HB1521

This Bill is not what Home Educators asked for. We have no problems identifying ourselves legally, it is the 194F Statute that is needing to be amended, not 193A. 193A families inherently do not want or receive the EFA. It is EFA Pathway students that are being regulated, and the text of the amendment is accurate that EFA is not defined as Home Education - it's not placed in the correct statute to instruct that Pathway, as they do not reference 193A Statute for their activities. Presently, I am willing to submit that Representative Peternel simply doesn't have her thoughts straight on this matter, and has become lost in the circle of "which side needs help, here, defining their terms" - the OLD statute is sufficient for 193A families to continue on as we have, and the amendment belongs on 194F, where there seems to be great confusion about what defines them.

There needs to be some guidelines for home education. Even if a parent accepts an EFA for their child (and I'd be surprised if they didn't), there must be some requirements. The Home Education RSA was reviewed by the legislature. Why make it optional??

Any changes to home education definitions must maintain reasonable safeguards to ensure all children receive a safe, comprehensive, and equitable education.

I believe this bill will negatively impact the funding of public schools in the state of NH.

Why are we wasting time with bills like this...

Chair and Members of the Committee, I respectfully urge you to oppose HB 1521. While presented as a technical clarification, this bill makes a significant structural change to New Hampshire’s education system by removing students receiving Education Freedom Account funds from the definition of home education. The result is the creation of a new category of publicly funded education that is neither public school nor home education, and that operates with substantially reduced oversight. This committee has long been responsible for balancing flexibility with accountability. HB 1521 shifts that balance decisively away from accountability by severing EFA-funded programs from an existing statutory framework without establishing a clear replacement. Public dollars would continue to flow, but the expectations, transparency, and guardrails that normally accompany public funding would not. It is also important to view this bill in context. Other legislation before this committee increases restrictions, legal exposure, and administrative burden on public schools and educators. HB 1521 moves in the opposite direction, insulating EFA-funded programs from comparable requirements. The combined effect is not neutral. It incentivizes exit from public schools by making them more constrained while making publicly funded alternatives less regulated. This committee should be cautious about policies that fragment the education system into parallel tracks with unequal rules. Over time, that fragmentation undermines statewide coherence, complicates oversight, and weakens public confidence in the system as a whole. HB 1521 does not address student outcomes, accountability measures, or fiscal transparency. It simply removes an existing definition without resolving the regulatory gap that follows. That is not a clarification; it is a deregulatory shift with long-term consequences. For these reasons, I respectfully ask the committee to recommend HB 1521 as Inexpedient to Legislate. Thank you for your consideration.

Local government should not tell us how to spend our money! We all pay taxes and those that choose home education, no matter if they receive money back, should be penalized. As Republicans, you should be ashamed of yourselves because you are clearly tone deaf. Leave us home school parents alone! Making a Bill that makes it even harder is exactly why people are tired of our leadership. More rights not less. Live free or die….remember that thing called our state motto?

Parents need to have the final say on how they educate their children. I oppose this bill and suggest our legislators also oppose it. Thankyou.