Bill Description: House Bill 93 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: +1
Analyst Note: House Bill 93 is a revised version of House Bill 39 introduced earlier in the 2025 session. The primary difference is that House Bill 93 clarifies language regarding academic instruction to no longer exclude homeschoolers from participation in the program; imposes an additional accreditation requirement on private schools and documentation requirement for auditing purposes; and creates a mandatory parent survey administered by LSO.
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 93 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.”
(+1)
However, House Bill 93 does impose subject requirements, including “at a minimum, English language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies.” While the content requirements are broad, this provision introduces new government regulations on private schools that otherwise did not exist before. Notably, the bill does not define what is considered sufficient instruction in each of the core subjects. The language of the bill is also unclear whether the four subjects have to be taught every semester, every year, or just at some point in a student's education. Therefore, House Bill 93 creates an avenue for government to eventually dictate 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.”
House Bill 93 also provides that qualifying academic instruction must either be provided by “an accredited school” or “documented in a portfolio of evidence or learning record that indicates the student's growth.” The bill’s accreditation requirement is vague and does not clarify who a school must be accredited by; whether it is done by the state or an established accrediting body recognized by the state. This provision will limit the availability of private schools in rural areas, where it is common for institutions not to be accredited. It could also exclude many more private schools from inclusion in the program depending on who an institution must be accredited by.
(-1)
The bill also imposes a new regulation on homeschool parents that did not previously exist by requiring them to keep a “portfolio of evidence or learning record that indicates the student’s growth” and demonstrates that the instruction meets the core subject requirements in case they are audited by the tax commission.
(-1)
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?
Analyst Note (explanation of change): Compared to House Bill 39, House Bill 93 includes an accreditation requirement without specifying who an institution must be accredited by. If accreditation is to be done by the state, the bill fails to specify what standards a school must meet to receive accreditation. Moreover, different accrediting bodies have different standards for accreditation. This ambiguity means that despite the bill not directly mandating teacher certification, it could indirectly do so through the accreditation process. Therefore, it cannot be confidently claimed that House Bill 93 removes barriers of entry into the teaching profession in the same manner as House Bill 39.
(0)
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 93 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 93 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 93 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 less than 10,000, meaning that it will be unable to fund even the current private school population of between 17,000 and 22,000. 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 93 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 93 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?
Analyst Note (explanation of change): In House Bill 39, homeschool parents were held ineligible for the tax credit via specific exclusionary language about academic instruction provided "by a parent." By contrast, House Bill 93’s definition of “academic instruction” no longer discriminates against homeschoolers.
(0)
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 93’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 93’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)
