On June 10, Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed S.B. 295, dramatically expanding New Hampshire’s Education Freedom Accounts with state-funded savings accounts that allow K-12 students to use public tax dollars for private school tuition, tutoring and other expenses. The law removes the income cap on eligibility, making all K-12 students eligible while imposing a 10,000-student enrollment cap in its first year.
To many, this may appear to be a bold move toward greater educational opportunity and reform meant to empower parents by diversifying schooling options. But look closer and it becomes clear that the law does not so much shift power toward parents as reallocate it to private institutions, which remain largely unburdened by the same obligations, transparency and equity requirements that govern public schools.
In theory, parents can choose where their children go. In practice, private schools retain discretion over whom to admit, what to charge and which services to provide. They can decline students with disabilities, reject those needing language support or charge more than the EFA award covers. The EFA was already open to a large portion of the state, as the prior income threshold was $109,000, above the state’s median household income of $95,600. By removing the cap entirely, the expansion primarily serves as a tax-funded subsidy for the wealthiest families, who can afford to pay the gap between the average $5,100 EFA award and the full private tuition.
For most families, genuine choice remains an illusion. Public schools by contrast must educate every child who enrolls, regardless of circumstance, income or ability. Meanwhile, the program draws from the same Education Trust Fund that finances public education. This fund is already under severe strain because the state’s school-funding formula has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional for failing to meet its legal duty to fund an adequate education. At the very moment the state is being sued for failing to fund public schools adequately, it is expanding voucher programs that divert money away from those same public schools.
Within weeks of passage, the EFA program hit its 10,000-student limit, leaving hundreds of applicants on a waiting list, a reminder that “freedom” is rarely universal when gatekeepers control admission.
Beyond New Hampshire’s policy design lies a deeper incongruity: education is not a consumer product. The very idea of “school choice” is a contradiction. Education is a public good meant to not only equip children with essential knowledge and critical thinking skills, but with a sense of community and civic engagement that binds us together, not scatters us into competing markets.
When parents are cast as shoppers and schools as vendors, the social fabric that supports common learning breaks down and begins to fray. Markets reward efficiency and exclusion; education requires inclusion and patience.
In fact, across New Hampshire, these EFAs are being questioned. An August New Hampshire Bulletin editorial warned of “blind spots” in the state’s voucher vision, noting that the expansion could deepen inequities and drain funds from already under-resourced districts. In the Concord Monitor, prior to S.B. 295 becoming law, attorney Gerald Zelin warned of the program’s treatment of special-education students, calling it a “gimmick.” Zelin pointed to a loophole that allows families to skip a public school district’s special-education evaluation, obtain a private assessment from a consultant of their choosing, and then receive an extra $2,100 in voucher funds. This transforms a targeted aid program into an unchecked subsidy system, weakening accountability, diverting taxpayer funds and undermining legitimate special education protections. And an editorial in the Valley News observed that this law arrives in “an environment hostile to public education,” one where the state still has not met its constitutional funding duties.
Together these voices capture a growing unease that “choice,” as now defined, risks hollowing out the very system designed to serve everyone. I share these criticisms. The rhetoric of choice distracts from the real issue that public schools need stronger, fairer funding. What families want is not endless options but assurance that every neighborhood school is well-resourced and accountable. The promise of “choice” too often becomes an excuse to neglect the shared investment that true public education requires. Freedom, in this sense, should mean a good public school for every child, not a private market for the few.
A system in which public money flows to private schools that can exclude, select and operate without oversight corrodes the foundation of access to education. SB 295, and bills like it around the country, threaten one of our essential civic institutions: the public school and, with it, the public good.
Opinion articles represent the views of their author(s), which are not necessarily those of The Dartmouth.
