Bill Description: House Bill 164 would create the Idaho Education Opportunity Program, which would provide students leaving the public school system with an ESA to spend on eligible expenses related to private education; existing private school families would also have opportunity to deduct the cost of private school tuition and fees from their taxable income.
Rating: -3
Does it create, expand, or enlarge any agency, board, program, function, or activity of government? Conversely, does it eliminate or curtail the size or scope of government?
As explained in previous ratings on other school choice legislation, the greatest danger associated with school choice is that they can introduce onerous and unjust government regulations over non-public education in the name of “accountability.” This can occur indirectly by allowing said programs to be administered by a state’s respective department of education, which is often staffed by employees hostile to school choice. For example, in Arizona, Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes’ directed the administrator of the state’s ESA program to begin denying reimbursements for basic “supplementary educational materials,” such as pencils and erasers, without proof from parents that such materials were necessary. This action prompted an ongoing lawsuit by the Goldwater Institute on behalf of two mothers to put an end to the AZ government’s unjust overreach. In light of this experience, it is worth highlighting that House Bill 164 entrusts administration of the program to the Idaho Department of Education.
That said, House Bill 164 helps preempts this danger by declaring that “this chapter does not permit any government agency to exercise control or supervision over any nonpublic school or homeschooling.” It also specifies that “a qualified school shall not be required to alter its creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum in order to…participate as a qualified school.”
Furthermore, it establishes additional protections for homeschool families by specifying that “all decisions relating to philosophy or doctrine, selection of books, teaching materials and curriculum, and methods, timing, and place in the provision or evaluation of home-based instruction shall be the responsibility of the parent except for matters specifically referred to in this chapter.”
(+1)
However, House Bill 164 does impose new requirements on private schools to participate in the IEOP that did not exist in law before. Namely, it imposes core subject, accreditation, and testing requirements. The core subject requirement dictates that a student must receive a “thorough education in at least the subjects of reading, writing, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science.” While this requirement is broad, the bill does not define what is considered a “thorough instruction.” This ambiguity could eventually lead to the government dictating what is considered sufficient instruction of core subjects in private schools, contradicting the aforementioned provision that dictates private schools will not have to alter their “practices” or “curriculum.”
The accreditation requirement dictates that “a school shall be deemed accredited pursuant to this section if it has been accredited according to the accrediting standards promulgated by the Idaho department of education, the Idaho state board of education, or a secular or religious accrediting association recognized by the Idaho department of education.” This provision will exclude a significant number of private schools from participation in the program since the state board of education currently only recognizes Cognia and its partners as a legitimate accreditation agency. Among the institutions that would be excluded are those affiliated with the Association of Classical Christian Schools, such as the Ambrose School in Meridian and Logos School in Moscow. This provision would also limit the availability of private schools in rural areas, where it is common for institutions not to be accredited.
The testing requirement dictates that all qualified schools must provide an affidavit affirming that a participating student “has completed a nationally normed assessment test.” It is worth mentioning that public schools are not required to administer standardized tests every year, particularly in high school where the ISAT is only taken in 11th grade. Accordingly, this requirement would impose more onerous regulations on participating private schools than are currently required by public schools.
(-1)
House Bill 164 would also impose new requirements on qualified students who do not attend a qualified private school full time, such as those who attend a microschool, by requiring parents every year to present “evidence demonstrating that the student is at grade level or has improved by one (1) grade level through a nationally normed assessment test.”
(-1)
Analyst Note: Participation in the IEOP is voluntary. Any regulations enumerated in the bill only apply to participating nonpublic schools and families.
Does it directly or indirectly create or increase any taxes, fees, or other assessments? Conversely, does it eliminate or reduce any taxes, fees, or other assessments?
In addition to the IEOP, House Bill 164 would also reduce the tax burden of those who do not wish to participate in the program but still choose to send their child to an alternative K-12 educational institution. It provides that an eligible parent or guardian may deduct from their taxable income an amount “equal to the cost of tuition and fees” paid to a qualifying accredited private school.
(+1)
Does it increase government redistribution of wealth? Examples include the use of tax policy or other incentives to reward specific interest groups, businesses, politicians, or government employees with special favors or perks; transfer payments; and hiring additional government employees. Conversely, does it decrease government redistribution of wealth?
House Bill 164 includes a tiered system for determining award amounts that is by nature progressive and redistributive. The amount of funds distributed into a participating students ESA under the program is determined as a percentage of “the average distribution to a school district,” which includes “all moneys appropriated by the legislature from state funds for the educational support program and other program distributions, including health insurance and discretionary funding.”
This distribution is tiered according to a qualifying family’s household income as so:
According to the fiscal note, House Bill 164 would provide families under $75,000 with $6,572 and as little as $1,688 for families making over $125,000. In effect, it will give less money to middle class families in order to give more money for those below the median household income. It is worth noting that the public education system does not discriminate in its funding formula and disperses the same amount of per-pupil funds regardless of a student's household income. A properly structured school choice program should benefit all families equally regardless of income.
(-1)
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
House Bill 164 would allow school districts in which a participating IEOP student resides to receive “20 percent of the average distribution.” It is highly objectionable for school districts to receive a percentage of per-pupil funding for students they are not responsible for educating. Because the award amount is tied to the funding formula, districts will continue to receive a modest boost in their funding that will unjustly defray the costs of declining enrollments. These funds would be better served ensuring that families of all income levels can benefit from the program equally.
(-1)
The bill would also allow any leftover funds in a student’s ESA following graduation to be used at an eligible postsecondary institution. There are two concerns with this provision. First, while there is a constitutional mandate to fund K-12, there is no such mandate to fund individual expenses for higher education. Second, this facet of the program is liable to abuse. Because remaining funds are allowed to be rolled over each year, it is likely that parents who can otherwise afford a private K-12 education would find ways to use the ESA account as a government subsidized college fund.
(-1)
Does it promote the breakdown of the traditional family or the deconstruction of societal norms? Examples include promoting or incentivizing degeneracy, violating parental rights, and compromising the innocence of children. Conversely, does it protect or uphold the structure, tenets, and traditional values of Western society?
House Bill 164’s ESA program will allow families to avoid the negative moral and intellectual influences prevalent in public schools and instead give their children an education that reinforces traditional values.
(+1)
Does it expand the government's bureaucratic monopoly on education, reduce family and student choice, or finance education based on an institution or system? Conversely, does it reduce government coercion in education, expand education choice, or finance education based on the student rather than the institution?
House Bill 164 would expand education choice for families, particularly those below the median household income who cannot currently afford public school.
(+1)
However, it unjustly excludes from the program the existing private school population of roughly 17,000 to 23,000 students. Current private school families should not be punished for the financial sacrifices they’ve made to provide their children with a better education. Because of this exclusion, House Bill 164 cannot properly be considered universal and thus would be the wrong avenue for expanding school choice.
(-1)
House Bill 164 also excludes from participation in the program students who are homeschooled.
(-1)
