:40:37 AM; Deborah How, President of the American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire, spoke in support of SB203. She emphasized the need for oversight and prudent management of taxpayer dollars used for education choice, specifically in private educational settings. She highlighted the importance of income verification for this program, similar to other programs that support essential needs like feeding children, housing, and heating. She mentioned a spot check of 200 applications that found 50 with eligibility issues, underscoring the necessity for annual eligibility checks. However, she was corrected by a Senator that a follow-up investigation found only two of the 50 applicants to be ineligible. In response to questions about the cost-effectiveness of Education Freedom Accounts compared to public education, she argued that without data on student outcomes in the EFA program, it's impossible to make a fair comparison. She clarified that the EFA program was intended to help low-income families, thus supporting the idea of means testing.
SB207: Senator Deborah Aler, representing Stratham, Exeter, Greenland, Rye, Hampton, North Hampton, and Hampton Falls Support00:49:29.119 - 8:49:26 AM; Senator Deborah Aler introduced SB207, which aims to bring the administration of the Education Freedom Account (EFA) program under the Department of Education. She argued that this move would enhance fiscal transparency and reduce administrative costs, currently capped at 10% by the Children's Scholarship Fund, to no more than 5%. She highlighted potential savings of $1.5 million and mentioned that the bill would allow for competitive bidding for financial technology services and improve transparency in vendor evaluations. Additionally, she pointed out the need for clearer information on rollover funds and income eligibility checks, which are currently opaque under the existing system.
SB207: Dar Henley, former Schoolboard member from Nashua Support01:00:38.720 - 9:00:35 AM; Dar Henley, a former Nashua Schoolboard member, supported SB207, arguing that the Department of Education should oversee the EFA program instead of a private entity. He criticized the current financial disclosures and the potential cost of the program if expanded universally. He also mentioned the issue of the class wallet program's fees and interest on balances, suggesting these funds should be managed by the Department for better efficiency. Additionally, he raised concerns about conflicts of interest within the current system, drawing from his experience on the school board.
SB207: Brian Hawkins, representing NEA New Hampshire Support01:04:12.760 - 9:04:09 AM; Brian Hawkins from NEA New Hampshire supported SB207, arguing that it would establish necessary accountability and transparency for the EFA program. He pointed out the delegation of authority to a private organization without sufficient standards and oversight, which is unique and concerning. He also discussed the importance of limiting rollover funds, citing an example from Arizona where unspent funds accumulated significantly. Hawkins emphasized the need for compliance reviews and better management of the EFA program by state employees to ensure funds are used effectively and transparently.
SB207: Deborah House, American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire Support01:13:18.280 - 9:13:15 AM; Deborah House supports Senate Bill 207, emphasizing the need for common sense oversight of the voucher program. She argues that managing the program through the Department of Education would ensure more state funds go directly to student education, reducing administrative overhead and unnecessary spending on advertising. She also stresses the importance of having data to evaluate the program's effectiveness and ensure it meets its educational goals. House mentions that voucher programs in other places have sometimes failed to deliver on their promises, leading to negative impacts on student achievement, and argues that bringing the program under state oversight would help protect against such issues.
SB207: David Trumble Support01:16:23.080 - 9:16:20 AM; David Trumble supports Senate Bill 207 and raises concerns about the protection of rights for children receiving special education within the EFA Voucher Program. He points out that some schools receiving voucher funds do not provide special education services and may discriminate against students with disabilities. Trumble believes that oversight by the Department of Education would better ensure compliance with anti-discrimination laws and protect the rights of these students.
SB204: Senator Donovan Fenton, District 10 Support01:20:34.920 - 9:20:31 AM; Senator Donovan Fenton introduces Senate Bill 204, which aims to address the challenge of providing nutritious meals to students in need while managing school meal debt. The bill proposes to increase the eligibility threshold to 200% of the federal poverty level, streamline the certification and application process for assistance, and promote personal responsibility for those who can afford to pay. Fenton emphasizes that this optional program would help communities support students without creating financial burdens on schools or taxpayers.
SB204: Aubrey Freeman, Bridgewater Oppose01:23:44.440 - 9:23:41 AM; Aubrey Freeman opposes Senate Bill 204, arguing that existing federal programs like WIC and SNAP already assist low-income families, and the new bill would duplicate these efforts and open the door to potential fraud. Freeman believes the bill sends the wrong message by encouraging families to rely on free meals rather than taking responsibility for their children. They also argue that the bill could be seen as an unfunded mandate, which might violate the New Hampshire Constitution and put a financial burden on local towns.
SB204: Tim Roar, Business Administrator, Keene School District Support01:26:10.719 - 9:26:07 AM; Tim Roar supports Senate Bill 204, highlighting its promotion of personal responsibility and its opt-in nature, which allows communities to decide if the program is beneficial without mandating participation. He explains that the bill targets the 'working poor' just above the federal threshold for free and reduced lunches and does not duplicate existing federal programs. Roar uses Keene as an example to show how the program could be implemented cost-effectively and help districts manage unpaid lunch debt more efficiently by targeting aid to those who truly need it.
SB204: David Trumble Support01:31:11.199 - 9:31:08 AM; David Trumble supports Senate Bill 204 but suggests the eligibility threshold should be higher than 200%. He presents statistics showing a significant increase in food insecurity in New Hampshire and emphasizes the importance of ensuring children have access to food to break the cycle of poverty. Trumble cites studies showing that food insecurity negatively impacts academic performance and increases the likelihood of various educational challenges, advocating for the bill as a step towards addressing these issues.
SB204: Nancy Vaughn, Government Relations Director, American Heart Association Information Only01:35:12.040 - 9:35:09 AM; Nancy Vaughn from the American Heart Association takes a neutral stance on Senate Bill 204, appreciating the intent to ensure students are not hungry at school but suggesting improvements. The association supports the concept of increasing eligibility for healthy school meals due to their impact on health and academic success but advocates for full state reimbursement of the increased costs. Vaughn highlights the importance of addressing food insecurity and unpaid meal debt, which strain school districts financially.
SB204: Laura Milikin, Executive Director, New Hampshire Hunger Solutions Information Only01:40:12.360 - 9:40:09 AM; Laura Milikin from New Hampshire Hunger Solutions takes a neutral stance on Senate Bill 204, appreciating the intent to increase meal eligibility and implement online applications. However, she expresses concern about the funding mechanism, which requires districts to cover half the cost, potentially limiting participation to better-funded schools. Milikin stresses the need to raise eligibility and ensure all schools can afford to implement the program to address food insecurity among families above current thresholds.
SB204: Deborah House, American Federation of Teachers New Hampshire Support01:42:31.440 - 9:42:28 AM; Deborah House supports Senate Bill 204, seeing it as a good first step in helping students who are hungry at school. She suggests the bill would be improved if it reimbursed 100% of the unreimbursed costs to districts. House shares a personal anecdote about a student whose mother struggled to provide enough food, illustrating the impact of hunger on learning. She urges the committee to pass the bill to help students like the one she described.
SB204: Senator Abus Information Only01:45:59.159 - 9:45:56 AM; Senator Abus raises a question about the potential impact of Senate Bill 204 on schools that do not provide breakfast. They express support for the concept of two meals but suggest an amendment to allow schools offering only lunch to participate in the program. Abus emphasizes the need for fairness and inclusivity in the bill's application to all schools, regardless of their current meal offerings.
SB204: Jerry FW, New Hampshire School Administrators Association Support01:48:18.440 - 9:48:15 AM; Jerry FW, representing the New Hampshire School Administrators Association, spoke in support of SB204, emphasizing the importance of increasing student achievement by ensuring students have full bellies. He highlighted the issue of student lunch debt, mentioning that four districts have over $200,000 in debt, excluding the two largest cities. He advocated for increased thresholds to provide tax relief for communities subsidizing student meals and supported easing the application process for online applications. He acknowledged budgetary constraints but stressed the necessity of supporting school districts in feeding hungry children, calling it a great step for New Hampshire.
SB204: Kelly Rambo, Department of Education, Bureau of Wellness and Nutrition Information Only01:52:58.119 - 9:52:55 AM; Kelly Rambo from the Department of Education, Bureau of Wellness and Nutrition, and Melissa White, Division Director for Learner Support, made themselves available to answer questions. They discussed the federal regulations governing school meal programs, including sodium, fat, and calorie restrictions. They noted that conversations at the federal level might lead to changes in these standards, which would be followed in New Hampshire.
SB204: Unnamed Senator Information Only01:55:05.639 - 9:55:02 AM; An unnamed senator inquired about the eligibility of schools under the two-meal requirement versus one, expressing concern that some schools might not be able to participate. Kelly Rambo responded that the department reads the bill as requiring schools to operate both breakfast and lunch programs. She mentioned that the fiscal note contains data on the number of schools currently operating only the lunch program.
SB205: Nick Randos, Minority Policy and Communications Director Support02:00:48.000 - 10:00:45 AM; Nick Randos, introducing SB205, emphasized the importance of school meals for student nutrition and success. He highlighted that the bill would ensure all students have access to both breakfast and lunch, citing scientific evidence on the benefits of breakfast, such as fewer school nurse visits, fewer behavioral issues, higher test scores, reduced obesity rates, and higher graduation rates. He noted that currently, 28 public schools and 38 charter schools offer lunch but not breakfast.
SB205: Aubrey Fredman, Bridgewater Oppose02:03:53.199 - 10:03:50 AM; Aubrey Fredman from Bridgewater opposed SB205, expressing concerns about the cost, which he estimated at $1.2 million, and questioned where the funding would come from, suggesting potential increases in taxes or reductions in essential services. He argued against the moral hazard of providing free meals, suggesting it could lead to dependency and questioned the need for multiple meals, extending the argument to include meals during holidays and summer breaks. He also discussed the issue of food waste and the quality of school meals, citing anecdotal evidence from school board meetings.
SB205: Laura Milikin, New Hampshire Hunger Solutions Support02:12:48.639 - 10:12:45 AM; Laura Milikin from New Hampshire Hunger Solutions supported SB205, emphasizing the organization's mission to end food insecurity and connect eligible children with school meals. She presented data showing increased food insecurity among New Hampshire children and highlighted the health and academic benefits of school meals. Milikin addressed concerns about the nutritional quality of school meals, explaining that USDA standards ensure healthier options than typical home-sent meals. She advocated for ensuring all children have access to both breakfast and lunch to promote equal opportunities for success.
SB57: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:29:52.560 - 10:29:49 AM; During the executive session on SB57, an unnamed senator proposed an amendment to establish a study committee to analyze reducing the number of school administrative units, specifically transitioning from a municipal to a county-based school district system. The amendment included ensuring representation from both parties in the committee and consulting with key stakeholders such as County Commissioners, the New Hampshire Municipal Association, the New Hampshire School Boards Association, and joint school boards. The senator emphasized the need to consider the costs and benefits of such a transition, including impacts on county taxes and the educational system.
SB57: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:38:58.680 - 10:38:55 AM; The senator expresses concerns about the composition of the study committee, particularly regarding the representation of political parties. They mention that while having a member from each party appointed to the committee is not problematic in the Senate, it could pose issues in the House, especially if there are independent members. The senator questions the necessity of requiring specific party representation in the House and suggests that it might be more flexible to have two members from the majority party.
SB57: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:39:44.040 - 10:39:41 AM; The senator discusses the potential implications of the amendment to the bill. They express uncertainty about whether to adopt the amendment or leave the bill as is, pointing out that the amendment expands and directs the duties of the study committee. The senator also questions the necessity of directing the committee so specifically, suggesting that it might lead to a flawed report if the committee does not consult with all relevant stakeholders, such as school superintendents and school boards.
SB57: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:41:15.720 - 10:41:12 AM; The senator elaborates on the amendment, clarifying that it adds the anticipated costs of development and transition to the duties of the study committee, without altering the intent of the original bill. They emphasize the importance of consulting stakeholders who can provide answers to these cost-related questions, ensuring that the study is comprehensive and credible.
SB57: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:42:46.800 - 10:42:43 AM; The senator discusses their experience with a previous study committee related to veterinary technicians and the scope of practice. They highlight the importance of being specific about who should be involved in the study committee but also allowing flexibility to include other relevant parties. They mention that in their previous committee, the Speaker of the House ensured representation from each party, and they were the only senator involved.
SB57: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:45:04.880 - 10:45:01 AM; The senator suggests that instead of mandating specific consultations, the language in the bill could be changed from 'shall' to 'may', which would give the study committee more flexibility. They express concern that requiring consultations with certain groups, such as four joint school boards, could be burdensome and potentially hinder the committee's work.
SB57: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:47:13.760 - 10:47:10 AM; The senator proposes that the committee should set aside a specific session to thoroughly discuss and execute bills, as the current session has run out of time. They suggest withdrawing the motion on the amendment and the underlying bill to allow for more detailed discussion in the future.
SB57: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:47:59.920 - 10:47:56 AM; The senator clarifies that they do not have pride of authorship over the amendment and had intended it as a template for a committee amendment. They apologize for not circulating it earlier due to uncertainties about the session's agenda. They agree to withdraw the amendment and the bill to allow for a dedicated session to discuss and execute bills.
SB57: Unnamed Senator Information Only02:48:45.000 - 10:48:42 AM; The senator discusses the need to set aside time to execute bills, mentioning that the current session has run longer than expected. They propose a motion to end the executive session and plan a future session focused solely on executing bills.

Ward, Ruth(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Sullivan, Victoria(V Chairman)(R)	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024
Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2024	Abbas, Daryl(R)[C+]2024