Requires nonpublic schools and education service providers that accept public funds, such as scholarship or education freedom account students, to conduct criminal history background checks on all employees and volunteers.
requiring certain non-public schools or education service providers that accept public funds to perform background checks on all employees and volunteers.
HB738 would require non-public schools and education providers that accept EFA or Education Tax Credit funds to perform criminal background checks on employees and volunteers. Supporters argue this simply extends the safety standards already required of public schools to publicly funded non-public options, while opponents, overwhelmingly members of the home-education community, argue the bill's vague language would sweep in independent, unfunded RSA 193-A homeschoolers who take no public money, creating costly, divisive, and rights-infringing burdens.
Supporters argue that since public-school staff, volunteers, and coaches already undergo background checks, non-public schools and providers receiving public funds should be held to the same standard for consistency and child safety.
“People who work in the public school as staffs teachers, administrators, volunteers and coaches all substitutes undergo background checks. Even summer camps are required under law to have background checks on their staff.”
— Linda Tanner, sunapee · #461070 — read full submission →
“This bill simply requires that non-public schools and education service providers accepting public funds perform background checks on all employees and volunteers, just as public schools are required to do.”
— Erin Morehouse, Nashua · #451021 — read full submission →
Some supporters frame background checks as a necessary form of oversight and accountability wherever public or EFA funds are used, arguing the voucher program currently has little oversight.
“Public funds should come with public accountability, and this bill closes a dangerous loophole that leaves children vulnerable.”
— Pam Boyer, Goffstown · #452570 — read full submission →
“There needs to be more oversight with the voucher program. You are putting families and students at risk with this program, which has little to no oversight.”
— Melissa Crotto-Young, Surry · #442707 — read full submission →
A smaller set of supporters emphasize child-abuse prevention specifically, arguing predators can be skilled at evading detection and that background checks are a necessary safeguard regardless of consistency with public-school rules.
Opponents argue the bill's language does not clearly limit background-check requirements to EFA/ETC-funded providers, and would instead entangle independent, unfunded RSA 193-A home educators, co-ops, and informal gatherings that accept no public money.
“this bill’s reach is alarmingly broad. It could apply to formal education providers as well as to family-based learning, co-ops, book clubs, field trips, and other enrichment activities.”
— Walter Elly, Madbury · #461157 — read full submission →
“It says that if an EFA student *or* an Education Tax Credit student happen to be in a group, even if it's just a bunch of families getting together privately for fun, then every adult needs a background check”
— Karen Towle, Merrimack · #453911 — read full submission →
Many opponents characterize mandatory background checks on parents and home educators as an unconstitutional or unwarranted government intrusion into the parent-child relationship and family privacy.
“I should not require a background check to educate my own children. In that case- every parent should require a background check as we ALL supplement school’s education.”
— Pamela Boddy, Plaistow · #456913 — read full submission →
“This bill, by making home education subject to background checks, is making the free association of individuals of and families subject to regulation, something the government has no right or authority to do.”
— Samuel Milliken, Manchester · #457475 — read full submission →
Opponents argue the bill would penalize unfunded homeschool families merely for associating with EFA/ETC recipients in co-ops, sports, or field trips, pitting one group against another and risking the cancellation of shared educational and social activities.
“This bill is incredibly divisive to the community. It pits home educators against EFA and ETC recipients, potentially causing the cancellation of group activities in order to avoid criminal background checks.”
— dianne nolin, Windham · #407862 — read full submission →
“It is a threat to parents' rights to gather with fellow homeschoolers, to educate together in groups, and to share resources and venues together which are important to provide socialization, education, and child development opportunities.”
— Elizabeth Gallaher, Bow · #456862 — read full submission →
Opponents contend the bill does not specify who pays for the background checks or how they would be administered and enforced, calling it an unfunded, bureaucratic mandate.
“I brought up that the proposed bill has no funding mechanism listed. Who is to pay for these Background Checks?”
— Michelle Rohrbacher, Barrington · #444570 — read full submission →
“Who would be required to pay for the background checks? Are the families supposed to pay for the individual background checks or is the legislature proposing that the taxpayers pay for them?”
— misty carpenter, Nashua · #435004 — read full submission →
Opponents note the bill repeats language from HB1664 (2022) and HB628 (2024), both rejected, and argue the legislature is wasting time reintroducing an unchanged, previously-defeated measure.
“This is now the third time that this particular bill has been brought forward to the educational committee. It is identical to HB1664 of 2022 and HB 268 of 2024 including all its language.”
— Abigail Bellemore, Chester · #461543 — read full submission →
“HB738 is the same bill as defeated HB628 which drew hundreds of homeschooling families and voters to Concord last year.”
— John Dillon, Goffstown · #454494 — read full submission →
Some opponents note their co-ops or churches already run their own background-check and safety-training programs, and that New Hampshire law already imposes strong penalties for harming children, making the new mandate redundant.
“For our homeschool co-op we already follow the Diocesan Safe Haven Procedures and background check and train all parents attending our Somersworth NH Catholic Schoolhouse Chapter Day on child safety”
— Angela Kantz, Ossipee · #448247 — read full submission →
“New Hampshire already has strong laws to protect children, and punish those who harm children, including lengthy prison sentences.”
— Emily Soraci, Woodsville · #454873 — read full submission →
Citing RSA 189:13-a, opponents note public schools are not currently required to background-check volunteers, and argue it is unfair to impose a stricter requirement on non-public providers than exists for public schools.
Opponents argue small businesses and independent instructors (e.g., music or dance teachers) would find background-check compliance too costly and would simply stop accepting EFA funds, cutting off options for lower-income families.
At least one submission takes a conditional position, welcoming the apparent exemption for home-education families in the current draft but stating it would oppose the bill if that exemption were removed or unclear.
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
Legislation regarding the FOUR educational pathways needs clearing up!!! Not even legislators seem to understand the logistics and verbiage needed to seperate 193:A and EFA students. Parents/family members, etc don't need background checks to educate their children. PLEASE work on fixing the language in these bills and clearly differentiate which pathway is being discussed & contain that situation to that pathway.
If our public funds are going to non-public education (which I object to in the first place), employees should undergo background checks to protect our students.
I strongly oppose the proposed bill requiring background checks for 193-A homeschool parents. While the intention may be to ensure child safety, this measure would unfairly target and burden families who have chosen homeschooling as an educational option. There is no effective way to regulate or standardize homeschooling environments without infringing on the rights of parents to educate their children as they see fit. Homeschooling provides a personalized, flexible learning experience that is not conducive to one-size-fits-all regulations. Imposing background checks could discourage parents from homeschooling, undermining parental rights and the trust we place in families to care for and educate their children. There is a vast difference between homeschool families (193-A) and those who receive funds (EFA) that needs to be noted. Families who homeschool are a part of a community and involved in groups to support their education. Please reconsider the wording or provide a clearer distinction between homeschool tracks. It should also be noted that criminal background checks would serve no greater purpose other than collect data that isn’t already known by the necessary entities that need to know. Furthermore, who would oversee the information? We are all mandated reporters in this state and would serve such a duty for the safety of a child should the need arise.
This bill is ludicrous, will cost a fortune and not necessary or useful
To the members of the education committee, This bill, HB738, is an example of gross overreach in an area where additional legislation is not needed. It is a solution looking for a problem. This bill is written in such a way that traditional UNFUNDED homeschoolers, who home-educated under RSA 193-A, would have to undergo background checks in order to participate in any group activity in which even a single EFA-funded student were participating. As homeschooling parents, it is already our responsibility to keep our own children safe in group settings, and New Hampshire already has a robust set of laws about mandatory reporting as well as safety protocols for government-funded schools. While I understand the government has the right to amend requirements for recipients of government EFA funding, it is grossly inappropriate to legislate in such a way that UNFUNDED homeschoolers, operating under RSA 193-A, must have their privacy and rights trampled by government overreach. I respectfully request that you vote "NO" on this bill, and protect the freedoms and privacy of unfunded homeschoolers like our family. We privately fund every expense for our children's education in addition to paying for our local public schools, and ask for nothing except to be left in peace. In your efforts to debate and discern regarding the EFA program on this and all other bills, please leave unfunded homeschoolers alone!
Keep educational pathways RSA 193-A and RSA 194-F separate. Not all “home education” should be subject to the same oversight.
For student safety, this needs to be done, as it is with anyone who works at a public school or in youth serving organizations such as youth sports leagues or scouting. It is imperative for anyone wh is going to come in contact with the student in person or online.
Dear committee members I am asking that you oppose HB738 a bill sponsored by representative David Luneau. This is now the third time that this particular bill has been brought forward to the educational committee. It is identical to HB1664 of 2022 and HB 268 of 2024 including all its language. Even the previous sponsor of past bills claimed that they did not intend for the Bill to include independent home educational families there was never an amendment to clarify language and the sloppy language is repeating in the 2025 bill. Instead of referring to the educational freedom account EFA by the name or statute RSA 194F the term “home education” is used and is defined in the compulsion attendance law RSA 193:1 as well as the home law RSA 193a. Unfunded home educators that follow the RSA 193 a have continuously been put under the microscope with the return of each bill due to the 193F educators. Even though EFA and unfunded home educators may look the same from day-to-day operations in educating their children. Their legalities are completely different and that is something that is needing to be defined. This bill states that educational providers who accept taxpayers sourced funding are required to perform background checks on teachers and volunteers. However, there are dozens of learning centers, co-op, tutors, and other enrichment programs that except tax payer funded monies from families, and it can easily extend to family base learning opportunities too. Background checks should not extend to parents that are educating their own children. There is not an exception to this bill. It is lumping us all as instructors. If this bill was to pass, it would lump all educators, regardless of their RSA followings because one participant from 193F would spoil the rest because they would have to have a background check if it was just there legal status being followed as background checks but yet they are joining in with an unfunded 193 a family or group for an event. This is unacceptable, witch hunt on parents. Where I fully understand the measures used for background checks they should not be for unfunded 193 a home educators we are parents teaching our children. We are not accepting any funds from the government. Unlike the 193F families are. Due to the fact that you have repeatedly brought this bill forward for the third time without changing its language and legalities you were looking for oversight on a government funded program that you have applied as a Band-Aid to the public school systems your work has become sloppy and prejudiced. I should not have to have a background check to educate my children. Where I see that there are backgrounds that are necessary in certain circumstances, but to educate my children personally, it is not necessary. Abigail Bellemore Chester, New Hampshire Concerned, citizen Opposite HB738 2025
Anyone in the care or service of our children should at the bear minimum be able to pass a background check.
HB738 is a badly written bill. Homeschoolers are teachers and as we tell our students, poorly written pieces with sloppy language lead to miscommunication and are open to interpretation. We have been assured by the sponsor of this bill that independent homeschoolers are not the intended target. I’ll assume that she is speaking in good faith. But again, we teach history, civics and sometimes basic business practices. We know that when an institution, whether it is a church, business or especially the government, tells you not to worry, you absolutely need to start worrying. If it is not in writing, it does not count and is not binding. Get it in writing is a basic life rule for not getting hustled. Now I concede that if you are giving money to someone you have a right to some oversight. However, independent homeschoolers are not taking state money and do not want to be caught up in this bill. Because of the broad nature of this bill, the practical application will be a nightmare. For instance, I belong to a group where parents plan group field trips and one-off enrichment classes that usually meet in someone’s home. Think crafts, improv acting, book club, dissecting owl pellets, etc. We do not make money off this; we teach these classes or plan these field trips out of a desire to give kids a good education. Under this bill, if 1 child that attends uses the EFA funds to pay for the supplies, a parent teaching a class in their own home will need to have a background check. Keep in mind that the child’s parent will be present the WHOLE time. This will be a terrible expense and hassle while providing no protection to children. I am planning a field trip to the McAullife-Shepherd Discovery center. If this bill was in effect and a child used the EFA funds to pay for the museum fee I, and every museum employee, would need to have a background check. This would become ridiculously cumbersome. I urge you to either scrap this bill or make specific WRITTEN carve outs to exempt independent homeschoolers and also any situation where the parent is present for the duration.
I strongly oppose this intrusive bill. The government has no right to interfere with the parents rights to educate their children as they see fit.
I oppose this bill.
My name is Walter Elly. I reside in Madbury and am an independent home education parent. I am submitting this testimony to express my strong opposition to House Bill 738 (2025). This bill - now in its third iteration - replicates language from previous proposals (HB 1664 in 2022 and HB 628 in 2024) that have sought to impose background checks on education providers receiving taxpayer funds. Those proposals were rejected, and the language has not materially changed in this iteration and third attempt. Therefore, this committee and the legislature should continue to oppose this bill. As to why to oppose it, as with the other variants: this bill’s reach is alarmingly broad. It could apply to formal education providers as well as to family-based learning, co-ops, book clubs, field trips, and other enrichment activities. The bill’s ambiguous language - using “home education” as defined in RSA 193:1 and RSA 193-A instead of specifically addressing the Education Freedom Account (RSA 194-F) - opens the door for it to be applied far beyond its intended scope. The reference to tax credits (under RSA 77-G,) which support many low-income home education families through private donations, further underscores its potential to cause unintended harm. I urge the committee to reject HB 738 in its entirety and preserve the educational freedom and autonomy of home education families. It was a bad idea for New Hampshire in 2022, it was a bad idea for New Hampshire last year, and it's still a bad idea for New Hampshire today. Thank you for considering my testimony.
As person who was involved in the home schooling of 2 of my children, and one who has been involved with home schooling for many years, I oppose this bill as I think it will be unnecessarily intrusive and may well be used in unanticipated ways by those opposed to home schooling (e.g. teacher's unions) to curtail it.
It's obvious to me we need teachers with good character.
I oppose this bill as a member of the public who grew up in a home schooling family. We were part of a family-based education community where this kind of bill could have put completely.unnecessary pressures on parents and volunteer friends who were helpful to our budding Intelligences and experiences. I oppose this on the basis of UNCLEAR LANGUAGE that could unfortunately target family and community-based programs like the one I came up through.
People who work in the public school as staffs teachers, administrators, volunteers and coaches all substitutes undergo background checks. Even summer camps are required under law to have background checks on their staff. It is a primary function of government to provide for the safety of children. All educational setting should have a required background checks..private, EFA, EFA homeschoolers, and religious schools. Homeschoolers where parents are the primary educator should be exempt. People who volunteer once or infrequently and have adult supervision could be exempted. The Dept of Safety had a low cost background check for these people around $50. However, if a coach, volunteer or teacher has regular, unsupervised time with children, they should have background checks. We can’t make these situations 100% safe front those who mean harm, but we can offer a measure of common sense safety for our children. Who does not want their children to be safe from those who have a history of predation, abuse, violence, drug use etc.?
All individuals applying for employment to work with people under the age of 18 must undergo a thorough background check whereby eligibility can be determined.
Approving this bill will severely restrict the extracurriculars that EFA-recipients are able to enroll in.
If we care about the safety of our children, it is only common sense that we require background checks on any adults who will be teaching them or interacting with them.
HB738 unjustly subjects parents to criminal background checks merely for homeschooling. HB738 is a prejudicial attack on parental rights, educational liberty, and the right to privacy. HB738 is effectively selective harassment of students and parents who opt for homeschooling as the best option for the child. HB738 harms homeschool children, discouraging cooperative educational efforts by indiscriminately forcing background checks. HB738 is a wasteful, unnecessary, bureaucratic boondoggle which will needlessly drain Dept. of Safety resources. HB738 is more government overreach penalizing a parent's right to freely direct their children's education and welfare. HB738 falsely distinguishes (and unfairly targets) good homeschooling parents apart from good publicly-funded parents of "public school" children; thus it treats homeschoolers as second-class citizens and is unethical and unconstitutional.
Background checks for scholarships is a massive invasion of privacy. Discrimination against homeschooled people and families is no different then discrimination due to race.
HB738 is the same bill as defeated HB628 which drew hundreds of homeschooling families and voters to Concord last year. HB738 unjustly subjects parents to criminal background checks merely for homeschooling. HB738 is a prejudicial attack on parental rights, educational liberty, and the right to privacy. HB738 is effectively selective harassment of students and parents who opt for homeschooling as the best option for the child. HB738 harms homeschool children, discouraging cooperative educational efforts by indiscriminately forcing background checks. HB738 is a wasteful, unnecessary, bureaucratic boondoggle which will needlessly drain Dept. of Safety resources. HB738 is more government overreach penalizing a parent's right to freely direct their children's education and welfare. HB738 falsely distinguishes (and unfairly targets) good homeschooling parents apart from good publicly-funded parents of "public school" children; thus it treats homeschoolers as second-class citizens and is unethical and unconstitutional.
Of course there should be background checks, we don’t already have this? This is alarming.
As a homeschooling mother of 5 in Northern NH, I oppose this bill.