Recent primary elections have brought the national momentum behind school choice to Idaho. The Gem State has yet to adopt universal school choice, but 2025 looks like the year for the Legislature to adopt either an education savings account (ESA) or an educational tax credit policy.

Some may be tempted to oppose school choice from the right. They worry about a lot of “red herring” arguments thrown about by school choice opponents. These red herrings include: state money may require private schools to change fundamental, value-based practices; private schools might be required to adopt standardized testing, government accreditation, financial reporting, open admissions, teacher certification, or caps on tuition; and education officials may require open enrollments. Indeed, some Idaho opponents are already demanding private schools be required to have open enrollment.

The truth is, however, that many other states have achieved school choice programs that allow private schools to continue with their distinctive missions without government interference. Here are some of the myth-versus-reality explanations that should calm any skeptic’s fears:

Myth: Open enrollment must accompany school choice.

Reality: There are already more than 20 statewide school choice programs across the nation. If required, open admissions would force Christian schools to admit students from non-Christian or anti-Christian families, but open admissions have been required in only one of these states: Louisiana. Many of Louisiana’s best private schools refused to participate in the program rather than compromise their missions through open admissions. As a result, Louisiana had the only school choice system that failed to raise test scores in participating schools. 

In Idaho, private Christian schools like The Ambrose School in Meridian (where I serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors) would not participate in a school choice program if it would require a regulation like open admissions. Even if passed, such a regulation would surely not survive a challenge in federal court. Idaho’s school choice program should not require open admissions.

Myth: School choice must require standardized testing.

Reality: State testing requirements for private institutions would be incompatible with an effective school choice program. Testing requirements bring a measure of accountability to government schools, but private schools have accountability baked into their constitution — unhappy parents can simply leave, taking their dollars to a different school. In Florida and Indiana, vouchers and ESAs can be used for private school tuition without being subject to state-selected standardized tests. 

State-mandated tests, in general, are a one-size-fits-all approach and won’t work for private schools. Private schools often have unique or specialized missions, so holding them to public standards would force them into a mold, negating all the benefits school choice has to offer. States should eliminate testing requirements from school choice plans so schools do not compromise their missions. 

In one interesting school choice plan, Florida chose a middle ground by allowing schools to choose among 24 nationally normed tests, including the Classical Learning Test. While Florida’s plan might satisfy most private schools, Idaho could go even further by not requiring any testing.

Myth: School choice must require teacher certification.

Reality: Teacher certification requirements for private schools defeat much of the purpose of school choice because they indirectly dictate what is taught. What’s the point of creating a school choice program while requiring all teachers to be taught and obey the very same principles and curricula that got public education into this mess in the first place? 

Imagine a partially retired engineer wanting to teach high school students about applied calculus using his or her vast experience in the field. Or a liberally-educated lawyer who would like to teach humanities in high school. Would it make sense to prevent such teachers from inspiring students simply because the engineer isn’t certified by the woke, public education hegemony? Teacher certification limits the freedom of schools to hire mission-fitted teachers and to come up with selection criteria that match their unique missions.

Myth: School choice must put caps on private school tuition.

Reality: Tuition caps are poison pills, as they would prevent higher-priced private schools from being accessible to all students. Accreditation and financial reporting requirements are poison pills that would place unnecessary restraints on how private schools choose to operate. The antidote to all these issues is to legislate that none of these requirements be placed on private institutions.

Myth: Schools participating in school choice must be accredited and required to provide financial reports.

Reality: The accountability in a competitive school choice environment comes from the parents who want a great education for their kids. Any private school trying to skimp on education, or one operating inefficiently, will face competition from other schools focused on excellence. In a market for education, the dollars follow students to the best schools, making the parents most happy.  

In Idaho public education, as mentioned in an IFF article, education outcomes have stagnated despite billions of dollars being added to education budgets. There is not nearly enough accountability. As with other industries, competition rewards the best producers while weeding out the under-performers. School choice will finally provide the incentive for public education to reach its true potential by being more responsive to parents’ desires for excellent education.  

Have no fear

A school choice bill void of requirements for testing, teacher certification, tuition caps, accreditation, and financial reporting would allow private schools the freedom to innovate and develop curricula based on their values, keep pricier institutions accessible to families that can afford to subsidize the tuition beyond the tax credit, increase autonomy, and lower the barriers to entry. 

All this would hold private and public schools accountable to parents better than external accrediting agencies or adding more education bureaucracy. Parents’ satisfaction will increase. Children will thrive.

Though power often encroaches, we already have experience in Idaho at keeping such power at bay. Idaho’s modest school choice program allows tax credits for donations to education institutions up to $500 per year. This tax credit has not compromised the distinct missions of private schools one iota. If it had, private schools like Ambrose would have pulled out long ago. 

A more expansive program, like a substantial refundable education tax credit, could operate on this very same basis without compromising private school missions whatsoever. 

Across the country, school choice programs have prevented encroachment, perhaps in part because the states where school choice has been passed and implemented are predominantly either Republican states or have consistently had Republican control of at least one branch of the state legislature (e.g., Florida, Utah, Iowa, North Carolina, Wisconsin, etc.). 

In sum, the most typical concerns about school choice melt away when the policy is implemented correctly.

Critics of school choice voice unfounded worries that the law does not provide sufficient protection, but the numbers say otherwise. About 6% of Idaho students are in private schools — well below the national average of 10%. Doubling the percentage of students in private schools to 12% would help solidify continuing support for private education and for school choice programs. Outcomes would improve. Encouraging private school growth would drastically contribute to making regulation a moot point. 

Improved outcomes from school choice make for successful students, happy parents, and no need for more regulation or more money to solve the “education problem.”