Fast facts
Universal by income, restricted in use, capped in enrollment
Any otherwise eligible New Hampshire student may apply regardless of household income. The 2026–27 enrollment cap is 12,500, with statutory priority groups allowed to enroll beyond the cap. EFA money is limited to approved educational expenses; it is not an unrestricted payment to parents.
How the money works
- The state transfers the per-pupil adequate education grant plus any differentiated aid attributable to the student.
- The money comes from the state Education Trust Fund under a standing appropriation for whatever amount is necessary to fund the program.
- The award is calculated from education-aid formulas, not from the participating household's own tax payments.
- Unused money rolls over while the account remains open, then returns to the Education Trust Fund when the account closes.
- A participating student cannot attend the resident district public school full time while receiving new EFA deposits.
What families may buy
- Private-school and online-program tuition and fees; tutoring; courses or services from public, charter, or independent schools.
- Curriculum, textbooks, instructional materials, software, computers, internet access, and school uniforms.
- Testing, summer and specialized programs, career or technical education, educational therapies, higher-education tuition, and qualifying transportation.
- Other educational expenses approved by the scholarship organization. Refunds go back to the EFA; families cannot receive cash rebates.
Who gets priority
- Current EFA students.
- Siblings of current participants.
- Students with disabilities.
- Students in households at or below 350% of the federal poverty guideline.
The 2025–26 cap was 10,000. Because enrollment exceeded 90% of the cap, the law raised the 2026–27 limit once by 25% to 12,500. The administrator reported that cap filled on August 13, 2026, with 943 otherwise eligible applicants waiting.
What oversight exists and what it does not establish
- Parents must submit annual evidence of educational attainment through a normed test, the statewide assessment, or an evaluated portfolio.
- The administrator must perform annual random account audits and can suspend accounts, bar providers, or refer suspected fraud.
- The administrator may retain up to 10% of deposits for administration.
- Providers retain broad autonomy and need not change their creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum to accept EFA payments.
Financial controls and annual academic records are real accountability measures. They do not create the same governance, admissions rules, transparency, or comparable public outcome reporting that applies to district schools.
Claims versus the complete picture
What the shorthand leaves out
“The money follows the child.”
Sometimes. For a student leaving certain district public schools, the state redirects adequacy aid to the EFA. For a student already in private school or home education, the EFA is a new state cost because no state adequacy grant was previously paid for that student.
“EFAs save taxpayers money.”
An EFA can be smaller than total public-school spending per pupil. That comparison does not prove systemwide savings. The state fiscal note says the effect varies by the student's prior setting and community; local expenditure changes are indeterminate.
“Families are getting their taxes back.”
Families do pay taxes. But an EFA award is not a refund tied to what a household paid. It comes from pooled state education funds and is calculated from aid formulas.
“Enrollment proves the program works.”
Enrollment proves demand for the benefit. It does not show whether the account created a new opportunity, improved an existing choice, or replaced a cost the family was already paying.
“There is no accountability.”
Too broad. Approved uses, payment controls, annual academic evidence, and random audits exist. The narrower question is whether public reporting is sufficient to judge program-wide results and compare them with other public spending.
“Universal means every family has access.”
Income no longer disqualifies an applicant. Access can still be limited by the cap, provider admission, tuition above the award, transportation, and whether an available provider can serve the student's needs.
Public-record claim check
Victoria Sullivan's documented EFA claims
Sullivan's Senate news release on SB 295 and the official SB 581 hearing report preserve six recurring claims. Each includes a true point; each omits a condition that changes what the statement means.
“Every Granite State family will be able to utilize this program.”
True: SB 295 removed the income ceiling.
Missing: eligibility is not guaranteed access. The cap remained, and the 2026–27 cap filled with 943 otherwise eligible students waiting.
“Universal school choice for all New Hampshire families.”
True: income no longer disqualifies an otherwise eligible student.
Missing: an EFA is a subsidy, not a guaranteed placement. Providers control admission, curriculum, and price.
Families can “freely choose the best school for their children.”
True: EFAs broaden what families may finance with state funds.
Missing: actual access still depends on admission, tuition, transportation, available services, and provider capacity.
The program is “extremely successful” because it serves thousands.
True: enrollment and demand have grown rapidly.
Missing: participation is an output, not an outcome. It does not measure achievement, fiscal savings, or whether the funding changed the family's prior choice.
“No child should be left in the waiting room of school choice.”
True: some otherwise eligible applicants have been waitlisted, while statutory priority groups can enroll beyond the cap.
Missing: eliminating a cap is also a fiscal choice under a law that appropriates whatever amount is necessary to meet EFA obligations.
There was “no fiscal note” because 800 waitlisted families would fit after the automatic cap increase.
True: at the January 2026 hearing, the scheduled increase from 10,000 to 12,500 exceeded the cited 800-person waitlist.
Missing: that near-term calculation does not bound future enrollment or cost if the cap is repealed. The universal-eligibility fiscal note called future participation and spending indeterminate.
The legislative record
- SB 295 (2025): Sullivan was prime sponsor. The enacted bill removed the EFA income threshold while retaining an enrollment structure.
- SB 581 (2026): Sullivan sponsored repeal of the enrollment cap and priority guidelines. It went to interim study and did not become law.
Screenshot claim check
Claims made in Sullivan's social-media posts
Screenshots supplied to The State Ledger preserve the wording below. They establish what was said, not whether it is accurate. The factual components are checked against statutes, fiscal notes, agency data, and program records.
“The majority of EFA students were not previously in private school.”
True: participants may come from private school, home education, public school, or another setting.
Missing: this framing obscures the public-school comparison. NHDOE reported that only 343 of 4,745 new 2025 to 2026 participants, or 7.2%, had attended public school in the preceding year. The data do not identify every student in the remaining group and may include private-school students, home-educated students, first-time students, or students who left public school earlier.
“These are low- to middle-income families who qualify for EFAs.”
True: families at or below 350% of the federal poverty guideline receive statutory priority, and many participants may have low or middle incomes.
Missing: priority is not eligibility. There is no income ceiling, so otherwise eligible higher-income families also qualify. The full income distribution is needed to say who typically receives the benefit.
“EFAs cost about $4,500 per child which is a fraction of $21,000+ in public schools.”
True: a typical EFA award is much smaller than total reported public-school operating spending per pupil.
Missing: the figures measure different things. An EFA is a state grant; the public-school figure combines funding sources and shared services. A participant already outside public school creates a new state cost rather than savings from a departure.
“EFAs are funded with new state revenue, not your local property taxes.”
True: payments come from the state Education Trust Fund; towns do not receive separate EFA bills.
Missing: the fund contains pooled state revenue and the program has an open-ended appropriation. Public-school switchers reduce state aid to their districts, local effects are indeterminate, and transition grants ended for new entrants July 1, 2026.
“EFAs are one of the most transparent programs in the state.”
True: reports, payment controls, annual random account audits, academic records, and legislative oversight exist.
Missing: purchase controls are not the same as evidence of program-wide results. Providers retain broad autonomy over admissions, practices, and curriculum, without public-school-equivalent governance.
“Public charter schools also hire teachers who are not NH-certified.”
True: RSA 194-B:14 requires at least half of a charter school's teaching staff to be NH-certified or have three years of teaching experience.
Missing: charter schools remain public, secular, charter-governed institutions with learning goals, testing, reporting, and possible charter revocation. The comparison does not establish the standards at a particular private provider.
“Private schools test EFA students, and many make significant academic gains.”
True: every EFA parent must submit an annual attainment record.
Missing: a normed test is only one option; families may use the statewide assessment or an evaluated portfolio. “Many” is not a program-wide result without a denominator, comparison group, and consistent public reporting.
“EFAs are not vouchers.”
True: an EFA is a restricted account with multiple approved uses, broader than a tuition-only voucher.
Missing: the label does not resolve the policy question. Both mechanisms use public funds for education outside a student's resident district school, including private-school tuition.
“Families keep choosing EFAs; kids are learning and thriving.”
True: demand is substantial, and individual families can sincerely report a better or safer fit.
Missing: demand and testimonials do not establish average academic gains, fiscal savings, or equitable access. Those conclusions require comparable outcome data.
School choice will be “on the chopping block”; opponents will dismantle it and force children out.
True: candidates differ over EFA eligibility, spending, caps, and oversight, and a funding change could affect some families' ability to afford their current arrangement.
Missing: this is a political prediction, not a measured program fact. Changing a subsidy is not automatically the same as outlawing private school or home education; a claim about an opponent should be tied to a specific bill or stated platform.
Useful baseline numbers
- September 2024: 5,321 students; $27.7 million annualized cost; $5,204 average EFA award.
- The universal-eligibility fiscal note estimated about $4,419 for a newly eligible student while warning that total participation and cost were indeterminate.
- District phase-out grants ended for students newly entering EFAs on or after July 1, 2026.
Questions the headline numbers cannot answer
- How many accounts changed a student's educational setting versus subsidized an existing choice?
- What are the longer-term academic, fiscal, and distributional results?
- How do aid changes affect district services and local taxes after fixed costs and enrollment timing are considered?
Primary sources
The useful question is not whether a slogan contains a true sentence. It is whether the omitted condition changes the conclusion.