Narrator: Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Melissa Davlin: Now that the governor has shown a willingness to direct public funds toward private education expenses, what might lawmakers come up with?

And what does the state superintendent have to say?

I'm Melissa Davlin.

Idaho Reports starts now.

Hello and welcome to Idaho Reports.

This week, Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield joins me to share her views on public dollars going to private education.

Representative Wendy Horman and Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog discuss their bill to provide tax credits to families to help pay for private education costs.

And House Assistant Minority Leader Steve Berch walks me through his concerns.

But first, on Friday morning, Representative John Vander Woude introduced a bill to repeal Medicaid expansion in its entirety.

Idaho voters adopted Medicaid expansion through a 2018 citizens initiative with 61% of voters in support of expansion.

Should the bill pass, it would leave more than 90,000 Idaho residents without health insurance.

Vander Woude cited the growing cost of Medicaid expansion as his reason for bringing the bill.

It must first get a public hearing to move forward.

We'll have much more on Medicaid next week.

On Wednesday, the House State Affairs Committee held a hearing on a memorial urging the United States Supreme Court to reconsider its 2015 ruling on same sex marriage.

Members of the public initially filled the committee room, but as sponsor representative Heather Scott began her presentation, dozens stood up in protest and silently left the room.

Heather Scott: This memorial today in front of you is about upholding federalism and a state's rights to make our own decisions.

It is not about defining marriage.

It's about who should be defining marriage.

Should it be the state, or should it be the federal government?

Everyone is entitled to their own viewpoint on marriage.

What we're encouraging is that these discussions happen within the state with our local people instead of, through the federal government.

Davlin: While the committee heard testimony from those who stayed behind, those who left lined the hall and heard from Idahoans about how getting rid of protections for same sex married couples or even discussing it, affects them and their families.

Woman: No one should have to feel like their family isn’t working.

Idaho is my home, my kid’s home, the place where we've raised them to be kind, to work hard and to do what is right.

But what is happening now is not right.

We are not nameless strangers in a political battle.

We are your neighbors, your coworkers, the parents sitting next to you in school pick up lines.

We are families who love each other just like you do.

Please don't make my family a casualty of politics.

We deserve the same love, dignity and protection as everyone else.

Davlin: After more than two hours of testimony, the committee voted on party lines to advance the memorial to the full House floor.

While a memorial isn't the same as a bill and doesn't create law, it formalizes the legislature's will.

Idaho's constitution does define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The Idaho Council on Indian Affairs met Thursday, where representatives from all five of Idaho's federally recognized tribes expressed opposition to the state Department of Education, making Prager U.

Kids education material available for public schools in Idaho with the approval of their school districts.

Steele: The Department of Education failed to reach out to the tribes for input to validate the material offered by this organization.

Rachel: Any school district within the state elects to use that, that's a detrimental to not only our native children, to all children in the state.

Davlin: On Friday, I sat down with State Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield to ask about the tribes response to Prager U. Debbie Critchfield: We always want to listen to the concerns of people, particularly we're talking about our tribes in this case and the objections that they have to how their history is portrayed.

And, and Prager U doesn't get specifically into the history of Idaho tribes, per se, but generally speaking, about our native populations and so, yes, we've received letters.

I've had one on one conversations.

I attended the Indian Education Summit meeting in December to hear directly from our educational, tribal representatives.

And one of the commitments that I've made to the tribes is to put and make available culturally relevant materials, specifically about the history of our tribes here, make that available in the same ways, so that when our local districts are making decisions on what to supplement, because Prager U was not intended to replace the curriculum, it's supplementary, optional materials that that could come as a part of a lesson.

And so, we've said and I've said directly to them, if there are materials that you would like to have available to our boards in the same way that portray and discuss the history of our people here or in general, that the tribes across the country, we will make that available as well, so that our districts have a wide variety of options to choose from.

Davlin: We'll have more with Superintendent Critchfield later in the show.

The big education news from this year's state of the state address was Governor Brad Little, setting aside $50 million of public money for private education expenses.

And on Wednesday, Representative Wendy Horman introduced a bill that would provide tax refunds for qualifying private education expenses.

I sat down with Representative Horman and co-sponsor Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog to discuss their bill.

Thank you both so much for joining us.

What is the proposal?

Lori Den Hartog: So the proposal is a $50 million, refundable tax credit.

It is $5,000 per child and up to $7,500, for children with special needs.

The way it is refundable is that you have to actually incur qualified education expenses as defined in the bill.

And then if you actually incur those expenses, you go through an application process with the Tax Commission.

We have a timeline of when you can apply for the tax credit.

You'll know before you file your taxes, if you qualify for the credit or not.

And it either reduces your tax liability to the state, or depending on what that amount is, you make it a little bit back.

Davlin: This is a tax credit, as you mentioned, which means the parents will have to have the money upfront, conceivably, and wait to get reimbursed.

So if the goal is to broaden school choices for lower income families, it's that financial barrier still there?

Wendy Horman: We've addressed that in the bill as well.

Last year we had an advance payment a grant.

This year we're doing something new.

It's an advance tax credit.

And so you can still get that funding in advance once you've made the commitment.

And then, use that to get into the school of your choice.

And that's how we are going to enable those who don't have the available resources to make the change.

Davlin: And are there parameters for which private schools would qualify?

Horman: No, it's for which families would qualify.

So, once the once a family has made the decision of the best setting for their child., then it's up to the families to make the decision of what school to choose.

Davlin: So there isn't a requirement, then, for what sort of educational standards or English or social studies.

Den Hartog: There is a requirement.

We have a definition in there for academic instruction to include, math, science, social studies and English.

Right.

Horman: Yes.

For the fourth one.

Horman: Same as homeschool.

Same as a public school.

Den Hartog: The same.

Those same.

That's a concurrent definition in code.

But that that requirement for academic instruction, has to be there wherever they would get their education.

And so we're not trying to, repeat or duplicate the current system.

That's kind of part of that's part of the flavor of this is we're not trying to do something that's exactly the same as what we already have.

We are trying to do something different that gives families options.

Davlin: The governor said in his State of the Sate Address that his parameters for this are the bill would need to be fair, transparent, responsible and accountable.

And that, of course, begs the question, who's definition of accountability are we using here?

And do you think that your definition is the same as Governor Little's?

Horman: That's what we're aiming for.

But of course, first we have to get our colleagues to agree with those definitions.

Davlin: But what is the definition?

Horman: Well, in, in in our opinion, it's not fair for some students who can't afford to get into a setting where they have a shot at learning to read or maybe they have a disability that's not being serviced well in the public school.

Many students with learning disabilities and special needs are served just fine in the public schools.

But for those students who aren't, is it fair to them to not be able to have another option just because they can't afford it?

So we definitely think this meets the definition of fair for children and, transparent.

There's a lot of reporting in there, that will make everything transparent about how the program is operating.

Accountability.

Sometimes people think that reporting and accountability are the same thing.

They're not reporting is just making transparent what's going on.

And so that's what you will see a lot of in this bill.

And then every private school already has standards and metrics for success.

They have caring board members, caring teachers, who are making decisions about what that school's metrics are of success are.

You're not going to find Title 33 in this building.

You're not going to find Title 9 or any other federal, regulation in this bill.

That is the point of granting this additional flexibility for students who need a more personalized setting for them.

Davlin: You mentioned students with disabilities, whether their learning disabilities or physical disabilities.

And, of course, public schools are required by federal law to serve students with disabilities with appropriate education.

Is there a concern that taxpayer money is going to go to private schools that don't have the same requirements through either the individuals with Disabilities Education Act or accessibility requirements through the Ada?

Den Hartog: I think that statement or that question presumes something.

It presumes that there aren't services outside of the public school setting.

We have several examples of existing schools, and we also don't know what schools might come into existence if this passes, when innovation might happen, if this passes.

It presumes that those schools don't provide any services, to kids with special needs.

And I happen to know a lot of families, and we've talked to, several families who are doing something different because even the required services that were provided in the public setting didn't meet the needs of their child, so they had to go somewhere else, pay additional funds to find a service that meet the needs of their child.

And so I don't have that concern.

Again, the accountability portion and the metrics is it's on the parent.

So as a parent is satisfied with the services and the education that their child is receiving, that's what matters.

And to the accountability conversation, I think this is also really important because the flow of the funds is from the state to a parent making those educational decisions for their child.

It's the parent we're holding accountable and responsible.

They're for tax fraud if there's misuse of funds.

And if they don't use the funds as they are intended or as they have, as they have attested to on their tax form, and that's a pretty big hammer.

We don't have anything like that in the public education system.

Davlin: Is, oh, go ahead.

Horman: We've been, I've been learning from, the director of a school in North Idaho specifically that only serves students with disabilities.

It's called Wired to Learn.

And she pointed out to me that a free and appropriate education is very different from treatment for the disability.

And that's sometimes what students in the public system.

...there just isn't the mechanism for them to receive treatment and education.

Yes, but treatment not necessarily.

It's just the way the system structured.

We have some heroic special education teachers who are doing everything they can for these students, but the system is not built to accommodate those types of students in a private setting with fewer restrictions about, you know, what must be done and all the paperwork and the meetings and all of those things.

Students really are able to get an appropriate education for their situation.

Davlin: And if you look at a map of the locations of the private schools that are in Idaho, it's no surprise that most of them are located in urban and suburban settings.

Horman: Most of the public schools are there too.

Davlin: That is very true, as our most of the people.

Davlin: But for the kids who are in places like Salmon or Chalice, or if you know where some of these other places where there aren't quite as many options.

Are you concerned that this is going to disproportionately affect, in a positive way, the suburban kids who already have so many education choices as opposed to putting funds into improving quality for public schools in in rural areas?

Horman: No.

Den Hartog: Yeah.

As I say, I don't know.

I don't have that concern.

I think this goes back to the things that don't exist yet that we don't know about.

So yeah, we know we know what exists today.

We know what's on the ground today.

But what are the possibilities of what people could do if they have this funding available and accessible to them.

And, you know, what are the things that that could come about if, you know, resources are pooled and new things that are tried and we have new innovation and I that to me is what's really, particularly exciting in our rural areas where maybe we haven't seen that.

And a lot of these same arguments and concerns were expressed when we passed, and implemented, public charter schools in the state of Idaho, particularly in rural areas.

That was a concern.

And, you know, we're 25 plus years from the passage of that law.

And what we see is now we see charter schools going into rural areas.

So some of that takes time.

It takes development.

But we've seen some really great and innovative charter schools now in rural areas serving kids, with new options and new ideas.

And this is the same type of thing.

Davlin: You can find my full interview with Senator Den Hartog and Representative Horman online.

Not everyone is a fan of private dollars going to public education.

House assistant Minority Leader Steve Berch joined me on Friday to discuss his concerns.

Berch: My concerns are there are several layers and levels of concerns.

And the first concern is really the Mbig picture here.

And when you step back what the legislature and in fact the executive branch is saying that they've lost they've lost faith in the public school system.

The fact that they feel that we have to go to private and religious schools to somehow be able to provide our kids the kind of education that our parents expect is really disappointing.

I also am concerned about a lot of the rhetoric around this whole, this whole issue, this whole notion that this is all about school choice or education freedom is flat out false.

Idaho has all the choices that any parent might want to have for their kids.

What this is really about is your taxpayer dollars, paying for your neighbor's choice for how they want to educate their kids.

Davlin: On that point, frankly, you know, the argument is, why should a higher income family have more freedom to, you know, they can afford to send their kids to a Catholic school or a private school, whereas my neighbor might not have that ability.

You know, if they're lower income.

And so there is more freedom inherently if you have a higher paycheck.

Berch: Well, that's like saying that if you're a golfer, and you don't you don't like the local municipal course that your tax state tax dollars are paying, you should get those tax dollars back so you can afford to pay for a private country club.

The free market has private choices and just about everything that we do.

So this is really not been an issue until out of state, billionaires have decided that they want to, quite frankly, capitalize and privatize the nearly $800 billion that taxpayer money spends on public schools throughout this country.

And they're doing it state by state, by state, and they want their hands on that money.

And quite frankly, there's.

And when you think about it, the first the first tax, voucher bill that I saw was in my first year here in as a on the House Education Committee in 2019.

For the last at least seven years.

We've had these outside forces spend millions of dollars on campaigns to unseat unfriendly legislators, elect ones that agree with them.

Lobbyists, brochures, events, surveys.

For seven years.

You don't spend that kind of money for that long period of time, unless you're expecting a return on your investment.

Davlin: I do have a question about you mentioned that you have seen multiple bills that would take public money and let it pay for private education for families in multiple different forms.

Are there any proposals that would use public dollars for private education that you would consider?

Berch: The problem is when the Supreme Court ruled that, once you have allowed your money to go to a, you know, to, for profit or private or religious schools, you've opened that door.

And once, once that door is opened, it can't be shut.

And what winds up happening is you kick it down.

So, for example, in the bill that was introduced in revenue tax.

Davlin: The tax credit.

Berch: The tax credit bill to sponsor that bill said that the $50 million won't increase unless a future legislature decides otherwise.

That's the same as saying that $50 million will increase when a future legislature decides to do so.

There is absolutely no guarantee that any limitations or constraints, that might be in that bill.

And there are absolutely no accountability requirements other than how the money is technically dispersed.

But even if there were, constraints, they could be removed, by a future legislature.

So it's a Trojan horse.

Excuse me, a Trojan horse that gets the act of spending, of sending public tax dollars to private schools.

That once you get to get that in the gate.

And then we've seen what's happened in other states, like in Arizona, where they started with a $30 million, you know, initiative.

But now they're looking at having to spend $800 million.

The goal for all these organizations from the onset is universal vouchers, where you simply write a check and, and give it to the parents, whether it's a check, a literally a check and a voucher or whether it's a tax credit that they get reimbursed for.

At the end of the day, it's just transferring, money to the private sector and essentially taking it away from the public sector, because every dollar that goes to the private sector, is one less dollar available to the public schools.

Davlin: If more and more states are adopting this, as you said, and seven years in after saying multiple times that he was happy with the school choice options that we have, the governor is saying, you know what, I'm setting aside $50 million for this, and this is a bill that doesn't take money from public schools.

This is a separate pot of money.

Is there any point at which you say, you know what, this might be the best option that we're going to get if this is where the train is heading?

Berch: The best option is to not let this train leave the station, quite frankly.

I mean, because again, once that train and quite frankly, it's the track is all downhill, you're not going to be able to put the brakes on this because, again, when you have outside forces, paying for billboards to unseat the chairman of the House Education Committee over a year before she was up for reelection.

Davlin: And she lost that primary.

Berch: And she lost that primary, because she would not allow the kind of voucher bill that they wanted to see put, put in front of the House.

Education Committee.

These folks won't stop at anything.

You know, they won't stop it.

And they will do anything it takes to get what they're ultimately looking for.

And we've seen that in state after state.

And in fact, the thing that people, parents and citizens need to understand this, ultimately, this goal is ultimately the public financing a dual education K-12 education system because we still have to pay for public schools constitutionally.

The fact is, our public school system serve 90% of the students in this state.

And what parents want and what they tell me, and I've not I've walked every street in my district three times.

And what parents are telling me they want the public school system to be healthy.

They want it to be protected.

They don't want to see their local public schools buildings closed like we're seeing in Nampa and other locations.

In fact, they go far as to tell me specifically, teachers need to be paid more and you know they have a better take on the free market than some legislators do.

You know, because what teachers can go across the border and make tens of thousands of dollars a year more.

We just need we need to be offering competitive compensation, not the highest, but competitive.

We don't do that.

In fact, we keep on squeezing them, even though even though you'll hear the argument, oh, we've given them raises not compared to what it takes for them to be able to, the other options they have, be it in other states or in other professions.

Davlin: You can find my full interview with Representative Berch online.

Like Governor Little, Superintendent Critchfield has previously expressed reservations about sending public money to private schools.

On Friday, I asked her about what she'd like to see in a bill.

Davlin: Critchfield: I think the question for me and what will be different this year, we'll see rather than talking, just generally about concepts and philosophies around choice.

We've got some bills that are on the table that will be able to take a look at, and then put that template over the top to say, is there transparency?

Is there fairness?

How do we level that that playing field.

And so to take the conversation from being too hyper focused on choice, we have choice.

The question really on the in the statehouse and on everyone's mind is who's going to write the check?

Davlin: So what's the answer to that.

What would what would pass?

Superintendent Critchfield’s...test on that?

Critchfield: Right.

So, yes.

So I think that there, there does need to be, a level of assurance that the money that is going from the state goes for learning.

And to me, that means it's going, to someone the adult in the room is someone that's had a background check.

I don't think we have to have a 1 to 1 in every single place.

In fact, we probably we can't as far as the state and federal governments are concerned, we don't want to create two completely parallel systems.

But with that said, I think the expectations of, again, having someone that's been vetted to be around children, assessing that learning has taken place, top of my list.

Also, the reporting districts have and charters have to report everything financially.

That's that transparency piece that I don't think is unreasonable.

When our taxpayer dollars are going somewhere.

I'm very concerned about the special education requirements that public schools have.

And that's an important part for me.

I don't think that we can again, create these systems where on one hand you there are zero strings, no rules.

Here's your money, walk away.

And then on the other system, all of the federal and state rules apply.

And I think when we look at special education that that's one of those areas that I'm really taking a look at.

I don't think you should be able to have one foot on both of those sides if the state is going to, subsidize your choice.

Davlin: A lot of the lawmakers who support public money going to private education have said that there's no greater accountability than the parents themselves or the legal guardians themselves, that if there is a school that is not properly serving their child, they're going to pull them out.

You know, they they've already expressed willingness to take their kids out of public school and put them in private school.

So what's stopping them from saying this isn't working out?

You're not meeting my needs and my child's needs, regardless of whether the kid has special education needs or not.

Is that enough of a check for you?

Critchfield: No.

And here's why, again, looking at what we've created here, I respect and will always defend a parent's right to choose.

I don't think that that's the question.

And I and I don't think that that's what the controversy is about.

When our tax payer dollars get involved in whatever the choices are, wherever government is involved, there is a level of expectation.

So right now, a parent school, by the way, public schools are not afraid of the competition.

If a parent is not satisfied or the child isn't thriving in an environment, they absolutely should find that that fit.

And you can you can already do that, which comes back to who's going to pay for that.

And so if the government is going to get involved, then we're going to say there are some things that that we would expect of that.

And as I talk to people, as I travel the state, my own neighbors, no one thinks that that's unreasonable.

And, you know, you look at some of these accountability pieces.

I mean, ultimately, what I'm seeing on how some of these measures are accomplished, that it actually is an indirect accountability away from the parent because, you know, if it's a tax credit, you're putting the accountability to the Tax Commission to decide whether or not that money has been used incorrectly or not.

And so I'm trying to understand how these things work together and then get us to that goal that we say we have of of being accountable and transparent.

I don't want to lose that word either.

Davlin: You've also brought up a couple times the importance of background checks for anyone who is working with kids.

I know that daycares do it.

You know that this is something that does happen in the private sector.

Is it possible, though, to require a private educational institution to have background checks as a condition for indirectly or directly being a beneficiary of public money?

Critchfield: Well, if that's how the bill is drafted and that's what goes through the legislature and the governor signs it.

Absolutely.

And I would add that it's not just teachers that are required in the public district and charter system to have background checks.

Your lunch, professionals, your custodians, your bus drivers, your para educators, anyone that's around it, a child.

And I think that's one of the big expectations that everyone has, that when they send their child to school, they're in a safe facility around adults, that are, you know, have the best interest of their child at play.

And so I also don't think that's unreasonable.

Davlin: We have much more with Superintendent Critchfield online, including her thoughts on President Donald Trump's campaign promise to dismantle the federal Department of Education.

You can find our full interview at IdahoReports.org or visit YouTube.com/IdahoReports Thanks so much for watching.

We'll see you next week.

Narrator: Presentation of Idaho Reports on Idaho Public Television is made possible through the generous support of the Laura Moore Cunningham Foundation, committed to fulfilling the Moore and Bettis family legacy of building the great state of Idaho.

By the Friends of Idaho Public Television and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.