georgina lambert

Testimony in Opposition to HB 1819 Honorable Members of the House Education Policy and Administration Committee, I am here to express my opposition to House Bill 1819, which proposes criteria for the review of Education Freedom Account (EFA) service providers. While the intent behind the bill may appear positive, aimed at establishing standards and oversight for service quality, it raises significant concerns regarding equity and systemic effectiveness in our educational landscape. 1. Resource Constraints and Ineffective Oversight While HB 1819 seeks to introduce review criteria for EFA vendors, it allocates no additional funding or staffing to enable this process. Given the already limited resources of the state board of education, adding the responsibility to oversee hundreds of vendors is not only impractical but also sets the stage for ineffective implementation. Adverse Underpinnings: The lack of resources threatens the efficacy of oversight, reducing it to a symbolic gesture rather than an actionable framework for ensuring quality education. This could lead to uneven standards across vendors, ultimately jeopardizing educational outcomes for vulnerable students. 2. Diverting Focus from Public Schools By prioritizing oversight of EFA vendors, the bill diverts attention and resources away from the public school system, which should be the primary focus of educational policy. Instead of strengthening public educational institutions that serve the majority of students, this bill seems to cater to a niche program without sufficient consideration for comprehensive educational needs. Who Benefits: EFA vendors may benefit from increased visibility, but this does not guarantee improved outcomes for students utilizing their services. Instead, this focus might consolidate power and resources among a select group of vendors, leaving community schools underfunded and undervalued. Who Does Not Benefit: Students enrolled in public schools, particularly those from marginalized communities, may find themselves deprived of essential funding and support that could improve their educational experiences. By shifting focus to the EFA program, we risk exacerbating existing inequalities in educational access and quality. 3. Impact on Student Choice and Parental Involvement The bill, while theoretically supportive of educational choice, may inadvertently complicate the landscape for families. Parents seeking to ensure high-quality educational options for their children could find themselves navigating an increasingly convoluted and inadequately supported EFA system. 4. Need for Systemic Reform At its core, HB 1819 does not address the underlying issues within the state's educational system. Instead of focusing on vendor oversight, lawmakers should consider strategies that prioritize funding adequacy, resource allocation, and support for public schools. This will better serve all students, particularly those who may not have access to alternative educational avenues. Conclusion In conclusion, while House Bill 1819 ostensibly seeks to improve the quality of services available through the EFA program, it falls short in practical execution and diverts necessary focus away from public education. To genuinely support all students in New Hampshire, we should prioritize reform that reinforces public school systems and addresses systemic inequities within our educational landscape. Thank you for your attention and consideration.