Bill Description: House Bill 39 establishes a refundable education tax credit worth up to $5,000 for parents and legal guardians whose children are not enrolled in a public school and up to $7,500 for special needs students, with priority given to families below 300 percent of the federal poverty level.
Rating: +2
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?
The greatest danger associated with universal school choice programs is that they can introduce onerous and unjust government regulations over non-public education in the name of “accountability.” House Bill 39 largely preempts this danger by having the Tax Commission rather than the Department of Education administer the program.
Moreover, it explicitly states that “the provisions of this section shall not be construed to permit any government agency to exercise control or supervision over any nonpublic school or to give the state authority to regulate education of nonpublic students.” It also specifies that “a nonpublic school shall not be required to alter its creed, practices, admissions policy, or curriculum in order to accept students whose payment of tuition fees stems from a refundable tax credit under this section.”
However, House Bill 39 does impose core subject requirements, including “at a minimum, English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.” While the content requirements are broad, there are no such content requirements currently imposed on private schools in Idaho. Notably, the bill does not specify the verification process to ensure that participating non-public schools meet these standards. This ambiguity could open the door to government regulations being imposed on what private schools teach or result in the government mandating the approval of private schools’ course listings.
Furthermore, the language of the bill is unclear whether the four subjects have to be taught every semester, every year, or just at some point in a student's education. It is common practice in both public and private high schools to not require four full years of instruction in mathematics, social studies, or science. House Bill 39 under certain interpretations could require private schools to amend those requirements, contradicting the aforementioned provision that dictates private schools will not have to alter their “practices” or “curriculum.”
(0)
Does it increase barriers to entry into the market? Examples include occupational licensure, the minimum wage, and restrictions on home businesses. Conversely, does it remove barriers to entry into the market?
House Bill 39 largely removes barriers of entry into the teaching profession by incentivizing civil society to establish more non-traditional schools and educational institutions, including Montessori schools, classical schools, and mirco-schools. These institutions will be empowered to hire in-demand educators and instructors without traditional certifications issued by the education establishment, creating a more robust and competitive market for teachers in Idaho.
(+1)
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?
House Bill 39 provides a refundable tax credit of up to $5,000 for every child not enrolled in a public or charter school that increases to $7,500 if that child has special needs to be spent on qualified educational expenses. These credits will reduce the tax burden of thousands of Idaho families who choose not to participate in public schools.
(+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?
As written, House Bill 39 is by nature redistributive. The bill provides that “the state tax commission shall give priority to parents whose modified adjusted gross income as indicated on their most recently filed tax return does not exceed three hundred percent (300%) of the federal poverty level.” According to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, 300 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of three in 2024 is $77,460, which is roughly equivalent to Idaho’s median household income of $74,636. At the same time, House Bill 39 imposes an artificial scarcity on the number of tax credits available. At a maximum price tag of $50 million, the number of students the program can fund is around 10,000, meaning that it will be unable to fund even the current private school population of between 17,000 and 23,000. Given the scarcity of funds and the expected demand for the program, it is safe to assume that a significant portion of the awards will be given to priority applicants. In effect, House Bill 39 will take tax dollars from some families to fund school choice for those less well-off when it should provide equal access to all families regardless of income.
(-1)
Does it in any way restrict public access to information related to government activity or otherwise compromise government transparency, accountability, or election integrity? Conversely, does it increase public access to information related to government activity or increase government transparency, accountability, or election integrity?
Analyst Note: House Bill 39 features a range of public reporting requirements, including:
(0)
Does it violate the principle of equal protection under the law? Examples include laws that discriminate or differentiate based on age, gender, or religion or which apply laws, regulations, rules, or penalties differently based on such characteristics. conversely, does it restore or protect the principle of equal protection under the law?
House Bill 39’s definition of “academic instruction” explicitly excludes instruction “provided by a parent,” which suggests that home school families are ineligible for the program. The bill also discriminates against families making more than 300 percent of the federal poverty level. Universal school choice should be available to all students regardless of their income or choice of alternative schooling.
It is also worth noting the unforeseen consequences of HB 39’s exclusion of instruction “provided by a parent.” For instance, it is unclear whether or not this prohibition would preclude funding for a homeschool co-op where a parent instructs both their child as well as other students. It is also unclear if this provision would prohibit private school teachers whose children also attend their institution as students from applying for the grant.
(-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 39’s refundable tax credit allows 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 39’s refundable tax credit will provide families with the resources to pursue alternative education options for their children, thus diminishing the power and influence of government bureaucracy and the education establishment.
(+1)
