Bill Description: Senate Bill 1025 expands the Empowering Parents Grant to $5,000, allows it to be used on tuition and fees at participating schools until July 1, 2030, allows it to be used on child care for children ages 3 and older; will eliminate reporting requirements for public and charter schools not required by the federal government; and provide for a continual appropriation of $30 million in special education funding.
Rating: -2
Analyst Note: This legislation has been amended to remove the Idaho Red Tape Reduction Act, changes to open enrollment, and an ongoing appropriation of $30,000,000 to special education. It also amended requirements for participating schools in the Empowering Parents Grant Program expansion and clarified that funds cannot be used for childcare.
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?
Senate Bill 1025 greatly expands government control over participating nonpublic schools. It mandates that:
Participating nonschools must also:
These requirements impose our failing public education system’s model of “accountability” on private schools. They would be disastrous for nonpublic education and endanger the freedom of private schools to determine their own policies. Though nonpublic schools could choose not to participate in the program, they would be forced to either comply with these stipulations or be forced into unfair competition with those that do.
Particularly troubling is the requirement that private schools must be accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the state board 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.
It is also concerning that Senate Bill 1025 would prohibit participating private schools from making admissions decisions based on disability or religion. Children with special needs often require costly accommodations and faculty who are specialists in special education. It is within the rights of a private institution to decide that it does not have the proper resources in order to accommodate the needs of every child. Senate Bill 1025 could result in such institutions being forced to spend significant amounts of funds to ensure compliance with this unfunded mandate.
Moreover, a significant number of private schools in Idaho are religiously oriented, meaning that faith based instruction is not only a core of their academics but also their educational culture. As private institutions, they are entitled to restrict admittance to families who best align with their values and whose children would receive the most out of their education.
(-1)
Analyst Note: Senate Bill 1025 expands eligibility for the Empowering Parents Grant to include prekindergarten programs for children at least three years of age. The bill defines “participating prekindergarten” as “any program as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1161i-1 that is licensed by the Idaho department of health and welfare 19 pursuant to chapter 11, title 39, Idaho Code.” An “early childhood education program” according to 20 U.S.C. 1161i-1 includes a Head Start program under the Head Start Act, “a State licensed or regulated child care program,” or a “State prekindergarten program or a program authorized under section 619 or part C of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.” In parsing this language, the empowering parent grant could not be used for Head Start programs because they are already free and funded through federal grants, nor could it be used for childcare since the bill now explicitly prohibits the use of funds for such purposes in 33-1030(1)(g). Therefore, the amended version of Senate Bill 1025 limits the eligibility of the grant for children between the ages of three to five to prekindergarten programs designed for children with special needs or limited educational expenditures already authorized by the existing empowering parents program.
Does it increase government spending (for objectionable purposes) or debt? Conversely, does it decrease government spending or debt?
Analyst Note: Senate Bill 1025 was amended to remove the intent language calling for a $30,000,000 continual appropriation to fund special education programs.
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: Senate Bill 1025 was amended to remove the Idaho Red Tape Reduction Act.
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?
Senate Bill 1025 is structured to prioritize “the neediest families.” It reserves 75 percent of the awards for households whose adjusted gross income is below $60,000, 20 percent for households whose adjusted gross income is between $60,000 and $80,000, and 5 percent for households whose adjusted gross income is over $80,000. These stipulations will result in tax dollars being taken from some families to fund school choice for those less well-off. The grants given to roughly 500 token families making over $80,000 does little to change that. For a school choice program to be truly considered “universal” it must provide equal access to all families regardless of income.
(-1)
Does it violate the principles of federalism by increasing federal authority, yielding to federal blandishments, or incorporating changeable federal laws into Idaho statutes or rules? Examples include citing federal code without noting as it is written on a certain date, using state resources to enforce federal law, and refusing to support and uphold the tenth amendment. conversely, does it restore or uphold the principles of federalism?
Analyst Note: Senate Bill 1025 was amended to remove the Idaho Red Tape Reduction Act.
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?
Senate Bill 1025 imposes “a cap of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) per household, regardless of the number of eligible students in the family.” This anti-natalist provision unjustly discriminates against large families and is antithetical to America’s 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?
Senate Bill 1025 expands the Empowering Parents Grants to provide $5,000 to families for use on tuition and fees paid toward participating nonpublic schools. In doing so, it expands educational opportunities for up to roughly 10,000 students.
Analyst Note: The rating on this metric was amended to make it consistent with the ratings of other school choice bills.
(+1)
