‘Collision path’: Idaho lawmakers cross party lines on competing school voucher bills
BOISE – Two proposals aimed at sending state funding to students who don’t attend public schools passed legislative committees this week, and a third is expected to receive a public hearing soon.
The two bills each passed by a single vote, with voting extending beyond party lines. Republicans were divided on the bills, and it took a lone Democrat’s support to advance one out of committee.
Proponents of these bills say children deserve a chance at an education that fits their individual needs, while those against them counter that the money would be better spent improving public schools to benefit a larger number of students.
Republican Gov. Brad Little last month kicked off the frenzy to land a school voucher bill on his desk when he announced in his State of the State address that he would support putting $50 million in the state budget toward public funds for private school vouchers. Little asked that be done the “Idaho way, which means it is fair, responsible, transparent and accountable.”
He left it to lawmakers to figure out how a program that fulfills those terms should look, and they’ve yet to reach a conclusion.
House Bill 93 narrowly cleared the House Revenue and Taxation Committee on Wednesday morning in an 8-7 vote to send it to the House floor.
The Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit bill would set aside the $50 million the governor recommended for students who don’t attend public school. Parents could use the money toward tuition at a private school, microschool or learning pod, as well as tutoring, transportation costs or Advanced Placement tests.
Bill co-sponsors Rep. Wendy Horman, R-Idaho Falls, and Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, told the committee that eligible families would receive up to $5,000 per child through a refundable tax credit for educational expenses, or $7,500 per child with disabilities.
In her presentation, Horman likened the socioeconomic challenges of attending private schools today to the racial inequities in public schools of the 1950s, which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found unconstitutional in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.
“It is time for Idaho to take the step that income and the ability to read should not be connected to your address,” Horman told the committee Wednesday. “Supporting all kids wherever they are learning is a civil rights issue of our time.”
Their bill prioritizes families making up to 300% of the federal poverty limit (roughly $93,600 for a family of four) for the first year. Lower-income families would be allowed a one-time advanced tax-credit payment for their first year in the program, Den Hartog said. After the first year, priority would go to students already enrolled in the program.
The bill received both acclaim and vehement rejection from committee members, and members of the public there to testify.
Rep. Britt Raybould, R-Rexburg, pointed out that the average Idaho household paid $634 in property taxes each year, and a recent income tax bill would put 80% of Idahoans’ income taxes at $3,800 or less, meaning many recipients would be getting more than a simple tax break.
“How is this not wealth redistribution using a government subsidy?” Raybould asked.
Others were concerned gaps exist in the bill’s language. Some committee members said they feared it would allow government money to go to schools that hire teachers without conducting background checks and allow parents to use the money in inappropriate ways or receive funding from multiple government programs.
But the biggest concern raised by those against it was that money would be better spent on Idaho’s public school system.
Assistant House Minority Leader Steve Berch, D-Boise, noted that, given the $50 million cap, this program would help fewer than 10,000 of Idaho’s 300,000 K-12 students.
Lindsey Love, a student ski instructor from Driggs, testified that many rural communities like hers lack private school options. She told the committee she has watched as public schools in Idaho have worsened, which has led to some kids going to the neighboring state for their educations.
“Our public school program is so poorly funded that teachers choose to drive the hour to work in Jackson, where they can earn a living wage,” Love said. “… Wealthy enough parents send their children to school in Wyoming by the time they’re in high school.”
Joshua Price, who identified himself as a Navy veteran, supported the bill. He said his family moved to Idaho to give his children more education choices, though that decision has come with financial sacrifices.
“We drive used cars, we bought a fixer-upper and I don’t have a big 401(k) because we feel it’s important for our kids to have the best opportunity that we can find for them,” Price testified.
Senate moves to expand grant program
Another bill providing funding to non-public schools advanced to the Senate floor earlier in the week in a 5-4 vote in the Senate Education Committee.
Sponsored by Sen. Dave Lent, R-Idaho Falls, Senate Bill 1025 would increase Idaho’s Empowering Parents program funding from $30 million to $50 million.
Created in 2022, the program provides small grants of $1,000 per student or $3,000 per family for educational expenses.
If Lent’s bill becomes law, grants would increase to $5,000 per student or $15,000 per family. Parents for the first time also would be allowed to use the grants for nonpublic school tuition.
But the House GOP caucus said Monday that Lent’s bill is unlikely to be viewed favorably by House Republicans, who appear to prefer Horman and Den Hartog’s proposal.
House Majority Leader Jason Monks, R-Meridian, is one of the lower chamber’s biggest proponents of school vouchers.
He spoke passionately in favor of Horman’s bill Wednesday, telling the House Revenue and Taxation Committee that he adopted four children with special needs who benefited from attending nonpublic schools.
“The majority leader is going to tell you that (Lent’s bill is) not going anywhere, so I’d probably agree with him,” House Speaker Mike Moyle, R-Star, said at a Tuesday news conference.
The two bills are on a “collision path,” he said, and noted that at least one more school voucher bill was expected this session.
Now that the first two bills are awaiting floor votes in the two chambers, “you’ll see more debate between the two bodies because each have their own bill,” Moyle said.
Rep. Lance Clow, R-Twin Falls, introduced a third bill for non-public school funding Thursday. His proposal would mostly target families who make $75,000 or less. Grants for students in those families would amount to 80% of the state’s average per-pupil funding, while higher-income families would be eligible for smaller grant amounts.
Democratic differences
The bill presented by Lent, who chairs the Senate Education Committee, advanced to the Senate floor by one vote Monday. It received support from Sen. Carrie Semmelroth, D-Boise, who works in education at Boise State University – one of Idaho’s four public four-year colleges.
Semmelroth’s vote strayed from her party’s line, which has vociferously opposed tax credits, savings accounts or other programs that send public funds to K-12 students at private schools.
“I would urge anybody listening to contact your legislators now and ask them to stand up for our public schools and ask them to oppose vouchers under any name, whether that is (education savings accounts), or ‘school choice’ or the refundable tax credits or anything,” House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, said at a Democratic news conference last month. “It is all the same animal. It is all taking your taxpayer dollars and sending them to unaccountable private schools.”
But Semmelroth said in an interview with the Idaho Statesman that she considered her vote a strategic policy decision on an agenda that Democrats do not have the votes to stop.
“The governor forced this policy discussion and decision-making on the Legislature,” Semmelroth said, noting Little’s request for fairness, accountability, responsibility and transparency. “Chairman Lent’s bill is the only bill that I know of that’s (advanced) so far that is at least attempting to meet those principles.”
Stopping Lent’s bill in committee risked leaving the Senate out of the policy conversation given the strong push from the House for school voucher legislation that lacks similar accountability measures, Semmelroth said.