By GARRY RAYNO, InDepthNH.org
CONCORD — The Senate Education Committee Tuesday made quick work of bills that would require enhanced legislative oversight of the Education Freedom Account program killing them immediately after the public hearings.
After the committee voted 3-1 to kill Senate Bill 532, which would have increased the requirements of the Education Freedom Account Legislative Oversight Committee and required monthly meetings, Senate Bill 533 to competitively bid the contract to administer the program every three years, and Senate Bill 576, which would required greater and more specific reporting by the program’s administrator, Children’s Scholarship Foundation NH, the members approved Senate Bill 430, which would have required mandatory disclosure from teachers if a parent asks a questions about their child, and Senate Bill 434, which sets up a statewide process to challenge materials and books used in schools and in school libraries.
The committee held public hearings on the three EFA bills which were Democrat-sponsored to provide greater accountability and transparency and allow the state to competitively bid the EFA administration contract which could pay the Children’s Scholarship Fund NH up to $5.2 million this school year.
The prime sponsor of all three bills, Sen. Debra Altschiller, D-Stratham, argued the program has grown exponentially since its inception five years ago, from 1,635 students and $8 million for the 2021-2022 school year to 10,510 students and nearly $53 million for the current school year.
In that time, she said the legislative oversight committee did not meet for over a year even after the legislature expanded the program’s eligibility to all New Hampshire students regardless of a family’s earnings. Prior to last year there was an earnings cap for parents to access the program.
When meetings are optional, Altschiller said, oversight disappears.
The bill would require monthly meetings, that they be broadcast on the legislature’s online system, and that agendas, minutes and reports be posted to the Department of Education’s website.
That would also add to the oversight committee’s responsibilities “the review of student data, eligibility requirements, and EFA expenditures.”
Altschiller said the bill does not expand the authority of the committee, but would bring it in line with the kind of oversight school boards have over their school’s finances and information to make informed decisions.
“The public has a right to know how their public dollars are being spent and where they are being spent,” she said. “The students in the EFA program deserve the same oversight as for the students in public schools.”
She suggested an amendment to ensure the students and families in the EFA program would have the same privacy rights as public school students and families by using aggregate data.
David Trumble of Weare said under the constitution, state citizens have a right to know what their government is doing and to have access to records.
“There is a constitutional issue involved,” he said.
He noted the oversight committee is the only group of elected officials answerable to the public overseeing the program, much like school boards are elected officials overseeing local school programs.
Trumble also suggested the committee add that program vendors have to report that they are following all the federal and state civil rights laws and questioned the administrative costs of the program.
He noted public schools’ administrative costs are about 10 to 11 percent, while the scholarship organization’s administrative costs are about 8 percent, but the private schools most of the students attend have administrative costs of 20 percent.
That means 28 percent of the state money is going to administrative costs and not alternative education for those students, he said.
Matt Southerton, director of policy and compliance for the children’s scholarship fund, raised concerns about the privacy of the students in the program.
He also noted his organization works closely with the Department of Education which accounts for all the money spent through the program.
He also noted the organization does a yearly audit and files the required 990 forms with the IRS and attorney general’s office, which nonprofits are required to do.
The issue of additional reporting by the scholarship foundation needs to be clarified, Altschiller said.
“The fundamental principle is when public money is spent, the public has a right to know where it goes, how the money is spent and if it meets its purpose,” she said.
The program is $12.3 million over budget this year alone, Altschiller said, noting 85 percent of the students attending the program have never attended public schools in what was originally touted as for low-income families with a struggling student.
She was critical of the organization for taking down information on their website that showed where the grant money was spent because the executive director said the organization needed to protect vendors and students from harassment she never documented.
Altschiller also noted the organization refused to provide critical data needed to assess if the program is adhering to statutes and rules and meeting its goal for a performance audit by the Legislative Budget Assistant. She said the LBA is now doing an audit of the department of education’s oversight over the program, not a performance audit.
“The organization ought to meet the basic standards of transparency and accountability we demand of every other recipient of public money,” Altschiller said.
Southerton said the organization gives the Department of Education any information it wants within 45 days.
He said what every vendor receives is available on line, noting some small vendor’s names were abbreviated much like the education department does not report on schools with less than 11 students to protect student privacy.
He said the reports were taken down for a period of time out of an abundance of caution for the vendors and the students.
“We are in polarized times and words have consequences and things can happen,” he said. “We’ve had four years of toxicity and misleading lies.”
Sen. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester, asked Southerton if 85 percent of the students had never been in a public school.
He said many of the students who were in the education business tax credit scholarship program applied to the EFA program when it began.
Altschiller asked Southerton if the organization had contacted police about the harassment of students or vendors.
He said they had discussions with parents but it is not the organization’s role to report, it is a decision for the individuals.
“The question is do you give the crazies oxygen,” he said.
The committee voted 3-1 down party lines with the Republicans Sullivan and Sens. Ruth Ward of Stoddard and Daryl Abbas of Salem voting to recommend killing all three bills, and Altschiller voting no.
Mandatory Disclosure
The committee voted the same way to pass Senate Bill 430 which requires all school employees to respond honestly and completely to written requests by parents regarding information relating to their children.
Similar bills have been before lawmakers but has yet to become law. The bills were and are opposed by the LGBTQ community and their supporters and advocates.
Atlschiller said the bill tries to pit parents against teachers and opens the door to some angry parent who can’t communicate with their child to take their anger out on the school or a teacher and send daily requests that would have to be answered within 10 days or a teacher could be investigated for a Code of Conduct violation which could result in the loss of a teaching license.
“This will put children in danger,” she said.
Sullivan said she is tired of hearing parents being vilified, noting even the best of parents have trouble communicating with a child and turn to the schools for help.
“That doesn’t make me a bad parent,” Sullivan said. “If teachers are the confided adults, they should be partners in communication.”
Abbas said teachers should not be gatekeepers of what parents should know about their child. They have no confidentiality right under the law, he said.
He said he doubts overzealous parents would flood a teacher with questions and if they do there are harassment laws.
Altschiller said the other ways to address overzealous parents are not in the bill.
Superintendents told the committee freedom of information requests have overwhelmed some offices, she said noting the requests to teachers could go on and on and on.
“It is not the teacher’s business to monitor the social lives of students,” Altschiller said, “and that is what this bill does.”
Book Bans
Senate Bill 434, which would require local school districts to adopt policies and procedures to address complaints related to material that is harmful or age-inappropriate in schools, was recommended for passage on the same 3-1 vote with a change substituting superintendent for principal throughout the bill.
The bill would allow parents to challenge material or books they believe are inappropriate and sets up a process, with timelines for action. The superintendent’s decision could be appealed to the local school board.
Most schools have policies allowing parents to opt their students out of material or books or courses they object to.
Opponents of the bill contend the bill would allow one or two parents to dictate what other students may read and could impact the 1st amendment rights of students.
They say parents currently have options to shelter their child from material they find offensive that has worked well and a new statewide process is not needed.
Altschiller said the process set up is one-sided and does not allow input from an individual whose identity is targeted in a challenge.
She said there should be some mechanism to bring in the other side who believe the material is appropriate.
“This affects the rights of other people,” she said.
Ward said a superintendent has a group of people to help him make his decision who are not necessarily in agreement with the challenge.
She believes the appropriate people are involved, she said.
Altschiller said the school boards association opposes the bill noting it puts this policy on top of what school districts already have in place.
Abbas suggested having a statewide policy would produce more consistent results so one book isn’t banned in one town, but not in the one next door.
Altschiller said when they held the public hearing on the bill, 12 people supported it and 476 opposed it.
“This is widely unpopular, it is unneeded and nobody wants this” she said.
Ward said you have to find out who the 476 are, anything schools or school boards don’t want you have teachers and unions and lots of opposition.
“We have lots of those things where we have an overwhelming opposition,” Ward said.
Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.