Relative to student eligibility for education freedom accounts and the scholarship organization's costs of administering the program, extending phase-out grants for education freedom accounts, and revising the definitions of average daily membership in attendance and average daily membership in residence.
The bill's implications on state laws are significant. By broadening eligibility, SB442 potentially increases the number of students who can utilize these accounts, impacting the distribution of public education funding. The state estimates around 4,552 students are currently enrolled in the EFA program, which costs approximately $23.8 million annually. The proposed change may lead to an indeterminable increase in enrollment in the EFA, which could influence local school district budgets as students shift from traditional schools to EFA-supported education.
SB442 is a bill that amends the eligibility criteria for the education freedom account (EFA) program in New Hampshire. Specifically, it expands the definition of 'eligible student' to include those students whose enrollment transfer requests have been denied. This change aims to provide more educational options for students who may be struggling to gain access to suitable public schooling. The underlying intent of the bill is to ensure that students facing barriers to enrollment are given a chance to access these education freedom accounts, which help fund alternatives to traditional public education.
The sentiment surrounding SB442 is mixed among lawmakers and stakeholders. Proponents argue that the bill provides vital opportunities for underserved students, promoting educational choice and flexibility. They believe it is particularly crucial for students who face enrollment setbacks. Conversely, critics express concerns that expanding the EFA could detract from funding and resources for public schools, potentially exacerbating educational inequities. This creates a division among legislators about the best methods for supporting student needs in New Hampshire.
Notable points of contention include the balance between expanding educational access and the potential financial strain on public schools. Critics fear that as students leave traditional public schools in favor of EFA options, there will be a detrimental impact on the local school districts' budgets, making it harder for them to provide essential educational services. This financial uncertainty, alongside broader debates about the nature of public versus private education funding, represents a key area of disagreement in the ongoing discussions regarding SB442.