What Crossed Over: Vouchers
April 20th, 2026
March 26 marked the halfway point of the 2026 legislative session. At this point, bills have either “crossed over” – gone from one chamber to another – or died. In this series, we’ll take a high-level look at the issues we are following, which bills made it to Crossover, which didn’t, and what we’re watching as the session marches on.
The legislature continues to be a pro-voucher environment, but lawmakers did choose not to remove the cap on the Education Freedom Account program this year because of concerns about costs.
What made it to Crossover
One of the voucher bills we’re tracking most closely is HB 1817 (Rep. McDonnell), the text of which is also included in HB 1268 (Rep. Noble). These bills would add EFA students to the list of students guaranteed access to their local public school on the same terms as enrolled public school students. Though this sounds simple, the implications are complex, and could mean added costs that need to be borne by local taxpayers.
Currently, home education, charter, and nonpublic school students are guaranteed access to curricular and cocurricular offerings in their resident district at no cost to the student or family. That means that a home education, charter, or nonpublic student can enroll in a class or play on a sports team in their home district for free. For home education students in grades 7-12, the state pays the district an amount equal to .15 times base adequacy for each course the student is enrolled in. Schools do not receive any additional aid from the state for nonpublic or charter school students.
EFA voucher students are not currently guaranteed access under the same terms. When families opt for the EFA program, they receive an amount of money equal to what their local school district would have received from the state if the student enrolled in public school. Families can use this money on any approved education expense, including public schools. Schools can choose to allow EFA students to enroll, and they can choose to charge them, or not. Some districts currently charge the full cost of the course, others charge partial cost, and some charge nothing.
Supporters of HB1817 and similar legislation say that EFA students shouldn’t have to pay more than any other students to access the same offerings. The NH Department of Education maintains that schools should not have to educate students for free, but also that students shouldn’t be funded through multiple education pathways. Depending on how the bill were to be implemented, it would require either that the Department fund EFA students twice (through the EFA pathway and partially through the public school pathway), or that schools educate EFA students without receiving any aid. If the latter turns out to be true, districts would have to find the money to cover the costs associated with enrolling EFA students.
A fix would be to determine the amount courses cost and require districts to recoup only that amount for any resident student utilizing a different education pathway. For instance, districts could apply the current home education calculation to all students, charging .15 times adequacy for each course. For home education students, that payment could still come from the state, since home education students receive no other state funds, while for EFA students it might come from the family, to avoid the double-payment issue. (Charter school students are another murky issue, because some charter schools also receive district funding.)
Part of the challenge right now is that schools don’t always know which of their part-time students are EFA students. Often, districts don’t realize a student enrolled in a course receives EFA funding until after enrollment reports are submitted on October 1. This can lead to families getting surprise bills midway through the semester, which creates problems for everyone.
This is especially a problem in career and technical education. The cost of a CTE course is substantially more than a standard course, and many EFA families don’t realize that when they enroll their student in CTE. Because districts don’t know which students are EFA students, they are not always able to educate families of the cost when they enroll. (Often this is complicated further by the fact that students are enrolling in CTE centers outside their home district through regional agreements) But eventually, that bill comes back to the family, who is often unprepared to pay it. District leaders are particularly concerned that HB 1817, as written, might require them to enroll EFA students in CTE without charging, which means the home district would bear the full cost of CTE for a student who has opted out of the district, and for whom it receives no state aid.
Particularly as the number of EFA students grows, careful thought needs to be given to how the EFA program should interact with the traditional public school pathway. While the text of HB 1817 seems simple, it opens a myriad of questions for the Department of Education and risks creating financial pressure on schools. The bill was heard in the Senate Education Committee in late March, and the committee is expected to vote on Tuesday.
Also in the Senate Education Committee, we’re watching for the vote on HB 1774 (Rep. Koffalt), which would require the Department of Revenue Administration to opt in to the federal voucher program passed last year. Questions were raised in the hearing about the DRA Commissioner’s authority to opt into the program and what the implications of granting that authority might be through different administration changes. Governor Ayotte has already opted New Hampshire into the program for now.
What didn’t make it to Crossover
All attempts to add academic accountability or oversight requirements to the voucher program failed to advance. This includes HB 1264 (Rep. Balboni), HB 1578 (Rep. Balboni), HB 1513 (Rep. Porcelli), SB 576 (Sen. Altschiller), SB 532 (Sen. Altschiller), and HB 1716 (Rep. Bricchi)
Though the House failed to advance a bill that would have maintained this year’s EFA enrollment cap for another year (HB 1834 from Rep. Weinstein), the Senate also referred a bill that would have gotten rid of the enrollment cap to interim study (SB 581 from Sen. Sullivan). The net result is that next year’s enrollment cap will be 12,500 students, up from 10,000 this year, per current statute.