Competing education grant bills advance
Mar. 13—New Hampshire's House and Senate approved competing bills Thursday to eventually allow parents of any income level to receive state-funded Education Freedom Account grants.
Both bills go far beyond what Gov. Kelly Ayotte has requested of lawmakers.
The House bill (HB 115) that won initial approval Thursday would raise the income limit next school year to 400% of the federal poverty level before eliminating the income limit entirely in 2026-27.
Under the current 350% limit, a family can earn up to $103,600; the 400% limit would raise it to $128,600.
The House vote was 198-180 with only 10 House Republicans joining all House Democrats in opposition.
A few hours later Thursday, the Senate passed its own bill (SB 295), offered by first-term Sen. Victoria Sullivan, R-Manchester.
Her bill, as amended, would eliminate the income limit but cap at 10,000 the number of grants awarded every year.
Currently just over 5,200 families make use of the EFA grants, which can be used toward tuition or expenses for private, religious, alternative public or home school.
The average EFA is worth about $5,100.
The Senate endorsed its bill, 16-8, with all Republicans in support and all eight Democrats against it.
"The voters of this state overwhelmingly support the principle of school choice," Sullivan said.
Yet Sen. Debra Altschiller, D-Stratham, said residents who signed up online to comment opposed the measure by nearly a 10-1 margin.
"This program is in no way wildly popular," Altschiller said.
Both bills went to their respective Finance Committees to be studied further.
In her state budget message last month, Ayotte called for more modest legislation that would permit a family of any income to get an EFA grant, but only if their child was currently enrolled in a public school.
Studies have confirmed that EFA grants have gone to a very small number of families who used the money to take their child out of a public school.
Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, said House Democrats would oppose any expansion of the program even though the cost of Ayotte's proposal would likely be minimal.
Luneau contended the House-passed bill could cost up to $60 million more a year once it's fully implemented.
House Education Funding Committee Chairman Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, the architect of the House plan, insisted it would cost $11 million more in 2027.
Rep. Daniel LeClerc, D-Amherst, pointed out that the conservative Granite State Taxpayers Association had opposed the House bill, adding that such a hefty expense "at a time of budget deficit" would be inappropriate.
"Let's not risk a good thing by spending money that we don't have," LeClerc argued.
Rep. Victoria McDonnell, R-Salem, said all families should have access to the grants.
"I look forward to the day when children will not be turned away from their school choice based on their ZIP code or their family's ability to pay," McDonnell said.
During Senate debate, Democratic Leader Rebecca Perkins Kwoka of Portsmouth reminded colleagues that a superior court judge has already ruled that state support of public schools is $540 million less a year than it should be.
"Our property taxpayers will have to foot the bill if we pass this," Perkins Kwoka said. "We should be focused on adequately funding our neighborhood public schools."
Attorneys for the state have asked the state Supreme Court to overturn that decision; a ruling is expected later this year.
+++
What's Next: The House and Senate Finance Committees will continue work and report back to their chambers next month.
Prospects: Something is likely to pass but details are unclear. The solution may become part of a final state budget compromise that lawmakers take up at the end of the legislative session.
klandrigan@unionleader.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
21 minutes ago
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that "undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance," Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator," but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all." Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California," Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions. Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump "a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
David Hogg Takes Multiple Swipes at Democrats: 'Asleep at the Wheel'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. David Hogg took multiple swipes at Democrats as he announced that he will not fight to hold onto his leadership role in the Democratic National Committee. Hogg decried "a serious lack of vision from Democratic leaders, too many of them asleep at the wheel" in a lengthy thread on X on Wednesday night, adding that three Democratic House members have died this year after being reelected in November, giving Republicans an expanded majority. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) had voted to nullify the February 2025 elections that appointed Hogg as vice chair, citing procedural violations. In his Wednesday posts he also criticized the "crisis of competence and culture" that protects complacency and rewards seniority. It "has already cost us an election and millions of Americans their rights. Let's not let it cost us the country," he said. "We must change the culture of our party that has brought us here and if there is anything activism or history teaches us it's that comfortable people, especially comfortable people with power, do not change. In this moment of crisis, comfort is not an option." David Hogg attends the Fast Company Innovation Festival 2024 at BMCC Tribeca PAC on September 17, 2024 in New York City. David Hogg attends the Fast Company Innovation Festival 2024 at BMCC Tribeca PAC on September 17, 2024 in New York City. Eugene Gologursky//Getty Images for Fast Company This is a breaking news story. Updates to follow.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Police Clear Protesters in Seattle, Las Vegas and L.A.
California liberals welcomed Gov. Gavin Newsom's speech condemning President Trump, but some remained skeptical of the governor. Republicans, meanwhile, saw his address as opportunistic and blamed him for the state's turmoil. For months, Californians weren't sure what to make of Gov. Gavin Newsom. There was the new podcast on which he interviewed right-wing influencers and said he felt trans athletes shouldn't participate in women's sports. There was the meeting in February with President Trump in the White House. And there were occasional snipes at Republicans, but nothing like those Mr. Newsom had dished out in years past. Then came a blistering nine-minute speech on Tuesday in which Mr. Newsom warned Americans that Mr. Trump was destroying democracy and acting as an authoritarian who would eventually send the military to states across the country. Many liberals in California cheered Mr. Newsom, finally seeing in him the leader of the resistance that they had been missing. Those feeling confused and fearful since Mr. Trump started his second term were looking for someone to stick up for them and said they appreciated Mr. Newsom's forcefulness. 'In a time of rising fear and growing threats to democracy, he spoke not just as a governor, but as a moral leader,' said Representative Lateefah Simon, Democrat of California. 'He named the danger plainly.' But others, while supportive of his message, were not entirely convinced. They said testing the political climate ahead of a potential run for president. 'Even if you're late to the party, you know, welcome to the fight,' said Hugo Soto-Martinez, a progressive City Council member in Los Angeles, who appreciated what Mr. Newsom said but wished the governor had stood up to the president sooner. Adrian Tirtanadi, executive director of Open Door Legal, a nonprofit which provides free legal representation for immigrants and others, said he liked all of the words in Mr. Newsom's speech. But, he said, he wondered why the governor was not backing up the rhetoric with more financial support for immigration lawyers who could fight deportation. Big talk without much action, Mr. Tirtanadi said, is often the California way. Still, others appreciated that Mr. Newsom had demanded that Mr. Trump stop workplace raids and filed lawsuits seeking to block the deployment of National Guard troops and Marines in Southern California. That has given some hope to immigrants who have felt powerless. When David Campos was 14, he and his family traveled by foot and by bus, across deserts and over mountains, to California from their home in Guatemala. They scurried under a border fence and settled in South Central Los Angeles without legal papers. The family eventually obtained citizenship through his father's carpentry job. Mr. Campos went on to Stanford University and Harvard Law School, served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and is now the vice chairman of the California Democratic Party. Mr. Campos said he was glad that Mr. Newsom, the former San Francisco mayor with whom he sometimes clashed, took a defiant stance toward Mr. Trump. 'I'm glad he's rising to this moment,' Mr. Campos, 54, said in an interview. 'The governor reminded us that if the president can do this in California, he can do it anywhere in this country. That's how a democracy can die.' Republicans in California, many of whom have aligned with President Trump, said they were decidedly unimpressed with the governor's speech. Senator Brian Jones, the State Senate minority leader, said that the governor seemed to have been filming an early campaign commercial with his speech, from the way the flags were set in his backdrop to the suit he was wearing. 'It doesn't do anything to lower tensions in L.A.,' Mr. Jones said. 'When he says we all need to stand up, is he encouraging more people to show up to the riots and participate?' James Gallagher, the Republican leader of the California State Assembly, called the governor's address 'self-righteous political posturing.' Mr. Gallagher said California's policy of preventing local law enforcement from working with federal immigration officials created the current tension. He said he found it funny that Mr. Newsom was accusing Mr. Trump of being authoritarian when the governor ordered Californians to close their businesses, stay home from church, attend school on Zoom, wear masks and get vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic. 'He was a total tyrant, and he has no business talking about authoritarianism because he is exhibit A,' Mr. Gallagher said. Mr. Newsom's speech, as well as his sharp-tongued retorts to Republicans on social media this week, won some plaudits from younger influencers. Dwayne Murphy, Jr., a 34-year-old content creator who lives in Downey, Calif., and said he votes Democrat, said he appreciated that the governor 'seems to be hyper-focused on standing up for this state at a time like this, and I feel like that's what people are very encouraged by.' Inkiad Kabir, 20, a pop culture content creator who lives in the Inland Empire region of California, said that Mr. Newsom was the rare Democrat willing to go on the attack, calling him 'basically liberal Trump, in a way.' Mr. Kabir created a popular TikTok video this week in which he called the governor 'Daddy Newsom' and likened the governor to a 'toxic ex that you promise you're not going to go back to, but you always go back to.' For now, it seems, Mr. Kabir has gone back.
