However, there is a significant difference between those purchases and the U of I’s proposed purchase when it comes to size, structure and cost.

Among recent examples, Purdue University purchased Kaplan University for $1, the University of Arizona purchased Ashford for $1, and the University of Arkansas (which declined to purchase the University of Phoenix) purchased Grantham for $1.

In each of these cases, the public universities purchased private companies much smaller than themselves and at basically zero cost. In Idaho, the U of I is proposing to do just the opposite.

The size of Phoenix compared to the U of I is noteworthy. Phoenix’s student population of 85,000 exceeds the student population of U of I, Boise State University, Idaho State University, Lewis Clark State College, and a couple of Idaho community colleges combined – basically, larger than the entire Idaho university system.

The cost? $550 million to be paid by leveraging Phoenix for an astonishing $685 million in debt.

Then an even more remarkable aspect of this proposed acquisition is that the U of I, a public Idaho institution, plans to complete this transaction without any public meetings and debate and without approval by the Idaho Legislature.

How is that possible?

The Idaho State Board of Education surprisingly has allowed the U of I to move forward on this deal with no public meetings. State Board rules mandate disclosure for matters far less significant. Yet, the State Board has refused to hold public meetings, debate, and discussion about the biggest change in the history of Idaho’s higher education system.

The State Board argues it had the legal right initially to meet in executive session due to confidentiality concerns, but that time has passed. The acquisition has been announced and confidentiality is no longer a concern. But beyond that, it misses the main point. The State Board has a public duty to facilitate public meetings and extensive debate for a transaction so large and so transformative of Idaho’s higher education system.

As for obtaining approval of the Idaho Legislature, the U of I is basically stiff-arming them. The U of I’s unwillingness to submit to legislative approval is based on an age-old and legally questionable argument that the U of I is a constitutionally independent entity not subject to regulation by the Idaho Legislature. Given the size of this deal, I wonder what else the U of I can do without legislative approval?

The problem with U of I’s assertion is that its own course of action and behavior over the course of its history undermines its argument.

Throughout its history and pursuant to Idaho law, the U of I has been governed and controlled by the Idaho State Board of Education, an Idaho state entity funded and regulated by the Idaho Legislature. Members of the State Board serve as the sole members of U of I’s Board of Regents (U of I’s board of directors). And, the U of I’s state-appropriated funding and line items governing its ongoing affairs have been, and continue to be, approved by the Legislature.

It defies logic that legislative approval would be required to support UI’s primary funding, but approval would not be required for an acquisition of a new university larger than Idaho’s entire university system, involving one of the biggest debt offerings in the history of the state.

Another reason U of I justifies its unwillingness to be subject to public scrutiny is its assertion that its purchase of Phoenix is basically risk free to the U of I and the state of Idaho. This, too, is subject to significant debate.

Phoenix’s reputational problems alone create a substantial risk. They are so well known they are almost synonymous with Phoenix’s name. Unfortunately, Phoenix’s brand, which is best known for hard-sell student loan tactics, fraud, government fines and shareholder lawsuits, is more prominent than U of I’s brand and risks overshadowing U of I’s positive academic image.

On the financial side, anyone involved in corporate acquisitions knows a $550 million corporate purchase based on leveraging the acquired business for $685 million in debt carries significant risk.

The details of this deal matter. Unfortunately, without public meetings and debate and the usual legislative approval process, the details are not well understood.

To purchase Phoenix, the U of I proposes to leverage Phoenix’s own cash flow and assets to obtain the $685 million needed to pay for Phoenix, in what is called a “leveraged buyout.” Phoenix will issue $685 million in corporate bonds anticipated to be “bb” rated (known as “high risk” or “speculative” bonds).  Phoenix’s estimated debt service will be $60 million to $70 million per year.

It sounds risky, and it is.  Studies show companies purchased through leveraged buyouts can be ten times more likely to fail (20% vs. 2% failure rate) compared to those bought through conventional means. The debt overhang at times is too difficult to overcome. Leveraged buyouts are typically used by high-risk, private-equity firms, not public institutions.

The U of I hopes to insulate the U of I from Phoenix’s debt by creating a separate, nonprofit company (named FourThree) to buy Phoenix, but there are numerous reasons for concern regardless of the structure. For one, FourThree (which will continue under the brand of “The University of Phoenix”) (“Phoenix”) will be owned 100% by the U of I Board of Regents.

U of I tries to get around this by suggesting the U of I Board of Regents will “own” Phoenix, but the U of I will only “affiliate” with Phoenix.

The fact is the U of I cannot legally separate itself from its own Board of Regents. The “U of I Board of Regents” is the “U of I”.  The U of I will not only “affiliate” with Phoenix, it will own 100% of Phoenix.

Additionally, as sole owner, the U of I through its Board of Regents (and the State Board) will appoint all the directors of Phoenix, including “independent” directors, giving the U of I what is known in corporate parlance as “effective control” over Phoenix. That is not helpful when it comes to insulating U of I from Phoenix’s debts.

To improve the terms of Phoenix’s corporate bonds, the U of I has also agreed to guarantee up to $9.9 million per year in payments to Phoenix’s bondholders. Not only is this a direct risk, but it signals the U of I’s willingness to support the bonds, notwithstanding the limitation. The U of I has further acknowledged that the ratings of U of I’s existing bonds will be downgraded as a result of this transaction. There is more.

The U of I has offered to provide Phoenix a $25 million letter of credit.  And even more concerning, it has offered to step into Phoenix’s shoes to reimburse the U.S. Department of Education for any Phoenix student loans forgiven by the department. Phoenix has already paid $37 million for student loan forgiveness.

Perhaps most concerning is U of I’s plan to take $10+ million in cash from Phoenix each year. This appears to be one of the primary reasons and benefits for U of I to do the deal. But for all the benefit in the near term, taking cash from Phoenix is likely the most damaging when it comes to insulation from Phoenix’s debts.

The U of I responds to these risks by stating that Phoenix’s current financials can more than cover the debt service and any other ongoing risks of the business. The problem is the U of I will own Phoenix for a long time and the term of the bonds will be anywhere from 15 – 30 years. Companies and markets and technologies change.

One of the more troubling aspects of this deal is U of I’s lack of transparency and disclosure of Phoenix’s financial status. Unlike corporate deals of this magnitude where multi-year full financial statements are provided to stakeholders, the U of I  has provided only a one-page summary income sheet and no balance sheet or other information regarding Phoenix’s liabilities.

One without the other is insufficient at best and misleading at worst. For example, the U of I repeatedly refers to Phoenix having $200 million in cash. Without knowing Phoenix’s liabilities, this reference is of little use.

Basically, we have only U of I’s word for Phoenix’s financial status. In fulfilling its duties to Idaho taxpayers U of I merely states it has done its due diligence, “trust us.”

One thing is certain, given the size of Phoenix, the size of its debts and U of I’s 100% ownership and control, if Phoenix begins to falter, it will be the sneeze heard around Idaho’s world. Even the threat of failure will send chills through the U of I, the State Board of Education, and the State.

In such an event, U of I’s $9.9 million guarantee limitation will likely melt away and the U of I, the State Board and the State will do whatever it takes to avoid a threatened failure.

And for good reason. A default by Phoenix would be catastrophic.

Phoenix’s bondholders and creditors would immediately seek the deepest pockets available, despite the existence of secured assets, and its first targets would be the 100% owner and controller of Phoenix: the U of I, the Idaho State Board of Education and, very likely, the state of Idaho.

Even if corporate separation were defendable, the practical reality is the U of I and the State Board would be under tremendous pressure to settle any claims against it, rather than go to court and risk $685 million in damages.

Any settlement could involve hundreds of millions. The cash received by the U of I would likely be required to be returned, and ownership of Phoenix would likely pass to the bondholders and creditors. The impact on the U of I and the State Board would be immeasurable.

Neither the U of I nor the Idaho State Board of Education has the resources to deal with this downside risk and would be required to look to the state of Idaho and Idaho’s taxpayers for help. The general corporate view is if you can’t handle the downside risk, you shouldn’t do the deal.

Despite U of I’s repeated assurances, there is no such thing as little or no risk when it comes to corporate acquisitions and debt offerings, particularly in “leveraged buyouts”. The U of I should be upfront about this. The risk involved in this deal is very high.

The U of I seems to be doing everything it can to avoid public scrutiny of this transaction. Why? “We know best,” “trust us” and “there is no risk” – is its mantra. Typically, when I hear these words, huge red flags go up.  I don’t think I am alone.

No transaction of this size, scope and risk should be allowed to occur without public meetings and legislative approval using primarily one-sided, self-serving information streams, guest editorials, a “Frequently Asked Questions” website and one-sided presentations.

As a matter of public policy and duty and in the interest of the entire U of I community, the state of Idaho and Idaho’s taxpayers, public meetings and debate by the Idaho State Board of Education and approval by the Idaho Legislature should be mandated.

As a former State Board member, I cannot imagine doing otherwise.

This $5,000 dollar per child “Tax credit” is simply a handout for wealthy parents to send their children to private or parochial schools with zero accountability on how the money is used.

Thus, vouchers / tax credits are essentially fiscal giveaways for the urban rich as most middle class and working poor parents, even with voucher money, simply cannot afford to send their children to costly private or parochial schools.

It is like subsidizing a rich person with tax payer money to help them buy a yacht. Even if everyone is eligible for a yacht voucher, only a privileged few will be able to purchase the luxury item.

Let’s be clear, educational vouchers will benefit only the Boise based wealthy. Over 85 percent of all Idaho’s private and parochial schools are in urban centers. How will a voucher bill benefit parents from Clark County or Leadore? Why should I or anyone else have to subsidize wealthy elites to send their kids to an elitist private or church school?

Idaho currently ranks 51^st in the USA in per pupil expenditures. Data doesn’t lie and no matter how one cuts it, Idaho is dead last. This fiscal albatross voucher scheme will negatively impact public schools even further (particularly rural schools) by diverting desperately needed resources to private or religious schools.

Another valid question is why are out of state monied companies so desperately pushing for vouchers? Why are we allowing out of state voucher carpetbaggers to dictate our legislation?

Voucher proponents argue loudly that parents need choice, but parents already have many educational choices. They can choose private or parochial schools if available, or they can choose to home school their child. Within the public school framework, parents may choose traditional, online, charter, or magnet schools. There is already plenty of choice.

Another major concern is these voucher bills provide for zero fiscal accountability. Who will be responsible for overseeing that each education voucher dollar is utilized appropriately, especially with those homeschooling? Will homeschooling parents have to register on a government mandated list for annual expenditure reviews? Are there enough state auditors to review these expenditures?

What will the penalties be for illegal or inappropriate voucher uses? What utilizations will be considered educational in nature? Who will make those decisions? Who will oversee the funds? Who will hold private, parochial, or home schooling parents accountable? Do these private or home groups want strict government fiscal oversight? These fundamental questions must be addressed.

Another deep concern is that I believe vouchers represent a clear violation of the Constitution by forcing me to use my hard earned tax dollars to subsidize private Evangelical, Catholic, Lutheran, Jewish, Mormon, or Muslim etc… religious teachings.

While I agree that parents have a right to pay for their own child’s religious upbringing or indoctrination, why should I, or other tax payers like me be forced to do so?

One of the many blessings we have of living in this great nation is that we enjoy freedom OF religion, but equally important, freedom FROM religion. Our founding fathers were very clear on this point as they determinedly did not want a tax supported state religion like the Church of England. Vouchers are a dangerous step towards the unnecessary mingling of church and state.

Tax payer dollars should only be used for public purposes.

Vouchers are wrong on multiple levels. They are welfare for the rich, they are budget busters that will take away money from and hurt rural communities, voucher bill efforts are financed by out of state carpetbaggers, provide only an illusion of choice, they force tax payer support of religion, and there will be zero to very little meaningful fiscal accountability and oversight.

Please join with me in working to prevent negatively impactful vouchers / tax credits.

Currently, school districts and charter schools across the state under Idaho Statute 18-3302D(4)(g) already have the ability to establish policies within their own districts that allow and encourage employees to conceal carry.  Currently, there are 15 school districts that have active policies allowing, encouraging, and supporting conceal carriers in their schools with several more districts looking to implement similar policies.  Our district, Boundary County, is one of those school districts; we will be surveying our parents, staff, and constituents over the next several months with the goal to gather public input and schedule open forums so that our county constituents can ask questions, voice concerns, and have input into what our policies may look like if we adopt a concealed carrier policy.  HB 415 doesn’t allow for any of this collaboration.

Instead, if enacted this legislative session, HB 415 has several glaring issues.  For example, the definition of “school employee” is a broad term and includes any employee, volunteer, coach, or contractor of a district/school.  Further, the employee does not have to request permission to conceal carry on school grounds; if they are an enhanced conceal card carrier, they have the inherent right to carry with no permission required from anyone in the school district.  Conversely, no one in the district can tell them they can’t conceal carry, and that violates the local school board’s statutory responsibility of being charged with the safety and security of our students by not allowing us control over who in our buildings is allowed to carry.  It also inhibits our ability to establish common sense policies around safe and secure storage of weapons, to require and provide additional training and resources, and to incorporate these individuals into our safety, security, and response plans.

School boards need to be the approval authority for anyone who desires to conceal carry on school grounds.  Further, school districts need to be able to revoke their concealed carry status on school property if situations arise that justify it.  We know our personnel and the people in our communities, and respectfully, the Idaho legislature does not.  We know who in our district is on a plan of improvement and may have angst against the school district, or if our employees are going through a tough time or are having mental health issues.  I also want to drive home this point – just because an individual has an enhanced concealed carry permit does not mean they are inherently the “good guy” – that is a naïve and a derelict assumption.  It also doesn’t mean those individuals have the ongoing training it takes to actually be proficient at handling a weapon, be familiar with an active shooter response, know rules of engagement, or understand escalation of force and appropriate response.  The 8-hour enhanced concealed carry training doesn’t address any of these areas as pertains to a school setting.  Under current law, school boards can address all of these areas by creating policies that fit the needs of our communities and schools while at the same time providing training and resources through our local law enforcement channels for our concealed carriers.  HB 415 allows for none of this and usurps school board’s authority and undermines their statutory responsibilities; School Boards are charged with the safety and security of schools – that responsibility is not shifted to our employees, coaches, volunteers, and certainly not contractors.

HB 415 was written as if more firearms thrown haphazardly at a school shooter scenario is the answer, and it is not…the answer is a targeted, controlled response that school boards can be instrumental in providing.  Again, HB 415 eliminates local control and prioritizes an individual’s second amendment right over the safety and security responsibilities of school boards, and this is fraught with disaster and arguably puts our students – our children – more in harm’s way.  We can do better than this with current laws already in place.  Policy makers need to consider a more thoughtful approach where Idahoans and the appropriate stakeholders can create legislation that makes sense or stick with what we have; these efforts will TRULY underscore the state’s commitment to keeping our children safe.

Extremist legislators have been relentlessly and unjustifiably attacking libraries and librarians since out-of-state dark money groups placed them on the target list a couple of years ago. The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF) and its faithful legislative acolytes recognized the vote-getting potential of this fake culture war issue and jumped on the bandwagon. They have been cheered on by Moon and her minions.

False claims that libraries were dishing out filth to young kids resulted in passage last year of a bill imposing a $2,500 bounty for making “available” books deemed “harmful to minors.” The bill had obvious constitutional problems, but that was beside the point. The purpose of the bill was to intimidate libraries into purging their shelves of anything that might be in any way suspect. Governor Little rightfully vetoed the bill, but libraries and librarians are being targeted again this year. The grief that librarians have faced from the continual sniping has taken its toll. The Idaho Library Association recently disclosed that more than half of Idaho librarians are thinking of leaving library work and many are moving out of state. I’m aware of a couple that just left for library jobs in Pennsylvania.

The radicals have also chased off Idaho teachers with a laundry list of trumped-up charges, including that they are grooming kids, indoctrinating them with critical race theory and exposing them to pornography. When Idaho’s 2023 Teacher of the Year was attacked, she moved to Illinois where people would appreciate her excellent work.

We have all heard of medical doctors, particularly OB-GYNs, leaving Idaho because its toughest-in-the-nation abortion laws have intimidated them out of treating women with troubled pregnancies. Thanks to Attorney General Raul Labrador, a woman cannot receive care for a dangerous pregnancy in a hospital emergency room until she is on death’s doorstep. In the words of the statute, the doctor can only act “ to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” No wonder Idaho doctors are moving away.

Idahoans, particularly in our northern climes, will have an additional reason to hire a mover if a pending bill is enacted into law. Senate Bill 1220 would essentially gut Idaho’s domestic terror law. That law was passed in 1987 in response to the bombing of Father Bill Wassmuth’s home in Coeur d’Alene by members of the violent white supremacist Aryan Nations group. The law made it a serious felony for those who commit criminal acts that are “dangerous to human life” and intended to “intimidate or coerce” either the general public or governmental policymakers. The law announced to the world that Idaho would not put up with violent political zealots.

The sponsor of SB1220 argued that it would protect the speech rights of groups like Moms of Liberty. Pardon me, but if that group were to engage in violent acts of intimidation, like the terror bombing of a civil rights icon’s home, wouldn’t most decent Idahoans hope the state’s laws could deal with it? Besides, Moms for Liberty has its hands full nowadays, dealing with the admitted three-way sex scandal in Florida among its founder, her husband and another woman.

While these appalling political actions by IFF and the Dorothy Moon enablers have caused many decent Idahoans to move out of the state, the same actions have attracted an inward movement of like-minded extremists into the state. David Neiwert, a distinguish Idaho journalist, has written a must-read article titled “Idaho’s traditional Republicans realizing their new far-right transplant overlords are radicals” disclosing that the in-migration of radicals from other states has been happening for years. They will continue to come in droves because out-of-staters are reading the ugly headlines and taking them as a sign that Idaho has put out the welcome mat for practically every brand of political and religious fanatic. At least the moving companies are profiting.

The legislation would allow school staff members who have an enhanced concealed weapons permit to legally carry on school grounds. There is no doubt in my mind Rep. Ted Hill, and those who support this bill, care deeply about the safety of our students and staff. However, this legislation is a drastic mis-prioritization of statewide school safety initiatives with a focus on response over prevention.

Using the F.B.I.’s definition of an active shooter and their data on K-12 active shooter events, we know nearly 95% of K-12 active shooters are current or former students of the targeted school. This means we have the potential to prevent 95% of these attacks by proactively identifying students on the pathway to violence and providing early interventions. This is further supported by reports from the Secret Service indicating juvenile offenders who target a school leak their ideations and plans at a higher rate than other offenders.

Idaho has no mandate for publicly funded schools to establish behavioral threat assessment teams; nor does it require standards for how those teams conduct threat assessments. Utah recently passed legislation mandating school threat assessment teams and requiring schools use the Comprehensive School Threat Assessment Guide (CSTAG). CSTAG is an evidence-based threat assessment model that is used by more K-12 schools in the U.S. than any other system. HB 415 prioritizes responding to an event once students have already been murdered over proactively establishing protocols to prevent an attack from taking place. This bill misses the mark by 95%.

In 2013, the U.S. Department of Education stated lockdown only response protocols were not enough recommending options-based protocols as best-practice. According to recent data from the Idaho School Safety & Security Program, the majority of Idaho K-12 schools are still using a lockdown only approach. The state should mandate schools adopt an options-based response protocol and prohibit them from using the word lockdown in emergency announcements. The state should create standards for trauma-informed drills and drill documentation. This bill misses the mark by demonstrating a deliberate indifference in aligning our state to emergent research and best-practice recommendations in active shooter response.

While having a school resource officer (SRO) in every school may not be financially feasible, establishing a standard for SROs is. Idaho has yet to define an SRO. Without defining an SRO, we cannot establish training standards for those whose number one responsibility is student safety. Legislators who care so deeply about our children should demand nothing but the highest standards for officers and deputies assigned to these roles. This bill misses the mark by lowering the standard to protect our students to an enhanced CCW class rather than raising the bar for sworn peace officers.

Rep. Hill, and those who support this legislation, have demonstrated their resolve to protect our students and educators. I thank you for that commitment. However, these efforts are focused in the wrong areas. Equip schools with the resources to identify and support at risk students. Empower stakeholders to be prepared by having multiple response options. Invest in school resource officers who have dedicated themselves to protecting our educational facilities.

On behalf of the Board of the Idaho Association of School Resource Officers and its 200 Idaho SRO members, we oppose House Bill 415. We ask our elected representatives to represent our voice, and the voices of our communities, by voting against HB 415 and to prioritize evidence-based school safety measures.

Advocates of the tax credit cringe and protest when it is referred to as a “voucher tax credit.” That’s because the word voucher holds a negative connotation with the public and the voucher lobby wants Idahoans and their legislators to think the tax credit is harmless.

“People’s eyes get bleary, and they tune out when people start talking about tax credits,” says Kevin Welner, co-founder of the National Education Policy Center. “That helps avoid a situation where they respond to it the same way they respond to a voucher proposal.”

But there is nothing harmless about tax credits. They have the same negative effect on neighborhood schools as other programs such as education savings accounts (ESA) and scholarships. By providing money for private and religious schools, the tax credit will take money away from neighborhood schools and make it more difficult for the Legislature to meet its constitutional mandate to fund a free, uniform, and thorough public school system.

In Arizona, a similar tax credit costs that state’s general fund $272 million a year and Save Our Schools Arizona founder Beth Lewis projects that the cost will increase to $300 million later this year. In Florida, a tax credit for private and religious schools costs the Sunshine State $1 billion a year.

Voucher lobbyists also say the tax credit doesn’t violate the Idaho Constitution’s prohibition against using taxpayer dollars to fund religious schools because the money never reaches the general fund. Such a message cynically ignores the fact that the result is the same – tax credits divert taxpayers’ money to subsidize religious schools.

Rep. Stephanie Mickelsen and Sen. Kevin Cook, both eastern Idaho Republicans, rightly describe the tax credit as a “redistribution of wealth” as the average Idahoan pays $1,625 in income taxes, while the tax credit gives families $5,000 per child regardless of a family’s income.

Another issue is tax credits are often the first step toward passing universal education savings accounts or voucher scholarships. In states like Arizona and Florida, once a tax credit is adopted the voucher lobby moves on to pass these other voucher taxpayer subsidies which take even more money away from neighborhood schools.

In Arizona, the universal ESA program cost is projected to reach $900 million a year and Florida’s universal voucher program is estimated to cost taxpayers between $2 billion and $4 billion.

Why are the voucher lobbyists in Idaho turning to the tax credit? Because Idaho’s legislators have repeatedly rejected creating an education savings account. They obviously decided during the summer that a tax credit would be easier to pass.

Idaho’s legislators should not be fooled. If the tax credit passes, the voucher lobbyists will be back to expand it and they will continue pressuring lawmakers to pass an education savings account. The heat on lawmakers won’t subside – it will only get hotter.

If the voucher lobbyists are successful, Idaho will be in the same position as other states where these voucher-like programs are hurting funding for neighborhood schools, busting state budgets, and causing property taxpayers to raise their taxes just to keep their neighborhood schools open.

We cannot let that happen to our great state, its students, and taxpayers.

No one on school district property should be allowed to carry a gun, except properly trained school resource officers. Increasing the number of people with guns in schools will not create more safety. It will decrease it.

Safety threats rarely come from outside intruders, it is much more likely to be a current or former student that presents the most threat. Young people can be very impulsive. When they are upset or angry or nurturing a revengeful grudge, they may be tempted to look for a weapon, especially if they also are experiencing mental health issues. Easy access to weapons and guns, would increase the threat to others, especially during unsupervised times, such as before school, in crowded hallways, in between class periods, lunch times, after school times, pick up and bus lines, and when students and staff have to walk to and from multiple buildings.

When I was a middle school counselor, we had a 6-foot-tall female student who had serious meltdowns routinely. On one occasion, she picked up a chair and threw it into a hollow core door, where it stuck. She was enrolled in the S.E.D. (seriously emotionally disturbed)  classroom. When I asked the district office for a copy of her diagnosis and treatment plan from an adolescent psychiatrist so that we could support that treatment plan, and not unintentionally escalate her challenges, the district said that they didn’t have one.

Two years later, I was a high school counselor.  The same student was now two years older and nothing had improved. She had another meltdown in a small conference room. The school resource officer was called in. She went for his gun. In the struggle to prevent access to his gun, she broke his nose. Imagine if she had attacked someone without law enforcement training. She would have caught the person off guard and could have gained access to the weapon, shooting it at anyone or anything, including herself.

When a similar gun bill was being discussed several years ago, my school resource officer said arming teachers was a bad idea because, in an emergency, people will even fumble with their keys, much less a firearm. In those situations, we lose our fine motor skills. The only people who should have weapons are those police officers who train constantly, in very stressful situations, to overcome the normal fight, flight and freeze responses. Without that constant training and practice, civilians are likely to fumble with the gun, accidentally shoot innocent bystanders, or have the weapon taken away from them and used against themselves or others.

My son is a P.E. teacher in Phoenix, Arizona. His gym is not connected to the main building. As he was walking from the gym to the front office, shots were being fired at the vice principal’s car. He would have been in the line of fire if there hadn’t been a cement wall that he could duck behind. As his mother, I do not want him to work in a school where it’s a combat zone. His job is not worth losing his life. No educator should have to deal with these threats. No student should be traumatized by threats or gunshots in their schools.

I absolutely do not want to work in a school where students, staff, and parents have easy access to guns or weapons. It’s already difficult to attract and retain quality educators in Idaho. Many more educators will leave the profession or the state if we increase the number of guns on campus.

HB 415 puts children, school personnel, parents, and other community members at risk by allowing nearly anyone to carry a concealed firearm on school property after a meager 8-hour training.

The 2024 Idaho Public Policy Survey finds newcomers are 11 percentage points more likely to identify as Republicans and 10 percentage points less likely to identify as Independents than Idahoans who have lived here for more than 10 years. One would expect the increasingly Republican voting population to align tightly with the Republican supermajority in power, but that is not the case. In fact, the polling shows that Idahoans overwhelmingly agree with Democrats on the major issues of our day.

A majority of Idahoans oppose the abortion ban the GOP enacted. Nearly 70% of voters trust their libraries to make decisions about the content they make available, while Republican lawmakers bring bills threatening librarians with jail time and expensive lawsuits. As GOP legislators push for school vouchers, only 49% of Idahoans approve, and support drops when respondents consider the diminished school funding they will cause.

For the first time in the survey’s history, more voters thought Idaho was moving in the wrong direction compared to 40% who think Idaho is on the right track.

A different poll showed strong opposition to Medicaid cuts and strong support for leaving Medicaid expansion in place, while the Republican supermajority seeks to slash Medicaid and repeal Medicaid expansion. Yet another poll revealed very strong support for investing in our dilapidated school facilities, an issue Republican lawmakers have refused to act on for years.

These discrepancies underscore a stark contrast between the policy preferences of regular Idahoans and the legislation pursued by the dominant political party.

To long-time Republicans who have been left behind by their party, I invite you to take a closer look at Idaho Democrats. For newcomers to Idaho who voted Republican in their former states, I invite you to get to know your Idaho Democratic candidates and our local issues. And every Idahoan should read the Idaho Democratic Party platform and compare it to the Idaho Republican Party platform, which is squarely outside the mainstream.

For representative democracy to function well, voters need to stay engaged, research candidates, and provide accountability when politicians ignore their views.

If you, like a majority of Idahoans, support adequate school funding and safe facilities, oppose costly voucher schemes with zero accountability, support our libraries, or want the restoration of our reproductive freedoms, a vote for Idaho Democrats is your best bet.

Among many topics, I consistently hear a theme: We need to get back to basics.

In education, I understand “back to basics” to mean a serious focus on reading and math. I also know that when folks talk to me about the basics, they increasingly care about teaching our kids more about civics and government. “Basics” to most people also means teaching a respect for personal responsibility and the ability to leave high school with a marketable skill or trade. There’s a feeling that in all the good stuff kids can learn and do, we need more emphasis on what’s most valuable for their futures.

I am happy to report that our schools do focus on reading and math. And at the Idaho Department of Education, we want to be sure they continue that focus. Literacy achievement rates held pretty steady during the pandemic years and we were encouraged by our last round of reading assessments that we are headed in the right direction.

Math is not as shiny as our reading performance, and for students in grades 5 through 9, there is a lot of improvement that needs to take place, and sooner rather than later. Our schools know that too. One of the ways I believe the state can help this effort is to more fully refine our math standards to what we expect kids to know and at what grade levels. Working with the Board of Education, my team and I are sorting through all of the current math standards to identify the essential standards that work for all kids, whether they are college bound or pursuing other post-secondary options.

We believe this work is one of the ways we get back to basics. In no way does this diminish the standards we have now or discount the teaching happening in classrooms. We believe that we can strengthen our teachers’ ability to instruct and position our students with the knowledge that prepares them for the next grade and whatever is next.

As for government and civics, in the summer of 2023, Gov. Brad Little and I discussed ways to broaden the resources that we offer to our educators for use in the classroom. The state is now offering Idaho educators an interactive, multi-dimensional U.S. history curriculum. This resource adds depth and dimension to existing U.S. history curriculum, and is designed to support the development of productive citizens by offering students a deeper understanding of American history and the overall American experience.

The good news about getting back to basics is that there is room for prioritizing hard work and common sense-solutions. There is room for ensuring that what we’re doing is working and for making changes where those opportunities arise. Supporting our students doesn’t have to be complicated. As we focus on ensuring the long-term value of an Idaho education, let’s work to keep our focus on the fundamentals when it comes to getting our students ready for life beyond high school.

Section 5. SECTARIAN APPROPRIATIONS PROHIBITED. Neither the legislature nor any county, city, town, township, school district, or other public corporation, shall ever make any appropriation, or pay from any public fund or moneys whatever, anything in aid of any church or sectarian or religious society, or for any sectarian or religious purpose, or to help support or sustain any school, academy, seminary, college, university or other literary or scientific institution, controlled by any church, sectarian or religious denomination whatsoever…

Some people, who simply don’t know what they are talking about, falsely claim the Blaine Amendment is a “dead letter” or that it has been overruled by the United States Supreme Court. They argue that the Amendment should be removed from the Idaho Constitution because it is just meaningless verbiage. That is patently false. The Supreme Court has decided two cases dealing with the Blaine Amendment and neither has overruled it. In the latest case, Carson v. Makin, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “A State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” The words may seem familiar because Roberts previously stated them to be the law of the land in a case from Montana in 2020.

What the Court was saying is that if, and only if, a state establishes a program to provide taxpayer money for private schooling, it must also provide program money for religious schooling. Some politicians are trying, for the first time in Idaho history, to force Idaho taxpayers to pay for private schooling, which would then open the back door to require taxpayers pay for religious schooling. So-called “school choice” legislation is a workaround to evade and subvert Article IX, Section 5. Whether the use of public funds for private schooling is by means of a tax credit or school voucher or some other form, it is still a raid on the public treasury in subversion of the Blaine Amendment.

If the Legislature were to provide public money for private and religious education at a time it is failing to adequately fund public schools, it would invite a lawsuit for violation and subversion of the Blaine Amendment. Quite frankly, the public school system has been chronically underfunded for well over a decade. That is just on the instructional side. In 2005, an Idaho Supreme Court decision held that the Legislature was violating its constitutional mandate to provide for the construction and maintenance of public

school buildings. The Legislature has done very little since then to own up to this responsibility. If the Legislature were to carry out its duty to use state funds to build and maintain school buildings, it would lift a heavy burden from local property taxpayers.

The State is vulnerable to a school funding lawsuit, even in the unlikely event that the voters were to decide to repeal the Blaine Amendment. A poll commissioned by the Idaho Statesman in 2022 disclosed that 63% of respondents opposed using taxpayer money to help residents pay for private schools. Try to find a rural school patron who thinks it would be a good idea to divert public funds from public schools to pay for the education of city kids in private and religious schools.

House Joint Resolution 1, a proposal to repeal the Blaine Amendment, has just been presented in the Legislature. It is a recognition that the use of taxpayer money to support religious schooling would presently violate the Idaho Constitution. If the resolution is approved, the voters would decide in the November election whether to repeal the Amendment. Perhaps it is time to let Idaho voters show their strong opposition to using their tax money to subsidize private and religious schooling. Until that time, all types of school choice proposals should be placed on hold.