Melissa Davlin: Thank you both so much for joining us. What is the proposal?

Sen. Lori Den Hartog, Senate Majority Leader: 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 may get 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, isn that financial barrier still there?

Rep. 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.

Horman: Same as homeschool. Same as a public school.

Den Hartog: The same. That’s a current definition in code. But 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 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 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 IX 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 they are 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 liable 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 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.

Horman: 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. Education, yes, but treatment, not necessarily. It’s just the way the system is 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: 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 are most of the people.

But for the kids who are in places like Salmon or Challis, 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 rural areas?

Horman: No.

Den Hartog: 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 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? 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? 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.

Horman: And if there’s no private school in a rural area, then only the existing choices will remain. And that’s, you know, learning pods, micro schools, homeschooling, online, virtual charters, those sorts of choices already do exist in rural Idaho. And this would be one more potential choice if someone were to start a school. Governor Doug Ducey, when he was here early in session, said all of the rural school districts that existed in Arizona prior to the passage of choice policy still exist.

Davlin: When you are looking at other states, you’ve pointed to some good examples elsewhere. Are there any examples of things that you don’t want to do, you want to make sure don’t happen in Idaho?

Horman: Absolutely. We don’t want to bust the budget. There are accusations about what’s going on in Arizona that are simply false. That school choice has busted the budget down there. We have, literally, press releases from the state Department of Education, their state superintendent saying it’s just not true. It was $25 million, $28 million surplus last year. I think it’s up to $500 million right now.

So there’s a narrative out there that somehow this will eventually bust the budget. I’m the Appropriations chairman, not in favor of those kinds of bills. Neither one of us are. And that’s not the intent. In fact, when you look at, public school spending compared to what this $50 million would be, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to about $3 billion.

Davlin: You’ve also said in the past that you’re concerned about the public school budget. You don’t want to siphon away dollars from the public school budget, but you add appropriations for other options. Are you concerned, though, that bills like this are going to be a domino? That once you open this door, that in future legislative sessions, that is going to be what happens?

Horman: Public school districts are already closing schools right now, and we don’t even have school choice policy in place yet. Nampa closed four schools, I think, last year. Pocatello was looking at one. There’s a natural demographic happening with the birth rate. There’s going to be fewer children in public schools. And so naturally, there’s a functionality there of funding. And if there’s fewer kids, sure, there’s going to be less funding. But again, school choice has even passed yet in Idaho and that’s already happening. We’re 200 support units down just this year from last year’s budget request. And so that’s a natural thing that’s going to occur. Every indication is, from every other state we’ve looked at, this is a small uptake rate. 1 to 3% of students make this choice to find a different setting. And so we don’t expect this choice policy to have a dramatic impact on public school enrollment. It hasn’t in other states.

Davlin: We’re a few weeks into the session and there are already other education bills that would take public money and use it for private or home education. You both co-sponsored the original Empowering Parents Program a few years ago. Senator Lent has introduced a bill that would add $20 million to the program and open it up for grants for private school tuition. And this isn’t mutually exclusive to this tax credit bill. Are you planning on supporting that?

Den Hartog: I have to take a look at it. There’s a lot of other things in that piece of legislation. When I glance through it yesterday, I know there’s changes to the open enrollment law, which is also something that Rep. Horman and I sponsored. There was additional funding for special education. There were several different kinds of reporting requirements, changes to reporting requirements for public education, reduction of some of their red tape, which I think is actually really exciting. So I think it’s something we have to consider, and I don’t think they are mutually exclusive. I think we can talk about those things.

And part of the reason is it’s going to be driven by demand in the state. And so again, going back to the cap that we’ve said and that we had a cap with the micro grant program and Empowering Parents, you know, we’re learning and understanding what people are using it for, what their income levels are. And we gather that data as we have programs in place, and then we make decisions moving forward. So they certainly are not mutually exclusive.

Now, do they have the same legislative path? No. One’s going through education committees, one’s going through tax committees, structurally two very different types of proposals trying to get at some of the same goals.

Horman: Originally we had private school tuition in that bill, but it was an idea ahead of its time. And now here we are.

Davlin: Representative Wendy Horman, Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog, thanks so much for joining us.

Melissa Davlin: Representative Berch, thank you so much for joining us. First of all, what are your concerns with the tax credit bill?

Rep. Steve Berch, House Assistant Minority Leader: Well, my concerns are there are several layers and levels of concerns. And the first concern is really the big 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. And now we’re also going to be paying for private schools and the states that have gone down this route have either found themselves in deficits like or Arizona is looking at a $1.4 billion deficit, or they’ve had a legalized pot and casino gambling to come up with the revenue to be able to fund both systems.

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. And so I’m not hearing hardly any parents really telling me.

Yes, take my tax dollars so my neighbor can pay for his kids, private school.

Davlin: Private school teacher retention, of course, has long been a problem, especially in those border communities and those school districts that are right up against Washington and Oregon. But when we’re talking about education outcomes, are you happy with the performance of public schools, not just in your district, but statewide?

Berch: So there’s always just clearly there’s room for improvement, you know, and but think about this too. When we see experienced teachers leave, okay. There are a couple of things that happen. One, when class sizes start going up to about 40 kids a student, when school, when buildings are in tremendous disrepair, it’s really hard to attract, you know, experience the teachers or to retain them because who what new teacher wants to go into a building and teach in a building where there’s raw sewage flowing under the kitchen?

The cafeterias, kitchen, like, was the case in Salmon or where, half the building is burnt down in Pocatello, you know, they want to work in a, in a, in an environment that tells them this state values public education and be compensated, you know, fairly for and competitively for what they get. So when experienced teachers leave, they wind up being replaced by more, you know, bright eyed young neophytes, which is fine, but they don’t have that experience.

So it’s harder to maintain, and deliver the kind of performance that, that parents are expecting. When class sizes go up and, and teacher experience, you know, goes down.

Davlin: A lot of what you’re talking about involves money and investments. And, and we know where you stand on that when it comes to the policy side of it, whether it’s graduation requirement or, self-directed learning or open enrollment to allow some flexibility for, for families to send their students elsewhere. Is there anything on the policy side you would like to see changed to help education outcomes in the public school system?

Berch: Oh, yeah. Absolutely. I mean, the underlying issue for not only education but so many other things in what is one of the fastest growing states in the nation, our fiscal policies that haven’t changed since the 1960s, but the legislature doesn’t want people to know, is that last year alone, the legislature, excluded from revenue collection over $5.2 billion just in sales tax exemptions.

And it’s not that those exemptions are wrong or bad. The problem is they never get reviewed. They never expire. Some have been in place since the 1960s when the sales tax was implemented. And there’s no objective criteria to determine is that tax break still a net long term benefit to the citizens of the state, or has it become a gift to the recipient?

So if we had a review process, because I’m not saying get rid of them, I’m just saying if we had a review process and we’re one of a minority of states, that doesn’t, and we determined that 90% of those tax breaks make sense, keep them and only 10% should be retired. That alone would flow half $1 billion every single year into the general fund, which is where the funding for public education comes from.

We would, instead of having to like we did last year in House Bill 521, borrowing $1 billion over ten years, we would have $1 billion in two years and not have to pay interest on it. You know, this is where the money is, but it’s going to take people to step back and look at fiscal and say, we need to realign our fiscal policies.

For a state that that bears no resemblance to what it was back when, you know, these policies were created.

Davlin: So there are still a lot of things that have remained consistent since the 60s, when some of these sales tax exempt exemptions went into place. Like we’re still a very AG heavy state. We depend on aid for our economy. If you get is now the time to have that conversation when so many people are struggling with food prices already, and potentially, if you take away some of those sales tax exemptions, inherently that’s going to affect the price of goods.

Berch: Not necessarily. I mean, for example, we gave a huge sales tax exemption to Facebook for, you know, a special bill just for them, okay, that if you built a data center of $250 million data center, you didn’t have to pay sales tax on the 5000, servers that you purchased to, you know, in that data center, that’s not going to increase the cost to, you know, increase the cost of anything.

Davlin: I can still sign on to Facebook for free.

Berch: That’s exactly right. That’s why you want to have a process, a review process with objective criteria that determines. And I am all for a tax break. If you can make the business case and show that over the long term, it’s going to be a net benefit to the state. So it’s not about getting rid of these things or and this is the problem too,

People make broad assumptions without really understanding the detail. And that really that concerns that concerns in fact we in the same committee in the reverend tax, we just had a bill yesterday that would take a quarter of $1 billion out of the general fund in an income tax break. Think about that. That is $2.5 billion in less revenue over the next ten years.

At the same time, ITD this last December presented to legislators their plans for the state in terms of upgrading roads, replacing bridges and building new, new capabilities for a fast growing state. And their project list is upwards to $8 billion. So to meet all the needs of a fast growing state. So we’re going to we’re going to wind up taking,

A $2.5 billion off the table, you know, over ten years while we have this need for $8 billion for transportation, and we have $1 billion backlog in school building maintenance, as per an op report that was we have, we have we need requirements for tens of millions of dollars for the state public defender system that wasn’t adequately funded.

And we have, an EMS system in this state that is desperately in need of money, a coroner system that dates back to the 1800s. Okay. We keep on taking money off the table and punching holes in the in the, general fund bucket. You know, the bottom line is your property taxes are going to continue to go up and stay high because the only other way to fund a public education is going to be through local property taxes.

And the legislature likes to say that if, you know, the they have nothing to do with property taxes, that’s a local decision. Well, that’s like saying that if you don’t feed your kid and your kid steals an apple, that’s not my problem. The kid stole the apple. No. The state has the fundamental responsibility to get his fiscal house in order.

Davlin: Representative Steve Berch, thanks so much for joining us.

Melissa Davlin: Superintendent Critchfield, thank you so much for joining us. In October, the State Department of Education gave the okay for school districts to use content from Prager U if approved by their school boards. But since then, your department has received letters and statements of concern from Idaho’s federally recognized tribes. Are you concerned after hearing these responses from Idaho’s tribes?

Debbie Critchfield, Superintendent of Public Instruction: 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 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 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: One of the concerns that came up in the Council on Indian Affairs on Thursday was that even if none of the school districts that serve reservations, you know, whether it’s the Shoshone Bannock or Nez Perce, even if none of those school districts use it, that if any school district in the state uses that content, then it could be pretty harmful for these tribes. After hearing that feedback, is rescinding that approval of Prager U on the table at all?

Critchfield: Rescinding, no. And again, it’s optional. So these materials could already be in classrooms. Districts have the local authority to determine what goes in there, whether it’s the formal curriculum or whether it’s optional material. And so rescinding from my end doesn’t take away the fact that it’s still available material for anyone to be able to use.

Our part in this was to connect standards to some of those materials. And not every portion of what’s presented by them districts will want to use, or may be appropriate for every lesson in every classroom. So it’s no different than any other materials that are available. And visiting again with our tribal leaders, making the commitment to also bring and include the culturally relevant materials that they would like to have in our classrooms, I think is a great balance and a great way to move forward.

Davlin: Do you know of any school districts that are using this material right now?

Critchfield: As of now? No. I know there’s been discussions around the state. You know, whether it’s parents, community members or board members. But to my knowledge, as of now, no one has formally adopted it as being approved for optional material.

Davlin: You’ve said previously that Idaho is already a great state for school choice, and that has really driven a lot of the education conversation this year. You know, and we have open enrollment at public schools. We have charter schools. We have liberal allowances for homeschooling. This year is the first year that the governor said that he’s willing to entertain public money going for private education with some parameters, of course. Are you on the same page?

Critchfield: Yes, with the same conditions. I’ve used some different terms than the governor, although the accountability term seems to be a consistent thread throughout, but also sharing the sentiments of the governor. And 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 we’ll 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 playing field? And so to take the conversation from being too hyper focused on choice. We have choice. The question really 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 pass Superintendent Critchfield’s test on that?

Critchfield: Right. I think that 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, we expect and require that across the board. If our taxpayer dollars go, wherever that is, fill in the sentence, there is an expectation that we know where that went.

Davlin: When you have that check and you’re looking at the bills that are currently on the table, do those line up?

Critchfield: Well, we just saw the introduction a couple days ago. And so, I’m putting both of those bills in front of me and going line by line, making those comparisons and then again, putting that template on top of those to say which boxes are checked in which ways. Now, I think one of the discussions is going to be, how do we define accountability? Because there’s a lot of ways to define that. And in my mind, if we’re coming up with a another government subsidy – which is what this is, subsidizing – then there needs to be some measures in place that we would expect for anyone in reasonable government.

Davlin: Have any of the lawmakers who have introduced these bills contacted your office or you personally to ask your input?

Critchfield: Yes. Senator Lent, this summer as he was working on some things, called and we sat down a couple times and asked a similar question, you know, what are some things that you’re looking at? And I know that he was asking that same question of others, across the board, you know. I’ve had different legislators say, well, what do you think about this? And what do you think about that? But as far as the bills that have been introduced so far, he was the only legislator to specifically sit down with me and ask, what are some of those components that are important to you?

Davlin: Do you think that your feedback to Senator Lent ended up in his pieces of legislation?

Critchfield: The early perusal of his draft? I didn’t see the final draft until, you know, the bill was printed. Yeah. There are some things in there.

There’s some things that we didn’t talk about that are in there. And, so we’re going through there, myself and my team. 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 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’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’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 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.

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 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 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 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 have the best interest of their child at play. And so I also don’t think that’s unreasonable.

One of the things as I kind of step back from this conversation to say, what’s the problem that we’re trying to solve? And one of the things that that I hear consistently is that the public school system, which includes charters in Idaho, we’re letting families down. Therefore, parents are taking their children out of the schools. The numbers don’t support this mass exodus out of the public school system.

Now, I agree that it’s not a fit for everyone. But with that said, some of the frustrations that we hear from legislators and parents and community leaders is about the system. Well, who created the system? So many times our state, while pointing a finger back at the federal government saying, hey, you don’t understand our needs, we’re elected just like you, this is one size that fits all. Our state acts like the federal government to the local district and charter and then says, well, people don’t like the system. Well, you dropped all those laws, reports, all the requirement, and now we’re going to create another system because this one is too burdensome or isn’t getting the job done.

So I think in part of this conversation, we’ve got to take a step back and say, what is it that we’re trying to accomplish here? We want our parents to make their choices. What role should and does the government have in that?

Davlin: Let’s expand on that a little bit, because I’ve been here long enough that I remember teachers testifying about the burdens of filling out spreadsheets weekly and daily, and trying to reach these metrics, and trying to measure student growth, and how burdensome that was. That’s a real thing. It meant that we had more metrics as far as student growth, though. How do you balance what you’re hearing from teachers and also lawmakers and taxpayers? You know, it’s pretty reasonable demands to say how do we know that our investment is equaling student growth and student outcomes?

Critchfield: And I think that’s the critical question that we look at. So I’ve asked my team to come up with the list of all of the state and federal requirements. And we’d like to have a open discussion on that thing exactly. Are the reports that we turn in once a year, are they tied to outcomes or are they tied to performance, or is it a compliance thing? That we’re able to look at and say, okay, well, here’s how our students are performing, but does it actually drive performance and drive achievement at the local level?

And if it doesn’t, then let’s adapt. Let’s determine those things that best do that. And within this whole biosphere that we’re in, we can’t lose sight of the fact that the local board members were elected by the same people who elected the legislature. So this disconnect that I hear and see at times where the state is saying, this is how you will do it whether you’re in Clifton, Challis or Genesee, doesn’t always fit. And in some ways I’m now arguing on the side of, well, this is why we need to pay parents to be able to make a choice, because it isn’t a one size fits all. Okay, well then let’s take one step back and say, what do we need to adjust in the system so that for parents, the public school system is a school of choice as well?

Davlin: Do you have that answer? What do we need to adjust?

Critchfield: Well, we’ve got a list. There’s a a list that’s coming now. The federal stuff, we’ll see what President Trump does with the U.S. Department of Education. I mean, we hope that money comes in block grants and that the restrictions of how those dollars can be used are lessened if not taken away. Idaho’s in a great position to educate our own kids. That’s not the job of the federal government. In fact, I don’t know that it’s the job of the state at that point. It’s the local district that that sets those priorities and aligns the budget. And so we want to take a look at what the state requirements have been over time. We’ve just been piling them on.

Two, I think this critical point where we’re saying, hey, some parents are leaving because this system doesn’t work anymore. Well, let’s fix it for all the kids. And the way to get back to your question, I kind of went the long way around, it was to say we will have a list of things that we will say, these are things that don’t answer that question. Did our investment work? And let’s come up with what those things are that make sense today in the modern context.

Davlin: Because you brought up President Trump and his commitment multiple times to dismantle the Department of Education on the federal level. Are you concerned about how that is going to affect students with disabilities? You know, those are federal mandates that public schools need to accommodate students, whether they have physical disabilities or learning disabilities, that they provide free and appropriate education for these kids, that we know before this federal law went into place that didn’t happen before.

Critchfield: I think that we’re good at doing that already, and minus the federal government, really. The part where the federal government comes in too heavily is on all of the reporting, you want to talk about reports. Our teachers are naturally poised and trained to help our learners wherever they are. We know that learners all over the state have different needs and different requirements, and we’ve gotten good to where that’s just the natural part of it. The burdensome part of this is all of the reporting, all of the ways that the money has to be spent in ways that maybe don’t match the needs.

So, no, I am not concerned if the Department of Education goes away or has an adaptation because we are taking care of kids now, and I think that we can handle that at the state level. Now, with that said, the worst thing in my mind is for the federal government to take the money away. Which, I understand, the federal government doesn’t have money, it’s our money. To say we’re not going to send your money back to you, but we’re going to keep all of the rules in place, that would be a worse place than we are now. Ideally, it is a very surgical unwinding of that department to make sure that we’re going in and finding those pressure points and saying, look, we can alleviate some burdens here. Here we can help students in better ways.

Davlin: Now, is there anything else that is on your priority list that you would like the legislatures to change to help improve education in Idaho?

Critchfield: Well, kind of drafting on this messaging that the money needs to follow the kids. There’s nothing in the public schools budget that currently allows for that. And I’ve been looking at this as for a very long time. I was on a local school board for ten years. I’ve been at the state level for more than ten years now. So over the last two years, as I’ve traveled the state and I talked to board members and everyone that you can think of, community members, parents, etc., what I’ve concluded in this conversation of we need more money, we need more money. Yes, money is important, but what I’m really hearing is the money that is coming out is so tied up with strings that it can’t go to the places that they need now. And we don’t have a portion of the budget that reflects the types of students that are in our communities. Not the average, but the students that are in your hometown, that are your child. And so my, policy proposal that we’ll be bringing forward is to take a portion, not the whole budget, but to take a portion of the budget and align it to the type of students that that are in the community. So we can weight those. We have weights. We know that some students cost more money. So a little more money for special education. More money for gifted and talented, let’s help our high performing students. More money for communities that have a high population of English language learners or alternative schools. Our small rural districts and economically disadvantaged. These are all things that districts are already turning into us. We can verify them. The whole concept is to use the same money in a better way.

Davlin: When are we going to see this proposal?

Critchfield: We’re hoping in the next couple of weeks. We’re talking with our education chairmen to see when we can get that. Right now, we’re going through the rules process. And, as we’ve discussed, the school choice or paying for choice debate, that’s kind of taking all the oxygen in the capitol right now in education. We hope to have that out soon.

Davlin: Superintendent Debbie Critchfield, thank you so much for joining us.